ianrobo1 Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 yes it does, how else do kids go to the rights golden goose of Grammer schools, something Green Dave soon found out he could not dare challenge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrogers Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 So are you saying that there shouldn't be schools of excellence for the exam minded, yet you want to change to whole curriculum to suit your style of learning, very good Ian, very good! :roll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 no I am saying exactly that but for many, including the kids directly being discussed on this thread, exams and the normal kind of schooling is totally inapprioate. but the right in this country refuse to except this and degrade the term vocational. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrogers Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 no I am saying exactly that but for many, including the kids directly being discussed on this thread, exams and the normal kind of schooling is totally inapprioate. but the right in this country refuse to except this and degrade the term vocational. What about the GNVQ they brought in Ian, kinda disproves your point doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 nope listen to how the right wing comentators sneer at them ... and in fact what I would rather have is the apprenticeship and starting at 14 after kids get a basic schooling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrogers Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 Sorry Ian, please provide links or quotes... I really can't see the Tories slagging off something they brought in. Secondl, I wholeheartedly disagree with kids stopping all school at 14 for apprenticeships, childen need maths and English to get by in any job, no matter what it is. If they can do these basic subject in line with a Vocational Qual then so much the better! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 Secondl, I wholeheartedly disagree with kids stopping all school at 14 for apprenticeships, childen need maths and English to get by in any job, no matter what it is. If they can do these basic subject in line with a Vocational Qual then so much the better! Wow, me and Nick Rogers in a political question agreement shocker! I'm all for the idea of differenciated education and the option of choosing an education that suits your individual skills. But some things are just too basic to give up at an early age. Basic skills like language and maths should be part of your curriculum at least until the age of 16, even longer I would say. At 14 you are too young to choose a carreer anyway. In Norway, you have to follow a standard course until you're 16, and still after that the basic subjects are mandatory. I think that's a good system, to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 and what happens if you are shit in those subjects, thats why kids get disenfrachised at school now you can not force someone to learn but if it is a subject which appeals that helps at 14 most kids will have the basic skills anything after that is just a top up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 and what happens if you are shit in those subjects, thats why kids get disenfrachised at school now you can not force someone to learn but if it is a subject which appeals that helps at 14 most kids will have the basic skills anything after that is just a top up. If they're shit, we just have to try even harder, by way of differenciated learning obviously, to help them to be better. I'm sorry, but your average 14 year old does not have the necessary maths skills, or language skils, and is certainly not mature enough to choose a career. The unpredictable nature of todays job market requires a certain level of versatility and adaptability. If you only now how to do one profession, you could find yourself in serious trouble some time in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 If that is the case then how come we have academy's at 12 at Villa ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 and what happens if you are shit in those subjects, thats why kids get disenfrachised at school now you can not force someone to learn but if it is a subject which appeals that helps at 14 most kids will have the basic skills anything after that is just a top up. Is that not part of the problem, Ian, that a large proportion of 14 year olds (and indeed a large proportion of school leavers) do not have these basic skills? At 14 they should have these basic skills - in fact they should have them much earlier than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 If that is the case then how come we have academy's at 12 at Villa ? How many academy players become professional footballers? The regular education is an integral part of the academy system. Academy players are required to recieve an education good enough to prepare them for life as something other than a professional footballer. Reminds me of a commercial for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (USA), this. "Just about all of them will go pro....in something other than sports". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jezza Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 Admittedly, I haven't read the whole of this thread - but kids these days seems to know their "rights" much more than we did when I was younger (I am 41 now) - it seems that the issue of parenting means that as parents, we have to be more of a "friend" to our children - which is fine, but at the same time, kids need direction and discipline, channelled in a "PC" way - whatever that is. I was brought up to respect elders, and that if I did something untoward, then just a "look" from my Dad would sort me out. These days, if you even "look" at a kid who is misbehaving, you get hauled up in front of a magistrate for being a paedophile. But that is the world we live in today. I just hope my two sons grow up to become resposnible and sensible citizens of the world. *Gets off soapbox* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted January 15, 2008 VT Supporter Share Posted January 15, 2008 I don't think this is really a left/right argument. On most of those I'd side with Ian and be opposed to Nick, but I have some sympathy with both their viewpoints on this one. On this subject I think we're all affected by our own experiences far more than by "theory". For example, there was a TV discussion roughly on this topic some time ago, with that Dragons' Den bloke Duncan Bannatyne talking about how he had no qualifications but became a millionaire through his entreprenurial skills and hard work. All well and good, but he has a son and he claims he tells him not to bother with school because it's all just a waste of time. That made me cringe, although I expect his son will do fine with Daddy's money and contacts - but what about everybody else? And then there's the question as to what education is FOR. The Thatcherite camp seemed to think it was to provide capable recruits for industry and commerce, but for me that's confusing it with TRAINING - laudable and necessary, yes, but a different thing entirely. It sickened me to hear Charles Clarke when he was education secretary sneering that he couldn't see the point of university subjects such as mediaeval history. I fear that the idea that "some kids just aren't cut out for academic work, let's train them to be brickies" is insidious. It may be true in some cases, but it smacks of the 1950s secondary modern approach. And as the son of unqualified working-class parents who was given - by the 11-plus/grammar school system - the opportunities which they weren't, it sits uncomfortably with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grant(aka_eddy) Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 I voted yes and my first thought was that they are pretty much all little bastards with ASBO's, hoods and knives! Two years ago i worked at Blackwood Primary School over Streetly way to see if i fancied doing my PGCE. In the end i decided against it but it certainly wasnt to do with the kids. Even at 9, 10 and 11 they were superb. A couple were very slightly cheeky but only in a nice way. Ok so it's predominantly middle class but there you go, it was pretty much exactly the same as my own school experience and i could pretty much directly compare most of the individuals there with people in my own class. So i do wonder how much of it is related to media exposure and mediums such as youtube showing us daily what always went unseen before. One thing i do know is that there is a core of 'youth' today who i would not feel much remorse for if they were wiped out to be quite honest, their fault or not they are absolute scum. There probably was the same when i was 'youth' myself too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsjg80 Posted January 15, 2008 Author Share Posted January 15, 2008 So i do wonder how much of it is related to media exposure and mediums such as youtube showing us daily what always went unseen before. I see it on a daily basis - it is not a perceived change through the media (although like anything it can sometimes not help) but children are certainly worse year on year, you can almost visibly see it in schools, the percentage of troublesome kids in each class is higher the LOWER down you go - Yes, in the later years they know HOW to cause trouble more effectively but the younger the class the more of them there are trying to cause trouble - and by the time they know HOW to cause trouble they'll be more of them. But maybe, unlike the person above, I don't work in some good schools. I work in a few but they would be considered some of the rougher schools. Someone also mentioned above about children's right and adults reaction to that fear. If there are two children fighting, the first thing I do is get VISUAL assistance even if it's a lady on the verge of retirement: this is because of the fear that even the remotest bit of physical contact (even to protect themselves or others) needs to be witnessed for fear of reprisals. A lot of adults will basically stand by and watch if they can not obtain that protection. The same applies to pedophilia - especially as a male; having to be constantly aware of ANY physical contact (again for their protection or little ones wanting to hold your hand in the playground) or even language - correcting children immediately (bearing in mind some are four) if they say they love you; "no, you like me" with a real fear in your voice..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts