Nikki out, Justine in

[bojorojo]

Will the new Government be more supportive of new grammar schools and change the law to allow new stand-alone ones? Theresa May wants one in her constituency and all the anti grammar school brigade have gone: Gove, Morgan, Cameron and Osborne. The BBC is reporting this could be on the agenda.

Admittedly she did part of her degree in the Murray Building at Soton Uni - about which we BSc bods were extremely rude.

She did a Business related degree, not Economics, apparently.

mini are you even vaguely aware that a) the country isn't just London? and b) the majority of dc don't have access to grammars, because they don't live in traveling distance of them, so therefore never sit or fail the 11+. They just go to comprehensives, regardless of parental support, or ability, or anything else. Fwiw when I hear of comp pupils achieving 10 a*, after well done I think how shit the system is that won't provide that opportunity to all dc at comprehensives. Still, at least as you think private is a waste of money you can stop banging the drum about it being the biggest injustice in education.

hpfa I'm nor talking about the entrants from state versus private. I'm looking solely at where the state pupils come from.

As I cba googling the exact figures, for arguments sake let's say 4% of dc attend state grammar, and as a result another 12% attend secondary moderns. That means the other 84% attend comprehensives. Even if you say that only 25% are grammar material dc, that still means 21% of the total are potential top uni entrants, plus the 4% at grammar. Therefore there should be 5x as many ex comp students at rg unis as there are grammar.

Even using the level 5 maths as a basis it doesn't add up. The grammar dc might account for 4 of that 25-30% of level 5. But the other 21-26 would therefore not be at grammars. So again using that example there should be 5 or 6:1 ex comp students to grammar at top unis. And that's before you even consider the fact sat grades tend to be inflated in grammar areas because of 11+ preparation. Or the fact if we're looking at maths and top university, level 5 covers too large an ability range to predict top university potential.

lurked
you need to read up on super-zips
they are a very insidious part of the problem

BUT
utterly irrelevant to the job that Justine faces : producing kids to replace the bulk immigrants

"when I hear of comp pupils achieving 10 a*, after well done I think how shit the system is that won't provide that opportunity to all dc at comprehensives"

Silk purses, sows ears.

There are schools near me that are rattling about at the bottom of the borough league tables, one of which schools was in the bottom 17 schools in the whole of the U.K. A few years ago, and which is still massively unpopular. All of these 'shit schools' produce small numbers of students with stellar results. What makes these students different? Each and every one is a fairly new immigrant to the UK.

Comprehensives which get terrible results in the UK overwhelmingly start off with low achieving children.

Schools which get amazing results invariably start off with large numbers of high achieving children.

Most improvement in school results following a change of management is fluke, fiddling, or the result in the school having been successful in attracting more m/c and high achieving kids.

www.learningspy.co.uk/featured/how-to-improve-a-school/

talkin I think grammars are too few for that to explain it. Especially given there are no doubt dc who would have failed the 11+ in a selective area, but in a good comprehensive have gone on to top unis. (I'm thinking dc with undx Sen, eal, late developers etc). So if anything the comprehensive pupils should be greater than proportional.

mini if you think some schools offering substandard education is ok, on the basis no local dc are capable of more than the minimum requirement of academic subjects, and no dc could possibly need teaching above the level of a pass, because naturally they'll all be too thick and low in aspiration, then you aren't worth conversing with.

Lurked So again using that example there should be 5 or 6:1 ex comp students to grammar at top unis.
Ummm - but this is what you do find at Oxbridge. Out of 100 ex-state school students at Oxbridge 15 will be from grammars and 85 from comps. Which is a ratio of 1:5.

The only comp that was vaguely acceptable in Wandsworth has sent one child to Oxbridge in the 11/12 years it has been open and I think only one to Durham.

The results at dd's comp declined every year after a new head was appointed.

The problem with state schools is that where there is poor leadership it takes far too long to depose it. Most parents can sniff a poor head or one that doesn't fit the school in nano seconds, why can't governing bodies? At that level neither is it about poor T&Cs. When the head of dd's former comp took "early retirement" they were on £103,000 and the Deputy more than £65,000.

So because Wandsworth has one poor Comp, we should change the system? For info, my girls grammar school only sent one to Cambridge in 14 years and never sent anyone to Oxford. As a comprehensive it now does send pupils regularly, and has a couple of Olympians to boot. One of the Olympians learnt her sport at Cambridge, so it is relevant.

Interesting. My DS's London Indy sends about 30 every year.

Justine Greening currently being interviewed by Andrew Marr. While she didn't rule out a return to grammars she didn't sound altogether encouraging, suggesting, rightly, that there were more important things to worry about.

Peter Symonds : 2000 pupils per year of whom around 800 go to Russell Group Unis
Peter Symonds got 40 Oxbridge offers in 2015 so 2% of whole year from those numbers (which is about right if intake is completely unselected) but only 5% of RG standard students. I am not sure what that says about that model of education for very bright students. Many students there will be MC and not deterred by the image of Oxbridge and in fact about 160 applied.
It is hard enough to cater for all abilities with right pastoral care in even very large schools / colleges in the state system. Even a sixth form college the size of PS does not have the full range of provision for non academic students. Most of the school / colleges around the UK are smaller sites and that infrastructure is unlikely to change.

Peter Symonds is located in Winchester, which is a very wealthy and educated city. PS draws many of its students from the most affluent surrounding areas, in which parents are also highly educated and well off. A significant number of PS students were educated at selective private schools up to 16. 40 Oxbridge offers to PS out of a cohort of 2000 therefore does not look remarkable. Neither does 800 to RG universities. The numbers reflect the cohort. (Private schools nearby send around 10% to Oxbridge.)

