View Full Version : Sets in Schools?
David Cameron has announced that streaming or putting pupils into sets which are based on academic ability is the only way to improve standards in schools.
Do you agree with that?
i dont think it hurt me as a child.
It didn’t do me any harm either… but then I didn’t end up in a ‘bad’ stream. Looking at the wider picture I cannot imagine that putting the kids who are underachievers because of bad behaviour in the same stream as kids who are underachievers because they are having problems academically is really going to benefit either group. The end result would surely only be a widening of the academic divide between those in the bottom stream and those in the top stream.
I also recognise that streaming pupils will allow classes to be better tailored to suit the aptitude of the pupils, but I think that the benefits of that might be outweighed by the drawbacks of stigmatising the less able children, of telling them that they are just a little thicker – and that their bar should be permanently set that little bit lower - than their peers.
Do you think that being told that one is thick may prove to be the very incentive to get the books out and improve? I speak from example, I was doing physics at school and was put in the CSE group because I refused to do any homework because I thought it was below me. Faced with only getting a CSE I improved the standard of my work and got into the O level group. I still refused to do any homework and got into trouble for it but I did end up with a grade A.
weeboyagee
09-Jan-06, 14:49
I don't know about this one. If this was for adults then yes, I would agree with streaming! Separate the thick from the more able! (Only joking, only joking....;))
Kids, it's more difficult. When I was in class, I learned from my fellow classmates who were more able than me in certain subjects. In other subjects where I was more able, I was the one to help my classmates out.
Does anyone else believe that certain teachers (oh-oh, I feel a revolt coming on!....) have a real passion for teaching kids and can really draw the best out of every child to the greatest level of the individual child, and others have little or no ability other than to teach in the fashion they were trained (or programmed) too?
Some kids can rise to the challenge like you Rheggers - where they know they are lazy and can do better, but some kids have simply not got the academic ability and can try all they want but find they make little progress.
Also, some kids have the benefit of parents with a high degree of education - and have the benefit of this support at home - others do not, but could benefit from their peers in class.
I can only think that the streaming of kids can benefit those who are more acadmically astute to progress unhindered (if hinderance is what they believe the rest of the kids are to them) and those who are less academically able plod along and will never have the ability to achieve a level of excellence because they are in the "lesser" stream. I know of a few kids who were not academically able at school but through support of their classmates and perseverance went on to achieve great things! :)
weeboyagee
09-Jan-06, 14:54
....and another thing - what is everyone's opinion on academic standards compared to what they were? Do we ask more or less of our children now in terms of education standard? I for one believe that it is a lesser standard that they are required to achieve today! :(
The only way putting kids into seperate groups by there abilty would work successfully is if the kids that arent doing well get more attention to help them get the grades they want.
rich62_uk
09-Jan-06, 18:16
The only way putting kids into seperate groups by there abilty would work successfully is if the kids that arent doing well get more attention to help them get the grades they want.
I agree Eddie however I also feel that disruptive pupils should be removed to an inclusion unit untill they are able to function in a standard classroom.....Trish.
Let us not forget that streaming is a part of a strategy whereby teachers are able to teach kids that are above average more effectively. The pupils in these classes are free to excel without the peer pressure accusation of being a nerd.
Of course, bad behavior as a rule of thumb, broadly mirrors low academic ability. I am not making a sweeping generalisation when I say this because I acknowledge that there are a lot exceptions however, I still think that unruly kids could get streamed in the high sets without prejudice. The 'Wiill Huntings' should get specialist help anyway.
Let us not forget that streaming is a part of a strategy whereby teachers are able to teach kids that are above average more effectively. The pupils in these classes are free to excel without the peer pressure accusation of being a nerd.
Hmmm.... that's certainly not my experience of being streamed. Let us not forget that after class the 'above average' kids still have to walk to the next class with everybody else, they still have to stand in line in the canteen with everybody else and they still have to sit on the same bus home as everybody else.
Let us not forget that after class the 'above average' kids still have to walk to the next class with everybody else, they still have to stand in line in the canteen with everybody else and they still have to sit on the same bus home as everybody else.
True, but when the above ability kid has handed in his work, he doesn't have to take the 'nerd flak' because the flak givers don't know as they are next door.
Basically, streaming is out of favour because nobody wants their kid deemed to be prejudiced against.
rich62_uk
09-Jan-06, 18:52
Let us not forget that streaming is a part of a strategy whereby teachers are able to teach kids that are above average more effectively. The pupils in these classes are free to excel without the peer pressure accusation of being a nerd.
Of course, bad behavior as a rule of thumb, broadly mirrors low academic ability. I am not making a sweeping generalization when I say this because I acknowledge that there are a lot exceptions however, I still think that unruly kids could get streamed in the high sets without prejudice. The 'Wiill Huntings' should get specialist help anyway.
Of course we are now talking about two different areas behavior and academic ability if a child where to be removed from the standard class because of an inability to behave then when that child was judge to be able to " Fit In" again the only precursor to his streaming would of course be academic ability.
landmarker
09-Jan-06, 19:33
I'm sure setting was behind the original idea of comprehensive education. It's common sense isn't it that to mix the brightest with the most 'less-able' that the brightest might be hindered. I think this most likely. There is of course the possibility that the 'less-able' will improve, driven by the example of the brightest. Personally, I think this is unlikely.
In Manchester, in the mid-sixties the eleven plus had three outcomes - pass/almost pass/fail . The first group went to Grammar school, the second to Technical High Schools and the third to secondary moderns. The Comprehensives were introduced the year I left -1967. Kind of them to wait.
If the standard of English and spelling in these Forums is anything to go by,then we need to look at our educational methods. I would imagine that the members that this would apply to are younger members.After three years of French in Thurso High,my son could hardly even tell you his name in French. In my day(Fifties and sixties) we were streamed and learned, but our fate rested on the results of the 11+which I have always felt was a crude way of determining a childs ability.Perhaps a return to a streamed system will improve things but perhaps not.
Streaming is a good idea and keeps children of a similar ability together- the system works similar to this at present putting children into credit/standard/foundation classes. If a child is underperforming then by being put in a lower class may make them 'pull their socks up' and work to get in the higher class. Mixed ability is not suitable as the academic kids who want to make an effort end up with the kids who are wasters and have no intention of working and cause distractions (even if they are bright), this will be reflected in exam results as the teachers will spend all their time disciplining and going over work again and again, and the academic kids will not receive the teaching they need to pass the exams they need to get on with their aims in life and their ambitions.
