Nikki out, Justine in

I must say that the majority of people I know who live outside London send their children to the local comprehensive? Many of which are very good, so why waste time bussing children 20 miles to an Independent or spend money on boarding fees? The only exceptions I know are Service families, where boarding is done to provide continuity for the child's education.

Even that is getting harder in some parts of Hants, since Totton College was taken by NACRO & is only providing vocational courses now. Hants seems very keen on the super-college approach now due to funding cut backs. It's bound to push some kids into courses they didn't really want to do.

the majority of people I know who live outside London send their children to the independent in the next biggest town or to boarding school
Well frankly your friends can look after themselves then.

The government's job is to look after those who cannot afford a bus fare let alone private school fees.

I'm about to send my second kid to Symonds because I can afford the £800 bus pass.
Lots of people cannot so they have to settle for colleges they can walk to, regardless of the academic reputation.

Talkin the majority of people I know who live outside London send their children to the independent in the next biggest town or to boarding school.

The problem is that until London schools improve, those who can afford to opt out will continue to do so. Dd's London comp was living on its reputation. There were pupils there who were super rich and pupils from unimaginable estates and plenty of diversity across the class divides. There was also poor teaching, poor pastoral care and no handle whatsoever on disruption and behaviour.

That was at a "holy grail" London school. No other comp across three boroughs offered a sufficiently academic curriculum to convince me they would reach the academic aptitudes of an old fashioned grammar school cohort.

Until that changes, then I can never support a comprehensive system. Too often comprehensives are just dressed up secondary moderns.

Kent was much better in the 1970s than London post 2000 now. I honestly don't believe there was an alternative to an independent education for my children unless we had moved outside London and we didn't want to.

YY TalkinPeace.
Our Comp is great, but the pupils range from well off to FSMs.
That's why it works.

There's a bit of an anti Grammar backlash going on where I live and I personally would not want to see more. We are over the border from our local ones and DC out of catchment need a higher pass mark but traditionally a number of local children have gone.

As our local school is improving with a change of Head the number who go each year are falling. This year it was about 10 whereas 5 years ago it was 24. One of the Grammars went from outstanding to requires improvement at last Ofsted which I suspect will cause a rethink for some parents this year and I expect the trend of lower figures to continue.

ohtheroses
One of the reasons that rural comps are truly comp is that everybody uses them - even the super rich.
In parts of London 40% of kids go private with pretty obvious results.
Also the head of education in Kingston has never been punished for deliberately undersupplying state places.
If more middle class Londoners used state schools they would get even better.

By exam results, top kids at state schools already out perform most private schools anyway.

Government policy should be around the 80% of parents who have no option but to use the local school.
Make it better.
Not twiddle with imaginary "choice"

thethings
My problem with Teach first is that it does not work.
It does not fill the teaching shortages.
Its cohorts do not stay in teaching.
The university based courses had their problems, but they made sure the staffing rolls were filled.

King Solomon Academy is the most successful non-selective state school in the country. 67% of its pupils are disadvantaged yet they achieve 93% 5 A-C. Nor is this about pushing everyone through the C barrier, high achievers get an average A grade, middle achievers a B. For comparison this is higher than Invicta Grammar (Girls) School in Kent which is the highest scoring non super selective in Kent.
So this is what comprehensives can achieve (how many of their kids would have passed the 11+ I wonder)
But would we want all our schools to operate like this:
www.learningspy.co.uk/featured/learned-visit-king-solomon-academy/

One of the things we can learn here I think, is that different areas need solutions to suit them. If you live in a rural area children travel long distances to get to the only school available. In this case, you want to make sure that the local school is good. The idea of choice is a non-starter, because there isn't anything else within 10 miles.

Talkin had we lived in Hampshire we might have considered state schools (well we did for DD and it was gift wrapped shite) but we didn't, we lived in London. No comparison.

We had years of paying £35,000 pa for two London day schools. And we paid the £6,500 (or thereabouts) for each child in spades.

