Did I rea dthat the NUT is campaigning AGAINST 14-19 Technical schools as being 'selection by the back door'?

[ampere]

THINK I read this in the Torygraph yesterday but I can't find it so can't link.

The basic idea seems to be that the NUT want to scupper a plan to form new 'Technical Schools' for 14+ yr olds to follow a basic NC in Eng and Maths plus vocational/practical grounding. The spokesperson said it was 'selection by the back door' and would create a '2 tier system'. He said the idea had 'been tried before' (ie 11+) and found wanting thus THIS plan represented 'a return to the bad old days'.

IF anyone can find a link that would be fab!

BUT my tuppence worth is that I think such schools would be an excellent idea! The problem with the 'old fashioned system' was that the 'technical school' part never got off the ground, leaving grammars for the 'top' 10-20%, ie those who demonstrated a high level of analytical intelligence and shoved the remaining 80 odd % into secondary moderns regardless of other talent or SN.

My DS2 may only be 8 but I already feel a technical school that would lead to a good, solid and nationally recognised grounding paving his way into an apprenticeship would be the answer to my fears instead of shoe-horning him into watered down versions of 'real' GCSEs that the 'one size fits all' comprehensive may attempt to do!

Nothing 'two tier' about my plumber's income...!

my mum and dad both went to technical school in the 40s both were taught trades that have lasted for life

Eeexactly!

My point entirely. I know such school did exist but were never as proliferate as grammars and SMs.

I so can't see the objection! Is that so much what we all need? I mean, surely it is becoming increasingly evident that the person who can turn a heap of junk into something useful is actually the way forwards rather than someone who can, by sleight of hand, turn a sum of money into more? Should we not be wildly courting manual skills as the way forwards? Not throwing hackneyed 'old fashioned' statements about 'two tier' and 'selection' around?

I would far rather my DS was 'selected', aged 14 to get stuck into a trade direction, a school from which master tradesmen and craftsmen could confidently select their apprentices than have him end up, aged 16, with a clutch of half arsed GCSEs, scratching around, but knowing, deep in his soul, that he'd failed in the grand race of academic 'success' whilst his 'intelligence' still lay undiscovered in another direction.

here it is - I think. Thanks for pointing it out ampre.

I think it's a fantastic idea. So many young people have just had enough of school by the time they reach 14. They want to be out there learning 'on the job' so to speak and I think a school like that would suit so many of them.

When my parents were growing up, there was the Grammar/High School for those that passed the 11+ and then there was the 13+ for the Technical School/College.

I think the main problem with the old system was that it was seen as a pass/fail, rather than finding the right direction for the individual child. I think at 14 most children know roughly what their strengths are and a direction in which they want to go, workwise, even if they don't know exactly what job/career.

I hoped that when they introduced "Specialist Schools" this would sort of happen but it hasn't. Many children here go to a Languages Specialist college and then complain that they have to do a GCSE in a language. The parents picked the school because it gets good results!!

We deliberately didn't put down a school, which gets the best results in town because its specialism is 'technology' and DS1 is just not practically-minded (is cack-handed TBH) so doing a technology subject right through to 16 would be a waste of an option. (If he wanted to later on that would be fine but wouldn't want him to be forced to do it IYSWIM).

Some great quotes in the article:

The NUT said "..weaker pupils would be pushed onto vocational courses while the brightest would be encouraged to take A-levels."

And that is wrong because......?

And

"Going back to an already discredited policy which we had decades ago.."

Because, of course the system we've had for the last few decades has been such an outstanding success that we don't need to improve it .

Well it is selection by the front door never mind the back door.

I am undecided to be honest. I teach in a comp in a grammar school area and would far rather send my dd to to the comp than the grammar which seems to serve a diet of full uninspiring education in a rather unpleasant atmosphere.

However I do not see the point in making children sit exams that maybe they have no chance of passing and secondly are of no use to them.

jackstarbright,

That NUT quote is interesting because what they are basically saying is that only academic subjects are worth learning. They are talking about weaker and stronger rather than about what each child's strengths are. It doesn't make you 'weaker' to be a good plumber or mechanic. It is about fostering a love of learning the stuff you are interested in and good at.

With the introduction of the diplomas/GNVQs etc, we actually already have this!! The 'brighter' ie more academic pupils do GCSEs and the 'weaker' pupils do the other courses.

How about calling it fitting the education round the child rather than the other way round!

