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?

But then 'the system' surely has to comprise other agencies than schools? If some children struggle so much that failure is nigh-on unavoidable, it's hardly reasonable to then suggest that the failure is a problem caused by schools!

I think we also need to be clearer on what we mean by 'failure' - why, for example, would 4 A-C grades be failure and 5 not? It's pretty arbitrary, isn't it? And it's not as if 5 A-C is going to open a huge amount of doors that 4 won't - only that it alters a school's ranking!

Horsewater - what difference does it make wether they were encouraged to go? Are you assuming it was their parents? Many went to school because they didn't want to end up like their parents, some went because they were escorting friends to school and developed a love of learning (like my mum) some were encouraged by neighbours, how does that make them diffetent?

I think there is muddled thinking within the system regarding 'opening up potential' and 'minimum attainment'.

They want everyone to do bizarre abstract maths and learn to read a 500 year old language (Chaucer) and then when they can't do it or just don't get ig, tell them they've failed.

This is what has to change and it's typical of the education system in this country, bound by its stuffy top-down class-ridden history to have these contradictions.

What we need in the real world is realistic attainment with far more opportunity for movement up, down and sideways.

I don't think we need to look at 5 A* to C as such; Gov performance tables show 'expected progress' in English and maths for each demographic - low/mid/high attainers on entry and disadvantaged pupils. Even Talkin's model comprehensive school in Hampshire scores badly for the low attainers and the disadvantaged:
Percentage of low attainers making expected progress in English 50%, expected progress in maths 25%, progress of disadvantaged in English 49%, maths 35%. Offering Latin, to quote "30 of the most able and motivated students" (ie, top set clique) has little effect on raising the bar in English and maths across the board. Are comprehensive schools really any different from the grammar/secondary modern set up? We only ever hear from parents with dc in top sets, are the other parents happy?

Gunznroses- how many children in the community where you taught didn't go to school at all?

Word- I'm surprised you don't know- as interested in education as you are. It's the sort of thing I know about my children's schools off the top of my head

Clavinova. The point you make about most of the Mumsnet crowd who like Comprehensive schools have children who are top set in everything. Most of these parents have themselves benefited from higher or post graduate level of study and have only seen positives in the education system. In many cases they are idealists and it makes them feel all ( Cuddly and warm inside) by not labelling or segregating their kids ( Although they still want top sets) and separation. These parents feel good inside because at least their kids can play with the other kids at "Play Time"

Most parents who don't have Higher or Post Graduate Qualifications , who had ordinary educations in comprehensive schools would sell a kidney to avoid their DC having the same education.

Most of the parents I know who don't have higher level Qualifications are far more determined for the DCs to attend Grammar or Private schools , than those with higher level Qualifications.

Er...if that were the case the only kids in comps would be the ones with graduate parents! Don't follow your logic.

"Most of the parents I know who don't have higher level Qualifications are far more determined for the DCs to attend Grammar or Private schools , than those with higher level Qualifications."

We'll it's a crying shame that most of them don't actually manage to get their children into such schools, then isn't it? They are largely the preserve off he privileged, educated middle classes.

Some of this debate is missing which is, to me, the most fundamental point of good comprehensive education. It can place kids in the the right learning spaces for them. It can accommodate the genius in maths who is poor in English, and ensure that all students achieve their potential whatever their social background.

Selective education, in all its forms can never achieve that. Dividing students into different schools, whether by money, cultural capital, or measuring ability.

I would say, by and large, all the comps where I do live up to this ideal. which is why there is very little anguish over school places. Not all children do get their 5 A-Cs, but this is not due to a lack of effort by the schools.

Clearly not all comprehensives achieve this, and, where this is due to the school rather than external issues, this needs to be challenged. But the solution is not to encourage more selection, which will clearly only ever benefit the few rather than the many.

This discussion goes in circles.

Middle class highly educated mothers with DC in good comprehensive schools indeed feel warm inside, and argue for mutually exclusive things. You can't have it both ways.

You can't say that comprehensive system works, and have 40% DC fail, that is leaving school without usable qualifications (5 good GCSEs).

You can't argue that comprehensive cater for all ability, and then add that they are not supposed to work for the bottom 20% because they don't have the ability.

You cannot argue that the bottom 20% need different, vocational courses, and insist that it still is comprehensive education. If you accept separate curriculum for bottom set, you should accept different curriculum for top set too.

You cannot argue there shouldn't be a separation by ability and want top set for your DC.

You cannot argue that some arbitrary X% will never succeed to get 5 GCSEs, and go to guerrilla warfare against ability tests to identify those x%. If you are going to change the curriculum or do something special for the low ability kids, you need to identify them. It is in their interest.

What everybody agrees on is that there should be mobility between the sets/streams. That DC should not be excluded from the academic path at early age without a chance to climb back. This is fair and can be achieved by other means then denying that there is a problem with comprehensives.

Surely the whole point of a comprehensive is that it offers a whole spectrum of curriculum and levels?Why can't it be a comprehensive and offer qualifications in vocational subjects as well as EBacc?

My problem is with the nc and the implementation of league table orientated curriculum . I don't want Religious studies to be compulsory at GCSE, I don't want PE to have to be a GCSE subject for DS. I would like to see a category that says '5 GCSEs without RE and PE'!

