Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn1)
    That is why I have trawled all the broadsheets -with different political leanings -to gain an insight into their opinions and -fair play to them- they have all quoted a similar stance on the flaws of looking at added value from key stage 2 to key stage 3 only. That they all agree on this is truly remarkable!
    I have not seen such flaws quoted in The Times nor The Telegraph.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn1)
    Sometimes I wonder why we have a great long thread such as this with the resultant opinions debated when a post like yours takes us back to the beginning :mad:
    hey i have read all of it, its just it seems smarter ti try and emulate them, allowing the lowest 50% to sink and the top fifty% to flourish, than 50% to do ok and 50% still sink
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    Not at all, you put words in my mouth.

    However, A-levels are very different to the key stages, with much more independant study. Teachers generally do not monitor students as closely.

    I am not worried that grammars will not be shown to be the best type of education, I am sure, and the statistics prove, that they are.
    And thus we have the crux - Grammars do not maintain their early lead from key stage 2 to 3 when it comes to key stage 3 - 4. After key stage 4 they do even worse when they do not exclude from the exams, those who they think will not achieve a high pass. Again, I can illustrate that in Kent & Medway where there is a glut of grammars, performance is not up to national level. This is probably because of your observation above that teachers do not 'monitor' students as closely. Thus far they have been pushed, coerced and bullied to perform and when this ceases they crack up! Same thing happens to independently educated students when they go to uni.
    I know that you think grammars are great because you are at one - for you they might be but for the rest of the population who don't go to one they're not. Their effect on the rest is detrimental and this is why they should become all-ability with streaming, or if this is unacceptable to the individual school they should become fee-paying.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    I have not seen such flaws quoted in The Times nor The Telegraph.
    It is part of the human psyche that we tend to overlook that which is unpalatable to our interests! It is there believe me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn1)
    Prof. Jessons report relating to Kent & Medway has not been obtained by me via a web link but if you type in the title "A review of structure and performance of secondary education in Kent and Medway" in a search engine you will probably come up with some sort of link to the report.
    The same for Ian and Sandie Schagen's report - "The impact of selection on pupil performance". It was presented at NFER council of Members Meeting on 19th October, 2001)
    Regarding point 3 - the relevance of this to the detriment of selective education on all students is that in Kent & Medway, where there is total selection into grammars, less students go into HE and therefore it leads to a less qualified work force.
    Let me know if there is anything else I can help with
    For the help- cheers.
    For point number three, you still havent proved theres a link between the two. And if there were, one could just as easily draw the inference that the reason for it is not because of selection in itself, but rather because non-grammars ought to be better funded. Which doesnt actually mean selection in itself is the problem.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    For the help- cheers.
    For point number three, you still havent proved theres a link between the two. And if there were, one could just as easily draw the inference that the reason for it is not because of selection in itself, but rather because non-grammars ought to be better funded. Which doesnt actually mean selection in itself is the problem.
    I don't really know exactly what you want by way of further proof. My premiss about selection is that it lowers the achievements of the school population generally which is illustrated by Prof. Jessons research. The Learning Skills Council states that "(our) Kent & Medways workforce is the least qualified and skilled in the region. A major issue is that the greatest growth in employment in the South East is forecast to require skills at Levels 4 and 5 - the Levels where Kent and Medway is especially weak."
    By saying that perhaps non-grammars ought to be better funded is tantamount to assuming that improvements can be made in the academics achievements if more money is injected into these schools. This would not solve the problem as evidence in other areas of public expenditure has shown. What needs to be done is a wider academic mix to improve the standards of those at the lower end of the academic spectrum. I can site evidence that in a primary school class with say 6 highly able children the achievements of the other 24 is greatly increased. I hasten to clarify that I do not think that the brightest in the school sit alongside the less bright but rather their presence in the school raises the levels of others because teachers will automatically encourage all the students to 'aim higher'.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn1)
    I don't really know exactly what you want by way of further proof. My premiss about selection is that it lowers the achievements of the school population generally which is illustrated by Prof. Jessons research. The Learning Skills Council states that "(our) Kent & Medways workforce is the least qualified and skilled in the region. A major issue is that the greatest growth in employment in the South East is forecast to require skills at Levels 4 and 5 - the Levels where Kent and Medway is especially weak."
    By saying that perhaps non-grammars ought to be better funded is tantamount to assuming that improvements can be made in the academics achievements if more money is injected into these schools. This would not solve the problem as evidence in other areas of public expenditure has shown. What needs to be done is a wider academic mix to improve the standards of those at the lower end of the academic spectrum. I can site evidence that in a primary school class with say 6 highly able children the achievements of the other 24 is greatly increased. I hasten to clarify that I do not think that the brightest in the school sit alongside the less bright but rather their presence in the school raises the levels of others because teachers will automatically encourage all the students to 'aim higher'.
    Proof would require you actually providing a link. All you have said is that kent has selection and performs badly. That doesnt mean its because of selection.
    I disagree that more expenditure would not help. You havent shown me any evidence of this. I've been in school with 'a wider academic mix' and I can tell you it really isnt like that! I once sat with a boy who had learning difficulties- I forget what they were exactly, and having to be taught by the one teacher didnt do either of us any favours. Our diverse educational needs were just not satisfied by being taught together, and it did us both a disservice. As it does to everyone like us both.
    In my experience by the way, the lower aims of a lot of the less able students tended to smother any hope of great progress from the more able. That was in a crap school though- I can see how it might be different in a high quality comprehensive.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    In Kent, dont they have forced selection where the schools destined to be crap don't get much money? Don't you think that could have something to do with bad performance?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn1)
    It is part of the human psyche that we tend to overlook that which is unpalatable to our interests! It is there believe me.
    They quote that woman, Margaret Tulloch, but they don't actually endorse the opinion. Indeed, The Times has a lading article supporting grammar schools.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    is this thread going to last forever?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thefish_uk)
    is this thread going to last forever?
    That's the plan. The same stuff has been said about ten times now but who cares.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    That's the plan. The same stuff has been said about ten times now but who cares.
    OK.

