School Transport costs and Social Exclusion

silvercar

Gingham_Ribbon wrote: »

Did you read the OP? The girl has NO science work to do at school until she leaves there. She's not going to the other school to get some sort of private, tailored programme. She's going there to get an education the local comp refuses to provide, because she has a specific educational need (which by the way is against everything the government claim in their 'every child matters' bumph.) Every child matters as long as they're not different in any way, then tough !!!!.

Then the current school is failing her.

Whichever justification you make for her moving schools, the fact is she will get an academically challanging education at the grammar school, which is what a lot of private schools aim to provide.

I'm not knocking it; good luck to the OP and her daughter, but the point is she knows that she will need to find the money from somewhere as the opportunity is too good to turn down.

Gingham_Ribbon

mrcow wrote: »

This is what I don't get.

How can a school turn around and say that they are unable to teach a child a compulsory subject to an effective level for that pupil (which is what they are supposed to be doing)? ?

Because this is what happens to gifted kids up and down the country every day.

PayDay

Fifer wrote: »

And what makes you think fluffy is squandering hers on fags and bingo and not already spending them on the family's keep?

What makes you think that it is just those who smoke and go to bingo who "squander" their childrens tax credits? Maximum tax credits means that very little is being earned by the parent/parents to maintain their own children.

I would rather the op used these benefits to pay for the bus ride for this child to go to a school where she might learn the value of hard work and perhaps gets a good education. It would break the cycle of children raised on benefits going on to claim themselves. Paying the fares to a good school has to be better for the child than spending things like £300+ on a heater for a conservatory.

iamana1ias

fluffymuffy wrote: »

Our local authority provides 330 grammar school places. 180 for boys and 50 for girls at two separate schools. Presumably because there are 3.5 times as many clever boys as girls.

Erm, 180+50 isn't 330. Where are the other 100 places?

mrcow

Gingham_Ribbon wrote: »

Because this is what happens to gifted kids up and down the country every day.

Thanks Gingham - but it doesn't answer my question......

Gingham_Ribbon

mrcow wrote: »

Thanks Gingham - but it doesn't answer my question......

How do they turn round and say they're not teaching them? They just do it. Sometimes it's a case of 'well you'll just have to do what everyone else is doing' regardless of whether the child has already gone way beyond it, or they'll be more upfront and tell the child that other pupils need their help more, so they'll just have to sit and read quietly each lesson.

Sometimes the child completes the syllabus ahead of the class with the support of the teacher, but once they've done all the work available, the teacher will not look for more resources and again, it's just tough. (Or they'll do some of their lessons with older classes, but as they go up the school, they're stuck repeating work.)

Most teachers will differentiate work to suit their pupils. When one pupil has a learning difficulty, they have teaching assistants that can come in and help (to a point - still not enough.) But gifted kids rarely get special help in class, despite often needing it desperately.

Fluffy's daughter is a 'good' kid. She doesn't kick off or complain. And she's got the support of her family. But this is one of the reasons that gifted kids are failed by our education system and it's one of the reasons the kid messing about at the back disrupting the class may be the brightest one in there.

kegg_2

didn't the op say that her daughter was in the bottom set in her new school?
If she is only in bottom set how could she have covered the whole syllabus in her old school? As the syllabus would be the same regardless of school.
The new school might be able to push her further than the old comp and she might have the potential to be top set but i am sure that is the case with many if they had the chance for a grammar school place.

Fly_Baby

Gingham_Ribbon wrote: »

How do they turn round and say they're not teaching them? They just do it. Sometimes it's a case of 'well you'll just have to do what everyone else is doing' regardless of whether the child has already gone way beyond it, or they'll be more upfront and tell the child that other pupils need their help more, so they'll just have to sit and read quietly each lesson.

Sometimes the child completes the syllabus ahead of the class with the support of the teacher, but once they've done all the work available, the teacher will not look for more resources and again, it's just tough. (Or they'll do some of their lessons with older classes, but as they go up the school, they're stuck repeating work.)

Most teachers will differentiate work to suit their pupils. When one pupil has a learning difficulty, they have teaching assistants that can come in and help (to a point - still not enough.) But gifted kids rarely get special help in class, despite often needing it desperately.

Fluffy's daughter is a 'good' kid. She doesn't kick off or complain. And she's got the support of her family. But this is one of the reasons that gifted kids are failed by our education system and it's one of the reasons the kid messing about at the back disrupting the class may be the brightest one in there.

Come on. What is there to complain about? The girl WAS placed in a grammar school according to her ability. She wasn't failed by the education system - on the opposite, she was recognised and rewarded. And for that the girl (and Fluffy) should feel grateful and lucky - especially in the view of your above post - which I am sure Fluffy is.

Gingham_Ribbon

Fly_Baby wrote: »

Come on. What is there to complain about? The girl WAS placed in a grammar school according to her ability. She wasn't failed by the education system - on the opposite, she was recognised and rewarded. And for that the girl (and Fluffy) should feel grateful and lucky - especially in the view of your above post - which I am sure Fluffy is.

I'm not complaining on behalf of Fluffy's daugher. I'm trying to explain how it is, since I was asked.

It's great that she has a place at a school that can meet her needs. But every school should be able to meet her needs. Why should a teenager have to leave her whole school life and friends behind just so she doesn't have to sit and do nothing in class? NO child should be subjected to that in ANY school, yet it happens all the time.

silvercar

Gingham_Ribbon wrote: »

It's great that she has a place at a school that can meet her needs. But every school should be able to meet her needs. Why should a teenager have to leave her whole school life and friends behind just so she doesn't have to sit and do nothing in class? NO child should be subjected to that in ANY school, yet it happens all the time.

Not every school can meet the needs of every child. That is why some areas are lucky enough to still have grammar schools where the more academic children can get their needs met better than a general comprehensive.