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?

Martorana
computer based home-works - are easy in easy out
2 teachers per subject - continuity
many exam boards - why? is it because some are easier than others?
I can see History would have a reason for regional differences, but find it difficult for most other subjects
hundreds of handouts - interleaved with course notes in an exercise book?
speaking to governors - they are too important

Talking,

Here is a selection of your quotes:

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.

...but the skills for care home workers and labourers are best assessed with C&G exams or Btecs, not GCSEs

the Ebacc is not an appropriate measure for many children it will not give them the skills they need for life

So if you argue that some % of dummies should not get GCSEs, but vocational courses instead, how is it not secondary modern?

I give it to you that would be a Modern Secondary Modern, with computers and stuff...

there are 86 schools that got 100% 5a*-C inc E&M
none of them have any low attainers according to the DFE tables
www.education.gov.uk/cgi-bin/schools/performance/group.pl?qtype=NAT&superview=sec&view=aat&set=2&sort=ks4_13.ptgac5em&ord=desc&tab=150&no=999&pg=2

therefore its pretty clear that Vanilla has absolutely no idea how schools cope with those who cannot pass the 11+

Morethan. I find it hard to believe that E grade Gcse standard students could write 750 words on the pros and cons of a single European currency.
Maybe they could copy of a blackboard or write from a website, but there is no way they could write in their own words.

My Niece (Russell Group University) asked for help from me to answer questions on the European Union . She asked me what websites to look up
about the Single European Currency and how it came in to being (Maastricht treaty and all that stuff) and How businesses trade across the E.U.

She was having to resit a 1500 3 Question Word Essay on Europe at the end of her first year Business Module.

You are saying grade E and D Gcse students could answer a similar question ( Ok different language but similar).....

vanilla
lower ability pupils do vocational courses within the comp schools
you really need to get out more
kids at DCs school are doing hairdressing, horse care, car mechanics
as well as Latin and Astronomy

I will never, ever support segregation between state funded schools

Martorana
computer based home-works - are easy in easy out
don't understand. My ds often has computer based maths homework- easy in easy out strikes me as a good thing- he can log on wherever we are, do his homework and submit it- all he needs is wifi. What's not to like about that?
2 teachers per subject - continuity
*or two different perspectives?
many exam boards - why? is it because some are easier than others?
I can see History would have a reason for regional differences, but find it difficult for most other subjects
i don't know why you would use lots of exam boards- it seems daft and labour intensive but not sure why it would have any effect on the kids
hundreds of handouts - interleaved with course notes in an exercise book? sorry- don't understand the problem
speaking to governors - they are too important
who says? Have you tried? Have you tried making an appointment with the teacher you want to talk to?

Mortorana, I will answer why the less able achieve in our school (there is always a normal distribution of ability in any sample).

• Structured education-centered environment from early years.

• Structured ambitious infant and junior school. Reading homework from reception. Writing homework from Y3. 100% of pupils achieve level 4 or above at KS2.

• There are about 20% low(er) achievers at the school, they get extra support at school. They used to do modular maths, but now do the same as others. They respond by working harder. Discipline and motivation are high. Parents very supportive.

I think if you replicates most of this, everyone would get a C in GCSE, SN being a separate topic.

Obviously most students at the school get a string of A-A*, which is different to a C.

there is always a normal distribution of ability in any sample
But aren't you talking about a selective school?

"100% of pupils achieve level 4 or above at KS2"

Ah. So you have no lower achievers in the secondary part of your private, and by definition, selective school.

You actually don't know what "lower achiever" means.

Well I think the parenthesis in 'low(er)' achievers was quite telling!

vanilla
Your statistics is not very good.
Either your school has 20% low achievers
Or it gets 100% A*-C
the two are mutually exclusive - as per the link I posted above.

PS
Computerised homework is great : the Further Maths extension work on MyMaths is really well structured

These are all excuses. It is always easy to blame 'low achievers' because they don't talk back.

Segregation already exists. If your students do hairdressing, they clearly are not doing Ebacc. They have a different curriculum.

There is also segregation between good schools and sink schools. You are sitting happily in a good school and recommending it to everybody, but most could not possibly take up the offer.

Lower achievers are result of poor work by yearly years education, primary school and secondary. They weren't born low achievers. They are not the brightest lot, but they could get a C if they were educated properly throughout.