True, but when the above ability kid has handed in his work, he doesn't have to take the 'nerd flak' because the flak givers don't know as they are next door. But the “flak givers” won’t need to see him hand in his work to know that he has done it – everything about streaming sets children apart. Whether it’s the kid in the bottom stream who looks at those above him and sees ‘swots’ or it’s the kid in the top stream who looks down his nose at the ‘thick’ kids doing maths that he left behind months ago, the differences are still there for all to see.
Basically, streaming is out of favour because nobody wants their kid deemed to be prejudiced against. Possibly, but if streaming does prejudice against some children then that is all the reason I need to disagree with it.
If the standard of English and spelling in these Forums is anything to go by,then we need to look at our educational methods. Are you suggesting that some people have trouble with there... they’re... their grammar? ;)
…of determining a childs ability. I’m sorry, I can’t resist… Do you mean “a child’s ability”??
weeboyagee
09-Jan-06, 20:50
Thanks Gleber2. I agree with you in terms of the standard of the written and spoken language, not just in these forums but in the general outside world also. When someone writes with a "good hand" we are impressed but it is now the exception rather than the norm! When they spell and express themselves fluently we find it a relief rather than the normal struggle - but the lesser standard has now become an "acceptable" standard.
However, the brightest pupil was not necessarily the neatest writer or the best talker. The best sports person is not necessarily the best communicator or the brightest looking (hmmmm,....a certain Becks and one or two boxers come to mind).
You look at segregating the kids and where do you draw the line? Written communication, athletic ability, music and the arts, science, history and the social sciences? A child can excel in one and be poorly in the other, stream them in every subject material - according to ability or according to their behavioural pattern?
....aha,.....the behaviour and academic ability debate. When I was at school I had to put up with the eejits who were academically astute in our class but had a problem with their behaviour. Why? One reason was because they came from educated parents but were spoiled rotten at home and thought that anything less than getting their own way at school meant that they should dish out a kicking or a smack backed up with the group of the less acadmically able and the easily led! These guys were not the less academically able!
I was aware of kids who, as jjc says had....
to walk to the next class with everybody else, they still have to stand in line in the canteen with everybody else and they still have to sit on the same bus home as everybody else
....this is where the "stick" came in, the jibes and the rest of the wholly unacceptable behaviour that some educationally advanced kids are subject to on a day-to-day basis and some of the academically advanced were quite happy to dish out.
Society is not streamed, until it is, there is no place for streaming kids into a streamless society. Let the classes have the fulness of the culture that they will be faced with and let the teachers use their skills to discern those who are able and those who need encouragement. Unruly kids are just that - unruly, they disrupt the flow and delivery of teaching - remove them - that is not streaming - that is removing a problem, no matter whether they are academically astute or not!
If the standard of English and spelling in these Forums is anything to go by,then we need to look at our educational methods. I would imagine that the members that this would apply to are younger members.After three years of French in Thurso High,my son could hardly even tell you his name in French. In my day(Fifties and sixties) we were streamed and learned, but our fate rested on the results of the 11+which I have always felt was a crude way of determining a childs ability.Perhaps a return to a streamed system will improve things but perhaps not.
Let's look at this post. He is criticising his own son but..................
In my day(Fifties and sixties) we were streamed and learned,(sic) - well what did you learn? Nobody 'learns' you anything, you are taught and then learn.
determining a childs ability. There is the small matter of an apostrophe, i.e. child's
Perhaps a return to a streamed system will improve things but perhaps not. we could do with a comma after the word 'things'. Now these are very basic corrections without going into too much depth.
So, it doesn't appear as if the 50's or 60's were much better really!! [lol]
Possibly, but if streaming does prejudice against some children then that is all the reason I need to disagree with it.
It is not about prejudice though, all kids get the same education. Though I can see how some kids in non streamed classes do get disadvantaged through the inability of others though. It is broadly recognised by Ofsted that streaming can be effective in raising the standards of above average kids. In a hierarchical society like ours, I think that should be encouraged as it is the above average ability kids that broadly go on to become the professional classes, ie the movers of society rather than the shakers.
For example, it is very hard to get into Oxford or Cambridge . A degree from one of those establishments is a gateway to any route in life. I would be very miffed indeed if non-streaming had a part in hindering the academic achievement of my child. If I was to have a less able child, then from the outset then I would have no illusion of them gaining entry in university anyway.:)
I would be very miffed indeed if non-streaming had a part in hindering the academic achievement of my child. If I was to have a less able child, then from the outset then I would have no illusion of them gaining entry in university anyway.:)
You would never know if non-streaming had hindered your child - your child would just be whatever they were.
Society is not streamed, until it is, there is no place for streaming kids into a streamless society. Very well put.
weeboyagee
09-Jan-06, 21:25
If I was to have a less able child I would wish for them to be exposed to the greater academic level of the class and to receive whatever benefit they could from it.
I still believe that social (in a big way) not just educational factors are influencing a childs academic abilities - it is not a case of once thick always thick. I know of a certain young lad who was top student in first and second year and all of a sudden his marks deteriorated to 44% in Maths in the 4th year O Grade. This was because of a nutcase of a fellow student who was very clever but made his educational experience hell in class. They both would have been streamed in the same group - there would have been no benefit to achieving a greater academic standard.
All the factors that affect a childs academic ability are changing on a day-to-day basis and their academic abilities will be reflective of these. We would like to think that streaming the classes would be a benefit to society - it will simply make the elite recognised as that which we all know they become anyway - the elite, but those who may have benefited from their talents whilst in their company in class will not.
Who will say that putting the less able in with the able will pull down the academic standard (or more correctly in terms of the question this thread asks - not allow the academic standard to increase)??? No-one has yet said how this happens, what proof is there? Why will the academically able NOT benefit the less able?
what do the teachers think about it? After all they are the ones who have to cope with mixed ability classes, and they are the ones who are best in a position to say whether it is working.
It is not about prejudice though, all kids get the same education. But do they? Do they really get the same education in the less able classes as they would get in the most able classes? Surely the whole reason for streaming is so that individual classes can be taught appropriately for their academic ability. That being the case, the higher achievers are clearly going to cover more material than the lower achievers. Not only are they going to cover more material, but they will do so in a markedly different way. Whilst both classes may eventually cover the required curriculum, their education experience is going to be vastly different.
As for the issue of prejudice; I’d have to say that it is all about prejudice: prejudices between different streams; the prejudices of teachers; prejudice by parents and even the self-prejudicial beliefs being instilled in the pupils.
Though I can see how some kids in non streamed classes do get disadvantaged through the inability of others though. It is broadly recognised by Ofsted that streaming can be effective in raising the standards of above average kids. Thus widening the intellectual divide… and let’s face it, casual observation would suggest to me that this divide tends to be along class lines so widening the intellectual divide will probably result in a widening of class divides also. Whilst you may want us to return to a 1950s society where class boundaries dictated life opportunities, I certainly do not.