I don't quite see the unfairness as you do having paid twice.

Whilst I don't think grammars and secondary moderns are the ideal, in practice a comprehensive area is often no different. Except instead of grammars you get true comprehensives and comprehensives that are secondary moderns in all but name. Make every school a genuine comprehensive, which also meets the needs of the most able, rather than ignoring them as a minority, and then we can all hold the comprehensive model as the ideal. It currently isn't. And enough non mainstream for the dc that need them.

Personally I think there is an argument for the top 1/2% needing something different. But at the least I would hope that some form of inter school/ college outreach could be used to provide for able dc in fully comprehensive areas, who nevertheless receive secondary modern education, in the same way it is used for lower achievers.

People always object to calling a school a secondary modern, and deciding their future on the outcome of an exam at 10/11. But calling them all comprehensives, and then doing the same based on postcode and religion is exactly the same.

I just hope she is willing to see through all the blather that the current comprehensive system is in any way fair, and do something about it.

Talkin peace what do you consider to be so bad about teachfirst ?

Ah yes. DS has his rugby trial booked

Heart already set on PS because of the number of Harlequins/ England rugby players they produce!

sticker
Symonds is a marmite place and pretty ruthless at kicking kids out
BUT
The variety of colleges is the real bonus round here
Barton gets fab results from many kids
Tauntons is improving
For non academic, City, Eastleigh, Totton all have excellent employment outcomes - which is the aim

Teen as long as I can get mine into Peter Symonds please.

DH works in state and private schools in every county in the country.
Non selective is best (saves the authorities lots of admin and parents lots of stress)
Primary/ secondary is better than lower / middle / upper

6th form works well in this part of Hampshire. Less well down Pompey way.
But having been in a tiny Private 6th, the deal my kids get at Symonds is much better academically and socially.

So the majority view here then is that we should model the state,secondary system on the Hants comps we use. Sorted.

No, but we should be looking to good LAs to see what it is that they are doing and to see how and whether it can be reproduced elsewhere, rather than resurrect a model which was failing 40 years ago.

But I would put better pastoral care into the Hants 6th forms.
A better safety net for those pupils that need it.

So the majority view here then is that we should model the state,secondary system on the Hants comps we use. Sorted.

My DCs use the competitor comp to Talkins . It really doesn't seem huge at all, despite coming from single form entry not full primary.

The school doesn't seem large, and splitting the year group, strong pastoral care etc enables them not to be 'lost' in the early years. When they get to GCSEs there are wide range flexible options because the 250 or so per year provides it.

Good comps work for late developers and those from less good primaries, in a way in which grammars can't.

ohtheroses
independent schools charge fees that give them four or five times the resources of state schools.
they can thus afford to run a GCSE class of 10 pupils - unimaginable in a state school.

Here in Hampshire the state schools go to 16 and then ALL the kids go to college for years 12 and 13
the colleges range from

• Sparsholt : world renowned countryside / farming / equestrian courses
• City Technical : 100% employment out of their boat building courses
• Totton College : the place to go if you want to be a mechanic
• Peter Symonds : 2000 pupils per year of whom around 800 go to Russell Group Unis

As we have now moved into compulsory education for children up to 18, we should be looking at how we structure our schools. Where i live there aren't any local sixth forms, therefore all children progress on to the 2 local colleges. One catholic and one state. If schools were structured in a way that years 10-13 were taught as high school, this is where the two or three tiered system could be more effective. This would mean that all children could follow the same curriculum until taking options at the end of year 9, then choosing to attend a high school that met their academic needs. This would allow for progression up until the age of 14/15 which gives schools plenty of time to assess their children's academic level.

Partnership with a local technical college is a good way of getting the best outcomes for the less academic pupils.

A good thing about this is that it doesn't kick in until 14, unlike the GS/Sec Mod divide where the selection is done and dusted at 10, with OK a very small handful allowed to move at 12/13.