This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

If you were in charge of secondary education, how would you organise it?

There have been a lot of threads about secondary education recently, especially with regards to private and grammar schools. So I was wondering what changes you would make, if any, to the system as it stands at the moment. Here are my views:

I would get rid of private and grammar schools, so everyone would have to go to state-funded comprehensives. There would be no entrance exams and everyone would go to their local school. Schools would have a roughly equal number of students (although obviously larger areas would have more students), receive equal funding per pupil and offer the same opportunities. The curriculum for Years 7-9 would stay the same as it is now, except that I would get rid of the SATs. Students would be placed in sets based on ability for all subjects. At the end of Year 9, students would have to choose whether they wanted to follow an academic, vocational or work-based route in Years 10-11, but everyone would have to do GCSE English and maths. Those wanting to do academic would choose another 6-11 GCSEs, depending on how bright they were. The vocational students could do applied GCSEs and GNVQs. The work-based students could do NVQs and apprenticeships.

I'd get rid of Curriculum 2000, so students wanting to do A-levels would choose 3 or 4 subjects and study them all the way through, with only mock exams at the end of Year 12. At university, I would get rid of pointless mickey mouse degrees, eg golf course management and wine studies etc, so there would be more funding available to spend on worthy subjects and therefore top-up fees could be scrapped.

So what are your views? In your opinion, what would be the perfect way to organise the secondary education system?

Reply 1

Mr White

7

Academic courses for the intelligent. Vocational courses for the stupid. Troublemakers who have no intention of learning should not be forced to.

Reply 2

Harv616

9

Id leave it the same, but actualy tell the kids that this will help later in life.

I know alot of people who messed about year 7-10 because smart people were put down by other kids, you need to change that. Also more disaplin so kids actualy do the work would be nice.

Reply 3

Zapsta

Base grades on the subjective views of teachers on students' intelligence.

Reply 4

Harv616

9

Zapsta

Base grades on the subjective views of teachers on students' intelligence.

that wouldt work, some teachers may be sexist/racists etc.

Or they might just not like kids.

Reply 5

Mr White

7

Zapsta

Base grades on the subjective views of teachers on students' intelligence.

Teachers aren't infallible, you know. Take my old year 6 teacher: His son was in my class, and he got to be lead in the play, head of the football team, head of the cricket team, year representative... and he wasn't particularly good at anything.

Reply 6

Muse

13

kellywood_5

So what are your views? In your opinion, what would be the perfect way to organise the secondary education system?

Reading the 'Tomlinson Report' may be a good start.. :wink:

Reply 7

joesharp

1

kellywood_5

There have been a lot of threads about secondary education recently, especially with regards to private and grammar schools. So I was wondering what changes you would make, if any, to the system as it stands at the moment. Here are my views:

I would get rid of private and grammar schools, so everyone would have to go to state-funded comprehensives. There would be no entrance exams and everyone would go to their local school. Schools would have a roughly equal number of students (although obviously larger areas would have more students), receive equal funding per pupil and offer the same opportunities. The curriculum for Years 7-9 would stay the same as it is now, except that I would get rid of the SATs. Students would be placed in sets based on ability for all subjects. At the end of Year 9, students would have to choose whether they wanted to follow an academic, vocational or work-based route in Years 10-11, but everyone would have to do GCSE English and maths. Those wanting to do academic would choose another 6-11 GCSEs, depending on how bright they were. The vocational students could do applied GCSEs and GNVQs. The work-based students could do NVQs and apprenticeships.

I'd get rid of Curriculum 2000, so students wanting to do A-levels would choose 3 or 4 subjects and study them all the way through, with only mock exams at the end of Year 12. At university, I would get rid of pointless mickey mouse degrees, eg golf course management and wine studies etc, so there would be more funding available to spend on worthy subjects and therefore top-up fees could be scrapped.

So what are your views? In your opinion, what would be the perfect way to organise the secondary education system?

