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?

Obviously if you boot out out the less calm and harmonious kids this will contribute to overall atmosphere, without actually using strategies to deal with these kids.

In fact I'd bet the farm that these kindly heads who wish to impart some of their wisdom to, say, my daughter's head teacher might learn a thing or two about how to retain and develop young people who are having a difficult time in life.

motherinferior it doesn't surprise me at all that you and I want very different things for our DC's education. Actually, your views are typica - I am the outlier here for my sins. But I think many of those in the independent sector don't grasp this.

I suspect in truth we want quite similar things, just different routes there. Except for the daily sport. I really do not want to inflict daily sports on them

No, I don't want daily sports either, to be fair!

I don't want them to come home and play at 3, or to take them out for holidays - I do want them to be assessed and to compete where appropriate, and I do want music and sport and drama and MFLS. I just don't think the private sector has anything to teach the state sector about that.

If the private sector says 'well, what you need to do, you see, is to have more sports/drama/music/exams', what precisely is the state sector supposed to do with that?

If the private sector says, 'well, you have to have lots more discipline and firmer punishments', the state sector would surely reply that a) they'll be happy to make a start, but only after they too are allowed to lock the doors to pupils who might be a problem, and only when they too have a pretty much full set of parents who are going to agree with and support certain punishments and strategies.

Things are much healthier in countries where there are very few private schools, eg Germany, and almost no-one gives a thought to the possibility of educating privately. All effort goes into the state school system. There is differentiation based on whether a child is more academically or more practically skilled, but there appears to be a genuine view that both paths are good ones.

I think the recent OECD report on international educational achievement is quite interesting. I can't find a link to the right bit of the many reports but the chair of the report is is cited (link below) saying that there is virtually no difference between UK state and private acheivement levels once you've controlled for socio-economic factors.

www.theguardian.com/education/2013/dec/03/uk-students-education-oecd-pisa-report

In that link it says: Andreas Schleicher, the OECD's deputy director for education and skills ….said there was little difference between the UK's state and independent schools in terms of their quality of education, according to Pisa's findings.
"Our data doesn't show much of a performance difference between public and private schools, once you account for socio-economic background," he said.
"Much of the advantage that comes from private schooling is confirmed by the social-economic context, not necessarily in value added."

So that's a major recent international study on the topic, concluding that the perceived difference is mostly down to socio-economic status (i.e. parental/family background). In which case, to close the "divide" between state and independent education you might just need to swap the pupils around, allocate them randomly across sectors.

motherinferior don't assume that the calm and harmonious atmosphere is all because the difficult ones have been booted out, That is not always the case, i know quiet a number of very difficult children and some with behavioural difficulties who are being managed well within the pivate sector, including my own dc who has adhd.

You also cannot dismiss the fact that discipline is tighter and perhaps higher expectations of behavior in general. The parents also let them get on with it! They don't go marching down to the school to give the teacher a piece of their mind like the school in special measures near me.

Wordfactory, what do you want from education that's
so different from what motherinferior wants? Apart from sport?

Gunznroses- do you think it's possible that the parents marching down to the school and insisting on their child's right to be a brat is newsworthy is because it's the
exception rather than the norm?

I should probably also add that yes, it is also important to me that my children's school offers them some of the rich socio-economic and ethnic diversity of the area in which they live, because I think that is rather fabulous and it would be a pity not to take advantage of it. And policies which include disabled children, and are explicitly tolerant of gay kids too.

Along with a rigorous and demanding academic curriculum and structure, obviously.

Fortunately my local authority has provided this, albeit in the form of a school which is distinctly unleafy. There aren't even any beaten-up old Volvos outside

Small class sizes -- we have those. Tiny primary, and undersubscribed secondary.
Homework -- fine from secondary. Reading, spelling, spot of maths also fine at primary. Anything involving hours of parental input and a dedicated construction team not fine.
Early introduction of (meaningful) language lessons -- would be nice, yes.
Daily sports oh god. No no no brings out the worst sort of bullying side in many, many children and indeed adults. Daily exercise would be good though.
exams -- if you must
high parental involvement -- well, this is something we've resigned ourselves to as more than one child has needed masses of parental support
zero tolerance discipline -- ah. You should have put that one first. I have yet to see a private school that could offer anything at all to support autistic DS, so the zero-tolerance would mean simply removing him from the first scream on day 1.

Maddadam - but if what you've said is right that wouldn't work at all. If the difference is all down to the home environment you'd need to swap all the kids around into different homes! (and even that wouldn't actually remove the advantages some kids get - it would just rearrange which kids get them)

Purpleroses, I meant that a random allocation of all children to schools would minimise the "state-independent ideological divide" that the OP posted about. If the OECD report is correct then this would lead to very similar results for schools across the sectors.

It wouldn't solve socio-economic inequality, no.

Mart what do I want?

Ah well...

I want my DC's schools to be independent of the state for one. I don't want their education to be led by whatever fool is the Education Minister at the time.