Overall I agree that the Hampshire sixth form colleges do provide a variety of choice. But as TP said above that choice is very much limited by parents ability to pay for transport.

esonerp
I do not call Central Southampton "wealthy", nor is central Andover, or Fareham, or Gosport, or Basingstoke - all of them are in the "catchment" of Symonds.

Also Symonds has significant numbers of pupils doing Btec and vocational subjects who could not give a flying &&&& about Oxbridge.

When will the narrow minded selective school brigade realise that education is about much, much more than that?

The Brexit vote was a backlash against immigration.
Why is there so much immigration?
Because British kids cannot or will not do the jobs that need doing.
So we either have to get our kids to be happy cleaning toilets and picking veg, or import people.

Greening's job is to deal with the 80% not the 20%

Jo Johnson can deal with the impact that Brexit will have on Universities.

"mini if you think some schools offering substandard education is ok"

Where did I say that?

I think in education you generally get out what you put in, in terms of the ability and willingness of the child, and the resources the state is willing to put into their education.

Put in children from families where there are no books in the house, and nobody reads, where parents don't engage with schools or teachers or the educational process, and try to compensate for that when you can only spend 4 or 5k per head, and the result is pretty predictable.

It makes me sick hearing people describing under-resourced schools with high numbers of very low achieving children from communities generally very disengaged from education, as 'crap'. What do you expect?

If you think the cost of educating a child properly is 13k a year - which is what it costs to send a child to a private school - then stop criticising state schools for being unable to produce the same quality of education for a half or even a third of that sum.

Stop arguing that state schools are failing poor, low achieving children when private schools can't/won't do anything for them either - because if they could, why the hell aren't they offering them bursaries?

I do not call Central Southampton "wealthy", nor is central Andover, or Fareham, or Gosport, or Basingstoke - all of them are in the "catchment" of Symonds.

But only fairly well off kids from these areas can afford the bus passes to PS, as you yourself pointed out above. Lots of kids of academics go to PS from Shirley; far less kids from not so affluent homes go up there rather than to BP or RT.

When will the narrow minded selective school brigade realise that education is about much, much more than that?
Talkin my point would be that actually PS despite all the advantages on its side, large site etc, is still not able to offer optimal support for both ends of the academic spectrum nor the choice for the non-academic schools. Therefore specialisation at different colleges or building is required. Choice for this specialisation is limited by time travelling, expense and parental input even at 16.

meant nor the choice for the non-academic students

Classes of more than 30 can be taught well if the disruptive minority is elsewhere. That's where resources need to be diverted.

As a nation we also have to value the vocations more and take an active pride in the small businesses who are our hairdressers, dry cleaners. Plumbers, mechanics etc. Young people don't need a degree from a third rate uni to work in banks and hotels. They do need to be well educated and well presented, punctual, well disciplined and pleasant.

The inference from the failure of valuing trade and other jobs in the British education system plus some of the basic skills for employment listed above (delivered so much better by immigrants educated elsewhere) is that the comprehensive system with opening up of higher education has failed a large proportion of the less academically advantages students for whom it was designed to benefit.

I wonder if specialisation ie academic versus technical versus other more practical syllabus should occur at eg age 14.
This would be selected by a combination of parental and student choice plus realistic assessment of pupil potential by school assessment.
The specialisation with appropriate facilities and teacher expertise could either be delivered on one large site (if the infrastructure is there) or several sites.

I suspect that people would be a lot less unhappy with selection at 14, which happens to a certain extent with GCSE choices anyway.

What's really needed is a proper debate, instead of tinkering around with the Goverance of schools. Academies haven't been the wonderful solution touted, but that seems to be the only option on the table.

sendsummer
specialisation ie academic versus technical versus other more practical syllabus should occur at eg age 14.
Hmmm
So you are not aware that it already does on a massive scale

Tuesday and Thursday are "college day" when all of the year 10 and 11 kids not on the A level track go to college from school to do vocational courses like hair dressing, mechanics, boat building, tractor driving, hospitality
the other four days a week they do the "national curriculum".
( for the year 12 and 13 kids, those are their work experience days so the colleges use their resources well )

The fact that London selective school families are oblivious of what goes on in the real world explains a lot of the utterly crap decision making by politicians.

A bit like Londoners not comprehending that the rest of the country does not have free buses for children.

That is half hearted specialisation. It takes quite a bit of resources to transport DCs around and still means following one academic biased curriculum.

As a nation we also have to value the vocations more and take an active pride in the small businesses who are our hairdressers, dry cleaners. Plumbers, mechanics etc. Young people don't need a degree from a third rate uni to work in banks and hotels. They do need to be well educated and well presented, punctual, well disciplined and pleasant.

YY.
Tony Blair with his ridiculous notion that everyone should go to university and Brirain would be a marvellously (on paper) educated country of superstars was a crock of shit.
That was when we (as a country) started devaluing trades, skilled work & unskilled work as valid career paths.

*I suspect that people would be a lot less unhappy with selection at 14, which happens to a certain extent with GCSE choices anyway.

What's really needed is a proper debate, instead of tinkering around with the Goverance of schools.*

Sort of agree.
It is pretty much what happens in our local comp anyway tbh.
It's partnered with the local technical college where pupils can go to do mechanics, engineering, (all the traditional trades: plumbing, bricklaying, electrician etc), hair & beauty, Early Years care etc etc.
The school also have the opportunity of an extra period after the normal school day for an extra GCSE (my 14 yr old is doing drama after school for eg).