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?

"The school my DC go to produce 100% of good GCSEs. It's normal. Not too much to be asking, is it?"

What are the %s of low, middle and high attainers at your school?

I want my kids to be taught by teachers with passion who can inspire
I am with you Boubly.

But this is very hard to find.

Martorana,

Basic maths should tell you that if total is 100% than each component is also 100%. Does this answer your question?

Why are there low attainers? What should be done about them?

We are not talking about pure maths, GCSE is basic level of literacy expected in modern society to do the most basic jobs

Vanilla
You need 5 good GCSE to be employable, otherwise -> benefits
Utterly untrue for many jobs.

GCSEs are basic secondary education, nothing too specialised or advanced, 100% of population should have them in 21 century
Hogwash
at least 20% of the population could not get a string of GCSEs even if you threw the resources of a top boarding school at them.

Martorana
What 3 things would I change ?

• I'd make it have better accountability through LEA linked advisers
• I'd stop the SLT giving themselves payrises
• I'd change the head of MFL so that a proper range of subjects was brought back

the discrepancy between top and bottom VA I suspect is linked to the huge disruption in the curriculum caused by Gove
for the C/D borderline kids, having their controlled assessment torn up after they had finished the work was unbelievably demotivating

the changes have made those kids very hard to teach (Btecs, linear/ modular) ....
we need a few years of politicians butting out for it all to settle down

If you job was to produce mobile phones , you wouldn't explain 40% failure by blaming the phones.

Why is it OK to explain away the failure by blaming 'low attainers'. This must be rooted in Victorian disdain for the undeserving poor.

The system should be fit to teach all pupils. It is teachers' professional job to teach and to fix the system so it is fit for purpose.

You can hear teachers being passionate when lobbying about their pensions, but why are we not hearing their passion about making the system work for all pupils?
.

because quite a few kids have physical and physiological and neurological differences that mean they will never pass GCSEs

a huge failing of MNers who send their kids to selective schools is to forget about such people
they exist
get over it

I have illiterate clients who make a good living - but people like you see right through them

"Basic maths should tell you that if total is 100% than each component is also 100%. Does this answer your question?"

I understand that. My question was what are the %ages of low, middle and high attainers at your school? Because getting 100% 5 a*-c if the school has very few middle and no low attainers is what would be expected. Getting that if the school, like my ds's, has nearly 40% low attainers and only 11% high attainers would be a bloody miracle and your head should go on a tour of Britain spreading his philosophy far and wide.

Talking,

You have very low expectations of humanity.

at least 20% of the population could not get a string of GCSEs even if you threw the resources of a top boarding school at them.

I expect you are not fond of Gove, but based on what you write, you confirm all of his points. The thesis for his latest reform was that teachers limit attainment by having low expectations of some pupils, so he removed the tiering.
You just confirmed him right.

The system should be designed so that 100% of pupils get satisfactory basic secondary education. With the resources of a boarding school you could teach a monkey A levels. Don't diminish the dignity of pupils you teach. Maybe teachers like you should move on and leave place to teachers who care and want their pupils to do well.

I'm not a teacher.
What ever gave you that idea
Gove is definitely an arse though because he does not use evidence based decision making.
In my line of work its essential.

"Why is it OK to explain away the failure by blaming 'low attainers'. This must be rooted in Victorian disdain for the undeserving poor."

No. I am not explaining away failure. I am saying that if the benchmark is 5 GCSEs a*-c with English and maths, there are plenty of kids who, while capable of doing and achieving many things could not reach that target in a month of Sundays. So the system sets them up for failure.

Vanilla- are you saying that all children are capable of getting 5 GCSEs at A*-C with English and Maths?

Just read this:
because quite a few kids have physical and physiological and neurological differences that mean they will never pass GCSEs

This is really hogwash. SN pupils are easily used to explain away failure. but this is just a cynical distortion and denial of responsibility.

Don't tell me about SN, I have two DC with statements doing very well.
In good schools, kids with SN do as well as the normal once. It is when the school is crap that SN children are blamed for the failure. DC with SN struggle when their needs are not met.

If you struggle with some SN kids, you should be calling Educational Psychologists and what'it specialists to diagnose them properly and to fight for proper SN provisions and resources for them. You fail those pupils and you fail other pupils and your community if you don't. This attitude is just discrimination.

It is staggering that schools fight against parents when they request statements, but blame those SN kids for school failure. Clearly if these kids with SN get their needs met, there will be nobody to blame and nowhere to hide.

I used a private school for my sons from 3 - 11. If the private schools had ben banned I'd have spent the £100k or there about the fees cost to move into the catchment of the very best state school I could find, thus depriving someone else of places. As an alternative I could have home educated with specialist additional tutors in Maths and languages, that would have taken me out of the economy and be something of a waste of my own education which the state paid a lot for ( Uni days were pre fees and when grant were paid). I'm sad that an independent education is now less available t all but the very rich.

