Sounds about right

14 Mar 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
It gives the clever kids a better opportunity, which is exactly what Grammar schools do, but the Labour Government hated that elite schooling thought.
To get into a Grammar school you have to pass the 11+, so picks out the cleverer ones, that is no different in my book where they are picking out the clever ones, to take exams early and give them more opportunities. I cannot understand how one is deemed ok and the other to many is not?
REMEMBER in this house I have seen both sides of the coin, and yes for one child it has been great, but for the other he feels at now 18 he was not afforded the same opportunities as his Sister, purely based on the fact he was not quite as good academically as his Sister.
I just feel that EVERY child that wants to learn should be afforded the same, but they are not and in an adult world that would be discrimination....and it is surely?

Again, why on earth would you want children to take exams early when they have no realistic hope of passing the exam? An equal opportunity? What a strange tree hugging, sandal wearing idea. lol

Or have we moved from an attack on exams being taken early to a general attack on the education system?

14 Mar 2010

Quote by northwest-cpl

It gives the clever kids a better opportunity, which is exactly what Grammar schools do, but the Labour Government hated that elite schooling thought.
To get into a Grammar school you have to pass the 11+, so picks out the cleverer ones, that is no different in my book where they are picking out the clever ones, to take exams early and give them more opportunities. I cannot understand how one is deemed ok and the other to many is not?
REMEMBER in this house I have seen both sides of the coin, and yes for one child it has been great, but for the other he feels at now 18 he was not afforded the same opportunities as his Sister, purely based on the fact he was not quite as good academically as his Sister.
I just feel that EVERY child that wants to learn should be afforded the same, but they are not and in an adult world that would be discrimination....and it is surely?

Again, why on earth would you want children to take exams early when they have no realistic hope of passing the exam? An equal opportunity? What a strange tree hugging, sandal wearing idea. lol

Or have we moved from an attack on exams being taken early to a general attack on the education system?
They do that already in many Primary schools.
Children in some local areas HAVE to take the 11+ even though some of those kids can hardly spell their names, and have not got a chance of passing it, yet in another Borough they have a choice as to whether they take that exam or not.
I am not a general lover of the current education system, on that you are correct.
IF we had this oh so wonderful system, why do they feel the need to turn things upside down on a regular basis?
A teacher that is one of mrs777's Daughters teachers, gets so angry when they do this. He just finds a system that he has got to grips with, and then they change it again, and he has to start from step one again, which he believes makes it harder for the pupils he teaches. That is from a teacher himself, but of course he must be in a minority?
In what I see ALL kids are not afforded the same opportunities. If you are very bright then you are, but if you are not then things are much tougher for you. I have seen it with my own eyes in this very house.

14 Mar 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
So................you Google the links then?
Thought so.
Some schools of thought are sharply critical of humility.

And?

14 Mar 2010

Quote by awayman
So................you Google the links then?
Thought so.
Some schools of thought are sharply critical of humility.

And?
Obviously a bit too in depth for ya. :lol:

14 Mar 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
In what I see ALL kids are not afforded the same opportunities. If you are very bright then you are, but if you are not then things are much tougher for you. I have seen it with my own eyes in this very house.

Of course they aren't offered the same opportunities - some of them aren't bright enough to cope with the opportunities on offer. If you're not as bright then of course some academical things will be tougher, whereas some vocational lessons will be more appropriate. We need teachers, doctors and academics, but we also need bricklayers, plumbers and even printers.
In response to your comment about primary children all being made to sit the same tests, if they are not capable they are not entered. They have to be above a certain level before they are considered able to cope with the test.
You contradict yourself Kent - in one breath you're criticizing the tests as being unsuitable for all, then you're suggesting they all sit those tests at the same time.

14 Mar 2010

Quote by Freckledbird

In what I see ALL kids are not afforded the same opportunities. If you are very bright then you are, but if you are not then things are much tougher for you. I have seen it with my own eyes in this very house.

