Two hypothetical academic departments, both the same subject, but in radically different types of schools: Department 1 is in a state grammar school. As it happens, the school in general enjoys an enviable local reputation and its places are much coveted and not easy to secure. Our department, however, is in a poor state. GCSE results are disastrous with only 11% of pupils obtaining an A* or A grade – this in a school that is academically selective. A Level is better, but still well below the expected standard. There is no head of department and neither has there been for the last year. The rest of the department consists of two supply teachers, one NQT, a student teacher pursuing an on-the-job PGCE and a Second in Department who is the only full time, experienced professional. Department 2, by contrast, is in a famous public school. Results are outstanding, there being a 100% pass rate at both GCSE and A2, few students at either level falling much below the top grades. Of the department’s six members, four obtained their first degrees from Oxbridge. The fifth only managed to get into Oxford for his Masters, but, since his first degree is from Harvard, nobody’s complaining. The sixth member? Neither Oxbridge nor Ivy League, but his PhD makes up for it.
The astute reader will have realized that the degree of fictionalization here is slight. The two departments are given to illustrate the huge gulf that exists in teaching and learning between the state and independent sectors. Remember that the example state school is not a failing comprehensive, but an academic institution that grants entry only to those who can demonstrate specific levels of ability.
That independent schools are “more successful”, by various measures, than their state-funded counterparts is readily apparent. The “stark divide” between the two sectors in their ability to get students into top universities has again recently been in the news with the revelation that five schools (four of them independent) account for more Oxbridge offers between them than the bottom 2,500 state schools combined. Although we are often told that independent schools account for only 7% of the pupil population, their representation in all of our elite universities and medical schools is vastly disproportionate to this humble figure. How did it come to this?
Two factors are key. The first is family background. Research has consistently indicated that the chief determinant of a pupil’s attainment is the extent to which education is valued and promoted at home. Bleak conclusions can follow from this: were there no independent schools, it could be argued, the socio-economic composition of an elite university’s student body would not differ much from how it is today. Also, we should not forget Department 1 above. While its parents do not make the same financial sacrifices as those in the independent sector, they are often forced into major commitments of time and inconvenience in order to keep their children in the school. They value and support education. Yet, the overall level of attainment in the department is significantly lower than that for the example independent school.
To digress briefly, this last point suggests that it seems wrong-headed of successive governments to attack independent education, since that is to deal with the manifestation and not the cause of under-achievement. Of course, independent schools are easy targets; political capital can be made by railing against apparent privilege while the next-to-impossible task of changing the anti-education and under-achievement culture of some young people within their family environments can be quietly left off the agenda. Independent schools, for their part, know that their position is relatively safe. After all, if a government had been serious about getting rid of them, it could have done so at any time. The fact is that the government cannot afford to abolish independent education. To do so would be to take several hundred thousand pupils into the state system with no extra resources to call upon - those children’s parents already make their contribution to state schooling through their taxes. Indeed, the spend per pupil in the state sector is higher as a result of some pupils being voluntarily removed from it and this could be viewed as an additional hidden subsidy by those parents who pay for private provision.
All of that notwithstanding, the second factor in independent schools’ levels of achievement – one brought out clearly by Departments 1 and 2 – is the high academic calibre of staff that they are able to attract and retain. A moment’s research on the internet reveals that teachers at independent schools are seven times more likely to be Oxbridge graduates than those in the state sector and twice as likely to hold first class degrees. Even within the state sector, most Oxbridge graduates head to grammars and not comprehensives.
This would appear to be a major distinction between Department 1 and Department 2. Another is the - to put it bluntly - chaotic nature of Department 1 as a team; for whatever reasons, it is dysfunctional and this must exacerbate other weaknesses that it exhibits. It is not suggested that the members of Department 1 are bad teachers, or lacking in impressive academic credentials, but, given the constraints within which they are forced to work, they might as well be.
Department 2 is the way it is, perhaps, because there is often an academic culture at institutional level in independent schools: they will boast about those members of their staff with degrees from top universities or those with higher degrees. In state school staff rooms you will sometimes hear academic achievements among colleagues being talked down. Such places can also be afflicted by the “you don’t need to be an academic to be a teacher” fallacy. According to this, there is a specific set of skills that are required for teaching which are not necessarily linked to intelligence, such things as communication skills, enthusiasm and empathy. While these are undoubtedly important, they are not sufficient in themselves. Think about this; would you agree to be operated on by someone with a poor grasp of surgical techniques? Would you even let someone without a driver’s licence be your driving instructor? Why, then, do we find it acceptable for someone who has not been capable of reaching a high grade at A Level to tell youngsters how to do it? As the two departments highlighted above indicate, the route to improvement is to encourage the brightest and the best to become teachers in state schools - and to provide an environment in which they can flourish and develop. As things stand, that is quite a challenge…
Very clever, but this is like the problem of the extra pound. It's all in how you read it. The fact is that Oxbridge graduates are generally more able to pick and choose where they work so it stands to reason that, unless they have particular ideals about helping the underprivileged, they will opt to work in a school that probably pays better, has longer holidays, more perks and where they can actually TEACH - as opposed to spending an unacceptable proportion of the working day managing the behaviour of the disaffected and being abused by their charges! I'm not saying that ALL state schools are like this, but it's certainly a factor. The presence of a high number of Oxbridge educated staff is therefore a red herring when it comes to the reasons for higher attainment in the independent sector because it's achicken and egg situation - you could easily say that the 'quality' staff are there because of the committed students rather than vice versa. And in the extreme examples you cite, staff commitment and consistency is as much of an issue as anything else. In my view, the single most important factor is the attitude of the students. Yes, this can be led to a certain extent by the ethos of the school, but an academic ethos isn't the sole preserve of the Oxbridge educated - unless you are talking about the 'old school' academic environment of the 'Goodbye Mr Chips' variety, which is rather an outdated concept. Schools now have to equip their charges for life in the modern world and sadly that isn't always the world inhabited by high-flying academics. As you so rightly said, communication skills, enthusiasm and empathy are important factors - equally as important as a good degree in an educational professional. However, it is family background that is a far more significant factor in promoting the right attitude. By the time a student reaches secondary school their feelings towards education are already established and no amount of interaction with Mr Chips and the school cormorant will alter that. In fact, it is far more likely that a personable and enthusiastic, more 'human' mentor would have greater success in persuading students as to the value of a good education and therefore enjoy greater success. However unimaginable it may sound, if a student comes from a background where they are encouraged and where education is valued, they will even do well when taught by somebody with a degree from a 'lesser' university, especially if they are surrounded by others of a similar mindset.
ReplyDelete