We haven't had a state vs private debate for a while! What did you think of the Fiona Millar programme on schools?

[WideWebWitch]

Well?

And yes, value added results have been published for the first time this year to the public

Oh and another point, the way that the point score is calcuated is, iMHO, flawed too.

But Zebra can answer this one better than me.

BTW my last sentence of my first big post ought to read

So SOME really good schools will have a value added measure of around 100 (as predicted so to speak) when many of the pupils are above average and are making good prgress and even prgress BETTER than expected

We suffer at the other end too Popsycal. If you are going to end KS3 at level 8, you have obviously travelled through the levels pretty quickly - about one a year. So you will give your school a fantastic boost of 3 levels. If you enter KS3 (as many of ours do) below level 3, it means you have taken 3 years per level so far, and things are getting tougher. So we are achieving amazing things if one of these students gets a level 4 (actually, a safe 3 can be pretty challenging). Thus our amazing work can look like nothing.

fisil summed up what i meant in about a tenth of the webspace!!!

popsy, what about baseline(Reception entry level)-KS1 - are they published anywhere?

Am dismayed by what you said about KS1-KS2 (Level 3-Level 5) stats. What a disappointment. Why do they keep moving the goalposts?

Jan - not sure about reception stats.....i work in a middle school - Y5 to Y8...sorry - will serach a bit tomorrow for you if you like.

It disappoints me too, JanH, that good work in a good school can look like nothing

BTW - can you tell which kind of school I teach in?
I am not bitter

sigh, missed so much of this good discussion while I was working. I can't understand why anyone would think it was too heated btw.

Can I just go back to faith schools for a minute (only a minute). Firstly, anti faith school people, bear in mind that selection criteria will vary form school to school. As I understand it, some faith schools will want very firm proof of weekly church attendance, baptism etc. Some, like my sons school will not ask so much. As I have said on previous threads, my sons are not christened and I never had to state that I was a christian and believed the C of E view on everything. In my application I said it was the community spirit of the church and its school that appealed to me. I had a desire to give my children a broadly christian education, but not one that excluded learning about other religions.

Some parents, like me, are vague people when it comes to religious beliefs. Yes, I believe broadly in christian ideals. I have met many good people who go to church and I like them. I like going to church. I like the church community but have no desire to immerse myself in it. And I have absolutely no wish to analyse my beliefs, explain them to myself or others or convert others to them. Never had. I probably have a very superficial understanding of christianity, but I am very happy with that. I bet some other people who go to church are like me too. I can't believe I am that unusual.

Now for people - parents like me - there is no personal worry about sending their child to a church school like mine. I have not had to lie about my beliefs one jot.

What I am trying to say is that not all parents who send their children to church school are

1 - hypocrites desperate to get their child a good education,
or
2 - highly religous people

Some parents hold vaguely christian views (and always have done) and some church schools IME ask only that the children come from vaguely christian families.

But if you are a passionate athiest, with a very firm belief in what is right and wrong about religion, then yes, your beliefs would exclude you from all religious schools. And in the same vein, if you were passionately against sendiny your child to a large school, or a school which did not have a school orchestra, or school with a poor sports record, then your beliefs or preferences would exclude you from some state funded schools.

I do think the state funding of VA schools that select on faith alone is wrong and would not argue otherwise. But think it's worth noting that not all faith schools have a rigid, faith based selection critera. If you look into it, and speak to parents at a particlur school, you may find the criteria is more loose in practice.

And one other thing about faith schools - by making faith, not nearness to school the key criteria, they open the way for poorer parents to give their child a 'good' education if they can't afford high property prices in a good catchment area. So in that way, may be less selective than some 'good' state schools.

I think that all children should have a reasonable education. If the child is particularly bright, then they should be given a chance at grammar school. If they are normal then, they should leave school and go to a college (polytechnic) and learn plumbing/hairdressing/catering. What is the point of showing a child who is thick the works of shakespeare!!!!!

