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.

I always forget it still exists in the UK - sorry. I see it as some antiquated bollocks system which people realised was massively unfair decades ago.

Most did.... and it is!

Hassled- that's how I see it too- and I'm slap bang in the middle of it!

Geography, like physics, is another of those subjects that its pretty useful to know - you learn about things like why the weather is as it is, which impacts on things like flooding and drought which impact on our everyday lives even in this country, let alone others

Rain makes flowers and plants and crops grow. Too much rain = flooding. Too litle rain = drought. Flowers, plants and crops then die and Daddy will complain ad nauseum about not being able to use his hose pipe. Does a kid really need a two year GCSE course for that?

"What I would really like to know is what stopped Poosh's BiL doing something vocational after he left school anyway? You can do that sort of thing at 6thform college and get help to get the skills/ qualifications in subjects like English and Maths anyway"

Because he isn't self motivating. At the end of the day my BIL isn't academic. Neither is he one of those people who says to himself - I got shitty qualifications. I'm holding down a couple of dead end jobs. What can I do to change my lot in life? So I accept that even if the school threw more resources at him, his exam results would have only improved marginally.

The Big Picture point I am trying to make, probably badly, is that the education system has a one size fits all model and it is obvious that some of the thinking of posters here mirrors that of those in charge which is we know what is best for you and one day you will thank us for making you study Latin.

You are completely obsessed by Latin.

I do find this is often the case with the intellectually insecure.

It doesn't have a bloody one size fits all model, and I get tired of people who have shunned it telling me that it does!

"that's how I see it too- and I'm slap bang in the middle of it!"

Seeker - You remind me of a particular Irish pop star who is worth over £billion (had shares in facebook) who is always doing the I-am-one-of-you routine when interviewed

By your own admission, your DS goes to an acadmemic non selective state school with great vocational opportunities. You talk about how he is predicted A and A*.

You then come on threads like this and go - I'm know what you mean mate. My kids are getting screwed educationally as well.

But his friends are not doing as well, I hear you say, and its because of this HS/ GS model you have in Kent.

You are being contradictory again. Your son is doing well at the school. His friends aren't doing well at the same school. Could it be remotely possible that his friends aren't as clever as your DS and even if they were to merge the GS with yours, those friends will continue not to be as clever as your son? Is that remotely possible?

Back to people not understanding what "comprehensive" means in relation to education. I may shoot myself.

"I do find this is often the case with the intellectually insecure."

Unlike you, I feel secure enough not to feel a need to post my CV

I have just checked out the courses at the closest secondary school to where I live. As expected, they have different options for different levels of achievement, and a note that for pupils with SEN or other learning problems, a second language might not be taught to allow more time to be spent on English and or Maths. There are streams with more academic choices, and streams with more vocational options. All have the core ones.

I still am finding it difficult to understand how someone managed to get a GCSE in Latin and not English - and also wondering why, if he was struggling so much, he was not taken out of Latin to spend more time on English. Indeed, how on earth could his parents let this happen? Perhaps they too were not exactly helping with the motivation if they were that laid back about the likely outcome of their son's education? Would he actually have managed to come out with anything better on a vocational course or would he have failed that too due to lack of motivation?

I also note that you missed out the bit about maps - clearly that you accept is a useful life skill. Perhaps it might not have taken 2 years to get it - but based on the motivation you say your BiL has, perhaps it would.

"Back to people not understanding what "comprehensive" means in relation to education. I may shoot myself."

Not that I want to stop you shooting yourself but please point to where I refer to comprehensives.

And to paraphrase you, I do find this is often the case with the intellectually insecure that they assume others don't understand what words mean or that they aren't in possession of knowledge that they have.

"I also note that you missed out the bit about maps - clearly that you accept is a useful life skill."

I have a three acronym answer for you - GPS. That aside, are you telling me that I need Geography GCSE in order to read an A to Z?.

"You then come on threads like this and go - I'm know what you mean mate. My kids are getting screwed educationally as well."

I have never said anything of the sort.

My son is still in primary school. In September he will be going to a high school. He is very chemically bright and highly privileged. The school will do it's best whit him, and I will mqke sure that they do. He will do well- he will get As at GCSE, and if he doesn't it will be his own fault.

Most of the other children at the school do not have his advantages. I am sure that many of them are as bright as ds, but unless you are exceptional, being bright is just not enough.

Never posted my CV either!

And while you persist in saying that comprehensive schools provide a "one size fits all" education, I will continue to believe that you don't know what "comprehensive" means in relation to education.

a school from which the top 23% ... have been creamed off.

