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?

at what age would you split that
(she says as the mum of an late august son who only learned to write in year 2 but now flies)

Bottom 25% Vocational schools linked to learning a trade.

I think they should have all abilitites in all schools but separate them by specialism - science, arts, humanities, languages. You can easily fit separate streams in within each school, children are then segregated according to their own personal interest rather than their tutored 'intellect'.

horse : that is a comp
it works well outside london

It works well for the tutored and advantaged.

But Horse, at what age are you then asking children to decide that languages which they may have first encountered at the age of 11 are going to be their 'thing' in life? Or asking a child who did no music and only the odd assembly at primary to decide that they want an acting career? What about the scientist who wants to work abroad, or the sound engineer who needs music, maths and physics?

I applaud your lateral thinking but don't see how to make it work.

If I've misunderstood, and you are suggesting several streams -- arts, science, humanities within the same school, isn't that the same as picking your GCSEs?

If you look at a reception class you can pick out the ones the ones that are going to pass the 11+. So you might as well divide them up then. We could call the different groups Upper, Middle,Lower and Under. Just a suggestion.......

Great Martorana, that's sorted then

Birds no, in different schools. It allows mobility between levels without changing schools. It is the comprehensive sysyem, without the private schools, but with social and educational mobility.

People want choice, give them choice, but not at the expense of less academic pupils.

Talking,

The proof that comprehensives don't work is in the parents' behaviour. Everyone who can do anything about it, takes their DC into selective or independent schools. The comprehensives that do work tend to have an underlying element of partial selection or house price element.

Our nearby village has a comprehensive. They admit 10% on aptitude test, another 10% on music, and the rest from their post code. The houses in their post code are three times bigger/ 4 times more expensive than in our village. Their comprehensive school is among the best in the country. How does this example help those who are stuck with shity comprehensives?

The problem with comprehensives that don't work is the attitude to learning of some X% at the bottom. The reason why some comps work is that they managed to exclude or limit the presence of this x%.

Are posts by Motherinferior and me invisible?

We both have children in different s London comps that are on no way shielded by a catchment of cosily raised house prices. They both reflect the local s London demography, both have %s of FSM way above the national average and reflective of the borough.

In the high density urban area in between where MI and I live I can think of at least 3 other non selective comps that I know of that I would be more than happy for ds to go to, and more in the opposite direction.

Children of all abilities do well in the schools. Good leadership, good teaching, well run setting and streaming, good use of pupil premium all contribute to successful comps.

Sorry if that is not the case in your area, but comprehensive educating can and does work.

Oh, and I could have had a choice of opportunities to try for selective state Ed for very much top stream ds and chose not to because our walking distance comp is good.

That is my behaviour as a parent.

Horse,
but if you give people choice, it will undermine mobility because the middle classes will be able to take advantage of the choice to much grater extent. Middle class families have the choice to go private, to drive their DC long distances, to move house, to tutor, to give music/art lessons. People on benefit street are chained to their sink estate and don't have any room for maneuver. Their kids need real help, for their sake, but also for the benefit of society as a whole. It will solve the problem with sink schools, reduce unemployment and the benefit bill.

I think it is outdated to split early into academic and vocational streams, because the nature of jobs has changed. Now you need a degree to work in a call center, which is the equivalent of Victorian sweat shop. The secondary education is actually very basic. Even the least able should be able to master the core of it.

I don't believe one school can cater well to all abilities, because the spread between the bottom and the top is too wide. It is wide because of already existing inequality on the ground, the social divide that exist in UK. They often quote Finland and Sweden as examples of good comprehensive education. But these countries have socially homogeneous societies. Nothing like in this country.

All educational systems struggle to accommodate all ranges of abilities when a wide divergence exist. In countries like Germany, Holland, France they simply leave the bottom 15% behind. They don't allow the bottom x% to affect the education of the majority. It is not fair but at least they are clear what they do. In this country there is denial.

The top 5-25%(?) already took care of themselves via selective and independent schools. They left the majority behind anyway. The real problem IMO is that the remaining comprehensive sector insists on aligning on the lowest possible denominator and bring the middle down to keep in touch with the disruptive bottom x%.

Yes, there is a handful of comps that succeed, but it is impossible to replicate and scale up. There isn't enough inspirational teachers/ leaders for all comp schools.

