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.

Another excellent reason for teaching them in a separate school, clearly.

Vocational courses from Y10 onwards. In a FULL range of subjects - not just childcare, mechanics or hair and beauty.

My DD has MLD's, and has HAD to do traditional GCSE's, of which she will only achieve a 'D' grade in Catering. She HAD to do trad GCSE's rather than the vocational courses her school offered because her school were unable to offer a vocational Catering course.

So much of Y10 & 11 will be wasted doing GCSE's that she has no hope of passing, even with 12.5 - 15 hrs a week help and support.

If she could have done an NVQ lvl 2 instead of GCSE's, she would have been able to go straight into NVQ lvl 3 at 16, meaning that she would still attract Child Tax Credits and Child Benefit until 19, which would allow her to then do the specialist 2 year patisserie course she wants to do.

Instead, she will only be able to do one year of the pat course, as she will then HAVE to work, as I will lose HB, Child Benefit AND Child Tax Credits for her, and be expected to feed and clothe her on fresh air.

(I'm disabled and unable to work, so can't increase my income)

So there is no point in starting the patisserie course as she won't be able to finish it.

Really frustrating that I can't help her to achieve her full potential, in an area she does have skills in.

If she had been able to start a vocational course at 14, it would have benefited her far more.

Well if comprehensives are failing the middle, then they really are pointless.

Cos I'm pretty certain they're not much cop for the very bright. And the SN boards are packed with posters desperately trying to access a decent education for their DC and having to fight bloody tooth and nail!

So who is getting a decent education, then?

Nobody, clearly! Now that Sapphire has pointed out the objective fact that the middle group are screwed as well, let's just forget it.

wondering I can see how that would be infuriating and depressing. :( However, it doesn't happen that way at all schools. At DD2's school (primary) the top table have had all their directed lesson time taken over by the middle and bottom tables. 'Because they need the help'. And it's very difficult to argue because, apparently, they do. But so do the kids on the top table who are getting increasingly bored, depressed and in one case really unruly. :(

There should be special trips for the middle too but in my experience they don't get them Wondering. Still don't think it is a reason for separating abilities to different schools but somehow making the current primary/ comp system value all children and their different requirements.
Pigs flying over my head I see....
No child should feel they are somehow inferior to 'the top table', top 10% academically. No top 10 percenter should feel somehow superior to the 90 percenters.
All is screwed up

Well, in DD2's class currently the top table certainly don't feel superior. They feel like 'the kids nobody wants to teach'. And they don't get special outings or the like, either. At least, not outings that everyone else doesn't get too (which is quite the right way to do it, I agree).

Incidentally - a couple of the other mums have been kicking up a fuss since Xmas. I thought they were just being, you know, a bit micro, until DD2 started saying she didn't want to go to school because it was 'so boring nowadays' and I asked some follow-up questions.

Anyway - this is by the by.

It seems that there is support on the thread for all children of whatever ability being taught to their ability, and allowed to maximise their potential, and having their unique strengths recognised and their own particular weaknesses addressed constructively. Obviously, that's hardly surprising. We then have various people with different life experiences suggesting ways in which the treatment of various types of learner could be improved. Some of these suggestions - eg Couthy's proper vocational track, with dedicated facilities and proper parity of esteem - would definitely require new premises for existing schools, or new schools entirely. The suggestions from wondering and faded above actually, to me, seem to indicate that their ideal world would see the 'G&T brigade' removed from their kids' orbits too. I must admit, that I think DS has benefitted from being in an environment where he could play to his strengths (maths, creative subjects, but nothing requiring much writing) and where his primary challenges (dyslexia and AS) didn't dominate everything. But I think most kids are probably a bit more resilient than DS.

whereas at DCs comp there are five levels of setting each of which get two classes for each subject grouping
so
the top kids get attention in their lessons and work at their speed
the second set ditto
the third set ditto
the fourth set ditto with lots of extra support
and the bottom set are given appropriate help

and the sets are DIFFERENT for maths, English, PE and humanities
so nobody gets lost
its called targeting and ANY decent school should be able to do it.

I think Talkinpeace's school sounds good.
I certainly don't want able children removed from the comprehensive mix.
Children should be taught to their strengths within school but muck in together socially.

There are 5 levels of setting in ds's secondary modern school too. If they can do it there, why can't they do it everywhere? It's not the schools's fault that ds's needs are only being partially met by the sets he's in- if it was a comprehensive school with similarly rigorous setting he would be fine.

