benaj
Member of DD Central
N/A
Posts: 5,648 
Likes: 1,744
|
Post by benaj on Jun 14, 2022 19:40:11 GMT
The National Curriculum is not a joke but it fails to teach modern foreign language properly.
It’s impossible for kids to learn a foreign language in schools without a proper strategy. There’s no “incentives” for them to learn. Unless they are doing GCSE or A levels, those classes in Foreign Language are almost waste of time.
One year Spanish, One year French ? No assessment!
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,388
Likes: 2,787
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Jun 14, 2022 19:57:11 GMT
the misuse of "our" and "are" My dad, whose education finished abruptly when he was bombed out of school at 14, 'would of' known the difference. My mother was not allowed to continue in education past 14, she was offered a place but her parents wanted their second child, a son, to carry on in education and money was tight.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,388
Likes: 2,787
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Jun 14, 2022 20:11:03 GMT
But even today, perhaps even more so today, your social background (which is much more than 'earnings' its about family outlook, aspirations etc) is a massive influence and indicator of educational success. If your parents aren't making you read, and not reading you stories, for example, your far less likely to have good educational outcomes. I agree entirely. If the parents can't be bothered to foster their offspring's pre-school learning, they are pretty much bound to do worse than kids whose parents are responsible. I'm not sure where the school comes into that or indeed that any school is equipped to overcome that irresponsible start. We can't blame the existence of grammar schools for bad parenting. That's a bit strong. I've always felt that by peeling off the brightest kids to grammars, that enabled the remaining schools to target their education to a narrower band of children and a narrower band of needs. Therefore any particular child would receive a curriculum more appropriate to themselves. For example, teaching Latin to the less intelligent/less receptive kids would be a waste of time, so let the grammars do that, where the kids will lap it up. That means one less subject requiring teaching at the secondary modern/comprehensive, allowing perhaps French or Spanish to fill the gap. Thus a more targeted approach for those kids. Nobody deserves to be left behind and nobody should be left behind this way. I would suggest that educational standards for all have fallen since the demise of grammar schools. Which is why most kids leaving school now don't know the difference between "your" and "you're"...and care even less. Theoretically that should be true and there were fleetingly some technical schools where more practical courses were taught. But my local secondary modern was an absolute dumping ground, no one came out with anything. Gangs outside the school gates, knife fights, and this was in the outskirts of quite a posh area, children were terrified of going there and everyone wanted out as soon as possible. I think the leaving age was raised from 15 to 16 and (particularly) the boys at the time hated it and really did nothing for the extra year apart from causing trouble.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jun 14, 2022 20:26:26 GMT
My dad, whose education finished abruptly when he was bombed out of school at 14, 'would of' known the difference. My mother was not allowed to continue in education past 14, she was offered a place but her parents wanted their second child, a son, to carry on in education and money was tight. Not an uncommon type of situation. My father, who was bright and near the top of his year, passed his 11+ with flying colours. His father said they couldn't afford the school uniform for him - which was likely b****x but he wanted him bringing some money into the house. Hence he started work at 14 rather than go on to better education. Something to this day he sometimes, in an unguarded moment, refers to and how much he regrets missing out on the opportunity to 'expand his mind'. Two out of 3 of us went to university. I am always very conscious of the opportunities he gave us which he didn't have himself.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jun 14, 2022 20:33:39 GMT
But even today, perhaps even more so today, your social background (which is much more than 'earnings' its about family outlook, aspirations etc) is a massive influence and indicator of educational success. If your parents aren't making you read, and not reading you stories, for example, your far less likely to have good educational outcomes. I agree entirely. If the parents can't be bothered to foster their offspring's pre-school learning, they are pretty much bound to do worse than kids whose parents are responsible. I'm not sure where the school comes into that or indeed that any school is equipped to overcome that irresponsible start. We can't blame the existence of grammar schools for bad parenting. That's a bit strong. I've always felt that by peeling off the brightest kids to grammars, that enabled the remaining schools to target their education to a narrower band of children and a narrower band of needs. Therefore any particular child would receive a curriculum more appropriate to themselves. For example, teaching Latin to the less intelligent/less receptive kids would be a waste of time, so let the grammars do that, where the kids will lap it up. That means one less subject requiring teaching at the secondary modern/comprehensive, allowing perhaps French or Spanish to fill the gap. Thus a more targeted approach for those kids. Nobody deserves to be left behind and nobody should be left behind this way. I would suggest that educational standards for all have fallen since the demise of grammar schools. Which is why most kids leaving school now don't know the difference between "your" and "you're"...and care even less. define 'narrower band'. I've just tried to look at the percentage of pupils who ended up at Grammar school. Not surprisingly on a quick search I've only uncovered quite recent and specific numbers. What I've seen reinforces my pre-conceptions. In a local area which runs Grammar schools, 29% pass the 11+. That means that 71% fail and go to secondary (not quite true, a very small additional % get through on appeal. So that means that the 'narrower band' with 'narrower band of needs' is >2/3. I think the 'narrower band' needs to be flipped on its head. It means a small (<1/3) go on to to a specialist system that can best focus on their needs. Everyone else goes into the 'big pot' which is certainly not focussed on their 'narrower band of needs'. EDIT: To think or state that goal of the 11+ is select out those that who won't benefit from better academic education in order to target them for education which is 'better suited' them - as opposed to being designed to select for those who will get the best results from a more targeted academic education - I find mind boggling.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jun 14, 2022 20:36:23 GMT
