Fed up with the education divide ?

Talking,

You have very low expectations of humanity.

at least 20% of the population could not get a string of GCSEs even if you threw the resources of a top boarding school at them.

I expect you are not fond of Gove, but based on what you write, you confirm all of his points. The thesis for his latest reform was that teachers limit attainment by having low expectations of some pupils, so he removed the tiering.
You just confirmed him right.

The system should be designed so that 100% of pupils get satisfactory basic secondary education. With the resources of a boarding school you could teach a monkey A levels. Don't diminish the dignity of pupils you teach. Maybe teachers like you should move on and leave place to teachers who care and want their pupils to do well.

"Basic maths should tell you that if total is 100% than each component is also 100%. Does this answer your question?"

I understand that. My question was what are the %ages of low, middle and high attainers at your school? Because getting 100% 5 a*-c if the school has very few middle and no low attainers is what would be expected. Getting that if the school, like my ds's, has nearly 40% low attainers and only 11% high attainers would be a bloody miracle and your head should go on a tour of Britain spreading his philosophy far and wide.

because quite a few kids have physical and physiological and neurological differences that mean they will never pass GCSEs

a huge failing of MNers who send their kids to selective schools is to forget about such people
they exist
get over it

I have illiterate clients who make a good living - but people like you see right through them

If you job was to produce mobile phones , you wouldn't explain 40% failure by blaming the phones.

Why is it OK to explain away the failure by blaming 'low attainers'. This must be rooted in Victorian disdain for the undeserving poor.

The system should be fit to teach all pupils. It is teachers' professional job to teach and to fix the system so it is fit for purpose.

You can hear teachers being passionate when lobbying about their pensions, but why are we not hearing their passion about making the system work for all pupils?
.

Vanilla
You need 5 good GCSE to be employable, otherwise -> benefits
Utterly untrue for many jobs.

GCSEs are basic secondary education, nothing too specialised or advanced, 100% of population should have them in 21 century
Hogwash
at least 20% of the population could not get a string of GCSEs even if you threw the resources of a top boarding school at them.

Martorana
What 3 things would I change ?

• I'd make it have better accountability through LEA linked advisers
• I'd stop the SLT giving themselves payrises
• I'd change the head of MFL so that a proper range of subjects was brought back

the discrepancy between top and bottom VA I suspect is linked to the huge disruption in the curriculum caused by Gove
for the C/D borderline kids, having their controlled assessment torn up after they had finished the work was unbelievably demotivating

the changes have made those kids very hard to teach (Btecs, linear/ modular) ....
we need a few years of politicians butting out for it all to settle down

Martorana,

Basic maths should tell you that if total is 100% than each component is also 100%. Does this answer your question?

Why are there low attainers? What should be done about them?

We are not talking about pure maths, GCSE is basic level of literacy expected in modern society to do the most basic jobs

I want my kids to be taught by teachers with passion who can inspire
I am with you Boubly.

But this is very hard to find.

"The school my DC go to produce 100% of good GCSEs. It's normal. Not too much to be asking, is it?"

What are the %s of low, middle and high attainers at your school?

Talkin- what 3 things would you do to change your school?

Do you know why there's a discrepancy in the VAs?

Some people keep asking for proofs that comprehensives have a problem [ and then denying the validity of any information].

But the basic league table assumptions are a damning.

Assumptions

1. You need 5 good GCSE to be employable, otherwise -> benefits
2. The measure of school quality is number of pupils getting at least 5 good GCSEs (A* to C)

The national average is 59% of pupils get good GCSEs. bbc
This means an average school produces 40% of pupils that have no future.
That also means that [simplifying] roughly half of the schools get fewer than 59% of pupils with good GCSEs.
There is also a list of failing schools which produce about 30% of good GCSEs, ie. 70% of pupils without a future.

How good is that?

Now imagine that only 60% of every good or service you pay for is any good. The 40% is just bad luck... 60% of food is edible, 60% of mibile phones function...

