AN IDEA.

[kirklancaster]

I believe that any responsible parent or capable teacher knows by the time a child is 12 years old (if not much earlier) whether that child is academically minded and able or not. This so, I further believe that it is futile and a waste of money, time and resources to continue to clutter up classrooms with pupils who do not want to learn.

If a child has no real interest in going on to further education and a subsequent career where any type of 'Educational Certification of Attainment' is mandatory, then it is totally useless to try to force him/her on a diet of 'The Battle of Hastings 1066', 'The Capital of Botswana', 'Logarithms' or any other knowledge which will be absolutely of no use to him when he leaves school, and steps out into the cold, hard, unforgiving world and embarks upon trying to find a job.

All Senior schools should be split into two distinct halves;

A) One half concentrating on traditional teaching, but now much better equipped to do so more effectively; with reduced class sizes, more resources, and teachers able to concentrate on pupils who actually want to learn without the disruptive influences of those pupils who don't.

B) The other half should comprise of purpose built workshops where the non-academic pupils can be taught different trades from Bricklaying, Plumbing, Mechanics etc, to Computer Maintenance and Programming etc.

Those academics move onto further education in the traditional manner, and those non-academics move onto Technical College should they require or need further instruction or qualifications (dependent on their chosen trade) or will simply leave school versed in their craft and suitably qualified, to actually stand a real chance of finding gainful employment.

The school Heads will need to liaise with any 12 year old non-academic child's parents to discuss such a move, and there will be exceptions and difficulties to 'iron out' as with any new scheme, but I really do think that innovations along the lines of this idea of mine will prove a success.

A lot of 'problem' children rebel and resort to anti-social behaviour because they have inferiority complexes; feelings of inadequacy - especially non-academically minded ones who are faced daily with a curriculum which they struggle to understand and with brighter pupils in class who have no such problems.

It will give young people dignity, help them to identify with peer groups who are 'the same' as them, and will instill respect and self-respect into them; make them feel like they can achieve something in their lives.

I know the above will incur considerable cost in implementing, but the money is there should governments choose to divert it from more wasteful areas, and the savings in probable benefit payments for life, police and prison costs, if no such innovation is implemented, will be considerable.

What do you think?

[Jay.]

I actually think this is a good idea. During secondary school, in the final two years, there were quite a large group of people who could not give a ****. So much so, that in one of my classes, it was entirely filled with people who did not want to work & myself, surprise surprise, I failed that class. That said, my English and Maths classes were mixed ability, in order to aid the learning of the students who were less wanting to learn. This helped in some cases, but in a whole the number of disruptions were awful, than if it had just been a top-set class, for example.

But, during sixth form, where the groups were smaller (sometimes 4/5 people in a class) and everyone was there to learn, my results were far better. So surly this says something. I'm also going to train to be a teacher after my degree. So from this perspective, I would in some mind, not want to spilt the classes, as it might not be seen as 'fair' splitting less academically-capable students from students who could go far with a little bit more of an extra push, it could be seen as them being given up upon. But, I'd much prefer to teach in an environment that isn't constantly disrupted by students who don't really care.

I'd like to see schools trial this sort of format. It may not be seen as 'fair' in some eyes, but it is upon the students who want to go far. It isn't their fault that they've been stuck in a class with a bunch of people who don't want to educate themselves. It would probably improve grades too. Whilst the non-academically capable students gain a qualification into a job they would prefer.

[Toy Soldier]

I actually completely agree and have thought that pushing academics and University "for all" has been a mistake from the start. I have a friend who wasn't brilliant academically but his mother really pushed him with studying / exams and it made him utterly miserable, it just wasn't for him, but there's this idea that it "has" to be done. He was studying for 6 hours at night and getting C grades in subjects that myself and others in our friendship were getting good grades in without much effort. It made him feel "stupid" and inferior no matter how much we assured him that he wasn't stupid, his skills just lay elsewhere. Which they did - he stuck with school all the way until 18 and left with poor grades, but got straight into a practical apprenticeship in aerospace engineering, and has done very well for himself. Even built an extension on his house single-handedly with help from a few friends. I can ace an exam with barely ten minutes revision, but, as anyone who has seen my attempts at any sort of DIY will attest, my skills in pretty much anything of that nature are... severely lacking. It wouldn't be a stretch to say "abysmal". He also makes more money than I do, of course, despite my top grades and University education. Sigh. In fact, I believe he probably makes more than most of my friends who went on to get degrees, even the ones who (unlike myself) actually went into their chosen field after graduation. All except one, I think, but he went into pensions / investments / banking ('nuff said...).

