[eggaforbreakfast]

i don't really understand why people believe that school selection is somehow unfair when the opposite is true.

selection gives bright and educationally minded poor people a way out of the horror of comprehensive education.

for example, in my school, the bright kids were denied a learning environment where they could excel in because the disruptive kids ruined lessons. ( i was a disruptive pupil.....something i feel extremely bad about now. )

selection sorts out the academically minded from disruptive children. it gives poor students who work hard a chance to attend an environment similar to a private school.

those who oppose selection are condemning poor kids who work hard to an educational life in the gutter. they have no way out.

not only that, its bad for the future of the country itself. if bright and talented poor kids are left to rot in bog standard comprehensives then they will never get a chance to fulfil their potential.....who knows what their contributions could have been? curing cancer? inventing clean energy?

at the very least grammar schools have to be brought back, but i do not think that goes far enough.

i think bright kids who cannot afford to go private should be sent to elite schools and the disruptive kids removed from schools altogether.....maybe even sent to boot camps?

comprehensives should only be for the indifferent masses.

[pol pot noodles]

Education is a basic human right for all, even the disruptive pricks.

[emi_sarb]

What about the average kids that aren't bright but aren't disruptive. Why do they deserve to be dumped in a bad school with all the disruptive kids?

[XxelliexX]

'Brought back'? They haven't completely left yet... I go to a grammar school

[eggaforbreakfast]

(Original post by XxelliexX)
'Brought back'? They haven't completely left yet... I go to a grammar school

their are only 164 left as of 2007. its probably gone down since then.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6660823.stm

[ThumbsUp]

(Original post by emi_sarb)
What about the average kids that aren't bright but aren't disruptive. Why do they deserve to be dumped in a bad school with all the disruptive kids?

Agreed.

Also, a minority of the most disruptive students are in fact extremely bright, they shouldn't be condemned a into a life of bad education due to behavioural problems, which may stem from a bad family environment etc..

The best solution would be for all schools to be at an extremely high level of educational and disciplinary standards, hence everyone has more of a chance

[Planar]

Please let's not to do this thread again. Just yesterday, someone started yet another private schools thread...... ugh it's so tiresome

[Classical Liberal]

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
Education is a basic human right for all, even the disruptive pricks.

What is an education?

Is it the process or the result?

[SleepySheep]

(Original post by Planar)
Please let's not to do this thread again. Just yesterday, someone started yet another private schools thread...... ugh it's so tiresome

Oh yeah because everything else on TSR is totally original. Let's talk about some unusual topics instead then like Islam or which A Level subjects are blacklisted by Cambridge.

I agree with you OP, school selection would probably be a positive thing. I know it would have been for me anyway. Boot camps are a bit extreme though...

[Mr Dangermouse]

Kind of agree with the OP in regards to grammar schools. The German system is fantastic.

[prog2djent]

Didn't you ever get put into "sets" at comrehensive school?

I got into grammar school at first, but left because it was too far, and went to a comrehensive state school.

At the grammar school (Crosley heath), we were all in standardised classes.

At my state school we were put into sets right as we got there, firstly, on our Key stage 2 sats results, I got three 5's for English, Maths, and Science, so was immediately put into set 1, kids who got mostly 4's in 2, and mostly 3's 1. Then we had CAT's exams in the first week, which were these quais-IQish type tests, which seperated the three up into two, so we were left with six sets. (I got 95% BTW, total bAwS Y'ALL!!!!). So right from the word go, we were seperated according to ability in the big three subjects.

Of course, for other subjects like Geography, History, Music, Art, Tech, ICT etc, we were taught in a standardised way, much like the way our Tutor/Form groups were, a mish mash of different people. Until we got to year 9, then did our KSE3 sats, we were then further split up, those that got 3's were in set 6, 4's were in 5, 5's were in 4, 6's were in 3, 7's in 2, and then set 1 was now for a group of people that had achieved atleast 1 level 8 grade in either Maths, English and Science, and, of course, other subjects didn't get SAT scores, and you were just put into sets according to classwork and class test levels.

We could diversify further, everybody in all sets had to take English Lit and Enlish Lang, Maths, Science, Relgion (Half) and Citizenship (Half), but according to your set, could branch out.

Maths, Engligh (LIT-LANG) and science(s) (single = Physics, Biology, Chemistry, rolled into 1 GCSE, Double = those in two GCSE's, and Tripple - Physics, Biolog and Chemistry each as seperate GCSE's)

So those in set 1, could have the option of doing double science or tripple science, could take non-core GCSE 4 Subjects, and were made to do economics.

Non-core being stuff like Geography, History, Music, Art, Tech, ICT etc

Set 2 and 3 could take double or tripple science, take 4 non-core GCSE subjects, but not economics.

Set 4 could do double, but not tripple science, and either take 3 non-core non-core GCSE's, or take 2 non-core GCSE's and 2 non-core BTEC ones, which were worth 2 GCSE's, hehe, shows our valuable they are (so technically, people in set 4 could leave with as many qualifications as those in set 1)

Set 5 and six could only do single science, and take either 1 non-core GCSE or a BTEC.