I say take the bottom x% out into a really good well resourced, expensive education adapted to their needs. The society already pays a lot of money for them anyway in benefits, housing etc. Put the money in their education. It could be vocational, but it doesn't have to be. The problem with bottom x% is that they would struggle to learn any skill if they don't have the ability to focus, to persevere, to believe in themselves. If you can teach them wood trade, you can teach them English and maths as well.

Funny how primary schools manage to cater for a spread as wide as pre readers in Reception and L6 Maths and literacy in yr 6.

Your argument makes no sense.

I agree that Scandinavian countries are more socially homogeneous but actually where a good local comp functions well the social divide is less important because mc parents (like me and MI) do not undertake houdiniesque manoeuvres involving fake religion, tutoring marathons or massive mortgages to avoid the school.

Vanilla, that's why you allow choice within certain parameters.

The future bricklayer and the future architect go to the same school, the beautician and the doctor - just one goes to an engineering school and the other goes to a medical science school. It would really be just a ruse to keep the mcs happy to accept their local school without advantage.

if private and state are merged together staff can work together within the same school, offering different learning styles and approaches to learning which will give all children the best opportunities.

Funny how primary schools manage to cater for a spread as wide as pre readers in Reception and L6 Maths and literacy in yr 6.

Blu, you are quoting advanced skills pre-Reception, and advanced skills in year 6. I can totally understand how a primary can take kids tutored by parents before school and bring them to level 6 by year 6.

I understand your example of your choice in your local area. However competition for top jobs and uni places is on national level. From this point of view, your local comp is actually a secondary modern. Because the grammars and the public schools are full, whether you like it or not.

No government will ever be able to push parents from selective and public schools into comprehensives with intake from sink estates. Politically and practically it will not happen.

Look what happened to the very sensible government suggestion to have French style nurseries with higher pupil to teacher ratios, very highly qualifies staff and good discipline. That would improve the quality and make childcare more affordable iIMO. But middle class parents lead an hysterical campaign on MN against it : "You are elected by me to arrange education here is UK the way I want however miguided it is ".

Vanilla your fatalistic attitude is not progressive. The purpose of this thread is to discuss ideas, not to argue that the educational divide is a fait accompli and will always be there because people or politics won't allow any other way.

Times have changed. People have rights to equality that are taken very seriously now and the education system is ripe for change.

No, I mean an average spread of intake at yR, unable to read through to a yr 6 which includes some working ay L 6. Quite a spread within one school. And so do comps manage a wide spread within one year group. What is so hard about that?

And I can assure you that DS's comp is NOT like a secondary modern or high school in a full comp area. The selective options are super selectives and a bus and train away. Do able but we just didn't see the need. In ds's class there are some seriously high achieving kids. Several have been on L8 Maths in yr 7, having come from the local primaries. One of these that I know of lives in a council flat with a looking for work single mother, the other is the child of an international lawyer.

Sorry, I mean a secondary modern or high school in a full grammar area, of course.

But horse, DD has currently no idea none at all what she wants to do as an adult. She's a high achiever across the board (and a good singer, and a decent cook); which school should she choose, in your system?

All schools would do all subjects of course, but they would focus on some slightly more than others - as they get older they get more specialised - that is already happening now anyway, but involving the private sector in this would really help.

Which sector you work in has very little to do with your ability or your potential - it is more of a cultural thing.

Alternatively you don't segregate schools by any specialism at all and make them all the same offering the same subjects. Add a lottery entrance system to the mix and that way everyone has an equal opportunity.

We need to eradicate private schools for the system to be fair. People need to accept that children are born with equal potential and therefore deserve an equal chance.

"The proof that comprehensives don't work is in the parents' behaviour. Everyone who can do anything about it, takes their DC into selective or independent schools"

Do you have any evidence for this bizarre statement, please?

If they didn't have the option of taking their chldren out into the independent sector you wouldn't have a problem.

Like Blu, I can assure you that my older daughter's school is neither a secondary modern nor an enclave of middle-class leafiness.

My younger daughter is quite musically gifted - certainly of the calibre to get one of the music places referred to above - as well as being bright enough to have a v good stab at a selective. Or a bursary to a fee-paying school. But the experience her sister's had has only strengthened my comprehensive zeal

Do you really think we're so badly educated and so academically unambitious ourselves that we'll be fobbed off with third-rate education, btw? I'm quite taken aback, frankly.