I can think of plenty of other examples. I was quite friendly with a guy in my woodworking class who was far from stupid, in fact he was hilarious and sharp as they come, and I would say genuinely gifted in woodworking. He made clocks, tables, all intricately carved and really quite impressive, aged 14. Never caused any trouble in those classes - was totally focussed. I think I managed to nail together a vague box shaped thing that was covered in dried up glue. But no one ever seemed to pick up on it, he could definitely have made a career out of it, but those classes were almost thought of as "extras" and he played up in "regular" academic classes, was constantly in trouble, and didn't perform well. I ran into him when I was back in my home town a few years ago (I think I was about 25 at the time) and he was completely off his face, quite clearly a drug addict. Just a mess. He chatted to me and shook my hand and talked about the woodwork class and my hilarious creations and then stumbled off. It was ****ing heartbreaking to be honest.

But yes, anyway, two examples where I can see exactly what you mean. One worked out as he found something he loved and was good at straight after school (and it was only luck really, a friend of his uncle got him the apprenticeship) and the other ended up in the gutter. Both, really, were totally failed by a school system that pushes academic achievement on all, when some simply aren't cut out for it.

On the flip side, I also feel that because there were so many people there who had to have their ability level accommodated in the curriculum, I (not to blow my own trumpet too hard) personally feel like I was never challenged anywhere near ENOUGH academically at school. I found the work painfully easy, and I test well. I was bored out of my mind a lot of the time and it led to me becoming really quite lazy. I didn't have to work hard for an A, so I got used to not working very hard. That laziness followed me to University and, looking back on it, I completely wasted the time I spent there and didn't put in half... or quarter... of the effort I could have to make myself really stand out. I don't regret going - I regret not bothering to excel. A lot of that is my own fault, of course, but I genuinely do think that if the school system was "split", as you say, and the more academically minded pupils could be really pushed to achieve their potential, and the less academically minded pushed to pursue the areas where they are skilled, we would have a much more productive (and more importantly, much happier) society overall.


So yes, in principle I totally agree. I would potentially raise the suggested age from 12 to 14, though. I think there are still some "basics" that need to be focused on up until the age of 14, dropping completely out of academic education at 12 would leave a lot of people's basic knowledge lacking I suspect.

[MTVN]

12 is too young imo, some people will start to prosper academically much later when they've had more time to hone their abilities and start to appreciate them more. Also at 12 kids will have only been in secondary school a year, they will all be at different levels of preparedness for that step up depending on their primary school and background etc. and it would be very hard to make such a big life decision on only one year of secondary education. From my own experience I certainly don't think a decision could have been made for me at that age and would not have envisaged myself taking the quite academically-heavy path that I have taken so far, I very much doubt my teachers would have either.

[Toy Soldier]

12 is too young imo, some people will start to prosper academically much later when they've had more time to hone their abilities and start to appreciate them more. Also at 12 kids will have only been in secondary school a year, they will all be at different levels of preparedness for that step up depending on their primary school and background etc. and it would be very hard to make such a big life decision on only one year of secondary education. From my own experience I certainly don't think a decision could have been made for me at that age and would have had no idea of the path that I was going to take and I very much doubt my teachers at that time would have either.

Yes, that's true too. The academic side of things probably doesn't "click" with some people at all until the teens, so I would definitely say 14 or even 15 before any sort of decision is made. I would also definitely not make it mandatory, but rather have an in depth and serious discussion about abilities and skills, and how to best direct them. The choice should ultimately be the pupil's though, never the teacher's. Although with that in mind - I would also be tempted to ensure than the decision really IS coming from the pupil, and not a "pushy parent" like in my first example above. Some get angry at their kids and expect top grades, try to bribe them, blackmail them, hold things over them to "make" them achieve and then are disappointed when they still don't. I would be very wary of kids making decisions to please their parents.

[Niamh.]

I also think 12 is too young but think it's a good idea for kids a little bit older 15ish?

