The answer to our private/grammar/state school angst

[Shagmundfreud]

Remove the charitable status of private schools, as this only benefits those children who would be educationally successful where ever they were schooled.

Abolish grammar schools.

Abolish external selection.

All schools to be truly comprehensive. Places allocated by lottery to get rid of post-code selection. School buses to get round transport problems. Highly structured streaming so that the brightest children could work at a fast pace, unhindered by thick or badly behaved pupils holding them back.

But all children to mingle outside class time.

And lots of one to one support for students who are working hard to move up through the streams, to support educational and social mobility.

Maximum of 20 in each class.

Teachers allocated to teach the bottom sets would receive extra money, training and support, and more non-contact time for lesson preparation.

You likey?

"seeker- because the 11+ is testing for academic potential not academic attainment"

Oopsie- even if this were true- which it isn't- are you seriously telling me that a child with results like that is not a child with academic potential?

no to removing charitable status and grammar schools

yes to streaming suggestion and support etc

yes to max 20 size classes - smaller for bottom streams

no to lottery - closest first as if the standards were higher everywhere we wouldn't have the issue of trying for better schools - would also make paying less attractive so would lessen demand for private education

"seeker- because the 11+ is testing for academic potential not academic attainment"

The 11+ is dependent on a child's ablity to do verbal reasoning or spot silly number patterns. If the 11+ could spot academic potential then the super selective grammars should be getting 100% a*. Some children get very nervous and under perform. Having a level 6 in literacy is pretty amazing academically. Seeker's son would be on the gifted and talented list at a lot of primary schools.

I have mixed feelings as our catchment school is the worse in the county. I am not sure which is worse selection by postcode or the 11+.

Lynette, I have two high academic achievers. DS1 gained a good academic scholarship as a private school and high level 5s in all his SATS (they didn't offer the 6 papers that year). He would have done fine in the local state comprehensive.

DS2 will most likely gain high 5s in all his SATS plus a 6 in maths He was also offered scholarships at two private schools and also gained a place at probably the top superselective grammar in the neighbouring borough. He would have performed poorly at the local state comprehensive and most likely underperformed at the super selective. He is going to the same private school as DS1 because that is where he has the greatest chance of fulfilling his full potential.

I really don't understand why people think one sort of education is great for everyone.

"I agree that "a bright child will do well anywhere" is a bit of a sweeping statement- but is more likely to be true than if the saying was "a not so bright child will do well anywhere""

A less bright child may not actually be capable of doing well academically anywhere. I don't mean those who need extra support for things such as dyslexia but those who simply aren't academically bright at all - not every one is! I honestly think that a less bright child wold be failed equally as badly as a very bright one in a fully comprehensive one-size-fits-all education system.

No grammars here, the majority go to the local comprehensive works really well.

But a comprehensive school isn't a one-size-fits-all system.

My ds is going to a high school. It's not the school I would have chosen for him but hey, ho, them's the breaks.

But from day 1 he will be in a stream with the other high achievers. He will be given targets and I will hear every term whether he is on track. Just because he is in a school where the majority of kids get Cs at GCSE doesn't mean that that is what they will expect hm to get.

Sorry, posted too soon.

The problem will be thet there won't be very many high achievers. If it was comprehensive school there would be loads. And there would be scope for Latin and 3 sciences and extra languages- and all the other things that grammars do so well. And the grammar kids would have access to the sports facilities and the non - academic things the high school does so well.

And the kids who really shouldn't be at the grammar school could quietly be transferred into suitable sets so that they could cope with the work.

Our local "comprehensive" isn't really comprehensive becuase the catchement area is so deprived. Comprehensives need a good social mix to work well. There aren't many high acheivers at our local comp because aspirational families avoid it like the plague.

I bet there are more than 15, Reallytired!

OP, you have largely described how my FIL described his state education in Sheffield in the 1950s. Very normal for children of all backgrounds (FIL is son of a teacher; he is still in touch with his best friend from school who was one of a long line of steel workers)) to be taught together. Home/school neighbourhoods deliberately mixed up. Lots of sport at school and after-school leagues, to encourage lots of mixing. Manual and practical skills taught to the less able from early in secondary school, lining up into apprenticehips at 15/16; encouragement of talent - sport and academic. FIL (grumpy olf many at best of times) looks at what is on offer to his GCs now and shakes his head in despair.

