Intrigued by the 'bright child will succeed in any school'

[findasolution]

This comment fascinates me. I am a long time Mumsnet user (name changed), making my first post as an OP.

I was a relatively bright child, straight As up to 3rd year of senior school (in old money), when things started to go wrong.

I got tired of being bullied for being smart and driven, lost my confidence to in being different and dumbed down/rebelled to fit in, resulting in leaving school with 4 O levels - way below my potential.

My mum sent me to a local comprehensive (West Midlands) because it used to be a 'grammar'. Such was the due diligence 30 plus years ago . Couple of years after I left, each entry year was closed to allow the school to run out before the school closed, premises bought...at least there was a reason behind the teachers (most, not all) being completely disengaged with us.

Anyway, that's my background, and I know this is not reflective of most schools today. With so many making choices where they can, by religion; location; intelligence; cost etc allowing), I am really interested in people's opinions on how children can definitely achieve their full potential in any given secondary environment, and therefore considering alternatives to their local state schools is not necessary...

No - that's not really ideal, IMO, unless you are in an exceedingly wealthy demographic. Limitless choice is not any more of an ideal than the omission of basics (double science).

Genuine question. How does lack of resource impact on the provision of triple science? My understanding is that in top sets triple is taught in the same timetable slots as double ie no extra teachers would be required. Or am I missing something (I very probably am...)

It is far from ideal to teach triple science in the same slots as double - schools only do this for their very top sets (and arguably don't really do triple science
justice for even these pupils, as they skim a lot of the material).

A wider ability range of pupils could take triple science if more space on the timetable was allocated to it - selective and private schools often insist all pupils take triple science.

Ok thank you disquitiones. So why can't more space be allocated to it in the timetable given that many state schools are criticised for making their pupils sit too many GCSEs or equivalent? I still don't understand what it's got to do with budget...

The 20 year old British beautician who famously tweeted, "If barroco barner is our president why is he getting involved with Russia" has 17 GCSEs.

Bertrand You are imagining a 'comprehensive school idyll' that probably wouldn't exist in your location. You don't live in Winchester, Farnham or London but in a somewhat 'outlying' part of the country with a slightly higher than average percentage of White British kids on fsm. Your semi-rural or coastal community is probably very similar to communities in Suffolk or Norfolk - these two counties are placed very near the bottom of the local authority league tables where dozens of mediocre comprehensive schools churn out kids with very mediocre results - far too many 'high attainers' with Bs and Cs at GCSE and far too many 'middle attainers' with Ds. Many comprehensive schools in nearer East Sussex don't do much better either. If you took away the grammar schools from your area then some of the best teachers and some of the middle class families would not be living there (or they would be attending independent schools that you couldn't access either).

I know I am imagining an idyll- that's why I said "in an ideal world"! An ideal world where everyone could study whatever subjects they wanted to, where schools have the money to run a GCSE Russian or Ancient Greek class if even one child wanted to study it, where very able kids could have one to one lessons and so could lower ability children.......where everyone can have exactly what they want

But sadly, it's not like that. People hate paying taxes and we've got wars to pay for. So compromise is necessary. The discussion is about what compromises are acceptable. Presumably nobody thinks there don't need to be any?

"The 20 year old British beautician who famously tweeted, "If barroco barner is our president why is he getting involved with Russia" has 17 GCSEs"

No idea what you mean- I must have missed something.

bert I'm not talking about denied applications or budget being too small for adequate provision. I'm referring to cases where the school is actually receiving funding for a particular child, and yet he will try and get away with providing zilch under the false pretence the child is not receiving funding. His rapid change of attitude when confronted with someone who can point out the facts somewhat confirms he's deliberately trying to mislead some parents.

As for vocational quals, the very reason they're discredited is because some schools use them as an easy route to passes, rather than for the individuals benefit.

The 17 may not be true for that child. But 14/15 certainly has happened to my knowledge. The timetabling wasn't a problem, shove them in early, soon as they can get a c, thus freeing up more of ks4.

I know you're not. As I said, he sounds like an arsehole. I was just pointing out that schools sometimes get castigated for things, particularly around SEN funding that aren't their fault.
Just for clarification- what do you mean by vocational exams? I wonder whether we're talking about different things?

Various- everything from btechs, to nvqs to gcse hospitality etc. All of which do serve very good purpose when used correctly. But not in large quantities instead of academic subjects, whether that be for an academic child, or one who should be putting their efforts into an achievable core subject and vocational quals only in areas they may use. And certainly not vocational quals in large numbers.

I suppose what I'm getting at, is if you use hair and beauty (or any other) as a dumping ground for kids who will struggle to pass a humanity, or mfl, or separate science, and any other child free at that time despite them having no future use for it, you stop it being a useful and respectable vocation, and turn it into the thickos course.

Can I ask again...what does offering triple science alongside double have to do with budgets?

The vocational qualifications are a useful route for the C/D borderline child who needs to work hard to get the basics and will not have good enough GCSEs for A levels. It is somewhat unfair to say these young people are thick. Would you say that directly to your hairdresser? The vocational qualification should be a springboard to further training and learning and there is nothing Wong with that.

