How do we ensure all UK children regardless of back ground/ability receive high quality education?

[happygardening]

Contrary to what some may think I'm not anti state ed and as someone who works with disadvantaged children it really matters to me that they receive a high quality broad education and they fulfil their potential. But sadly in many cases they are not (there are I know exceptions) frequently their parents cannot assist them for a variety of reasons.
Is there an answer to this problem or are they condemned by their circumstances which are not of their own making to remain at the bottom of the heap?
No judgey DM comments please.

And some of them spend far too much time engaging in argy bargy online.... and

There was an item in yesterday's Times that people in the UK today are less bright than people in the Victorian age (apparently we are slower in reaction times, thinking times etc which shows lower IQ) because nowadays very bright people have hardly any children and those who have low IQs have a lot (which is the opposite of what we want). That also presumably has an impact on how children are at school.

By the way the only bit of Skint I saw was a man showing his bollicks off. Nice!

Nearly brought up my popcorn that me and the kids scoffed during Eurovision.

Well Xenia. I suggest you watch 16 and counting. Those parents are generally intelligent.

losingtrust - with programs like this the producers usually choose articulate people. Otherwise the program would be very boring if the participants can't string together a coherent sentence.

I am not agreeing with Xenia. I am merely pointing out that the people appearing on TV are cherry picked by the producers and if the producer wants to make the point that all benefit recepients are scroungers for example then that is who he will place in front of the camera.

Xenia - you mean back in Victorian times they had experts that went to the houses of the WC and gave their children tests under scientific conditions and that those same tests were applied today under the same conditions and sampling criteria?

Unfortunately The Times is behind a pay wall. Otherwise I love to read the details of this 'scientific' study.

I agree with mummytime, on the whole.

Is it time we defined our terms? We're all talking about the "very bright"- who are they? And what about the other end of the scale? We all tend to have bright children- but the needs of the other end of the bell curve need to be thought about too.

Are we all agreed that 90% of children can be easily accommodated in a comprehensive school? Are we just talking about the to 10%? Or is it 80% with the bottom and the top 10% needing different provision?

Do we have any evidence (proper evidence, not anecdote) about what happens to that top 10 % in fully comprehensive areas?

Well we know from the Sutton Trust that the bright but disadvanatged do better in selective education than in comprehensive education.

And we know that bright DC who attend selective education are far more likely to get to a top university...

Go back to the original point of the thread. It is about a good quality education for all regardless of background and ability. Your point about the too 10 seems to be leading to selective education and not he point of this thread. For what is worth. Fully comprehensive area and the top 10 per cent on the whole go to good quality universities.

The disadvantaged on the whole do not get into selective education unless it is the top stream of a comp. GS dominated by private school and tutored children yes even in disadvantaged areas they exist. The day they bring this awful system back to the UK is the day I go private.

Maybe have a look at the number of free schools in a GS if you think it will help truly disadvantaged children whose parents don't give a toss.

Mom several papers have it though I shall refrain from giving the DM link!

www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10053977/The-Victorians-were-smarter-than-us-study-suggests.html

Here's a detailed summary by someone involved
iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/the-decline-in-general-intelligence.html

main reference:
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000470

Some of us are advocating changing that losing.

By the same token, Oxbridge has woefully small numbers of disadvanategd students. But we aint abolishing 'em.

Losingtrust- I raised the top 10% thing because I actually believe that good comprehensive is the way forward for all but there are always people saying that it doesn't work for the very brightest. I thought it was worth defining the "very brightest"- and trying to identify why people think it doesn't work. And to find out what happens in the vast majority of the country which is fully comprehensive.

Thanks Seeker. Apologies for that. Really detest the GS/comp debate which is always advocated by MC parents who have the wear with all to get their kids in and save on paying private fees.

Oxbridge colleges are working with schools in inner city areas to try and change that. We need select universities to keep foreign money coming in like private schools but not for all good who see better career prospects from other universities depending on the course.

Me too. As I've said before, there"s never a "bring back secondary moderns" campaign, is there?

Anyway- what need to happen to comprehensive schools to make sure they really do cater for all abilities?

What needs to happen to comps to cater for all abilities is they need to have decent facilities to encompass academic and vocational teaching and enough teachers so classes can be set/streamed properly. And we need cash and space to do this. Sadly, though sponsorship may find the cash, the loss of vast numbers of playing fields in the past 20 years cannot be reversed. So most schools don't have breathing room, or anywhere to put new buildings.

What about building super schools linked up to try and cater for this? It must be so frustrating to not meet all needs just to expansion. I know it would mean kids travelling further to school but this may be worth it. Maybe breaking down schools into year groups is not the right answer and having a mix so someone who is good at Maths for example is taught in a higher age group.

I don't think the Oxbridge parallel works, does it?

"Maybe breaking down schools into year groups is not the right answer and having a mix so someone who is good at Maths for example is taught in a higher age group."
This was suggested on another thread and was rejected.

At the local primary schools those kids who are gifted in year 6 start having lessons at the secondary schools for subjects such as Matgs to really challenge them and Year 7s and 8s take part in challenges to work together. Also our local universities which are very good take groups of talented children and work with them on engineering and science. Example DS has been going to Birmingham University from Year 7. If these types of experiences work now it does give provision for more talented children in the comp system. Industry can help to which would help on vocational courses although health and safety always an issue. When working for top 3 accountancy firm I went into schools to help with reading and teach presentation skills. This is happening now so expansion of this type of targeted subject specific intervention would really help in schools to motivate kids who would otherwise have parents who have no aspirations or who are too pushy in the wrong areas.

Out of interest, why was it rejected seeker? Missed the other thread.