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.

Wondering you are heading for trouble with that comment MN. Letting the child be average oh my.

Okaaaayyyy...so we've ditched the let em sit in sixth form solution, to let em do nothing?

Bloody hell losing, have you given this any thought at all?

I never mentioned the sixth form so don't know where that comment came from?

I did not say I agreed with wondering either.

Nit - I don't understand though why you keep insisting that to follow the top 10% model would mean robbing every school of 20 of its top pupils. DD1's school takes about the top 10%, it serves a wide area. There are, in her year, at the very most, 2 other kids who would have gone to the comp that DS is at. And maybe 6 other kids, in total, who would be spread between the other 4 comps and the posh schools. I know for a fact that 2 of those 6 went to the junior departments of the posh schools so would probably have stayed on. I do not believe that any of the comps have been materially affected by not having DD1 and her contemporaries there. Now, for the people living closer to the GS yes, there might be more than 2 or 3 that 'belong' to any given school - but I cannot believe that there is a single secondary school within the GS's 'area' that could claim it had lost 20 kids to the GS. That's the sort of model we are talking about - not the top 10% in every school, the top 10% by ability, not by quantity, of the cohort. Over a wide area.

Russians -

To think about how it would work here, I made a rough working-out based on the idea that you'd have one selective in the city, and if it took 10% of the 11 year olds in the whole city, which would be from each year 7 currently in the state comprehensives we have, that would work out at about 20 children from each.

This seems to be the rough idea that many of us are working from, from what I can see, and I accept it's rather 'back of an envelope', but I was imagining how it sounded most likely to play out here.

There's more to be said for what you describe!

(also the comprehensives we have also take pupils from surrounding villages, so it's already broader than just the city).

I imagine most here would expect their children to be in the top 10%?
Or am I wrong?

Of course!

Mmmmm.....

Exactly

Russians well I live in the area close to the school and you're right: not a single comp is 20 kids down.

The term 'pushing' means simply that the child is not extending themselves, they are being pushed into it. Fine if that's what you want to do but you can hardly expect the other 90% of the population to do the same and ergo, you can't then complain that the school is doing anything wrong. They will simply have to get 'bored stiff' as you put it. This is your problem and you shouldn't be foisting it on everyone else.

Faded since all of mine go to or are going to or have gone to the superselective I've no axe to grind.

Well that's an interesting take wondering, thank you for that.

None of mine are bored since they've all had the right education for them. So actually, I don't have a problem :)

faded I have twins. One top 10%, one not!

And?

They will go to different schools then wordfactory or your local comprehensive together?

On umbers from comps. The ST say 'we have found no evidence of collateral harm of any other school'.

Also wondering you do seem to be missing the obvious point that education is supposed to serve a societal purpose as well as being a good for the individual concerned. We need to value clever people, not just make them all grey.

Imagine you had 2 kids of the same,academic abilty one kid,middle class family a gp mother father a teacher,the oher kid father a labourer mother a shop assistant. Both at the same comprehensive school. How much does social circle life experience,family friends effect kids life chances. Do kids from these backgrounds get drawn ,back down to the other kids around them. Do these kids not need to be in selective education where the average of the kids is higher. What would be the difference in gcse grades, bewtreen the two kids.

They attend different schools. One selective. One not. Like plenty of other posters on MN...

Yes Mumsnet is its own society....

I believe happy and russians are in the same position.

They wouldn't go to either of the kinds of schools we're talking about though, would they word?

I do mean the life chances of the kid with a father who is a labourer,before anyone asks who i mean.