Fed up with the education divide ?

[johnbunyan]

As a former Head of an independent school, I am fed up with the ideological divide in education, and want to start a national discussion on constructive ways to help the state and independent systems grow naturally together. I am secretary of a national group of independent day schools ( mostly the old direct grant schools ) and we look back to a time when there was much greater co-operation and a real sense of social mobility. Can we return to such a consensus ? I would love to hear ideas and start building towards such a consensus, since, as we approach the 2015 General Election, it will seem a long way away! I sense that many parents would like government and schools to work something out -and quickly -since the educational divide is simply not helpful to anybody - least of all the present generation. How many out there agree?

Why do you say it doesn't work in the majority of cases? Evidence, please?

Oh, and while you're about it, you said earlier-"The standard of teaching / schools and opportunities that exist at Grammar should be available to Comps."

Can I see the evidence that shows it isn't?

I think the private schools are something of a distraction in the equality debate. Whatever people on Mumsnet say, there are no "average" families using private education. People may feel "normal" in their social circle, but average they are not. I think that if people want to spend their spare money on private education, they should be able to. There will always be families who are so rich it barely makes a dent on their outgoings. There will be other families who have a tradition of boarding/indy school that they would like to continue because they are, in essence, scared of/look down on the state sector. There will always be the "nouveau riche" who feel that private education will buy position/contacts/whatever. There will be other people who think that money will buy a better education - that somehow it will get you to the front of an academic queue like private medicine does.

What we really need to address as a priority group are the families who choose private education because they feel they have no other option.

Of course, the way to do this is to make sure all schools are of a reasonable standard. But we need to step back and look at the chaos that had been caused by Ofsted reports and league tables and see if there is a better way. We need to ensure that housing policy does not create the large geographical pockets of deprivation - this is a very long term issue that governments do not give a stuff about - that affect some primary schools (and I guess secondaries in cities) very badly. I think what we need to do as a priority is get rid of selection by religion - to return to true local catchment areas where all families have an interest in their nearby schools.

I'm not sure whether the OP has much to contribute. Representing a group of former grammar schools that went private and now select by income and intellect as you do OP, I'm not sure what you really understand about the "divide". What do you understand about a child whose mother is in and out of prison? What do you understand about a child whose father spends money on drugs so that there is no money left for the electricity card? What do you understand about a child in care who had been so neglected that he still eats handfuls of grass and drinks from puddles? What do you understand about a child who has trouble sleeping because he has been woken up in the night so often by the police arresting his father? What do you understand about the child who only eats fast food and bowls of cereal because there are no cooking facilities at home? What do you understand about the child who can't get homework done because he has to share a bedroom with 3 other children? What do you understand about a child who lives in such a damp flat that he is regularly ambulanced to A&E because his asthma can't be controlled? This is the divide that we have to deal with in state education.

tryingreallytrying

I don't think we could or should ban private schools
but they give an obvious advantage
I agree with your charitable status comment, it is obvious to all except those with a vested interest

My kids go to a state comp and I want the best for my kids

It is up to the state schools to raise their bar
that is down to parents, kids AND the teachers

I wish the the comp my kids go to was more inspirational
I wish they had higher standards and higher expectations

Unfortunately I wish/want doesn't get

Riverside Mum - totally agree the children in abysmal home situations need someone within the school to help them achieve their full potential but currently teachers seem to be held unfairly responsible for the social welfare and success of these children. These are the children where the divide is vast.
Unfortunately politics dictates social policy .
Maybe poll the parents and set up an online forum to truly establish the % that are happy with their local schools and choices available.
Identify the schools which people want to avoid and establish what the issues are and take action.
We can all wax lyrical about what should be done but unless you are truly one of those parents in an area who feel they have no options and are accepting a below parr school then its a fruitless debate.

and teachers should be polled to identify inherent problems at that particular school.

Why do you need a poll? Take the failing schools.

Give us state schools that are sanctuaries for inspiration

vanilla - bcos it seems some parents are perfectly happy and Id hate to suggest otherwise [hmmm]

I find it fascinating that the anti comprehensive school mindset is so entrenched that unsupported negative statements are accepted as fact and any challenge to these statements or positive personal experiences are just brushed aside. People just accept that teaching and discipline is better at private/grammar schools, that behaviour is dire and a culture of low expectation is the norm at comprehensives. Very odd.

Stressedbutblessed
you may be right wrt some parents, but there are probably some inept teachers too!

