Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

some questions from the grammar school argument

56 replies

Random89 · 20/09/2016 10:35

Read lots of post around the grammar school, I really have some questions. Why don't people dare to say that every child is different, I fully support that every child is equal, but they are different and have different need for education. Why we only need to think about the need for under achieving children. How about the bright children. To think this country as a whole, don't we need to get our bright children to release all their potentials, these children are going to be our country's top scienctist, doctors, economist, politicians etc. They are going to decide our country's future.

Some may query about the entry test, then improve the entry test, there aren't a test which is 100% fair, but if you test something that is taught in every primary school, then everyone will have a fair chance. Tutoring does improving the test result a bit, but for a really bright children, they would still pass without tutoring. At least, a poor bright child will have a chance. Not like now, if the child lives in a poor city, he won't have a chance.

And for the rest school, why can't these school still be improved without a few bright children. If the headmaster and SLT can be strong, have a good discipline in the school, deliver the message that education is important, get everyone studying hard. I can't see a school change just because a few bright students left. On the contrary, the teaching resource can be directed to the more demanding low achieving students.

However, I don't agree the current plan for schools to apply for selective, there should be a structure to make sure each town to have one, but not many.

OP posts:
prettybird · 03/10/2016 12:01

My son's comprehensive is also strong on STEM subjects (as I described earlier) but the point is that this is intrinsic to the school itself and has got sweet FA to do with whether a school is comprehensive or grammar Hmm

user1474361571 · 03/10/2016 19:00

Grammars do science and tech subjects too you know!

I didn't say that they don't.

But doing design/tech subjects at GCSE has very little relation to solving the science/engineering shortage in the UK. Neither does doing triple science GCSE. Across all types of schools, we simply don't send enough people to study science and engineering at universities, to fill science/engineering graduate level jobs in our economy.

Of those who do study science and engineering at university, many bail out for better paid careers in finance. Yet another example of how our huge finance sector distorts our economy.

EllyMayClampett · 03/10/2016 19:29

But doing design/tech subjects at GCSE has very little relation to solving the science/engineering shortage in the UK. Neither does doing triple science GCSE.

Really? It seems logical that to get to a high level STEM degree, you need to take the first steps in GCSE. Not taking triple science makes a student less confident about taking science A levels, not taking science A-levels makes it unlikely a student will go on to get a STEM degree. Surely? What am I missing here?

Of those who do study science and engineering at university, many bail out for better paid careers in finance. Yet another example of how our huge finance sector distorts our economy.

I agree with this whole-heartedly.

user1474361571 · 03/10/2016 20:03

You don't need triple science to do science A levels, although I agree that triple science is nice to have. Lots of bright pupils do triple science but then don't do science A levels.

My DC"s school makes triple science compulsory for everyone. It doesn't have particularly a higher fraction of its A level students going on to STEM degrees than that of top achievers from local state schools (which mostly do double at GCSE).

So more triple science is not that relevant to the shortage of STEM graduates.

Badbadbunny · 03/10/2016 20:40

But doing design/tech subjects at GCSE has very little relation to solving the science/engineering shortage in the UK

How can it not? You're not going to do A levels in science/design/tech if you don't have GCSEs in those subjects and aren't going to do design/tech/science at uni without relevant A levels. And you're not going to have a science/design/tech career at a high level without a degree. It all follows through.

I've just looked at the Uni destinations for last year's sixth formers at my son's grammar school - very roughly 1/3 doing science/tech, 1/3 doing medical and 1/3 doing academic/business courses. That tends to show that enthusing the pupils at earlier ages gives them an interest to take up sciences/tech as a career.

user1474361571 · 04/10/2016 07:42

But everyone does science. And everyone who is university track does at least double science, which suffices for science A levels and then degrees. Design and technology GCSEs are often not prerequisites for later courses in technology. The schools which have the strongest numbers going into STEM degrees frequently don't have that many do design/technology GCSEs (as these are not core "academic" subjects.)

You can't quote one school's results and imply that this has any significance with respect to national figures. But if one school is actually sending 1/3 of its pupils to medicine (which I really doubt) then this is completely distorted. We would never need as many as 1/3 of our academic students studying medical sciences. And break down your "science/tech" and I would bet that you have very few physicists, aeronautical engineers etc and instead lots of biology.

BTW science/tech is academic so not sure what your third category means.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page