[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.

[user104658]

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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by 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 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

I think this is a great idea

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

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by 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.

This is weird (don't want to mention synchronicity ) 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 shit between us is over and I apologise for saying it - I didn't really mean it anyway T.S.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

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.

No one puts it quite like you LT.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by rubymoo

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

I think this is a great idea

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

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.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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.

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

This is weird (don't want to mention synchronicity ) 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 .

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.

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

ps. please go back to your original avatar, I think that shit 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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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 .

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[T*]

is there a tl;dr anywhere