You might. We looked at added value, and a host of other factors. Read the Ofsted reports, etc.
Of course. Mind, they have other ways too. I know a school (I dare not name it as I got my wife into enough trouble already) which actually stopped kids taking certain courses because they might not get GCSE As...and that's very common, actually. So even when they get there, things are fiddled. It's the bloody targets again.
Do you?
I wouldn't..not necessarily.
Its pretty hard to take bright kids, subject them to utterly crap teaching and get straight A's.
And why not?
If your kid is obviously going to make a mint as a rock star or a footballer, here isn't much point pushing him to university to study philosophy is there? Probably a basic course in practical accountancy and law will stand him/her in better stead..
>
That's part of the problem. However what also happened in practice is the one which focussed on those with skills in other areas suffered in other areas - funding, ability to get good teachers for example. The former should never have happened, but did, and the latter is unfortunately harder to get round. The other fatal flaw is that segregation at age 11/12 is rather inflexible - there are many cases of people ending up in an unsuitable school because eg they developed at different ages to others.
The comprehensive system wasn't the failure its detractors make it out to be. It wasn't the inclusion of all which caused the problem they're seeing, it was other factors. This is apparent because a lot of schools have made a success of it - whether streamed internally or not. (the latter did come as a surprise to me, but apparently it can be made to work - it may just require effort which people aren't prepared to put in.)
cheers, clive
Actually I know a school that does just that. Set a really high academic entrance standard, hire cheap teachers, test continuously and encourage those who don't make the grade to leave. You may only end up getting 'good' results for 50% of your original intake, but who cares - the kids who 'failed' aren't your problem. Ironically the school is immensely popular with parents, at least until their kids have been there a year or so...
Andy
Nice theory - has some really bad flaws in practice. See my reply to Andy Hall.
In my town, there's just the one state secondary school - and AFAIK it's pretty good. Obviously it's a comprehensive.
The next bigger town has a grammar system - 2 single-sex grammar schools, which are doing quite well, and one secondary-modern/high school, which has been dreadful for an awful long time. It's the classic failure - the secondary-modern school ended up with worse resources, and hence hasn't been able to deliver the education which it's supposed to. It's not alone in suffering this problem.
Maybe not so then - but in your preceding paragraph, you've definitely stated that the grammar system is better.
(FWIW when I said "grammar is necessarily better", I meant grammar system vs comp)
cheers, clive
Good for you - in fact, good for both of you!
As time goes by, it'll be a nice feeling to be still using some of her very first proper tools. 55 years on, I can testify to that.
Doubling rates will help send some companies abroad, or to Canary Wharf. Taxing company parking spaces would be interesting as many are empty (several buildings I've visited) since the Kengestion tax came in. Would they be d-i-y'ed into some other use rather than lying idle? Gordon Brown was going to tax spaces but IIRC the supermarkets and out-of-town SCs did it in for him.
Good for you because a child's education is essentially over by the time they go to school.
My daughters MADE tools at school (in the 70s) - I'm still using one but they took all the others away with them. The cabinet maker uses hers I know that.
Mary
My school managed it.
It might improve the lyrics...
Owain
I wanted to make an oscilloscope but the pocket money wouldn't stretch much beyond a fridge alarm and an intercom system.
Owain
But there's also a tax on moving house (Stamp Duty).
That would seem to imply parents have a choice. Here in Leeds they don't, the council just runs a computer program that allocates every child a place in a school somewhere. They then declare all their schools to be *Full*.
A parent has the right to chose the school his child attends under the
1949 (?) Education Act, However, a parent cannot request that their child is given a place at a school that is already "Full". Geddit ?The Council's Admissions officer has admitted to me their computer program does not take account of the presence or absence of footpaths, bus routes etc or obstacles such as railway lines, motorways, dual carriageways etc, only distance on the map from the centroid of the school to the centroid of the child's house as the crow flies. When I complained that there was a school bus that went to the local school (But not the one she was allocated to) from our nearest bus stop, they just replied that since deregulation the council didn't run the buses any more. :-(((
Under the act the school has to show in detail how the effective operation of the school would be compromised by the admission of that one extra pupil. Their submission was that they might not have enough coat hooks in the cloakroom, or might be short of chairs.
We appealed this with the Local Government Ombudsman and our appeal was refused.