I think that all children should have a reasonable education. If the child is particularly bright, then they should be given a chance at grammar school. If they are normal then, they should leave school and go to a college (polytechnic) and learn plumbing/hairdressing/catering. What is the point of showing a child who is thick the works of shakespeare!!!!!

"I think that all children should have a reasonable education" - well that's very good of you

"If the child is particularly bright, then they should be given a chance at grammar school. If they are normal then, they should leave school and go to a college (polytechnic) and learn plumbing/hairdressing/catering" normal? should leave?.

"What is the point of showing a child who is thick the works of shakespeare!!!!! " - Exactly. fancy giving the thickies ideas above their station.

Dear god!

I don't agree with wiltshire either. However I do feel that the current system where children have to access all the curriculum regardless of ability does get pushed to the limit in some cases.

I have a young man in my form who is 14-15 with a reading age of 7. He has to study French. Would it not be more sensible to give him the extra time he so badly neens to work on his literacy skills than allow him to 'learn' a second language? He lacks the basic skills he needs to learn French. All he is being given is the cance to be illiterate in 2 languages insead of one. And the poor boy's confidence takes another knock and he gets into even more trouble. And he is not alone. In my mixed ability form of 28 I have 4 functionaly illiterate boys, one is on susspension for breaking a friends jaw. Inclusion has failed him utterly. And mine is not a 'sink' comprehensive.

Thinking about this some ome, I think that there is some merit to letting some kids leave school at 14 to go to vovational training if they want to. This should not be compulsory and they should have the right to fill in their 'missing' years free of charge in later life.

I teach adult ed as well as in school. These people are great, bright, funny and well motivated. they are all doing well because they want to learn. many of them have candidly told me that they hated school, saw no reason in it, and were very disruptive as a result. Now is the right time for them to learn and they are doing a great job.

The young woman who called me a bitch yeasterday (because I insisted that she do some course work) is a very similar person. She is bright enough to get Cs at GCSE but she will fail because she is doing no work. She spends most of her time with her head on the bench, or talking to her friend who is a very similar girl. They can both be disruptive and on occasion violent. They both want to leave school asap, one to do childcare and one to do hairdressing. They will probably do very well on these courses, they are more than bright enough and they will want to work. As it is they sit in my lessons, a mass of adolencent rage, wasting their time, mine and everone elses in the class. Their time is their own and my time is paid for, so OK to waste. But they are preventing the other 16 kids in that class (many with SEN) from getting their grade C. Wouldn't it be better all round if these two girld could go and do the vocational training they want, on the understanding that they can return to school at any pointlater on when they are ready to learn academic subjects?

interesting last point there. Do you think it's workable? if teenagers abandon the 3 R's very early before they reach a basic standard of numeracy and literacy, would they keep a promise to pick them up later? Do you think, after doing a vocational course, they would see the value of literacy and numeracy more easily and be more willing to learn? sounds a good solution to me.

might be worth keeping bright children out of grammar school if the alternative offered is to learn plumbing at a polytechnic. Such the excellent job prospects in this field!

To be honest I am not think about those children who have failed to learn the basics of leteracy. Those children need extensive help that I don't think would be provided for them outside of school (being cynical it isn't even provided in schools ) I am rather thinking of those kids who have decided that school is not for them. Most of these are quite capable of getting 5 GCSE C grades, but they are desparate to leave school because thay hate it so much. I have been doing a lot of work with one such girl. She was the bane of my existance until she got a C in her last modular exam. She is now doing some work, but she has long disconnected from school and yestesday told me that she wanted to leave (as I was taking her to the HOY as she had been excluded from a lesson). School just isn't working for her. There must be something that we can do for kids like her. Possibly a learning 'Passport' that will let them learn when they are good and ready.

The SEN kids just need time, lots and lots of it, on a 1-1 basis with properly trained staff.

oh dear wiltshire- did I read that correctly or have I just stumbled into some weird debate???? Did she really say that- please someone tell me she didn't.

Apparently plumbing is overcrowded now tigermoth- you need to be training as an electrician

I agree with tigermoth's point about faith schools being less selective in some ways- eg on house prices.

