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.

seeker absolutely no one has advocated a replication of the Kent system on a macro level.

So. How will this 10% thing work?

It'll work the same as it does already.

You'll have some super selectives schools. Kids will apply if they're within the top 10% range and their parents think they'll benefit. Not everyone will want to.

Then you work on widening access. And contextualising.

Seeker I think the bog standard secondary school is so full of diverse levels, abilities, behaviours and needs that they can adapt to meet the needs of all children. The ones with the elite catchment are the ones that fail a lot of children that are outside the mainstream although normally those in the average levels.

The more adaptable a school is, the more likely it is the child will reach their potential. It is extremely hard for them but it is workable. It would be a lot more workable though if these children didn't all end up going to the same school because all their aspirational friends moved away in year 5.

Yes: bearing in mind that many who are broadly in favour of a comprehensive system are also receptive to the idea of super-selectives, as a starting point - what proportion, and how?

How many schools will there need to be? How big will they be- and where will they be built? What will the admissions process be? Who will pay for transport to them?

So when you widen access, do you make it that more than 10% can go?

And 10% of how big an area? What size schools? In the example of the city where I live, which has eight comprehensives and serves several villages on the outskirts, are we saying 10% of those children? Or a wider area?

And would the top, say 2% be well served subsumed within the top 10?

And how do you make sure that these schools, like all other selective schools, are not the preserve of the well off/privileged/middle class?

I know one thing I'd institute: no child can take the test unless his or her parents sign a contract saying they will take up the place offered if the child does not pass.

I can see the parents from the three private schools where I live suddenly deciding they're, provisionally, not so committed to fee-paying as they thought, when a prestigious free place becomes available!

That is essentially the system in Birmingham. A small number is superselectives dominated by MC children that in no way serves the community as a whole.

Xenia. Are you aware that in Australia they effectively,give a voucher for private schooling. The state gives the resident the amount they would spend on, the education and is in effect a voucher. The benefit of that is Australia believe parents should have the right to decide on their DC"S education. Australia also has Selective High Schools in NSW and VICTORIA. Unlike the U.k they are increasing, the no of "SELECTIVE" Schools because,they realise its the way to go. I believe 30% should go to Grammar Schools 50% High Schools, 20% remedial schools. I know SEEKERS heart rate has gone up to 200.

Good for Australia then.
Then if lots of parents want selectives those will thrive. If they want technical schools at 14 those would do well like the JCB school in the UK. If parents want comps or religious schools those would thrive. In other words parents choose and use the voucher -all schools being privatised in the process.

Word - thanks. Not only 'people' in general but that particular poster. But what can you do?

Xenia. On the thread about the 11+. I talk about the J.C.B Academy in Staffordshire and what a great job it is doing. It is giving DC"s A vocational as well as academic education, some DC"s will go to university from there and study engineering, others will get aprenticeships, and others who have found, conventional schools difficult and boring,have found "ENJOYMENT",self worth and skills that will make them "VERY EMPLOYABLE".

Ah, right. I read about the JCB place.

russian- if that was directed at me- please read what I say- and what I have said on this thread, rather than what you think I am saying.

Technical academies at 14 are working well. 11 for me is too young but at 14 a lot of children do know more what sort of future they want. Even an apprenticeship at 14 which is when some kids do get switched off with a day a week of vocational but also English and Maths. Some people may learn better in a work place environment. I am thinking of the gypsy grorls taken on by the dressmaker as an example. Traditional schools would n

I mentioned last night that no country had successfully abolished private schools and somebody listed countries like China and Noth Korea as having done so.
Yup.
That is why Kim Yong UN went to school in Switzerland and why top British schools have a very tidy line in educating the children of the top of the Chinese and Russian Communist parties : often under pseudonyms.
No sane country abolishes "elite" education for those willing to cough up.

BUT
This discussion has been diverted by those obsessing about the "top 10%"
which strangely enough always includes those posters' children

when in fact, if all state schools were forced to offer equal access to all children, the bright kids we do not know about would get a chance
which would be good for the UK economy on the world stage.

There is no such thing as open access as there will always be oversubscription criteria to 'fail'.

but if that criteria is distance
and the state was required to ensure that there was a catchment school for every child - even in new build homes
the 6% at private school would create the needed slack in the esystem

Would the distance criteria apply to the superselective schools too? Would there need to be a superselective available to every child just in case? I really don't see how it would work. I really think it would be better to make sure that comprehensive schools are genuinely comprehensive, and able to deal with all comers.

what superselectives?

I genuinely do not believe that ANY child needs to be educated in a bubble at the taxpayers expense.

If you really think little Tarquin is that bright - without having met every other child in the cohort - you can pay for your selection.
Otherwise EVERY school is on distance
BUT
with rigorous setting in all subjects in every year group so that kids are taught to the best of their ability in each subject.

Its not rocket science : thousands of schools away from London and selective counties already do just that.

I agree. But there are those who think the only way forward is to have super selectives and nearly comprehensives- and I was trying to see whether/if that would work.

seeker
those people either tend to be those who can afford private or those arrogant enough to assume that their kids will get into the selective school magically.

That arrogance is exactly why social Mobility in the UK has ground to a shuddering halt.

Once you get away from the M25, the geographical density of schools drops to the point that selectives become irrelevant.

Talkin Two of the people taking that position in this thread could not afford or would not be prepared to pay for private education due to size of family among other considerations. We both live rather more than 100 miles away from the M25 and have kids already at a super selective.

I'm sure there are people living close to the M25 who would be prepared to go private and who don't necessarily have a basis in personal experience for their views on superselectives. But not everyone who supports superselectives is like that.