I want the school to be accountable first and formost to me. Not to the LEA or the state.

And actually I don't want comprehensive. I think trying to be all tings to all men is a recipe for under achievement.

As I said, I do know I'm an outlier .

OK - we need to have a look at the evidence on what is good for the MAJORITY of children, and for the country as a whole.

I personally believe that comprehensives with a representative intake of ability are best for the majority of children.

I think separating children into different schools by intellect and income is socially disastrous for the majority of children.

There is no reason comprehensives can't stream intake, allowing flexibility for children to move up and down through the streams if their performance at school improves or declines.

It would stop all this bloody grammar school bollocks of separating a small number of bright (and usually thoroughly well coached and prepared) children off from those who are marginally less bright, or (more usually) just as bright but sadly less well-prepared for testing at 11.

Scotland is pretty much all comprehensives and with the latest Curriculum for Excellence now rolling out into the public exam years some schools have reduced subjects down to a maximum of six. They discourage doing all three sciences.

Unsurprisingly the private schools have not followed suit, thus the divide will widen. I'm fed up and would prefer a school like wordfactory describes.

"And actually I don't want comprehensive. I think trying to be all tings to all men is a recipe for under achievement."

What - you don't think that the best comprehensives in the country, those which have a representative number of very high ability children, those which are well resourced and have a good record of improving outcomes for the full range of children they take in, just simply aren't good enough? Because they are comprehensives trying to be 'all things to all men'?

"don't assume that the calm and harmonious atmosphere is all because the difficult ones have been booted out, That is not always the case"

No, indeed. But it's USUALLY the case.

Yes, private schools do accommodate children with special needs. What they don't do is accommodate children from very poor families, where there is inadequate parenting and a deep disrespect and disregard for education. It is these children, more than children like my DS (who has ASD and is in a state mainstream), whose behaviour is generally the most damaging.

OP - I have a suggestion: that the most socially disadvantaged, disruptive, unsupported and difficult children (not necessarily those with diagnosed special needs) be given bursaries and accommodated by private schools.

That would take the burden off the state sector and would provide these children with the wrap around care and pastoral support that they really need that private schools regularly boast about.

Matorana No they are not an exception and the ones i referred to were not in the news. It's quite commonplace around here to hear parents talking about going in to sort the teacher out, i've walked past dad's at ds old primary frothing at the mouth by the class door in the presence of their smirking dc, and then you the ones that are newsworthy.

There are many parents who quiet frankly do not believe their children should be disciplined at all and constantly quote "well they should be respected first". I think as a society we just have very different values now, this has really blurred the lines between students and teachers coupled with increasingly liberalist ideologies it's hard to see who is in charge.

As far as state schools managing children with difficult behaviours are concerned what exactly do they do ? (i know they can get extra funding for support) but to what degree, and how do tney actually identify children who may be struggling or is it only the worst cases they pickup ? Because dc was never spotted up as having a behavioural problem, he was considered alright.

Mini I'm sure those schools are lovely and the parents are very happy.

But that's not what I want for my DC. I've visited lots and nope, not for me. The few I'd really rate are the super selectives - Colyton et al, but even they're under resourced.

I know this is a minority view. I've said so several times. Fortunately for me I'm able to indulge my flights of fancy.

So as my DC would say 'everyone's a winner.'

NB if private schools ceased to exist in this country, only a tiny minority of parents might send their children abroad, presumably most likely to the USA and at great expense. All energies from all sectors of the population would be ploughed into the state sector. I think that this would produce better educated children on average, and that the good universities and careers would end up with more able and motivated candidates, rather than those who had risen to the top due to special treatment and steering.

Don't think the grammar school generation did a ' bloody good job of drawing up the drawbridge'. The drawbridge was drawn up by much older politicians with ideological views -and often bad experiences of secondary moderns. In my experience the former grammar school pupils generally want other kids to experience the type of educational opportunities that they did - and it's not really available in that sense, especially for the more traditionally academic child who feels held back in many instances.

True, the historic experience of the 1950s and 60s was exceptional - and no-one wants to turn the clock back - but the legacy of the ideolgical moves of the 70s and 80s was far more damaging in my view

'the more traditionally academic child who feels held back in many instances '

Please demonstrate examples - proper, across the population examples not anecdotal - of these 'traditionally academic children'. Because you're not just saying 'state schools are holding bright kids back', you're saying how those kids feel. Just interested in how you know?

I actually feel my daughters are being rather better educated than I was, as it happens.

I'm also interested in those politicians who'd attended secondary moderns: who were they? And why did they precede the people who'd done well in, and want to perpetuate, grammar schools? So people who'd failed the 11 plus went on to become politicians, in large enough numbers to influence educational policy; while people who'd passed went and did something else?

Oh and finally: it is valid, you know, to add in the experiences of people who attended secondary moderns. Strange but true. Anyone advocating the grammar system is also advocating a second-tier system, albeit one euphemistically described as 'more appropriate for the less academic'.