Political Crossfire Forums

[antonio62]

I think we should have schools selected by ability. It would basically just be a scaled up version of what we have now. Where pupils are put into classes according to ability. I think it should be like this because schools can set courses better each one tailored to the ability of the pupils at the school. It would mean teachers in the schools with the smartest kids could work at a pace more suited to the pupil there. It would also mean they wouldn't have to spend time dealing with the problem students who just don't want to be there. IT would also mean teachers could be sent to schools they would perform better at. What I mean by that is if teachers are say better at working with lower ability pupils and discipline then they should be sent to work with them. Where as if the teacher is better at working with more advanced pupils then that is where they should be sent. Children should be split up at the same time as they are now, when they pick their standard grade/GCSE subjects. Pupils could also be moved to a higher or lower level if they are performing better or worse than others at there level.

I know what I'm proposing sounds like a 3 tear education system. I think it would have to be managed carefully to make sure it doesn't turn out like that but teachers would be given the same pay regardless of school they teach at and have the same budget for schools of the same size and so on. To keep everything on a level playing field.

What do you all think?

[JDnCoke]

Why not a 3 tier system? I mean some people may actually prefer being a carpenter or plumber to a doctor or lawyer. I just don't understand why there is this inbuilt undesirability into the education policymakers that "oh no we can't have students wanting to become nasty mechanics or hairdressers, they must be businessmen and women!" Rubbish, if I were a student with much more vocational abilities, I would demand a school that catered to my needs, sitting through 5 hours of theoretical science a week just bores me, I do bad, the class suffers and teachers pull their hair out.

LET THEM EAT CAKE.

[thundertaker]

I prefer the comprehensive system TBH. Both my parents are very intellegent, but both failed their 11+. My dad now has a Phd in computer science.
Streaming in a comprehensive allows late developers to move up the sets according to their current performance, as opposed to just writing them off on the basis of a single exam taken when they were a mere 11 years old.....

[antonio62]

I was thinking of doing when kids are separated now at 12 or 3 depending on where there birthday lands.

[Pimpkin]

JDnCoke wrote: Why not a 3 tier system? I mean some people may actually prefer being a carpenter or plumber to a doctor or lawyer. I just don't understand why there is this inbuilt undesirability into the education policymakers that "oh no we can't have students wanting to become nasty mechanics or hairdressers, they must be businessmen and women!" Rubbish, if I were a student with much more vocational abilities, I would demand a school that catered to my needs, sitting through 5 hours of theoretical science a week just bores me, I do bad, the class suffers and teachers pull their hair out.

LET THEM EAT CAKE.

I concur. Having everyone lumped together only encourages mediocracy.

[bury]

antonio62 wrote: I think we should have schools selected by ability. It would basically just be a scaled up version of what we have now. Where pupils are put into classes according to ability. I think it should be like this because schools can set courses better each one tailored to the ability of the pupils at the school. It would mean teachers in the schools with the smartest kids could work at a pace more suited to the pupil there. It would also mean they wouldn't have to spend time dealing with the problem students who just don't want to be there. IT would also mean teachers could be sent to schools they would perform better at. What I mean by that is if teachers are say better at working with lower ability pupils and discipline then they should be sent to work with them. Where as if the teacher is better at working with more advanced pupils then that is where they should be sent. Children should be split up at the same time as they are now, when they pick their standard grade/GCSE subjects. Pupils could also be moved to a higher or lower level if they are performing better or worse than others at there level.

I know what I'm proposing sounds like a 3 tear education system. I think it would have to be managed carefully to make sure it doesn't turn out like that but teachers would be given the same pay regardless of school they teach at and have the same budget for schools of the same size and so on. To keep everything on a level playing field.

What do you all think?

You're WRONG! You cannot divide children up into different groups and send them down a certain path based on their ability at 4 or 5! To tell a little kids "you're going to the crap school because you can only ever amount to being a plumber" Outrageous!!!

All kids should get a high quality of education until their old enough to make their own decisions (whether they like it or not). you want to give up on kids who don't reach certain standards before they've even had a chance.

well Bollocks to that mate.

[antonio62]

For the third time I want to divide them up at the same time they are just now at 12 or 13 depending on where there birthday lands. Kids would also get the same standard of education it would just be designed for them better. I think Germany already runs a system like that.