The only reason I keep going on about good comps is because we keep getting told that they cannot work, only happen in leafy suburbs etc etc. So I keep saying that is not the case.

As there are thousands of good comps throughout the country I cannot see why bad comps cannot be turned into good comps.

And I am not denying a problem in that there are clearly bad schools, undereducated kids and unhappy parents. I am just waiting for someone to come up with a solution other than 'bring back grammar schools, and nuke the comps', based on unevidenced statements.

VanillaChoc: what are you actually advocating?

So VanillaChoc, are you saying that your DCs school is in fact a comprehensive school but simply a private comprehensive school?

I'm not sure what you are advocating either.

And people keep going on about higher house prices around good comps and MI, Talking and I keep saying not always.

I would love to live in a posher area, oh good lord, yes!

Soul - BTECS are not dumbed down at all. They are still very challenging and a distinction is worth 3 A*s at A level. I have known them to get people into an RG university. It might be that the subjects or learning outcomes have changed.

You can't get a BTEC by swotting up at the last minute, you have to put in consistent good effort and the marking is extremely detailed. Universities like them.

Vanilla you appear to be extremely competetive by the way you are discussing on this thread and that is a reflection of your views on education. Education shouldn't be a battle to be won or lost with the losers on the scrapheap. Is that what your own education led you to believe?

Horse, it's you and Talkin that are arguing that there is an inevitable outage of 20% on scrap heap, so otherwise the system is fine.

I say you need to do something about the bottom 20%.
Put proper resources, improve teaching methods, create an environment conducive to learning.

Everyone should be graduating at 16 with a positive certificate they could use. Not a G in GCSEs. If it's vocational, it should be studied from the age of 14, instead of GCSEs, not after.

I'm not arguing that at all. In fact I agree with everything else in your last post.

You seem to be trying to beat down anyone on this thread that has anything constructive to say. If that's what elitist education does to people it's not a model that will benefit society as a whole.

Vanilla - I'm with you. I do think a G at GCSE is useless. I agree having vocational courses btech etc available at comps is separation within the sate sector and that it can only be beneficial.
I agree that if there is solid primary school teaching with specialist teachers that almost all children without special needs should be able to achieve 5GSCE's A-C or an equivalent vocational qualification at secondary. I have seen the effect mentoring programmes achieve with under performing children and children from dysfunctional backgrounds and it does work.
I've read through the last few pages and there is an underlying consensus even though there is a lot of nit picking.
Not all comps are equal
House prices are affected by catchment areas
That there is still around 20% of school leavers without employable qualifications.
The education divide is a financial and social divide.
This doesn't answer the OP. Question but has highlighted that private schooling has little impact on the issues majority of the population face.

Horsetowater- maybe I'm incorrect but I think you have missed the essence of VC posts. She is saying exactly the opposite - that we have a moral responsibility to ensure the 20% are NOT left on the scrap heap.
There are others on here that seem less concerned about that 20 % and think that a 60% pass rate is acceptable. VC is advocating it's not acceptable.

Slight off topic but ...The latest edu news is comparing the math results of children of farmers/labourers in China with the lower income families and the fact they outperform their UK equivalent . The Uk Gov. is looking at teaching methods with a view that income plays no part in results.
I'm English & have lived on and off in China for over 20 years. The Math education is rote learning. Completely agree they are capable of answering GCSE math questions but in many cases the children cannot apply the Math in context.
The biggest single factor is that education is valued by the poorest as there is no state benefit, no safety net, social housing and a strongly held value of success through hard work.
Phew - well glad that's off my chest

Don't know what VC was talking about before but her last few podts have been spot on, i agree 100% with her. She is not the one rolling over accepting that 20% will be on the scrap heap, its all the other posters. She is saying there diesn't need to be any on the scrap heap but with good education right from the beginning even the would be low achievers can attain 5GCSEs of A-C, everyone else is saying its not possible. Anything below a C is rubbish and that's the truth!

And what's wrong with being competiive about education? We live in a competitive world! But some would prefer to keep burying their heads in the sand.

Can anyone give me some evidence to support the assertion that any NT child can get 5 GCSEs A*-C? Nothing would please me more than to be shown how this is possible. But I don't think it is.

And this does not mean that I am consigning the lower achievers to "the scrap heap". I just don't think GCSEs are the only way- why should they be?