In my experience the "kids who shouldn't be at the grammar's" are the lazy buggers not lacking in intelligence.
Out of child's friends there are plenty of very bright children who sailed through the 11+ and aren't making the most of their opportunity, far more than there are children who's parents are paying for tuition to ensure that they keep up.
So again it comes down to a minority dragging down the majority.
Really schools as a concept are pretty outdated and there ought to be something more effective introduced, but you won't find teachers turkeys voting for Christmas, lots of money to be made in "education"

If grammar schools were extended to the whole country, then they wouldn't be 'super-selectiove' they would educate the top 28% of the whole country.Any amazingly bright kids could afford to drop a few marks and still get in.
My DC1 passed the 11+ with out any tutoring and minimal parctice.In Y6 he got very mediocre results a level 5 in reading I think but 4s in everything else and is now doing AS levels and has got 100 ums in every the modules he's got the results for.
I don't think L6 in literacy is amazing.DC3 has just done Y6 sats and is expected to achieve it despite being mildly dyslexic.She ENJOYS language though and is good at applying rules for punctuation , grammar etc.She is not particularly intelligent though and although she paessed the 11+ she didn't distinguish herself.
What i am trying to get at is that intelligence is not very much related to KS2 SATS in my opinion and experience.

A level 6 and 2 level 5s may not be amazing, but would seem to me to indicate being in the top 23% of the cohort. In the world I live in anyway!

I sort of agree with OP- I would say, in cities, I'd have 'clusters' of schools, so there would be perhaps 3 which would be in your 'lottery' and thus in areas where there is more than one school reasonably nearby, you'd get a more even distribution of intake.

I would set, not stream, with plenty of opportunity for mobility between sets.

I think if you rigidly stream, and the bottom stream is vocational, then the idea that all children [..] mingle outside class time. is perhaps a bit optimistic!

Oh and of course I wouldn't fanny about at the edges by removing charitable status from private schools, I'd just ban them entirely.

I find our fixation with grades a bit sad, tbh. We often talk about being "good enough" parents - it's a shame our children aren't allowed to be "good enough" students.

I guess some employers and universities lack the imagination (and to be fair, time) to look beyond them so we all have to play the game. Once upon a time though a C at GCSE or O-Level was fine - you'd met the minimum standard to be able to carry on with the stuff that really matters (work, further study, the rest of your life...). Now it seems to be a fail.

I imagine a big issue is the lack of opportunities for the late bloomers and the ones who struggle with exams. I left school with bugger all (not that this was OK, btw), and found work straight away. I can't see that happening today.

Oh and thank you Soup and Whatme for explaining charitable status. It seems more reasonable to me now.

The charitable status thing always makes me laugh "oh, you can't take their charitable status away- then they'll stop doing all the good work do to justify having it"

Eh?

Brilliant idea OP. Now, if only the government had the money to pay for it.

They could always raise taxes. I currently pay £22k pa for DCs education. If the gov raises my taxes by £10k and provide DCs with places at a highly academic comprehensive then I'll still be ahead by £12k a year. However, I'm not sure how people on lower incomes will take having their taxes increased in order to pay for your plan.

Back to the drawing board perhaps?

Will removing the charitable status make much difference?
I remember getting an email from prep school saying how much fees would increase if they lost the status and it wasn't worth panicking over...

Seeker if it's a European law thing though I can't see it changing.

Having said that, my local riding school teaches (as you'd expect) children to ride. This is a Good Thing. They also allow a charity for disabled children to use their facilities at, I imagine, a reduced rate. Also a Good Thing.

I bet they pay taxes. Although I suppose that's on their profits. Ignore me

"Will removing the charitable status make much difference?"

Not really. Fees will increase to cover the shortfall. Wealthy parents will only take 4 holidays a year instead of 5 :o and the 'ordinary' family that is currently maxing out their income will have to pull out their kids and put them back into the state system. Your taxes will be increased to pay for the additional intake and your already over subscribed schools will become even more oversubscribed.

So be careful what you wish for :o

It always amazes me how some people avoid the matter of raising standards at state schools and instead concentrate on tearing down private schools.

seeker, in our neck of the woods your son would be close to top of the class and certainly on the gifted and talent register. Level 6 is the standard of the average 14 year old.

A level 4 is distinctly average for a year 6 child even they have dyslexia. My son finished at 4a standard at the end of year 4. His spelling is appauling and substantially behind his age. Surprisingly few marks are awarded for spelling, punctuation or handwriting. Virtually all the marks are for use of interesting vocabulary, imagination as well as being able to infer meaning from text.
I don't think mild dylexia would cause a bright child not to get level 5 in literacy.

www.keystage2literacy.co.uk/getting-to-level-5.html

I can't find the link but I am pretty certain that getting a level 6 in year 6 is pretty rare. Admitally a lot of schools don't bother with the year 6 paper.

Personally I think that grammar schools should insist on level 5s across the board with no excuses like dyslexia.

He is here too, really tired!

I often think there is a parallel universe where a lot of mumsnetters live- completely separate from real life.