Wouldn't it be useful to have some sort of aptitude test at the end of year 9 to help students decide what route to follow. Plus I don't think I would make GCSE Maths compulsory, currently there are a large number of people who only take foundation tier GCSE maths and end up with a D. There is an idea going around at the moment to have a basic numeracy exam for these people, which sounds slightly better.

Reply 8

Natalie Lane

9

Zapsta

Base grades on the subjective views of teachers on students' intelligence.

That's actually what the maths department in my school does...

Reply 9

Jump

18

Zapsta

Base grades on the subjective views of teachers on students' intelligence.

Combined with exam grades I reckon.

e.g.
keep the A,B,C,D,E,U thing.
...but add 1,2,3,4,5 as a teacher evaulation.

So a '1A' would be the top grade...

Reply 10

LostRiot

14

grammer schools still exist?????????
theres none where i live

Reply 11

edmundwillis

5

kellywood_5

There have been a lot of threads about secondary education recently, especially with regards to private and grammar schools. So I was wondering what changes you would make, if any, to the system as it stands at the moment. Here are my views:

I would get rid of private and grammar schools, so everyone would have to go to state-funded comprehensives. There would be no entrance exams and everyone would go to their local school. Schools would have a roughly equal number of students (although obviously larger areas would have more students), receive equal funding per pupil and offer the same opportunities. The curriculum for Years 7-9 would stay the same as it is now, except that I would get rid of the SATs. Students would be placed in sets based on ability for all subjects. At the end of Year 9, students would have to choose whether they wanted to follow an academic, vocational or work-based route in Years 10-11, but everyone would have to do GCSE English and maths. Those wanting to do academic would choose another 6-11 GCSEs, depending on how bright they were. The vocational students could do applied GCSEs and GNVQs. The work-based students could do NVQs and apprenticeships.

I'd get rid of Curriculum 2000, so students wanting to do A-levels would choose 3 or 4 subjects and study them all the way through, with only mock exams at the end of Year 12. At university, I would get rid of pointless mickey mouse degrees, eg golf course management and wine studies etc, so there would be more funding available to spend on worthy subjects and therefore top-up fees could be scrapped.

So what are your views? In your opinion, what would be the perfect way to organise the secondary education system?

(I think I remember that we had this conversation before...)

Totally agree with the general theme - comprehensive education is certainly an ideal that should be aimed for. However, the major loophole presented by your system is that the best teachers will want to group themselves together, hence creating an unfair distribution of teachers and middle class parents would end up moving to go to a 'local school' which is good.

To close the loophole, teachers and pupils should be pooled (shared out between schools) according to calibre so that there is a fair balance of teachers and pupils as well as resources. This will mean that every local school is a good school and everyone gets equal opportunities (including teachers and parents as well as pupils).

Reply 12

Dyakson

2

I would leave it as it is, unless I could see an easier way to run it better.

Reply 13

Natalie Lane

9

jumpunderaboat

Combined with exam grades I reckon.

e.g.
keep the A,B,C,D,E,U thing.
...but add 1,2,3,4,5 as a teacher evaulation.

So a '1A' would be the top grade...

Now that we really do have in school, like an effort and an attainment grade (except that in my school A,B,C etc. is for effort while 1-7 is the attainment...)

Reply 14

an Siarach

15

kellywood_5

I would get rid of private and grammar schools, so everyone would have to go to state-funded comprehensives.
There would be no entrance exams and everyone would go to their local school.

So if you live in a crummy area youre condemned to a crummy school.

kellywood_5

Schools would have a roughly equal number of students (although obviously larger areas would have more students), receive equal funding per pupil and offer the same opportunities.

Sounds good.

kellywood_5

The curriculum for Years 7-9 would stay the same as it is now, except that I would get rid of the SATs. Students would be placed in sets based on ability for all subjects.

Sounds good but why get rid of entrance exams if youre going to segregate children anyway?

kellywood_5

At the end of Year 9, students would have to choose whether they wanted to follow an academic, vocational or work-based route in Years 10-11, but everyone would have to do GCSE English and maths. Those wanting to do academic would choose another 6-11 GCSEs, depending on how bright they were. The vocational students could do applied GCSEs and GNVQs. The work-based students could do NVQs and apprenticeships.