I have no choice about where my kids go to school
I cannot afford to move or afford private education

OK then boubly the question of course is would you move if you could and why?
Martorana- I don't think everybody is anti comps but I think it's fair to suggest they not all equal. It's sounds like you have a very good school with good teachers but wouldn't you expect this to be the same across the country?

"It's sounds like you have a very good school with good teachers but wouldn't you expect this to be the same across the country?"

I don't think I said that, did I?

Of course there is gong to be variations-and crucially, there will also be variations in what people think makes a good school. But every time somebody says they are satisfied with their state school there is a chorus of people saying it's a one off, or using the dreaded "leafy" word.....There seem to be an awful lot of exceptions to the "comprehensives are hell holes" rule!

Are going- not is gong....

I always thought the term "great unwashed" was a 19th century expression refered to the huge mass of humanity across the world who are non christians and never been baptised. (It could be argued that the expresssion "great unwashed" boardered on racism as many unbelievers are black!) The term "great unwashed" makes me think of prissy middle class missionaires going out to darkest Africa to convert the "great unwashed".

The idea of state faith schools is to keep "christian" children away from the "great unwashed".

My dd1 is at an excellent girls comp and seems to be having a much better education than I did at my GPDST school in the 1980s.

She is making excellent progress in a middle set in year 7 (e.g. Maths now a 6b, was a 4a when she left primary school last summer). There is a strong focus on music, sport and drama and lots of extr-curricular activities.

Entrance to this school is by banded lottery, which ensures a comprehensive intake e.g. FSM % is about average or slightly higher, as is ESL.

Wish more comps could be like this as, I'm my view, the school is excellent and as good as any of our local private schools.

reallyTired- I think- but am ready to be corrected, that it was Bulwer-Lytton, and he mean the hoi polloi- the masses. Don't think there's a racist or religious subtext.

But, as I said, I withdrew the phrase unreservedly.

Stressedbutblessed
I would prefer the school & the teaching to improve
moving would only alleviate those who are able to move
it doesn't solve the problem for those who cannot move

oK, boubly- do you mind being a scientific "specimen"? (Say if you do!)

How do OFSTED rate your school?
Do low, middle and high attainers make expected progress?
How many get 5 a*-c?

What do you think is wrong with your school and what would you like them to do differently?

Vanillachocolate

agree with your point about fixing the comprehensives
and agree that nothing will be done because of denial

some people would be happy with square wheels

Ofsted, not great fan of that I have to say
but we need some way of measuring schools/teachers/pupils
not sure if Ofsted is working as intended (or perhaps it is!)
I think it has been skewed by the bar of 'c' or greater, so then schools try and lift a 'd' to a 'c' & are not so worried about lifting a 'c' to a 'b' etc...
I may be wrong on this, but that is my impression from talking to teachers & what the schools preach "a*-c" band
The schools should be passion & inspiration machines
I want my kids to be taught by teachers with passion who can inspire
Schools/teachers need to listen to parents, because sometimes they have something worth listening to

Boubly- it's fine if you don't want to answer my specific questions- but could you just say, and I'll hunt for another victim!

DCs school : biggest problem is the lack of oversight because its now an academy.

280 in a cohort
6% FSM
68% got 5 A*-C incl English & Maths
66% took the Ebacc subjects of whom 2/3 hit the grades
VA for low attainers 981
VA for high attainers 1014

Some people keep asking for proofs that comprehensives have a problem [ and then denying the validity of any information].

But the basic league table assumptions are a damning.

Assumptions

1. You need 5 good GCSE to be employable, otherwise -> benefits
2. The measure of school quality is number of pupils getting at least 5 good GCSEs (A* to C)

The national average is 59% of pupils get good GCSEs. bbc
This means an average school produces 40% of pupils that have no future.
That also means that [simplifying] roughly half of the schools get fewer than 59% of pupils with good GCSEs.
There is also a list of failing schools which produce about 30% of good GCSEs, ie. 70% of pupils without a future.

How good is that?

Now imagine that only 60% of every good or service you pay for is any good. The 40% is just bad luck... 60% of food is edible, 60% of mibile phones function...

GCSEs are basic secondary education, nothing too specialised or advanced, 100% of population should have them in 21 century. The school my DC go to produce 100% of good GCSEs. It's normal. Not too much to be asking, is it?

I can understand that there are challenges. But I find the denial and complacency staggering.

Talkin- what 3 things would you do to change your school?

Do you know why there's a discrepancy in the VAs?