Demise of U.K. grammar schools leaves the poor facing an uphill struggle

And these researchers actually gave some consideration to race as a factor! Background: The "elitist" British Grammar School system of the past took in students essentially on the basis of high IQ -- regardless of family background -- and prepared them for university-level study. The British Left always hated the system because it violated their "all men are equal" creed.

Children from poorer families have far less chance of improving their lives in Britain than those in many other wealthy countries, according to research published yesterday. The study of eight countries, carried out by the London School of Economics, said that social mobility in Britain was lower than anywhere except the United States. The abolition of grammar schools was said to have reduced opportunity in a country where parental wealth and good education are strongly linked. Uniquely among the countries studied, the life chances of poorer children in Britain had become worse over time. In America the figure was lower, but stable.

The study found that an increasing link between family wealth and educational achievement was partly responsible for the marked decline in Britain. Poorer children born in 1970 had much less opportunity to improve their social and economic status as adults than those born in 1958. Educational opportunities improved for those born in the early 1980s, but social inequalities widened because children from wealthier families benefited overwhelmingly from the increase in places at university.

Sir Peter Lampl, chairman of the Sutton Trust, an educational charity that sponsored the study, said that the findings were "truly shocking": "The results show that those from less privileged backgrounds are more likely to continue facing disadvantage into adulthood, and the affluent continue to benefit disproportionately from educational opportunities."

The report examined social mobility in Britain, the US, Canada, Germany, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland. It compared the extent to which a person's childhood circumstances influenced their later economic success as adults. The four Scandinavian countries performed best, with social mobility being greatest in Norway. Canada was also found to be a highly mobile society. Germany was placed close to the middle while Britain and America trailed well behind.

In Britain, 38 per cent of sons born in 1970 to the poorest quarter of families were themselves in the bottom quarter of earners at the age of 30. Only 11 per cent had reached the richest quarter. By contrast, 42 per cent of those born to the wealthiest quarter remained among the top earners at 30 and 16 per cent were in the bottom quarter. There was greater movement among those born in 1958. Of those from the poorest families, 31 per cent were still poor in their thirties, while 17 per cent had reached the top income group. Among those born to wealthy families, 35 per cent remained in the top quarter while 17 per cent had sunk to the bottom group.

The study said that race was an important factor in explaining America's low social mobility, but in Britain the key was the strong link between parental wealth and educational opportunity.

The study concluded: "The strength of the relationship between educational attainment and family income, especially for access to higher education, is at the heart of Britain's low mobility culture."

Stephen Machin, part of the research team, said: "The grammar school system was seen at the time as being very elitist. But it is ironic that probably that system got more people through from the bottom end than the system we have today." Professor Machin added: "We have 20 per cent of the population who are functionally illiterate. They have been let down by the school system. In Germany and Scandinavia they don't have anybody down there. They are at least getting everybody up to the same basic level."

Educational inequalities at 16 in Britain narrowed in the 1990s as staying-on rates among poorer youngsters rose. This was partly because of improved examination results after the introduction of the GCSE. But far more youngsters from wealthier homes went on to university, even with the huge expansion of higher education, leading to an increase in social immobility between children of different backgrounds.

From The Times





Amusing: EU rules will force British schools to protect teachers from noisy pupils

Discipline has been declared incorrect and that creates the noise so we have another regulatiion to stop the noise -- one regulation to fix the problem caused by another. And no doubt the new regulation will create new problems requiring yet more regulations

Every nursery school, primary school and day-care centre in Britain will have to conduct a "noise risk assessment" in case the din of children is damaging teachers' hearing, Europe's health and safety official said yesterday. If noise levels are found to be above 80 decibels - a level recorded in many classrooms during one recent Danish study - head teachers will be obliged to take action to reduce noise "to a minimum", said Hans-Horst Konkolewsky, director of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. If the noise levels rise above a new maximum of 87 dB, heads, or creche owners, who fail to take action could face criminal prosecution. Actions required could involve fitting acoustic tiles on classroom ceilings, giving staff longer breaks or reducing class sizes, said Mr Konkolewsky.

Traditional noise-prevention laws have focused on shipyards, steel mills and other obviously loud workplaces. But the education sector is a hidden source of risk, said Mr Konkolewsky, especially where today's more raucous pupils are housed in hard-floored, echoing Victorian classrooms, built for the days when children sat silently, copying from a blackboard.

A European Union Noise Directive will come into force next February, replacing and substantially toughening up existing EU noise rules. The directive, which was approved by the British and other EU governments in 2003, imposes a new obligation on all employers where noise is a potential hazard to conduct a scientific analysis of their workplace. The directive includes new, much lower levels of noise that trigger mandatory action.

Vladimir Spidla, the European Commissioner for employment, social affairs and equal opportunities, yesterday launched a Europe-wide "Stop That Noise" campaign. The initiative is aimed, he said, "at people in industry, but in primary schools as well". Mr Konkolewsky said: "A Danish study has shown that over half of schoolteachers and day-care workers have to raise their voices to communicate with colleagues, much more than in many industrial trades."

But he offered assurances that the EU would be "reasonable" in assessing what was possible in schools. Head teachers had to work with health and safety experts to find the right balance. The new directive allows the entertainment sector an extra three years, until 2009, to find ways to reduce noise levels in venues that are hard to keep quiet, such as discos, bars and concert halls.

Source

***************************

For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL schools should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the poor and minimal regulation.

Comments? Email me here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here

***************************