I will support and defend any education system that offers what we all agree on - "mobility between the sets/streams. That DC should not be excluded from the academic path at early age without a chance to climb back." as VC says. So what is that education system? And wher is it demonstrated that a comprehensive system cannot deliver that? Obviously it does not always deliver, because there are bad schools.

What is the answer? More variety in vocational courses? More extension and enrichment? How can this be delivered?

"You can't say that comprehensive system works, and have 40% DC fail, that is leaving school without usable qualifications (5 good GCSEs)."

But GCSEs are not the only usable qualifications. People keep saying this and you keep ignoring it.

Also, nobody is saying that the comprehensive system is perfect. But saying that it has failed because it is not perfect is not particularly helpful.

"You cannot argue there shouldn't be a separation by ability and want top set for your DC."

Why not? You can have differentiation without segregation. And actually, my ds is at a secondary modern school. If he was in a comprehensive I wouldn't necessarily expect him to be in top sets for everything. I hope he would be-but he may well not be.

There is absolutely no evidence that 40% of State school children "fail"

The fact that 40% of children did not timetable in 5 academic subjects, but instead chose vocational or technical paths through their education
is something to be celebrated, not decried.

Only the very narrow minded cannot see beyond GCSEs and A levels and degrees.

One of our local 6th form colleges was slagged off by Gove for not getting a single kid into a Russell Group University.
Gove looked a bit of a prat when the head invited him to come and visit ....
www.sparsholt.ac.uk/

So, the 40% who leave without 5 GCSEs have 'failed'.

So if there were schools that were for 'vocational' learning, where those children weren't pushed to take 5 GCSEs and get A*-C in them - ie., old style secondary moderns in an 11+ system - would those schools not be specifically designed to get children to 'fail' as 'failure' is defined precisely by those who don't think children of all abilities should be educated together? .

Is it ok as long as the 'failures' are all in a building together?

the 40% who leave without 5 GCSEs have 'failed'.^

The system failed them. You can't say that people graduating from school at 16 without meeting neither the minimum standard of education (5 GCSEs out of 12-10 attempted), nor a real usable vocational qualification, achieved 'success'.

We just need to move on from this ideological delusion that if you don't call a failure an failure, it will somehow transform into success. That everybody is a winner, those who get a string of A* and go on to universities and those who get a certificate of failure (a G in GCSE) and go on being NEETs.

Is it ok as long as the 'failures' are all in a building together?

Exactly, it's a hypocrisy to argue that being in one building is the key point of comprehensive school. Does every school has facilities to teach car mechanics?

So what do you want, Vanilla?

You can't say that people graduating from school at 16 without meeting neither the minimum standard of education (5 GCSEs out of 12-10 attempted), nor a real usable vocational qualification, achieved 'success'

But I don't think anyone has said this!

Those in favour of comprehensives want exactly this. Academic success for those who can and want it. Vocational qualification success for the others. But we want this is a single school.

I think it would be great for schools to have differnt partnerhsips where kids can go off and do car mechanics at a differnt school or 'teaching garage' - or off to s specialist IT suite, or film studios or whatever. Specialist settings for specialist modules - but that wouldn't define other aspects of theier education.

I would rather DS did a car mechanic module than RE / PE - as well as doing triple science and 2 MFL. If he wanted to, of course. Actually they do some aspects of car mechanics in STEM club.

"We just need to move on from this ideological delusion that if you don't call a failure an failure, it will somehow transform into success"

Vanilla-you keep saying things like this- but you are the only one who is. Comprehensive supporters don't.

Me?
So you agree Martorana that only 60% acheiving good GCSEs is not good enough and we need a system where close to 100% can graduate at 16 with positive employable qualifications?

So you agree Martorana that only 60% acheiving good GCSEs is not good enough and we need a system where close to 100% can graduate at 16 with positive employable qualifications?

What are you arguing for?

That all children get good GCSEs OR all children graduate with positive employable qualifications.

The two things are not the same....

Creamteas,

I argue that all children graduate with positive empoloyable qualifications, which means some of them will be doing vocational courses at 14, not GCSEs.

This also means differentiating the curriculum by ability.

It appears that a consensus has developed for

Academic success for those who can and want it. Vocational qualification success for the others. But we want this is a single school.

Do you realise that one could call that Secondary Modern under one roof? I mean, there is nothing wrong with vocational route, as long as it is not at 11, it allows mobility both ways into more academic stream and the stigma of vocational qualifications is removed. This is much easier said than done, but let's be positive.

Maybe we could stop overreacting and consider options rationally.

Vanilla
A comprehensive school is a grammar school and a secondary modern all rolled into one
so that all children have access to all options.

Why would it be OK for a secondary modern to have no pupils passing 5 GCSEs but its not ok for a comp school to have some kids choosing a vocational route from 14 (which they do) ?

However this separation in a way means moving a benchmark basic skills qualification from 16 to 14...
(which is the only way to recognize vocational course along with GCSEs)

Which keeps open the question, how do you teach basic skills to good standard to the bottom 20%.

There is no way out of confronting the problem of teaching well the bottom 20%.