Is this Tesco Director right - Page 3

shakermaker · 12-03-2010, 00:35

The system of teaching in 'sets' is just one of the aspects of modern education that I feel leads directly to Ms Neville-Rolfe's complaints. I'm only going off my own experiences but the whole set-up of teaching pupils in different ways, while well-meaning, I found entirely backward. Perhaps it's a different case at other schools (also consider that it's been five years since I left) but there was very little movement between sets throughout my time there.
I was in the 'top set' (for want of a better term) throughout high school, as were most of the class I started with in year seven. One of my good friends in my registration form was in the 'bottom set' (again, for want of a better turn of phrase) from day one and stayed there throughout his secondary education, as did most in his set. We in the top set were encouraged and expected to go on to get A-levels and attend university while those in the bottom set were prepared to take part on vocational courses. Those teaching the bottom set were expecting bad behaviour from the students and this in turn encouraged bad behaviour. Again, vice versa with the top set.
I hate to sound like a sociology text book but this set up leads to self fulfilling prophecies in many cases. Of course there are foundations to be laid at home for a child's approach and attitude towards education but seeing as 11-16 year olds spend most of their time at school, big changes should be made to better craft the future for young people.

steeljack · 12-03-2010, 03:02

re. shakermaker's above comments about kids being placed into 'top set' and 'bottom set' classes , I was one of those who failed the 11 plus and thus ended up at a Secondary Modern (Top Council in Gt. Harwood, later after amalgamation the Norden at Rishton) can only speak from experiance but in those days 'sets' were designated as streams A,B,C and D , A being the brightest kids and D being 'the not so bright' there was also an X class , which I suppose in these days would hold the "educationally retarded" and had kids in age ranging from 11 thru 15 in one class (seem to remember they had responsibility for the schools flower beds)
But, the way things operated at the Top Council/Norden was similar to the modern day football league , every year a number of lower performing pupils in one stream were relegated to a lower stream , and the better performing pupils of a lower stream moved up to a better ranking (and better teachers) this happened in every year . I don't belive anyone suffered PTS from being relegated .
I have to agree with Shakermakers arguement that kids are channelled into their futures at this early age .... in my case , kids in the A and B streams were sent for skilled apprenticeships whilst the kids in the lower grades were encouraged to find factory work, no idea what if any career advice was given to the kids in the X class .

Eric · 12-03-2010, 07:37

Maybe we should look beyond the schools and consider the value society in general places on education and associated intellectual pursuits.

Mancie · 12-03-2010, 22:10

I've worked in a few industries that employed school leavers on the basis that the employer could pay them lower wages... most of those youngsters at least had the wits to go out and get a job to earn a living and worked hard... you would get some older new starters in there first job that maybe had a degree in history or other and they would be placed in management.. most of them did not have clue and were useless.

Benipete · 15-03-2010, 13:16

Just been listening to the Jeremy Vine show on radio 2.One of the callers to the show was a man who marks GCSE papers.
"Standards have declined dramatically. At one stage I thought I was marking an 11 plus paper"

So there you have it.Just as I thought.