This is a summary of a research review completed in Scotland in 1999; the whole document is available here
http://www.scre.ac.uk/pdf/setting.pdf
• Streaming and setting – and sometimes a combination of both –were common in secondary schools up to the 1960s; as in primary schools, the change to mixed-ability grouping, at least in the first Secondary School Level two secondary years, was in reaction to evidence of its socially divisive consequences.
• Ability grouping in sets or streams has been found to have no overall effect on achievement, compared with mixed ability grouping; advantages for high ability pupils have been found where advanced curriculum materials have been used.
• Creating sets is often influenced by factors other than pupil ability;
once in a set, the gap in achievement between lower and higher attainers widens and there is little transfer between sets.
• Early allocation to sets or streams is discouraging for the lower attaining
pupils and reinforces social divisions.
• Mixed-ability teaching makes great demands on teachers in terms of workload.
• Many mixed-ability classes are not taught in a way that caters for mixed ability; observation studies indicate that mixed-ability classes are often taught as if they were of the same ability and all of lower than average ability.
• Even within sets, there is a considerable range in pace of learning and it is necessary to cater for individual differences; in particular, it has been shown that high-ability girls dislike working under pressure.
• In mathematics, ability grouping can lead to better achievement for all providing that the teaching materials are differentiated.
• Inequalities in the type of pupil-teacher interaction between sett or streamed classes results in the widening of the gap between the higher and lower achieving classes.
Society is not streamed, until it is, there is no place for streaming kids into a streamless society.
There goes the failure in your arguement. Society is streamed, until peoplewith no qualifications get considered to be a brain surgeon then I will agree with you.
I am old enough to have gone to a school which had streaming. I happily bobbed along, doing my best, (well, enough to keep out of trouble - just).
I'm sure that if I had been put next to the "swot" who was going to go to University and end up with a PhD. (no offence to those who did ;) ) I would have just rolled over and given up.
I would, more than likely, have ended up with an intimate knowledge of the internal workings of many of "Her Majesty's Hotels".
I didn't particularly enjoy school but if I had been made to feel totally out of my depth I would have ended up avoiding it like the plague. I wouldn't have to display my inadequacies to those with a far greater intellect.
That's only a personal opinion because it's the only system I have experience of.
Perhaps those of you who were not "streamed" might have a different point of view. It would be interesting to find out!
But do they? Do they really get the same education in the less able classes as they would get in the most able classes?
Yes they do otherwise they would be failing
Surely the whole reason for streaming is so that individual classes can be taught appropriately for their academic ability.
No problemo
That being the case, the higher achievers are clearly going to cover more material than the lower achievers. Not only are they going to cover more material, but they will do so in a markedly different way. Whilst both classes may eventually cover the required curriculum, their education experience is going to be vastly different.
Not true. There is a curriculum which outlines what the educational level will be achieved. The difference being that above average kids will have more time to get better grades/enjoy their school life at no expense to the demands/pitfalls of an alternative educational system
As for the issue of prejudice; I’d have to say that it is all about prejudice: prejudices between different streams; the prejudices of teachers; prejudice by parents and even the self-prejudicial beliefs being instilled in the pupils.
Martin Luther King allowed the prejudice due to the content of one's heart, I assume that that extended to the content of the brain since the brain rules the heart
Thus widening the intellectual divide… and let’s face it, casual observation would suggest to me that this divide tends to be along class lines so widening the intellectual divide will probably result in a widening of class divides also. Whilst you may want us to return to a 1950s society where class boundaries dictated life opportunities, I certainly do not.
The Soviet Unon tried to close the intellectual/social divide only to see itself collapse in on itself.
I welcome with caution the idea of a return to streaming and hope that it would be utilised in the way it was when I was at school.
For the first two years at senior school there was no streaming but when it came time to start our exam courses then we were judged on our abilities over the last two years and the options that we chose to take through.We were divided into forms that were not aligned to the teaching groups meaning that for general non exam subjects such as discusion groups and sports we were with the pupils that we had known since first arriving.
The system worked well giving those that had a higher ability to study with others of the same ilk and as we were all mobile within the form, moving up or down for various lessons friendships were not disrupted. It also meant that those who were struggling with a particular subject did not have the peer pressure of trying to match the more able and recieved the attention that would enable them to reach their full potential.
The eleven plus was not the great divide that it has often been called as we had a system that at age thirteen pupils could transfer between the various secondary schools within the area. This often meant that those who had initially missed out on an academic education could transfer and others who found the academic style not to their liking could do the same.
Yes I do regret the falling of standards there is too much emphasis placed on pieces of paper and examination tuition with very little on getting a broad education with secure foundations for the future.
As an employer the first thing I do is ask a prospective employee to hand write in twenty words as to why they think I should give them a job. Needless to say most of them are quickly discarded for unintelligible handwriting,bad grammar and atrocious spelling all of which are of prime importance within my business.
Yes I am of an older generation but the same principles apply today as did then.
landmarker
10-Jan-06, 00:00
reference to the vote -I'm in the minority once more at just 12%. It's surprising in an age where tradespeople are few and far between, when plumbers earn a grand a week plus etc. etc. that not more people see 'academic standards are not everything' Vocational skills are often much more useful, especially when it comes to finding employment, and fulfilment.
Of course, reading is key but not everyone can be academically gifted, and the sooner the educationalists realise this the better.
Are you suggesting that some people have trouble with there... they’re... their grammar? ;)
I’m sorry, I can’t resist… Do you mean “a child’s ability”??
Jjc I stand corrected and my sense of humour won't let me stop.My English Higher was passed becuse I was reasonably educated and I think that my errors could be seen by any resonable person as a slip committed in haste.
Don't apologise,it destroys the picture I have of your petal picking self.
Sweaty Betty,I was not criticising my son who is a bright, very talented young man and my best friend.I was criticising the education he received.
In my day we were streamed and we(understood,I thought) learned.The misplaced apostrophy I have already had pointed out by my personal bane.
The missing comma we could debate and I am sure your pedantic self would win the debateLOL. Go into more depth and I am sure you could find another comma or two to smuggly correct.:) (Do you like split infinitives?If not I'll try to use a few more to annoy you.)
Eek!! I've missed out another apostrophy. I had better edit it before I get put in the corner.
I just noticed that you put an exra 't' on set in one of your posts.Does this mean that your education is suspect also??
Anyway,who suggested that I did not include my own scibblings in my statement about these forums? I can't type because I was streamed into an 'A'class where we were considered above such commercial undertakings.
and the sooner the educationalists realise this the better.
Are you being anti intellectual?
