Why is 6th form thought of more highly than attending FE college ?

[Summersunshinee]

I can never understand why if you say that you attend 6th form at school you are thought of more so than if you attended FE college.

I would feel that if anything it would be more impressive to attend FE college as you made the decision to go somewhere else and try something different /

Yes. In our area at least there are more schools who insist or at least strongly encourage every pupil that they think is capable of achieving the EBacc qualifying subjects to do them - especially the higher performing schools. It's more or less mandatory at my children's school, unless you're in the bottom set for languages, and the timetabling very much reflects that.

There's a big difference between strongly encouraging and insisting. More or less mandatory isn't mandatory. And the students who would most struggle with a language at GCSE presumably are largely in the bottom set.

@Fairislefandango apologies - I thought having to do either History, Geography or RS was something most schools insisted on. Actually quite pleased to hear they don't.
My year group didn't have to do a foreign language but the way our 'options blocks' were set up languages came under an "and everything else" column and due to the subjects I chose I was left with the choice of French or PE. Having no desire to do GCSE PE I picked French. I was pretty crap at it though and to be honest it was a waste of my time.

No worries. Ebacc is a load of bollocks imo, but as long as schools get judged on things like that they will have to continue to push it, even if they privately don't really agree with it.

I'm no timetabler, but timetabling can be very difficult, and you can never please everybody. If the numbers and staffing don't add up, there is sometimes nothing that can be done about it. Especially now that teacher shortages are so horrendous. Heads of Department are often gutted and furious when their subjects get blocked badly against other subjects by the timetabler.

My son didn’t do a language or a humanity. He chose computer science instead. His other options were food tech & music.

@Needmorelego when I was in secondary if we were considered to be "academic" at our school we had to do double science, a language, history or geography, a technology subject and a subject of our choice. The non academic students got to pick 3 choices and didn't have to do double science or history/ geography. The school seemed to have weird ideas of who was academic as well. I was well behaved, always at least tried with my homework but was undiagnosed dyslexic so was out in the academic group. Ended up only passing 3 gcse's. When I finally got help for my dyslexia I did brilliantly and got a 2:1 in my degree.

Nowadays it's very different and my dc had the choice of 3 options although 1 had to be a core subject (triple science, history, geography, computer science, French or Spanish) double science was compulsory but technology and a language were both optional. Neither of my dc have opted for a language.

I don't think students should be forced to do a humanity or a language at GCSE. The OP does think students shoupd be forced to do a vocational subject.

Exactly this. Yes, young people are forced into doing academic subjects they don't want through lack of choice, timetabling and poor funding. That is wrong. Forcing young people to do vocational subjects they do not want as some sort of 'revenge' for that is also wrong. Wrong + wrong =|= right. If we're going to be mathsy about it.

@pointythings

What would be so bad in forcing an academic student to do a vocational subject ?

Even if they fail i can help them in outer areas they may not even realise at the time.

@Summersunshinee the thing is once it's the GCSE years all students will have been doing a mix of academic and vocational learning for a decade already (Reception - Year 9) so really should have an idea of which subjects or learning styles they prefer and can make the choices best for them.
Obviously they have to do compulsory subjects (Maths, English, Science) but nobody should be 'forced' to study for a subject they have zero interest in. It's a waste of their time and the teachers time.

@Needmorelego If anything I think it would be a good thing. As it would reduce the gap between the students at the top and those at the the bottom results wise and push things closer together.

I thought school was for squares and losers and wanted to be out in the real world (also I was bullied at school.)

My school didn't feel like it cared about anything except people's academic numbers either, it was cold.

Your anti academic chip still firmly in place, I see. Let me put this really simply for you: when choosing options, nobody should have to do a subject they don't want to do, beyond maths, English and basic science. There should be a choice to do functional maths, combined English and functional science. Currently we do not have this system.

So we work towards changing that. We do not punish academic students by forcing them into subjects they do not want. We do not narrow the gap by dragging people down, that's the politics of envy. We do it by adjusting the curriculum and boosting people up.

Your idea stems from envy and hate towards those who are academic. It's very sad to see.

Someone can be academic and still choose to go to college.

when choosing options, nobody should have to do a subject they don't want to do, beyond maths, English and basic science.

My mum didn't 'let' me have one of my GCSEs as Home Economics because she said (probably rightly) that it'd count against me when it came to applying to unis, if I had that one rather than another academic subject.

Instead, I ended up dropping three GCSEs. Because I'm a perfectionist and wasn't good at those ones. I also find I need to concentrate on just one or two subjects rather than numerous ones.

You're absolutely right, someone can be academic and choose to go to college. However, OP seems to think that academic young people should be forced to take a vocational subject so that they can 1) experience failure and 2) have lower grades because that will narrow the attainment gap.

It's a very negative and resentful view of the world. You close the attainment gap by respecting vocational courses as much as academic ones and by enabling everyone to follow their talents and have excellent teaching, not by taking petty revenge.

I don't know when you did your GCSEs but I wonder whether you'd have been more settled and comfortable if you'd been allowed to do Home Economics (that's Food Tech these days and it's a really good course). Perfectionism can be so damaging.

It's interesting that for you, narrowing the number of subjects would have been better. So many people complain that going down to 3 A levels narrows things down too far and too early. I'm on the fence - I went through the Dutch system and did 8 A levels (failed one completely but the system allows you to scrap one if you take 8 rather than 7). I wouldn't have wanted to give up any of my subjects except the maths which I failed.

@Needmorelego If anything I think it would be a good thing. As it would reduce the gap between the students at the top and those at the the bottom results wise and push things closer together.

Wtf?! Lowest common denominator eh? You want our future brain surgeons, top scientists, human rights lawyers etc to have been pushed down towards a lower level of achievement just to make less academic students feel better? That is actually insane.

As a teacher I want all my students to achieve their full potential, whatever their ability. The best they can personally do. The idea of deliberately curtailing able students' opportunities is the exact opposite of what we should be doing. If a teacher tried this, they should be sacked. I can scarcely believe that anyone would seriously suggest such a thing. It is clearly inspired by bitterness, jealousy and the mean-spirited desire to cut people down to size.

@Fairislefandango I haven`t said about pushing things downwards.

I see it more of a process of pushing everyone into the centre.

So that means pushing the high attainers downwards, it is just semantics @Summersunshinee .

You are really coming across in a very provocative way as if you are trying to push buttons without any real rigour of thought and I for one don't think you have a real agenda other than to annoy people - something which you are clearly achieving.

@PettsWoodParadise So you think it`s acceptable for some people to struggle academically.

You probably wish the 11 plus was still nationwide, agree with selective grammar schools and gifted & talented programmes.

I see it more of a process of pushing everyone into the centre.

You want academic high fliers to do less well than their potential. Maybe you should read this and realise how dystopian your great vision is.

You really need to stop putting words in people's mouths. @PettsWoodParadise has said nothing of the sort.

Like everyone else on this thread (except you), she would like every young person to have access to the kind of education that will bring out the best in them. We all acknowledge that the UK system doesn't offer that. Where we differ is that you think the solution is stopping academic young people from shining, whereas we think the solution is improving the provision of and respect for vocational education.

I never said that said. If you had bothered to read my posts I favour variety to suit all our amazing young people.

As @pointythings said stopputting words into people’s posts. You are starting to make yourself look ridiculous.

As @pointythings said stopputting words into people’s posts. You are starting to make yourself look ridiculous.

I think OP did that long ago.

@Fairislefandango Wouldn't future human rights lawyers want a fairer and equal society ?

Fair access and equal access to opportunity and education do not mean all doing the same thing.

your arguments @Summersunshinee are no longer worth responding to as you are coming across as just baiting posters. Goodbye

How is stopping someone reaching their full potential because they are more capable a fairer or even equal society.

@Fairislefandango Wouldn't future human rights lawyers want a fairer and equal society?

Denying people their potential is not fairness. Tbh OP, I'm not sure at this point if you're goady, spectacularly dim, or possibly both.