Tax Credits

gadgetmind

I'm sure I'd have done "OK" at local comprehensive, but would I have got the grades for a Comp Sco degree at a Russel Group Uni? Dunno, but doubt it.

So, yes, maybe I am one of those who's for Grammar schools as I did well from one. But why on earth would I be happy to benefit for myself and then want to "pull the ladder up" to prevent other bright youngsters whose parents don't have the money for tutors and private schools to achieve the best they can?

ukcarper

gadgetmind wrote: »

I'm sure I'd have done "OK" at local comprehensive, but would I have got the grades for a Comp Sco degree at a Russel Group Uni? Dunno, but doubt it.

So, yes, maybe I am one of those who's for Grammar schools as I did well from one. But why on earth would I be happy to benefit for myself and then want to "pull the ladder up" to prevent other bright youngsters whose parents don't have the money for tutors and private schools to achieve the best they can?

The answer is to improve comprehensives plenty of bright kids fail 11+ their places taken by the kids whose parents pay for the private tutors.

gadgetmind

ukcarper wrote: »

The answer is to improve comprehensives

I just can't see them as anything other than a sausage machine with no aspiration for excellence. I'm sure there are some, but it's the old "postcode lottery".

kids whose parents pay for the private tutors.

Because they see the benefits of selective schools.

Maybe 11 is too early, but when should people first encounter a process of selection? If 11 is too early then maybe 20 is too, so universities shouldn't be allowed to select based on ability? And what about employers?

Sorry, life is competitive!

ukcarper

gadgetmind wrote: »

I just can't see them as anything other than a sausage machine with no aspiration for excellence. I'm sure there are some, but it's the old "postcode lottery".



Because they see the benefits of selective schools.

Maybe 11 is too early, but when should people first encounter a process of selection? If 11 is too early then maybe 20 is too, so universities shouldn't be allowed to select based on ability? And what about employers?

Sorry, life is competitive!

There are many good Comprehensives which shows there is nothing intrinsically wrong with them.

I'm not disputing that selective schools are good for those that get into them but if your parents can't afford tutors you have less chance of passing the selection exam.

If there is no selection and everybody is in the same school it's easier to move between streams.

We need to improve education for all not a select few.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

There are many good Comprehensives which shows there is nothing intrinsically wrong with them.

I'm not disputing that selective schools are good for those that get into them but if your parents can't afford tutors you have less chance of passing the selection exam.

If there is no selection and everybody is in the same school it's easier to move between streams.

We need to improve education for all not a select few.

so you would conclude that the german model is poor and only educates the few

michaels

gadgetmind wrote: »

Choices for us were to apply yourself and go to the grammar school or go to one of two comprehensives.

As for private tuition, we didn't have that in my day and had to read books instead. It were grim!

And today you would lose out firstly because you would be priced out of housing in the catchment area of the grammar school and then because even if you had taken the exam you would have lost out on a place to a average but rich kid who's parents had paid to have them intensively coached to the exam.

Whereas had you like me gone to a comprehensive you could have been streamed throughout and setted in the core subjects (into 8 different levels) to ensure you were able to work at your level and perhaps like me achieved Oxbridge rather than just Russell Group - whilst still having attended a school with all your peers so you would have an understanding of and friends from all parts of society....just a thought.

kinger101

ukcarper wrote: »

Why do you have to stream by separate schools it's perfectly possible to stream within schools.

There's not always the critical mass to get effective streaming. In my science class (the top form), we had one student who routinely got around 5/20 in a multiple choice (A/B/C/D) science test.

We didn't have any streaming in English. For this reason, I had to spend three years learning the difference between a comma and full stop, because some students could not grasp this. I got a new English teacher in the 4th year at school, and he apologized to my parents for my lack of tuition in English. He openly admitted to them that they'd not taught me anything in three years. I managed to scrape a C grade in the end, and go to university (I now have an advanced degree). But I still couldn't write properly until my early twenties.

I doubt those students who were confused by the comma can now use it effectively, though they probably don't need to in their chosen career. Their communication skills are no doubt quite sufficient, and they probably never had the desire to engage in further scholarly activities. But I am left wondering how many others in my class had their career opportunities limited because they didn't receive any meaningful tuition in English for three years.

I'll still don't understand why we went to a comprehensive system because the secondary modern (and technical) were failures. Improving them would have been the appropriate action.

CLAPTON

michaels wrote: »

And today you would lose out firstly because you would be priced out of housing in the catchment area of the grammar school and then because even if you had taken the exam you would have lost out on a place to a average but rich kid who's parents had paid to have them intensively coached to the exam.

Whereas had you like me gone to a comprehensive you could have been streamed throughout and setted in the core subjects (into 8 different levels) to ensure you were able to work at your level and perhaps like me achieved Oxbridge rather than just Russell Group - whilst still having attended a school with all your peers so you would have an understanding of and friends from all parts of society....just a thought.

indeed so
but there are comprehensives and comprehensives
the good ones attract a substantial house price premium too

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

so you would conclude that the german model is poor and only educates the few

UK ranks higher than Germany http://www.edudemic.com/learning-curve-report-education/

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

UK ranks higher than Germany http://www.edudemic.com/learning-curve-report-education/

many surveys : many results