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.

More able children should be supported in the mainstream as should other groups...
Not saying that always happens by any means for ALL children.

I think it was weondering who stated that the 'G&T Brigade' cause an underclass at schools where they're present, thus causing the middle to get a poor standard of education.

That's ok Russian.
All getting a bit heated here eh. .

Faded well, stalkers aside, it's alright. :) I agree with you that if everyone was properly supported then having everyone in the same school would be fine but IME there are certain types of learner that are not supported adequately, and one of those groups is the ones who would be going to superselectives in those places that have them. Unlike some GS supporters I do have a child in a comp and there is no certainty that I will even try and send DD2 to the school DD! attends (considerations unrelated to her academic ability, but certainly influenced by her personality and learning style which are quite different to DD1).

I'm always particularly wary of the people who gleefully opine that 'nobody would be in the top set for everything' to be honest. That reads as rather.....mean. And almost bitter.

Word Yes. It wasn't the nicest thing I've ever read on MN to be honest.

I think I would be inclined to give G&Ts programme more relevance, and integrate them better into the school day. At the moment, most of seems to be 9am sessions on a Saturday on other side of town (well, obv not the other side for everyone, but you know what I mean), or summer holiday workshops. And it seems there's a requirement that it mustn't really be extension work to anything you do in lessons: so it will be 'Thinking about Philosophy' or something that, whilst probably interesting and worthwhile, isn't connected with the curriculum.

I see why: you shouldn't get a boost in the subjects everyone is doing just because you're already good at them! Latin GSCE was one thing which I thought was really valuable, though, and I'd like to see more like this, and integrated into the school day rather than relying on parents to ferry children at the weekends, thus already eliminating the less-than dedicated - or indeed any child who quite reasonably doesn't feel an invitation to learn sign language at 9am on Saturday mornings is a very tempting reward for doing well at school already!

I think much of the effort and resources behind these well-meaning programmes could perhaps be channelled to source - and could relate specifically to what that top 10% are actually doing.

fadedsapphire
its a comp. There are kids with no specific SEN type problem who will lack the intelligence even to work the tills at B&Q.
IQ is a normal distribution : the tails at both ends are equally sized!

Well in the olden days when I was at school there were children who were in the top stream for everything throughout school. No streaming for PE though which may have changed things... All in the horrible, run through cold showers together...happy days!!

I must learn to type quicker [not get distracted by my 3 year old wanting attention from his slack mother!].
The thread moves on and I am behind.....

G and T also makes mistakes; my non-g and T DD complains that she is always helping those "recognised as G & T for technology" in DT lessons, and gets higher marks. She just doesn't get invited to any of the jollies.

nit that's what I've been very keen to ensure DS has.

I want what he needs to be just part and parcel of his school day. But you do need a critical mass of students at the same level for that...

My sense has always been that there is a reasonable-sized core of children who are top set for everything, but always a few 'surprises', particularly in maths sets and out of them, if that makes sense.

I guess I'm just thinking it could take place in the top set, in the school day, word, rather than for some of them, who can be bothered, at the weekend. I mean, if the money's going to get spent (and of course, increasingly it isn't), I personally would do it via the school rather than host institutions.

Oh there are always kids in the top set for everyhting.

DSwould be in a comp. But isn't at his superselective. But there are some boys who are! Brilliant minds and also extremely dilligent!

Natch!

I suppose the thing I keep coming back to when I read your posts about your son and his school, word, is where are all the children like him and his peers in areas where there are no super selectives- or whose parents can't send the, to private super selectives? Because they must be somewhere, and if they are, why can't they be a critical mass at a comprehensive school? I feel as if I'm missing something. If we are talking top 10% then that's enough kids to make a set at any school, surely? And surely it would be better socially and in all other ways if those children weren't sequestered off, if we could be sure their academic needs were fully met?

I have yet to see a school where gifted kids are catered for, tbh. Where are these mythical places that differentiate for them and run trips for extension? And I speak as someone whose 13yo is in her 8th school!!

I think the point is, everyone is being failed. A quick jaunt around the G&T board doesn't leave you sitting back with a cup of tea relaxing in the knowledge that all is well, ditto sn. And the primary boards are almost as angst filled.

Maybe that's because I haven't ever come across a G&T brigade, though. Usually gifted kids parents are the ones being ostracized, not clubbing together and trampling everyone else underfoot. I'm not talking about G&T when I refer to gifted, btw, talking about the kids psych tested and labelled that way, so not context based by setting. (Ie they would be 'gifted' whether they were in a low performing comp or a super selective).

I think it would be very hard to deal with a truly gifted child in a conventional school setting- the one in a 1000 or rarer genius level child. But word (sorry, word, but your're so open about your family that I can't help using them as examples) is very clear that she isn't talking about children like that- just very bright but within "normal" range. And I really can't see why those children couldn't be accommodated in an ordinary school, once the system has been properly overhauled.

Good lord, pofaced, I would never try to jaunt around MNs G&T board, but I don't see it as really reflective of the attitudes of most parents with bright children, to be honest!

You might as well say that from reading MN, it is reasonable to state that marriage is a failed institution, or that we shouldn't have disabled spaces because they make everyone cross and are never used for purpose!

pofaced
DD is in the top 1% according to her stats.
I'm happy with her at her comp because I know that she will stretch sideways and learn
and that most G&T parents are not as bright as they think they are - DH meets lots at his events all over the country.

there is a BIG difference between prodigy and genius
by the age of 20, most of the former have vanished into the top 3%

I'm including the one in a thousand well within the normal range, tbh. I know kids who have tested above 99.99th centile, (some of them are mine, lol) and they are nowhere near genius. They should easily be incorporated into mainstream education. And are. But just chugging along with everyone else, not working to their potential. There comes a point later when self-extension should kick in, but if a child has had that trained out of them for years in a mainstream setting, it's hard to suddenly expect it to happen in the early teens.

The same thing happens at the other end of the spectrum - but children who are working at first or second centile are more obviously 'different' to their peer group. They may still have individual needs that aren't being met.

In most circumstances, it means that the lower performing cohort are (rightly) given the additional funding and support, but it doesn't come without a plethora of hoop jumping, crying and begging from parents. And the support is patchy at best.

I'm no fan of hiving off all children deemed sn to special schools. But due to the closures of so many of these settings in cost cutting exercises, there are now no longer enough places to support those who would benefit from a more specialist setting.

"You might as well say that from reading MN, it is reasonable to state that marriage is a failed institution."

I think that there is wide consensus that marriage is a failed institution these days!

But why should they "chug along with everyone else?^ Why shouldn't the school challenge them?

Lol at the relationships board.

They are all self selecting groups though - those that are having ishoos with their marriage will gravitate for relationship advice, those struggling with educational matters for bright kids, will presumably gravitate to G&T (although, mostly that consists of folk asking if their kid is G&T and then being told nah, so it doesn't necessarily follow )

My only point about haunting around the board here, is that no one is happy. Which was kinda where we started. no deep intent.

Seeker, I totally agree. I would love everyone's children to be able to meet their own individual potential. And that isn't happening. I used chugging as an example of what is currently happening - these kids are not being catered for in any way, and are being forced to work years below their capability, because the system is not agile enough to let them work to their potential.

There is effort at the other end of the spectrum to try to encourage development, but not at the 'top' end. I use the term 'top' loosely.

I'm in no way advocating that this is a good thing. It's appalling.