Posh kids in rough schools

Earlier in the week, the Times carried an article about a report on the research findings of Professor David James of the University of the West of England.

Middle-class parents obsessed with getting their children into the best schools may be wasting their time and money, academics say today.

They found that children from privileged backgrounds excelled when they were deliberately sent to inner-city comprehensives by parents opposed to private schooling.

Most of the children “performed brilliantly” at GCSE and A level and 15 per cent of those who went on to university took places at Oxford or Cambridge.

My alarm bells were set ringing by the claim that 15 percent of those who went on to university took places at Oxbridge. Why was this good performance limited to Oxbridge? Were the results for other universities similarly impressive? A classic way of lying with statistics is to subdivide your sample population until you get the answer you're looking for.

Later in the article we read that the sample population was 124 families. This would suggest no more than a couple of hundred children were assessed, so concerns about the statistical significance of the results appear to be fully justified.

The article on which the Times piece is based hasn't been published yet, but in the style so typical of modern "academics" the UWE has chosen to issue a press release and a short report on the projects findings before official publication. It's here.

From this we discover that the families and children assessed covered a range of ages. This significance of this is that only a fraction of those assessed will have actually reached university entrance age. Let's say that this was forty children.  That would mean that six went on to Oxbridge. If it had have been five then it would only have been 12%.

The idea that one could make any claims based on results of this kind is a joke. That the Professor is issuing such a misleading report is really rather reprehensible. It looks more like a piece of political propaganda than real research. 

Comments

[Kit]

The profile of the people in the study reads like the guest list for an Alistair Campbell diner party.
I also wonder if they excluded those that used private tutors? I think not.

[Bishop Hill]

Yes, I thought of private tutors too, but there's no evidence for this.

[John East]

It's not just the probable sleight of hand statistics that makes Prof James of the University of the West of England (where?) such a dangerous person, it's the obvious agenda and counter intuitive findings that I am angry about.

In my experience, intelligent kids sent to a sink school are always heavily disadvantaged. They are more often bullied, and dragged down by a culture that respects non-achievement. Absence of discipline and advancing at the speed of the lowest denominator are other plainly obvious drawbacks.

Academic research is what should always drive change, but as long as we have charlatans like Prof James involved then academe is brought into disrepute.

[Bishop Hill]

I would have suggested you look at James' website, John, but you sound like you've seen it already. Clearly a political agenda backed up by not much science.

[David Boycott]

Yes - the reliance n Oxbridge entry as an indicator of the quality of output is clearly a sign of political bias. Labour has spent the last ten years bribing and bullying both Oxford and Cambridge into accepting wholly unsuitable candidates on the grounds that they went to poorly performing state schools.

To use the fact that Oxbridge now accepts a certain number of candidates from awful schools as evidence that awful schools do no harm is calumny of the highest order.

[Tin Drummer]

I read this in The Times too and I was amazed at the openness of the authors' bias. They were quoted as saying that this was part of a"tolerant, even anti-racist white middle class" as if the whole idea had never occurred to them.

no doubt these professors regard themselves as pure proletarians.

[TDK]

One shouldn't forget that the middle class aspiration for education isn't limited to getting kids into the right school at eleven. It's not unknown for parents who oppose private education to change their minds after seeing a year or two of the real state. Several parents I know tell me that their little darlings needed special attention, which explains their change of heart.

These parents saw their children were doing all right and chose to leave them there.

[Bishop Hill]

Yes, I'm sure that's right. There are certainly lots of parents who choose to go private despite its social exclusivity. If I had the money, my kids would go private. I would regret their not getting to know children from poor backgrounds but I think that getting an education is a higher priority.

[TDK]

Rereading my comment I see I wasn't very clear. The parents of my acquaintance changed their minds after a year of two of "real state school". The parents who saw their children were doing alright and left them there were the parents in the quoted survey. Quite clearly some state schools are okay or better.

In fact my kids go to state school but then I live in an educational district where even the worst schools are above average. Strangely it was primary factor in my moving here. Previously I lived in Leeds which had a mix. Some good and some not so good. There was a chance that my kids would have been unlucky. People in Leeds consider themselves fortunate when they compare themselves with Bradford and people in Bradford consider themselves fortunate when they compare themselves with Calderdale.

Last time I looked you could buy a three bedroom semi in Calderdale for less than $100k.

[Bishop Hill]

Ah, I see what you mean.

My children are also at an "above average" state school. I've often felt though that this is a bit like saying you're richer than a down-and-out.