[TheBigGeek]

(I don't care if I get negged for this).
Once, at school, a friend of mine asked why we weren't streamed in science until year 10. The teacher said "oh, it really helps the students who are struggling to be around students who get the content."

You know who it doesn't help? The students who get it! People hate recognising academic ability as it's always seen as bragging. They'll put the best musicians in an orchestra and the best sports players on the team but they won't put the "smartest" (as show by grades) kids in a room and let them work together. Although I do agree that A/B students can be helped by A* students, I really don't see what D students get out of watching others get content without so much as a second thought. Conversely, what do A* students get out of sitting for hours while people struggle?

Ugh it drive me crazy! We wanted an extra biology club at school where we could do dissections and expand on the syllabus, but when people found out that it would be limited to A/A* students there was a riot. ARGH. It's no different to people not being given main roles in musicals when they can't sing!

Do you agree? Or do you think that no efforts should be made to facilitate the abler students, perhaps without including students who struggle (although they'd be facilitated in their own way)?

[117r]

I certainly do agree. Just offering my support here. I think people work better around people with similar academic abilities and interests.

[Wawasan]

Certainly, there's a general lack of social acceptance towards higher thinking students nowadays

[OU Student]

I was put into a mixed science group for years 10 / 11 and got bored so quickly because I had to wait to move on.

[meeow]

(Original post by OU Student)
I was put into a mixed science group for years 10 / 11 and got bored so quickly because I had to wait to move on.

THIS. It would take the rest of the class 3 lessons to get something which some of us got in half an hour: this isn't their fault, but better provisions for us should have been made.

[Alexok]

(Original post by TheBigGeek)
(I don't care if I get negged for this).
Once, at school, a friend of mine asked why we weren't streamed in science until year 10. The teacher said "oh, it really helps the students who are struggling to be around students who get the content."

You know who it doesn't help? The students who get it! People hate recognising academic ability as it's always seen as bragging. They'll put the best musicians in an orchestra and the best sports players on the team but they won't put the "smartest" (as show by grades) kids in a room and let them work together. Although I do agree that A/B students can be helped by A* students, I really don't see what D students get out of watching others get content without so much as a second thought. Conversely, what do A* students get out of sitting for hours while people struggle?

Ugh it drive me crazy! We wanted an extra biology club at school where we could do dissections and expand on the syllabus, but when people found out that it would be limited to A/A* students there was a riot. ARGH. It's no different to people not being given main roles in musicals when they can't sing!

Do you agree? Or do you think that no efforts should be made to facilitate the abler students, perhaps without including students who struggle (although they'd be facilitated in their own way)?

Yeah thats just your school. In reality for society as a whole, the heading of this thread is obviously not true

[anarchism101]

I think that's just your school and it will change from school to school. In my school, for example, we were streamed from Year 7. In fact, Year 10 was the point where it became slightly less streamed, but that was just down to different GCSE combinations.

[madders94]

Definitely. Streaming is the only way those with potential can reach their full potential, and people have to realize that regardless of how much you try to integrate the two, D students and A* students being in the same class won't help either set, and it's unfair to expect A* students to put themselves at risk of getting a lower grade to help the D students get a higher grade - surely that's a teacher's job?

[Electric_Dreams]

3 points I want to make:

1) I understand your fustration...

-but-

2) Many schools stream a lot earlier in most subjects.
3) In the real world (past school) there's probably too much emphasis and importance placed upon achievement, to the detriment of individuals, the working world and society in general.

If you really enjoy science you should try learning things outside of class to explore your interest and stretch yourself- it's the real acid test rather than working towards grades etc. Also I can guarantee that even if you were streamed there probably wouldn't be a giant leap in what you're learning.

[OU Student]

(Original post by meeow)
THIS. It would take the rest of the class 3 lessons to get something which some of us got in half an hour: this isn't their fault, but better provisions for us should have been made.

We had a supply teacher for most of year 11 who couln't teach. The head of science then wondered why everyone played up.

[Architecture-er]

Well honestly, if you're a D-level student then it's not because you're unintelligent, it's because you're not working.

At my school we were streamed in Maths, and that was amazing, but nowhere else. On the flip-side, most schools don't have enough students to form multiple classes, nor enough teachers


edit: hmm, it seems that somebody would rather be deemed unintelligent than lazy... quite a clever way of insulting yourself with a neg vote

[With an Accent]

(Original post by TheBigGeek)
I really don't see what D students get out of watching others get content without so much as a second thought.

I'm good at academic subjects, truly awful at PE. I understand that it would be different for people being in the bottom group for every subject, but the only time I felt happy and made any real progress was when I was in a group of people who were equally appalling at sports.