[rubymoo]

My girls are at secondary school and the amount of disruption in class is unbelievable:shocked:

I think this is a great idea:thumbs:

I tell you the stories my girls come home and tell me about the classroom antics have led me to be on the phone to the head of year on numerous occasions:rant:

[kirklancaster]

I actually completely agree and have thought that pushing academics and University "for all" has been a mistake from the start. I have a friend who wasn't brilliant academically but his mother really pushed him with studying / exams and it made him utterly miserable, it just wasn't for him, but there's this idea that it "has" to be done. He was studying for 6 hours at night and getting C grades in subjects that myself and others in our friendship were getting good grades in without much effort. It made him feel "stupid" and inferior no matter how much we assured him that he wasn't stupid, his skills just lay elsewhere. Which they did - he stuck with school all the way until 18 and left with poor grades, but got straight into a practical apprenticeship in aerospace engineering, and has done very well for himself. Even built an extension on his house single-handedly with help from a few friends. I can ace an exam with barely ten minutes revision, but, as anyone who has seen my attempts at any sort of DIY will attest, my skills in pretty much anything of that nature are... severely lacking. It wouldn't be a stretch to say "abysmal". He also makes more money than I do, of course, despite my top grades and University education. Sigh. In fact, I believe he probably makes more than most of my friends who went on to get degrees, even the ones who (unlike myself) actually went into their chosen field after graduation. All except one, I think, but he went into pensions / investments / banking ('nuff said...).

I can think of plenty of other examples. I was quite friendly with a guy in my woodworking class who was far from stupid, in fact he was hilarious and sharp as they come, and I would say genuinely gifted in woodworking. He made clocks, tables, all intricately carved and really quite impressive, aged 14. Never caused any trouble in those classes - was totally focussed. I think I managed to nail together a vague box shaped thing that was covered in dried up glue. But no one ever seemed to pick up on it, he could definitely have made a career out of it, but those classes were almost thought of as "extras" and he played up in "regular" academic classes, was constantly in trouble, and didn't perform well. I ran into him when I was back in my home town a few years ago (I think I was about 25 at the time) and he was completely off his face, quite clearly a drug addict. Just a mess. He chatted to me and shook my hand and talked about the woodwork class and my hilarious creations and then stumbled off. It was ****ing heartbreaking to be honest.

But yes, anyway, two examples where I can see exactly what you mean. One worked out as he found something he loved and was good at straight after school (and it was only luck really, a friend of his uncle got him the apprenticeship) and the other ended up in the gutter. Both, really, were totally failed by a school system that pushes academic achievement on all, when some simply aren't cut out for it.

On the flip side, I also feel that because there were so many people there who had to have their ability level accommodated in the curriculum, I (not to blow my own trumpet too hard) personally feel like I was never challenged anywhere near ENOUGH academically at school. I found the work painfully easy, and I test well. I was bored out of my mind a lot of the time and it led to me becoming really quite lazy. I didn't have to work hard for an A, so I got used to not working very hard. That laziness followed me to University and, looking back on it, I completely wasted the time I spent there and didn't put in half... or quarter... of the effort I could have to make myself really stand out. I don't regret going - I regret not bothering to excel. A lot of that is my own fault, of course, but I genuinely do think that if the school system was "split", as you say, and the more academically minded pupils could be really pushed to achieve their potential, and the less academically minded pushed to pursue the areas where they are skilled, we would have a much more productive (and more importantly, much happier) society overall.


So yes, in principle I totally agree. I would potentially raise the suggested age from 12 to 14, though. I think there are still some "basics" that need to be focused on up until the age of 14, dropping completely out of academic education at 12 would leave a lot of people's basic knowledge lacking I suspect.

This is weird (don't want to mention synchronicity :laugh:) but I was exactly the same at school - not really challenged and bored out of my skull. I too never inputted what i should have as a result, and regret it to this day.

It's sad to hear about the kid with the woodworking skills but I have also known some similar cases, and I agree that non-academic classes were marginalised and treated like 'extra's'.

I see from MTVN's post that he agrees with you about 12 being too young for accurate assessment but I only put it out there and you're both probably right.

I'm chuffed that so far it seems an agreeable idea.

ps. please go back to your original avatar, I think that **** between us is over and I apologise for saying it - I didn't really mean it anyway T.S.

[kirklancaster]

I also think 12 is too young but think it's a good idea for kids a little bit older 15ish?

Thanks Niamh. I think so far most agree with you, but I only put it out there as a figure. I do genuinely believe this idea could work though.

