Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thefish_uk)
    Who goes to the best school in the UK?

    This one? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/h...l/870_5413.stm
    Best state school.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ellie4)
    You can have all the resources and teaching in the world, if you're not clever and you don't want to work, you won't pass your exams. My teachers are great, but I'm not spoon-fed stuff, some people in my classes get D's, some get A's, because some work and some don't. I think it's very much dependent on an individual's ability, regradless of where they go to school.
    Yes, that's part of it for private schoolers, but it should be the whole of it - That is, work-ethic and ability.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheWolf)
    lol, same standard of education? how? if there is a method, this would almost certainly lower the standards of schools
    The majority would be better off, if the funding was in place. There are more average to not so good comprehensive schools than good ones.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    You tend to sideline any issues that would make your single standard system unsuccessful. We are talking about the pool of students that currently exist, with the problems that currently face schools. For your idea to work many other problems would have to be eradicated - bullying, dossing etc and this just isn't feasible. It's all relevant because it shows there are lots of people who do better under the current system.


    (Original post by Invisible)
    Yes, there would need to be. I don't see why there can't be seperate classes within these schools so the teachers could teach at a pace suited to the students or to avoid dossers.

    "But it has been argued in quite a few cases that some people particularly thrive in a grammar school/competitivee situation" - So they are thriving due to the school then, not themselves. Hence the dependance on the school (mainly), not primarily their own abilities.
    Everyone needs a little coaching to get the best out of them. If they didn't then forget education altogether. Although many would still achieve the same grades going to a comprehensive school by working harder they would not be able to be taught past the syllabus or to such a high level. People thrive in different situations, and whether they do or not doesn't mean they are more/less able. Some people just need the right environment to flourish and the point of schools is to provide that environment. The fact is that many comprehensive schools, as they are, stifle the abilties of many - 'why put scholars in straitjackets?'
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by deianra)
    According to the Sunday Times.
    2004 School of the year.

    90% A*/A at GCSE.
    84% A/B at A-level.

    GCSE average of my yeargroup - 6A*s, 3 As and a B. We're ranked fairly low by the Beeb because there were 4 Ds at GCSE. Incidentally, we let in people for Sixth Form with not a single A at GCSE. We're not even that selective.
    Give me website links.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Louise_1988)
    They are thriving because the enviroment allowes them to reach their full capiablilities, which they would not be able to do in a comprehensive, in the same way that another pupils may feel disheartened in a very academic enviroment of a grammar and would be better off as a relitively high achiever in a comprehensive.
    So? Many people in comprehensive schools have to cope with dossers, hardly ideal.

    The idea of a nationwide standard would not be perfect for all, but that isn't the point.

    Also, you failed to consider those who may not be good enough to get into a grammar school, but would thrive in that environment anyway.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Invisible)
    Yes, there would need to be. I don't see why there can't be seperate classes within these schools so the teachers could teach at a pace suited to the students or to avoid dossers.

    "But it has been argued in quite a few cases that some people particularly thrive in a grammar school/competitivee situation" - So they are thriving due to the school then, not themselves. Hence the dependance on the school (mainly), not primarily their own abilities.
    Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!

    The problem with grammar schools isn't the concept of streaming by ability. The problem is creating social divides, the problem is cementing a class system. The problem is also one of inflexibility.

    In my education we were streamed by ability from year six onwards, beginning with only a maths set and an 'everything else' set. In year 9 (as we moved on to upper school from middle school) you were streamed on pretty much everything.

    This system offers a number of benefits compared to the grammar school system. First of all, it's not a permanent segregation. Many people who had been placed in lower sets shouldn't have been, and subsequently worked themselves up into the higher sets. Also, it allowed flexibility of setting between subjects themselves. What if you don't achieve grammar school standard in all your subjects? Are you destined to be left behind? In a streamed comprehensive school every student can be placed in the right class for each subject.

    The second benefit, and I believe this is the most important, is that because you havn't completely separated the "able" from the "not so able" it helps prevent the class system from cementing itself further. I think it's pretty clear that anyone who attends a grammar school is probably going to earn more than someone who doesn't. In a perverse way we're taking economically blind selection (although I suspect entry exams will be skewed towards middle class students more through parental pressure etc) and creating the next generation of class divide. Many of my friends were hardly the most academic people, and most certainly would not have entered a grammar school. These people are my friends, and I am glad I know them. Grammar schools are divisive. And don't get me started on bloody private schools!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Invisible)
    The majority would be better off, if the funding was in place. There are more average to not so good comprehensive schools than good ones.
    who goes to the schools with good facilities and who goes to schools with worse? what do you mean by equality of education? ie everyone goes to a state school?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by deianra)
    Download this: It's 3 MB but it's the Parent Power edition.

    http://www.secondaryschoolsonline.co...asp?file=20943
    Isn't there a searchable version?