Not true. There is a curriculum which outlines what the educational level will be achieved. The difference being that above average kids will have more time to get better grades/enjoy their school life at no expense to the demands/pitfalls of an alternative educational system Let’s look at maths. Experience tells me that when an above-average maths class gets to the end of a topic and the below-average classes have not the teacher does one of two things. If the next topic is more difficult then they move on in order to give the pupils more time to master it. If the topic that has just been covered was complex then they spend some time going over it again to be sure that the pupils fully understand it. That is a benefit that the pupils who are lower down the streams do not have and it results in higher-achievers finishing school with a fuller – and potentially broader – education.
The Soviet Unon tried to close the intellectual/social divide only to see itself collapse in on itself. Which does not mean that we should go to the other extreme of expanding that divide.
Our present system seems to be more interested in raising the level of the less able pupils at the expense of the higher to such a degree that the average standard is rising but the genius is disappearing. We need the very best young minds to get the very best level of education possible. Three at genius level is worth countless average pupils.
Which does not mean that we should go to the other extreme of expanding that divide.
Since there are two camps in this divide, either view will be seen as the other extreme.
Let’s look at maths. Experience tells me that when an above-average maths class gets to the end of a topic and the below-average classes have not the teacher does one of two things.
Have not the teacher? Please explain that one. My vision of streaming has enough teachers to teach all levels interchangeably. If non streaming will facilitate more teachers then please explain.
If the next topic is more difficult then they move on in order to give the pupils more time to master it.
I don't understand that one
If the topic that has just been covered was complex then they spend some time going over it again to be sure that the pupils fully understand it.
No problem with that, seems common sense to me
That is a benefit that the pupils who are lower down the streams do not have
Absolute rubbish. If kids of the lower abilities can't learn the subject in the time that has been prescribed then that is the fault of the child. That is province of personal responsibility which you tried to peddle onto to us not so long ago.
and it results in higher-achievers finishing school with a fuller – and potentially broader – education.
Now I agree with you wholehreartedly :)
Our present system seems to be more interested in raising the level of the less able pupils at the expense of the higher to such a degree that the average standard is rising but the genius is disappearing. We need the very best young minds to get the very best level of education possible. Three at genius level is worth countless average pupils.
Welcome aboard Gleber2,
and
"one man with courage makes a majority" Andrew Jackson
I suspect a lot of misconceptions about educational systems arise because of the belief that people who are not intellectually gifted or choose not to follow academic pursuits are somehow "failures".
I know many people who fall into that category who lead very productive lives and a very good living and would have it no other way.
We have arrived at a situation where, if you do not have a scrap of paper, you are considered not to have any skills.
I know of one person who changed jobs recently and had to take a course to get the right "Qualifications" so he could wave a scrap of paper around.
He is an Electrician and the fact that he had been the only electrician looking after a large Warehouse for over 10 years was irrelevant.
"Change a light bulb? Where's your quallifications?"
Have not the teacher? Please explain that one. My vision of streaming has enough teachers to teach all levels interchangeably. If non streaming will facilitate more teachers then please explain. And to think I actually tried to defend you earlier when you slipped up with your own grammar. Next time you are on your own. ;)
What I should have said was that experience tells me that when an above-average maths class gets to the end of a topic and the below-average have not then the teacher of the above-average class does one of two things.
Better?
I don't understand that one Well, say that they have just finished long division and they are about to move on to differential equations. The teacher can either move on to differential equations earlier than planned so that the class has more time to study it, or he/she can give the class more time to go back over any parts of long division that they might have questions on.
Absolute rubbish. If kids of the lower abilities can't learn the subject in the time that has been prescribed then that is the fault of the child. That is province of personal responsibility which you tried to peddle onto to us not so long ago. But we aren’t talking about a scenario where the lower streams are not finishing a subject ‘in the time that has been prescribed’, we are (or at least I thought we were) talking about a scenario where the upper stream finishes the subject ahead of the time that has been prescribed.
And this isn’t the province of personal responsibility. Okay, maybe for some it is, but I think that there will be very few pupils with the intellectual aptitude to succeed in the upper stream but who choose to place themselves in the lower streams.
No, on the whole this is not the province of personal responsibility at all – it is the province of personal ability. It is not something for which a child should be 'blamed' and certainly isn't their 'fault'.
I thought that I had replied to both of you with a bit of humour in the same spirit that you had used in your post to me. It seems I failed.We obviously have a different slant on 'humour'.I certainly did not think that one of you would take me seriously to the point of private messages and complaint.
You give it, you can expect to get it back. A lesson there perhaps?
I suspect that the main problem which the Education System suffers from is the concept forced on it from above that it is merely a production line to churn out children who can show they have "succeeded".
It appears to me that provided that an increased number of "passes" can be shown each year then what the child has learned is somewhat irrelevant.
In other words, the statistics have become more important than the children's Education.
Even more damage is done by the belief in certain quarters that children must never be allowed to feel a "failure".
There is a reluctance to accept that children are a lot tougher than that.
There are many things in life that I would have loved to have done, ones for which I am eminently unqualified.
I certainly have not gone through life believing every day that, "Woe is me, I am a complete failure!"
I'm sure David Beckham wakes up every morning worrying that he didn't get more qualifications at school.
Some people are good at one thing, some are good at another.
Should we change the rules for the Olympics so I can get a Gold Medal and not feel a failure?
Perhaps everybody wishing to compete should get a Gold Medal so they don't feel left out!
How many people can remember Eddie the Eagle?
Hands up anybody who knows who won the Gold Medal in that Event.
And will somebody please supply the board with a spel chequer! ;)
rich62_uk
10-Jan-06, 13:07
Perhaps everybody wishing to compete should get a Gold Medal so they don't feel left out!
;)
It was done at my eldest sons primary school everyone got a medal and they even got to make their own medal before sports day ! Trish.
I was streamed in school. It seemed like a good idea then, though at times I was in classes with some of the more disruptive pupils.
Whereas in other subjects there were much fewer pupils eg. Music there was 6 of us! So we got much more personal and tailored tutoring.
Hmm
I come to this rather late but its interesting - i started secondary school in 1975 and was the first year of the comprehensive schools created after the abolition of hte 11 plus in the area i lived in. The first year i was in a mixed ability class and it was a very very mixed ability class - this was a good sized school - 7 classes per year with 30 ish pupils in each class. Following our exam results at the end of the first year we were allocated to another class - Streamed in effect for all subjects. At the third year we were allocated to classes according to the subjects we were doing and the level we were expected to achieve - GCE O levels, CSEs or 16+ exams. Although the forms were not labelled as A streams B streams and C streams as in many other schools - each year was given a town name "windsor" or "salford" - it was clear that it was streamed on ability.
