Book any holiday with lastminute.com through this link and Mansized gets up to 7% of sales. Every order you place helps us build more great stuff for you
There was a related story today about measures to help boys catch up with girls at school..... teaching them separately.
Where my son goes ( big community school) his science class is all blokes - nightmare for the teacher.
I went to a selective girls school... I think if one was available near us I'd have tried to get my daughter into one although..... she says she would have hated it.
I don't think I'd have picked a boys comp given the choice for Benj
I do not think teaching them separately will make a difference. More boys tend to have a lazy attitude then girls, while some are just plain dumb.
In our school, it was a mixture of boys and girls doing well. Although, top set GCSE and A level maths was almost all boys.
Part of the issue is still the location of the school, schools in poor areas tend to have lower results. Although I do accept family life and finance can play a part in this. About ten years ago, a school in our borough was closed because the results were so low. They re-opened after six/seven years.
If I have kids, I would prefer them to attend public school if I could afford it at the time, which is what I will try to do. I would rather pay £10k/year per child, then give them free education in secondly school.
My general opinion is the education in schools is getting worse, they have far to many subjects.In my GCSE days it was main three, RE (waste of time), a language, a technology and then two options. Now they have even more subjects.
I quite like the German education ethos, where they specialise from their GCSE equiv and combine it with A levels, they follow that into uni.
Teach everyone English, Maths, Science and then only a few other optional subjects. All these other subjects like ICT and PSE or whatever it is called now, can be combined into Social studies/skills and teach that up to year 9.
I admit to being a product and a total supporter of the selective education system, and cannot understand Blair's theories on education - why have schools that specialise in religion/sport/technology/art/arts etc, when half the kids who come out of them cannot even read, write, spell or even add up correctly? Madness!!
It seems to me that they are trying to appeal to the masses, when there needs to be a good spread of different types of educational establishments to suit different needs - not everyone wants, or needs to go to higher education in the form of a degree. This will devalue the system - much as in the way that GCSE are nowbecoming not worth the paper they are written on
In Lancaster, for example, where I went to school there are a number of different establishments: a CofE school, a RC school, two comps, two selective, single sex state grammar schools, and then when you travel slightly further out another 3/4 comprehensive schools of differing quaility - so plenty of choice for all, with many people not going necessarily to the school that was nearest to them. This also helps social development as you make friends with different people, who have different lives
If I were to ever have kids I would not hesitate to send them through the selective education system if they were sufficiently brainy!! The choice of not only academic subject, but the different extra curricular activities make the experience so much more than just simply going to school!!
I also agree with Jthe5's point regarding the subjects taught: there were no new-fangled GCSE or A level subjects for us - Business studies and economics were considered by many a bit far out!! For GCSE it was english, english lit, maths, French, dual science, technology and then a further three choices from Spanish, German, Latin, geography, history, ancient Greek, art or music. After this, for me, it was a choice of 3 subjects for A-level plus general studies (since expanded to four plus GS for the modular A-level system), and these choices also included business studies and economics.
The school also had rugby, swimming, athletics, cricket, rowing, tennis facilities and regularly represented all of these at a regional, of not national level, many after school clubs, and then there were the numerous school trips both at home
and abroad - so plenty for everyone to see and do (and much more than the other local schools)
Ben, there is nothing to admit. I also agree with selection because of the hard core of parents that no longer give a toss about disciplining their kids so they know how to sit still and shut up in comprehensive school.
My parents put me through C of E school but pushed me all the way. My Dad wanted to send us private but my Mum talked him out of it, spending the money on all the after-school stuff while making sure we left knowing how to read and add up and go on to get degrees. Labour has not changed in 40 years, they will continue to send their own kids to private or religious schools while ruining every other kind for the rest and constantly trying to shut grammars down. I'd be angrier about it if it was anything new.
I know at least one private school leaver who can't string a rational sentence together when writing, they just didn't teach them English and literacy in spite of fleecing the parents for years. So money doesn't always guarantee quality if the parents remain hands-off, as you say it's the experience, good and bad, that make an education and kids only get one.