Pretty much exactly what i would do.

kellywood_5

I'd get rid of Curriculum 2000, so students wanting to do A-levels would choose 3 or 4 subjects and study them all the way through, with only mock exams at the end of Year 12. At university, I would get rid of pointless mickey mouse degrees, eg golf course management and wine studies etc, so there would be more funding available to spend on worthy subjects and therefore top-up fees could be scrapped.

With the exception of your first couple of lines id agree totally.

kellywood_5

So what are your views? In your opinion, what would be the perfect way to organise the secondary education system?

I would bring back the grammar-secondary modern school model albeit i would get rid of the 11+ and replace it with SAT type tests at regular intervals up until the age of 16 to ensure that nobody is stopped from recieving an academic education simply because of a single test thus academic late bloomers would be able to move into grammars from secondary moderns if they should decide they do not want to follow a vocational path. I would remove most direct government control over education so as to ensure that it cannot be fiddled with so as to make the incumbent administration look good (as is currently happening) to the detriment of those at school. Beyond funding the education system should be controlled by those with experience of it. The school qualifcations/curriculum should be decided by teachers and those from the industries/areas for which school kids are being prepared such as the universities and various trades/business organisations to ensure the quality and integrity of the curriculum from government interference (no more bloody cake decoration > A in GCSE physics)
The school leaving age should be lowered to 14 and the vocational opportunities (apprenticeships etc) available should be greatly increased (at the moment they are pitiful) and the number of kids aimed at uni should be set at something more realistic rather than a figure created so the government can claim "were a pwnt educated society, no come backs!" while encouraging immigration to fill in the gaps in industry workers resulting from everyone and their dog going into higher ed.

Reply 15

MC

1

kellywood_5

I would get rid of private and grammar schools, so everyone would have to go to state-funded comprehensives.

Having had the best of both worlds, private schooling till GCSE, then state for A Levels, I think this is stupid. The state system fails pupils, so why make it even more widespread? If a parent is willing to pay more for a childs education, so be it. Also, private schools often selectively choose the most academically able, and why stifle these people simply to be PC?

kellywood_5

There would be no entrance exams and everyone would go to their local school.

Why? Entrance exams represent ability, whats wrong with that?

kellywood_5

Schools would have a roughly equal number of students (although obviously larger areas would have more students), receive equal funding per pupil and offer the same opportunities.

Thats pretty much how it is now in the state sector. The government has given guidelines for schools to adhere to in terms of funding, class sizes etc.

kellywood_5

The curriculum for Years 7-9 would stay the same as it is now, except that I would get rid of the SATs. Students would be placed in sets based on ability for all subjects.

If you would remove SAT's testing, which is the only national acredited method of examining ability in the key areas, how would you place them according toa ability. It's clear you want equality, but leaving this to teachers/schools would be too unreliable in terms of nationally.

kellywood_5

At the end of Year 9, students would have to choose whether they wanted to follow an academic, vocational or work-based route in Years 10-11, but everyone would have to do GCSE English and maths.

Surely they should get at least more than a couple of GCSE's? Without this, it would make the job of employers etc a hell of a lot harder in terms of selection.

kellywood_5

Those wanting to do academic would choose another 6-11 GCSEs, depending on how bright they were.

So what your education would be, is forced upon you depending on ability? :rolleyes:

kellywood_5

I'd get rid of Curriculum 2000, so students wanting to do A-levels would choose 3 or 4 subjects and study them all the way through, with only mock exams at the end of Year 12.

I agree. This would eliminate all the slackers who think they can pass by working as and when they feel like it, and prevent multiple retakes.

kellywood_5

At university, I would get rid of pointless mickey mouse degrees, eg golf course management and wine studies etc, so there would be more funding available to spend on worthy subjects and therefore top-up fees could be scrapped.

