Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

Original poster

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

644 replies

happygardening · 10/05/2013 10:20

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.

OP posts:
wordfactory · 15/05/2013 12:26

losing nothing wrong with slight adjustments. But that isn't what we're talking about here.

We're talking about secondary school. And we're atlking about DC who have exhausted the GCSE curriculum early.

The solution - stick 'em in with the A level students is a horrible one. And an impractical one at that!

losingtrust · 15/05/2013 12:26

A child in the top 10 would end up in a pretty much fully academic environment which may switch those with no interest other than my parents wanted me to go off education completely. We have an education authority that has superselectives and some kids were tutored to go. The comprehensives are still very good but one failed to get in to the superselectives and came in to scho

losingtrust · 15/05/2013 12:28

I never mentioned putting them with a level groups as mentioned the top group do the subject in more detail but still do GCSE at normal time which will help with A'Level. The only person to mention going from 13 to 17 was you.

seeker · 15/05/2013 12:28

Do you all think we could just assume that nobody posting on here is uncaring or cruel? And assume that we are all starting from the position of wanting the best possible outcome for all children, not just our own?

OK. With that assumption, how many children are we talking about that are so far ahead of their peers that they can't be accommodated in the same class in more than one or two subjects? Because obviously, it won't work if they have to be moved up in everything. If we're talking about children like that then it's not the top 10%- surely it's more like- oh, I don't know- 2%? 1%?. Those of you who have children like that-( I don't obviously- mine are top 15% by IQ, I think)- what do you want to happen?

Yellowtip · 15/05/2013 12:28

I think actually I'd advocate a middle tier school as well losingtrust.

I was moved up a year at my direct grant school and I was absolutely livid. I couldn't have been more livid. I'd have remonstrated even more than I actually did (if that was possible) if some idiot had suggested me going up to the Sixth Form to do maths or whatever. And of course it's probably only maths or sciences where that sort of idiotic haphazard 'solution' would come into play because subjects such as history and English require emotional maturity which just won't be there.

wordfactory · 15/05/2013 12:28

Suggesting that some DC may enjoy a vocational education, is not the same as saying that 90% of the population should attend them!

losingtrust · 15/05/2013 12:31

Or that the 10% with a high IQ should not.

wordfactory · 15/05/2013 12:31

Well quite yellow.

I mean it's utterly impractical for DC to go up to sixth form. A levels are a course. You build upon it week by week in an intensive way with lots of lessons. You can't have some spotty 13 year old dotting in and out.

RussiansOnTheSpree · 15/05/2013 12:32

Nit Just to clarify, I don't think you have personally said or expressed anything cruel (or indeed 'effing cruel') - you have of course just today been very kind about poor old DD1. But you aren't the only person expressing views in this or all the other threads.

I can't really make up my mind about out of year teaching - I've known it to work brilliantly in some cases, and be a total disaster in other cases. Examples from both sides of the coin being evident in my own family. This makes me think it has to be on a case by case basis.

moonbells · 15/05/2013 12:32

My dad went to secondary modern and left at 14 (was forced to by parents who wanted him to earn money for the household).

His grasp and knowledge of grammar and mathematics is tbh better than a lot of children today who have done GCSEs. His general knowledge is also good and he loves doing crosswords. Yes he's naturally very bright, just has no self-confidence and freezes in tests and exams. I always try and work out what kind of system today would have helped him. Comp, for sure, and the modular GCSEs with lots of course work.

We are all different. That is humanity's strength and its weakness.

The original school plan of the 40s was a tripartite system. There was a technical school in there as well as grammars and sec mods. They never got going. Why?

CecilyP · 15/05/2013 12:32

losing a school that has some of the top 10% taken away (I say some because not all will want to go to a super selective) will not be a secondary modern!

I agree with that. Not everyone would want to go to the selective option for a variety of reasons, and not every selection procedure will select the same 10% (and that is even before your bring tutoring into the mix). Therefore the other schools still have to cater for the full ability range. They may have ability sets, but the effect is that their top sets will be much more a mixed ability classes than they would have been if that 10% had not been sent elsewhere. This can have a knock-on effect higher up the school where there may not be enough able children to run GCSE classes at the higher levels in certain subjects as there are not enough pupils to justify them - this may especially be a problem for smaller schools.

wordfactory · 15/05/2013 12:33

Of course losing.

No one has ever advocated that the top 10% must attend a super selective!

I'm sure some would choose not to go! And they I am sure would be very welcome in a non selective school.

