The DfE needs to stop the farce of compulsory Maths and English GCSE resits

In maths, kids are not taught the whole curriculum, only to the appropriate level (Foundation/Higher) and not necessarily all topics. But it is in the school’s interests to get as many students to a 4 as possible. when did they start taking this approach? We have had to get a tutor to help dd cover the Maths course as it’s clear the teacher will be only teaching a limited amount of the curriculum.

There's probably nothing anyone can say.
As noble says, even agreement prompts rage.

Wow, just wow.

Having spent all my life in the north & West Midlands in areas where education has never really been deemed important (attending an ex poly) & now living in an area where my catchment school isn’t even deemed fit to employ NQT’s & having a Ds in with SEN in a state school who probably won’t be capable of A levels but needs that magic Grade 4 in English to get onto a Level 3 Btec I really don’t know what to say.

all posh school (state and private) teachers and parents defending crap results for low and middle achievers

Guess I better bugger off to my cave as I know nothing having worked in state schools at both ends of the disadvantaged/privileged continuum and in every ofsted category.

Time to disappear and get back to plotting how not to teach the course to my students next term. Anyone got any ideas? I had a cracking scheme planned looking at modern non fiction for Y7 but now I'm thinking of sticking Frozen on and colouring in because I don't care.

User . It was also a 'shit' school when Labour were in power and will be a 'shit' school when Labour (if ever get back in power). Sometimes it hurts to admit the truth .

To attack children with 'talent' is appalling and thus object to their chance to attend an appropriate school . This through nothing more than sour grapes speaks volumes.

Finally you 'boast' about earning a very decent salary , presumably living in a low cost area you could afford Private Education for one of your children yourself !

Noble,
Yes you have, because it is shit compared to ETON, and LONDON schools, but it is a normal school for our area. Unlike you and most on here we don't live in posh area's, we get what a shit government deems is good enough for thick northern kids.
When Ds1 went in 2011, the stats for the 5 local options for middle achievers where
School A D+
School B D
School C D-
School D C- and
School E E+
We are school B.
For low achievers it ranged from E- to F-.
Thanks for ignoring my main point piggy

Anyway, I am joining Romany and ignoring you all and this pointless thread, it all posh school (state and private) teachers and parents defending crap results for low and middle achievers, as lets face, it really will never effect your own kids, and their futures.
I suppose it hasn't had the usual Eton crowd gate-crashing, to remind me of how shit my kids are and how useless we are as parents. Small mercies I suppose.

I will go off to help Ds1 go to University of Lincoln in a fortnight, you know one of those ex poly (unfortunately you lot it's an ex higher college of education), we never got a polytechnic. In real life I know my boys are just like 100000's of WC and very low middle class kids, who form the backbone of the north, and my kids aren't fucking strange or useless and we as parents are doing our hardest to encourage our kids to aim as high as possible.
Its only on MN that 100% of kids get 8 and 9's and go to Oxbridge or RG universities. That's why I never bother to post on MN education. I have realised and are reminded every time I do, that I am too thick and uneducated to matter.

Luckily for us, we have only ever met 3 RL teachers with the attitudes found on mumsnet, unfortunately Ds1 had all three for A levels. Its a miracle he past any.

Goodbye, continue to live in your cosy MN bubbles, unfortunately their are 1000's of the Ellie's from Milton Keynes.

Romany - I’ve sent you a message.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/392457.stm

user

So what do you suppose these kids do that are offered the places? Turn them down?
I also presume you are talking about MDS the gov Music and Dance scheme.
You do know that it's open to anybody?
Your child stands as much chance as any other if they are good at music or Dance.
Some of these come from the same underprivileged areas and have worked hard to overcome barriers.

Thankyou @maisypops , was feeling a bit bamboozled.

Labour were in National Government for 13 years !..

User I don't see how stopping the funding for 'gifted ' musicians dancers or artists to go the right school would help you !.

For the record User Hull or Humberside has been a Labour stronghold for as long as the 'Dinosaurs' roamed the earth . Yet even when Education was the sole responsibility of the local authority Hull and Humberside were appalling in academic attainment. Hull council for instance in 1999 were among the ' richest' local authorities having received a £260 million pound windfall . This for the selling off of the cities telecommunication rights ! How much of that money found its way in to the 'decrepit ' schools you describe.

If you are not able to accept the reason Hull and Humberside are the way they are due to the continued mismanagement of perpetual Labour local Government. Perhaps you will agree Labour were in power for 13 years and did 'F* ALL' to help the schools or schooling in Hull or Humberside !

Ok can somebody tell me if Cakes is talking bullshit when she says that children that dont pass SATS are unlikely to be even taught the right stuff to get GCSEs because ive got a little 11 year old with SEN, going into year 7 that only just missed out on passes.
Total bullshit.
Further back in the thread (whilst a little, ahem, irritated at the scaremongering) I gave an example of what I have done with bottom sets and it is similar to what classroom teachers do up and down the country.