[kirklancaster]

12 is too young imo, some people will start to prosper academically much later when they've had more time to hone their abilities and start to appreciate them more. Also at 12 kids will have only been in secondary school a year, they will all be at different levels of preparedness for that step up depending on their primary school and background etc. and it would be very hard to make such a big life decision on only one year of secondary education. From my own experience I certainly don't think a decision could have been made for me at that age and would not have envisaged myself taking the quite academically-heavy path that I have taken so far, I very much doubt my teachers would have either.

Point taken MTVN, I was only proposing 12 to put the idea out there. So you were a late developer then?

[Niamh.]

Thanks Niamh. I think so far most agree with you, but I only put it out there as a figure. I do genuinely believe this idea could work though.

Oh absolutely, I've always thought it myself as well. I think far too much importance is put on academia and people having different talents like being good with their hands or more creative aren't classed as special or important

[kirklancaster]

I actually think this is a good idea. During secondary school, in the final two years, there were quite a large group of people who could not give a ****. So much so, that in one of my classes, it was entirely filled with people who did not want to work & myself, surprise surprise, I failed that class. That said, my English and Maths classes were mixed ability, in order to aid the learning of the students who were less wanting to learn. This helped in some cases, but in a whole the number of disruptions were awful, than if it had just been a top-set class, for example.

But, during sixth form, where the groups were smaller (sometimes 4/5 people in a class) and everyone was there to learn, my results were far better. So surly this says something. I'm also going to train to be a teacher after my degree. So from this perspective, I would in some mind, not want to spilt the classes, as it might not be seen as 'fair' splitting less academically-capable students from students who could go far with a little bit more of an extra push, it could be seen as them being given up upon. But, I'd much prefer to teach in an environment that isn't constantly disrupted by students who don't really care.

I'd like to see schools trial this sort of format. It may not be seen as 'fair' in some eyes, but it is upon the students who want to go far. It isn't their fault that they've been stuck in a class with a bunch of people who don't want to educate themselves. It would probably improve grades too. Whilst the non-academically capable students gain a qualification into a job they would prefer.

Thanks Jay. I do think this could be the way forward - given the fine tuning.

[Crimson Dynamo]

This pretty much happened at my school anyway, the oiks had their own playground and the normal academics had theirs. The teachers taught those who wished to learn whilst the others fecked about and smoked and gave each other tattoos.

[kirklancaster]

Oh absolutely, I've always thought it myself as well. I think far too much importance is put on academia and people having different talents like being good with their hands or more creative aren't classed as special or important

Why is it that all those highly educated 'powers that be', often haven't the common sense we ordinary people have on such matters?

[Jay.]

Oh yeah, not 12. I'd say probably end of year 9/when you choose your options would probably be better.

[kirklancaster]

This pretty much happened at my school anyway, the oiks had their own playground and the normal academics had theirs. The teachers taught those who wished to learn whilst the others fecked about and smoked and gave each other tattoos.

:joker: No one puts it quite like you LT.

[kirklancaster]

My girls are at secondary school and the amount of disruption in class is unbelievable:shocked:

I think this is a great idea:thumbs:

I tell you the stories my girls come home and tell me about the classroom antics have led me to be on the phone to the head of year on numerous occasions:rant:

Hi Ruby, so glad you're still around.

It was like that too at my kid's school so it seems an ongoing problem. I'm glad you think it's a good idea. :wavey:

[MTVN]

Point taken MTVN, I was only proposing 12 to put the idea out there. So you were a late developer then?

I'd say so, I always did pretty well.at school but it probably wasn't until year 11 or maybe sixth form where I actually quite enjoyed the academic side of things instead of just going through the motions. That could be linked to what you say in the OP though in how by then you tend to get the more stimulating conditions like you suggest of smaller classes, students more into their studies, teachers more free from disruption etc.

[James]

I've thought this for a while now actually.

Why is it that all those highly educated 'powers that be', often haven't the common sense we ordinary people have on such matters?

I reckon it is because politicians are people who have benefited themselves from an academic and university education, so that makes them think that is the best path for everyone.

[Toy Soldier]

This is weird (don't want to mention synchronicity :laugh:) but I was exactly the same at school - not really challenged and bored out of my skull. I too never inputted what i should have as a result, and regret it to this day.

The worst thing is that I can see it already happening with my daughter. She is FIVE! She's one of the youngest in the class but ahead with everything, she's started doing maths work for next year and she can read and write pretty much anything. Her spelling is hilarious but with reading, she is literate, the "read with parent" books they're giving aren't teaching her anything because she can pick up a new one and read it cover to cover without help. It sounds like bragging but I'm actually really scared for her... she's already talking about being bored during lessons because she "already knows it" and comes home saying that she "didn't learn anything", but keeps getting "amber warnings" on their stupid traffic light system because she talks to and distracts others who are not ahead, and once for sitting writing "kick me!" signs during a lesson where they were sitting around learning "what sounds these letters make". In that case it probably didn't help that I laughed when the teacher told me :joker:.

