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.

You don't actually have to be massively academic to get the EBacc.

No, which is why we will see higher scores because schools who are too preoccupied with the league tables may tend to push all children capable of scraping Cs in those subjects to do them. But they may not be the best choices for some of those pupils.

I have a personal bugbear about the dropping of Latin as I think its such an important subject for understanding the English language.

My DH has a personal bugbear against Latin, having been forced to do it and drop Biology !

Exactly. Are we educating for education or educating for employment. If the latter a lot should be done differently even for the more academic subjects.

The two things aren't mutually exclusive though. 'Education for education' is going to work best if the subject is one that the pupil is interested in, rather than merely one which Mr Gove has blessed as being good.

LOL @ Merrylegs

I also join in the chant:

I have teenagers
This is what they already do at schools
If they are not academically able they dont do French/Latin/Physics, they do foundation Eng/Maths and a range other more vocational stuff.

This is the beauty of comprehensive ed, it doesn't divide into academic and vocational but caters for the large areas of grey in between

By the time your DC gets to 14 it should be obvious whether he is academic or not.

No, don't agree, not ime. fwiw. I was a chronic under-achiever age 8-13. My dad was improving but not top notch.
We both ended up being top students (literally top student in our depts) later at University. So I submit 14 is still too young to typecast.

*Oh, and Dad became a lawyer, so all that Latin was jolly useful after all!

so i disagree, I think to much is made of the conflict between educating a workforce and educating for educations sake. Even if I am wrong why should it be the clever ones who get the help and support stretching their minds and firming up their ideas. A clever motivated twenty something will probably read, go to the theatre etc without prompting.

I think there should be more vocational options , I also think people should stop seeing them as second rate qualifications

Yes to seeing vocations as equal to academic - yes, yes, yes! Where on earth would we be if everyone chose academia?!

I work at a high school. Lower ability children don't have to take a language- they focus on their literacy instead. Once children are in year 10 the students which struggle most are allowed to join small groups which focus on life skills, maths, English, science. Some can start a college course in (for example) health and social care or sports science with the local college at a gcse equivalent which can then lead to full a level equivalent.

I don't get why languages (other than latin) are being classed as 'academic' - they are a very useful and very practical skills. When I lived abroad I met a lot of expats in non-academic professions (butcher, builder, plumber etc.) and of course they needed to speak the local language.

They won't be treated as equivalent qualifications though, which is what needs to happen.

Excellent idea.

Oh. Its already happening.

Oh. Child 1. Doing 12 GCSEs in a wide range of subjects

Child 2. Doing different combined pathway. Less GCSEs plus other stuff. Differentiated.

While we're head-banging can we also make the point that the (lack of) qualifications you do (don't do) at 16 should NOT determine your path for the rest of your life. GCSEs can be taken later in life, as can degrees. Hell you don't need any qualifications to do a degree once you're 21.

Turning 14 yo pupils off education though by say (somewhat patronisingly) 'Oh we don't want to label you as non-academic so you have to do these 8 GCSEs and will probably fail because you are 14 and totally unmotivated by aademic study' COULD put them off for life so they would not be likely to decide to become a PE teacher (occupation picked at random please note) when they were 30.

Yes, it happens - but Gove seems to be undermining it.

I don't get why languages (other than latin) are being classed as 'academic' - they are a very useful and very practical skills

It does rather suggest that we don't teach languages effectively. Something that nearly every child does without thinking about it becomes a different matter when its 'Mum, what is the Imperfect Tense?'.

So, maybe there should be 'vocational' language courses (which all kids would do) aimed at spoken and basic written communication - useful for all sorts of occupations and then there could be 'academic' extra courses which formalised grammar and went on to literature?

I think OP, that this thread has come from another discussion about the focussing of resources no?

That it would be better to focus resources more efficiently than simply offering evryhting to everyone as per the current comprehensive system.

Actually, wordfaxtory, it came from a thread where the OP was saying there was no need to educate the underclass, and saw no benefit to society of having universally educated citizens.

the underclass, seriously?

It might have ended up that way seeker but it certainly didn't start that way.

Obviously both 'Latin' and 'the pizza guy' are reductive metonyms. However, I would have been in the Latin stream if such a thing existed, as so as such although my degree and profession are Eng lit, would have been taught 'academic' subjects like physics and history and mathematics even though they weren't my thing presumably on the assumption that they were 'good for me'. But really they've been of no more use than a course in hairdressing would have been: just good things to have had experience of and exposure to. This goes for everyone.

But, as should now be apparent, children of a less academic bent already get the option of vocational and technical subjects, it just doesn't mean they shouldn't also have a crack at reading some good books, or becoming competent in a language or two. Which they also get to do.

theoriginal I don't think anyone would argue that all different types of courses should be available for differnet students.

There is a discussion though, as to how best to deliver the right courses to the right students.

There are finite resources. Rolling out everyhting to everyone just dilutes the resources. Everyone gets a bit of everyhting, rahter than a concentrated amount of what actually suits them.

So what would you like to see happen?