Does it matter whether the pizza guy has GCSE Latin?

[PooshTun]

By the time your DC gets to 14 it should be obvious whether he is academic or not. If he isn't then why should he be expected to sit through 2 years of Latin, German, English literature etc only to get a D or E?

Wouldn't you rather he spent the next two years doing something that will help him get a job? And if the kid is struggling with English then shouldn't this be the school's focus as opposed to getting the kid to study German or French?

The education authorities (and some MNetters) seem to be of the opinion that ALL school leavers should leave school with a well rounded education. That is a great thought if you have a kid who can't decide whether to study geography or Latin or Egyptology at university.

But with some kids they are not academic and they won't be going to Uni. They would benefit greatly from a two year course that would prepare them for the work place as opposed to studying subjects which somebody somewhere has decided that is necessary in order for a person to be a 'well rounded' person. Some people's main concern is first get a job THEN work towards to being what someone else regards as being a well rounded person.

grimma you are right - in dd's school they do indeed get moved down as well as up, and it is not, as you can imagine, anyone's favourite experience. That said, they are set rather than streamed, so at least it's not an across-the-board move when and if it happens.

But inevitably, yes, with children being as they are, there is sometimes resentment/competitiveness/bitterness/arrogance related to sets. It's not good, I suppose, but still to my mind preferable to the alternatives.

Dd spent all last year in set 2 for humanities, and she was gutted and we were surprised - but everyone got over it. Funnily enough they are now not set for humanities anyway because of options, and that too has its pluses and minuses!

Setting WITHIN a school is hardly comparable to an exam which separates children from each other in socially divisive ways and classifies the majority who sit is as failures.

Presumably its impossible to timetable if everything is set. I can imagine the minuses of unset humanities, what are the pluses?

To be perfectly honest, I think you'd have to ask the children in the class, and their teacher about that Grimma - I only have one person's perspective, and that is that sometimes some people are annoying, but then again she's doing fine.

And yes, I think once you get past options it does become more difficult to set for the subjects not everyone is taking - Maths, English and Science definitely still set though.

So in response to the OP, rather than the ensuing very entertaining bunfight - why the bloody hell shouldn't the "pizza guy" learn Latin if he wants to - and not from a library, either, but from teachers who are interested in what they are teaching.

The point of education is should be education, not exam results. The issue with less academic children and subject selection is the expectation that they have to do well (or even pass) things if they pick them - which spoils what could otherwise be very interesting subjects - including Latin.

Since when does "well rounded" mean "has a good selection of GCSE results" anyway ?. I can tell a well rounded teenager when I meet them without inspecting their exam certificates - they can talk to people, have interests of their own, and are interested in the world around them.

This is interesting, 'Finally, I myself growing up in the London Borough of Havering and transferring to secondary
school in 1973 took the 11+, but it was then scrapped after the May elections that year and all schools in the borough were comprehensivised. The 11+ results were never published. I went therefore to my local comprehensive, was placed in a bottom stream, made my way over a couple of years to the top stream, got 3 As at A Level, went to Cambridge and got a First, and
then went back to Havering town hall in the mid 80s to see if I could find out if I had passed of failed the 11+. I had of course failed, and the school must have known this to place me in the bottom stream on arrival. But I am grateful that I didn?t know this as a child as it would have without doubt damaged how I thought of myself and probably stopped me from achieving
academically what I did.'

If you read the whole report I don't think there can be many people who would argue that grammar schools are a good thing www.comprehensivefuture.org.uk/PDF/ParlSeminar9May%209.pdf

Its not exactly an unbiased report. Certainly the way selective schools have developed in some areas is bad. Coaching and cramming - I'd outlaw it if that was possible (can you imagine, there'd be a black market in old Bond Books), a couple of familiarisation papers at school and that'd be it.

I'm fortunate to live in one of the less pressured areas hence no doubt my ability to retain my rosier view.

stealth - You've obviously misunderstood my post. My BIL didn't want to do Latin so I am not saying schools should stop kids who want to do it from choosing it.

It's like being on a plane and they've run out of your preferred bacon breakfast and you are left with muesli or yogurt. You either go hungry or you choose one.

Why can't the plane stock more bacon sarnies and less healthy stuff? Why? Because airlines think we all want a healthy breakfast.

Same with education. Somebody somewhere thinks they know better and that we will thank them later for allow us insights into poetry, Chaucer and how can I miss out Latin.

