Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amrad)
    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?
    I think sixth form is quite different because those who are not very bright will have dropped out after GCSE, as will the "dossers" and you can't argue that the tests aren't fair because everyone is aware of the implications of their GCSEs. I think consideration should also be taken into how much they want to study at the higher level, if someone doesn't have the best grades for whatever reason but shows enthusiasm I Think they should be allowed in.
    I think most sixth form colleges are less selective anyway, i know hills road just asks for an average of a B and an HighB/A for the subject you want to study ata level.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Invisible)
    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.
    But surely "schools for the academially able, schools for those who are less able but not interested in studying vocational courses" just amounts to selective schools (grammars) and non-selective schools (comprehensives). It's the same system just with vocational learning available earlier, which is a good idea.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    The vast majority of 6th form colleges ask for 4C's at GCSE, as they feel this is necessary to do A-Levels.

    Some ask for nothing
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amrad)
    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?
    I think the league table system should be abolished, a meaningful system produces the results each student deserves, this some inevitabley some will perform poorly and others well. It's time we stop measuring success on inflated results. Again, the selection process for streaming within a comprehensive also ensures able students are at the top. No one has suggested why we need separate schools yet.

    With regards to sixth form colleges, more of a case can be made for selection there. A-Levels et al are the start of specialisation, I think a selection process for A-Levels would help discourage people from taking A-Levels they arn't capable of completing. It saddened me to watch a dozen people completely waste a year by failing A/S Maths, it wasn't difficult to see they wern't suited to it from the start. It would be best to retain the one school system for A-Levels as well, but would depend on the circumstances. Since most friendship groups at 16 are far more permanent than the ones at 11 or whenever grammar selection takes place then the chances of a class divide being produced are diminished. I did my A-Levels at the same school I did my GCSEs and SATs, so I don't know all that much about sixth form colleges.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amrad)
    But surely "schools for the academially able, schools for those who are less able but not interested in studying vocational courses" just amounts to selective schools (grammars) and non-selective schools (comprehensives). It's the same system just with vocational learning available earlier, which is a good idea.
    Yes but the comprehensives will not be ruined by "dossers" making teacher's lives hell, which many do, and also if a more standardised system was in place, so all areas would have one school for the academically able as apposed to some areas not and some areas having them. Also hopefully it would get rid of the increase in house prices around a good school.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amrad)
    But surely "schools for the academially able, schools for those who are less able but not interested in studying vocational courses" just amounts to selective schools (grammars) and non-selective schools (comprehensives). It's the same system just with vocational learning available earlier, which is a good idea.
    No, it's a completely different system.

    Your post insinuated that comprehensive schools are for lower ability kids, which is completely ludicrous.

    Also, the standard of teaching etc. wouldn't need to differ, it should be the same for all of these proposed schools - Just the fact that they are in a class of children with similar ability.
    Offline

    1
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Invisible)
    No, it's a completely different system.

    Your post insinuated that comprehensive schools are for lower ability kids, which is completely ludicrous.

    Also, the standard of teaching etc. wouldn't need to differ, it should be the same for all of these proposed schools - Just the fact that they are in a class of children with similar ability.
    what i feel is important is that there is more standardisation, that the better schools do not get any more funding and that every pupil has the ability to obtain a place at a school for their ability. If some areas this may mean more vocational places then that would be the case.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    Notice how she would love to go to a private school, but her parents don't earn a particular great deal, so her system proposed private schools in the area letting those who aren't wealthy, in for free i.e.) "100% bursary."

    Wow, talk about considering the majority. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Louise_1988)
    what i feel is important is that there is more standardisation, that the better schools do not get any more funding and that every pupil has the ability to obtain a place at a school for their ability. If some areas this may mean more vocational places then that would be the case.
    Yes, same standard of eduation i.e.) teaching/facilities etc., just the groups consisting of those who are of a similar ability; this is good for both teachers and pupils. Easier to teach, easier to learn.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Invisible)
    Notice how she would love to go to a private school, but her parents don't earn a particular great deal, so her system proposed private schools in the area letting those who aren't wealthy, in for free i.e.) "100% bursary."

    Wow, talk about considering the majority. :rolleyes:
    These do currently happen but I think making them more widely accesible would benifit some.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Invisible)
    Notice how she would love to go to a private school, but her parents don't earn a particular great deal, so her system proposed private schools in the area letting those who aren't wealthy, in for free i.e.) "100% bursary."

    Wow, talk about considering the majority. :rolleyes:
    Well, her system is still better than one which only the rich can get a good education. But the problem is all of this is completely unneccessary, grammar schools and private schools are simply not needed. If I had my way we'd pull out the CAP and plough that money into state schools, whilst converting all grammar schools into mixed sex streamed comprehensives. I think perhaps, that it is they who are proponents of a one size fits all system - the obsessively academic system. School is about more than grades, not only do we want people to be well educated, we want them to be socially able and well balanced individuals.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by deianra)
    Personally, at age 11 I would have been awful in a mixed sex fully-streamed comprehensive. I had zilch social skills, which eventually developed at my grammar - this was a result of continous bullying at my state primary. Still, why can't you be a well balanced individual at a grammar school? Anything is possible if you try hard enough.

