Fed up with the education divide ?

I believe in 3 types of secondary schools Grammars for 25-30% 50-55% High schools/ U.TC . The remaining 15% or so need to go to specialist training schools teaching them a trade.

( I could say Holding pens with bars on the windows , we could save millions of pounds each year if just one teacher taught 10 schools via a video link) . The money saved could go to either the Grammar/High schools or to paying them some of the benefits costs that those 15 % will cost us in one form or another.

I don't really believe that ,but food for thought as teaching the bottom 15% or so is throwing good money after bad.

The problem with poor education and bad schools is not the choice available to the bright students, but the poor standard of education available for the less bright.

To tackle the problem, you need to improve education and teaching methods from pre-school, and in primary schools and do something with the bottom 20%.

Pulling grammar students into mediocre comprehensives will do nothing to improve achievement and learning of the non-grammar students. It might improve school's position in league tables.
Who will benefit?

Ok then martorana- you seem to be the only person who has not laid out clearly what you would do to improve the situation, you have just batted away at others standpoints. I am interested in why you are so anti private schools, what does it matter how others choose to spend their money when it is a relatively small section of society whose children would otherwise take up more school places.

So if we do look at the Asian success model in core subjects the biggest difference is that GSCE's are not compulsory and in fact not offered at every school. A government certificate of education is issued at Form 5( can't think if that's Y11ie age 15/16) in which a level of attainment across core subjects has to be achieved and internal school examinations are taken twice a year. This certificate enables entry to vocational colleges at 16 and employers will accept this. The certificate does not show scores across individual subjects.

Only those planning to go onto higher education will take GSCE's in their chosen subjects.

I personally disagree that at 14 students should be doing vocational courses. It's too young to start specialising and I can't see schools being able to provide such a vast choice of vocational subjects which further leads to schools being graded by the vocational courses they can offer. Surely that is tertiary education & best left to vocational colleges.

You notice that I have been arguing for comprehensive schools, not secondary moderns. I am satisfied with the education my son is getting. However, I am less satisfied with the education many other children in the school are getting, and with the ongoing ramifications of the selection process that put them there.

Returning briefly to the OP... New Statesman has been running an interesting debate on private education for the last few weeks. Most of it can be found on their website I think, even Gove's contribution. 'S all a bit long-winded, but some interesting history/facts/figures batted around.

(Also, I agree with wot looplab just said)

Martorana, since your DC is in what you call secondary modern, you know what will happen to 77%. You seem satisfied with education. What is wrong?

Ihatewinter. "Bring back grammars"

And do what with the other 77% of children?

Just reading what the OP was actually wishing to air, which is how independent schools and comps can work together to address social mobility. I am sure what is going through his mind are the direct grant scholarships to private schools that existed in the early 70's that I believe Hattersley phased out. I must say that did improve social mobility because half my school were scholarship kids. Whenever a deal like that is on the table, you will get sharp elbowed middle class parents who drill their kids for the scholarship (never more so than today), but a naturally gifted ones will hopefully get the scholarships too.

Could we ever go back to a direct grant system? I actually doubt it. I think in those days the government was happy to buy great schooling from the private sector. Today, the teachers in the state system know how to provide great schooling, but as you can see from this thread the job of running a comp has gazillions of competing pressures:- phoney targets, significant section of pupils disengaged, budgetary constraints.

Every time I contemplate this I find that, even though I am myself privately schooled, I actually think a totally comprehensive system is the right one.

"Of course, Martorana, you are trapped in dream world of make belief, but you did manage to get your DC in top set of a good school when you were awake...

Vanilla- my ds is in the top set of a secondary modern school that most mumsnetters would run screaming from.

The op is back opposite the indiya, green and covered in bird poo
Damn that one way system

IHateWinter
But the majority of pupils now at Grammars have either been at private school or have been tutored by parents who can afford to pay.

THe data shows that Grammars only created social mobility (partially) during the highly unusual society window after WW2

Private schools have always and will always exist

THe main thing is to ensure that taxpayer funded schools give the best opportunities to the largest number of pupils
Secondary Moderns (the flip side of grammars) do not do that.

In much of teh country Comprehensive schools are doing better than politicians like to admit.

I would really like to hear what OP thinks the private schools could / should contribute.

Bring back grammars, End private education on the basis of who can afford to pay.

Of course, Martorana, you are trapped in dream world of make belief, but you did manage to get your DC in top set of a good school when you were awake...

There's no real point in this thread, is there? Vanilla just persists in posts a)full of factual inaccuracies and b) telling people that they are saying/have said things they haven't. And wordfactory is just sniping from the sidelines.

