Fed up with the education divide ?

Why don't we ask OP how he sees the private schools could contribute to improve standards, especially for low attainers?

johnbunyan, what could private schools do?

When reading Talkin and Martorana's posts, and their denial and insistence of status quo, I start understanding where Gove is coming from with his 'blob'.

40% comes from the DofE 'national average' of 60% of students in a school who get 5 good GCSEs including English and Maths.- This number is per school,
On the DofE website the % of all students gaining good GCSEs regardless of number of students is even lower, 53.6%.

20% comes from your own posts, Talkin, everyone of them. I just used this assumption for the sake of argument because it is in the same order of magnitude with the % of low attainers in the DofE tables.

You just keep going in circles denying the evident, dismissing the needs of the pupils and hiding behind cynical technicalities you designed to avoid accountability.

Talkin, you said you are not a teacher, but if there are teachers and members of educational establishment with those views, they are loosing credibility with the public.

We really need reforms to improve standards for all pupils. And take no more nonsense from the apologists of failure.

Blu:

I think it would be great for schools to have differnt partnerhsips where kids can go off and do car mechanics at a differnt school or 'teaching garage' - or off to s specialist IT suite, or film studios or whatever. Specialist settings for specialist modules - but that wouldn't define other aspects of theier education.

Brilliant idea. Schools should be a springboard for education and work pathways, they should not define a child's future. Abolish private schools and enable true differentiation in every school so children that love literature can also learn mechanics and children that love mechanics won't be denied the opportunity of reading Chaucer if that's what they want to do.

Gove's ebacc turnaround has shown that he's starting to 'get' that the problem lies in the fact that schools limit chances, not that half the population is thick and ineducable and that exams have been made easy.

Talkin,
I commented on those data earlier.
The 'graded' GCSEs are cynical euphemism for failure and a sidestepping of the problem. I's a technology to skip part of the population on the scrap heap and to avoid responsibility.

The benchmark for pass in any educational system is 50% - mastering 50% of course material, gaining 50% of available marks, gaining 50% of ums marks or whatever.

Any grade below C is meaningless, because it's a fail.

G grade corresponds to what? 20% of material/marks? Giving a certificate with a G grade is the same as giving a certificate that you failed to pass the exam, but you are rating within bottom 20% of those who tried. A label of failure.

I am really taken aback by your attitude to the issue of bottom 20% which you take consistently throughout the thread. You consistently advocate to leave them to their own misery and explaining away this by their bad luck and the cynical fig leave with G grade.

I have now officially lost track. I think I might go to the pub.

What were abolished?
Secondary moderns still exist. So do Technical schools.
You really need to get out more.

You are incredibly blinkered.
As per the link, only 4.7% of pupils fail to get benchmark level of skill in English, Maths : and as the data set includes special schools for those who have significant learning difficulties, that is not really a surprise.

Your 40% and 20% failure rates are figments of your imagination.
Open your eyes and look around you.

'Why would it be OK for a secondary modern to have no pupils passing 5 GCSEs'
Nobody said that. That's why they were abolished. This is the legacy in your mind.

However you need t face the fact that this means those taking vocational courses will have to take either a set of GCSEs like Science, English and Maths, or a new set of benchmark qualification at 14 in order to be recognized on the par with 5 GCSEs.

Not having the bottom 20% gaining benchmark level of skill in English, Maths and something else will be tantamount to leaving them behind unemployable.

Vanilla
Would you PLEASE read the data set I linked last night.
how do you teach basic skills to good standard to the bottom 20%.
For crying out loud.

Which bit of

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
can you not get into your skull?

There is no 40% or 20% that are left to fail YOU ARE WRONG

However this separation in a way means moving a benchmark basic skills qualification from 16 to 14...
(which is the only way to recognize vocational course along with GCSEs)

Which keeps open the question, how do you teach basic skills to good standard to the bottom 20%.

There is no way out of confronting the problem of teaching well the bottom 20%.

Vanilla
A comprehensive school is a grammar school and a secondary modern all rolled into one
so that all children have access to all options.

Why would it be OK for a secondary modern to have no pupils passing 5 GCSEs but its not ok for a comp school to have some kids choosing a vocational route from 14 (which they do) ?

Creamteas,

I argue that all children graduate with positive empoloyable qualifications, which means some of them will be doing vocational courses at 14, not GCSEs.

This also means differentiating the curriculum by ability.

It appears that a consensus has developed for

Academic success for those who can and want it. Vocational qualification success for the others. But we want this is a single school.

Do you realise that one could call that Secondary Modern under one roof? I mean, there is nothing wrong with vocational route, as long as it is not at 11, it allows mobility both ways into more academic stream and the stigma of vocational qualifications is removed. This is much easier said than done, but let's be positive.

Maybe we could stop overreacting and consider options rationally.

So you agree Martorana that only 60% acheiving good GCSEs is not good enough and we need a system where close to 100% can graduate at 16 with positive employable qualifications?

What are you arguing for?

That all children get good GCSEs OR all children graduate with positive employable qualifications.

The two things are not the same....

Me?
So you agree Martorana that only 60% acheiving good GCSEs is not good enough and we need a system where close to 100% can graduate at 16 with positive employable qualifications?

"We just need to move on from this ideological delusion that if you don't call a failure an failure, it will somehow transform into success"

Vanilla-you keep saying things like this- but you are the only one who is. Comprehensive supporters don't.

