Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Otta Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > david_carnell Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > In my mind, anything that boosts that group > > > upwards (even if at the expense of those at > the > > > "top") can only be a good thing in the > long-run. > > > > > > Couldn't agree more with this. > > I don't. Primary is fine - chuck 'em all in > together, but secondary is where you need to match > the education to the kid as much as possible. > > Having been at a small secondary school where I > was, frankly, bored s***less with the level being > taught at maths & sciences, I managed to make a > right nuisance of myself. Teachers tried to set me > a separate syllabus, but you can;t do that for one > person in a class of 30. I was then moved (on the > advice of the headmaster) to a much bigger school > which streamed. Suddenly I was challenged, > struggled for a while, but got the hang of > actually doing some work and learning. > > Sacrificing the smarter kids education can be > destructive. Better to stream and apply resources > where they are needed. When I agreed with DC's earlier post, I thought (and still do having reread the full post) that he was talking more generally than just saying "chuck them all in together". Of course bright kids shouldn't be held back, that would just be stupid. But I don't think he was saying that.