Don't stay in school

theoretica

Flyonthewall wrote: »

You could argue the same about anyone who already knows a subject. The whole point of school though is to make sure the students know it and for them to get qualifications to prove they know it. So even an IT wizz should do IT classes.

I do argue the same about anyone who already knows any subject. The girl who had spent several years living in Japan asked school to enter her for GCSE Japanese, which they did - without making her sit through Japanese lessons. If I remember rightly she had one session with a teacher to go over what the various bits of the exam would be. I think this model could be usefully applied to a lot of other subjects, if someone already knows it and if the school can't rise to classes at their level or if the student can get the relevant qualification and wants to study other subjects instead.

missbiggles1

Voyager2002 wrote: »

I took 'A' levels in the sixth form of my excellent comprehensive, before going on to my first-choice university. Several other members of my family can say exactly the same.

Incidentally, back in the 1990s I did some work analysing the exam results of schools in Berkshire. I found that the Grammar schools were under-performing, once you took account of the high ability of the pupils they were teaching. Sure they got good results, but children of the same ability attending neighbouring comprehensive schools were doing even better.

Many grammar schools appreciate the fact that although high grades are important, a rounded education and not teaching to the test is even more so.

liney

Flyonthewall wrote: »

It's not but thousands of people get confused and make financial mistakes all the time.

Course you can. Nothing to stop you asking parents or friends for loans on things you can't afford and being unable to pay them back.


Many things, but that doesn't mean responsibility can't be shared or that there are those who don't have the parent(s) or responsible adult in their life.

Agreed.

You seriously think it the job of the school to talk to minors about borrowing money from the bank of Mom and Dad?


Do you not think that is Mum and Dad's job? To explain to their child how long an advance in pocket money will take to pay back and come to an agreement? Shouldn't parents be laying down the law about not being a borrower or a lender where friends are concerned?

Flyonthewall

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Very many colleges and universities won't let you study certain subjects with only a C in GCSE Maths because they know it doesn't really reflect any great degree of competence in the subject.

This seems to be something else you don't really know about, despite your strongly expressed opinions.

I've been to numerous colleges, done numerous courses, numerous levels. All accepted A-C in GCSEs including Maths A-level. I've also worked at a college and know numerous people who work in colleges.

The Maths A-level teacher expected most students to have a B or higher for Maths GCSE as it might be more work if you had a C, but it was still perfectly acceptable to get on the course.

By Government standards C in Maths is perfectly acceptable for college.

Person_one

Flyonthewall wrote: »

It was an explanation to comment made about something I'd said.

If you read previous comments it would make sense why I'd said it.

I've read all the replies and still don't really know what you're driving at here! What's the issue with learning being related to memory? There's not really any way to change that, its a human nature thing, not a teaching style thing.

Flyonthewall

theoretica wrote: »

I do argue the same about anyone who already knows any subject. The girl who had spent several years living in Japan asked school to enter her for GCSE Japanese, which they did - without making her sit through Japanese lessons. If I remember rightly she had one session with a teacher to go over what the various bits of the exam would be. I think this model could be usefully applied to a lot of other subjects, if someone already knows it and if the school can't rise to classes at their level or if the student can get the relevant qualification and wants to study other subjects instead.

Ok, fair enough. They run the risk of some not being as good as they think they are though. They'd have to be certain they could actually pass first.

liney wrote: »

You seriously think it the job of the school to talk to minors about borrowing money from the bank of Mom and Dad?

No, that's not what I said. All I was doing is pointing out your statement was wrong as they can spend more than they've got before 18.

I think it would help if they explained about finances so they don't just think borrowing money from anyone is fine, so they don't later get into debt and spend money they don't have, so they understand how to budget and how credit works etc.

Do you not think that is Mum and Dad's job? To explain to their child how long an advance in pocket money will take to pay back and come to an agreement? Shouldn't parents be laying down the law about not being a borrower or a lender where friends are concerned?

Yeah, the parents who are, for example, £20K in debt, just bought a new car, can't live without SKY TV and the latest iphone, have little to no savings and will be going into overdraft to pay for the food shop that week are the perfect people to explain budgeting to their kid.

Yes, the parents should teach it. Yes, the parents should know how to budget. The fact is many parents don't know how to do it themselves though. Far too many people live a life they can not afford and we're constantly seeing proof of that.

So for that reason it's a good idea to talk about it in school. That way the next generation will know better and there's less chance of them just learning by how their parents are living.

Flyonthewall

Person_one wrote: »

I've read all the replies and still don't really know what you're driving at here! What's the issue with learning being related to memory? There's not really any way to change that, its a human nature thing, not a teaching style thing.

No issue at all! I never said there was any issue to do with learning and memory, I simply stated learning involved memory.

Despite stating the word remembering in their comment the other person didn't understand that remembering is to do with memory, which is why I replied with an explantion.

missbiggles1

Flyonthewall wrote: »

I've been to numerous colleges, done numerous courses, numerous levels.All accepted A-C in GCSEs including Maths A-level. I've also worked at a college and know numerous people who work in colleges.

The Maths A-level teacher expected most students to have a B or higher for Maths GCSE as it might be more work if you had a C, but it was still perfectly acceptable to get on the course.

By Government standards C in Maths is perfectly acceptable for college.

I won't try to top your vast experience because it might embarrass both of us. :rotfl:

However, many schools don't let students onto their A level courses (not just Maths) without at least a B in the subject (because the outlook for those with only a C is so poor), many level 3 FE courses prefer students to have a grade B for subjects with a strong Maths content and most good universities will require more than a C in Maths if this is relevant to the course. That's without even starting on employers' requirements at graduate level.

In most cases, a grade C in Maths is a minimum requirement, not the pinnacle of achievement.

pickledonionspaceraider

missbiggles1 wrote: »

All faith schools within the state system have to teach the national curriculum - the only difference is that they're able to teach their own faith within RE lessons.

At our school , at least 6 hours a week of mass, more on special holidays = equates to over an entire day of school time each week taken up with mass. Religious studies aside

missbiggles1

Flyonthewall wrote: »

Ok, fair enough. They run the risk of some not being as good as they think they are though. They'd have to be certain they could actually pass first.



No, that's not what I said. All I was doing is pointing out your statement was wrong as they can spend more than they've got before 18.

I think it would help if they explained about finances so they don't just think borrowing money from anyone is fine, so they don't later get into debt and spend money they don't have, so they understand how to budget and how credit works etc.



Yeah, the parents who are, for example, £20K in debt, just bought a new car, can't live without SKY TV and the latest iphone, have little to no savings and will be going into overdraft to pay for the food shop that week are the perfect people to explain budgeting to their kid.

Yes, the parents should teach it. Yes, the parents should know how to budget. The fact is many parents don't know how to do it themselves though. Far too many people live a life they can not afford and we're constantly seeing proof of that.

So for that reason it's a good idea to talk about it in school. That way the next generation will know better and there's less chance of them just learning by how their parents are living.

You do know that teachers are just as likely as parents to do all those things, don't you?:D