Otta

Ha ha. wouldn't go along with that, but I still think it's one seriously overrated film!

To be fair, some of us don't get why everyone loves Bladerunner. We were another household rooting for the bear. He looks so dejected on the last page.

Well I apologise if that is what I've done. Ironic though, that that is exactly what I felt you were doing to me yesterday. I seem to be struggling to put across what I mean here. I am not saying that all subjects are equally difficult. I don't think a 15 year old girl doing hair dressing will believe deep down that what she is doing is as difficult as maths, or that it will lead to a career in politics. Equally, I'd agree that hairdressing doesn't really belong in secondary schools. How though do you decide which subjects are less worthy? Several times, you've mentioned woodwork. It could be argued that if woodwork is to be downgraded, then so should art and music.

Hahahahaha!!! Bear hunt also an old favourite in our household. Mind you, a couple we know do have a little girl who loves the book and always asks for it, but never fails to scream and cry when they get to the bear bit.

Despite the fact we hear about stabbings far too often, this murder genuinely upset me. As his mother said, he died alone, and must have been so scared. Glad to hear his family have gotten some justice, but it changes nothing. RIP indeed.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > All time favourite time-killer is to read the 1 > star reviews of cast iron classics > > It doesn't matter if you do or don't like the > classic in question - these people miss the point > (of everything!) by such a wide margin, one can > only imagine how they cobbled together the > wherewithal to use a computer My favourite 1 star review was on Lovefilm, when some woman gave "Tell no one" (a French film) 1 star because it was in French.

Just to add, that I have no doubt that there are vocational courses that need to be looked at and redesigned. I also have no doubt that some schools provably have tried to play the league tables. That is because when you put in league tables and targets, people start using performance management techniques. It's like the government and OFSTED being all shocked and scandalised following the death of baby p, because local authorities had seemed to be performing better. These local authorities never broke rules, they just interpreted the targets in a way that made them attainable. League tables and OFSTED reports tell you nothing about a school.

But what if young David is top of the class in his academic subjects, but happens to enjoy CDT, and becomes inspired by it? You seem to be making this about academic subjects for clever kids, and vocational for thick kids, and it should just be about having the choice. Having said that, there clearly will be those kids who don't excel academically, and yet work just as hard on their vocational subject as the geek who got the A* in maths, English, and all the sciences.. Why should they be told that their effort isn't worth as much, and what sort of message is that sending them in to the world with? "Work as hard as you like, you'll always be second rate".

Katie, your post is basically saying what I wanted to say, but failed to get across.

For the record, I would totally agree that everyone should have to take Maths & Enlish, and get a C to go any further in education. I admit I hadn't realised that was no longer the case.

More background Although I'll happily support this kind of plan (from Sept 2010)

I didn't miss your point, I disagreed with it. Edit: Because I shouldn't care.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > youre right Otta - the negativity is not 'meant' > in the normal sense because for some its so > ingrained and comes so naturally, almost > automatically without awareness - actually using > the word negativity was me being polite - its more > like patronising puesdo political correctness - > read back most of the above posts - What exactly are you talking about? I'm genuinely not sure what has offended you.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As a general rule, "engineering" (as I understand > the term) requires a solid foundation in the > sciences, so if you don't at least have a decent > Maths A Level, you're not going to make it. > > I know that there are vocational engineering > courses (BTEC?), but I think these would usually > be seen as a stepping stone towards a degree, and > would need to be accompanied by Maths A Level. This is exactly what I am getting at. I never said we should replace accademic subjects with vocational, of course we need accademic subjects, especially Maths, Sciences, and Languages. I certainly bloody well did not! I asked whether teaching them was going to be more useful down the line, than teaching wood / metal work. You said that they teach thought, which is all good, and everybody needs that (although as EP has already said, at GCSE Level they don't really do what you're suggesting). I have never suggested having one rather than the other, I am suggesting that we need both, and that vocational subjects need to be given equal recognition. Totally agree that the best place to learn any vocation is in the work place, but there is nothing wrong with learning the basics before you enter the work place. Finally... Thanks for that.

Spurs and Arsenal will win the same amount of silverware come the end of the season. FACT!

I don't know this for sure, but I suspect a lot of people get in to engineering off the back of the more vocational hands on stuff, rather than finding their physics classes particularly invigorating.

Fair point, but what is our economy going to gain from GCSE History / Sociology / R.E.? I'm sure that in the list of 3000 odd courses to be downgraded, there will be plenty of courses that really shouldn't be on a par with a GCSE, but I'll bet there are a fair few useful vocational courses in there too, once the final list is published.

I don't think anyone has meant to be negative Alice.

Exactly!

I meant to start this thread a couple of weeks ago, but only just getting round to it. What do people think of plans to downgrade vocational subjects in order to "protect more traditional" GCSEs? Personally I think it's disgusting, particularly in a time where less young people are expected to attend university (not really a bad thing IMO), and there are less jobs available. Surely vocational subjects are more important than ever, and we should be encouraging people to go for them, rather than making them feel somehow less worthy than another, more traditionally accademic student.

Brent knoll is still going. Linden Lodge is an example of a traditional visual impairment school, which now caters more for VI plus LD.

Soooooo, anyone going to mention last night?

Exactly right Jeremy. I personally prefer the residential streets of Sydenham, as greener, with nicer houses. But, I'd like q good pub, and I ling for a Favourite Fried Chicken, like ED has!

You will find that most children with physical disabilities are in mainstream schools. The "special" schools are usually either for autism or quite severe learning disabilities. Schools that were traditionally for visually impaired kids will now be full of kids with a visual impairment AND a learning disability. It would be quite unusual these days to find a kid who is visually impaired, but otherwise fine, in a specialist school. Deafness is a bit different because of all the communication issues involved, so there are still "Deaf schools", although not particularly local.

A good mate has just very quickly got the 350k asking price for his 2 bed with roof terrace. Also, I recently spoke to a couple I know who sold there 3 bed terraced house on Heber for 450k. So yes, ED house prices do seem to be a bit mental.