Todays Springwatch - with Chris Packham declaring how he is using an*l fluid to fart bubbles in Michalea Strachans face !!!! Still, the episode I'm watching tonight (8 days out of date) includes the line from Megan: "I do love a shag". Timeless.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,337
Likes: 11,562
|
Post by ilmoro on Jun 14, 2022 20:43:03 GMT
Todays Springwatch - with Chris Packham declaring how he is using an*l fluid to fart bubbles in Michalea Strachans face !!!! Still, the episode I'm watching tonight (8 days out of date) includes the line from Megan: "I do love a shag". Timeless. If thats the younger dark haired girl, then shes from down by me ... unfortunately unlike Chris Packham I have yet to knowingly bump into her. Shags featurred again in last nights smut fest but as it was the dour Scottish bloke the commentary was more Monty Python 'lovely plummage'
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
N/A
Posts: 5,648
Likes: 1,744
|
Post by benaj on Jun 14, 2022 20:52:51 GMT
I agree entirely. If the parents can't be bothered to foster their offspring's pre-school learning, they are pretty much bound to do worse than kids whose parents are responsible. I'm not sure where the school comes into that or indeed that any school is equipped to overcome that irresponsible start. We can't blame the existence of grammar schools for bad parenting. That's a bit strong. I've always felt that by peeling off the brightest kids to grammars, that enabled the remaining schools to target their education to a narrower band of children and a narrower band of needs. Therefore any particular child would receive a curriculum more appropriate to themselves. For example, teaching Latin to the less intelligent/less receptive kids would be a waste of time, so let the grammars do that, where the kids will lap it up. That means one less subject requiring teaching at the secondary modern/comprehensive, allowing perhaps French or Spanish to fill the gap. Thus a more targeted approach for those kids. Nobody deserves to be left behind and nobody should be left behind this way. I would suggest that educational standards for all have fallen since the demise of grammar schools. Which is why most kids leaving school now don't know the difference between "your" and "you're"...and care even less. define 'narrower band'. I've just tried to look at the percentage of pupils who ended up at Grammar school. Not surprisingly on a quick search I've only uncovered quite recent and specific numbers. What I've seen reinforces my pre-conceptions. In a local area which runs Grammar schools, 29% pass the 11+. That means that 71% fail and go to secondary (not quite true, a very small additional % get through on appeal. So that means that the 'narrower band' with 'narrower band of needs' is >2/3. I think the 'narrower band' needs to be flipped on its head. It means a small (<1/3) go on to to a specialist system that can best focus on their needs. Everyone else goes into the 'big pot' which is certainly not focussed on their 'narrower band of needs'. EDIT: To think or state that goal of the 11+ is select out those that who won't benefit from better academic education in order to target them for education which is 'better suited' them - as opposed to being designed to select for those who will get the best results from a more targeted academic education - I find mind boggling. 😅 passed the 11 plus? There’s no pass mark, nor pass rate. Just admission numbers. It’s just a competition between the applicants. Not all students got the highest scores go to the grammar schools. Some applications get rejected even with the high score.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Jun 15, 2022 0:26:36 GMT
I agree entirely. If the parents can't be bothered to foster their offspring's pre-school learning, they are pretty much bound to do worse than kids whose parents are responsible. I'm not sure where the school comes into that or indeed that any school is equipped to overcome that irresponsible start. We can't blame the existence of grammar schools for bad parenting. That's a bit strong. I've always felt that by peeling off the brightest kids to grammars, that enabled the remaining schools to target their education to a narrower band of children and a narrower band of needs. Therefore any particular child would receive a curriculum more appropriate to themselves. For example, teaching Latin to the less intelligent/less receptive kids would be a waste of time, so let the grammars do that, where the kids will lap it up. That means one less subject requiring teaching at the secondary modern/comprehensive, allowing perhaps French or Spanish to fill the gap. Thus a more targeted approach for those kids. Nobody deserves to be left behind and nobody should be left behind this way. I would suggest that educational standards for all have fallen since the demise of grammar schools. Which is why most kids leaving school now don't know the difference between "your" and "you're"...and care even less. define 'narrower band'. I've just tried to look at the percentage of pupils who ended up at Grammar school. Not surprisingly on a quick search I've only uncovered quite recent and specific numbers. What I've seen reinforces my pre-conceptions. In a local area which runs Grammar schools, 29% pass the 11+. That means that 71% fail and go to secondary (not quite true, a very small additional % get through on appeal. So that means that the 'narrower band' with 'narrower band of needs' is >2/3. I think the 'narrower band' needs to be flipped on its head. It means a small (<1/3) go on to to a specialist system that can best focus on their needs. Everyone else goes into the 'big pot' which is certainly not focussed on their 'narrower band of needs'. EDIT: To think or state that goal of the 11+ is select out those that who won't benefit from better academic education in order to target them for education which is 'better suited' them - as opposed to being designed to select for those who will get the best results from a more targeted academic education - I find mind boggling. You've defined 'narrower band' for yourself... 