Of course I am biased but, she is genuinely clever and very funny, and she still loves to learn but I can already see that starting to lessen as she loses interest. I genuinely remember how bored and frustrated I was - especially at primary school - and it had a knock on effect that if I'm being honest is STILL with me. What makes it worse is that at least when I was there, they divided us up into ability groups in the class and we did different things. From what I've heard, they don't like to do that any more for fear of some children "feeling bad". Which I do understand, but what a cop-out for the kids who could be doing more challenging work.

ps. please go back to your original avatar, I think that **** between us is over and I apologise for saying it - I didn't really mean it anyway T.S.

Haha, I think I will change it... because I did quite like the Toy Soldiers picture that came up on that "google your username" thread.

[kirklancaster]

The worst thing is that I can see it already happening with my daughter. She is FIVE! She's one of the youngest in the class but ahead with everything, she's started doing maths work for next year and she can read and write pretty much anything. Her spelling is hilarious but with reading, she is literate, the "read with parent" books they're giving aren't teaching her anything because she can pick up a new one and read it cover to cover without help. It sounds like bragging but I'm actually really scared for her... she's already talking about being bored during lessons because she "already knows it" and comes home saying that she "didn't learn anything", but keeps getting "amber warnings" on their stupid traffic light system because she talks to and distracts others who are not ahead, and once for sitting writing "kick me!" signs during a lesson where they were sitting around learning "what sounds these letters make". In that case it probably didn't help that I laughed when the teacher told me :joker:.

Of course I am biased but, she is genuinely clever and very funny, and she still loves to learn but I can already see that starting to lessen as she loses interest. I genuinely remember how bored and frustrated I was - especially at primary school - and it had a knock on effect that if I'm being honest is STILL with me. What makes it worse is that at least when I was there, they divided us up into ability groups in the class and we did different things. From what I've heard, they don't like to do that any more for fear of some children "feeling bad". Which I do understand, but what a cop-out for the kids who could be doing more challenging work.

Haha, I think I will change it... because I did quite like the Toy Soldiers picture that came up on that "google your username" thread.

It's almost impossible to speak factually sometimes without risking being seen to be 'bragging' but I know where you're coming from with your child. If she's above average 'brightness' then there is no other way of saying it. I would go apeshit though at the custom of not using 'ability' groups because it does not work. Quite the reverse; kids of lesser abilities feel better and will progress more if with similar children, and the same with more 'gifted' kids.

It's the old Comprehensive School mentality that mixing bright kids with not so bright ones will 'elevate' the dimmer ones, when the reverse was true. Once table-top 5 Grammar Schools plummeted.

Like the avatar better.

[Marsh.]

I also think that 12 is too young but in general is quite a good idea.

I think to a certain degree they've already made progress on stuff like this.

From 3rd year through to 5th, the less academically minded kids at my school could trade in 1 or 2 of their traditional GCSE's to go and do some vocational qualifications at the local college.

[susie q]

Im old enough to remember the old technical schools, that were set up in the 1950/60s for those who were not academically minded. The pupils there were taught trades.
The boys were taught car maintenance, carpentry etc.
The girls were taught needlework, childcare, hairdressing etc. Whilst I wouldnt want to see gender stereotyping back, I do think they were a good idea, particularly when you read reports that there is a lack of skilled workers in some areas such as the building trade.
Off five children only one of us my eldest sister went to one of these schools. She was also the only one who ended running her own business, a clothing repair/curtain making shop. She ran it successfully until she retired a couple of years ago, when she sold shop &business for a tidy profit. Being non-academic doesnt mean doomed to failure!

[kirklancaster]

I also think that 12 is too young but in general is quite a good idea.

I think to a certain degree they've already made progress on stuff like this.

From 3rd year through to 5th, the less academically minded kids at my school could trade in 1 or 2 of their traditional GCSE's to go and do some vocational qualifications at the local college.

That's good news Marsh. I'm glad you think it's a good idea.

