Fed up with the education divide ?

I d wonder if people are deliberately misunderstanding each other on this thread. Where did the word "dismiss" come from, for example? Is it not possible to discuss this without using such emotive language?

martorana mentioned poverty and background. It seems to me that the DC who sit in the bottom ability sets will often be struggling not with low ability at all...so dismiss them as not able enough to gain 5GCSEs is immoral.

Can you clearly define NT? Surely there are going to be kids falling off the bottom end of NT into Global Learning Difficulties for example. Is it an IQ thing?

What 'social difficulties' are we talking about here?

No I'm not.

But those things do not pertain to ability.

My point is that the vast vast majority of NT kids (and lots with SEN too) have the ability tyo attain them. But our state education system is not currently able to overcome social difficulties.

The two issues are separate no?

Wordfactory- are you saying that your school could get any NT child to the magic 5, regardless of parental involvement, poverty, background.......?

I agree with Martorana. (I frequently do.) I would really, really like to feel that was the case - it is a fundamental belief in kids' ability to improve and learn which underpins my opposition to the 11+, in fact. (Which I do think consigns kids.) But I am not sure that in practice one can make those expectations; and indeed one of the reasons I like my daughter's comp is it is committed to educating the lesser-able kids to the best of their ability while acknowledging that this may mean a different spread and/or emphasis of subjects.

My DD's private school is mixed ability. There are certainly girls there who sit in the bottom 20% of the bell curve.

And every girl is expected to and does achieve 5 GCSEs including English and Maths.

With enough resources, will and hard work it can be achieved, but obviously those things are sometimes in short supply.

Can anyone give me some evidence to support the assertion that any NT child can get 5 GCSEs A*-C? Nothing would please me more than to be shown how this is possible. But I don't think it is.

And this does not mean that I am consigning the lower achievers to "the scrap heap". I just don't think GCSEs are the only way- why should they be?

Don't know what VC was talking about before but her last few podts have been spot on, i agree 100% with her. She is not the one rolling over accepting that 20% will be on the scrap heap, its all the other posters. She is saying there diesn't need to be any on the scrap heap but with good education right from the beginning even the would be low achievers can attain 5GCSEs of A-C, everyone else is saying its not possible. Anything below a C is rubbish and that's the truth!

And what's wrong with being competiive about education? We live in a competitive world! But some would prefer to keep burying their heads in the sand.

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.
Phew - well glad that's off my chest

Horsetowater- maybe I'm incorrect but I think you have missed the essence of VC posts. She is saying exactly the opposite - that we have a moral responsibility to ensure the 20% are NOT left on the scrap heap.
There are others on here that seem less concerned about that 20 % and think that a 60% pass rate is acceptable. VC is advocating it's not acceptable.

Vanilla - I'm with you. I do think a G at GCSE is useless. I agree having vocational courses btech etc available at comps is separation within the sate sector and that it can only be beneficial.
I agree that if there is solid primary school teaching with specialist teachers that almost all children without special needs should be able to achieve 5GSCE's A-C or an equivalent vocational qualification at secondary. I have seen the effect mentoring programmes achieve with under performing children and children from dysfunctional backgrounds and it does work.
I've read through the last few pages and there is an underlying consensus even though there is a lot of nit picking.
Not all comps are equal
House prices are affected by catchment areas
That there is still around 20% of school leavers without employable qualifications.
The education divide is a financial and social divide.
This doesn't answer the OP. Question but has highlighted that private schooling has little impact on the issues majority of the population face.

I'm not arguing that at all. In fact I agree with everything else in your last post.

You seem to be trying to beat down anyone on this thread that has anything constructive to say. If that's what elitist education does to people it's not a model that will benefit society as a whole.

Horse, it's you and Talkin that are arguing that there is an inevitable outage of 20% on scrap heap, so otherwise the system is fine.

I say you need to do something about the bottom 20%.
Put proper resources, improve teaching methods, create an environment conducive to learning.

Everyone should be graduating at 16 with a positive certificate they could use. Not a G in GCSEs. If it's vocational, it should be studied from the age of 14, instead of GCSEs, not after.

Vanilla you appear to be extremely competetive by the way you are discussing on this thread and that is a reflection of your views on education. Education shouldn't be a battle to be won or lost with the losers on the scrapheap. Is that what your own education led you to believe?

Soul - BTECS are not dumbed down at all. They are still very challenging and a distinction is worth 3 A*s at A level. I have known them to get people into an RG university. It might be that the subjects or learning outcomes have changed.

You can't get a BTEC by swotting up at the last minute, you have to put in consistent good effort and the marking is extremely detailed. Universities like them.

And people keep going on about higher house prices around good comps and MI, Talking and I keep saying not always.

I would love to live in a posher area, oh good lord, yes!

So VanillaChoc, are you saying that your DCs school is in fact a comprehensive school but simply a private comprehensive school?

I'm not sure what you are advocating either.

The only reason I keep going on about good comps is because we keep getting told that they cannot work, only happen in leafy suburbs etc etc. So I keep saying that is not the case.

As there are thousands of good comps throughout the country I cannot see why bad comps cannot be turned into good comps.

And I am not denying a problem in that there are clearly bad schools, undereducated kids and unhappy parents. I am just waiting for someone to come up with a solution other than 'bring back grammar schools, and nuke the comps', based on unevidenced statements.

VanillaChoc: what are you actually advocating?

Lower achievers are result of poor work by yearly years education, primary school and secondary. They weren't born low achievers. They are not the brightest lot, but they could get a C if they were educated properly throughout.

These are all excuses. It is always easy to blame 'low achievers' because they don't talk back.

Segregation already exists. If your students do hairdressing, they clearly are not doing Ebacc. They have a different curriculum.

There is also segregation between good schools and sink schools. You are sitting happily in a good school and recommending it to everybody, but most could not possibly take up the offer.

vanilla
Your statistics is not very good.
Either your school has 20% low achievers
Or it gets 100% A*-C
the two are mutually exclusive - as per the link I posted above.

PS
Computerised homework is great : the Further Maths extension work on MyMaths is really well structured

Well I think the parenthesis in 'low(er)' achievers was quite telling!

"100% of pupils achieve level 4 or above at KS2"

Ah. So you have no lower achievers in the secondary part of your private, and by definition, selective school.

You actually don't know what "lower achiever" means.