    I meet loads of people from everywhere as I do most of my extra-curriculars out of school (note: no facilities). One of my closest friends wants to go to TVU - school isn't just about the grades, but to me, academia is the most important. I don't see why you can't be soccially able and well balanced at a grammar school - my school's aim is for the pupils to become "well-rounded Kendrick girl" (it's more or less a catchphrase).

    What about an all-rounder?In the fully-streamed comprehensive, they would be in all the top sets. Would this not make them prone to being bullied?
    At a grammar school, everyone is of equal ability. People see no point in bullying or anything like rascism - the people are intelligent enough to see past that.
    A lot of people experience bullying, and it's sad that it goes on. I'm afraid I would postulate that you would be able to develop your social skills at a good comprehensive just as well as a grammar. I won't deny that many (hopefully most) grammar school students do end up socially able, but I think the comprehensive system affords an advantage for this, and will help people be more socially aware. At my school I never saw someone bullied for being smart, that's not to say it doesn't happen, but I suspect you'd be able to find some 'super smart people' at a grammar school bullying the mere 'smart people'. Bullying is an issue which transcends just academic ability. I suspect bullying because of ability would happen more in schools which don't stream, I'd imagine the less able feel awkward vis a vis some of the very able. Bullying is a symptom of a problem the bullier has, these issues need to be dealt with, and not just hidden through segregation.


    (Original post by deianra)
    The selection test for grammars is more of an IQ test, I've always felt. If you're intelligent enough, you are offered a place - regardless of which subjects you're good at.

    Private schools are needed. I'd be all for abolishing them - it's terribly unfair, but I don't think the UK can economically afford it. 20% of the students aged 16-18 are currently privately schooled and from ages 5 - 16, it's 4%. That's rather a significant amount of pupils.

    That's why the bursaries are needed - at the moment, very few private schools actually offer full bursary. Allowing intelligent pupils access to fantastic facilities...it would be amazing. I've always dreamed about what my school would be like if we had half the funding of any of the public schools. Also, there really aren't that many grammar schools. I've been told so many times how lucky I am to have a grammar school near me.

    If you increase the number of grammar schools, there will be a wider mix of people going to it - the German Gymnasiums are very good and 40% of students go to it. Thus, this solves the social mix you strive for. Also, the Germans have the Realschule, which offers vocational courses. Students who really don't want to study should have the access to vocational courses much earlier. Simply look at the statistics for grammar schools - the performance is a lot higher. If there were more grammar schools, this performance could be extended to more of the population.

    My school is over-subscribed 7:1 - this is a lot more competitive than many Oxbridge courses! Many of these students end up going to fully-streamed comprehensives - the selective stream doesn't perform near as well.
    You said it yourself, your school is over-subscirbed 7:1. This means not all who should be able to do get in. I fully understand that we couldn't wake up tomorrow having abolished private schools. As you said, it'd be expensive, and I'll be the first to admit that sadly in some areas state education is found to be poor quality. And lets not forget that making sudden changes often spells economic disaster, no matter what the policy is. I think that slow but sustained progress should be made towards abolishing both private and grammar schools. The money would have to be found somewhere, and if we keep the strong economy we have now there's no doubt that in perhaps ten or twenty years this could be accomplished.

    Grammar schools perform better because of selection, if your school really does get 7 applications for each place then clearly your school can be very selective in whom it admits. I have no doubt either that a school such as yours attracts very good teachers too. Without wanting to sound cliched, I don't see why we have to give the most support to those who probably need it least. I'll emphasise again the importance of independant study skills, this is why if you take a pupil from a private school (and I suspect a grammar school such as yours) and one from a comprehensive who both got the same A-Level grades the comprehensive school pupil tends to have performed better at university level. This is because of over-support in secondary education.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by deianra)
    I haven't had any experience of a comprehensive, but I would have gone to one which didn't practice streaming much. You can probably understand why that for me would have been a nightmare. Anyway, apart from that, if fully streamed comprehensives prove to have low levels of bullying, I'll be all for them.
    Yeah, you're in the best place for you available, but ideally it would be different

    (Original post by deianra)
    Financially, comprehensives receive so much more support that it's bewildering. Teaching isn't a well paid profession and it's also under subscribed. The UK needs more teachers and there are few incentives - this results in many teachers either wanting to go to a private school or a high flying grammar.

    Sadly, not many want to tackle a comprehensive, even if it's fully streamed. Many may refuse to teach the lower sets and you would get teachers of better quality teaching the top sets and the lower quality ones teaching the bottom sets. No one wants to expend more effort than they need to - they'd much rather cover the course in half as much time and effort, no waste shouting for the class to behave.
    It's more expensive to teach less able children

    I think that if we ploughed more money into teachers salaries we would be abe to attract better teachers, it's just sad that taxpayers won't be happy with paying more money just for salaries. Some teachers are incredibley talented at dealing with lower sets as well as higher sets. I think that more training needs to be given to teachers about how to deal with these things.