[T*]

is there a tl;dr anywhere

[Niamh.]

is there a tl;dr anywhere

This is serious debates Tom, maybe you need to go to Chat and Games to read shorter posts :hehe:

[T*]

This is serious debates Tom, maybe you need to go to Chat and Games to read shorter posts :hehe:

no i wanted to see the gist of what people were saying not dissertations

[joeysteele]

Kirk,a good idea indeed,one that can represent the individuality for pupils and also bring a greater purpose to their education.

I think 14/15 is a better starting point but treating any section of society as individuals rather than the cattle truck mentality usually gets my support.

After all anyone reaching an older age that decide later they want to gain examination qualifications,can do so when and how if they want.
Good one,really good suggestion.

[Toy Soldier]

no i wanted to see the gist of what people were saying not dissertations
Tl;dr

Most people are saying it's a good idea for everyone because it's a waste of time for unacademic people to be pushed into it when they could pursue other skills, and also it allows academic people to move ahead without waiting for others to catch up.

General consensus that 12 is a bit too young to decide and mid-teens would be best.

I much prefer the dissertations though :joker:

[Toy Soldier]

After all anyone reaching an older age that decide later they want to gain examination qualifications,can do so when and how if they want.
Good one,really good suggestion.

This is true - whereas learning a trade at a later age is currently much more difficult. All of the apprenticeships are generally geared towards under-21's.

[Mokka]

The school system here in my city has made massive changes in this area since I was in it. When I went on to secondary school, the general idea was you attended the school closest to your home in either the catholic or public school system. Today, each one of the schools in our city have diversified their education to focus specifically on a variety of specializations... at the secondary level.
Just this month, my daughter and I spent several nights visiting these schools to choose where she would go next year. There are 3 secondaries here that offer welding, mechanics, electronics, woodworking, construction, and various other trades as focused ecucational options from ages 15-17. (grades 10-12). Three schools provide advanced educational opportunities for children like Toy Soldiers daughter (and mine it turns out) who have the skills to go further with their education but are bored and frustrated by the main stream system. One of these three also offers the opportunity to get an International Baccalaureate upon completion. One school offers a pre-engineering program starting at 15, where kids can take the courses to see if that is the right path for them. Others focus on art and have dance studios in them, others computer science... etc.

I think modern education is already shifting along the path you have suggested in this thread Kirk, and I think its for the better as well. In Canada, we have developed a shortage of trades people through the pushing of University education or nothing. It has caused an imbalance in the work place they are now starting to correct by redefining our education system to inform children that there are many paths to success

[Samuel.]

It's tricky, especially drawing the line to when the classes should be split.

I could never be assed in school, I never put the effort in because I just hated the environment more than anything. I could have easily fallen into the non-academic group because at the time, even up until I'd done my GCSE's, I showed little to no interest in anything I was being taught. I also think a big part of it was having to juggle so many topics at once that I never felt I could dedicate myself or truly understand any particular one in detail.

Many years on, now finishing the third year of my degree, it's the academic side of things I'm absolutely nailing and will be the reason I get a good grade. I'm seriously considering doing a masters afterwards and potentially a PhD.

If I had been put into the non-academic group while at school, I'd imagine my chances to even study at university would have been extremely limited, and I'd have been funneled off to have done something that wouldn't have exposed my potential.

I think the biggest issue with schools, for me at least, is the huge variety of classes. I found it overwhelming and a deterrent for even the classes I enjoyed, it was too much for me to get my head around at the time. I'd suggest a model where every year students have the choice to drop a class or two throughout High School (with exception of maths and english) and introduce a more specialised class, eventually shaping what GCSE's and potentionally A Levels they'd study. Have more focused learning. I didn't know what I wanted to do until I was 19, but I knew exactly the subjects I didn't want to pursue.

[RichardG]

I think such a proposal could be quite risky.

I was never 'disruptive' in high school (quite the opposite, I never said anything :laugh:) but I really couldn't be bothered with any of it, I would only ever do the absolute bare minimum necessary for school and homework and was in the low sets for the majority of my subjects. I certainly wasn't 'academic' by any definition of the word and no one really expected much from me. It was only by the end of year 10 that I got my act together and stopped being lazy, and eventually came out of year 11 with almost straight A/A*'s. I'm now doing equally as well at A level and have an offer from Warwick University! However, neither I nor any of my teachers (or my parents!!) could have predicted such an outcome at age 15, let alone age 12. I would almost certainly have chosen to go down the 'vocational' route if offered earlier on and so would never have known I had such potential with the traditional pathway.