Funding is allocated depending on the course popularity, and students on the course. Just because you deem something "mickey-mouse", doesn't make it so.

Reply 16

frost105

14

I would make a compulsary exam at 11 for grammar and secondary schools. It would involve a paper in english, maths, science and a standard IQ paper. GCSE's would remain and english, science and maths would be compulsary for all. GNVQ, work based learning and NVQs would be available to all students from aged 14 up instead of gcse's.
Discipline would be maintained in schools through uniform and stricter punishments of behaviour. Special schools would be set up for pupils who are expelled from their schools that will be in a similiar style to military schools.

Degrees shall remain as they are and fees will be applicable to all students. Medicine, teaching and certain masters courses will recieve additional help from the government

Reply 17

ChemistBoy

16

I would reinstate the 11+ and a system of secondary moderns and grammar schools (although I might give them more up-to-date names). I would also make more of a distinction between pre and post 16 education (i.e. where it is taught). I would set up 'technical colleges' like on the continent so that trades and skills could be taught (such as building, lab technician etc). This would rely on the private sector taking these things to heart and hopefully realising that someone who has spent several years training to be a lab tech for instance is better than a new graduate.

Reply 18

frost105

14

ChemistBoy

I would reinstate the 11+ and a system of secondary moderns and grammar schools (although I might give them more up-to-date names). I would also make more of a distinction between pre and post 16 education (i.e. where it is taught). I would set up 'technical colleges' like on the continent so that trades and skills could be taught (such as building, lab technician etc). This would rely on the private sector taking these things to heart and hopefully realising that someone who has spent several years training to be a lab tech for instance is better than a new graduate.

God yeah. There definatly needs to be more training available in the UK. We have a big defecit in skilled workers and a huge number of graduates who are depending on just there degrees.

Reply 19

yawn

17

kellywood_5

There have been a lot of threads about secondary education recently, especially with regards to private and grammar schools. So I was wondering what changes you would make, if any, to the system as it stands at the moment. Here are my views:

I would get rid of private and grammar schools, so everyone would have to go to state-funded comprehensives. There would be no entrance exams and everyone would go to their local school. Schools would have a roughly equal number of students (although obviously larger areas would have more students), receive equal funding per pupil and offer the same opportunities. The curriculum for Years 7-9 would stay the same as it is now, except that I would get rid of the SATs. Students would be placed in sets based on ability for all subjects. At the end of Year 9, students would have to choose whether they wanted to follow an academic, vocational or work-based route in Years 10-11, but everyone would have to do GCSE English and maths. Those wanting to do academic would choose another 6-11 GCSEs, depending on how bright they were. The vocational students could do applied GCSEs and GNVQs. The work-based students could do NVQs and apprenticeships.

I'd get rid of Curriculum 2000, so students wanting to do A-levels would choose 3 or 4 subjects and study them all the way through, with only mock exams at the end of Year 12. At university, I would get rid of pointless mickey mouse degrees, eg golf course management and wine studies etc, so there would be more funding available to spend on worthy subjects and therefore top-up fees could be scrapped.

So what are your views? In your opinion, what would be the perfect way to organise the secondary education system?

Good, sensible ideas.

To determine which sets the pupils go into there should be assessment based on 'non-published' sats with the addition of year 6/7 cognitive ability assessments of incoming pupils. This provides a framework and movement between sets would be ongoing, allowing pupils to move up'down as they mature academically.
At age 14 students would be given the opportunity to express whether they wish to persue academic, vocational or a mix between the two. They would need to carry on with lessons for literacy and numeracy (if persuing vocational courses only) to ensure a good basic grounding in both.
I think that if we did have truly 'neighbourhood schools' that reflected the social make-up, levels of ability and interests of all pupils we would not have what some posters have described at 'crummy' schools. The more articulate parents would demand high standards.
All the above, and your own suggestions closely mirror what is suggested by the 'Tomlinson report' on 14-19 proposals.
The 'White paper' is expected shortly.

If you were in charge of secondary education, how would you organise it?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you