[Bibs_x]

At my school, the classes were put into different groups like Set 1, 2, 3 etc. But I would argue that like you, I think we weren't really grouped in terms of academic ability until Year 10 and 11, even though we were supposed to. Throughout my time at school, I think I was never put in a set lower than a Set 3 (and that was for Maths) however in the first 3 years I did seem to have a lot of chavs in my classes who got grades like Ds mixed in with other students who got As - especially in Science. And I was in Set 1 or Set 2, which were meant to be the higher ability classes. Also, up until Year 10 - our year group was split into 2 halves: P and Q according to tutor group and the pupils from each side of the year group would be grouped for lessons together, like Set 8Q1 English and 8P1 English would be 2 different classes. We only got our classes integrated in the last 2 years. In my case I don't think it was down to not wanting to celebrate academic achievement, more like the school saw that system as more efficient until pupils got to GCSEs?

[anna-chipie 95]

We only ever really got streamed for Maths, and that was a bit dodgy... in Year 10, two new people came to my set (set 3 out of 4 with set 1 being the best obviously) just because they had achieved one bad result in a test. Although it kind of depends on the people really, I was in set 3, yet I got an A, because I worked to get a good grade.
Bearing in mind the dodginess of the setting I mentioned above.... loads of people probably got A*/A/B in my set (I dont know cos I didnt ask) but setting isn't always the best idea. For example, someone in set two could get one really good result and get pushed into set 1, but might find it hard. I was in set 2 for a while but did badly in one test so got put down.
Because we were all getting taught the same content for the same board (Edexcel Linear, apart from Set 4 who did OCR Modular because teachers reckoned they'd find it easier doing modules rather than two big exams at the end, none of them were stupid in any way) it wasn't really streaming, the teaching was probably slightly different though.

[katyness]

Well I don't know how the English or British education system works so I can't talk about it.

All I know is that I always associate with smarter students because I believe that if I say with mediocre students, I'll never advance in life. I need people who are better than me to inspire me to get better grades than them and they would also help me to have better grades than what I am getting.

[ufo2012]

(Original post by katyness)
Well I don't know how the English or British education system works so I can't talk about it.

All I know is that I always associate with smarter students because I believe that if I say with mediocre students, I'll never advance in life. I need people who are better than me to inspire me to get better grades than them and they would also help me to have better grades than what I am getting.

Pretty good ethos

[TheBigGeek]

(Original post by katyness)
Well I don't know how the English or British education system works so I can't talk about it.

All I know is that I always associate with smarter students because I believe that if I say with mediocre students, I'll never advance in life. I need people who are better than me to inspire me to get better grades than them and they would also help me to have better grades than what I am getting.

There's no doubt you're doing a good thing for helping yourself. And - if you mean you associate with them socially - I'm sure the fact that you are (according to you) "mediocre" doesn't affect how much they like you!

But if you only associate academically, do you think they get anything out of that arrangement? I'm sure they enjoy your company, but in terms of advancing their learning, would they benefit from always working with those who struggle more than them?

Many people who you may perceive to be smarter than you operate under the same ethos that you do. How are they supposed to associate with those at the same level or above if they are constantly split up, whether in classes or in every bloody piece of class work we have to do?

[katyness]

(Original post by TheBigGeek)
There's no doubt you're doing a good thing for helping yourself. And - if you mean you associate with them socially - I'm sure the fact that you are (according to you) "mediocre" doesn't affect how much they like you!

But if you only associate academically, do you think they get anything out of that arrangement? I'm sure they enjoy your company, but in terms of advancing their learning, would they benefit from always working with those who struggle more than them?

Many people who you may perceive to be smarter than you operate under the same ethos that you do. How are they supposed to associate with those at the same level or above if they are constantly split up, whether in classes or in every bloody piece of class work we have to do?

It's up to them to reject me if they feel I'm putting them at disadvantage.

[ShredMaster]

I also think people who can only play 3 chords on guitar shouldn't be allowed to play one, but then again if you don't want to be a retard you have to give other people opportunities as well. Just because they get lower grades doesn't mean they are retarded. They work less. Stop crying.

[dean01234]

I have to agree...

I got an A in core science (resat an exam and got A* in the end) but then in year 11 I was moved down into a mixed set (along with 2 other people who used to be in top set) but some people in the class had given up after a week and it didn't take long for most of the class to give up and stop answering questions in class, leaving just a handful of students who were actively participating.

And after that I gave up pretty quick.

I wouldn't be opposed to it if they didn't disrupt lessons and take the teachers attention away from teaching.