My concern if we are to go back to technical and grammar schools is what about the vast majority of kids who fall in the middle. As the grammar system works at the moment the A* kids get grammar places (although in reality it is those kids who can be coached in the main). But what about those kids destined for A and B grades who want an academic education and to go to university albeit probably not a Russell Group or Oxbridge. Do the grammars extend their intake?

Tinuveil I think schools are fitting the education around the child, I teach in a very traditional comp that likes to see itself as an independent school for the masses. Even we have vocational courses and we manage to do it all under one roof.

Tinuviel A kind of twisted snobbery - that claims that 'academic abilty' is superior so all children should be given an academic education whether they want it / can cope with it or not! And allowing a child to choose specialised vocational education at 14 years of age can't possibly be in their own best interest!

Jacksb - your use of quotation marks after your comment " the NUT said " is misleading . The comment about weaker students doing vocational courses and brighter ones doing A levels is not a direct quote ,so who knows whether this is The Telegraph putting words into someones mouth or not .
Other reports
www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/apr/04/teachers-union-technical-schools-segregation
include the following

"The National Union of Teachers (NUT) passed a motion today at its annual conference in Liverpool expressing "deep concern" that the most disadvantaged young people would be coerced into technical schools, triggering another class divide in the education system. Poor pupils and those who spoke little English or had special needs would be steered into such schools because they typically performed less well in exams and lowered state schools' league table rankings.

Baljeet Ghale, a former NUT president, told the conference: "We know which students will be the losers ? students with special educational needs, challenging students, and all those students who may not attain the all-important five GCSEs including English and maths which a school currently needs to achieve to get high up in the league table. Pupils from some backgrounds could be "stereotyped" and pushed into taking courses that which might not meet their needs or aspirations, she argued.
www.guardian.co.uk/uk/feedarticle/9016936
The NUT has long argued that that all students should have access to a broad and balanced curriculum within a single diploma framework.

"While UTCs will teach English, maths, science and IT alongside 'technical studies' they will not teach languages and creative subjects. This falls far short of anyone's definition of breadth and balance.""

Children don't know what they want to do at 14 ,futher and higher education opens doors and keep options open.
Why should 14 year olds be divided into two groups - " keep your options open " or " your option has been decided ,it's vocational training for you "

I think that giving the kids the choice is a great idea. Many non academic kids love college courses where they get to do stuff like plumbing, hair dressing, childcare, IT or bricklaying. Prehaps the NUT looks down on such subjects. Maybe there is a bit of truth in what Oscar Wilde said "Those who can't, teach!"

Teenagers NEED choice. Treating them like small children and making choices for them is not a recipe for good behaviour.

I would like to see a situation where every subject is optional except Maths and English after the age of 14. I am sure it would improve behaviour and standards dramtically.

As far as closing doors to further or higher education, there needs to be better provision for evening courses/ adult education.

DH went to a technical school in the 1970s and ended up at Oxford. The technical schools of that time taught a slightly abbreviated academic curriculum but with the opportunity for the brighter students to go on to A Levels. The rest tended to go into jobs such as technical draughtsmen (boys) or secretarial work (girls) and leave at 16 with the essential 5 O Levels.

From the NUT press release:

Delegates at the NUT conference in Liverpool today (Sunday) debated the issue of selection at 14. Christine Blower, General Secretary for the National Union of Teachers, the largest teachers? union said;
?It is not acceptable that, at the age of 14, pupils may be forced into specific learning routes which could restrict their future education or career choices."

But I'm assuming it is acceptable at 16 at the moment? - though I'm guessing the new school leaving age of 18 might change this.

I think in theory it could work, it has for my family in the past. In the 1930s, my grandfather won a place at a grammar school, but hated learning Greek and Latin. He later transferred over to a technical school, where he went on to become a very good furniture maker. He never regretted his change of direction, and always felt it was right for him.

In situations like this, I think the system can really work. It can give children the right foundations for the careers they want to have. But, I think the problem is not the system, but the way the system is perceived and our inherent view that the academic route is automatically better, and therefore, anyone not on that route is on a worse route. It is these values that need to change before we can make the grammar/technical system work.

I am interested in your comments. I am trying to collect opinions in order to critically analyse new secondary curriculum (uni degree).

I think new diplomas are fab. One (GCSE) size does not fit all! Why do we consider vocational qualifications to be substandard to academic? Are we entrenched in the class system?

I'd love to hear ANY opinions (PLEASE!!!)