GCSEs are basic secondary education, nothing too specialised or advanced, 100% of population should have them in 21 century. The school my DC go to produce 100% of good GCSEs. It's normal. Not too much to be asking, is it?

I can understand that there are challenges. But I find the denial and complacency staggering.

DCs school : biggest problem is the lack of oversight because its now an academy.

280 in a cohort
6% FSM
68% got 5 A*-C incl English & Maths
66% took the Ebacc subjects of whom 2/3 hit the grades
VA for low attainers 981
VA for high attainers 1014

Boubly- it's fine if you don't want to answer my specific questions- but could you just say, and I'll hunt for another victim!

Ofsted, not great fan of that I have to say
but we need some way of measuring schools/teachers/pupils
not sure if Ofsted is working as intended (or perhaps it is!)
I think it has been skewed by the bar of 'c' or greater, so then schools try and lift a 'd' to a 'c' & are not so worried about lifting a 'c' to a 'b' etc...
I may be wrong on this, but that is my impression from talking to teachers & what the schools preach "a*-c" band
The schools should be passion & inspiration machines
I want my kids to be taught by teachers with passion who can inspire
Schools/teachers need to listen to parents, because sometimes they have something worth listening to

Vanillachocolate

agree with your point about fixing the comprehensives
and agree that nothing will be done because of denial

some people would be happy with square wheels

oK, boubly- do you mind being a scientific "specimen"? (Say if you do!)

How do OFSTED rate your school?
Do low, middle and high attainers make expected progress?
How many get 5 a*-c?

What do you think is wrong with your school and what would you like them to do differently?

Stressedbutblessed
I would prefer the school & the teaching to improve
moving would only alleviate those who are able to move
it doesn't solve the problem for those who cannot move

reallyTired- I think- but am ready to be corrected, that it was Bulwer-Lytton, and he mean the hoi polloi- the masses. Don't think there's a racist or religious subtext.

But, as I said, I withdrew the phrase unreservedly.

My dd1 is at an excellent girls comp and seems to be having a much better education than I did at my GPDST school in the 1980s.

She is making excellent progress in a middle set in year 7 (e.g. Maths now a 6b, was a 4a when she left primary school last summer). There is a strong focus on music, sport and drama and lots of extr-curricular activities.

Entrance to this school is by banded lottery, which ensures a comprehensive intake e.g. FSM % is about average or slightly higher, as is ESL.

Wish more comps could be like this as, I'm my view, the school is excellent and as good as any of our local private schools.

I always thought the term "great unwashed" was a 19th century expression refered to the huge mass of humanity across the world who are non christians and never been baptised. (It could be argued that the expresssion "great unwashed" boardered on racism as many unbelievers are black!) The term "great unwashed" makes me think of prissy middle class missionaires going out to darkest Africa to convert the "great unwashed".

The idea of state faith schools is to keep "christian" children away from the "great unwashed".

Are going- not is gong....

"It's sounds like you have a very good school with good teachers but wouldn't you expect this to be the same across the country?"

I don't think I said that, did I?

Of course there is gong to be variations-and crucially, there will also be variations in what people think makes a good school. But every time somebody says they are satisfied with their state school there is a chorus of people saying it's a one off, or using the dreaded "leafy" word.....There seem to be an awful lot of exceptions to the "comprehensives are hell holes" rule!

OK then boubly the question of course is would you move if you could and why?
Martorana- I don't think everybody is anti comps but I think it's fair to suggest they not all equal. It's sounds like you have a very good school with good teachers but wouldn't you expect this to be the same across the country?

Stressedbutblessed
you may be right wrt some parents, but there are probably some inept teachers too!

I have no choice about where my kids go to school
I cannot afford to move or afford private education

I find it fascinating that the anti comprehensive school mindset is so entrenched that unsupported negative statements are accepted as fact and any challenge to these statements or positive personal experiences are just brushed aside. People just accept that teaching and discipline is better at private/grammar schools, that behaviour is dire and a culture of low expectation is the norm at comprehensives. Very odd.