As far as I can see whatever system you introduce in London is going to be selective. If its distance from school then you can get a massive jump in house prices. That's selection. Faith schools can select on faith. The only way round it to have enough good schools so that everyone does have a choice. That does happen in other parts of the country- it happens here- at least at primary level.

Further to fisil's post on moving up levels. On a training course last week we were told that in most cases it will take about 2 years to more up one level. This was primarily aimed at ICT at Key Stage 3, but was a genreal comment made about all subjects.

Whilst i don't agree with Wiltshire's post - maybe it wasn't meant quite int he vein it came across? There is, however, something in moving less motivated pupils away from the GCSE curriculum. Some of our pupils are now withdrawn/disapplied from the bulk of the GCSE and KS4 curriculum. Thy are then put on re-engagement programmes. This generally involves pupils aged 14+ spending 3 days out of school on some form of work placement (examples at school here are nursery nursing, car mechanics, fencing, brick laying, ICT) and then 2 days studying. the study is generally at school in our KS4 learning support unit where the pupils do other qualifications in the core subjects (but usually not GCSEs) - maths, english, science, ICT). Sometimes this study may be done at college too, especially if also working towards a vocational ualification as well.

This isn't just our least able pupils. It is more likely to be our disaffected children - ones who will not get a great deal of benefit from staying in normal GCSE classes. One of the girls I was involved on helping set up a placement for (at DD's nurser) is a very bright girl but would not have gained many qualifications. She hates school and sees no benefit in it. She wasted her lesson time and was disruptive, causing problems for others in the class and wasting my time in the lesson. She has now been on the programme for nearly a year and is doing fantastically well. The nursery are really pleased with her, she has a focus and knows what she wants to do when she leaves school this year, and she is going to come away from school with some qualifications.

Just wanted to say that there is a need for an alternative curriculum IMO but how it can be done on a larger scale I am not sure.

Tigermoth, you are OK with faith schools. But what if, as I said, earlier, the local Conservative party agreed to fund 15% of the costs of your local primary, and in return, was able to say that only parents who were members of the Conservative party and had voted Conservative at the last four elections could send their kids there. Would that be OK too? Or maybe it was a very liberal Conservative school and you just had to be, say, broadly in agreement with Conservative principles and ethics? Would that be OK? I totally fail to see the difference between this and and CofE or Catholic school.
You say I might not like a large school and so not want to send my child there. Yes, but I would be choosing. My child would not be rejected from the school on the basis of my beliefs. There is a huge difference between choosing not to go and being banned from going. It's like choosing not to join a company because you suspect it might be racist, and being rejected for a job because you are black.

I didn't explain that very clearly, did I and you are right - reading it back, I sound like a pompous twit. How I should have put it was - all children should have an education. But is does seem to me that lots of not particularly bright kids are being forced into college doing silly courses that are not going to enhance their futures. Then the really brainy ones are losing out as they are being educated alongside not so brainy ones. Not every child is academic and our schooling system should reflect this, not put every child into Uni (polytechnic) and give them a 'media studies' degree to up the statistics. And if that sounds bloody pompous, then, guess what - I obviously am!

But aloha- outside london (and elsewhere where there aren't enough schools to go round) you're not banned from faith schools. When I dropped ds1 off at school this morning, and ds2 started messing the toys up the little girl who came to help me sort it out was muslim. Other faiths attend the school as well (and atheists!) It's no exclusive club. If we still lived in London we would have been banned from all the good schools because apart from not being church goers we couldn't have afforded to buy a house in the catchment areas of good schools. I'm with Tigermoth and think that's a worse form of discrimination.

The problem lies with there not being enough decent schools in certain areas.

Wiltshire- I do think you have a point. I taught in Japan for a year in an agricultural HS. (They have selection at 15 in Japan). It was a low academic school- very few of the kids went to university- most found manual or low skilled jobs after leaving but it had an excellent reputation. And there was quite a bit of competition to get in. The students could specialise in areas like "machinery" or "zoology" (animal husbandry) or "domestic". The students were pretty motivated, and when they weren't they were well behaved. It worked well.