Around here, years ago, the secondary moderns used to have children with 16 GCSE equivalents! Not any more but it was bad advice and was PR for the school, not useful qualifications for the child. These children looked better, academically, than the high flyers at the local grammar schools.

The same schools also have quite a few high ability children but know little about what A level subjects are best. For example they offer A level Law and sell this as the best qualification to take for getting a place on a Law degree. There is a need for much better advice in schools about which subjects and the number of subjects. Teachers are teachers and do not have enough all-round knowledge to advise on subjects and careers. We then, of course, get back to the "that will do" school of advice!

Using 'thick' was tongue in cheek. I used it in the context of why vocational quals are often discredited. i.e some schools are turning what is actually a good and respectable vocation and qualification into being known as 'for thickos' purely because of the way they administer it. Hairdressing was a randomly picked example, you could replace that with any other and the effects are the same. They need to be alongside core subjects for the kids that stand to gain in some way. Not as a replacement for core subjects or because there's room on the timetable for a child to do it.

It's not just budgetary constraints that dictate which subjects are offered. With the best will and a shedload more money, I can't see a comprehensive in, say, Grimsby (sorry, Grimsby!) being able to conjure up tip-top science teachers let alone ones able to teach Latin and Greek. As it is schools struggle to find maths teachers and as for science - it is well known that subject specialists are practically non-existent and that a Biology teacher may well be teaching all three components. And for GCSE it probably doesn't matter, but when we're talking about catering to the most able, then it may well be a brake on their development.

I find it really depressing to think that some people look at the person who cuts their hair, or fixes their car, or builds them a new garden wall, or makes their sandwich and cream tea at a seaside cafe- or even shoes their horse or fixes their roof and thinks "What a thicko"

"can't see a comprehensive in, say, Grimsby (sorry, Grimsby!) being able to conjure up tip-top science teachers let alone ones able to teach Latin and Greek"

Gosh. A whole new level of snobbishness is emerging!

bert don't twist my words, I never said anything of the sort

Didn't you? My mistake. That's certainly how it read.

I suppose I just get so fed up with the undermining of vocational qualifications by everyone -including the government. The ones that were most use to the kids in our school have been arbitrarily removed from the performance indicators, so we have a choice between being downgraded as a school with all that entails and providing courses which benefit our pupils.

People don't seem to understand that academic qualifications are not for everyone . And being academic does not make you better than not being academic.

This is what really pisses me off about these threads. It's impossible to have a discussion about standards in education without words being put in posters' mouths and accusations of snobbery being bandied about.

Now can someone please explain to me how the provision of triple science is impacted by budget? Bertrand you must know as you're a governor?

Cherryburn- please could you explain how the Grimsby comment was anything but snobbery?

It's not just budgets- although extra teachers and facilities cost money. In out school, for example, the numbers who would be capable of taking triple science would be so tiny that it couldn't justify the extra staffing and facilities required. And it would take time and resources away from the core subjects that our kids really need to give them a chance in life. For a significant number of our children, double science is a stretch. And now there is no science BTec, or single science, double science is the only option.

We are talking about a school where they have only ever had 1 child starting year 7 with a level 6.

And only about 7-10 % with any level 5s.f

Re the Grimsby comment I read it as a reflection of the fact that there's a shortage of good STEM teachers and the really good ones can have their pick of jobs/locations. I think it's accepted that locations in the country perceived to be less glamorous struggle to attract them isn't it?

So is the opportunity for triple science more dependent on critical mass of pupils able enough to do it than budget? I can see that in a secondary modern that might be a problem. But that doesn't explain why it's not available in every comprehensive school.

bert that's my point entirely. Shoving anyone on any vocational course is one of the main reasons they are discredited and undermined. And even for the kids for whom a vocational route is of benefit, I strongly think if they are struggling with core subjects, they shouldn't be spreading themselves thin over vocational quals they won't use, when they could instead concentrate on better results in the quals (academic and vocational) that will be of future use.

As to academic subjects, I don't think ability should automatically preclude you. Maybe Katie will get 3 d's in separate science, and Jack will still get D's in 2 mfl. But if they are actually interested in those subjects, which also support maths and literacy respectively, it's a damn site more use than them getting that D from catering and hospitality which they have no interest.

And back to the point of the thread, Johnnys desire to study medicine is every bit as valid and important as Alfie's desire to be a hairdresser.

bert I think that's also unfair. But in a comprehensive area like mine, kids don't even get that chance to sit the 11+. It's assumed that because of where they live, a sm education is all they need. So instead of some able kids missing out, they all do.

Why is it snobbery to tell the truth ?

Nobody would want to teach subjects such as Latin , Greek or Russian in Grimsby , when with a specialism such as these a Public school would snap them up.

Bertrand. You have got to stop taking umbridge at people telling the truth.

P.S There is no demand or 'need'. for Latin Greek or triple Science in Grimsby.

There are no jobs in Grimsby needing an understanding or knowledge of Latin/Greek or Even Chemistry...