It's a great idea and there's definitely people with certain types of personalities who clearly will never have any intention of studying for an academic qualification, and these people might indeed benefit from it. However, for some people it takes a little longer to decide what path fits them best. I think it's probably best to let people focus solely on the alternative after they've attempted GCSEs.

[Mokka]

I think such a proposal could be quite risky.

I was never 'disruptive' in high school (quite the opposite, I never said anything :laugh:) but I really couldn't be bothered with any of it, I would only ever do the absolute bare minimum necessary for school and homework and was in the low sets for the majority of my subjects. I certainly wasn't 'academic' by any definition of the word and no one really expected much from me. I most certainly had no intention of going to university! It was only by the end of year 10 that I got my act together and stopped being lazy, and eventually came out of year 11 with almost straight A/A*'s. I'm now doing equally as well at A level and have an offer from Warwick University! However, neither I nor any of my teachers (or my parents!!) could have predicted such an outcome at age 15, let alone age 12. I would almost certainly have chosen to go down the 'vocational' route if offered earlier on, and so would never have known I had such potential with the traditional pathway.

In theory it's a great idea and there's definitely people with certain types of personalities who clearly will never have any intention of studying for an academic qualification, and these people might indeed benefit from the idea. However, many people cannot clearly be categorised into one of two groups and mistakes will likely be made if we try to do this.

I don't see it as a program where you are assigned against your will into one category or another... but a way to give students an opportunity to trial different avenues of learning before dropping out or going on to further education. Most students have been left to believe until now that if your not fit for university... or for even main stream post-secondary education,,, your not going to accomplish anything, We are trying to channel a diverse group of individuals down one narrow path... and the results aren't always positive.

[RichardG]

I don't see it as a program where you are assigned against your will into one category or another... but a way to give students an opportunity to trial different avenues of learning before dropping out or going on to further education. Most students have been left to believe until now that if your not fit for university... or for even main stream post-secondary education,,, your not going to accomplish anything, We are trying to channel a diverse group of individuals down one narrow path... and the results aren't always positive.


I don't agree at all with the 'university or nothing' view, that people who don't perform well academically will never accomplish anything. I just think that perhaps the academic route should be emphasised until age 16 once people have completed their GCSEs. Then, if people underperform/hated it, I think offering the alternative vocational route is a great idea and people should be able to trial that pathway and be able to thrive there instead. Basically a long winded way of repeating the '12 is maybe too young' posts on the first page. :laugh:

[Vicky.]

This is a fantastic idea tbh, though as others, I also think 12 is too young. I would also prefer it if the child (I would say at 14/15) got a say too in which path to go down.

However this idea is way too sensible to ever be put into action sadly. Apparently learning **** about shakespeare and algebra that most people will never use in real life, is more important than learning something useful...

[Toy Soldier]

I think such a proposal could be quite risky.

I was never 'disruptive' in high school (quite the opposite, I never said anything :laugh:) but I really couldn't be bothered with any of it, I would only ever do the absolute bare minimum necessary for school and homework and was in the low sets for the majority of my subjects. I certainly wasn't 'academic' by any definition of the word and no one really expected much from me. It was only by the end of year 10 that I got my act together and stopped being lazy, and eventually came out of year 11 with almost straight A/A*'s. I'm now doing equally as well at A level and have an offer from Warwick University! However, neither I nor any of my teachers (or my parents!!) could have predicted such an outcome at age 15, let alone age 12. I would almost certainly have chosen to go down the 'vocational' route if offered earlier on and so would never have known I had such potential with the traditional pathway.

It's a great idea and there's definitely people with certain types of personalities who clearly will never have any intention of studying for an academic qualification, and these people might indeed benefit from it. However, for some people it takes a little longer to decide what path fits them best. I think it's probably best to let people focus solely on the alternative after they've attempted GCSEs.

I don't know, I would think that any teacher worth their salt would be able to distinguish between a student who is able but not trying, and one who is trying hard but genuinely not grasping the concepts. I also think that it should easily be possible for capable students to reach GCSE-qualification level by age 15 if our education systems were more refined. School learning is pretty awful to be honest, teaching standards across the board are not brilliant. I am utterly convinced that an intelligent and eager student could study and pass pretty much any A-level in a matter of weeks, if they had a teacher who could pass on their knowledge of the subject with clarity and without distractions.

[Vicky.]