Therein lies part of the problem - that its too easy to see those who are capable of passing the 11+ as the 'top' and the 'cream'.

I see them as a bunch of kids who may best achieve their potential in an academic environment, which wouldn't suit everyone.

Oh come on! It's an exam which you pass or fail, I think it's - ahem - disingenous to say that both outcomes are equal. Why not, then, change it to a test in Art, or Hairdressing, or Car Mechanics - the top 25% at that thing aged 10 go to special vocational school, having passed the exam and been best at it, and the other 75% go to a 'general' school?

Haven't read the whole of this thread. Looks interesting. Can I just counter those of you arguing along the lines of 'What's the point of Geography/Maths/ Insert other subject of choice' or why not condense it into the most important facts and teach it in 3 weeks? I think this is a dangerous argument and sort of misses the point of education and learning at all. That's different from saying that the curriculum needs to take into account different needs and interests and needs to prepare kids for the modern world. Intellectual challenge is necessary for development and while I wouldn't say that it doesn't matter what form that challenge takes (because of course it does) the fact that there may not be way to apply learning in an immediate and practical way does not mean it is not valuable.

The outcomes aren't the same - but its a value judgement to say one is inevitably 'better' than the other. That was the problem in the old days - the Grammar schools worked but the alternative was seen as second best rather than different. (because there was not sufficient attempt to make them excellent at what they did do).

if you get into one by PASSING and one by FAILING, it is obvious and not a value judgment to say that the FAIL one is going to be seen as second best!

'I see them as a bunch of kids who may best achieve their potential in an academic environment, which wouldn't suit everyone.'

The notion that a privileged, academic education 'suits' some but not others is a typical way in which those who benefit from or approve of selection assuage their guilt. It fails to take into account the ways in which those who are selected are already privileged and those who aren't may be disadvantaged as well as the impact of the hurdles from attending grammar schools put in the way of disadvantaged kids.

I'd like to see these people actually tell some of the kids who didn't or don't get into grammar schools (either because they failed the exam or because their parents didn't apply on their behalf) 'Don't worry love, that school wouldn't have suited you anyway'. Perhaps they would speak less glibly then.

It would be fantastic if grimma's attitude was universal, but when you have thousands of 10 year olds asking each other whether they've passed, and parents offering massive rewards, and adults congratulating or commiserating I think you're on a hiding to nothing trying to change the mindset!

Maybe there needs to be a change in perception then?

An acceptance that different types of school suit different types of DC. Rather than an assumption that some are intrinsically better than others.

DS leaves prep school this year and his peers are going off to all different sorts of schools. Some to highly selective/academic ones. Some to posh boarding schools with a huge ability range. Some to schools that are renowned for their nurturing ethos. Some to bilingual schools. Some to international schools. One to a specialist school for DC with LDs.

There is no pecking order. No boy feels second rate. As parents we assume other parents and the school know best and will choose accordingly.

I don't have any guilt at anything which allows anyone to fulfill their potential. Trouble is the system has been eroded so that now it is too much 'unto those who have much more shall be given'.

My bias in favour of grammar schools (in the way they used to be, where most people had a pretty fair shot) stems from seeing how they could work in the past, I suppose. Grandfather a farm labourer, hired in the market a la Hardy; dad got a place at a GS and became a teacher. My bias against the comprehensive system maybe stems from seeing the cackhanded way it was introduced - my area went from 1 good school + n mediocre schools to n+1 mediocre schools. That wasn't what was supposed to happen - and I know that there are some excellent comps now - but it seemed as though the result was to create a system which neither encouraged the brightest to try for oxbridge nor enabled someone like my friend to achieve his dream of becoming a motor mechanic. Far from 'one size fits all' it was 'one size fits nobody' . I hope that's mostly historical but from what I read it may not be.

That's extremely disingenuous, word. Your scenario is not the same as the grammar school scenario. If every child gets into their school of choice then of course there's going to be less angst. But the point about grammar schools is that they will always be oversubscribed. It doesn't matter how much you say to the child who has FAILED to get into the grammar school 'That's ok dear because you're going to a school that's just as good just different' that kid has still been prepared and motivated to go to the grammar school. That kid will NOT have got into its school of choice.

And again, there's this notion that there's a whole load of parents who would actively choose the non-grammar school/vocational school for their child so that's ok because these non-intellectual types will also get what they want.

This is about middle class pushy parents who assume that their own kids will get into the grammar schools assuaging the guilt by acting as though there will also be a benefit to the kids who DON'T get into the grammar schools. It stinks.