"We need elitism in schools" Do you agree with Dave?

[Pantone]

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8751220/David-Cameron-we-need-elitism-in-schools.html

What do you think of this?

Those of us with sense picked careers which enable us to pay school fees and then we pick selective schools which are peopled only with bright children from age 4. It works really well. If we have a child who isn't very clever then there are also private schools which suit those children.

People differ and having a choice of different schools is good. Some parents want chidlren not to read until age 7. Or no compulsory lessons. Others want latin at 4. Luckily we still live in a country where you have that choice and can even educate at home if you choose.

No one would want their bright child in a class where a teacher does not want children go move ahead if they are bright. It's why having them educated in a class from age 4 or 5 where everyone has a high IQ works really well. You cannot easily get that in the state sy stem, even in the state school in Kensington where Cameron's daughter goes to but that's the price he has to pay for being a wet Tory, sacrifice his children on the altar of political correctness. He shoudl make a stand and pay fees.

can someone tell me how these signs are supposed to manifest themselves?

Hmm, I can't actually watch the link as I have a strange condition that means every time I see David Cameron flapping his chubby jowls I feel oddly nauseaous and seem to lose the ability to hear a word he says- it all turns into blah blah blah, and doesn't seem to have much actual meaning. Maybe that's just me.

But reading the thread, I think i've got the gist, and it is an interesting discussion. The problem, I feel, is that it is very difficult to have a school which can cater adequately for ALL the needs of ALL the pupils. And I do think that the cleverer children get left to their own devices a lot of the time. Having said that, this was the same when I was at school, many moons ago! I know my dd quickly clocked onto the fact that it was the "naughty" kids who got the "worker-of-the-week" reward, or the star pupil award, but surprisingly she also quickly understood why the teacher gave the prizes to these children, and didn't get upset about it, altho9ugh it did offend her anal sense of "fair"!

The thing is, at primary level (and I appreciate things change when they go to secondary, but much of this thread has been about primary education) I have to say I really don't care too much about the curriculum/ amount of homework/ rankings/ ratings etc, as long as my children are happy and enjoying school, making friends and being stimulated. They read at home, we read to them, I could always teach them Latin if I wanted! I am always surprised about parents who grumble about their children not getting enough homework, aged 5- surely your child is still learning a lot from their parents at this age too? Don't get me wrong: I definitely am NOT a "pushy parent", but surely even a game of "eye-spy"/ boggle/ snakes and ladders etc reinforces a lot of the learning they need at this age.

Maybe schools do need to focus not on able/ less able children, but on children who don't get that support for their learning at home? Difficult to assess, I grant you. Personally I see private education at primary level as a huge waste of money, as the parents that are able to pay are obviously sufficiently interested in their child's education to enhance it themselves.

Applauds Jooly.

Been thinking more about this.

To me, it's about balancing the importance of 'absolute attainment' vs the importance of 'progress' for each child. What worries me about the concept of elitism - and in fact most of the 'targets' set by central government - is that the focus is ALL on absolute attainment.

This means that schools with an excellent intake (whether through selection or through catchment) can achieve the targets set easily, and there is no incentive to strive to get everything out of every pupil that they can.

Equally, schools with a more difficult intake can achieve absolutely fabulous progress for all the children, yet still fail to meet the targets (I know of a school which achieves one of the highest 'progress per pupil' scores in the country, is recognised and celbrated as a beacon of good practise in several curriculum areas, has a 'good with outstanding features' Ofsted yet still sits on the government list of failing schools).

If there was a significant shift to progress as a measure, then the bright pupils in challenging areas would be as important to their schools as the difficult pupils (there is at the moment a perverse incentive to focus on only a portion of each cohort, because of the importance of certain grade boundaries - a system that looks at progress would mean that ALL children would have to make good progress). Equally, grammar schools etc would have to really strive to extend their pupils.

However, the shift can't be total. There has to still be a wholehearted focus on bringing the basic literacy and maths skills of all pupils up to a certain benchmark - perhaps a combined measure of 'progress + percentage of children who pass an appropriate test of literacy and numeracy?'

Xenia we pay but I find you comment "those of us with sense picked careers that enable us to pay fees" unbelievable. Are you so naive that you think that anyone can organise their career in such away to guarantee that you will be able to afford school fees when you have children. Or may be you've got your tongue jammed in your cheek.
Boarding schools cost £31000 per year and we reckon you've got to be on £160 000 a year to afford to send two, you've got to more than have pick your career to be able to pay that kind of money, you've got to be either unbelievably wealthy through inheritance etc or exceedingly successful in your job.

The sheer arrogance of Eton thinking it has anything at all to teach normal schools with normal kids is breath-taking. What's he going to say? 'Well, first off, you need to sack off all the children with working class backgrounds, parents who aren't interested, and also those who aren't clever enough to pass CE with a very high score. When you've done that, we'll talk'.

PS Jooly - my school actually does this. We have a specific TA who comes in one and a half days per week to 'fill the gap a parent might normally fill' for an identified minority of children who have no support at home (for a variety of reasons - poor parental literacy, substance abuse problems etc). She reads with the children, sits with them while they do their 'homework', helps them learn spellings, and plays a lot of simple board games, jigsaw puzzles, dot-to-dot etc etc. She is entirely separate from the learning support TAs, who do specific interventions to address particular special ed needs.

Funnily enough, I have a friend who complains that the schooling system in England is elitist now, because some children get put in top sets and taught things that the other sets are not.

malcon - it isn't Eton being arrogant and saying it wants to: it's DC saying it should. Just like the Labour policy of 2007.

