Academically Selective Education(984 Posts)
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Brilliant idea. I'm sure the government will be keen to fund this 3 years of kindergarten scheme.
My complaint was that Years R and 1 weren't academic enough but the other parents thought it was just right. Now some parents are saying even that is too much formal learning. Are your children that fragile?
My eye rolling primary school moms regarded me as pushy because I started my DS on the violin at aged 5. It's kind of nice knowing that there are moms out there rolling their eyes at these 'pushy' moms for wanting their DCs to be taught how to read, write and do basic adding at 5.
Loads of learning going on- just not in a formal setting.
Anyone listening to you would think that all under 7s would be visiting museums and such stuff if only the government didn't insist on formal teaching starting with Reception.
APMF - but you ARE a pushy mum - all your posts decry that.
And yes - here under sevens go to museums and stuff and don't do formal learning,
??? @ panto - I wasn't aware that I was trying to convince anyone that I wasn't a pushy parent.
panto - You obviously live in a bubble.
I don't think she lives in a bubble- I think she lives in Belguim. Almost, but not quite the same thing............
Yes I live in Belgium. My dd goes to state school, like pretty much all Belgians.
Well, your museums must get pretty full with all those under sevens.
"I think we should scrap it an go for the system in Finland.
No formal school until age 7. But from early on until age 7 children are learning social skills and how to interact with others."
It really isn't possible to emulate Finland in the early years. Countries with languages that are easy to read and write (Finnish, Italian, Spanish) don't need to do nearly as much literacy groundwork with children as countries with languages that are difficult to read and write (English, French).
Also, according to many friends and acquaintances, many children get rather bored in countries where there is no proper schooling until 7.
Lichtenstein has a lower crime rate than the UK but it doesn't prove that their legal system is superior.
Similarly yes, Finland does well educationally but it's not necessarily because of its education system.
I would only think comprehensives were suitable for the brightest kids where strict setting/streaming took place. I would not want my dd to spend another 7 years finishing her work half way through every class and being expected to act as an unpaid teacher to most of the rest of her class. Bright pupils deserve to have work set at an appropriate level of challenge.
Meanwhile I remain unconvinced that slightly above average ability pupils benefit most by never ever being able to reach the top sets as they are full of grammar-school type kids as would happen in a pure comp-only environment - does this not knock their confidence repeatedly in a way that wouldn't happen if there was a grammar school to educate these kids elsewhere? I can see that kids who are v good at one or two things but bad at others might do well under a comp system - but do not see this system as optimal for for either average or good all-rounders.
Sorry, but I don't see how removing the top sets to an entirely different school, so that no-one else can ever hope to join them, is better for morale in any way, breadandbutterfly. They are not out of sight, out of mind, as you really ought to have noticed by the amount of text the mention of grammar schools has always generated - even when they existed in large numbers throughout the country.
And I know I bang on about this, but you really have to think about the impact on the community.
Totally agree with ONeHandFlapping's post above:
"It's just not true. I know plenty of examples of bright middle class children who have NOT achieved their full potential at comprehensive schools.
A child who comes out of school with eg 2 Bcs and a C at A level has not done well if they were capable of 3 As. Bright kids have as much right to an education that fulfils their intellectual potential as less academic kids. "
Certainly, in my experience, very bright kids are NOT served well enough at comps. This is partly my beef, as the parent of bright dcs. BUT also, from my experience, comps often fail the non-academic kids too - I know, because I teach numerous examples who were failed by their comps and end up at the 6th form college I teach at as complete acaemic failures, with zero confidence. This has nothing to do wioth the existence of grammars - i don't live in a grammar area. It is down to the comprehensive model basically failing lots of people, both those at the top AND the bottom. I think those who hate grammars with a passion and think comps are the 'solution' are either lucky enough to live in the catchment for exceptionally naice middle-class comps, or don't have kids at either end of the acaemic spectrum.
I know my dh was absolutely failed by his comp. I teach loads of kids failed by theirs. You can't blame that on grammars. This is an intrinsic failure of the comprehensive model.
I don't think comprehensives are the ultimate solution- I just think that they are the least worst option we've got. It would be fantastic if someone could think of something better.
Folk who point to Finland as an example are forgetting it is a much smaller, much more homogenous population, less class divide, wealth divide, less private sector, a much more even public sector education system etc. you should look at the original program Seven Up on You Tube, waht was depressing was how the seven year olds there were already formed as precursors of what they would be like as adults ...some (the prep school ones) being very articulate at seven others much less so, based largely on class/monied background...teh program may be a legacy of a different age but leaving school in the UK to the age of seven would really disavantage in my view, those children who had very little parental input to their education at home ...they would be even further behind their middle class peers who would already know how to read and write from their parents at that age
I agree with bread in that a good comprehensive works best for the Middlers but it seriously short changes the very clever children, and the really struggling children.
It creates a sort of Satisfactory Beige level of education. And people dismiss the needs of the really clever children with an airy 'Oh, well they'll do fine anyway, regardless'
So, the really clever children tend to be allowed to coast a bit. The top set in a comprehensive isn't comparable to the top set in a grammar school - it's going to contain more mixed ability (some exceptional pupils, but also quite a few just very good pupils). The grammar school top set will only contain the exceptional pupils - so the lesson moves faster.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.