If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Yes but just because a child doesn't do well at the 11+ does not mean they're not bright and does not allow for their abilities to develop later and then they're stuck in a school starved of the better teachers.
Its just to inflexible to tier kids at age 11 and leave it at that until its time for them to take A Levels five years later.
I did very well in my GCSEs
However, the funny thing is, on average, the english department beats all the other departments for the amount improved on the national average. So, me jumping to conclusions perhaps, sets are good for intelligent students as they can push themselves harder. However, mixed ability groups are good for students who struggle more, because obviously the whole class' average is pulled up.
Having said that, many of my friends did get A* at english
I could never cope being in a class where we spent half the lesson listening to the teacher tell students off. I've always been a focussed worker, like in maths we just get set the problems and I work through them. Lessons where there is disruption completely craps up my learning. But for other people, they work the opposite, some mild disruption/distraction helps them learn (music etc.).
Think it all depends on the needs of the student really.
That's exactly what I wanted to say.
Another problem is that a lot of extremely bright young people whith hidden disabilities that haven't been picked up by teachers could end up not fulfilling their potential by not passing the test. Also at risk are people with Irlen's syndrome.
I went through a comprehensive system along with all the kids from my area and I have done pretty well (I am starting my PhD in a couple of months. I feel that having sets etc are enough to focus the more intelligent kids whilst allowing more mobility and not denying the higher quality teaching to the less smart kids.
Any policy with such a divisive effect should be discouraged in my opinion........
However there is no doubt in my mind that if i hadnt been in classes with less able kids who caused trouble in which i joined in i would have knuckled down and seriously reached my potential.
Im not saying that all kids who go to grammer schools are angels and are never in trouble,but there would certainly be more of a drive for kids who wanted to acheive something and had the potential but lacked say the motivation a bit to do well.In the schools up here the lessons are more concentrated on controlling the badly behaved class than the subject in question.If your an idiot you get a lot of help.Everyone else is just left to get on with it.If you need that motivation to get you going your just not going to get it.
I dont think its about elitism..i think its about giving kids a chance tbh.
But i am rather bitter about my school experience....
I was in plenty of classes with the 'naughty' kids, I just didn't get involved...........
Yeah...sorry ... saw you had a sort of pro-stance towards grammar schools in an earlier post and then misread that post.
My sincere apologies ... i hope you will forgive me
Think your missing the point.I lacked the motivation,if teahcers had spent more time working with kids who had the potential but lacked motivation i would have excelled.Because that wasnt there because the less intelectual in my classes got it i didnt do much and got dragged down by the "naughty" kids.I think this is actually very true of a lot of kids.I made alot of mistakes that affected my education that i freely put my hands up to.Not recieving the support i needed wasnt one of them.
Grammer schools allow for better streaming of abilities and therefore IN MY OPINION allow a better degree of support for kids who have the potential.
I am extremely pro streamed education. That does not mean that some children should get a substandard education, but that those who are more able, should be pushed harder.
Support in what respect?
Me as well - but it depended on the teacher. Like in one of our science lessons, I remember the teacher saying something like 'if you don't want to learn you don't have to. Just don't mess it up for everyone else.' I admit that I don't agree with what was said but it basically meant that everyone was actually doing work (or pretended to and just talked quietly to each other) unlike it was in English where no-one would work and we'd never learn anything. Beause of the amount of people messing around, I never got the support I needed, even when I was really behind... That was basically the same in most subjects I took for GCSE. (Just finished Year 11)
Why should the teacher spend time convincing the lazy to work? Why should those who aren't lazy lose contact time because of it?
I have never seen an advantage of a grammar school that cannot be achieved with better results in a streamed comprehensive school. Personally I would rather trust the ongoing assessment evaluations of the teachers who teach a pupil every day infinitely more that I would trust the results of a pre-pubescent arbritrary examination.
The 11+ is grotesquely unfair, and sentences people to a poorer education.
I think people are confusing state grammar schools- which is what this is about- and fee-paying schools.
Everyone should go to comprehensives and work in sets. You all get the same facilities and the same opportunities. Exam performance (which is hardly a perfect judge of intelligence) should not in any way decide the standard that you will be educated to.
I can motivate myself now.Ive just spent the last year at college and ive done well and im darned if i dont get to university next year.Aged 13-16 i couldnt cos my head was too up my arse.I didnt know better and whether you think its right or wrong i am still resentful for not being motivated at school or just been told to get a grip or leave.Both tactics would have helped greatly.Yes i was a penis but things are just not so black and white.
Streaming would have been one way of helping me,in my personal situation,to put my focus on to learning and not doubt my own abilities.Which at the end of the day for me is what it came down to..
Im not going to defend myself anymore.I agree with streaming.If that makes me a stuck up facist then oh well..
