I heard the news today, oh boy..

[*Bob*]

I sat with Karen and Victoria on the swotty table.

I would have much preferred to sit with Samantha, but she couldn't spell - and was also out of my league. That said, from her current Facebook picture - I'm happy to report that this would no longer be the case.

[steveo]

Biiiitch!

[DaveR]

I remember (vaguely) that for reading there were different colour groups, and that from pretty early on different kids got different work sheets. It becomes pretty obvious anyway when some kids are still reading books with six words per page and others are starting on Treasure Island.

On the bigger issue, my instinct is the same - bright academic kids will do well anyway - but when you have to make an actual decision for your own child it becomes a little less easy. It's a bit like the rehabilitation of inner city primary schools; most parents hang back until the pioneers have got in there, made themselves governors, secured a new 'super head' etc., then gratefully follow behind. Not very noble but completely understandable.

[srisky]

I can see the disadvantages of streaming, demoralising for those in lower sets etc. However, on a practical note, how would a teacher teach a subject where the ability in a class was quite varied - how to stretch the top pupils whilst improving the lower? Engaging pupils across a range of abilities must be difficult and may end up not doing any of them any favours.

Also, the argument of pushing up the bottom even at the expense of the top will not be great for the future of this country - economy, health, research, science, not to mention that we want the next generation of teachers to be bright, motivated so the future generations can benefit - there is already a brain drain going on in the UK. Both needs to happen, I just don't have the answer to an educational utopia!

[El Pibe]

Pretty much what carnell said.

I went to a state school with limited streaming, ie in the sciences and languages, but not the arts and humanities.

It wasn't a high performing school, but by and large as alumni we run the gamut of possibilities from dead, through prison, to doing alright to doing pretty well, whatever that means.

The brighter kids from good backgrounds seem to all be ok regardless of hanging around with the oiks and certainly some of those from the estates have done really pretty well too.

I liked that my (experimental as huguenot liked to call it) school did this, it offered intangible benefits that streaming and grammar/private models simply can't offer. A different experience, growing up with a much wider range of friends.

I was probably the poster child for the theory, i was always sitting with the oiks, helping them if they found it difficult, encouraging them to want greater things than their parents had mapped out for them, and i in turn got to be cooler than my spoddy middle class background suggested, i got to hang around with nutters and girls out of my league and smoke drugs far too young....I'm not selling this am i.

I get that in this day and age as bob suggests, money makes things self-selecting, but then the school was not great in terms of results or oxbridge candidates, but it had a clear ethos about wanting to create rounded human beings rather than churn numbers through tick boxes(not that you can churn wth a tick box).

Yeah no idea what my point was any more....i'll get my coat.

[*Bob*]

El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> i got to hang around with nutters and girls out of my

> league and smoke drugs far too young....I'm not

> selling this am i.

I'm sold

[Loz]

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.

[El Pibe]

it just sounds like they didn't have the resources/ability to teach you rather than streaming was the answer.

"Sacrificing the smarter kids education can be destructive" I'm not quite sure what this means. My kids seem pretty bright, they're popular, they've good hearts. They'll do fine in life at whatever they choose to do, they don't need to fly high they just need to be happy (nad have moved out before they're 30).

If they have good memories of school here, get enough qualifications under their belt to do something vaguely interesting or that they're passionate about and manage to make a couple of friends for life then job done.

In fact given that this town is the polar opposite of flying high, i reckon just making it to cork, dublin, london madrid or somewhere that isn't new ross, is really the only ambition i harbour for them!!

[StraferJack]

"I managed to make a right nuisance of myself. "

plus ca change....

[Salsaboy]

My teachers kept telling me I was 'Special'.

[Jeremy]

Yeah, I'm not convinced by all this lump-em-in-together stuff either. By all means let everyone do history/geography/cooking/drawing/etc together, but maths, physics, chemistry... no way.

[david_carnell]

Loz - this was talking about streaming at primary school level.