70% being narrower than 100%. Your EDIT essentially boils down to a tautology, and the first part is both mischievous and superfluous. Nobody's talked of an examination to "select out" anybody. You can unboggle your mind. Your own intelligence amongst your peers in the 'big pot' was recognised and you were streamed accordingly. Did your parents ask the school to bump you down a couple of classes to allow someone just as deserving to take your place? Of course not, because someone targeted for you what they felt was the best education for you. There's nothing fundamentally unhealthy about that. School, university and career is inherently competitive. We're examined, judged and streamed throughout those formative years, which prepares us for the competitive world out there. People far better qualified have decided age 11 is one of the watersheds. If some 'big pot' schools are not focussed (as you say) and not doing a good job (as others say), then they need addressing. I don't see how the existence of otherwise of grammar schools has any bearing on that problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by crabbyoldgit on Jun 15, 2022 6:29:32 GMT
I failed the 11+ , assisting my mother at my grandfather's death bed two days before the exams started may have not helped. At the end of my first year at sec modern the headmaster tryed to get me transfered to grammer but the grammer would not discuss the idea. All my childhood i dreamed of being a vet , top of my class in top stream I still remember the response of the careers advisors when I expressed this wish, " children from this school do not become vets do not go to university, now here is the application forms for an enginerring apprenticeships at the local various military based establishments. My school did not do biology, languages, barely geography, it was a factory producing secretarys, mothers and engineers, few escaped that future.
My and my peers future was decided over a few days tests at 11 years old , after which the also rans were dumped in the dumping ground. Orwellian , graded epsy semi moron or what. That was the real way the system worked for many. However i will except that for those from poor backgrounds making the cut could enable social mobility which seems to have reduced since grammers ended. The present educational system is a failure but going back to the 11+, no thanks.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,048
Likes: 5,165
|
Post by adrianc on Jun 15, 2022 8:02:44 GMT
However i will except that for those from poor backgrounds making the cut could enable social mobility which seems to have reduced since grammers ended. The educational cut-off has moved. It's no longer 11, it's now 18. Back when the 11+ was widespread, the 50s and 60s, a very small percentage of people went to uni. That rate exploded in the 90s - about 10x the number of first degrees are awarded annually these days.  You might bemoan that, and the requirement for a degree for almost any white collar job, but that's a different question.
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 4,605
Likes: 2,631
|
Post by keitha on Jun 15, 2022 10:28:01 GMT
But does a degree mean you are better at the job.
Mum was a nursing auxilliary and converted to a SEN, She and many others like her were brilliant practical nurses, She could never have become a nurse these days as she to be honest she was not a degree person.
Many great basic nurses are excluded by this insistence on a degree.
I know a lot of nurses coming up to retirement and they all say the same the younger degree nurses are more interested in climbing the tree than the caring etc side. indeed I know some younger ones who because they couldn't progress fast enough have gone for a complete career change.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2022 11:14:23 GMT
The National Curriculum is not a joke but it fails to teach modern foreign language properly. It’s impossible for kids to learn a foreign language in schools without a proper strategy. There’s no “incentives” for them to learn. Unless they are doing GCSE or A levels, those classes in Foreign Language are almost waste of time. One year Spanish, One year French ? No assessment! Having learnt language late in life, I needed to research how to learn a language. The one way I would not learn it is by a structured approach based on grammer as used by many schools. But don't worry that is still the standard across the UK and other countries where they are  at languages. This is especially true in Italy where you can take, successfully, English for 4 years, and still not be able to buy a loaf of bread in English. I know 'cause I have seen it. Our local school, a language specialist assigns a full day or multiple days per week to a language often covering other subjects in that language and guess what, the kids learn.
Language learning is an immersive process unless you are very very bright. Schools that teach multiple subjects in a short day (9-3 is not a school day) have not a hope of teaching languages.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,626
Likes: 6,440
|
Post by registerme on Jun 15, 2022 18:14:51 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Jun 17, 2022 9:08:24 GMT
|
|
at languages. This is especially true in Italy where you can take, successfully, English for 4 years, and still not be able to buy a loaf of bread in English. I know 'cause I have seen it. Our local school, a language specialist assigns a full day or multiple days per week to a language often covering other subjects in that language and guess what, the kids learn.