    Umm, I want a league table, not an article on how great your school is.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amrad)
    You tend to sideline any issues that would make your single standard system unsuccessful. We are talking about the pool of students that currently exist, with the problems that currently face schools. For your idea to work many other problems would have to be eradicated - bullying, dossing etc and this just isn't feasible. It's all relevant because it shows there are lots of people who do better under the current system.

    Everyone needs a little coaching to get the best out of them. If they didn't then forget education altogether. Although many would still achieve the same grades going to a comprehensive school by working harder they would not be able to be taught past the syllabus or to such a high level. People thrive in different situations, and whether they do or not doesn't mean they are more/less able. Some people just need the right environment to flourish and the point of schools is to provide that environment. The fact is that many comprehensive schools, as they are, stifle the abilties of many - 'why put scholars in straitjackets?'
    "bullying" - irrelevant issue completely.
    "dossing"- seperate classes, different courses. Hardly impossible.

    "Everyone needs a little coaching to get the best out of them." - Exactly, but a minority getting superb coaching and a majority getting poor coaching (comparatively) isn't good overall.

    "Some people just need the right environment to flourish and the point of schools is to provide that environment." - Hence why I'm considering the majority, rather than those soley at private schools and grammar schools.

    "The fact is that many comprehensive schools, as they are, stifle the abilties of many - 'why put scholars in straitjackets?'" - You're again considering the minority, private schoolers. You seem to not realise the number of schools of a poor/not so great standard. You haven't once commented on helping the majority.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    look, cant you see that you cant get the best education unless you have division of classes? If we go for equality, the richer people would get a worse education that they could have, i think this goes against our capitalist system
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amrad)
    You tend to sideline any issues that would make your single standard system unsuccessful. We are talking about the pool of students that currently exist, with the problems that currently face schools. For your idea to work many other problems would have to be eradicated - bullying, dossing etc and this just isn't feasible. It's all relevant because it shows there are lots of people who do better under the current system.

    Everyone needs a little coaching to get the best out of them. If they didn't then forget education altogether. Although many would still achieve the same grades going to a comprehensive school by working harder they would not be able to be taught past the syllabus or to such a high level. People thrive in different situations, and whether they do or not doesn't mean they are more/less able. Some people just need the right environment to flourish and the point of schools is to provide that environment. The fact is that many comprehensive schools, as they are, stifle the abilties of many - 'why put scholars in straitjackets?'
    It's not a single standard system, it's a single school system. See my previous post. I think you might have overestimated the importance of doing well at GCSE and A-Level. Students who are coached less perform better at degree level because their independant study skills are more developed. I'm not saying that all grammar and private schools spoonfeed for the grade A, but it does happen and it doesn't help the student in the long term. The only reason to advocate a two school system is to deliberately divide society into separate classes. I've already outlined why the single school system is better in my last post, I await your reply eagerly.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheWolf)
    look, cant you see that you cant get the best education unless you have division of classes? If we go for equality, the richer people would get a worse education that they could have, i think this goes against our capitalist system
    "you cant get the best education unless you have division of classes? " - I still don't understand why you are linking class(wealth) to education, this is bizarre. How does the majority get a good education by allowing it to depend on how wealthy someone is? For that to happen, the majority would have to be wealthy...

    Best education for who? The rich? I'm considering the majority, and the majority need to be considered when education is provided IMO.

    "If we go for equality, the richer people would get a worse education that they could have, i think this goes against our capitalist system" - Yes, I'm considering the majority. I don't think education should depend on wealth. Also, there is no such thnig as a capitalist system. Remember that.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheWolf)
    who goes to the schools with good facilities and who goes to schools with worse? what do you mean by equality of education? ie everyone goes to a state school?
    Everyone goes to a school of a similar national standard.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by deianra)
    You have to subscribe to Times Online. It does have a mini league table in there - it's got the top ten (Tiffin Girls', the Essex grammars, the Birmingham grammars and QEGS Barnet are more or less the grammar school greats).