    Let's repeat the old stuff.

    I'm for grammar schools. I'm biased because I go to one.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thefish_uk)
    is this thread going to last forever?
    Are there any other things we can debate about education? I have lots of views on education...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thefish_uk)
    OK.

    Let's repeat the old stuff.

    I'm for grammar schools. I'm biased because I go to one.
    Is there anyone who for example goes to a grammar school and are against them? Or anyone who goes to a comprehensive and for grammar schools?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happysunshine)
    Are there any other things we can debate about education? I have lots of views on education...
    Education is good.

    What things do you feel strongly about?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thefish_uk)
    Education is good.

    What things do you feel strongly about?
    Some people say SATs should be got rid of, why?! I don't. I also believe GCSEs should be done by all students rather than going onto AS Levels early. I think that the idea of having a Maths GCSE which will help students with a lower ability aquire skills in maths which will be useful for their career is good and should be followed throughout all subjects. EMA award is great. University places should be cut down, it annoys me so much when all these thickos can do a degree without even earning A-Levels. And some other stuff... all which I have some reaons for.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happysunshine)
    it annoys me so much when all these thickos can do a degree without even earning A-Levels
    like the Royals.

    Maths is important.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thefish_uk)
    like the Royals.

    Maths is important.
    Yes! They are all so thick. Prince William got ABC his A-Levels but I would've expected St. Andrews would have wanted more than the grades he got. And Prince Charles, wasn't he thick and didn't he go to Cambridge?

    Maths is very important but there is no need for some people to learn Pythagoras when they can't even add up properly. The same with english, why should someone learn who to analyse a book when they can only just spell their own name. Priorities need to be sorted.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I don't see the point of analysing poetry. If they want us to develop analytical skills, why not get us to analyse books, poems, Shakespeare, whatever, but not all at once.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    Proof would require you actually providing a link. All you have said is that kent has selection and performs badly. That doesnt mean its because of selection.
    I disagree that more expenditure would not help. You havent shown me any evidence of this. I've been in school with 'a wider academic mix' and I can tell you it really isnt like that! I once sat with a boy who had learning difficulties- I forget what they were exactly, and having to be taught by the one teacher didnt do either of us any favours. Our diverse educational needs were just not satisfied by being taught together, and it did us both a disservice. As it does to everyone like us both.
    In my experience by the way, the lower aims of a lot of the less able students tended to smother any hope of great progress from the more able. That was in a crap school though- I can see how it might be different in a high quality comprehensive.
    Regarding your anecdotal evidence of the boy you sat next to at school - I seem to remember you saying you went to an independent school - if this relates to that period then it's not really relevant is it? Or were you talking about your primary school? In which case that is not pertinent to the current discussion either. You can find the sources for most of what I have opined upon on the following link. I have spent a lot of time to try to bring this all together for you as you won't type in quotes in a search engine to get it yourself - lazy girl I hope you appreciate it!
    It's from the House of Commons - Education and Skills - Select Committee.
    http://www.parliament.the-stationery...13/513we01.htm
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 22, 2003
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources
  • create my feed
  • edit my feed

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.