Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TheBoy]

I should also add that my folks had 5 kids (well, Dad maybe a million more, who knows ), 3 went to a Comp, I went to the all boys Grammar, and sis went to the all girls High opposite.

Guess which 3 have been the most financially successful in their adult life


So going to a Comp isn't a bad thing at all, if that's where you are best suited.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Exactly. Kids should get the education which best suits them. Its not about winners & losers, but whats appropriate.
One size does not fit all. Never has, never will. 

[New POD]

I have a problem with change.  Whilst comprehensive education was not perfect, the old cse, o level, a level system kind of worked.  Yes some people fell through the cracks, and some were let down by the system of testing with exams.

But radical, fundamental change costs money and is risky, so we'd better be sure that whatever is next is better and not just different.

We perhaps should try to fix the things that are wrong. Like education for those with special needs for instance, which is something this society should NOT be proud of

[Kevin Wood]

The thing is, I went to a comprehensive school and there was extensive "selection" there. The core subjects had multiple streams of pupils - at least 4 ability levels, IIRC, and pupils moved up and down between them depending on their most recent achievements. It wasn't as if one exam (and before you've really developed fully) determined the rest of your life.

I wouldn't change a thing about my education if I had time time again. (apart from that time I got caught smoking a dubious substance in the vice chancellor's back garden)

[Mister Rog]

I have a problem with change.  Whilst comprehensive education was not perfect, the old cse, o level, a level system kind of worked.  Yes some people fell through the cracks, and some were let down by the system of testing with exams.

But radical, fundamental change costs money and is risky, so we'd better be sure that whatever is next is better and not just different.

We perhaps should try to fix the things that are wrong. Like education for those with special needs for instance, which is something this society should NOT be proud of

I agree. I was actually destined to become the worlds leading combined neurosurgeon and astro physicist   

[Sir Tigger KC]

I have a problem with change.  Whilst comprehensive education was not perfect, the old cse, o level, a level system kind of worked.  Yes some people fell through the cracks, and some were let down by the system of testing with exams.

But radical, fundamental change costs money and is risky, so we'd better be sure that whatever is next is better and not just different.

We perhaps should try to fix the things that are wrong. Like education for those with special needs for instance, which is something this society should NOT be proud of

I don't think this is what is proposed to be honest.  As I understand it, the proposal is just to lift the ban on new Grammar Schools opening. 

I do think however that any proposals from existing Comprehensive Schools to convert to Grammar Schools should be very carefully looked at, as there might not be any provision locally for kids who fail the 11 Plus.  This would be the case in my town. 

[Kevin Wood]

I don't think this is what is proposed to be honest.  As I understand it, the proposal is just to lift the ban on new Grammar Schools opening. 

I do think however that any proposals from existing Comprehensive Schools to convert to Grammar Schools should be very carefully looked at, as there might not be any provision locally for kids who fail the 11 Plus.  This would be the case in my town. 

This is the problem with the whole Grammar school philosophy. You've got to build 2 separate infrastructures to support 2 streams of learning. Why not just make the status quo work properly and have 4 streams based on ability for each subject in a comprehensive?

Plus the fact that there will always be a cost, in performance terms as well as economically, every time the government impose a new structure that has to be adopted.