School places

I understand your concern gillybob, a friend's daughter attended Albert Elliott and she felt it was not in her best interests to stay there. She was able to enrol her at Cleadon C of E primary so she changed schools.

Maybe the reason no-one has responded is that there's no effective strategy for someone in your position! You could move her to another school if that's possible but if she is settled and happy where she is, that might be risky. The poor Ofsted report supports your belief that your GD is not getting the best teaching but the behaviour and safety element is also important. Schools 'requiring improvement' are under considerable scrutiny and pressure and your GD's school will have been required to come up with a recovery plan monitored by the local authority so improvement ought to be on the way. In your position, I would make sure my grandchildren got lots of learning opportunities outside school. Visits, activities at home, making collections, doing bits of research are all invaluable and need not cost much.

Just bumping this one as was hoping for some advice from teachers/retired teachers or anyone with an understanding of the education system.

Very interesting discussion. My grandchildren attend their local primary school which was newly opened in 2011 after the closure and amalgamation of three schools. The school is slap bang in the middle of a large council estate and is a larger than average primary school. A large proportion of the children attract PPG (pupil premium grant) funding and there is an above average number of special educational needs children in attendance. The school has just has its first Ofsted visit the results of which were pretty diabolical although not surprising with all but one (Behaviour and Safety) areas resulting in Requires Improvement.

My eldest grandaughter (7) has just finished her SAT's and I am extremely concerned about the standard of education she is receiving. I have spoken to her class teacher on several occasions and am assured that she is very bright and that she is working well above average but I think this is despite the standard of teaching, the school and the obstacles in her way. As a grandparent I feel helpless and wonder if anyone can offer any advice please.

And now former members of the Armed Forces without a degree can train as teachers in two years. Sounds like the 'emergency training' programme run after the 1939-45 War. What startling new initiative will Gove come up with next?

I think the problem with private schools is that when people in authority are able to send their children to a better school if necessary they won't make an effort to improve all schools across the board. I've never worked within the school sytem but have always been aware of the difference a good headmaster/mistress makes to a school. I've seen awful schools turned round very quickly by such a change.

Only 6% - who then represent, still, nearly 50% at Oxbridge - a significant impact I'd say. In some areas, the % is much much higher.

If I think of the small town where I finished my career- there were 3 secondary schools. Us, the Comprehensive, the Catholic School and a minor public School. The Comprehensive was of course nothing of the sort, as the 'cream' went to either the Catholic school or the Private- and we had the 'rest'. The figures for those going to either of the above (the Catholic school was not private btw) was a lot higher than 6%.

And in the City and many other fields, the Old (Public) School network is still very prevalent.

I think the importance of private education, except for a few prestige schools and a few, admittedly, influential professions is grossly over-estimated. Only 6% of children go to private schools and this has changed very little over 50 years. As many, if not more, children from the social groups that can afford private education go to state schools and if private education was abolished it would just increase the number of children in good comprehensives with 'good' catchment areas. Few of these children would end up in poor schools in poor areas where their presence might have some effect.

The names of most private schools are not well-known so apart from giving a good education, which I agree is an advantage, they offer their pupils little further advantage once they have left school.

I was looking for exactly what we have had - a very sensible and interesting discussion. To my frustration, my computer decided to play up on me and refused to post several long comments that I had typed.
I looked at the Guardian's league table for universities - the most highly rated was Cambridge with a staff/student ratio of 1:11 compared to 1:20 for those lower down.
Parental income remains the most accurate predictor of academic success and we can all suggest reasons.

I think Blair's academies were a very retrograde step - some have been planned in areas where existing schools were closing or merging.

Blog article: Opening up our comprehensives by Conor Ryan.

They do Flickety, but I think the other important factors are to do with the complete absence of independent schools, the fact that the top ten per cent of graduates go into teaching, on-site medical and psychologist support, free meals for everyone etc etc
I did read that the small schools are often post-sixteen and that they do have some 1,000 pupil schools as well.

Small schools may not be exciting and forward looking but they work a treat in Finland.

Indeed Aka

I don't think we're going to reach an agreement on this granjura but its refreshing to have a disagreement with someone who argues their case calmly and rationally and without resorting to personalities and insults.

QTS (qualified teacher status), I believe, can be obtained either by doing a 3 or 4 year post A level course leading to a Bachelor of Education or by doing a degree in a subject in the National Curriculum or something directly relevant and then doing a PGCE. But I think independent schools, 'free schools' and academies don't have to employ qualified teachers. You can also train at a school which has been recognised for teacher training. Used to be sooo simple but like everything else in education in this country, there are now so many models who knows what is happening?