Children with SEND can find the final exams part of GCSE tough, I'm not going to lie to you but they are absolutely taught the content.

Put it this way, if I put my most cynical hat on and ignore the fact that it's an outcome for a child. Each child's progress counts for progress 8. It matters what each child gets so each time a child makes expected progress it is good for the school. Not all students have a good day in exams, students who can make more than expected progress can bump a school's progress 8 score or even out where people have had bad days. This means supporting a struggling child with a 3 target to get a 4 is in the school's interest. Under the new measures each child's progress counts, not just headline figures. It is not in the interests of schools to not teach a whole class in a cohort.

Ok can somebody tell me if Cakes is talking bullshit when she says that children that dont pass SATS are unlikely to be even taught the right stuff to get GCSEs because ive got a little 11 year old with SEN, going into year 7 that only just missed out on passes. Am i going to have the same shit over again.

Highers aren't equivalent to GCSEs. Not your main point but felt the need to point it out. That's comparing apples with pears.

Cantkeep
re 12:11

As you asked to comment on your point on statistics.
You are saying the same thing as I was regarding the result to be expected of the system design. Yes of course social factors, support and work ethic play a role. This means outcomes for lower attainers at SATs can be helped, no? If all schools could have those above average progress,

Now, I personally think not all parents understand that system. I didn’t realise that until it was too late, that 25-30% of children of at least 'normal' intelligence are designed to fail universal secondary education and that for vast majority this is predefined by the end of primary school at 11. I happen to believe it is unfair. Most people think defining children’s future at 11 is wrong. I am not sure there is a proper debate about whether the watermark of 65-70% pass rate is appropriate in 21 century. This is not what news headlines and headteachers' speeches at the open evenings say. This is not what primary teachers say at parent evenings.

Concerning SATs, this year the percentages who failed the pass are more like 25%, not 15% and was similar last year(s). Which means children who narrowly missed the pass need to climb up to 30% from 25%, not 15%. My point is, if the potential and the right support are there, they shouldn’t be denied that chance.

More broadly your comment on moving from 15% to 30% and supposed impossibility of this reflects the paradigm that the point of secondary education is to establish a pecking order of percentile position in society and to draw a cut-off line at 65-70%. The idea that you can never escape your percentile.

There is another way of looking at secondary education in that it delivers certain standard of skills and knowledge. Like for example being able to calculate the surface of a circle. In this model there is no reasonable requirement to deliberately limit the number of people who could do that to a particular %. There is a very valid discussion to be had what standard exactly can one expect from children with at least average range of ability in a leading economy in 21 century. This is another discussion.

GCSE reflects both perspectives to different extent, the ranking and the standard. But there is tension and cloudiness about it. I should think most lay people think of education more as the latter. You send your reasonably smart children to school and you trust the system to give them at least the pass qualifications given the hard and honest effort. And that is called GCSEs. Then they can progress further in life in areas of their strengths, carve their niche. That is what I thought. You can call me whatever names, you can laugh, but I think this is a reasonable expectation.

Noblegiraffe
Thanks for saying our school is shit. It is our local state comprehensive, up to the Ofsted report last October, it was the best option out of the 3 closest schools.
It's in one of the lowest funded LEA's and been underfunded for at least a decade, since forced into being an Academy, it turns out it has a 8.9 million pound underfunding in repairs, is underfunded by £500000 for transport costs.
Where we live we have declining child rates and increasing OAP rates, in 2011 (2000 birth) 369 started, last year 289, this year 265. Because most of the primaries are having class sizes of

Noble, I have been wondering about the potential for Bible-based word problems..

Or those based on evangelism: If Pastor X preaches the Word of God to just 2 people on Day 1, and they in turn preach to 2 people each on Day 2, how many people in total will have heard the Word by day 10?

(Just for the record, I come from a very religious, but very 'quietly C of E', family. I know that those who use this type of material will reflect only the tiniest minority of the tiniest minority of Christians)

Your tone and aggression only reflects on you.
Aggression or exasperation?
I'd say exasperation regarding a poster who chops and changes their mind making sweeping generalisations and massive claims throughout the thread (like claiming bottom sets are never taught the material required to get grades) and then tells anyone who disagrees they are projecting.
At a poster who acknowledges there's a statistical allocation of grades at GCSE but thinks that teachers being more ito learning styles will automatically make everyone at or above average.
As a matter of fact it speaks for itself.
Yes. As teachers who care greatly about education and the children in our care, the frustrations we have with the current system, how we'd like parts of it changing, how much we have an issue with people calling less able pupils dim.

It's like many school threads, you get a range of people (parents and teachers) saying the system isn't perfect but x y z is reasonable and then a very vocal minority making sweeping claims who'll claim all the teacher's are closing ranks, people are being aggressive etc when challenged.

cakes what on earth is facifying?