CouthyMow - A while ago I was in a thread where a poster questioned the value of getting non academic kids to take GCSEs in traditional subjects like MFLs, geography and the like when they would be better suited to vocational courses like catering, auto mechanics or plumbing. The poster (poor sod) got flamed for being a snob for thinking that a plumber may not want to learn Latin.

Unfortunately the people who makes the decisions thinks that your DD will be a much more rounded person if she studied traditional GCSE subjects. She may not be able to achieve good grades but at least she will be 'well rounded'.

"The suggestions from wondering and faded above actually, to me, seem to indicate that their ideal world would see the 'G&T brigade' removed from their kids' orbits too"

I don't think anyone wants this, do they? I think everyone just wants an equal distribution of attention and "stuff". The new OfSTED Framework should help with this- any school inclined to let any particular group coast should be caught out now. And surely it's not good for the very bright to be sequestered away- one of my beefs with the Kent grammar school system is it's tendency to tell kids that they are "the elite" and "the best of the best" (both direct quotations from head teachers!). It really does seem to me that we need to find a way of meeting the needs of the outliers in the same schools that everyone else goes to. For everyone's good- including the outliers.

I'm afraid I've completely lost the plot with this thread. Maybe it's because I don't equate "traditional, academic" education with "high quality". To my mind, a "high quality" education would be one that is tailorable to a child's individual requirements. Whether or not that can be achieved within a single school for a diverse group of children is one question. Another one is how you determine what these requirements actually are.

I'm interested to know what people mean when they say "the top 10%" of students. Top at what? How do you assess this in a way that doesn't allow people to be able to buy themselves into this group? Would someone who was in this group at age 7, 11, 13, whatever still be in this group 5 years later? Likewise for those outside it? If not, how do you allow mobility between the groups?

I can believe that it may not be possible to cater for everyone's needs within a single style of school. My worry with something like the comp + superselective model (I presume the latter means a school taking in a "select" few from a wide geographical area) is that the non-superselectives will be deemed "crap" merely by virtue of not being a superselective, and that a huge industry - accessible only to the well-off - will grow around the process of getting into the superselective. Also, is it obvious that a tradition, academic style of teaching (which is presumably what people are looking for in such a school) what the "top" students want or actually need?

I guess another way of putting this is that I'd like to be confident that the solution people are proposing isn't merely a construction designed to avoid their own children ending up in the same classroom as the kids off the rough estate.

When I was at school [O'level, CSE era] levelling was very obvious eg First year 1:1- 1:5 streaming of classes. There was some snootiness in the Top class towards the bottom I am sorry to say. By second year you still had 5 classes but could move around in Maths, French and English. Due to my appalling maths I had the privilege of being in top group for most subjects but dropped down to two in French and ...erhem... in maths [no other generally 'top' group person there]. Socially it was good for me though at the time I didn't think so.
Somehow, all 'sets' need to be valued equally by pupils and teachers alike. This may take a change in societal thinking.

Fadedsapphire
because DCs school streams for PE, many of the geeks get a healthy dose of sets 4 and 5 when the thick but agile kids hurtle past them in set 1
or the brilliant at maths, set 4 for art brigade ...
that is the joy of a comp with setting
VERY VERY FEW kids are in top sets for everything - maybe 1 or 2 per year group (of 300) and they ARE the exceptional ones.

And [I repeat] I DON'T think more able children should have their own special schools and not mix with everyone else.
What are we advocating here academic apartheid? Horrible...

Sounds good Talkinpeace...

Though 'Thick' a bit harsh!!

Eeeeeowwwfftz At least two of the people on this thread supporting superselectives (me and Word) were the kids off the rough estate when we were at school I certainly don't have a problem with my kids being educated with kids from estates, rough or otherwise - DD2's primary is not located in a 'good' area and DS goes to the comp assigned through the feeder system we have where I live.

Faded but you don't want what you call the 'G&T' brigade to be educated appropriate to their needs. That's what I call horrible.

At no point have I mentioned G and T on this thread...

Russian- please could you try not to take offence so easily. It does seem that if anyone suggests anything other than a superselective you think they are being horrible.

Of course G&T children should be educated appropriately. One of the things this thread is about is how that can best happen.

Sorry Faded I confused you with wondering - you had posts following on from each other. Apologies.