The trouble is that some of you are looking at this county's comprehensive system through rose-tinted glasses; your children are attending excellent comps - many in nice, leafy areas, or at least not truly representative of your local area or a fully comprehensive intake. Take marmite55 for example (apologies, but you did mention the name of your daughter's school on another thread and its 550 uniform). This particular girls' only 'comp' has a language specialism and 'selects' 10% on language aptitude, it has a sibling policy and then a 'fair banding' policy with a 75% inner catchment area. Gov performance tables show its intake as 63% high ability and its 5 GCSEs inc English and Maths was 91% - fantastic - however, the 5 GCSEs inc English and Maths for your local authority as a whole was a shameful 44.1%. Do the parents at all the other comps in your local authority think their children go to a good school?

Leafiness again...

I feel like handing out tickets to DD1's school, Blu's DS's school and a number of other schools. Not a sodding leaf to be seen.

Mortorana,

Yes, I do think you can teach anyone without profound learning difficulties the GCSE curriculum in 5 subjects.

They do get that in other countries. Certainly there are no other developed country where 40% failure is considered a success.

UK maths curriculum lags more than a year being the German, the Dutch and the French by the way. They manage to teach it to much higher proportion of population. Unless the Brits are exceptionally stupid...

You say : "So the system sets them up for failure."
I agree. The system should be designed in a way that 100% get basic expected satisfactory level of secondary education.

Of course that means really reforming the system and looking at teaching methods, curriculum, assessment methods.

Certainly there are no other developed country where 40% failure is considered a success.
ROTFLMAO
the definition of "success" just gets altered till enough people are seen to succeed.

Have you ever darkened the door of a set 6 group for maths in a comp that does not select in any way shape or form?

or are you actually Chloe74 back under a new name ?

Talking,

I understand now that you are not a teacher. I don't mean to be personal.

However the attitude that a basic level of secondary education is an elite skill only attainable to the selected few must be a legacy of Victorian time. In a modern society people need skills. There aren't jobs for people without any qualifications in a global technological world.

Even for the most manual jobs you need enough maths ans science to understand health and safety. To wipe bottoms in a care home you need to be able to read a lot of policies and regulations (to prevent malpractice).

So the idea that we should move the goal post to the point where most fail is really staggering (and call this increasing standards). It helps those in public schools to compete for places at Oxbridge, but otherwise it is a catastrophic economic policy in a globalized world in 21 century.

You need to move the teaching, the curriculum and the assessment, and of course the resources to the place where everyone can succeed. Otherwise you will be paying for lack of education through benefits, prisons, NHS etc.

If you believe some 20% cause most problems, nationalise public schools and put those 20% there and see what happens. It will come out chipper at the end.

Vanilla
but the skills for care home workers and labourers are best assessed with C&G exams or Btecs, not GCSEs
only the narrow minded selective school fans cannot see the blindingly obvious
The Ebacc is not an appropriate measure for many children
it will not give them the skills they need for life

its a shame that C&G exams are not better known by the chattering classes, because they are great.

Some of Gove's reforms are quite good and do benefit mobility. I truly believe his heart is in the right place and his intention is to allow movement from the bottom up Pupils are completely restricted by their background while schools stream them and limit them with tiering.

www.theguardian.com/education/2013/aug/05/gcse-exams-tiering-michael-gove

The only problem is his goal model is the private school and that still creates segregation and limitation.

If he could only give vocational subjects the same status as academic subjects by merging state and private education we might be onto a winner.

Of course everyone needs basic education, but GCSEs go too far into each subject for a lot of students. They should reach a certain stage in core subjects by the end of year 10 and then be allowed to drop them to focus on courses they enjoy.

Our current system is still modelled on the class system where some achieve and others doff their caps to the high achievers, accepting second place. In Germany they have a kind of segregation between the academic and vocational but it is a genuine choice and both sides are as respected as each other.

www.theguardian.com/education/2013/aug/05/gcse-exams-tiering-michael-gove

horsewater how would merging state and private education give vocational subjects the same status as academic subjects? I genuinely don't understand. State education at the moment is not exclusively one or the other.

DS's comp:

24% FSM

NOT LEAFY. NO SPECIALISM. NO SCHOLARSHIPS

24.3% FSM
75% % GCSE A-C incl Maths and English
Best 8 VA: 1013.9 overall.
1027 - low attainers
1014 - middle attainers
1011 - high attainers

VanillaChocolate - I don't think it is fair to say that a system that does not produce 100% 5 GCSEs A-C incl maths and english amongst an intake which reflects the fuill range of ability is failing. The GCSE bands now encompass everything from what was a Grade 1 O level to a grade 5 CSE in old money. Many schools where students do not get 5 A-C get good BTecs and other quallifications and come out of school employable, trainable, further educatable. And in a proper comp, performing well, they will be supported to meet potential, not languish in a bottom set headed straight for NEET. In a school like DS's a child who went ito Yr 7 n with average SATS scores can easily end up in top sets and working at a high level. I have seen this happen in DS's year.
Except that most of the primary schools which surround this comp are also performing v well so children go in well prepared.

I think the bottom line is on average most people do not have access to a good enough comp. Its not that there aren't any, it's that its a lottery to find yourself in the catchment for one.

I don't want to have to move here and there to be in the right catchment, i want to know that wherever I choose to live the nearest school is "good enough" and i put thst in quotes because everyone's idea of a good school is different.

DD1's school has 40 per cent eligible for FMS pupil premium; last year's percentage of students getting five A*-C including English and Maths was 68 per cent, and it's on a sharp upward curve.