If I was considering being a “provider” of education to the top 5% of students and the bottom 20% of students, I’d actually forget all about the bottom 20%.
These kids are struggling. They find learning difficult and despite my best efforts I might not be able to get them over the line.
No, if I want to guarantee my bonus, I’d only work with the 5% of top students who learn quickly and easily and will guarantee my income.
If I was a parent of a child performing in the top five percent I might be happy with my existing “provider”.
Agreed, Kelvin, and wouldn’t it feel great to hear that you’re one of the bottom 20%.
The top 5% would give the least problems (behavior)for the greatest return. Why would you even bother with the bottom 20% and all the baggage.
Private providers are not set up to deal with the problem students who only want to play up and disrupt classes.
I would also question how financially viable this would be.
If each student was worth $8000.00, you would have to have 20 students full time per teacher to cover wage and other costs.
Imagine the recruiting, compliance and constant training costs.
ON top of location etc.
“Private providers are not set up to deal with the problem students who only want to play up and disrupt classes.”
Surely if that was their target market and they wanted to ensure that their contracts would be renewed they would get themselves set up.
I was wondering if schools can simply refuse entry? I cannot see a “performing” (so-called) school wanting an influx of 100 non english speaking new entrants messing up their overall performance!
Who will assess the assessors? It seems to me if there is money in taking on under achievers to turn into over achievers, might we not see some Cambridge High Schools turning up, where the results were doctored by the school to misrepresent results/achievement? More bureaucracy to chase the cheats?
Call me crazy but couldn’t we put the time and energy and imagination into addressing the 20% and 5% where they are? I know, crazy notion, to get all schools to achieving level… or is it going to be like my School C days where even if 70% of the math students got 50% or more of the answers correct, 20% had to scaled down to become failures… I never did understand that, I wonder if the scaled down ones ever asked to have pointed out exactly which answers were wrong (wink).
@Waterboy
What makes you think that the top 5% are not trouble makers?
LOL
Deleted. Offensive. Clare
Guess what the UK Conservative party is planning for their schools when/if they gain power? Find out more about the so-called “success” of the Swedish schools Douglas and Roy are selectively trumpeting
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/feb/09/swedish-style-schools-wont-raise-standards
At the next question time could someone ask Heather Roy how her new proposal meshes with National Standards? If she can’t answer, you could always ask Anne Tolley?
Are National Standadrs actually discussed in Roy’s paper?
I’m just saying that the top 5% can be disruptive.
The disruptive behaviour might change though if they are challenged and not board.
I think you will find any funding will be contingent on improved provision i.e. current school is progressing student at rate X, if you can accelerate that rate you’ll get paid. I know of a student that could do nothing for the next 3 years and still be top of his age group acadaemically. I think that rate of individual progress is the key.
The bottom 20% may be easier to improve the progress of. Feed them. Focus on them. Engage them -without the other 24 classmates to distract them.
My previous post basically endorses interventions in place e.g. reading recovery.
“I’m just saying that the top 5% can be disruptive.
The disruptive behaviour might change though if they are challenged and not board.”
FAIL! Bored not bored, you’ll be leaving the Gifted Learners stream I’m afraid!
I’ll be joining you… LOL
“I’m just saying that the top 5% can be disruptive.
The disruptive behaviour might change though if they are challenged and not board.”
“FAIL! Bored not bored, you’ll be leaving the Gifted Learners stream I’m afraid!”
FAIL! Bored not board, you’ll be leaving the Gifted Learners stream too, I’m afraid!
Lol oh dear.
I have never been good at spelling. It was found I naturally speed read so didn’t look at the word formation, though I could comprehend what I read. If this was discovered earlier than the age of 12, just before I started college, maybe it could have been worked on.
How would the National Standards work? If a child had a reading age of 16+ and a spelling age of say 9 when they were 11? Would they just get an average for literacy? or would they get an individual mark for both spelling and reading?