Did it help me? Well i liked being a clever girl in a mediocre class in the first year - i was less enamoured with being a mediocre girl in a clever class in the second year if im absolutely honest and this drove me to do better. The exam system led to the streaming at that time too - GCE s and CSEs had different subjects which needed to be covered. I do however think that mixed ability classes can work and can motivate and encourage children of all abilities in certain subjects. However i think it would need smaller classes than 30 for sure, I also think that the issue of disruption in the class is not related to ability and needs to be addressed as a seperate issue. I dont totally understand the exam system here, credit and general and foundation standard grades seem to have different papers and whats an intermediate 1???? if hte exam system requires different elements of the subjects to be taught for those who are good at the subject and want a 1 or a 2 how can you have a mixed ability class?
As for improving attainment well - it seems to me that this will only work if there is a clear path through the classes - if you get this mark or achieve this you can go up a class to create an incentive - and if you dont work hard and get a lower mark you will have to move down. You cant expect to stream pupils - label them as a particular group and then leave them there and expect that you will improve attainment.
Intermediate 1 and 2, are between Standard Grade and Higher Grade. From what I understand someone who is not quite the Higher Standard in 5th year can do an Int2 then progress to Higher in 6th year. Usually you have to get a 1 or 2 pass at Standard Grade (credit) to progress to Higher in 5th year.
It was done at my eldest sons primary school everyone got a medal and they even got to make their own medal before sports day ! Trish.
I really am going to have to try harder. Just when I think I've come up with an idea that's absolutely ridiculous I find some organisation or other has already tried it.
I heard a suggestion some time ago from the Education Department that if school children are playing football and one side scores too many goals that the scores should be returned to zero so the losing side doesn't get dispirited.
Two things spring immediately to mind.
One, are they saying that the system is such that children can't count.
Two, what about the children who are winning? Won't they get dispirited when their efforts are just cast aside? (Sorry, I forgot, we mustn't have winners and losers)
Whatever happened to "losing with dignity", an "honourable defeat", and "it's the taking part that counts"? Perhaps that's just stuffy old out dated nonsense that needs to be discarded.
Is that why so many now throw tantrums and stalk off when they lose or try to find something or someone to blame?
rich62_uk
10-Jan-06, 14:04
Is that why so many now throw tantrums and stalk off when they lose or try to find something or someone to blame?
No, thats just bad parenting. Trish.;)
(be so glad when I get my own addy)
No, thats just bad parenting. Trish.;)
(be so glad when I get my own addy)
I can't argue with that Trish.
David Cameron has announced that streaming or putting pupils into sets which are based on academic ability is the only way to improve standards in schools.
Do you agree with that?I know I've joined this thread rather late in the day, but I just wanted to point out that my local primary school already puts kids into sets, and they do it more-or-less from the very beginning! There are three classes in each of Primary 1 through 7, and kids are allocated to classes in a comprehensive way -- I think. However, they're split into "ability groups" within the class, the groups being different for different subjects, and there is mobility between groups. In the later years, they are split into "real" sets (in different classroms with different teachers) for some subjects (ie maths & spelling). Again, the sets are different for different subjects.
I'm not sure what happens in the local high school (which is supposedly amongst the best state high schools in Scotland), but I'll try to find out.
Am I alone in thinking that literacy standards might be improved by the reintroduction of lessons in grammar and punctuation? My kids spend a lot of time learning to spell, but they haven't a clue about grammar or punctuation. I must admit to not being an expert at either of these, but I think that's partly because I wasn't taught them at all at high school. Well, that's my excuse. ;)
The primary school my boy goes to also does that DrSzin. Its a small school just 70 pupils with mixed classes and he is currently in a P6/7 class. This class is then split by ability for some subjects - chiefly english and maths and spelling and reading. Things like Art, RME, PE are not split at all. They dont split further than that and they dont do the different teachers for different groups but hten there are only three of them so i guess it would be difficult.
Would I be too bold in asking you what area your school is in?
landmarker
11-Jan-06, 21:09
Perhaps everybody wishing to compete should get a Gold Medal so they don't feel left out!
Oh! you want to create a special medal for deferred success?
I'd suggest plastic?
And everyone knows it wor' Hans Plockdeletzenmauer as won that ski jumpin'
landmarker
11-Jan-06, 21:14
Are you being anti intellectual?
Me?
Would I dare?
er.....do you consider yourself an intellectual Rheghead?
I'd say not as you appear well grounded.
Me?
Would I dare?
er.....do you consider yourself an intellectual Rheghead?
I'd say not as you appear well grounded.
No I don't.
Oh! you want to create a special medal for deferred success?
I'd suggest plastic?
And everyone knows it wor' Hans Plockdeletzenmauer as won that ski jumpin'
Strewth landmarker, I couldn't even pronounce it let alone spell it!
weeboyagee
12-Jan-06, 14:56
When I was in primary school (in P7) to be exact, I was in the red group in my class. The teacher spent less time with us but that didn't mean we lost out - we had the ability to move on without the intense teaching. The blue group got more teaching time and the yellow group got most teaching time. Mostly, each group was slightly further on in the exercise book than the other.
However, this was for Mathematics, English and similar subjects. Quite often, the class did group activities, discussion, PE, art, musical performances etc. We all had the opportunity to show what we were good at from time to time.
I am absolutely sure that we would not have benefited from being split into full time class structures that denied us the ability to "mix" academically at all.
The world has all levels of academic ability making it the place that it is. As adults, we have the ability to understand where we fit in (well, there is the odd exception!). Kids are at a lesser age of understanding Rheghead, so where you said my argument was fundamentally flawed, I am so sorry, but I think that your point was weak! (Hope that didn't hurt :lol:!) Society is one big mass with individuals at different academic levels undertaking the tasks they are best suited to. They don't have to stay there and they have options available to them either to better themselves or to undertake tasks at a lesser level than their academic ability. There are no real boundaries for the brain surgeon and the rock star and the deck hand. They know where they are and what they have to do if they want to change. Who governs this? Themselves. In a class, the teacher governs it!
Did you notice the poll on Sky News yesterday where the majority believe it is teachers who are responsible for the failure of kids in education. Hallelujah - the general public got that one right! Lesser academic standards have brought about a lesser standard of education and therefore a lesser challenge for teachers to deliver.
Kids are far better in an environment where they live to appreciate the abilities of others and themselves. They can choose to move on or stay where they are but the teacher (thankless though the task may be) should always be required to drive them. Don't get me wrong - I believe we have many wonderful teachers doing an increasingly difficult task because of the type of child that society can create before schooling age nowadays but the more difficult the problem, the greater the challenge.
I still believe that our kids should be educated together to prepare them for a world where society has to live together - all academic levels!