    I have the paper version around somewhere - any school you want to look up in particular?
    What does "Voluntary Aided" rather than "Foundation" mean on the BBC website? Mine's "Voluntary Aided", yours is "Foundation". Now I know my school hasn't had grants from the King Edward foundation for a long time if that's what they're on about.

    Anyway, my school's King Edward VI Five Ways. The 4 other Birmingham grammars you see on there are single sex, mine's mixed but I don't see why it hasn't been as good as those... ah well I prefer to be in a mixed school than single sex anyway.

    thanks
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by deianra)
    We still did streaming in some subjects. Still, in many of the GCSE options, there was only about 10 people so no point in streaming. If you were left behind, you had a higher standard to work to and this motivated you to work harder to achiever the higher target. As the selective exams are in verbal/non-verbal reasoning and sometimes Maths, it ensures broad ability in all subjects - rarely could you find someone who couldn't get a B at GCSE in any subject.
    So those who arn't brilliant at everything are left behind in the shoddy old comprehensive school?

    Should someone who is a straight A student in Science/Maths be excluded because they just can't seem to get the hang of English?

    This isn't a problem if you stream a comprehensive school

    edit: I've also seen people get incredibley depressed if they're out of their depth academically.

    (Original post by deianra)
    I qualify for EMA
    I meant future earnings, it's creating tomorrow's classes.


    (Original post by deianra)
    You seem to conclude that by going to grammar, it means you have no friends from elsewhere? The vast majority of people in my school have most of their friends from comprehensives. We're social people, you know. :rolleyes:
    While I can't refute your anecdotal evidence, I suspect that even in your school there must be some who don't mix with the "stupid people." (Don't take offense to the way I worded that, it's just a point I'm trying to illustrate) Unless there's a sociological study on the matter, we're not going to get anywhere arguing about it. Can you at least see some of the social benefits to a streamed comprehensive as opposed to a grammar?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by deianra)
    I propose:

    - Independent schools all giving 100% bursaries to anyone with family income under a certain amount (e.g. 30K/annum); abolishing them would put too much pressure on the tax payer. 20% of students in Sixth form are privately educated - to provide for them on the state education system would cause either taxes to soar, other systems like the NHS to suffer or the standard of all schools to plunge.

    - Each LEA with at least one grammar.
    Not much different to now...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    It's not a single standard system, it's a single school system. See my previous post. I think you might have overestimated the importance of doing well at GCSE and A-Level. Students who are coached less perform better at degree level because their independant study skills are more developed. I'm not saying that all grammar and private schools spoonfeed for the grade A, but it does happen and it doesn't help the student in the long term. The only reason to advocate a two school system is to deliberately divide society into separate classes. I've already outlined why the single school system is better in my last post, I await your reply eagerly.
    Yes spoonfeeding does happen, I've seen it more than most, and yes I totally agree it doesn't help the student in the long run. However schools will always aim to get their students the best marks in GCSE and A Level - that's the performance/league table culture.

    In fact some state schools spoonfeed their students more as it ensures better results and there is no way that they could envisage some students doing well otherwise. At grammar schools the selection process has ensured that students have a bit of initiative and intelligence and don't need to be spoonfed. They get taught properly. I have seen state school pupils be handed out detailed notes made exactly to a syllabus in the months preceeding GCSEs and all they have to then do is learn what is on the sheets. They hardly even have to pay attention throughout the year.

    What is your opinion on sixth form colleges? Many are selective in the same way that grammar schools are and most of the pupils come from non-selective high schools. Do these create a class divide as well?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Invisible)
    Not much different to now...
    How about a system where there are schools for the academially able, schools for those who are less able but not interested in studying vocational courses and schools for thoses who prime interest is vocational learning. People could be separated at 13, at this age they would be well aware of the implications of the test they were taking. And a system would be inplace to facilitate moving between schools, say after GCSE if a pupil did particularly well or decided they wanted to do non-vocational instead of vocational courses.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Louise_1988)
    How about a system where there are schools for the academially able, schools for those who are less able but not interested in studying vocational courses and schools for thoses who prime interest is vocational learning. People could be separated at 13, at this age they would be well aware of the implications of the test they were taking. And a system would be inplace to facilitate moving between schools, say after GCSE if a pupil did particularly well or decided they wanted to do non-vocational instead of vocational courses.
    Good idea that is, as it allows all students o try and reach their potential and it isn't dependant on wealth. It would also allow more social mixing between the different classes.
 
 
 

932

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process

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.