state comprehensive secondary schools stretching able pupils - opinions?

Now, should a 1st in Economics from the LSE justify you getting into the dominant group? I mean, what have economists ever done for us?

Yes, oddly the schools that many parents believe simply 'can't cater' for their dc's seem to cater perfectly well for other high achieving children, turning out happy, bright kids with places at top universities etc.

But now we know - these seemingly clever and successful state educated children will all fuck up and fall apart at university except that there's no evidence they do because they can't cope with not being 'the best' at what they do....

TheWordFactory - so you are saying the problem is people taking BTecs in Dance, not that an A in Physics is meaningless, because you can achieve that without understanding anything?... Do YOU think you can get an A in a subject without really understanding anything? Because it seems to me that people are arguing on here that even if you choose 3 sciences, etc, etc, you're still not being taught how to think and will flunk out of university as a result of your pathetic perfectionism, which means you just can't tolerate not getting 100% all the time... which is what your useless comprehensive/grammar school taught you to aim for... which isn't a good advert for doing 3 sciences, rather than what you enjoy, really, is it?... At least with a BTec in dance, it would be harder to accuse you of being lumpen and round shouldered - although, of course, if you'd really wanted to be a dancer, you should've got into the Royal Ballet School....

not yes, I believe it would be utterly wrong to send my DC to a school I believed wouldn't provide form them, if I had the option not to.

Word what right thinking parent would opt to send their child to a school that "did not provide for them" unless they had no other choice?

You've said it twice and it sounds no less ridiculous the more times you say it!

I have absolutely no issue with vocational subjects being offered provided that those taking them up know the impact they will have going forward.

Ds's school has made the decision to carry on with the vocational qualifications that are best for the particular catchment. This will have a devastating effect on our position in the league tables and who knows what consequences down the line................

I believe in the comprehensive ideal. I know some comprehensives are not great (often because they are not actually comprehensives), but that doesn't stop me believing that a comprehensive system is the best, most moral, system of schooling (if we have to bring morality into school choice).

I also believe in my children, that my children would achieve as much in a comprehensive as the grammar schools they actually attend.

not yes, I believe it would be utterly wrong to send my DC to a school I believed wouldn't provide form them, if I had the option not to.

That option might not involve private school. It might be the option to use a different state school. It might be the option to home educate. It might be anything.

But if I did have that option, but still sent my DC to a school that did not provide for them, for my own reasons, then yes, I think that would be immoral.

not I think sending my children to a school which I believe does not adequately provide for them, when it is fully within my power to send them somewhere that will, would be quite immoral.

"quite immoral" Word? Really? Is morality a relative concept?

We make choices for our children. Those parents that make a sacrificial offering of their dear children and choose state education are just as driven by the need to do right by them as those of you who go private.

Your choice is no more or less valid than mine. Morality has nothing to do with it.

It is not absurd to say a BTEC in dance is not the equivalent of three academic GCSEs.

I disagree. It should be about the effort put in and the skills acquired, not the subject matter.

Which isn't to say I don't agree with TheWordFactory too, because I do.

Put more simply, if you get a first in Economics from the LSE, you will, whatever your background, whatever your gender, whatever your race, stand a bloody good chance of getting into the dominant group .

If you didn't get offered a place, because some teacher told you in year 8 that 18 GCSEs were a good idea...

Roses I think that's absolutely right. Yes of course we need more diversity at the top, and the lack of social mobility we're seeing at the moment is genuinely upsetting, but the answer is not to push everyone in the same direction. The square pegs should be given the chance to take pride and further what they do well, rather than the entire education system being focused on what they do badly.

Well rabbit of course the moulders, the elite, the dominant group (whatever we want to call it) will try to hang on to its dominance.

It will fight against diversity ( I give you the patriarchy).

But eventually it has to give up the absurd justifications. Educational qualifications etc however, are not an absurd justification. It is not absurd to say a BTEC in dance is not the equivalent of three academic GCSEs.

It'll be their round-shouldered lumpenness... their inability to look you in the eye and stand tall... too many hours at the books and not enough on the playing fields of Eton...

Sorry, I got a bit confused a while back. Are we basically bemoaning the exam system, which appears to have become the be all and end all of school life, even though lots of bright people are not getting As and As and those that are getting As are often achieving this without understanding a word they are writing? Is it really just a lack of academic skills that is holding comprehensively educated high achievers back from taking up positions of power and influence? It seems to me that you need more than academic ability and training to become one of these "moulders" described by TheWordFactory. Isn't there a little bit of the age-old casting around for reasons to excuse the status quo? I can see that we might run short of academics if we don't train up our academics well, but am really not convinced that academics are actually our movers and shakers. In other words, I am really not convinced that changing the exam system and getting more students to think beyond the exam syllabus and challenge themselves academically is going to do anything to change the status quo at all - something else will be found to be wanting, next...

Roses I agree that there are other barriers to gaining diversity in that group; not least culture. And wealth of course.

But I think it would be a good start if we could ensure that the education system didn't raise barriers to access. Like I say, many changes needed are actually quite small and simple.

I think that it's cultural as well, in that for some reason the English MC think that all of their children should be academic or they are failures, when I know in other countries there is an acceptance that some do practical work, others go into the army / church etc etc but all are valued equally.

With all of these families competing and pushing to get their square pegs into round holes there isn't much room left for diversity, the diverse are being elbowed sharply out and I don't blame them for simply not wanting to join in the fight.

A couple of years ago vocational qualifications were included in results - I think Gove just pulled the plug on it (correct me if I'm wrong). That really hasn't helped the thousands of dispossessed, 'low' achievers or improved their status.

not I think sending my children to a school which I believe does not adequately provide for them, when it is fully within my power to send them somewhere that will, would be quite immoral.

"Ridiculous" thoth in that we all seek to justify the education choices we make for our children, and part of that justification is to denigrate the alternative. However, ScottishProf suggesting, even tenuously, that you are "sacrificing" your child by educating them in state education IS ridiculous. It is risible.

Getting a 7 in a humanities subject does actually require quite a lot of thinking!

Quite right! Nice to see a mention of the equally important humanities amongst all the current obsession with STEM.

Roses apologies.

What I mean is that if we want diversity in that small group we have to ensure that high ability DC from comprehensives are not prevented from joining it by dint of simple things.

Things like taking the wrong combination of GCSEs, like having no access to triple science, like being told all qualifications are equivalent, like taking too many GCSEs, like sitting them too early, like having no sets, like not inviting access scheme and outreach bods into school...

hak we already have comprehensive education in the vast majority of the country.

The vast majority of DC, including high ability children, attend comps.

Yet the status quo remains.

jeee, I think even areas like mine which don't have a full grammar system suffer from the educational and social apartheid created by the existence of private schools and super selectives. 15% of children attend private schools in London. It absolutely DOES impact on the character of local state secondary schools.

Unfortunately my children cannot attend a comprehensive - I live deep inside Kent. I wish they could.

My experience of a comprehensive education is therefore based upon my experiences the best part of three decades ago. But it was an extremely positive experience. High-fliers were supported, and encouraged, but not at the cost of the lower ability pupils. Indeed my headmaster had a big row with a local newspaper who refused to publish GCSE marks lower than a C. He said (absolutely correctly) that as a comprehensive the school should be proud of every result. The net result was, our school didn't appear in the local rag at results time.

Yes word, an excellent explanation but I don't understand this bit

And we will never get that diversity if too many high ability children are prevented from joining that group.

Probably because I went to a bog standard comp...