11+ being scrapped

[musu]

At one school in Essex here

Interesting development which follows on from Bucks CC overhauling their 11+ and trying to make it tutor proof (although everyone I know in Bucks is still employing tutors).

"But the Head in school one has got very complacent.[no private schools for mile and miles in these 2 cases]. Why wouldnt he?"

Because if his low, middle and high achievers don't make at least expected progress, OFSTED will bite his bum.

It is more than that seeker.
This comprehensive rarely, and it could well be ever as far as I know, has no kids going to oxbridge [certainly has no one in school to remotely help with applications].
That isnt an Ofsted concern is it?

Also, I fully expect that its low, middle and higher achievers do make at least expected progress.

To be fair, there are private schools and grammar schools that don't send many, if any,to Oxbridge.

But complacency is not good for that school.
And not good for a country a whole if replicated.

It does appear to work for "lower" schools, or whatever the phrase would be.

I'm not sure why complacency is particularly a comprehensive school problem- sadly it happens in all sectors.

Quite.
That would be the result of your utopia.
I guess some people would not be overly bothered by it.

I think many comprehensives do very very well by the huge swathe of DC in the middle ground. Getting a 70 per cent pass rate in 5 GCSEs is bloody decent if it included english and maths! But I think OFSTED's expectations of what high achievers can and should get, is too low.

"But I think OFSTED's expectations of what high achievers can and should get, is too low."

This is true. The problem with education in general is that it tends to the middle-ground and people at extremes of the spectrum, with entirely different capabilities, are ill-catered to. Fully comprehensive education exacerbates this general tendency.

"Quite.
That would be the result of your utopia.
I guess some people would not be overly bothered by it."
Don't understand- say more?

It's not been my experience that the two ends of the spectrum are ill-catered for at all.

nit get thee to the SN boards and tell all those mothers that the provision for children with SEN is good. I dare you!

There is, however, a wealth of international opinion to support that fact! It is the issue that all systems contend with.

It is certainly my experience that kids at one end of the spectrum are not well catered for at all. Both my own experience and that of my kids.

Word - the provision for SEN is shameful. In many but not all cases. To be fair DS has had very good dyslexia and AS support.

Russians I know that your end of the spectrum is rather higher than what I have experience of, to be fair - I just mean that in my experience of the two ends, neither has been neglected in favour of the middle.

Although of course extremes are always going to be challenging to cater for, and Russians at your end and in the case of SEN, of course it isn't always enough. I don't think that failures adequately to meet those challenges are the result of a determination only to cater for the middle, I guess is what I'm saying.

The top end are infinitely better catered for than in my own days at a comprehensive - and all I can say is that from working in a school a few years ago, the efforts, time and resources put in at every level didn't in any way suggest a 'race to the middle'.

To me, 'ill-catered for' means 'no-one gives a fuck', I suppose.

'Why do private schools convert to Academies? I presume the only reason is that they are losing pupils or money or both? Or am I missing something?'

I wondered this too Seeker, especially in the case of Belvedere School Liverpool - they piloted the Governments Open Access scheme for 7 years or so, claimed it was a success and then became an Academy .

"ill catered for" does not mean no-one cares, it means there is inadequate provision.

Well my neice's school is outstanding according to OFSTED. 70% got 5 GCSEs.

But only 2% of the cohort got an A* in English Literature, only 1% in English Language. Isn't that shocking. It has a lower than average amount of EAL students. It has a lower than average amount of students on FSM. It is a faith school (which I only mention because some here say that selection of any sort brings better results).

In maths, 5% got an A* but not one of them was a girl!

This is not catering for the bright. What are A*s nationally? 15%? So iof you adjust that for clusters in private a state selective schools, what should a comp with no social problems be aiming for? 10%?

Nit - Two of my DCs are definitely in the realm of nobody gives a fuck. This is because they are doing far better than they 'should be' but this is based on their age, not on their ability or on their SEN conditions (which apparently despite medical and ed psych diagnoses don't actually exist because kids who achieve above average cannot have SEN by definition, now). We have also, recently, been told that it is DfE policy that kids with dyspraxia should be getting the top marks, which 'aren't supposed to be for kids like them'. Those were the exact words relayed to us by the most recent person who was evaluating DD1 for her additional assistance during GCSEs. The person was almost trembling with fury at this attitude when she relayed it to us, incidentally. Se was apologising for the atrocious treatment kids like my girls get now at the hands of the education system.

The education system is all about satisficing. Seekers attitude about the outliers (that the system can't be expected to cater for them and it doesn't matter anyway because there are so few of them - the phrase 'only 4' from a few pages back almost made me throw my iPad across the room actually) demonstrates that beautifully.

But it's so much more complex than most people realise, because most people distill the educational experience down to exam grades earned, and it's so much more than that.

But... if you had more selective education, and then you could have more children sitting exams early &c &c - I can see how you could make a case that that could be a good thing for the child whose SEN necessitate more specific facilities, structure and environment, perhaps, if such a move were undertaken on the strict understanding that equal resources and status were accorded to both kinds of schools obviously.

But even if that were to be achieved, or attempted, which is a big 'if', I can't see how it's any good for anyone else.

Sorry - should NOT be getting top marks (As and A*s)

'Only 4' what - outliers?

Yes, I agree it is more complex that most realise, and that cuts all ways.

What do you do, then? At what point does someone need to be considered and treated as an 'outlier'?

(I thought there was a 'not' missing, russians! That is really poor, I agree - I cross posted above)

Sitting exams early is anti-education. What we need are exams that are able to capture a higher range of achievements. The language certifications that are pegged to the CEFR are a great example of this, but more are needed.