Bomberman444 ... why you put motivate in quotation marks like it was something that has no place in compulsory education is beyond me. Part of a teachers job is to motivate their students ... to get the best out of them. If you've always been a self motivated, ambitious person then fine but at the age of 12 - 15 some of us just weren't interested in learning about shakespeare or the periodic table and needed teachers to give us a nudge. This is part of their jobs! Good for you. Not every one is as strong willed ... just because a kid lets themselves get side tracked by peer pressure does not mean they should be relegated to a 2nd rate education! For fuck's sake at that age of course kids are going to be influenced ... I did things when I was at school I wouldn't admit to anybody I know now ... you can't just judge a child at that age and then choose not to spend any time trying to motivate them to do well just because you think their not worth it! I'm positive most of my teachers in secondary school would have though along the same lines as you ... he doesn't try he's not worth it ... but luckily I got some great teachers in my 6th form college who did motivate me (and believe me it must have been a huge fucking trial for them) and I passed my exams and I'm now at uni too.
Thank fuck my teachers didn't have the same attitude as you and tell me they didn't have time to motivate me and that it was my own tough shit!
A teachers job is to motivate all their students. Not to spend more time on those who are less inclined to learn and less on those who are but equally not to spend more time on those who are self motivated and less on those who aren't!
If kids are bone-idle then they have nobody to blame but themselves. If they don't motivate themselves then they only have themselves to blame.
I hate the way teachers are blamed if a kid can't be arsed. The only person who's fault it is is the pupil if they cannot be arsed. I don't care if they are just kids or not, if a kid doesn't put the effort in then the only person who is responsible and at fault is himself.
Part of the challenge of teaching is to motivate pupils, that isn't disputed. What is disputed is that those who are lazy can blame the teachers for getting distracted by sex, drink and drugs. Teachers are a guiding hand, but they are not responsible for motivation.
But it is all about being kid isnt it.
How many people do you know that have said "oh god i really wish i had stuck in at school/hadnt gotten in withthe bad crowd/Put in a bit more effort".Almost everyone i know has at one point said something similar.Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
You cant expect a child of school age to understand the entire implications of their wrong actions.They arent mature enough.Therefore teachers need to do there most to motivate and "push" pupils into working to reach their potential.End of.
You cant have one rule for some and an entirely different one for others.
Well (if that was in reply to me) I never said that ...
Don't get me wrong if a kid does fuck all then they only have themselves to blame. I wont argue with you there.
However ... I don't think that just because a student isn't showing self motivation that they shouldn't be given motivation as Bomberman and Girl_interrupted seemed to be suggesting.
Teachers should be constantly trying to motivate their students .... if the students don't respond and get shit grades well that's the students fault BUT the teacher has to be constantly trying to get the best out of their students and if they are not performing then they have to try to find out why and help where they can. It is not their job to judge which students are worth their effort and neglect the others! Nor is it their job just to talk and let the students absorb it if they have a desire to do so.
They are not lecturers they are teachers and motivating their students ... regardless of how responsive their students are to this .... is an integral part of their job. If their students still get bad grades well then the teacher did their best and should take no blame.
:yes: yeah that too!
Between us we might put up a half decent argument
If the kids were there voluntarily then it would be different. They are not. They are to all intents and purposes prisoners. It's up to the teachers to motivate pupils, not the other way around, it's what they get paid for.
Weird how a school will take full credit for a pupil passing all their exams but when they fail it's because the pupil was useless in some way individually.
I hate the way schools are praised when pupils do well. :yeees:
At high school a lot of kids have already picked what high school they want so I am sure they can take responsibility for their own learning. It's funny how some people who I remember saying that the sex age limit and alcohol age limit should be lowered due to kids being able to take responsibility are now saying that they are not responsible for doing some studying?
So Jon are you trying to suggest that no teacher motivates their students? If you don't respond to the motivation because you are bone idol then it is indeed tough shit. How does it condemn you to a second rate education? If you are in a comprehensive (which if you open your eyes is what I said people should go to) then you can at any point decide to stop being a lazy arse and knuckle down.
Blaming your teachers for not having the motivation is bollocks. There are people on here who have done degrees whilst severly depressed and still succeeded.
If you don't have the willpower then tough shit.
Well I don't think sex/alcohol limit should be lowered. At 12 or 13 you cannot expect a child to fully appreciate the full consequences of dropping out/failing school. And as Klintock pointed out:
Umm ... no I really wasn't. I've re-read my posts and I don't see how you could think I was suggesting this?
I wasn't arguing against your support for comprehensive I just didn't like your whole 'why should the teacher bother to motivate you' comment.
:yeees: Students are not neatly separated into 3 categories of motivated, lazy and depressed.
I sincerely hope you don't get into teaching!