In Northern Ireland we still have the 11 plus selection exam and a selective grammar school system. My brother and I went to what was called a grant maintained grammar school. Kind of a hybrid between a state and public school which, due to raising part of its funding privately was given a lot of autonomy. Not unlike the proposed foundation schools or whatever they are called. Our sister went to a mixed comp, which was about 10 miles away from home.
My experience of school was quite like Bens', and I enjoyed it a lot. English, English Lit, Maths, Additional Maths and French were compulsory for GCSE with a further five optional subjects. For A-level, three subjects were the minimum, some took four or more (my uncle who went to the same school and took five or six, which I find a bit scary!). During the A-level years there were optional extras such as photography and cookery (at the local college).
Sports and after school clubs were varied, like Bens school. It was a condition of employment that the teachers had to take part in either coaching a sport, running an after school club or being a house master in the boarding department. My school offered rugby, cricket, athletics, running, swimming (in our own pool), rowing, sailing, canoeing, golf, badminton. The school was represented at Ulster, Ireland and UK level by most sports on a regular basis.
The only downside to the school was that if you were not academically minded, it was hard to get on. My brother (who has a 1st class degree) didn't like it mainly because the teaching style was too academic for him. I always thought that there was room for different styles of teaching. He also had to live in my shadow which he probably hated even more!
As has already been said, most of the Labour leadership has benefited from a selective education, as are a lot of their children at the moment. So I don't understand what exactly they want to achieve. Are they genuinely trying make things better, unduly influenced by some pressure group, or are they deliberately trying to dumb us down? Who knows.
I wouldn't send my children to a private fee paying school because I don't think it teaches children life lessons properly. My ex went to one, and he led such a sheltered life, all of his friends were loaded and very snobby. I would want my children to learn with people of all backgrounds.
I went to a mixed streamed school, and I do agree with the streaming aspect. At college it was really crap being distracted by those who didn't want to learn, and I'm sure I would have got better grades in a different environment.
I wouldn't send my children to a private fee paying school because I don't think it teaches children life lessons properly. My ex went to one, and he led such a sheltered life, all of his friends were loaded and very snobby. I would want my children to learn with people of all backgrounds.
I went to a mixed streamed school, and I do agree with the streaming aspect. At college it was really crap being distracted by those who didn't want to learn, and I'm sure I would have got better grades in a different environment.
My school was streamed because it took a range of 11 plus grades, rather than just the top grades which some in Northern Ireland do. Mixed ability classes tend to benefit no one, imo.
Having seen how the boys in the boarding school behaved with each other I do wonder about the benefits of it. Maybe it was the 'pack mentality' but even in Upper Sixth they still behaved like they did in first year. Incredibly immature. There is nothing like home life!
What does selective school mean? Splitting girls from boys, or fast tracking more academic kids? If it's the first one, yeah, there might be some benefit academically for the boys in splitting them from girls (but IIRC the research shows that it makes little difference to girls academically). Whether it helps socially is another question. If it's the second one (academic fastracking), I reckon it probably does help to tailor education to children, particular those on the extremes of the old Bell Curve who might not benefit as much from a standard education as the more average students... It didn't help me much (I went through an academic programme in Australia), but I reckon I had behavioural issues more than anything...
I despair about attitudes to education in this country sometimes.... the English are obsessed with selection and grammar schools. It's all a function of the class system. Of course brighter children will do better if they are taught in small preselected groups. Of course schools will be better if you cream off the most academic pupils, because they will generally be the middle class ones.
New Labour are (as usual) pandering to the Red Top reading little Englanders by pushing "choice" and City Academy's. What we need is a commitment to properly funded comprehensive schools, where all pupils go to their local high school. Streaming can take place within the school.
I've never come across parents who wanted to bus their kids to a specialist school miles away.... most would prefer a local school which was properly funded, offered a full range of subjects, and wasn't a "bog standard" comprehensive due to the fact that it was starved of investment, and never attracted the complete spectrum of abilities.
The answer to improving failing schools isn't re-introducing selection, it's in improving ALL schools.
