To think that this is terrible news for my children's education?

[ICameOnTheJitney]

Axeing of Soft GCSEs to hit Drama and PE

Exam board insiders confirmed this weekend that subjects such as law, media studies, drama and PE were at risk of being culled from the list of about 58 GCSEs. One source said that as many as 20 subjects were under scrutiny

Why the arts? And surely PE is a VALID subject...not all children are academic and we NEED PE teachers and drama teachers and actors ffs!

Please tell me why, if this happens it's a good thing?

certainly the post war grammar school system, and that of assisted places, had quite a profound effect on social mobility.

And changes to the economy. It simply wasn't possible for the pre-war class system to remain unchanged, because even in 1945 it was entirely obvious that there would be a massive increase in the requirement for people with an education. The war had been won in large part by technology and science (Chain Home, Ultra, Oboe, Gee, Tube Alloys/Manhattan Project, etc) and that was going to drive the post-war economy. Governments had gone from casual laissez-faire amateurism to a massively interventionist civil service in which "the man in Whitehall" was quite keen to know better.

The expansion of the NHS, post-14 education, enlargement of government, the cold war: all of it needed more people with educations to do white collar jobs than could be provided by the pre-war educational system, hidebound by class.

One interpretation of what happened after 1945 was that the country opened up to social mobility because of a progressive, forward-looking desire to equalise opportunity and open up the historic professions to the whole of society. You have to believe in Father Christmas to take that seriously.

Alternatively, one might argue that the elite retained all the power they had before, and provided just enough "opportunity" to get the resources they needed (an educated middle-class) whom they exploited just as shamelessly as they had exploited the resources they needed (a huge manual labouring force) before the war.

And by setting up conflict and jealousy between the historic working classes and the new middle class, the elite could divide and rule the wage-earning class ("workers with hand and brain"). The new middle class saw themselves as above the "working class", and therefore wouldn't worry about miners and rail workers being shafted, while the miners and rail workers returned the complement. In reality, neither had any industrial power, and degree'd school teachers and local authority planners were precisely as vulnerable to changes in government policy as the people down t'pit and in t'shed. The elite always win.

Yet in France social mobility has decreased sharply

In a static society, social mobility is zero-sum. For everyone moving up, someone is moving down. In a dynamic, expanding economy, there are more skilled/professional/whatever jobs as time goes by, so for everyone moving up, you need to pull someone in from outside to replace them.

France in the last twenty years is hardly an exemplar of a dynamic, expanding economy. Doesn't it have something like twice as many state employees proportionately to Germany? When the jobs that are seen as most desirable are those in the public sector (there are even special universities for it), and the public sector is already massively over-sized by any comparator, social mobility is going to be a problem. We all howled with laughter at Bush's alleged mal mot "the problem with France is that it has no word for entrepreneur", but there's more than a grain of truth to it. Blaming education for the problem of a stagnating economy is rather putting the cart before the horse.

That is true. But there is also truth in the widespread claim that the academic education that all children have to follow from 11-15 fails to develop less able children. The more practical education they followed pre-1977 might have done a better job.

Your problem there, Bonsoir, is thinking that you can successfully identify your less able children at 11. Mostly you are more successful at identifying your poorer ones.

In France, less able children are identified in the primary years where they can be asked to repeat a year (they might even be asked to repeat a year during maternelle, ie between the ages of 3 and 6). There is quite good information available that demonstrates that children who are identified as less able in the early years hardly ever make it as far as the baccalauréat. And yet those DC still have to spend four years doing academic disciplines in collège. A lot of DC are quite unable to access the collège curriculum and sit it out, waiting and not learning. That is not good for individual social mobility but it is not good for overall economic growth either.

Bonsoir in England I could have told you which children in my children's classes in Y1 were the less able and who wouldn't make it into a selective school let alone a Russell Group University. I was always amazed that their teachers were never entirely honest with their parents and indeed that their parents didn't realise without a great deal of rucking with the school to be honest. I knew from when my dd was very very tiny that she was not top 1 to 2 per cent like DS. It really didn't take a great deal of working out and I didn't even go to university like all the very clever mummies.

In France, less able children are identified in the primary years

Cyril Burt was a charlatan and a fraud. It's unlikely that his French acolytes would be any less so.