I think it would be great for schools to have differnt partnerhsips where kids can go off and do car mechanics at a differnt school or 'teaching garage' - or off to s specialist IT suite, or film studios or whatever. Specialist settings for specialist modules - but that wouldn't define other aspects of theier education.

I would rather DS did a car mechanic module than RE / PE - as well as doing triple science and 2 MFL. If he wanted to, of course. Actually they do some aspects of car mechanics in STEM club.

You can't say that people graduating from school at 16 without meeting neither the minimum standard of education (5 GCSEs out of 12-10 attempted), nor a real usable vocational qualification, achieved 'success'

But I don't think anyone has said this!

Those in favour of comprehensives want exactly this. Academic success for those who can and want it. Vocational qualification success for the others. But we want this is a single school.

So what do you want, Vanilla?

the 40% who leave without 5 GCSEs have 'failed'.^

The system failed them. You can't say that people graduating from school at 16 without meeting neither the minimum standard of education (5 GCSEs out of 12-10 attempted), nor a real usable vocational qualification, achieved 'success'.

We just need to move on from this ideological delusion that if you don't call a failure an failure, it will somehow transform into success. That everybody is a winner, those who get a string of A* and go on to universities and those who get a certificate of failure (a G in GCSE) and go on being NEETs.

Is it ok as long as the 'failures' are all in a building together?

Exactly, it's a hypocrisy to argue that being in one building is the key point of comprehensive school. Does every school has facilities to teach car mechanics?

So, the 40% who leave without 5 GCSEs have 'failed'.

So if there were schools that were for 'vocational' learning, where those children weren't pushed to take 5 GCSEs and get A*-C in them - ie., old style secondary moderns in an 11+ system - would those schools not be specifically designed to get children to 'fail' as 'failure' is defined precisely by those who don't think children of all abilities should be educated together? .

Is it ok as long as the 'failures' are all in a building together?

There is absolutely no evidence that 40% of State school children "fail"

The fact that 40% of children did not timetable in 5 academic subjects, but instead chose vocational or technical paths through their education
is something to be celebrated, not decried.

Only the very narrow minded cannot see beyond GCSEs and A levels and degrees.

One of our local 6th form colleges was slagged off by Gove for not getting a single kid into a Russell Group University.
Gove looked a bit of a prat when the head invited him to come and visit ....
www.sparsholt.ac.uk/

"You cannot argue there shouldn't be a separation by ability and want top set for your DC."

Why not? You can have differentiation without segregation. And actually, my ds is at a secondary modern school. If he was in a comprehensive I wouldn't necessarily expect him to be in top sets for everything. I hope he would be-but he may well not be.

"You can't say that comprehensive system works, and have 40% DC fail, that is leaving school without usable qualifications (5 good GCSEs)."

But GCSEs are not the only usable qualifications. People keep saying this and you keep ignoring it.

Also, nobody is saying that the comprehensive system is perfect. But saying that it has failed because it is not perfect is not particularly helpful.

Surely the whole point of a comprehensive is that it offers a whole spectrum of curriculum and levels?Why can't it be a comprehensive and offer qualifications in vocational subjects as well as EBacc?

My problem is with the nc and the implementation of league table orientated curriculum . I don't want Religious studies to be compulsory at GCSE, I don't want PE to have to be a GCSE subject for DS. I would like to see a category that says '5 GCSEs without RE and PE'!

I will support and defend any education system that offers what we all agree on - "mobility between the sets/streams. That DC should not be excluded from the academic path at early age without a chance to climb back." as VC says. So what is that education system? And wher is it demonstrated that a comprehensive system cannot deliver that? Obviously it does not always deliver, because there are bad schools.

What is the answer? More variety in vocational courses? More extension and enrichment? How can this be delivered?

This discussion goes in circles.

Middle class highly educated mothers with DC in good comprehensive schools indeed feel warm inside, and argue for mutually exclusive things. You can't have it both ways.

You can't say that comprehensive system works, and have 40% DC fail, that is leaving school without usable qualifications (5 good GCSEs).

You can't argue that comprehensive cater for all ability, and then add that they are not supposed to work for the bottom 20% because they don't have the ability.

You cannot argue that the bottom 20% need different, vocational courses, and insist that it still is comprehensive education. If you accept separate curriculum for bottom set, you should accept different curriculum for top set too.

You cannot argue there shouldn't be a separation by ability and want top set for your DC.

You cannot argue that some arbitrary X% will never succeed to get 5 GCSEs, and go to guerrilla warfare against ability tests to identify those x%. If you are going to change the curriculum or do something special for the low ability kids, you need to identify them. It is in their interest.

What everybody agrees on is that there should be mobility between the sets/streams. That DC should not be excluded from the academic path at early age without a chance to climb back. This is fair and can be achieved by other means then denying that there is a problem with comprehensives.

Some of this debate is missing which is, to me, the most fundamental point of good comprehensive education. It can place kids in the the right learning spaces for them. It can accommodate the genius in maths who is poor in English, and ensure that all students achieve their potential whatever their social background.

Selective education, in all its forms can never achieve that. Dividing students into different schools, whether by money, cultural capital, or measuring ability.

I would say, by and large, all the comps where I do live up to this ideal. which is why there is very little anguish over school places. Not all children do get their 5 A-Cs, but this is not due to a lack of effort by the schools.

Clearly not all comprehensives achieve this, and, where this is due to the school rather than external issues, this needs to be challenged. But the solution is not to encourage more selection, which will clearly only ever benefit the few rather than the many.