Intrigued by the 'bright child will succeed in any school'

"But ds achieving an A* was not the school's priority at all. In fact dh went to the Head about this and I understand the Dep Head was soundly bollocked."

So what happened was that your DP got a person who screwed up on the phone and got bollocked for it. Which presumably means that the Deputy Head was not following the school's policy?

It's far easier to achieve equality by bringing down the able than by bringing up the less able.

I think a problem is the focus on "bringing up the less able" which has been interpreted by some teachers/schools as "everyone must be the same level".

I have banged my head at the school on numerous occasions concerning English teaching. I always receive the party line that "the more able children bring on the less able ones" followed up by "helping others cements their knowledge of the topic". If I've heard that word "cement" once, I've heard it a hundred times.

One example of how schools don't perhaps care about the most able is when ds got a bad (for him) GCSE grade in his best subject. Dh rang the school immediately and the Deputy Head told him to stop whining, there were kids who had failed the whole thing which she had to concentrate her time on. It turned out that he had been scored on only one of two papers. But ds achieving an A* was not the school's priority at all. In fact dh went to the Head about this and I understand the Dep Head was soundly bollocked.

I visit schools/sixth form colleges as part of outreach for university.

In 2015 I visited 29. Some more than once. Do I win a prize ?

So my focus is on high ability students. It is very very obvious to me which schools and colleges are offering an education appropriate to the needs of this group and which are not.

It is also very very obvious that those that are not will defend the indefensible to the bitter end.

So what do they do that gets them up the league table while screwing up people's lives?

They play games with statistics. They do the "one advanced vocational qualification counting for a billion GCSEs nonsense", which is why the EBacc was introduced. It's amazing how many schools suddenly think that their pupils are capable of doing a language, now that it is a 'measurement' in the League Tables. They also do the C-Grade-will-do, no need to push the pupils to their potential. Which is why value-added is now scrutinised.

They don't seem to care about education, it's about ticking whichever box is in vogue.

I'm not saying all schools are like this, just the bad ones. It's interesting that our school, which had a paucity of aspiration, used to be feeder to a large employer. The accepted conveyor belt on the estate was from school to factory; no-one saw the need to look beyond that very limited but cosy horizon. Not surprisingly, in this global and competitive age, the employer went bankrupt a few years ago. The school has bucked its ideas up a bit, now that that soft option route has gone.

" I do know for a fact the head has implied to parents he believes aren't equipped to argue that their childs Sen provision has completely vanished due to the schools budget, despite it being provision attached to that specific child through the lea."

I am not defending the man who sounds like an arse. But changes in the way SEN funding is "administered" means that a significant number of our kids who got it at primary school no longer get it at secondary level. Our SENCO has never had so many applications rejected, and she is very experienced and capable. I think it's unlikely that he has spent SEN money on something else.........

I am interested in the roles the people who visit lots of schools have. Would people be prepared to say? I visit quite a lot of schools in our area in two roles- as a governor (we try to maintain friendly relationships with other governing bodies!) and as part of a group who run career/what next workshops for year 11s.

Anyway. Just in case you don!t know, Lurked, the one advanced vocational qualification counting for a billion GCSEs nonsense doesn't happen any more. But I think it's a shame that vocational qualifications are so derided- for some kids they are a real lifeline. The government's attitude to them stinks as well. In getting rid of the nonsenses, several babies have been thrown out with the bath water. For example, because of where we are geographically,a lot of our kids used to take BTecs in horticulture and in catering, which were incredibly useful to them. But it no longer counts as a performance measures for the school. So we have to choose between doing what's best for our particular cohort, or what's best for the school as a whole. It's not as straightforward as some people think.

I suspect the 7 GCSEs and 10 BTecs is an apocryphal story-apart from anything else, there wouldn't be enough hours in the day!

I visit lots of schools and see that attitude too often lurked.

The attitude that says bright children are going to do fine so let's not worry about offering them the most appropriate education.