Of course they aren't offered the same opportunities - some of them aren't bright enough to cope with the opportunities on offer. If you're not as bright then of course some academical things will be tougher, whereas some vocational lessons will be more appropriate. We need teachers, doctors and academics, but we also need bricklayers, plumbers and even printers.
In response to your comment about primary children all being made to sit the same tests, if they are not capable they are not entered. They have to be above a certain level before they are considered able to cope with the test.
You contradict yourself Kent - in one breath you're criticizing the tests as being unsuitable for all, then you're suggesting they all sit those tests at the same time.
No FB I was pointing out a comment " take exams early when they have no realistic hope of passing the exam ". I was pointing out that not all schools adopt the 11 plus.
In Mrs777's kids primary school a child could opt out of taking it, but in schools in Gravesend just six miles away, ALL kids had to sit it.
As you are more in the know than me about this, why was it when I was a kid that you entered secondary school at 11, and then did five years of work and then all the pupils sat their o levels at the same time? I was not afforded the opportunity of taking them a year earlier. Why is this now the case for the clever kids? Is it to bump up the grades or have I got that wrong?
My points were quite clear that all children are not afforded the same opportunities, of which you have pointed out why they are not but........in the real world out there, the ones the kids will eventually go out into, that level of discrimination would not be allowed.
Labour hate Grammar schools yet they then adopt something exactly the same in secondary schools...streaming.
They keep all the clever kids together and the much less cleverer in another section. The same as what they do when the clever ones are picked to go to Grammar schools.
Mrs777's son who is 18 next week, now realises that the opportunities afforded to his much brighter Sister, were not afforded to him. Maybe that is one of the reasons that school was a failing school?
FB....you work in a school so you must see a lot that is wrong with the system. You have to change your teaching habits to accommodate new legislation, and am sure some of it you think is not worth the change? Maybe you agree with every change that is brought in?
All I am saying is that it is not the same for all the kids, as maybe some schools are really only bothered with the bright ones? Not a nice thought but one I believe does go on.

14 Mar 2010

Kent, I'll be 46 this year and there were children at my school who sat their 'O' levels two years early. Most kids did 'O' levels and some sat CSEs. And streaming is just differentiation between bright and less bright children, so that all are taught what is appropriate for their needs. Mrs Kent's son clearly had fewer opportunities than his sister because he is less academically inclined.

14 Mar 2010

I think we are getting a bit better at offering the less academic folk an interesting experience at school. We have a long way to go but it seems to be getting better from what I observe.

14 Mar 2010

We used to have a system whereby the more academically able and inclined were taught at a separate school better resourced and equipped for their needs. The less academically able were similarly taught more practical and vocational skills. This was the 11+ and the grammar school system.
Now we have (mostly) a homogenised, dumbed down, one size fits all solution which serves nobody very well.
Standards have definitely declined over the years. GCSEs are so dumbed down that they're practically worthless as far as employers are concerned and as everyone seems to have loads of them with good grades, they cannot determine who the better candidates are.
I posted at length earlier regarding my own, very recent experience of university and current school leavers.
Degrees are increasingly easy to pass - soon that qualification will be so prevalent that post grad degrees will be needed (as per Vonnegut's "Player Piano") in order to get a job of any substance.
I know not all children are academically inclined, that's why they used to teach kids how to do brick laying, plumbing, basic mechanics, joinery, metalwork at secondary schools and they'd do CSEs which were more appropriate to their academic abilities.
Some kids develop later than others and it was quite commonplace for a non grammar school students to do some O levels as well as CSEs if they were up to the required standard.
It seems to me, that we've scrapped an, albeit less than perfect, system which served us well and replaced it with a total disaster. Then we're told how wonderful it is, how much standards have improved, when it patently is simply not the case.

14 Mar 2010

Quote by Freckledbird
Kent, I'll be 46 this year and there were children at my school who sat their 'O' levels two years early. Most kids did 'O' levels and some sat CSEs. And streaming is just differentiation between bright and less bright children, so that all are taught what is appropriate for their needs. Mrs Kent's son clearly had fewer opportunities than his sister because he is less academically inclined.

You do not look a day over 25 FB wink

I know you are much better equipped than me at answering these questions, and I take your replies from someone who has more knowledge than me.
Thanks Fb....and that is not taking the piss either xx

14 Mar 2010

Quote by easyrider_xxx
We used to have a system whereby the more academically able and inclined were taught at a separate school better resourced and equipped for their needs. The less academically able were similarly taught more practical and vocational skills. This was the 11+ and the grammar school system.
Now we have (mostly) a homogenised, dumbed down, one size fits all solution which serves nobody very well.
Standards have definitely declined over the years. GCSEs are so dumbed down that they're practically worthless as far as employers are concerned and as everyone seems to have loads of them with good grades, they cannot determine who the better candidates are.
The GCSE stuff my kids did, did not appear dumbed-down.
I posted at length earlier regarding my own, very recent experience of university and current school leavers.
Degrees are increasingly easy to pass - soon that qualification will be so prevalent that post grad degrees will be needed (as per Vonnegut's "Player Piano") in order to get a job of any substance.
I know not all children are academically inclined, that's why they used to teach kids how to do brick laying, plumbing, basic mechanics, joinery, metalwork at secondary schools and they'd do CSEs which were more appropriate to their academic abilities.
They still do. They just don't call them CSEs; they are NVQs now.
Some kids develop later than others and it was quite commonplace for a non grammar school students to do some O levels as well as CSEs if they were up to the required standard.
It seems to me, that we've scrapped an, albeit less than perfect, system which served us well and replaced it with a total disaster. Then we're told how wonderful it is, how much standards have improved, when it patently is simply not the case.