That meant that it was very difficult to have smaller classes for groups which had academic difficulties - as it would have meant classes of 36+ for other groups.

Bags, unless it has changed very recently PGCE is equivalent to the taught element of a Masters and can count as credits towards one. I think about half a Masters!
I don't know, but I imagined that in Finland it meant that secondary teachers had studied their subject to Masters level, whereas PGCE is more about pedagogy and classroom practice.

The numbers in a class is of huge importance - but this has nothing to do with the size of the school. As far as timetabling- a larger school can have many more options, for languages, for arts, music, sports, and so many more. Same for the 6th Form. I am personally talking about secondary schools, and 6th Form colleges, which is where my experience and expertise is.

Different schools do indeed appeal to different types of teachers- that is a fact. When selecting schools to apply to, I was very careful to only apply which would suit my way of thinking about education and a lot of other considerations. My 3rd school was a lovely high school in the suburbs of a nice area. It was excellent, but the majority of teachers had been there forever and were 'quite set in their ways'. Sorry if that offends, but this is the reason I left as I felt frustrated by this. Mind you, because it was popular with local parents, we had classes of 33, which was not ideal.

I agree Aka, but the outstanding management teams do exist (and of course the pay is higher in the bigger schools). Did you watch the Educating Essex programme? That was an inspirational management team in a big school IMO. There are lots of good, smaller schools too, but if it is too small it can be difficult to get subject expertise across the curriculum. I quite agree that small classes help, but smaller schools may end up with larger classes or less flexible staffing structures because of numbers.

mamie, I thought teachers were educated to masters level here too – a bachelor degree and then postgraduate teacher training (masters equivalent) (?)

I agree about size not necessarily being a critical factor. It depends on management and the delegation of management to competent teams, bit with a good system to keep everything running as smoothly as possible.

I think, as others do, that the problem here is the lack of political will to make things cohesive for the entire school population, and the root of that is innate social divisiveness among the people who vote. We have only ourselves to blame – not personally of course, but as a whole.

Do we have a more divers society than Finland? If we don't now, I suspect we did for quite a long time until recently. Maybe that's a factor too.

I think about fourteen primary schools feed into DD's secondary. It still manages to be a good school.

Rant over

Some of the best and most innovative schools I've worked with have been small schools so I totally disagree that they are too cosy and to say they attract a certain 'type' of staff is outrageous.
This idea that 'size doesn't matter' reminds me of Kenneth Baker (remember him!) saying that the number of children in a class has no impact on the quality of their education. Any experienced teacher knows this is a simply not the case.
Of course the size of the school matters. There are implications for time-tabling, staffing levels, curriculum delivery, discipline, resources, assessment, out of hours learning, finance, and so on. All these need dealing with on a strategic level, which is far removed from the experience of the average classroom teacher. This is pure management and as such the physical size of the school, the number and quality of staff, pupil numbers, the demography of the school, become more problematic in a large school. How can it not?
This is not to say they cannot be 'outstanding' but it requires an outstanding management team to achieve this.

I'm afraid that when the great majority of parents with influence and resources by-pass the state system- they just are not prepared to put time, effort, money to ensure other children get a good education. Same for private health, etc.

In Finland, and in Switzerland too - it is an accepted fact that to divide the school system is divisive for ever- and results in a divisive society. Which is pretty much evident in the UK sadly. If 'doing the best for your child' results in a society where bullying and violence becomes the norm- then all suffer. It may sound like a socialist concept - but I can assure you Switzerland is not a socialist country . I have no idea how the UK can go forwards on this one - unless, like Finland, you make decisions and stick to them, come what may. I would make all schools non denominational and certainly take away the tax relief on private schools. The First Past the Post voting system in the UK will never allow solutions to be found - as you would need cross party agreement and for all to work together. It breaks my heart for my grand-children.

Totally agree with Mamie- size is not necessarily good and bad. I've taught in 2 large schools- and the excellent Year pastoral system means that the Head of year, its assistants and the team of form tutors ensure that all the children in that year are known to all of them, and of course all the previous Year Heads, assistants and Form teachers. Small schools can be cosy but not necessarily exciting and forward thinking places- as they tend to attract a certain 'type' of staff, and so do denominational schools.

Agreed.