Did you notice the poll on Sky News yesterday where the majority believe it is teachers who are responsible for the failure of kids in education. Hallelujah - the general public got that one right! Lesser academic standards have brought about a lesser standard of education and therefore a lesser challenge for teachers to deliver.I disagree. Teachers have very little control over what they teach, who they teach, and how they teach it. Most teachers of a certain age will tell you that it was much easier to teach to a higher standard 20 or 30 years ago.
Why?
Government policy insists that more kids should pass more exams with higher grades than ever before. As has been pointed out by others, this means that most less-academic kids are staying on at school longer, and they're being made to sit exams that they wouldn't have sat in our day. This, together with the insistence that average grades should increase for ever more, has the inevitable effect that standards will drop in one way or another. I don't think you can blame teachers for this. One might even argue that it's not a bad thing because less-academically-inclined kids are benefiting from more education, while the more-academically-inclined kids can catch up at college or university. In fact, the latter is what actually happens, to some extent at least.
The effect is different in different subjects, but the drop in mathematical competence by A Level students in England over the last 10 years has been demonstrated objectively by several independent groups, and it's quite amazing. I can probably find the data if anyone's interested.
I'm not quite so convinced that English-language standards have dropped so dramatically in the last 10 years. I think we see a lot more illiteracy nowadays simply because more people publish more stuff -- both on the web and on paper. Having said that, there's a new shop near here called Dog Hair's and it drives me nuts every time I see it. How could they?
But I still think kids should be taught some basic grammar and punctuation. I know I would have benefited from it. I learned next to sod all about the English language in my first two and a half years at THS, but perhaps I just wasn't cut out for the teaching methods used at the time.
The other vital ingredient in the mix is that, when it comes to discipline, teachers' hands are tied like never before. This has been pointed out many times on here and I don't want to go over it again. But most of us are aware that unruly kids have far more "rights" than they used to have, and many teachers have been despairing over this situation for years. BTW I don't believe for one minute that there's a big connection between the discipline problem and the abolition of capital punishment (*) in schools. As I've said on here previously, I once owned up to something I didn't do just to get a few thrashes across the hand. I was never scared of the belt after that, and my respect for any teacher that used it plummeted to zero. The same was true for most of my peers. We had the upper hand for ever more with most of the belt 'em brigade after that. There were one or two scary characters whose cages we didn't rattle, but we wouldn't have rattled them anyway, belt or no belt.
Finally, as I'm sure you're aware WBG, intakes to high schools in cities such as Edinbugh are selective. They're selected by the size of your parents' mortgage! If your parents have a house in a good area, then you get into a "good" (sic) school. If they don't, then you go to a "bad" (sic) school. Yes, of course I'm oversimplifying, and the "bad" schools aren't really bad, and they're not full of bad teachers, but the effect of socio-economic factors on exam results is huge and undeniable. At least in Thurso or Wick everyone gets the chance to go to a decent "mid-table" high school.
Eek, that was a long ramble. Time to shutup methinks...
___
(*) Yeah, yeah, I know! It was a genuine mistake, but I left it in to give someone a good laugh at my expense.
weeboyagee
12-Jan-06, 19:44
Teachers have very little control over what they teach, who they teach,....
We're on the same side there....
....and how they teach it
This is where we differ my friend. I have had the opportunity to be a guest in a school and contribute to the working day. The teacher I worked with was a mannerful, charismatic, warm, pleasant person with a real obvious talent for working with kids. The classrooms were open plan. The problem? This screaming witch of a teacher in the open plan area. She yelled at the kids as a group, yelled at them individually and ridiculed some for their answers to questions when they got it wrong. She had an opportunity to exercise "power" in a situation where those subjected to it had no recourse. The most unruly person in that area that day was her. The teacher I worked with that day also had a unique ability to reprimand without the volume of 110db. So I am afraid, there is a challenge to EVERY teacher in "how" they teach.
Most teachers of a certain age will tell you that it was much easier to teach to a higher standard 20 or 30 years ago....Why?...Government policy insists that more kids should pass more exams with higher grades than ever before etc....
I have a lot of sympathy for this point. Maybe I have missed out the fact that the teachers have not been helped with the Governments infatuation with proving that it's education policies work these day. The academic standards are to be achieved in terms of Government targets. What I was trying to say was that the lower the target, the lesser the standard of education and therefore a lesser challenge to the teachers of the country, so on that one Dr, I'll give way... :)
One might even argue that it's not a bad thing because less-academically-inclined kids are benefitting from more education, while the more-academically-inclined kids can catch up at college or university. In fact, the latter is what actually happens, to some extent at least.
Are you insinuating that there is a greater gulf existing now between the standard education and the higher education systems? Why has this been allowed to happen? Does this not prove that the streaming system of kids is not the resolve but the addressing of why the standard has gone down in the first place? Streaming kids would then be seen as a "repair" for the time being and not a tackling of the root cause.
I'm not quite so convinced that English-language standards have dropped so dramatically in the last 10 years.
Disagree. I firmly believe they have and evidence is in abundance all around us.
Having said that, there's a new shop near here called Dog Hair's and it drives me nuts every time I see it. How could they?
I rest my case :lol:
But I still think kids should be taught some basic grammar and punctuation. I know I would have benefitted from it.
Sorry Dr my friend had to giggle at the benefited!
The other vital ingredient in the mix is that, when it comes to discipline, teachers' hands are tied like never before. This has been pointed out many times on here and I don't want to go over it again. But most of us are aware that unruly kids have far more "rights" than they used to have, and many teachers have been despairing over this situation for years. BTW I don't believe for one minute that there's a big connection between the discipline problem and the abolition of capital punishment (*) in schools.
Now here we are in absolute agreement!
Finally, as I'm sure you're aware WBG, intakes to high schools in cities such as Edinbugh are selective. They're selected by the size of your parents' mortgage! If your parents have a house in a good area, then you get into a "good" (sic) school. If they don't, then you go to a "bad" (sic) school. Yes, of course I'm oversimplifying, and the "bad" schools aren't really bad, and they're not full of bad teachers, but the effect of socio-economic factors on exam results is huge and undeniable.
I went to Deans Community High School (there - that let the cat out of the bag!!!) and started in 1978 - the first Community High School to open in Scotland - a few days before Wester Hailes Education Centre in Edinburgh. It was brand new and I was one of the first first-year students. We were a first line pilot school for the then new Munn and Dunning (bad words for teachers) system of education. We had internal certification called (wait for it) Breakthrough, Foundation, Intermediate, General, Standard and Credit!!! I was a guinea-pig. We had no belt and no bells. Dear, dear, see what happened - look at where these schools are now in the tables - DCHS, Wester Hailes and Inveralmond Community High which opened not long after us. Jeez, I am ashamed to say I attended it! I came to Wick and saw the light! :lol:
Under the old State Grammar School System it didn't matter where you lived or who or what your parents were. If you passed you could go no matter what your background.