[JDnCoke]

bury wrote: you can only ever amount to being a plumber" Outrageous!!!

See what I mean? What the hell is wrong with being a plumber? It's a perfectly valid and in many cases desirable trade, in fact these days a savvy plumber can pocket more than some smart arse Maths Degree student!

Not everyone can be a brain surgeon, this is a fact of life, move on.

[Ssushi]

antonio62 wrote: I think we should have schools selected by ability. It would basically just be a scaled up version of what we have now. Where pupils are put into classes according to ability. I think it should be like this because schools can set courses better each one tailored to the ability of the pupils at the school. It would mean teachers in the schools with the smartest kids could work at a pace more suited to the pupil there. It would also mean they wouldn't have to spend time dealing with the problem students who just don't want to be there. IT would also mean teachers could be sent to schools they would perform better at. What I mean by that is if teachers are say better at working with lower ability pupils and discipline then they should be sent to work with them. Where as if the teacher is better at working with more advanced pupils then that is where they should be sent. Children should be split up at the same time as they are now, when they pick their standard grade/GCSE subjects. Pupils could also be moved to a higher or lower level if they are performing better or worse than others at there level.

I know what I'm proposing sounds like a 3 tear education system. I think it would have to be managed carefully to make sure it doesn't turn out like that but teachers would be given the same pay regardless of school they teach at and have the same budget for schools of the same size and so on. To keep everything on a level playing field.

What do you all think?

Its not an easy thing to do; for example, I was in the highest physics class in my school, high up in maths but low in english. The english thing was crazy; as I wasn't the best english student ever but wanted to learn and could have done better if I'd not been in a class of people who thought English lessons were there to practice throwing rubbers at each other!
The point is, some sudents are good at certain types of subjects and not that good at others, so how would you separate them school by school?

[Ssushi]

JDnCoke wrote: Why not a 3 tier system? I mean some people may actually prefer being a carpenter or plumber to a doctor or lawyer. I just don't understand why there is this inbuilt undesirability into the education policymakers that "oh no we can't have students wanting to become nasty mechanics or hairdressers, they must be businessmen and women!" Rubbish, if I were a student with much more vocational abilities, I would demand a school that catered to my needs, sitting through 5 hours of theoretical science a week just bores me, I do bad, the class suffers and teachers pull their hair out.

LET THEM EAT CAKE.

I agree with your idea about the government wanting to make all kids doctors and the like; not all do and many actually want to be mechanics and hairdressers. However, I really think that expecting kids to know what they want to be for the rest of their lives at 16 is crazy! I would not have chosen engineering in hindsight... I'd have joined a circus! :-D

[Jajo]

The thing is here some people are using the words streaming and setting as the same thing when they are not. Streaming is where you take people and put them in class based on over all academic ability so for example in my case I was put in the lowest class for English meant that I ended up in the lowest class for IT as well. This system is very poor I knew more about computers than the teacher and ended up having to explain things to the class because our teacher was so bad.

But setting is confined to the subject so I could have been in the bottom set for English and the top for IT. This is was I would like it to be as it respects the fact that people are good at differing things and you can not just lump people together based on there performance in one subject.

But in respect of the education system I would remove specialist schools went to an Arts Collage and there is a PE collage nearby as well. I hate both Arts (that being dance drama and music) and PE, subjects but the departments get funding that is much higher than any other. So unless they can provide schools that specialise in every type of subject in every area of the country then they should be abolished.

And my personal preference would be a report at the end of year 9 which is a mix of continual assessment (this does not just mean course work, things like ability displayed in class would be taken into account) in all subjects and tests at the end of the year with both parts each waiting 50% each. This report would be used to decide if a child wants to go onto a more academic school, let just call them Grammar for the sake of it, or a more vocational one aka secondary modern. But I would create more capacity in the Grammar school system it would have to be able to take more than just the top 10%. So basically I want a return to the old Tripartite System (without technical collages) that uses an improved 13+ and has more spaces in Grammar schools.