    (Original post by deianra)
    Just a bit aside - we don't have enough teachers to teach 4 hours of a subject per week per subject at AS-level. I understand that most schools have 4 hours of taught lessons - our practice is 3 hours taught and one hour of independent study for the subject (set work). Believe me, Kendrick ingrains the importance of independent study skills.
    Lets face it, for intelligent people three hours a week is more than enough. I'm glad you learn independant study skills, the private sector is the worst offender for this though.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by deianra)
    I haven't had any experience of a comprehensive, but I would have gone to one which didn't practice streaming much. You can probably understand why that for me would have been a nightmare. Anyway, apart from that, if fully streamed comprehensives prove to have low levels of bullying, I'll be all for them.
    I went to a comprehensive with little streaming, there was no racism and hardly any bullying.

    Someone I went to primary school with went to a grammar and beat or equaled my gcse grades in every subject despite the fact that we used to get almost identical grades at primary and both got scholarships to the grammar, although I turned mine down.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by deianra)
    In another thread people knew of teachers who for example:

    1. Would not teach at anything other than an independent school
    2. Would not teach at anywhere without a Boat house.
    Sad, but probably true

    I'd prefer to have teachers who are dedicated to their work, as opposed to what they can get out of it. The head of Maths at my old school is a good example, she was so dedicated she put just as much effort in the bottom sets as she did the top. The head of sixth form maths was also dedicated, he'd been in the same post for nearly thirty years, even though he could've become whatever he wanted he just wanted to teach. I'm sure we've all encountered teachers like this, and it's these people we must seek to teach our children.

    (Original post by deianra)
    Ceteris paribus, the grammar school allowed the other person to fulfil their potential more. Anyway, I have no real experienec of a comprehensive so I should stop commenting. But the thing was, everyone who bullied me in my primary school would have gone on to the same comprehensive. Thus, I felt the bullying wouldn't have stopped (I moved 100 miles away, but that's another story ).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    Sad, but probably true

    I'd prefer to have teachers who are dedicated to their work, as opposed to what they can get out of it. The head of Maths at my old school is a good example, she was so dedicated she put just as much effort in the bottom sets as she did the top. The head of sixth form maths was also dedicated, he'd been in the same post for nearly thirty years, even though he could've become whatever he wanted he just wanted to teach. I'm sure we've all encountered teachers like this, and it's these people we must seek to teach our children.
    They are dedicated, in fact, they are incredible dedicated. My GCSE Maths teacher for instance, he's probable one of the most dedicated teacher I have very seen or heard of; but you still wouldn't find him teaching down the local comprehensive any day of the week.

    This idea that public schools steal teacher from state schools is a fallacy. My school got the majority of their teachers from the City or approached them whilst they worked in university departments, the only people that are losing out are Investment Banks, Law firms or grad students. Of the minority that came from other schools, most teached at other private schools anyway, there's very little transfer between the sectors.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BazTheMoney)
    They are dedicated, in fact, they are incredible dedicated. My GCSE Maths teacher for instance, he's probable one of the most dedicated teacher I have very seen or heard of; but you still wouldn't find him teaching down the local comprehensive any day of the week.

    This idea that public schools steal teacher from state schools is a fallacy. My school got the majority of their teachers from the City or approached them whilst they worked in university departments, the only people that are losing out are Investment Banks, Law firms or grad students. Of the minority that came from other schools, most teached at other private schools anyway, there's very little transfer between the sectors.
    I don't think you should dismiss the idea purely on your anecdotal evidence, I could say that while I was at school two science teachers left to teach in private schools. It may be that your local comprehensive schools need reform. I will still argue a teacher who is willing to put up with a 'sub-standard' school is more dedicated than one who will only teach where it's easy.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BazTheMoney)
    This idea that public schools steal teacher from state schools is a fallacy. My school got the majority of their teachers from the City or approached them whilst they worked in university departments, the only people that are losing out are Investment Banks, Law firms or grad students. Of the minority that came from other schools, most teached at other private schools anyway, there's very little transfer between the sectors.
    That is very true, many of my teachers are ex-stockbrokers or lawyers who have made a bit of money and want to give something back.
    Also the assumption that private schools take the best teachers is not always true, recently a new head of chem. was appointed who has a phd from oxford, i think, but she is the most awful teacher and often I get the impression teachers are given the job because of their qualifications not their teaching abilities as it looks good on the prospectus.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    I will still argue a teacher who is willing to put up with a 'sub-standard' school is more dedicated than one who will only teach where it's easy.
    but there is a difference between a comp. in a nice area and one in the middle of an inner city area.
    My old english tutor was very dedicated and loved his job, hence him tutoring in his own time, but he taught in a school in luton (rough area), In one year he had his phone stolen 3 times by pupils, was attacked twice by pupils, on more occasions by parents and finally left when the school wouldn't suspend the boy who had hospilatised him because the boy was Indian and they didn't want to risk being accused of being racist.
    Unsuprising he left even though he had been teaching there for quite a few years. Lets be honest, would you blame him?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?

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.