Comments on: Views on the work of the Sutton Trust

By: Matthew

Matthew — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 00:37:58 +0000

I’d really love to see Laura’s research that shows how those “poor but bright” children ‘tend to fare okay in the end anyway’. All the research I’ve seen over the past 10 years seem to suggest that that “poor but bright” cohort do significantly and shamefully worse than their ‘rich but bright’ (and many ‘rich but dull’) peers.

The previous administration published a report (which can be downloaded at: http://publications.education.gov.uk/default.aspx?PageFunction=productdetails&PageMode=publications&ProductId=DCSF-RTP-09-01) which included a table (see page 31) that lists attainment across all key stages against deciles of socio-economic status.

Plot a graph of those figures. I have. They are outrageously linear. The relationship between household income and academic attainment is certain and deplorable.

Rather than testing the academic aptitude of children, the government could save billions of the DfE budget by simply insisting that all pupils simply reveal their parents’ income. The allocation of pupil/student achievements would remain stable and no-one would have to bother with all those pesky tests.

By: Laura McInerney

Laura McInerney — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 18:29:08 +0000

Great point. All we’ve heard about so far are the “poor but bright” children (who, research shows, tend to fare okay in the end anyway). Not heard plans that I think will reach beyond this so far.

That said, I actually like the idea of moving to a long, 14-19 key stage, with more flexible pathways rather than GCSEs lumped in the middle of it unecessarily.

By: Paul Haigh

Paul Haigh — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 15:35:37 +0000

There’s nothing wrong with some students doing GCSE exams at 14, as long as its not about rushing children through an important stage in their education.

Its all about stage not age for us, we have a totally personalised approach with students taking GCSEs at age 14, 15 & 16 through a mixture of short-fat and long-thin courses. Very bright students can get to AS levels early, but not to rush them off to unversity before they are old enough to go in the union bar but to let them broaden out their education.

Weak students can wait to enter GCSE or take longer to collect a small core of essential courses. One size does not fit all, but don’t rule out some GCSEs at 14 for quite a lot of children, its all about personalisation, doing what’s right for your students at the right time for them, as any good local school would want to (and has the freedom to, already).

By: Lyndsay Grant

Lyndsay Grant — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 15:13:07 +0000

I absolutely agree with this. While giving the exceptionally bright but disadvantaged a ‘leg up’ to elite academic education is going to be great news for a small minority, this approach is likely to reinforce, rather than challenge, the segregation in our education system. We should be aiming to tackle the deep inequalities that see children from disadvantaged areas underperform whatever their ‘ability’. Why do these schemes focus on moving bright pupils to elite schools and universities rather than supporting schools that serve greater numbers of disadvantaged children to achieve their potential – high fliers or not?