Yes, but them doing it would be arrogant. Like when Anthony fucking Seldon starts banging on about state schools as if he knows anything about them.

Is he using the word correctly?

Who, which word?

teacher- that is good to know! We are fortunate enough that the school in our catchment area is a "good" school, but some of the parents seem to be so obsessed with how much homework etc their children have in the early years, I am amazed. Parents do seem to think they should completely surrender their child's education to the school.

When I attended (the same!) primary school many years ago, we had no homework, and there seemed to be far more time to play (house corner etc) I was quite surprised when I attended the "curriculum evening" when my first child went into P1 and heard all the objectives for achievement. The jargon used was actually pretty daunting, until I realised it was just the plain old 3 Rs, dressed up in fancy terms!

Granted, my parents sent me to private school at secondary level, but even then my parents helped me a lot with homework etc. I still am not convinced that I would have achieved any less at the local comp with the great support I had from my parents. I intend to send my children to the local comp unless there are, at the time, compelling reasons not to do so. My experience of the private sector was that some of my friends didn't thrive in it at all- again, there is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to education. My feeling is that I might be better paying for tutors in individual subjects if my children were to need it.

I still think parents are a huge influence. A bright child from a background where the parents are unsupportive and disinterested may well not do as well as a less able child whose parents are interested and supportive. School can only achieve so much, and I can't help feeling that one of the reasons private school pupils do so well is down to the fact that they have parents who rate education, care about their child's education and are involved, rather than the calibre of the teachers/ headteachers.

"Elitism or all winning prizes?" says Cam.

Elitism is a small group of top people who important, no? So I suppose he means that we acknowledge that a school has a special group of the most academically able students. Perhaps in the same way that there might be a select group of the most sportily gifted.

I do think there is a strange reluctance to celebrate academic ability in schools. Whereas there is no such embarrassment when it comes to sporting achievemnts.

But then he says "Learning by rote or by play?"

Since when did schools have to make such a decision, to choose one over the other?

Learnign by rote is out of fashion, true. And learning through play is in fashion. And that's daft because fashion shouldn't matter. Evidence of what works should matter.

Maybe that's what he means, but who knows. He is vague and full of soundbites, like most politicians of all parties.

Malcon: does that mean you would end the current examples of sponsorship of academies by private schools? How have those schools done, BTW?

David Cameron. Elitism. I thought elitism meant being led by an elite (which I suppose I am in favour of - I would like the people running schools to be the best people for the job), or a group of the "elite" being selective about membership, which wouldn't apply to schools who have to educate all children (apart from selective schools, but all schools can't be selective). If he means celebrating success, then I agree with that, but I'm not sure that's elitism.

I don't like the word "elitism" at all. There is a sense of "favoured group" in it, which doesn't seem to really be inclusive- in fact it seems to be exclusive.

Being academically able does not make you "elite" (IMO) To be intelligent is not to be any better than anyone else, in the same way that having a certain hair-colour makes you better than someone with a different hair colour, it is simply the way you were born, and has no intrinsic "value"

Achievement and hard work are something to have pride in, not IQ

Meant to add- Meritocracy is a word I far prefer. But seems to be somewhat idealistic nowadays

When we have elitism in schools, what becomes of those outside of it?
I think they will be the ones rioting in the street.
Better than everyone has a sense of achievement and selfworth.

I have to say I haven't noticed a 'reluctance to celebrate academic achievement in schools'. My children - who are both academically able and at a perfectly bog-standard state primary - have attended specific sessions run for gifted and talented children from all age groups in the school in e.g. maths, english and science. They receive awards that mention their academic achievements. Their high levels are celebrated by the teacher, and they do specific extension work.

Equally, in my rather 'more challenged than bog standard' school, we identify gifted and talented in different areas, we differentiate plans to stretch them, we celebrate their achievements in assemblies etc etc. I have just been analysing progress results, and it is probably relevant to this discussion to say that the three children who have made the most progress are one G&T child (Year 3 who has achieved the level expected of a Year 6), one middle ability child (who was working slightly below the expected level at the end of Year 2 and is now achieving the level expected at the end of Year 4) and one SEN child (who was achieving at the level of a child just starting Reception at the beginning of year 3, and who made almost 2 years' worth of progress in Year 3). I am not certain whether this is evidence that I am happy with mediocrity and do not allow the more able to progress?

"Being academically able does not make you "elite" (IMO) To be intelligent is not to be any better than anyone else, in the same way that having a certain hair-colour makes you better than someone with a different hair colour, it is simply the way you were born, and has no intrinsic "value" "

Rubbish. There is great value in being intelligent. In the same way, there is great value in being a great violinist or a great sports(wo)man (not my cup of tea, but there you go) or a great writer. To say that being above average intellectually is on a par with having, say, fair hair is just nonsense. The world needs an elite of clever people in the same way that it needs an elite in every field.

And if there are prizes for everyone, nobody ends up with a sense of achievement. It isn't an achievement if everyone "succeeds".

It absolutely depends on what Cameron means by elitism. And I am sure he will never bother to elucidate.

Unfortunately I have noticed a subtle and suspect embarrassment about highest academic achievement. So that then colours my understanding of what elitism and prizes for all might mean.

The thing is, everyone will interpret this however they want, however it makes sense to them. That is why it is perfect political soundbite. Means anything to anyone.

"If everyone is special then no one is" The INcredibles

A pondering sorta thing