15 Mar 2010

Quote by Freckledbird
We used to have a system whereby the more academically able and inclined were taught at a separate school better resourced and equipped for their needs. The less academically able were similarly taught more practical and vocational skills. This was the 11+ and the grammar school system.
Now we have (mostly) a homogenised, dumbed down, one size fits all solution which serves nobody very well.
Standards have definitely declined over the years. GCSEs are so dumbed down that they're practically worthless as far as employers are concerned and as everyone seems to have loads of them with good grades, they cannot determine who the better candidates are.
The GCSE stuff my kids did, did not appear dumbed-down.
I posted at length earlier regarding my own, very recent experience of university and current school leavers.
Degrees are increasingly easy to pass - soon that qualification will be so prevalent that post grad degrees will be needed (as per Vonnegut's "Player Piano") in order to get a job of any substance.
I know not all children are academically inclined, that's why they used to teach kids how to do brick laying, plumbing, basic mechanics, joinery, metalwork at secondary schools and they'd do CSEs which were more appropriate to their academic abilities.
They still do. They just don't call them CSEs; they are NVQs now.
Some kids develop later than others and it was quite commonplace for a non grammar school students to do some O levels as well as CSEs if they were up to the required standard.
It seems to me, that we've scrapped an, albeit less than perfect, system which served us well and replaced it with a total disaster. Then we're told how wonderful it is, how much standards have improved, when it patently is simply not the case.

Ah the old NVQ.
Most employers that I deal with think they are almost worthless unless it is a level 3 NVQ.
We took on a 21 year old last August with a couple of NVQ's and he could not count past twenty, that is true.

15 Mar 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
We used to have a system whereby the more academically able and inclined were taught at a separate school better resourced and equipped for their needs. The less academically able were similarly taught more practical and vocational skills. This was the 11+ and the grammar school system.
Now we have (mostly) a homogenised, dumbed down, one size fits all solution which serves nobody very well.
Standards have definitely declined over the years. GCSEs are so dumbed down that they're practically worthless as far as employers are concerned and as everyone seems to have loads of them with good grades, they cannot determine who the better candidates are.
The GCSE stuff my kids did, did not appear dumbed-down.
I posted at length earlier regarding my own, very recent experience of university and current school leavers.
Degrees are increasingly easy to pass - soon that qualification will be so prevalent that post grad degrees will be needed (as per Vonnegut's "Player Piano") in order to get a job of any substance.
I know not all children are academically inclined, that's why they used to teach kids how to do brick laying, plumbing, basic mechanics, joinery, metalwork at secondary schools and they'd do CSEs which were more appropriate to their academic abilities.
They still do. They just don't call them CSEs; they are NVQs now.
Some kids develop later than others and it was quite commonplace for a non grammar school students to do some O levels as well as CSEs if they were up to the required standard.
It seems to me, that we've scrapped an, albeit less than perfect, system which served us well and replaced it with a total disaster. Then we're told how wonderful it is, how much standards have improved, when it patently is simply not the case.

Ah the old NVQ.
Most employers that I deal with think they are almost worthless unless it is a level 3 NVQ.
We took on a 21 year old last August with a couple of NVQ's and he could not count past twenty, that is true.
Napoleon Bonaparte had a similar affliction - but it didn't put him off. He just changed the numerical system of the State to accommodate his needs - which endures even to this day :grin:

15 Mar 2010

Quote by GnV
We used to have a system whereby the more academically able and inclined were taught at a separate school better resourced and equipped for their needs. The less academically able were similarly taught more practical and vocational skills. This was the 11+ and the grammar school system.
Now we have (mostly) a homogenised, dumbed down, one size fits all solution which serves nobody very well.
Standards have definitely declined over the years. GCSEs are so dumbed down that they're practically worthless as far as employers are concerned and as everyone seems to have loads of them with good grades, they cannot determine who the better candidates are.
The GCSE stuff my kids did, did not appear dumbed-down.
I posted at length earlier regarding my own, very recent experience of university and current school leavers.
Degrees are increasingly easy to pass - soon that qualification will be so prevalent that post grad degrees will be needed (as per Vonnegut's "Player Piano") in order to get a job of any substance.
I know not all children are academically inclined, that's why they used to teach kids how to do brick laying, plumbing, basic mechanics, joinery, metalwork at secondary schools and they'd do CSEs which were more appropriate to their academic abilities.
They still do. They just don't call them CSEs; they are NVQs now.
Some kids develop later than others and it was quite commonplace for a non grammar school students to do some O levels as well as CSEs if they were up to the required standard.
It seems to me, that we've scrapped an, albeit less than perfect, system which served us well and replaced it with a total disaster. Then we're told how wonderful it is, how much standards have improved, when it patently is simply not the case.

Ah the old NVQ.
Most employers that I deal with think they are almost worthless unless it is a level 3 NVQ.
We took on a 21 year old last August with a couple of NVQ's and he could not count past twenty, that is true.
Napoleon Bonaparte had a similar affliction - but it didn't put him off. He just changed the numerical system of the State to accommodate his needs - which endures even to this day :grin:
Albert Einstien couldn't do simple arithmetic.

15 Mar 2010

Ok then..........not only could he not count but his writing was not that good either.
Now whilst having an NVQ does not qualify you to be a brain surgeon, I would have thought at the very least it would have enabled him to do simple sums and to be able to spell? Or is that where the education system comes in? lol

No good to us or a lot of employers, if they cannot read or write or do simple maths properly.
NVQ's are sometimes so simple certainly at level two, that in some cases you really would have to be a bit of a numpty to fail one. wink

That reason alone is why a lot of employers take them pretty much with a pinch of salt.
Next time instead of us looking at their NVQ's we should give them a written test on simple maths and writing.
You really should see some of the CV's we get here, hand written in gobblygook language. Some of them we cannot even read their addresses. Or the CV's that r written in txt mumble, that is really how we get some sent here.
Not the greatest of first impressions I would have thought?

15 Mar 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
Ok then..........not only could he not count but his writing was not that good either.
Now whilst having an NVQ does not qualify you to be a brain surgeon, I would have thought at the very least it would have enabled him to do simple sums and to be able to spell? Or is that where the education system comes in?
No good to us or a lot of employers, if they cannot read or write or do simple maths properly.
NVQ's are sometimes so simple certainly at level two, that in some cases you really would have to be a bit of a numpty to fail one.
That reason alone is why a lot of employers take them pretty much with a pinch of salt.
Next time instead of us looking at their NVQ's we should give them a written test on simple maths and writing.
You really should see some of the CV's we get here, hand written in gobblygook language. Some of them we cannot even read their addresses. Or the CV's that r written in txt mumble, that is really how we get some sent here.
Not the greatest of first impressions I would have thought?

May be not, but if all the job entails is emptying cess pits, who cares a shit?

15 Mar 2010

Thats very true GNV...but a lot of jobs do require some level of common sense.
It is a sad indictment where 18 year olds come to an interview dressed like they have just crawled out of bed, and cannot answer a pretty simple questionnaire.
Shame they did not have NVQ's for maths and English I suppose? wink

15 Mar 2010

When employers cry "school leavers don't have the skills we need" it sounds a lot like "we expect to be able to pay peanuts but we don't want monkeys".

15 Mar 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
Thats very true GNV...but a lot of jobs do require some level of common sense.

It is a sad indictment where 18 year olds come to an interview dressed like they have just crawled out of bed, and cannot answer a pretty simple questionnaire.
Shame they did not have NVQ's for maths and English I suppose?

As does emptying cess pits... blow rather than suck and you could be in all sorts of trouble!

15 Mar 2010

Quote by Ben_welshminx
When employers cry "school leavers don't have the skills we need" it sounds a lot like "we expect to be able to pay peanuts but we don't want monkeys".

That may well be true in some cases but not all for sure.