If you lived in a big posh house in a big posh area and your parents were loaded, if you didn't pass then you didn't go.
If you lived in a Council Flat on what they now call a sink estate if you passed then you went.
Sounds a lot fairer to me than the current post code lottery where those who can afford choose the areas with the best schools and the rest are just left to rot.
Even the fee paying Grammar Schools insisted you pass a competitive entrance exam which was usually more difficult than the State exam.
If you didn't pass, then once again, you didn't go.
... and how they teach it.This is where we differ my friend. I have had the opportunity to be a guest in a school and contribute to the working day. The teacher I worked with was a mannerful, charismatic, warm, pleasant person with a real obvious talent for working with kids. The classrooms were open plan. The problem? This screaming witch of a teacher in the open plan area. She yelled at the kids as a group, yelled at them individually and ridiculed some for their answers to questions when they got it wrong. She had an opportunity to exercise "power" in a situation where those subjected to it had no recourse. The most unruly person in that area that day was her. The teacher I worked with that day also had a unique ability to reprimand without the volume of 110db. So I am afraid, there is a challenge to EVERY teacher in "how" they teach.No, we don't differ at all. I was hopelessly unclear -- I was thinking of the limited choice mathematics teachers have in the way they approach their subject -- they tell me that they have to cater for a lower common denominator (no pun intended) than 20 years ago. (I know lots of Mathematics teachers and this is one of their explanations for "lower standards" -- don't shoot the messenger!) I'll have to be more careful in future. What you say is of course 100% correct.
Are you insinuating that there is a greater gulf existing now between the standard education and the higher education systems? Yes, in some areas at least.
Why has this been allowed to happen? Does this not prove that the streaming system of kids is not the resolve but the addressing of why the standard has gone down in the first place? Streaming kids would then be seen as a "repair" for the time being and not a tackling of the root cause. It's happened because students are coming out of schools with inflated grades and less mastery of their subjects. As far as I'm aware most schools do a lot of streaming already, so this thread is perhaps not asking the right question. I'm not advocating further streaming in schools btw.
I'm not quite so convinced that English-language standards have dropped so dramatically in the last 10 years.Disagree. I firmly believe they have and evidence is in abundance all around us.I'm not claiming they haven't dropped, but I'm not 100% convinced they've dropped as far as they have in Mathematics. I feared you'd disagree with me there. I hoped you wouldn't, but it was a rather pious hope. :cry:
But I still think kids should be taught some basic grammar and punctuation. I know I would have benefitted from it.Sorry Dr my friend had to giggle at the benefited!Surely I'm allowed one typo. :) Ok, should I be a pedant? No, surely not. Oh, all right, I guess I have to live up to the standards of my avatar occasionally:
Maybe I have missed out the fact that the teachers have not been helped with the Governments infatuation with proving that it's education policies work these day.Exercise for the student. Move WBG's apostrophe to its rightful place. :)
I have to go in a sec, so I'll be brief on the last topic:
I know Wester Hailes Community High School doesn't have great exam results (to put it politely) but it's bang in the middle of a socially- and economically-deprived area, so I wouldn't expect it to have good results! Inveralmond isn't much better, but Deans isn't too much lower than WHS in the tables I was looking at the other day.
Under the old State Grammar School System it didn't matter where you lived or who or what your parents were. If you passed you could go no matter what your background.
If you lived in a big posh house in a big posh area and your parents were loaded, if you didn't pass then you didn't go.
If you lived in a Council Flat on what they now call a sink estate if you passed then you went.
Sounds a lot fairer to me than the current post code lottery where those who can afford choose the areas with the best schools and the rest are just left to rot.
Even the fee paying Grammar Schools insisted you pass a competitive entrance exam which was usually more difficult than the State exam.
If you didn't pass, then once again, you didn't go.Indeed -- I was playing Devil's Advocate in a discussion a few days ago, and I used exactly the same argument in jest, but then I realised what I was saying was true! However, it's not the whole story by any means -- the kid in the council flat was much less likely to pass the eleven plus than the kid in the posh house. Neither of these systems are ideal -- surely there's a better one out there somewhere. The Americans once tried some social engineering involving "busing" kids to neighbouring schools but I don't think that lasted long.
I think that it is one of those unsolvable problems. No matter what system id devised there will always be a certain number who manage to get tangled up in the wrong net.
John Prescott is very grumpy because he failed his 11 plus.
I passed mine. I look at where he got and then I look very hard in the mirror and ......... I will say no more.
I think one of the main problems with the old system was the way it was presented. There was a view that those who went to Grammar school were successes and those who didn't were failures. You threw a shovel at them and if they managed to pick it up by the handle then you might actually be able to teach them to dig ditches. If they didn't use the handle then you took it off them, gave them a brush and pointed them in the direction of the nearest street.
I'm exaggerating, of course, so don't take offence folks.
I used to look at some of the Technical Drawings (Do they still do them) a friend used to do and realised that he had skills I could never hope to achieve. And that is considered "failure" because he didn't go to Grammar School?
I think the main problem was that the system was not versatile enough because it just had two directions.
Perhaps a system with more variety so the various skills and wants different children have can be catered for.
A sort of Horses for Courses system where the system fits the child’s needs instead of trying to manipulate the child to fit the system.
I have to confess, my original post about the old system was a bit naughty.
But it does usually get one heck of a response even if I do have to head for the nearest shelter.
landmarker
12-Jan-06, 21:29
I still believe that our kids should be educated together to prepare them for a world where society has to live together - all academic levels!
No it doesn't.
Society is polarised.
From leafy suburb and country lane to inner city tower block and sink estate.
Life is not a level playing field and never will be.
Some can rise up and free themselves from the yolk of poverty, medicority and underprivilege, most just muddle through it all. The lucky ones are given a head start at birth.
I do not honestly think 'society lives together' it 's a good idea but impossible in a capitalist economy.
What is important is a cohesive society, where the broadest backs bear the heaviest load and where we are all basically heading in the same direction, aware that some have the inside track around the bends.
What is important is a cohesive society, where the broadest backs bear the heaviest load and where we are all basically heading in the same direction, aware that some have the inside track around the bends.
Ah, it's been a while coming but here it is - a dashed fine bit of philosophy from the homespun department.