Well yes indeed, marriedinwhiteisback. I don't really understand why it's so difficult for the school system to work this out either. In France, where the threat of "redoublement" is ever present and marking is fierce, there is no beating about the bush about who is able to make the expected standard and who isn't. All the DC I have known to be asked to leave DD's school (where there is no "redoublement" - DC are asked to leave if they are failing) were very obviously not remotely talented at school work. There are no surprises.

People should be able to pursue whichever of the paths their talents permit them to

But if there are only academic GCSE's and someone wants to be a plumber what do they do? Sit in a class room till they are 18 having academic subjects forced down there throats.

That's an idealised dream, but the problem with talk of hewers of wood and drawers of water is that you can be bloody sure that people on a hundred grand a year aren't thinking the same thing.

Not too sure what you actually mean by what appears to be a sneering comment referring to hewers of wood and drawers of water, I presume you mean carpenters and plumbers and the people on a hundred grand a year thinking differently. The plumbers and carpenters I know earn far more than £100k /year. Or did you think because they hadn't had a university education they earned less than someone with a degree.

I find that the frustrating things about these threads is that there are only ever two types of children discussed on them.

1)The "Oxbridge material", 11+ passers, RG uni attenders, with frequent statements that only these sorts of children should be going to university.

2)The non-academic types who should do apprenticeships asap.

The majority of children fall into neither of these categories. What about them?

Yes, Bonsoir, I'm sure we could all easily identify the odd child who is really struggling in primary school, or the kid who is flying at the other end. Attainment at primary school isn't a good marker of ability otherwise they'd use KS2 test scores instead of the 11+ for grammar school selection. And then that is fooled by heavy tutoring.

Besides, even with our most accurate predictive tests, the top 25% at age 11 aren't the top 25% at 16. I think 1 in 5 would be placed incorrectly. (I've posted a link on here before discussing this but can't find atm).

Kids should not be sorted into different paths age 11, the evidence overwhelmingly shows this splits along socioeconomic lines.

But if there are only academic GCSE's and someone wants to be a plumber what do they do? Sit in a class room till they are 18 having academic subjects forced down their throats.

Do you think people who are plumbers are less capable of, or interested, academic work? Do you believe that school is just about preparing people for the workplace? Shouldn't plumbers also read novels?

The plumbers and carpenters I know earn far more than £100k /year.

The couple I know who run a profitable takeaway restaurant want their children to be doctors and engineers, not to run takeaway restaurants. It's not about the money.

If you enjoy reading novels you are unlikely to be fulfilled by being a plumber.

So when should they be sorted noble because the current system of no sorting isn't working. When dd attended an oustanding girls comprehensive the principle reason it was turning into a disaster was behaviour. There was a transparent exam based admissions procedure with 25% at the top, 50% in the middle and 25% at the bottom. Historically this school used to interview and historically it had an excellent reputation where children of all abilities were able to learn. If one has no selection at all there have to mechanisms to deal with behaviour because without that the classroom becomes anarchic however good and however well differentiated the teaching and however intelligent some of the children it will be exceedingly difficult for them to fulfil their potential in that environment and it is desperately unfair.

No school and no child should ever have learn alongside assault, theft, intimidation, constant disruption and danger. Once that gets sorted out in the UK then I think any tinkering with the academics will be more reasonable and more justified. I would be more than happy to pay more tax for more Pru's and special schools to be set up. I was not happy to leave my dd in an environment where she came home in tears on a daily basis because of the behaviour of five or six children about whom the head teacher's lame response was "well we have to differentiate consequences depending on the backgrounds of the children". So in short, different rules for different children - how does that translate into fairness? How does that prepare children for the real world where if you slap a work colleague you are summarily dismissed?

about whom the head teacher's lame response was "well we have to differentiate consequences depending on the backgrounds of the children"

That sort of bad practice is nothing to do with re-establishing grammar schools. And if you think there is no bad behaviour, or mis-management of bad behaviour, in grammars, even super-selectives, then I have a bridge to sell you.

So in short, different rules for different children - how does that translate into fairness?

It doesn't. And heads that implement that sort of policy are widely criticised, even amongst the most "progressive" teachers who see it as failing, most of all, the people who aren't disciplined. See, for example, here. Assuming that the cure for bad practice is changing the structure of schools, rather than dealing with bad practice, is a category error.