15 Mar 2010

Quote by easyrider_xxx
We used to have a system whereby the more academically able and inclined were taught at a separate school better resourced and equipped for their needs. The less academically able were similarly taught more practical and vocational skills. This was the 11+ and the grammar school system.
Now we have (mostly) a homogenised, dumbed down, one size fits all solution which serves nobody very well.
Standards have definitely declined over the years. GCSEs are so dumbed down that they're practically worthless as far as employers are concerned and as everyone seems to have loads of them with good grades, they cannot determine who the better candidates are.
I posted at length earlier regarding my own, very recent experience of university and current school leavers.
Degrees are increasingly easy to pass - soon that qualification will be so prevalent that post grad degrees will be needed (as per Vonnegut's "Player Piano") in order to get a job of any substance.
I know not all children are academically inclined, that's why they used to teach kids how to do brick laying, plumbing, basic mechanics, joinery, metalwork at secondary schools and they'd do CSEs which were more appropriate to their academic abilities.
Some kids develop later than others and it was quite commonplace for a non grammar school students to do some O levels as well as CSEs if they were up to the required standard.
It seems to me, that we've scrapped an, albeit less than perfect, system which served us well and replaced it with a total disaster. Then we're told how wonderful it is, how much standards have improved, when it patently is simply not the case.

I'm 46 this year, I have 'o' levels coming out of my ears, I'm a tradesman (an engineer)...most of my friends are university graduates and professionals of some sort or other and couldn't grasp an abstract thought if it and they were velcro.
I have 3 nieces varying in age from 15-22 all are highly intelligent, literate and have education oozing out of their pores. When I did 'o' level maths calculus was considered too advanced for our poor juvenile minds, all 3 of my nieces have studied calculus (the eldest is currently doing her masters in maths)....it would seem to me that it all depends at which kids you look as to wether or not standards have improved...what I do know is that most if not all of the kids I meet take their education a lot more seriously than me and my peers did.
The grammar school system was a morally bankrupt deceit designed to perpetuate the class system....children trained to take the 11+ others to expect the "lesser" path of a mere tradesman.
Just for your consideration....I as an engineer do more mathematics in one day than I suspect your average banker does in a week...the same holds true for many of the less "academic" trades,I sincerely hope that your next journey doesn't depend on the work of one of my less able comrades

15 Mar 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
You really should see some of the CV's we get here, hand written in gobblygook language.
Not the greatest of first impressions I would have thought?

Yah don't say?

16 Mar 2010

Quote by Cherrytree

You really should see some of the CV's we get here, hand written in gobblygook language.
Not the greatest of first impressions I would have thought?

Yah don't say?
Took the words right out of my mouth lol

16 Mar 2010

Nice to see some serious highlights here..........not. :sad:

16 Mar 2010

I made a valid point.

17 Mar 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
Nice to see some serious highlights here..........not. :sad:

The highlight seems quite serious. If you continually criticise other people's spelling and writing abilities it's always wise to be careful how you yourself spell - first impressions are important, but then so are subsequent impressions.

17 Mar 2010

Quote by northwest-cpl
Nice to see some serious highlights here..........not. :sad:

The highlight seems quite serious. If you continually criticise other people's spelling and writing abilities it's always wise to be careful how you yourself spell - first impressions are important, but then so are subsequent impressions.
When have I seriously run down peoples spelling on here? I may of made a joke to FB every now and again but do not continually criticise at all.
You care to show me where I have slagged off peoples spelling on here?

17 Mar 2010

I have not seen you criticise anyone's spelling on this forum Kent.
The point I was highlighting was my (as yet unanswered) point from page 1 of this debate -

Quote by Cherrytree
But Kent, you have said yourself that your own standard of spelling, punctuation, etc is not as good as it should be - and I'm sure that there are many other people our age, who had a so called good "old-fashioned" education who would say the same about themselves - so obviously there were problems with the old system.

Your misspelling of "gobbledygook" made the point more succinctly than I did.

17 Mar 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
Nice to see some serious highlights here..........not. :sad:

The highlight seems quite serious. If you continually criticise other people's spelling and writing abilities it's always wise to be careful how you yourself spell - first impressions are important, but then so are subsequent impressions.
When have I seriously run down peoples spelling on here? I may of made a joke to FB every now and again but do not continually criticise at all.
You care to show me where I have slagged off peoples spelling on here?
I didn't say you criticised the spelling of people who post on here but you do criticise the writing of people who send you cvs in particular, and much of today's youth in general. One example has already been pointed out.

Quote by kentswingers777
You really should see some of the CV's we get here, hand written in gobblygook language.
Not the greatest of first impressions I would have thought?

If you are going to rant about spelling and writing then it's best to get it right yourself. I think that was probably what Cherry was saying and that was a valid point to make in the context of this thread.

17 Mar 2010

I'm not having a go, Kent - I have friends who are brilliant in many ways, but whose spelling is appalling - and I agree, it looks terrible on CVs, and other formal letters.
It was when you said:
"As an employer we have taken on youngsters, and whilst they never seemed to have a attitude problem, I certainly would not have let any of them write a letter on the companys behalf"
Just seemed a bit rich, that's all.