They counter every observation on how they could improve the education for their most able pupils with the attitude that 'those pupils do fine' 'those pupils already have an advantage' ' those pupils are the least in need'.

It is wrong.

They aren't up the league tables in any way. They still look bad and below average. But for anyone not looking closely, they don't look as bad as they are. They are very keen on c grade (or equivalent in v small writing) And don't mention the fact most of those c's are equivalent, and very few are in any core subject. So eg the kid that at a good school might scrape c's in 2 cores, d's in two others and a useful to them vocational choice, would likely leave there with g's in the core subjects, and whichever vocational quals they can pass with least teaching effort, rather than ones they'll use. They will however have obtained more 'c or equivalent' than in the former school. And sod all for themselves. If they get a brighter child, they offer their basic range of academic gcses, and as many vocational as you can fit in the day. Cos a child with a ridiculous number of unnecessary c's boosts the average. And could be heresay, but apparently a few years ago they had a very able boy, who they had doing 7 gcses and 10 vocational ones. Again of no use on a personal level. They do make a half hearted effort in core subjects for anyone on the pass borderline. The cynic in me suspects that Sen funding attached to other dc possibly helps fund this. I do know for a fact the head has implied to parents he believes aren't equipped to argue that their childs Sen provision has completely vanished due to the schools budget, despite it being provision attached to that specific child through the lea.

And its fucked up 3 of her friends this far into y7, and none of them are kids that would be on the horizon of difficult to accomodate elsewhere.

"The other is more 'yeah, thick working class and council scum, who cares, not us, lets do whatever is best for the league tables regardless of whose life we screw up'."

So what do they do that gets them up the league table while screwing up people's lives?

The school I have described can't even do the league tables bit! If only!

It is interesting though, that a few of the born and bred parents who went to the school themselves refuse to let their children go there. It seems to be the university educated ones who like to experiment and take a risk about the "cream rising" and, at the same time, keep to their socialist principles. No child will rise very far with 50% supply teachers and 5 different French teachers in a year. But, hey, it's only French - our pupils won't be any good at that anyway! If all the articulate parents complained, they might actually get a better school for all the children but then the experiment might collapse!

catscratching

You will find an economic elite in any country you care to name with whatever schooling system. It's to do with wealth accumulation, not schooling.

Your failure to acknowledge your own success being "despite" your schooling is slightly unbelievable. Either you did well or you suffered. You can't have it both ways. Even the wealthiest white boy at Eton could do "better" than they did, but that isn't the measure. You did well by your own description and not from a "great school" - that is a counter example and if it isn't, your theory is wrong as social mobility would be the norm (which it isn't).

bojo very much so. Although the two nearest are a variation on that theme. One does actually progress lower/ near average achievers. On the basis dc from less affluent homes can't possibly be considering a future that isn't based on vocational quals, and if their parents are in catchment and therefore cheap rent, they can't possibly be academic anyway. Very that'll do. The other is more 'yeah, thick working class and council scum, who cares, not us, lets do whatever is best for the league tables regardless of whose life we screw up'.

I think, Lurked, you are describing the "that'll do" type of school. It is something I really object to. However some parents seem surprisingly happy with this offering. Where a relative of mine lives, the local school is dull. It has no "value added". It is "value removed". The school play was described by my relative as "an embarrassing shambles", the results are dire, a few years ago 50% of lessons were taught by supply teachers, there are hardly any school trips, no school orchestra, low level music uptake ..... The list is endless.

However, everyone puts up with it. There is a local "badge of honour" among the well educated parents that is gained by supporting the local school, regardless of how bad it is. It is a sort of big FU to pushy parents! My relative adds little to their children's education. Spare cash is spent on electronics and booze not experiences and lessons out of school for the children. I find it utterly bizarre. They complain about the cost of everything the school tries to do and don't want to pay for trips and uniform. So the school retreats into the "that will do" scenario. It has linked with the local ex poly - that will do! Most pupils won't make that university anyway! No effort is made to link to the local Russell Group university. It's web site is crap but presumably no-one is interested in the school or the children so why bother with that. No proud achievements are reported.