Expanding a bit, the reason I think the child should also get a say is because if this had been around when I was at school, I would have picked the apprenticeship route. But my teachers and parents would have picked the usual crappy route...due to me getting constant As without even trying. It would be awkward to place people like me really, because I hated school a lot, was quite disruptive when I was there, skived a lot, but still never got below a C (mostly As or Bs) despite never revising or even trying tbh. I guess I was lucky, as so many of my mates struggled, but it all just seemed so easy to me, even classes I missed, when tested on them I knew the answers :S

[Jamesy]

12 is too young. Although I agree with the idea of it. The age of 15 would be a little more appropriate, as that would follow into two years of GCSEs which form the backbone of a pupils future in the world of work. It would work well with the current government too as they can get those kids who want to learn hands on skills to go on apprenticeships.

The only problem that arises really is who makes the choice of where a pupil goes. Does the pupil decide? The parent? The school? A board of some description? That's where it might get tricky and you could end up with kids that go one way when they could have gone the other and developed far more. Whoever makes the decision would have to be someone highly skilled and someone who can make a quick and 'right' judgement.

[Mokka]

Expanding a bit, the reason I think the child should also get a say is because if this had been around when I was at school, I would have picked the apprenticeship route. But my teachers and parents would have picked the usual crappy route...due to me getting constant As without even trying. It would be awkward to place people like me really, because I hated school a lot, was quite disruptive when I was there, skived a lot, but still never got below a C (mostly As or Bs) despite never revising or even trying tbh. I guess I was lucky, as so many of my mates struggled, but it all just seemed so easy to me, even classes I missed, when tested on them I knew the answers :S

Vicky you smart ass :laugh:
again... I have noticed programs for students like this cropping up in our school district. For students that find the reg. curriculum relatively easy and unstimulating... or maybe doesn't even get the best of grades but test high in intelligence and standardize testing. One program has already existed for 20 years now where the students are not given the standard info/memorization formula of learning, but are given hands on projects and experiments to take a topic of leaning and develop a deeper level of comprehension that is mostly guided by the students interest.

The point I think that is the defining issue here is that our children don't all learn in the same way or manner and putting them through the metaphorical cattle shoot and branding them all in the same manner has not been a successful model.

[Tom4784]

It's already happening, A friend of mine has a 14 year old son who only attends school a few hours a week to do Maths and English and for the rest of the week he goes to the local college to do a Mechanic's course.

I don't think it's something that's widely available but it is something that can be an option for some pupils. I do think that it should be more widely acknowledged but your proposal for it is quite flawed. 12 is far too young an age to be given such a big decision. It would make more sense if it was an option given to students who are going into Years 10 & 11 as an alternative to doing GCSE's other than Maths & English.

[Toy Soldier]

Expanding a bit, the reason I think the child should also get a say is because if this had been around when I was at school, I would have picked the apprenticeship route. But my teachers and parents would have picked the usual crappy route...due to me getting constant As without even trying. It would be awkward to place people like me really, because I hated school a lot, was quite disruptive when I was there, skived a lot, but still never got below a C (mostly As or Bs) despite never revising or even trying tbh. I guess I was lucky, as so many of my mates struggled, but it all just seemed so easy to me, even classes I missed, when tested on them I knew the answers :S

Yeah, when I was 14/15 my attendance dropped low enough to warrant a visit from an "attendance officer" at home. Luckily, when that happened, I actually had dislocated my shoulder and answered the door strapped up so he couldn't argue that I was off without valid reasons :joker:. The school wasn't really bothered, because I was still getting top grades in everything. I was just bored. And I had just discovered JRPGs on the Playstation. So, y'know... busy time. My attendance was high in my final two school years (Scotland, so that's age 17/18) but that's basically because I was at that time enjoying the social side of school. In 6th year I only had 1 - 3 hours of classes a day. And I skipped a lot of those :joker:.

Still, to go back to what I said earlier, I clearly wasn't being challenged AT ALL and I got really, really lazy. I am still relatively lazy to this day. Schools seem to be designed for the "middle" - there are huge failings at both ends of the academic scale. Some people being pushed too hard to learn things that will never be of any use to them, others ending up bored and unchallenged.

[Kizzy]

It's not a new idea it's the old grammar, secondary modern and 11+ isn't it?

I prefer the high school system, if they broke schools you started at 13 up in it would be better.

[lostalex]

the human brain is not fully developed until around the early to mid twenties.

many parents and teachers are not the brightest bulbs either i might add, so who are they to judge>?