state comprehensive secondary schools stretching able pupils - opinions?

[PastSellByDate]

Hi all

DD1 is happily selted into her secondary comprehensive which is rated 'GOOD' by OFSTED.

In Year 7 all classes are mixed ability. Gradually from Year 8 they start to stream - most classes in Year 9 are by ability.

So far I've had some niggles (little or no maths homework coming home - everyone giving the same worksheet and the homework is for pupils to finish the worksheet, but DD1 finishes in class 95% of the time. DD1 scored Nc L6 at KS2 SATs). We have raised this with the teacher and our solution has been to do more at home.

Last week there were a slew of reports in the press about secondary schools failing to stretch their most able: www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22873257 - based on the second OFSTED repoert into progress of pupils achieving NC L5+ at KS2 SATs in English or Maths in secondary (www.gov.uk/government/news/schools-not-doing-enough-to-support-most-able-students).

It's quite clear that if you are in a miniority of bright pupils at a state comprehensive your chances of going on to achieve an A/A* at GCSE are much lower (ca. 28% in Math if

Roses I agree that there are other barriers to gaining diversity in that group; not least culture. And wealth of course.

But I think it would be a good start if we could ensure that the education system didn't raise barriers to access. Like I say, many changes needed are actually quite small and simple.

Sorry, I got a bit confused a while back. Are we basically bemoaning the exam system, which appears to have become the be all and end all of school life, even though lots of bright people are not getting As and As and those that are getting As are often achieving this without understanding a word they are writing? Is it really just a lack of academic skills that is holding comprehensively educated high achievers back from taking up positions of power and influence? It seems to me that you need more than academic ability and training to become one of these "moulders" described by TheWordFactory. Isn't there a little bit of the age-old casting around for reasons to excuse the status quo? I can see that we might run short of academics if we don't train up our academics well, but am really not convinced that academics are actually our movers and shakers. In other words, I am really not convinced that changing the exam system and getting more students to think beyond the exam syllabus and challenge themselves academically is going to do anything to change the status quo at all - something else will be found to be wanting, next...

It'll be their round-shouldered lumpenness... their inability to look you in the eye and stand tall... too many hours at the books and not enough on the playing fields of Eton...

Well rabbit of course the moulders, the elite, the dominant group (whatever we want to call it) will try to hang on to its dominance.

It will fight against diversity ( I give you the patriarchy).

But eventually it has to give up the absurd justifications. Educational qualifications etc however, are not an absurd justification. It is not absurd to say a BTEC in dance is not the equivalent of three academic GCSEs.

Roses I think that's absolutely right. Yes of course we need more diversity at the top, and the lack of social mobility we're seeing at the moment is genuinely upsetting, but the answer is not to push everyone in the same direction. The square pegs should be given the chance to take pride and further what they do well, rather than the entire education system being focused on what they do badly.

Put more simply, if you get a first in Economics from the LSE, you will, whatever your background, whatever your gender, whatever your race, stand a bloody good chance of getting into the dominant group .

If you didn't get offered a place, because some teacher told you in year 8 that 18 GCSEs were a good idea...

Which isn't to say I don't agree with TheWordFactory too, because I do.

It is not absurd to say a BTEC in dance is not the equivalent of three academic GCSEs.

I disagree. It should be about the effort put in and the skills acquired, not the subject matter.

not I think sending my children to a school which I believe does not adequately provide for them, when it is fully within my power to send them somewhere that will, would be quite immoral.

"quite immoral" Word? Really? Is morality a relative concept?

We make choices for our children. Those parents that make a sacrificial offering of their dear children and choose state education are just as driven by the need to do right by them as those of you who go private.

Your choice is no more or less valid than mine. Morality has nothing to do with it.

not yes, I believe it would be utterly wrong to send my DC to a school I believed wouldn't provide form them, if I had the option not to.

That option might not involve private school. It might be the option to use a different state school. It might be the option to home educate. It might be anything.

But if I did have that option, but still sent my DC to a school that did not provide for them, for my own reasons, then yes, I think that would be immoral.

I believe in the comprehensive ideal. I know some comprehensives are not great (often because they are not actually comprehensives), but that doesn't stop me believing that a comprehensive system is the best, most moral, system of schooling (if we have to bring morality into school choice).

I also believe in my children, that my children would achieve as much in a comprehensive as the grammar schools they actually attend.

Ds's school has made the decision to carry on with the vocational qualifications that are best for the particular catchment. This will have a devastating effect on our position in the league tables and who knows what consequences down the line................