You appear to be working on the assumption that bad behaviour is limited to the less academically able. It simply isn't true.

If you enjoy reading novels you are unlikely to be fulfilled by being a plumber.

So what's the scheme? Find the prospective plumbers, and then deny them access to novels in case it gives them ideas above their station which makes them dissatisfied? That argument was seriously advanced in the 1940s, by the way: the problem with secondary education was that it would make humble manual workers dissatisfied with their lot and lead to insurrection.

I can't decide if it's British culture to be so snobby & elitist or if it's just MN. I'd like to think it's MN but sadly...

No of course not. But those DC who find reading novels a struggle (and, frankly, there are lots of them) shouldn't have to sit through years of hard literature classes that they cannot access. They need literature and language classes they can access, with a different curriculum.

Certainly not working on the assumption that bad behaviour links with the less academically able. But I do think that oversubscribed schools should be able to interview and have more say at admissions and if they can't they should be able to permanently exclude children who are indulging in criminality and diluting the education and achievement of the rest.

Maybe myself and others I know are different to the tradesman you are thinking of but we did sit in classrooms for 5 years having academia forced down our throats. I went to an all girls school so plumbing, building and any other practical qualifications were not available.
If school is not about preparing people for the work place then what is it for? If you say the love of learning then it will only foster the love of learning in kids who are interested in a particular academic subject. If Gove has his way then that will be just a few academic types, the rest will be forced just to get through. Or do what I did and just not turn up.
Cannot understand these parents who want to force their expectations on their children. I do feel sorry for the children of such parents. What is wrong with running take aways. Why is being a doctor the pinnacle of success? Given that suicide rates in doctors is 40% higher than the general population is it because parents have forced their children to be a doctor when in truth the kid would have much preferred to go into the take away business or some such other, in their parents eye, less worthy profession.

Everything is about money or is getting a degree free nowadays. By teaching your children that money and earning power doesn't matter then surely you are setting your child up for a lifetime of debt and misery. I get the impression that some posters are grooming their children for a university education and not really openly talking of alternatives or listening to what they want.

Just read your post married. Both my children are in your words "less academically able" they are both severely dyslexic. Are you saying that all children who have learning difficulties are badly behaved at school and they should be excluded because they are diluting the achievements of the rest, I presume you mean league tables. Not too sure how you make the leap from a less academically able child will be badly behaved to them indulging in criminality.

My parents live in a rural and affluent location in SE England. There are tradesmen galore (people spend their discretionary income on their homes and gardens) whom my parents use frequently. The quality and reliability of their tradesmen is excellent. Quite a few of them live in lovely homes themselves. Quite a few of them also find it an effort to write a quotation or invoice in correct English.

I know plumbers who read novels, go to the theatre, enjoy classical music - I didn't realise having a manual job meant you weren't allowed access to culture. Tradesmen - know your place.

It is not unreasonable to find fulfillment in pursuits outwith your trade. Not everyone will be completely fulfilled by their job, regardless of their intelligence and education. Indeed, working in an essential trade could be a shrewd move in the current market and not a sign that you are incapable of grasping the nuances of Dickens.

I most certainly am not saying that millymollymandy. Please re-read my post which I thought made it clear that I thought the biggest threat to the education of every child and all abilities was failure to deal with poor behaviour be that poor behaviour from the top, middle or bottom ability ranges.

My DH left school at 16 with only a few O levels. He did an apprenticeship. He still wears overalls most of the time for his job - although has worked his way up and got a lot of further qualifications. He enjoys reading and the theatre.
We live in a 4 bed detached house, go skiing etc.
There is nothing wrong at all with learning a trade. The country would be a lot better off if there were more opportunities/apprenticeships etc.
DD2 certainly would not have been singled out in year 1 as particularly academically clever - although I knew she was (not biased, just realistic). At the age of 15, she is in the top sets at school, got an A* in maths in year 10 and is on target for a few more. She is also very practical and knows her way round DH's toolboxes.
It is unrealistic to write-off anyone at any age.
Education should be provided free to all children. Teachers do need to have the powers to maintain control and deal with poor behaviour though - and every parent needs to respect that.