I'm less opposed to an "all-in-one" model as pupils get older anyway and feel that more schools should be able to specialise including in technical/manual/horticultural work.

But the idea of streaming "early primary school" (as per the BBC article in DaveR's link) children makes me feel like we've gone very wrong somewhere.

[El Pibe]

oh it was primary, yeah defintely no streaming, that's just indoctrinating them with innate sense of inferiority/superiority. A bit sick frankly.

[Loz]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But the idea of streaming "early primary school" (as per the BBC article in DaveR's link) children

> makes me feel like we've gone very wrong somewhere.

Well yes - can't disagree with that.

[Jeremy]

No, streaming in primary school wouldn't really make sense.

[*Bob*]

If you stream early though, you're more likely to get a great return on your investment*

*past performance is no guarantee of future performance, relationship with your child can go down as well as up

[Loz]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "I managed to make a right nuisance of myself. "

>

> plus ca change....

*evil giggle*

[BrandNewGuy]

Tommy Cooper: "I had a good education ? my first school was special and the other was approved."

[srisky]

srisky Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I can see the disadvantages of streaming,

> demoralising for those in lower sets etc.

> However, on a practical note, how would a teacher

> teach a subject where the ability in a class was

> quite varied - how to stretch the top pupils

> whilst improving the lower? Engaging pupils across

> a range of abilities must be difficult and may end

> up not doing any of them any favours.

>

> Also, the argument of pushing up the bottom even

> at the expense of the top will not be great for

> the future of this country - economy, health,

> research, science, not to mention that we want the

> next generation of teachers to be bright,

> motivated so the future generations can benefit -

> there is already a brain drain going on in the UK.

> Both needs to happen, I just don't have the

> answer to an educational utopia!

I meant at secondary, not primary (insert that squiggly mouth emoticon)

[uncleglen]

When I first started teaching maths the year 7,8 and 9 classes were mixed ability. We used SMILE and SMP and every pupil had their work tailored to their ability. Also the clever kids on level 7 were quite good at helping the weaker ones out since not all the kids wanted to ask the teacher. It took quite a lot of preparation on a Friday afternoon.

Incidentally- the final test on each level and on each topic was marked by the teacher so there was no cheating. I liked it.

In order to maximise C grades the school I taught in had large (32) top classes, large (27-30) bottom classes and the borderline students on C/D were in classes of about 25.

[Otta]

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.

[civilservant]

The problem is that whatever system we adopt, there will be winners and losers. Because bright kids do best in the company of other bright kids, but if you put bright kids in a mixed-ability class, their performance suffers while that of the not-so-bright kids improves. A sort of regression to the mean effect.

The same with mixed-sex classes - girls on their own do better than boys on their own. Mix them up and boys' performance improves while girls' goes down...

So what to do? send your daughter to a girls' school and your son to a mixed school?

[El Pibe]

Turkey really is an absolute arsehole of a state isn't it (gov't wise).

Oppress minority, when they get riled, oppress them even harder, bomb their villages etc.

Eventually make fragile peace.

Get worried that resurgent minority nationalism in neighbouring states as a result of power vaccuum will cause you difficulties, so leave them to the mercy of really rather evil murderers because that benefits you on two policy fronts.

Ignore international pressure to intercede on bahalf of threatened minoritym then start bombing them yourself when they're doing well against evil murderers on another front. Cite the fact that they're taking up arms against you, or 'the israeli gambit' is it's now known.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29611582

[El Pibe]

we all know that news commentators are the most idiotic creatures on this planet, but i'm amused that Sky News saw fit to read one of these things on air.

On the non-incident of a jogger and david cameron, someone wisely pointed out "what if he'd had ebola or had attacked him in some other way"

The net total stupidity has just increased!!

[Loz]

Yes, the reading of Twitter comments on news programs is the most retrograde step in years. We know there are stupid people out there, thank you very much.