Tax Credits

CLAPTON

princeofpounds wrote: »

I don't know anyone who claims that all curricula are equally excellent.


I think there has to be some kind of minimum standards enforcement, otherwise you tacitly approve of a subset children being taught in jihadi-style madrassas and other flat-earth style nonsense.


I don't think a central curriculum should be too overbearing however - never understood why civil servants make it so detailed sometimes, it's just not necessary and should be driven more by schools and exam boards working together.


And I also wouldn't try to please everyone with a curriculum; it won't happen, ever. But it is important there is something reasonable.

should one believe that we need a common set of exams (at least at 16 /18 years) when it would sort of follow that we need a common set of curricula.
It would seem it would be fair to both the pupils and the teachers if the curricula were written down in some detail.

Currently curricula are set by working groups comprising, Unis, exam boards and schools with some political influence.

Fads and fashions obviously follow but that's life.

gadgetmind

ukcarper wrote: »

how do you tell who should go to an acadamic school and who should go to vocational

You don't. Grammar schools still teach vocational skills (we certainly had woodwork and metalwork labs) and comprehensives aren't anywhere even close to fully vocational.

Interestingly, when my school was forced to go comprehensive and coeducational, my choices were actually limited. I wanted to do woodwork and metalwork, but these classes were now oversubscribed, so I was forced to continue with Latin etc. because I was on "the grammar school intake list".

mwpt

What has this got to do with tax credits?

ukcarper

gadgetmind wrote: »

You don't. Grammar schools still teach vocational skills (we certainly had woodwork and metalwork labs) and comprehensives aren't anywhere even close to fully vocational.

Interestingly, when my school was forced to go comprehensive and coeducational, my choices were actually limited. I wanted to do woodwork and metalwork, but these classes were now oversubscribed, so I was forced to continue with Latin etc. because I was on "the grammar school intake list".

But you are still looking at the advantages the grammar school gave you which I don't deny but that doesn't redress the problems the rest face. I went to a secondary school , I wasn't taught a foreign language in fact I didn't have a chemistry or physics lesson.

chris_m

ukcarper wrote: »

I went to a secondary school , I wasn't taught a foreign language in fact I didn't have a chemistry or physics lesson.

Chemistry and Physics aren't foreign languages - although at times they might seem to be

dktreesea

In Scotland schools are more of a post code lottery. In smaller towns, say in somewhere like the Scottish borders, where there is only one high school per town, the quality is high. Those with aspirations set the standard for the whole school and pull up the ones who would otherwise coast along.


Once you get to the larger cities, you often see a good school next to a not so good school, reflecting the socioeconomic status of the catchment areas. But as more and more people are unable to afford their first choice, i.e. private school, some of the state schools are improving.


To me, the quality of a school is not just down to catchment areas and post code lotteries. It depends on the aspirations of the parents and children combined.

CLAPTON

dktreesea wrote: »

In Scotland schools are more of a post code lottery. In smaller towns, say in somewhere like the Scottish borders, where there is only one high school per town, the quality is high. Those with aspirations set the standard for the whole school and pull up the ones who would otherwise coast along.


Once you get to the larger cities, you often see a good school next to a not so good school, reflecting the socioeconomic status of the catchment areas. But as more and more people are unable to afford their first choice, i.e. private school, some of the state schools are improving.


To me, the quality of a school is not just down to catchment areas and post code lotteries. It depends on the aspirations of the parents and children combined.

why would the aspirations of the parents and children differ, between two schools next to each other?

dktreesea

CLAPTON wrote: »

why would the aspirations of the parents and children differ, between two schools next to each other?

What usually happens is if both schools are undersubscribed, those parents in the catchment of the poorer school who want their children to do well will apply for a place at the better performing neighbouring school.


Ultimately though, even at the worst schools in Edinburgh, 10% of the pupils still got 5 or more highers (you need at least 3 to get a place at uni). So going to a cr*p school doesn't always mean you'll do badly academically.

CLAPTON

dktreesea wrote: »

What usually happens is if both schools are undersubscribed, those parents in the catchment of the poorer school who want their children to do well will apply for a place at the better performing neighbouring school.


Ultimately though, even at the worst schools in Edinburgh, 10% of the pupils still got 5 or more highers (you need at least 3 to get a place at uni). So going to a cr*p school doesn't always mean you'll do badly academically.

why are you so rude about an obviously successful school.

Pennywise

ukcarper wrote: »

But you are still looking at the advantages the grammar school gave you which I don't deny but that doesn't redress the problems the rest face. I went to a secondary school , I wasn't taught a foreign language in fact I didn't have a chemistry or physics lesson.

So, rather than throw the baby out with the bath water, as said above, why didn't they improve the secondary schools rather than scrap the grammars? There was absolutely NOTHING to stop a secondary/technical school offering a foreign language or science lessons. Secondary/technical schools could have been improved or turned into comps whilst at the same time leaving grammars unaffected.