Nobody is saying that Latin or Chaucer should be compulsory. What I am saying is that it should be available- no child should be cut off from access to such things at 10. And saying "well, there's always the library" strikes me as depressing beyond belief. Basically you're saying the children of the rich should have access to the finer things of life and the children of the poor should be taught how to perform menial tasks. And they can always read Keats in the evening if they are that interested.

I think it is my primary duty as a parent to manipulate the world to my children's advantage and do so as often as I possibly can manage!

I agree -I do it. But the words are 'to my child's advantage' and it is not to the child's advantage to be out of their depth trying to keep up with very academic DCs when they are not academic. If a child has to have remedial English when they start they are in the wrong place! (and taking it from someone who wouldn't have needed it).

Access to intellectual-type education shouldn't be about rich and poor, period.

Unfortunately, the demise of widespread GS availability hasn't necessarily helped. My area doesn't have 'selective schools'. No 11+ here , no selection by ability, no cramming. Whew. But guess what, people move house to get their kids into our catchment comp, or they do a lot of pew-warming. So who gets left with the 'Sports College', do you suppose?

Basically you're saying the children of the rich should have access to the finer things of life and the children of the poor should be taught how to perform menial tasks. And they can always read Keats in the evening if they are that interested.

Of course this is the way it always was! My great grandfather was a very intelligent man, but a farm labourer who had to read classics in the evenings. You would have hoped that things had moved on in 21st century -but sadly not with attitudes like that.

Exotic - absolutely. Similar thing must apply to quite a lot of kids who get sent to independent schools - presumably there must be some that aren't like this, but the only ones I know of do GSCEs or er - nope, that's all they do.

the demise of widespread GS availability hasn't necessarily helped.

It wouldn't now-the MC pay for places either with private education or tutors.

Just to sum up, some/most posters are not against state primary schools prepping their kids for 11+ but they are against prep schools prepping their kids for 11+.

But what about the bright kid at the sink secondary? Your average ability prepped state kid will have an advantage over the bright kid at the sink school.

Apparently a kid from a well off family beating yours to a GS place is unfair but your well prepped kid beating the other kid because of your post code is ok.

Just to sum up, some/most posters are not against state primary schools prepping their kids for 11+ but they are against prep schools prepping their kids for 11+.

What the hell thread have you been reading? Or is that another one of your funny jokes?

I am against any schools, parents or tutors 'prepping' the DCs. On the day they could go in and the person administering the tests gives them a sheet and goes over together saying 'this is the type of question' -and then they get the real paper in exam conditions. If they are intelligent enough for a highly selective school they will manage.

It's kind of ironic that posters with a presumably 'well-rounded' education turn up and fail to comprehend what I am posting.

I am NOT saying people in menial jobs should not be allowed to study Latin or the Classics or the Arts.

I am saying that kids that aren't academic should not have their GCSE choices RESTRICTED to Latin or Classics or the Arts.

Yes, there ate vocational options but not everyone wants to work in a hairdressers, making tea, washing hair and sweeping away hair.

and I think that the Olympic gold medal should go to the best natural athlete instead of the one with coaches, nutritionists and a winter training base but hey ho.

Sure I'm in favour of state school prepping kids for 11+ - if all of them did it, just a couple of papers so they knew the format. I hadn't thought of exotic's 'prep on the day' but that could be a good alternative.

So in my ideal world there'd be no totally unprepared kids and no crammed, overtutored little blighters.

kids that aren't academic should not have their GCSE choices RESTRICTED to Latin or Classics or the Arts.

Then you must be very happy that this is not the case and never has been!

I've been trying not to say so in as many words for a while, but you do seem to be a little hard of understanding.

I am saying that kids that aren't academic should not have their GCSE choices RESTRICTED to Latin or Classics or the Arts.

Or more realistically, into a set of EBacc-approved subjects. I thought everyone pretty much agreed that where this happens, its a bad thing?

@ PooshTun's parallel universe of thread comprehension too

I'm really left wondering what sort of school his BIL went to ...

Then you must be very happy that this is not the case and never has been!

it probably is in some private schools I suppose.

Actually, I'm really beginning to wonder what sort of school PooshTun's BIL went too. Like Grimma I assumed it was private, but even then they offer more than the Classics or Arts. i just checked out Habs Boys (which I see mentioned on Mnet and I vaguely know someone whose son goes there) and they have D&T options including Resistant Materials which I suspect some on MNet would refer to as 'woodwork & metalwork for the lower orders'

I then looked at Eton College - hey why not - and even they have something called IGCSE D&T

No sign of any non-GCSEs admittedly, but not exactly an overly restrictive curriculum