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.

Oh and I have no idea where the 'so as such so' nonsense came from in my last post, and can only assume it is bad predictive touch screen!

I really don't know.

Common sense tells me that the comprhensive system is inefficient. No one seems to get a good deal. In other areas of life where we want excellence we target carefully.

And yet, I'm not fond of the grammar system either as it seems very rigid. Decisions taken very early.

Given that I think that Latin is useless, it would seem logical that pizza delivery persons might well have Latin GCSE - they should have spent their time at school acquiring useful skills instead.

The guys people who deliver my shopping mostly speak English (in France) - when they hear me speaking English to DD they all seize the opportunity to practice with a native!

But Wordfactory comps don't offer absolutely everything. What usually happens is that schools have a link/arrangement with the local FHE to deliver specialist courses. For example, quite a number of pupils study child development and health & social care, which is done at local FHE. Also more specialist stuff like animal care etc.

OP, the menu has italian names for pizzas

grunge that makes sense to do that.

But I suppose what I'm also questioning is whether all ability teaching is the best way to target resources.

For example, school A is a comprehensive. Its English department is given £1000 for year seven. It will need to stretch those resources across so amny ability levels from thse with very basic levels of literacy, to those reading Keats. It is so diluted!

But if school B has only DC of a certain ability it can spend its entire budget more appropriately.

I just can't see any other successful models in life where we don't target for excellence (where resources are finite).

I see what you're getting at Wordfactory. Though if you take English as an example - if both schools have the same number of pupils, let's say school A has 5 sets of varying ability and school B has 5 sets of similar ability, the teaching requirement is the same and I guess that's the expensive part. Though I guess school A could need a TA for lower set and differentiated resources so yes, there could indeed be additional resource implications.

But then ... if you had, say differentiated schools, then teh equivalent of bottom set schools still wouldn't be any cheaper would they - because they would need the additional TA support?

However, I am making this up as i go along so someonw with experience of school finance may clear that one up

I was made to sit through subjects all through school that bored me rigid and so of course I did not do well in them.

Geography - knowing about the migration of caribou and the formation of ox bow lakes has been really helpful in my later life

Physics and Chemistry - Unless you are going to do further/higer ed in these subjects they are pointless.

Modern languages - Again, unless you are hoping for a career where a 2nd or even 3rd language is neccessary its pointless...I was made to do both french and german (whereas I would have loved to learn italian) I cant remember any of it. Face it...the future is chinese/mandarin!

Apart from English and maths, science, art and history, all other subjects should be by choice. Some kids excel at drama very early for example. Other kids would benefit from more vocational subjects such as PE, metalwork, woodwork etc

Too many subjects also detracts from kids learning the basics of english and maths IMHO.

But it doesn't need to cost more money to have English sets! Which is what they mainly do anyway.

And I do think that excellence is targeted, in appropriate areas, for those who want it, actually.

No but the resource for each set will presumably be different. Each resource will only be used by a few people so you need lots of them for differentation. And that will be extrapolated across every comprehensive in the district.

Whereas if everyone was of a similar ability they could share the resources because they would be adequatley targeted. The same amount of money would stretch a lot further and be far more focussed.

Physics and Chemistry - Unless you are going to do further/higer ed in these subjects they are pointless.

Sure, if you don't have any interest at all in how the world works. I suppose some people don't.

But it doesn't need to cost more money to have English sets! Which is what they mainly do anyway.

Surely it does cost more though - if you've got sets at all levels, you have to have different resources for those levels don't you? Also, there's the question of staff. A teacher who is brilliant at inspiring one type of child may be absolutely rubbish with others (I went to a grammar school turning comp.... a lot of the excellent GS teachers were out of their depths with the new intake. )

I dont think the resources are going to be that different except at the very lower end where there may be an additional staff cost, though. (Having said that, all I imagine to be 'resources' are textbooks adn whiteboards. I stand to be corrected on this). My dc's school have something like 6 or 7 sets, no great differnece in resources but there is in pace of teaching.

You'd need additional resources for needs such as dyslexia I guess, but that type of need isn't related to academic ability.

Well, if you need a book for each child, and sets one to three, say, are doing the same book, while sets four to six do another, I don't really see how that's more expensive than if they all do the same book? Or you could just teach the same book to different levels of complexity and with differently pitched expectations, which I think is probably already the case.

Teachers who are going to be brilliant at teaching very clever, very motivated A level students are unlikely to be brilliant at teaching very slow and unmotivated Y7s.

grimma that's kinda what I'm getting at.

Perhaps English isn't a good example, but it's what I know most about .

But a year seven mixed ability year spending £1000 will need sets of Keats for the top set. Sets of basic phonics for the sets where pupils really struggle. And absolutely all sorts in between.

Not much to spend on each ability level. And teachers who excel in all abilities.

If you had all high ability you could spend your £1000 on the Keats set texts. Maybe some other related books. A trip to a recital. CDs of Keats being read.

If you had all low ability you could soend all your money on things that could really help. Forget Keats, you could get really tiny groups with teachers who specialised in LDs. You could really target each pupil.

When you try to do it all, it either dilutes the pot of resources or it costs a mahoosive amount.

But how is it cheaper to have two different buildings to differentiate in? Or to tell the less bright year sevens that they're doing car maintenance instead of English? That will cost money too!

Trips to recitals are paid for by parents Wordfactory

I don't think you have different types of teachers for different levels. Though you have good teachers who are good at all levels and crap teachers who are crap at all levels

I thought just the base subjects were compulsory at GCSE, not things like Latin. So maths for example, which is helpful for lots of other subjects - it's difficult to understand statistics for example if you can't read a table.

It's actually the vocational courses like animal care, engineering etc which ARE more expensive and that's why very few schools can offer them and why they're delivered by FHE's who have the workshops, equipment etc

Of course it's more economical to specialise - that is the very basis of productivity. And of course you are going to have teachers who are better being patient and tolerant with slow coaches, and others who have brilliant minds that are going to inspire the most motivated.

"slow coaches"

What I think should happen is, everyone goes to the same school at eleven, and gets a go at English and maths and languages and art and music and product design and cookery. And the. At fourteen if you want to do something vocational you can, but you don't need to leave your friends to do it, and tense school would still try very hard to make sure you also left with a grasp of maths and science and English. And if you want just to do academic subjects because art and product design left you cold, you can do that too.

Fortunately for me that is what happens, so I'm cool with it.

Tense school, wtf? THE school!

grunge I am sure there are some teachers who are fabulous teaching at all levels.
But most are human and as such have strengths and weaknesses. Preferences too.

One teacher could be phenominal at inspiring low achieving boys who would rather do anything than read. But that person might be dire at discussing Keats with a bunch of bossy A level students.

That doesnt make them a bad teacher. Far from it. Put them in the right environment. Give them freedom. They could be just what the DC need.