I have absolutely no issue with vocational subjects being offered provided that those taking them up know the impact they will have going forward.

not yes, I believe it would be utterly wrong to send my DC to a school I believed wouldn't provide form them, if I had the option not to.

Word what right thinking parent would opt to send their child to a school that "did not provide for them" unless they had no other choice?

You've said it twice and it sounds no less ridiculous the more times you say it!

TheWordFactory - so you are saying the problem is people taking BTecs in Dance, not that an A in Physics is meaningless, because you can achieve that without understanding anything?... Do YOU think you can get an A in a subject without really understanding anything? Because it seems to me that people are arguing on here that even if you choose 3 sciences, etc, etc, you're still not being taught how to think and will flunk out of university as a result of your pathetic perfectionism, which means you just can't tolerate not getting 100% all the time... which is what your useless comprehensive/grammar school taught you to aim for... which isn't a good advert for doing 3 sciences, rather than what you enjoy, really, is it?... At least with a BTec in dance, it would be harder to accuse you of being lumpen and round shouldered - although, of course, if you'd really wanted to be a dancer, you should've got into the Royal Ballet School....

Yes, oddly the schools that many parents believe simply 'can't cater' for their dc's seem to cater perfectly well for other high achieving children, turning out happy, bright kids with places at top universities etc.

But now we know - these seemingly clever and successful state educated children will all fuck up and fall apart at university except that there's no evidence they do because they can't cope with not being 'the best' at what they do....

Now, should a 1st in Economics from the LSE justify you getting into the dominant group? I mean, what have economists ever done for us?

rabbit I don't have any problem with qualifications in dance or anything really.

I love the ballet. I wish I could dance.

My issue is the advice and encouragement pupils receive about such qualifications. No high ability child who may later wish to attend a highly selective university should be given to understand that all qualifications have equivalence.

I have issues with a lot of other things I see too regularly . My list grows.

As for the A question; if we're talking about GCSE level then, then no, I don't think an A is a marker of a pupil who has great depth of understanding in that subject or great abiity (which is not to say the pupils don't have that understanding or ability).

At A level, I cant speak for all disciplines, but the marking in humanities means that the more conservative answers are more likely to hit the spot. The marking can be flakey and a student who is pushing the boundaries of their undertstanding will be more at risk of that flakey marking if that makes sense.

For this reason, at the more selective of the two universities where I work, we make offers based not only on qualifications, but also based on aptitude tests, interview and other things.

We all have a duty to help our children 'reach their full potential', it's one of the Every Child Matters aims IIRC. So it's official that yes, if we have the choice we do have to do the best for them and not restrict them by pushing in the wrong direction.

I think if anything has to change it has got to be the status of vocational qualifications. People like Word still seem to think they are an easy option - they really are not. Anyone who has studied for a Diploma or a BTEC will know how hard it is, how thoroughly they are marked and how, if you fall behind, there are no options for retakes or catchups without serious exceptions. People are readily kicked off courses if they get behind.

OK so a consultant has spent a couple of years more than a nurse 'studying'. But while he's been studying, the nurse has been learning a different set of skills
Its 15 years minimum academic and practical training to become a consultant.

3 years to be a nurse
not exactly 'a couple of years'

It wouldn't surprise me if BTECs weren't more rigorously marked, simply because the government doesn't appear to be interested in them, so less need to play about with the marking system.

We all have a duty to help our children 'reach their full potential', it's one of the Every Child Matters aims IIRC.

Pish. Every Child Matters is always interpreted as helping the more needy.

I'm fascinated by word's 'morality'. It's always interesting to see how other people approach a problem. My approach was that DD's school wasn't ideal but no school is, and the private option didn't seem to be £100,000-worth better. I took a much less moral more pragmatic stance.

Carriemac - I hope you are not claiming that a nurse after 3 years' training would be fit for absolutely any nursing role?

I've just remembered somebody posting once about As from state schools not being as good as As from private ones

Vocational qualifications have certainly been massively devalued in the current GCSE shake up- it's pretty disastrous, frankly, for schools like ours. We have a straight choice- do what's best for the kids, or try to play the league tables game. And probably lose out there anyway.

The point is that some people make great consultants, and other people make great nurses. Other people are natural artists but struggle with academia (etc etc). People have different skills and abilities, but everyone is put through a system which only recognises academic achievement. So many of them feel like failures by the time they're in secondary school.