So ...
Fuck Em.
Correct.
Why give them another opportunity to track our lawful movements, on a plate, the data to be made available to all and sundry including US Government Agencies ?
What were *you* doing in Grosvenor Square in Sept 2,004?
You weren't ? According to your car's Traffic Data Details ...
Next stop Gitmo.
DG
Oh it is a very very difficult question as to what to do about road congestion. On one hand, you could charge high tax so that only the rich could afford to own and drive a car but on the otherhand, the car makers would be up in arms because they would not be able to sell the cars, then of course there are the fuel companies, losing money by way of not being able to sell enough fuel. Personally, I don't give a hoot about the car makers or fuel companies, but without them, the government coffers in any country would be in an extremely bad state. We are our own worst enemies and the government and car makers etc just love us to have the MUST HAVE attitude. No, there is no easy option.
That would be like going back to the war years. Perhaps, scrap the current road fund licence, scrap petrol duty, make insurrance duty be payable on the car and not the person driving and then charge everyone who wants a car to pay a yearly road tax of £1 per cc, so if you have a 3litre car, you pays £3000 and so on.
Then the question is what constitutes a good teacher. Again, one who is academically able is probably best suited to teaching academic subjects, whereas one with more practical skills is probably better suited to that. Neither is a better teacher than the other.
Very easily solved by having the facility to transfer at 13 and 15. One also has to asked what "developed" means. It can mean someone who struggles in practical subjects that they would like to do but lack the aptitude just as much as those who would like to study advanced Calculus but don't have a mathematical ability.
It was really all of these.
Because it is social engineering for its own sake which goes against human nature and requirements and doesn't achieve excellence in what it does, in comparison with separated and appropriate provisioning which does.
This is all fine if the kids are properly supervised. Unfortunately it seems that for many this is another form of Sunday outing which is only slightly better than people who shove the kids in pushchairs and weave about aimlessly on pvements in town centres on Saturday mornings getting under the feet who just need to complete their shopping.
There's nothing wrong with the learning experiences but they should be that rather than just getting the kids out of the house for a couple of hours while mother does the cleaning.
I made one from an old radar set. Worked quite well. I also found out what HT supplies were.
I built something called IIRC an electrocardioscope, when I was in my early teens. My Dad did consulting for HeathKit, and he had me do test builds for their new items. We got to keep the finished kits. Great fun.
Sheila
My definition is different to that - it's one who can teach the kids. Academic/practical ability are in fact less important than social skills here.
What I mean is some kids get clever/learn how to work at different ages to others. The fixed exam time doesn't help with this.
Disagree. It wasn't necessarily social engineering for its own sake. It was recognising that there is a problem with segregated provisioning and attempting to solve it. That problem still exists, even though you prefer to deny it.
Thing is, despite your claims that a segregated system is inherently better, real life shows you're wrong.
cheers, clive
Actyally, for those of us old enough to remember it, real life shows us right.
Nothing of any use to man nor beast has come out of society in the last
15 years.Products are worse designed and don't last.
We are faced with a global crisis, but no one can count any more, so all the solutions proposed don't actually work.
The jails are full, and more people are on drugs full time - prescription or otherwise - than ever before.
Frankly I have never seen in all my 56 years a more miserable society, or one less able to cope with real life.
Clearly both are required. Social skills are a pre-requisite but will not compensate for a lack of ability or interest in the subject. Kids can spot a phony quicker than anything. However, the social skills aspect is more important for the primary school environment where teachers are generally covering a multitude of subjects than it is at secondary level where they are generally teaching one or a small number.
That is part of the education of life. Unfortunately the real world of work doesn't accept people developing arbitrarily. There are checks, balances and measurements which have to be achieved and deliverables at certain times. That is one of the most important aspects of life and one that is better learned early rather than later.
Except that there is no problem with segregated provisioning, only with the perception that some forms of education were "better" than others.
Social engineering to make sure that everybody is seen to be getting the same, when that is patent nonsense is a huge disservice.
The only problem is that segregated provisioning isn't universally available.
In fact it doesn't. The decline in standards in both the academic and practical spheres is ample evidence that only mediocrity is produced by a one size fits all system.
If one looks at the education systems of many other countries one finds that it is common to have a range of secondary school choices suited to pupil aptitudes available.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.