[antonio62]

Ssushi wrote: antonio62 wrote: I think we should have schools selected by ability. It would basically just be a scaled up version of what we have now. Where pupils are put into classes according to ability. I think it should be like this because schools can set courses better each one tailored to the ability of the pupils at the school. It would mean teachers in the schools with the smartest kids could work at a pace more suited to the pupil there. It would also mean they wouldn't have to spend time dealing with the problem students who just don't want to be there. IT would also mean teachers could be sent to schools they would perform better at. What I mean by that is if teachers are say better at working with lower ability pupils and discipline then they should be sent to work with them. Where as if the teacher is better at working with more advanced pupils then that is where they should be sent. Children should be split up at the same time as they are now, when they pick their standard grade/GCSE subjects. Pupils could also be moved to a higher or lower level if they are performing better or worse than others at there level.

I know what I'm proposing sounds like a 3 tear education system. I think it would have to be managed carefully to make sure it doesn't turn out like that but teachers would be given the same pay regardless of school they teach at and have the same budget for schools of the same size and so on. To keep everything on a level playing field.

What do you all think?

Its not an easy thing to do; for example, I was in the highest physics class in my school, high up in maths but low in english. The english thing was crazy; as I wasn't the best english student ever but wanted to learn and could have done better if I'd not been in a class of people who thought English lessons were there to practice throwing rubbers at each other!
The point is, some sudents are good at certain types of subjects and not that good at others, so how would you separate them school by school?

Well if you had been put in the school for the highest ability academic students overall then like you say you probably could have been able to improve your English.

[Ssushi]

antonio62 wrote: Ssushi wrote: antonio62 wrote: I think we should have schools selected by ability. It would basically just be a scaled up version of what we have now. Where pupils are put into classes according to ability. I think it should be like this because schools can set courses better each one tailored to the ability of the pupils at the school. It would mean teachers in the schools with the smartest kids could work at a pace more suited to the pupil there. It would also mean they wouldn't have to spend time dealing with the problem students who just don't want to be there. IT would also mean teachers could be sent to schools they would perform better at. What I mean by that is if teachers are say better at working with lower ability pupils and discipline then they should be sent to work with them. Where as if the teacher is better at working with more advanced pupils then that is where they should be sent. Children should be split up at the same time as they are now, when they pick their standard grade/GCSE subjects. Pupils could also be moved to a higher or lower level if they are performing better or worse than others at there level.

I know what I'm proposing sounds like a 3 tear education system. I think it would have to be managed carefully to make sure it doesn't turn out like that but teachers would be given the same pay regardless of school they teach at and have the same budget for schools of the same size and so on. To keep everything on a level playing field.

What do you all think?

Its not an easy thing to do; for example, I was in the highest physics class in my school, high up in maths but low in english. The english thing was crazy; as I wasn't the best english student ever but wanted to learn and could have done better if I'd not been in a class of people who thought English lessons were there to practice throwing rubbers at each other!
The point is, some sudents are good at certain types of subjects and not that good at others, so how would you separate them school by school?

Well if you had been put in the school for the highest ability academic students overall then like you say you probably could have been able to improve your English.

Or maybe they'd have got it wrong and down graded me based on my lesser subjects...

[Lord Hargreaves]

As a general rule, the less power government has over schools the better the schools will be. Education at such a young age should involve teaching of what it is to be British and develop respect for our democratic institutions and how they work etc. Maybe then we wouldn't have the wasted 5-10 years when teenagers get stuck on socialism before growing up.

[antonio62]

Ssushi wrote: antonio62 wrote: Ssushi wrote: antonio62 wrote: I think we should have schools selected by ability. It would basically just be a scaled up version of what we have now. Where pupils are put into classes according to ability. I think it should be like this because schools can set courses better each one tailored to the ability of the pupils at the school. It would mean teachers in the schools with the smartest kids could work at a pace more suited to the pupil there. It would also mean they wouldn't have to spend time dealing with the problem students who just don't want to be there. IT would also mean teachers could be sent to schools they would perform better at. What I mean by that is if teachers are say better at working with lower ability pupils and discipline then they should be sent to work with them. Where as if the teacher is better at working with more advanced pupils then that is where they should be sent. Children should be split up at the same time as they are now, when they pick their standard grade/GCSE subjects. Pupils could also be moved to a higher or lower level if they are performing better or worse than others at there level.

I know what I'm proposing sounds like a 3 tear education system. I think it would have to be managed carefully to make sure it doesn't turn out like that but teachers would be given the same pay regardless of school they teach at and have the same budget for schools of the same size and so on. To keep everything on a level playing field.

