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?

And my ds is in year 8 at a secondary modern school- working at low/ mid level 7s for all subjects except MFL, which he only started last year and Art- about which the least said the better.

He has

Sorry, pressed post too soon.

I find it baffling that people think only those who use independent or grammar schools care about their children's education. Oh, and that the anecdotes of actual, real live comprehensive school parents are discounted because of the scare stories in the tabloid press.

vanilla

if your assertion that parents would do anything to move away from comp schools was true,
house prices in Hampshire would be suppressed

not that I've noticed
we love our comps

my kids get far far more than I got at GDST ...

It would take a bolshevik revolution to abolish public schools, to re-house the rich and the poor so they are homogeneously mixed and to get them to study together in comprehensive schools. Even in communist countries they had selective schools, specialised in music, arts, technology etc.

Governments of all colours tried to improve the education system with good intentions, but only exacerbated the divide because of existing social divide and prevailing beliefs among the parents and the teachers.

When upper middle class mothers torpedoes the idea of structured early years ‘ education, why didn't any of the 'progressives' defend the idea? It would have been good to prepare the disadvantaged DC for school, to improve the quality overall and to make it affordable. But no, we don’t want change.

The problem is with the 'progressive' teaching methods, the culture at the school and the bottom of achievement range. The word 'progressive' became synonym with a discredited experiment. The middle classes opted out of it and it spiralled to the bottom as a result.

que?

In fact I do believe that MI has a rather good degree (the best) from an Oxbridge college.....

I was privately then Direct Grant at a then GPDST school and am confident that my ds is not getting an education which lags behind my own.

And it is a good deal less stuffy, boring and conservative, too. But that may be a general sign of the times.

Is it just me that doesn't understand vanillachocolate's last post?

No

I think Vanilla is saying we have to keep everything the same or there will be a bolshevik revolution. True conservative thinking.

Her reference to commie specialist subject schools is interesting, and backs up what I thought was my idea, thought up over a cup of tea and some spare time. Divide by specialism of subject - a bit - ie. not a selective super-race of doctors in one school, but potential nurses, beauticians and vets in one school working at subjects and levels that appeal to each individual's personal preference - but all ability levels mixed into one school. We already have that in many London state schools and it's working well.

Assimilation and homogeneity will never take place, we are all individuals and that will never be an issue as long as ALL children are given the confidence and support to thrive. yes there were experiments in the 1970s but it wasn never given enough time to progress. Some of the most interesting and fulfilled people I know were part of this experiment. Their education did suffer but they all caught up later.

Until now we have had a system that benefits certain people because they know the system. Things are slightly changing now because we have league tables and the internet - if there is any revolution it's happening right now because the bolsheviks have the information that was denied to them by the ruling elite who previously kept it among themselves.

This is why people like johnbunyan and Vanilla are probably a bit off kilter. The applicants for selective schools are not the same breeding as they used to be. The underclass now have an equal opportunity. The bolshevik revolution is happening right now - but it's still leaving a wake of unfairness and segregation behind it.

Horse,

The applicants for selective schools are not the same breeding as they used to be. The underclass now have an equal opportunity. The bolshevik revolution is happening right now - but it's still leaving a wake of unfairness and segregation behind it. .... ha, ha

Your post is a good attempt at a manifesto, but unlike the communist manifesto by Karl Marx, it's incoherent and conflicted as to what it argues for and against. That is why the divide exists. People like you proclaim general principles which are internally contradictory. When it comes to walking the talk, they don't act on their manifestos, but on self interest. The whole thing is just hot air on a middle class desperate mothers forum.

You can't argue for choice, but against public or selective schools. You can't declare that underclass has equal opportunity and argue for change.

What I believe is that on MN people are quite happy with the divide. Some like their outstanding comprehensives, I like my super selective grammars, others like their public schools. It works for our respective DC. What's not to like?

Every time a novel idea is proposed to address the problem, the messenger is bombarded with mud.

Horse. I have a question :

What do you call a Primary School that lets a DD with an IQ of 138
enter high school with Level 3 C for English and 3 B for Maths....

I thought IQ tests just tested your ability to do IQ tests?

And who are you calling desperate? I may be middle class but I'm not desperate. Don't need to be. Stop imputing desperation just because you want desperation.

Ouch Vanilla. I must have struck a nerve. No idea which one, still don't understand what you are saying. Maybe that's because I went to a comprehensive school.

Not that I actually mind the idea of a bit of a Bolshevik revolution, mind, as long as it is a nice non-violent event with decent snacks.

I always worry about kids whose parents have them IQ tested
its such a pigeonhole
and so utterly arbitrary and non transferable

And yes I am quite happy with my comprehensive. It is a good school. I am happy with it not because I don't know better but because it is a good school.

(Blu, I didn't get a first from Oxford. It still galls me. Can't even blame my comp as it got me in with a top marks scholarship...)

Oh don't rubbish IQ tests, it degrades the debate... Makes you look defensive...

Eh? Defensive about what? I don't think I've ever taken an IQ test. All I said was I thought they'd been discredited as a test of anything bar the ability to do IQ tests.

IQ tests are an utter irrelevance
they did not count towards my O levels
they did not count towards my A levels
they did not count towards my degree
they did not count towards my accountancy exams
I will never subject my children to them

IQ tests are a marketing ploy of Mensa.
They have no place in education or school selection

What a rubbish. 11+ are IQ tests. Common entrancement are IQ tests in part. Aptitude tests in job selection are IQ tests. Educational Psychology reports include IQ tests. It does not matter how you call them, but they do work and they are used.

Morry, good for you to have your DD tested. Now you can prove it's the school that is crap, not your DD 'achieving in line with her ability'.

Talkinpeace. It was the only tool I have or had to fight the education my DD was receiving.

I thought you believed in a Bell Curve that demonstrates peoples Intelligence, surely that is linked to tests or exams....

The only people that can't be trained in getting high IQ are those with neurodevelopmental problems. Other than that it is a measurement that measures ability to do IQ tests, as others have said. If every child was trained to pass IQ tests every child would be more or less as intelligent as the next.

Educational psychologists use a range of tests, IQ is only used as a broad measure in wider research. I know plenty of children with high IQ that don't know how to climb a tree. How intelligent is that, really?

I know plenty of children with high IQ that don't know how to climb a tree. How intelligent is that, really?

...Speaking of something arbitrary and non transferable...

Horse, you are trying too hard. Maybe it's time for bed . See you tomorrow.

OP, I don't want the "the state and independent systems to grow naturally together" and don't think "much greater co-operation" between the two is desirable. I'd like to see private schools abolished. I think that their charitable status is fundamentally unfair as they are not charities and only help the rich and I think that there is no way that private schools can "increase social mobility" - by definition, they reduce it.

So I think your OP is nonsensical - clearly, you'd like to flatter yourself that independent schools can inspire/help/teach the rest of us. Actually, the reverse is true. It's easy to teach if you have small class sizes/helpful parents/no pupils with SEN etc. Plus better salaries for teachers, better resources, and less pointless forms to fill in/hoops to jump through. And if your pupils live in homes with ideal study conditions, and frequently have paid tutors to fill in any gaps in your teaching!

The fact remains,