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.

Our years 5 and 6 are taught Maths and English in cross year group settings.

I think because it wasn't considered appropriate for younger children to be working alongside older ones. I didn't really understand why, but I don't have a top 10% child!

I wonder whether some sort of vertical setting based entirely on ability not age could work? I can see it being good for the bright ones- maybe the no so bright might find it demotivating to work with much younger children, though.

Understand seeker. My dd may be working with year 5 children for Maths when she is in year 6 but really she is only a couple of months older than that year herself and I think for self esteem it may be good get her and competition for the younger ones. The school is broken into early states which includes nursery, reception and year 1 which is essentially all learning through play. Then middle where more academic stuff starts and then upper stages Years 5 and 6 which have more ability rather than age teaching as the mix of abilities is so great within those years but it does allow children to move between groups and more targeted learning.

It took me a while to get used to the concept but I think it would actually benefit the weaker ones to not necessarily always be in the bottom group based on age.

Seeker, teacherwith2kids whose comments are always reflective and knowledgeable pointed out that the percentage which might really need teaching separately is the top one percent or fewer. It is a vanishingly small number.

The top ten percent is actually quite a number of children and contrary to what has been said, perhaps on another thread, i think it would make quite a difference to the school community. To say that moving the top ten percent makes no difference is to ignore the contribution these children make to the community.

Matthew Parris wrote recently of a visit to a JCB sponsored school which was very technically/vocationally oriented. It impressed him against his expectations and it sounded very well thought out.

There is no answer that is best for all. As Talkinpeace said somewhere, you can speak to top educationists in any country and nowhere will you find one who claims that given a tweak here and there, their country's as things broadly right.

Other countries have different social beliefs - one which believes in social cohesion will be less keen on elitism. (I think Scandanavia and The Netherlands come under that description). Some of those countries cited admiringly in our current concern with 'getting on' have clear hierarchies which I find saddening when i have actually lived among them.

I don't have an answer, but I don't think there is one.

Well, it's not going to do much for the self esteem of the older kids who are sharing a table with kids from a younger year group.

My DS was about a year ahead of his primary school peers maths-wise (he had an aptitude for maths which we nutured at home). His teachers would set him harder work and they would get him to help the other kids. That worked for us.

Pragmatically I actually think it would be more helpful to the greater good to have the lowest ability children educated separately

Lots of parents just don't value education.
They see it as free childcare.
Until education is seen by the children at home as something to aspire to then nothing will change.

As mentioned Mom if done properly it will actually help those older kids working with the younger group as it means they are not seen as the dunce of their own class. Some children will have special needs and be taught with a teaching assistant in the group but this cross year teaching reduces the need for this. Your child may have been the only one working with the year 6 children in maths and then one of a select group in year 6 who could go to secondary for Maths coaching surely that would have helped you. As mentioned my DD may be working with the younger group and be top of that. It is only the parents who could make her feel inferior and that is where the problem lies. Get with it or take the child out of the school - that is the Head's view. It is a very oversubscribed school with big classes and double form entry but as a result has more teachers to challenge all abilities.

losing I am one of the people completely against moving DC out of their peer group.

I just do not think it's appropriate for a 13 year old pre pubescent child to spend a large propertion of their day with 17/18 year olds!

seeker you claim not to be able to ubnderstand this? Really? Would you be happy for that t happen to your DS? I mean it would easily solve the prolem of his being at the top of his year, no?

The classes are not referred to as Year 5 or 6 classes but upper stages. In the same way that children are taught not to just form friendships with people in their own class but to think of all the classes as one grouping. The parents did moan when this and 60 in reception was introduced but now it has bedded in us working really well.

But word you are talking about a large proportion of the day. I am talking about for a subject - they would still be in form and discuss issues such as civil liberties etc in their form group which is age appropriate. Not everyone is going to be top in Maths and English quite often it is one or the other.

I would never move a child out of the year group completely but let's face it. Some people are better than others in certain subjects and the 11+ never solved that but just gave one group of children a different path to others at too young an age setting plus effort and work ethic was not tested.

I imagine the 17 and 18 year olds don't spend the lesson swigging beer and talking about blow jobs though! (despite what one might hear about comprehensives...). In the case described, it wasn't 'a large proportion' of the child's day - wasn't it just for some maths lessons?

I don't know if it would be perfect for everyone to operate that way, but in the post mentioned, it seemed like a solution everyone was happy with.

To be honest the blow jobs discussions tend to take place more in the 13 year old category!

I was just thinking the same!

losing - I can't see how a kid that sees himself as a dunce in his class is going to feel any better having a younger child on his table. What will be going through his mind is that not only are his peers cleverer than him, so are kids from the younger form.

Yes, in Year 6 my DS would have held his own in a Year 7 maths class but I'm not that pushy :) The main thing was that he was sufficiently challenged and happy so I didn't see the need to push him any harder.

Some children, in fact many children in the top 10%, are advanced in quite a number of subjects.

If my DC were at comp, he'd have to spend quite a bit of his day out of his year group if he were to be doing the work he's doing now!
So would all the boys in his school.

But that's okay is it?

I can kinda see now why russians got so pissed with seeker. It does smack of you guys not really wanting to accept that the top 10% need anyhting. That you don't actually give a shit so long as the majority are happy. Because from where I'm sitting, suggesting that these DC should not be allowed to have a normal childhood is very very cruel.

Not to brag but they also have resident professional artist so my DD has really benefited as she is very good at that but just not a Maths bod which is strange from two mathematical parents!

Just to let you know. My DS in top 5 in the comp but far better at English than Maths and his school just put the kids in fasttrack groups where they go into far more depth in the subject as well as the NC but have the challenges cross year to get the working with the year above. Don't see it as an issue. Don't see the need to do this in every subject just science, Maths and English. I believe the timetable is far broader than this.

Since when did anyone mention they would not have a proper childhood. Really!

The alternative is to keep 10% who were top at age 11 happy and not the other 90% including late developers but that is ok is it?

So why not ive parents the choice?

Choice 1: a comp where we will provide for your bright child by putting him in the top set where appropriate and out of his year group where top set isn't adequate.

Choice 2: a selective school where your child can be taught with his peers.

Let the parents and DC choose whoch will be better for them! Why do you guys get to remove choice?

Like word I would also be deeply unhappy at any of my DC moving out of their cohort for individual lessons with much older DC, however close they are to the top percentile. Quite inappropriate socially. And socially normality matters enormously to the overwhelming majority of these kids. MN threads often give the impression that the DC in question are socially awkward and have no interest in life beyond maths. That's not my experience at all (leaving aside the fact that none of mine are amazing at maths). There's no good reason why the cleverest DC should be discriminated against. They should have an educational experience appropriate to their needs which allows them to achieve their potential but without being moved from their ordinary peer group.

In practical terms these fancy ideas wouldn't work timetable-wise. And they're all as divisive as selective education in any event.

In terms of a campaign to bring back secondary moderns I'd join. I think a great many DC would feel far more successful and have far greater self-esteem following a vocational path earlier rather than sitting in lessons they find dreary and with which they don't engage.

losing I really cannot see how the remaining 90% will be detrimentally affected!

People keep saying these pupils have a huge impact on a school. How? What is it that they actually do?