What do you all think?

Its not an easy thing to do; for example, I was in the highest physics class in my school, high up in maths but low in english. The english thing was crazy; as I wasn't the best english student ever but wanted to learn and could have done better if I'd not been in a class of people who thought English lessons were there to practice throwing rubbers at each other!
The point is, some sudents are good at certain types of subjects and not that good at others, so how would you separate them school by school?

Well if you had been put in the school for the highest ability academic students overall then like you say you probably could have been able to improve your English.

Or maybe they'd have got it wrong and down graded me based on my lesser subjects...

It would depend on how you perform in each subject if overall you are in the top then you will be put in the top if overall your not then you wont be. You would probably pick your best subjects so that would make everyone better than if hey just did everything.

[JDnCoke]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: As a general rule, the less power government has over schools the better the schools will be. Education at such a young age should involve teaching of what it is to be British and develop respect for our democratic institutions and how they work etc. Maybe then we wouldn't have the wasted 5-10 years when teenagers get stuck on socialism before growing up.

:rotf: :rotf:

If we were told to "respect" our democratic values then they would erode. Democracy isn't a constant, it needs to be challenged and reviewed again and again, with dissidents. Otherwise our societies would become stale and collapse (i.e. Soviet Union).

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time by the blood of patriots."

[Pimpkin]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: As a general rule, the less power government has over schools the better the schools will be. Education at such a young age should involve teaching of what it is to be British and develop respect for our democratic institutions and how they work etc. Maybe then we wouldn't have the wasted 5-10 years when teenagers get stuck on socialism before growing up.

Actually I think everybody should be taught the basics to life, like how to use a washing machine, dishwasher etc. And how to cook basic meals and mend/make clothes. Respect and socialism would be excellent too. If those basic skills were learnt first, plumbers wouldn't be needed, and so everybody could have what they consider to be ideal jobs (not that I mean to state that being a plumber is not an ideal job).

[Jajo]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: As a general rule, the less power government has over schools the better the schools will be. Education at such a young age should involve teaching of what it is to be British and develop respect for our democratic institutions and how they work etc. Maybe then we wouldn't have the wasted 5-10 years when teenagers get stuck on socialism before growing up.

Non governmental schooling is better at the moment but saying it is ‘a rule’ misses the point of why independent schools are better. One of the biggest reasons is money no matter how much money the state gives to schools they will never be able to match what public schools can get, look at it this way the school I go gets just over 4 million a year for around 1000 students so 4,000,000/1000=4000 £4000 per child. Now look at Eton which has fees of £23,688 a year from each student and while yes that is the extreme the local public school around here charges around £13,000 a year per person, it is the ability of public schools to pay for the best teachers (this being the main thing) and equipment while the comprehensives suffer a 'brain drain' as the most talented teachers are drawn to private schools. So it is not that the government is inherently bad at schooling it is the capitalist model that you so dearly believe in that causes the comprehensives to be poor in comparison to public schools.


Pimpkin wrote: Actually I think everybody should be taught the basics to life, like how to use a washing machine, dishwasher etc. And how to cook basic meals and mend/make clothes. Respect and socialism would be excellent too. If those basic skills were learnt first, plumbers wouldn't be needed, and so everybody could have what they consider to be ideal jobs (not that I mean to state that being a plumber is not an ideal job).

'cook basic meals' - that is so important it really should be made compulsory for all schools to teach this I have a meeting with the governors of my school next year and I will get them teaching this before I leave for university.

[antonio62]

Cooking basic meals is compulsory I think. I was taught that in high school anyway. In first and second year we had home economics and were taught how to sew and stuff like that and how to cook.

[bury]

JDnCoke wrote: bury wrote: you can only ever amount to being a plumber" Outrageous!!!

See what I mean? What the hell is wrong with being a plumber? It's a perfectly valid and in many cases desirable trade, in fact these days a savvy plumber can pocket more than some smart arse Maths Degree student!

Not everyone can be a brain surgeon, this is a fact of life, move on.

nothuing is wrong with being plumber if you want to but that's not the schools or governments choice to make. True, some people may never be a doctor or a lawyer but they ought not to have that door slamed in their face at twelve

besides even if someone did decide to become a plumber that doesn't mean they won't want to further their education in maths or science.