Of course schools like this should change, but if the parents are not remotely bothered and don't value a good education, in the broadest sense, then the school just answers to Ofsted. They appear to shrug their shoulders, pour another glass of wine and settle down to watch the footie. The outcome of inspections is obvious and there is a flurry of activity until it all settles down and mediocrity is restored because all the decent teachers move on. Utterly sad.

cats grammars and privates aren't the reason too many comps are crap. Nobody goes to grammar round here- the nearest ones are still too far. And council/ cheap private tend not to lose many to private. The schools that are crap, are crap because it's selection by houseprice, and for bright dc the stupid assumption that the value of their home implies they can't possibly need a school that has an academic route.

Obviously not. But again, that wasn't my point.

Even if all DC went to schools as good as Eton/St Paul's/Westminster etc there wouldn't be places at Oxbridge and top RG universities for all of them.

MN164 of course there are many more factors at play. But I still believe fee paying and grammar schools are a major contributing factor. I don't see that I'm the counter example at all. If I'd gone to a selective school I might have done even better. Might have got into Oxbridge, for instance. I have no idea.

It's beside the point though really. I'm not saying I have the magic solution to social inequality. I haven't. I'm sure there are people out there who know much more about it than I do. But from a moral perspective, I cannot support selective education.

Badbadbunny not sure why you have been castigated for relating your experience.

Our school system was amalgamated with similar results. One problem was some of grammar teachers were not good at teaching the lower sets.

It was a system in meltdown for a while before settling into a steadier mediocrity. My Mum was all for comprehensives so really didn't want to see any problems.

It was probably not the best time to be in school!

catscratchingpost

You say you did well despite your school, but you believe selective schools drive social inequality.

Aren't you your own counter-example? If a poor school is no barrier to meritocratic achievement (your case), then what case can you have against selective schools?

If you banned all selection from schools, my prediction is that you will not break down social inequality at all. You will save about £250,000 per wealthy family in school fees. You will do nothing to stop parent's wealth providing advantages to their children that are actually at the root of social inequality. Schools are not the root at all. That's a misconception, in my opinion.

Social inequality is perpetuated by accumulation of wealth which fund priviledge. The only way to balance that out it taxation and improved purchasing power for workers (i.e. higher wages). Bashing 7% of schools isn't even close to the answer.

I also think that some of us think we are discussing the education system in general, using our own children as examples, and other people think they are being criticized or judged. And sometimes you don't realize which sort of person you are talking to until too late.

I have seen MN parents criticised for 'busing' their children out of catchment to another state, removing themselves from the failing sink school, accused of compounding the failure cycle of the local school.

I refer back to the comment earlier in the day: "What [schools] offer, what policies they implement, what staff they can attract etc is completely beyond [parents'] control."
I tried to be the model parent and engage with DC1's school (attended all Parents' Evenings, turned up for information like Drugs Awareness, joined the PTA, etc). Except that they don't see you as Model Parent; they see you as an interference and an inconvenience.
After a few years of banging my head against a brick wall, we made the decision to 'bus' DC2 elsewhere and I make no apology for it. The 'failure cycle' was down to the Headteacher and miraculously started to disappear when he did.

I can only go on my own experience and that of my siblings. Went to an inner city east London comp with a 35% GCSE pass rate. I have good GCSEs, 4 A grade A levels, a first class Russell group degree and a Master's degree. Sibling two also has good A levels and currently studying for a RG degree. Sibling three on track for 3 A*s at A level.

On paper my school was crap but I had excellent family support and parents who encouraged learning. I do, truly, believe children like this will do well anyway. Ok, maybe they get a couple more A*s if you send them to an independent or grammar. Maybe. However, DP and I will not, under any circumstances be sending our DC to either one regardless of ability. I believe they are an enormous contributor to social inequality and I could not square it with myself morally.

There are few things I feel more strongly about, actually.

Gosh, sorry. Wall of text. Feel free to ignore!