TheOriginalSteamingNit · 15/05/2013 12:34

Thanks Russians

I've never even said I necessarily think classes with the sixth are the best or only answer, or that that should be rolled out as a strategy or an answer.

The fact remains that the child and his parents in question were happy with it, and did not find it 'horrible'. So I'm not sure why it's caused such anxiety.

MomOfTomStubby · 15/05/2013 12:35

losing - on our school coach it's segregated ie 6th Formers at back , senior in the middle and prep at the front so not a good example :)

I have to agree with you about the music though. DS started Year 7 with Grade 8 violin so he is in the senior orchestra with much older kids. He isn't 'damaged' by the experience but at the same time he doesn't enjoy the social side of it since most of the kids are obviously a lot more mature than him.

wordfactory · 15/05/2013 12:40

So what suggestions do you have nit?

Cos the only other solutions I've seen on threads like this are 'do extension work out of class' or 'suck it up.'

The former is usually coupled with vague notions of lunchtime tutorials or evening classes. The former coupled with a sniffy remark about these DC being pretty shite if they can't just suck it up.

Other than that I see blind denial that there needs to be any solution!

wonderingagain · 15/05/2013 12:42

The tripartate system exists at the moment but they've lost the technical school aspect of this. We have a bipartate system which is (1) private, grammar and 'top' state schools and (2) 'bog standard' state schools.

The technical schools have been lost in the name of equality, in the 70s it was decided that every child should have an equal opportunity to go to university. What compounded this was the fact that it's much more expensive to teach someone brick-laying or hairdressing than it is to teach them higher mathematics. So the 70s and 80s cost benefit analyses didn't add up and technical skills were axed and continue to be reduced.

And finally we have a wage system which is completely market driven, offering unskilled workers the same wage as skilled workers. So technical skills don't appeal and are not respected. A plumber charging £30 an hour is a 'rip-off' but a solicitor charging £500 an hour is a respected professional. This means those that don't do academia are made to feel pretty worthless.

TheOriginalSteamingNit · 15/05/2013 12:43

I'll share mine when you share yours for the 90% who don't pass your test! And when you stop pretending that a school without its 20 brightest in each year isn't going to change in any way!

And, perhaps, when you acknowledge that nothing I've said is 'cruel' and that was really quite an unpleasant thing to say.

seeker · 15/05/2013 12:43

Don't worry, TOSN- it's not you that's "cruel".

So are we saying that it's 10% who can't be adequately catered for in an "ordinary" school?

What happens to them where the isn't a selective school for them to go to? Is there any research about this issue?

I am interested that there is such opposition to "moving up" for some subjects. Isn't this something that happens in private schools pretty routinely? And it's on of the things that Home Educators get very excited about being able to do. (Caveat- obviously doing it for everything would be a bad thing)

wonderingagain · 15/05/2013 12:50

When children reach a plateau, why not sit back and let them be children for a while, while their peers catch up? Why push them relentlessly on?

FadedSapphire · 15/05/2013 12:57

Ooh err wondering again- I fear you may have blasphemed.....
But- not such a revolutionary idea to just enjoy school as long as a fun, enriching curriculum so children can sort of grow sideways with knowledge rather than in a straight line up.
Pushing may destroy joy in learning if [which it often is] parent led despite protests to the contrary.

wordfactory · 15/05/2013 12:58

No one is advocating pushing . Just letting these DC work at their own speed.

And what makes you think these DC are just happy to do nowt?

Yellowtip · 15/05/2013 12:59

Well I have to say that's about the worst solution I can think of wondering, not to say somewhat whimsical. I don't see any pushing of my own DC by their teachers. What I do see is them being taught at a pace appropriate to them. I can't see that that precludes them 'being children' Confused. And I have to say I'm not sure where 'being children' and 'getting up to all sorts of no good' starts and ends. Anyway, they'd certainly be bored rigid.

MomOfTomStubby · 15/05/2013 12:59

wonder - why are the two mutually exclusive? I push my kids and they still have time to 'be children'. I be interested to know what your kids do that you think that pushed kids don't.

wordfactory · 15/05/2013 13:00

I'll tell you what, DC who are being appropriately challenged in class have a hell of a lot more time to be children than if they had to spend their free time in 'extension classes' or being bussed to the local sixth form college!

Yellowtip · 15/05/2013 13:03

The term pushing is used to make that sort of pace sound negative word, whereas in fact it's positive. It doesn't seem to be fully understood. My DC have all really enjoyed school and don't appear to have felt any particular pressure at all. Well, not unhealthy pressure.

There's no contradiction between faster pace and enrichment. The two are entirely complementary.