I would love a real, sensible, impassioned, possibly, debate on education and where we go now. But this isn't it.

John Bunyan didn't go to Bedford boys school did he?
He didn't know mobility either
He ended up spending time at her majesty pleasure in Bedford itself [state educated]
Didn't he write pilgrims progress once leaving prison?

Word, I honestly don't know where you think you get off sometimes.

What a load of Victorian patronising c**p from Talkin ,

PISA study shows that "high results of deprived pupils in some Asian countries shows what poor pupils in the UK could achieve.

The most disadvantaged pupils in Shanghai match the maths test results of wealthy pupils in the UK."

Poverty is not a reason, nor is a low achieving ability of the population. It is all down to education from early age. OECD 'debunks myth' that poor will fail at school.

I would also like to draw attention to the post from Stressed on page 15, which I will quote:

Stressedbutblessed Tue 18-Feb-14 05:04:53
Slight off topic but ...The latest edu news is comparing the math results of children of farmers/labourers in China with the lower income families and the fact they outperform their UK equivalent . The Uk Gov. is looking at teaching methods with a view that income plays no part in results.
I'm English & have lived on and off in China for over 20 years. The Math education is rote learning. Completely agree they are capable of answering GCSE math questions but in many cases the children cannot apply the Math in context.
The biggest single factor is that education is valued by the poorest as there is no state benefit, no safety net, social housing and a strongly held value of success through hard work.

The following articles points out that the damage for poor education and skills is done at early age, in primary school. UK students start lagging behind Asian students at primary school level and this gap never recovers.

Interestingly it also note that the gap grows wider between 10 and 16 years among highest achievers. For me this shows that teaching methods are inadequate.(here see below for more).

"The research also found England's most able youngsters make less progress generally than those of similar abilities across the 12 other countries studied. The other countries studied were Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, Australia, Slovenia, Norway, Scotland, the US, Italy, Lithuania and Russia."
"The researchers concluded that England should focus on helping all youngsters with their maths skills at an early age.

Overall the findings showed that the nation's pupils are already some distance behind those in east Asia in their maths achievement by age 10"

There will never, in any society, ever, be equality of outcomes.
There can be equality of opportunity.

Selective schools prevent equality of opportunity.
Comprehensive schools give it a fighting chance.

Those who are in favour of any sort of selection in state funded schools are against opportunity.

But frankly, the choice of schools in some areas is now down to flooded / not flooded

Yeeeeeesssss...

Social mobility is excellent in the UK. The poor do very well indeed in school...

And a grade G at GCSE is just dandy....

Honestly, talkinpeace you need to change your name to talkin...er...summat else entirely.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-26015532

It's interesting though that the chunk for whom these qualifications are inappropriate always seem to come from the poorest section of society...

Hugely convenient for the middle classes.

boubly
There is a huge misconception among those whose children get into selective schools that GCSEs are the only way.
I have no idea what "GCSE grade" level one Maths is : and frankly its not relevant.

GCSEs are to some extent like the old GCEs : not appropriate for a chunk of the population.

Luckily pedagogy has developed along the lines of "every child matters" and "no child left behind" so strategies are developed to keep non academic kids in school, gaining skills for as long as possible.

The whole point of a comprehensive school is that it covers all options, rather than just the academic ones.

I have a client who can neither read nor write.
He digs holes for a living.
He can look a piece of frozen ground and just "knows" how big a tarpaulin will be needed to take all the decompacted soil from when he digs down to the leaking pipe.
He laughs at me when I call that applied Maths as he does not know his times tables.
He earns more than the median UK income despite having no qualifications at all.

Exams are not everything.

talking

thanks for the figures, I had to look up the meaning of level 1

95.8% of state school pupils achieve 5 or more graded GCSEs or equivalent
95.3% of state school pupils achieve the level one qualification in English and Maths

the problem with these stats is they are actually hiding the facts

so 95.8% get at least 5 GCSEs at A*,A,B,C,D,E,F or G, where U is unclassified (assume this means ungraded)
and 95.3% get at least level one or better qualification in English & Maths where level 1 refers to grades D,E,F or G

So what percentage of pupils get 5 GCSEs at level 2 (A*,A,B,C) including Maths & English?

so what percentage of pupils fail to get Maths & English at level 2 (A*,A,B,C) and how does that affect their chances of gaining employment/further education?

I assume that you need to get approx 45-50% to get a 'c'

% of all students gaining good GCSEs regardless of schools is even lower, 53.6%.