Next will be a bit about a long and winding road , teehee [lol]
I used to look at some of the Technical Drawings (Do they still do them) a friend used to do and realised that he had skills I could never hope to achieve. And that is considered "failure" because he didn't go to Grammar School?Ah well, one of the benefits of a comprehensive education is that you get to try all sorts of things. Believe it or not, I have an A grade Higher in Technical Drawing. Yon Bill Baikie scared me into it. :) Was Mr B's first name really Bill? I canna mind for the life of me.
This is going off-topic, but Gleber2 mentioned recently that he was taught art by Mr "Mingis", and anyone that called him Mr "Menzees" was in trouble. He's dead right there: even I tried hard at art in Mr M's class; I was hopeless but at least I tried - which is more than I ever did in any other art class.
Dear Doctor,I was never taught by old Mingis,I was only belted by him.Chorley taught me art and he was considered somewhat strange but I think I would understand him better now.
My typos led to the accusation that my grammatical standard was a fair indication that the standard of education in the fifties and sixties was no better than now.Bill Shurie was very good teacher and so was Netta Duck.I was a poor student but I got my Higher English.Who would be perfect???[evil]
weeboyagee
13-Jan-06, 01:02
Chorley taught me art and he was considered somewhat strange but.........
I though ALL art teachers were strange!! :eek: I was in a Modern Studies class where the background music was Ballet, mainly by Russian composers. I was in a Maths class where the teacher spoke in the language of Einstein, a Music class where the teacher jumped out of planes with a parachute to raise money for guitars, Economics class taught by a fashion expert, a Physics class where and I quote "...if a spear weighing X Kg travelling at X m/sec in the water, sticks a stationary dolphin weighing X Kg at an angle of X degrees, what is the resultant speed and direction of spear and dolphin" and a Geography teacher who told us how you could get water clean enough to drink in a desert by using the filter of your broken down car (and DON'T ask!!!!)
Teachers? Hmmmmm,.......it's not just the Art ones that are a funny breed! (Apostrophe in the right place DrSzin :lol:!?)
Where were we? Ahh, yes, streaming kids.........
Is that how you spell apostrophe?Chings I'd better watch my step I've been wrong many times since I got ridiculed for missing one out.:lol:
Gleber2, the grammatical standards back then might well be little different to today's but the "attention getters" were vastly superior.
When the Blackboard, oops, sorry, I retract that, Chalkboard duster had whistled past your ear and bounced of the back wall a couple of times you soon learn to stay awake.
You might not have learned any more but your attention span was certainly improved.
Yes, Bill Shurie was good, but Netta Duck was one of the ones I learned almost nothing from. English classes were too discursive and much too passive for my liking. We were never taught how to do anything -- it was all talk. Ok, we wrote occasional essays and we were given marks for them, but IMHO there was never sufficient constructive criticism of our written work, what little there was of it. I think I would have preferred the Englandshire model wherein English language and literature are two separate subjects. Well, I think they are. English literature at THS was better, but the obsession with Shakespeare was criminal. I was astounded when I went to uni and discovered that all(?) other Scottish schoolkids had studied plays that hadn't been written by the Stratford bard. What a shock that was! :eek:
I was taught art by Mr Mingis but not belted by him. Yon Chorley mannie musta been before my time.
Teachers? Hmmmmm,.......it's not just the Art ones that are a funny breed! (Apostrophe in the right place DrSzin :lol:!?)Absolutely. :)
When the Blackboard, oops, sorry, I retract that, Chalkboard duster had whistled past your ear and bounced of the back wall a couple of times you soon learn to stay awake.It's a blackboard JAWS. Even the green ones are blackboards in my book. And if any PC-obsessive droid wants to argue, I'll meet them round the back of the bike sheds after class and we can discuss it like men. That goes for weemin too -- I'll set ma wee sister on 'em.
Chorley left in the very early sixties or late fifties.
We have a similar attitude to the Bard!!!!!
On Shakespeare.
O Shakespeare,ancient bard,with busy pen,
A legacy of words thou hast beqeathed,
To those of us now in the world of men,
Who hast the wisdom of thy words received.
Thy plays,thy speeches,and thy poetry too,
Displayeth much the kind of man thou wert,
As in thy time thy works were something new,
And met such favour in the proud King's court.
E'n now,when centuries have passed,
The pedagogues of learning sing thy praise,
And tell us that thy words were meant to last,
With such deep meaning vibrant in each phrase.
Although to me thy words are such a bore,
Thy hallowed name will live forever more.
Wrote this sonnet a few years ago. Thought it might amuse you.
Wrote one about evolution also but I dare not print it as it would show that I secretly agree with Gleeber.He would probably call me a hypocrite.(Sp?We really do need a spell checker)
That sums up my attitude rather well. But we did have fun winding up Grannie Gunn by deliberately mis-pronouncing every other word in the Merchant of Venice. I rather liked GG, if only because she thought I was as thick as 2K short planks.
Saw her at our 1987 class reunion. Sat at the same table with her and Menzies,Simm,Ma Gallon,Goofy, Black and a few others.She was completely unchanged.Maybe she signed a pact with HE WHO SHALL REMAIN NAMELESS.[evil] To her,if you could not speak Latin,you were certainly as thick as two short planks.
This thread now clearly demonstrates the theory that ' I went to school, ergo I am an expert on education' [para]
This thread now clearly demonstrates the theory that ' I went to school, ergo I am an expert on education' [para] Yeah, and there's always someone who pops up with that particular quote. I've done it myself on several occasions, but it's little more than a cheap jibe if it's not backed up by something a bit more substantial. :rolleyes:
Come one SweatyBetty, don't leave us dangling, give us the benefit of your insider's wisdom. (I assume you are an insider.) Or will you be a latent bully like I was in the anti-matter discussion?
I don't think anyone should tell you to "put up or shut up", but the thought crossed my mind. ;)
Go on SweatyBetty, please. :D
Dear dear doktor, I wouldn't dare butt in any further to those reminiscent meanderings you were both enjoying so much [lol]
Scaredy cat! :grin:
But at least you understood what we were up to -- phew. :D
Scaredy cat! :grin:
But at least you understood what we were up to -- phew. :D
This pussy ain't feart and knows nowt about Thurso High anyway. Stroma high school was big enough for me ;) ;)
Ha! I don't think the cat has anything constructive to say.
I shall now shutup and leaving you purring quietly on your own.
I shall now shutup and leaving you purring quietly on your own.
I love it when you stroke dirty:evil
Last night when we were quietly meandering,I believe we were two of the three active members at that time.How thoughtless of us. I'm married to a headmistress and we do talk about education.
No expert but not as ignorant as I /we are being painted.
weeboyagee
13-Jan-06, 14:34
No expert but not as ignorant as I /we are being painted
RIGHT!!! Who is paintin' you both out to be ignorant?? Let me at 'em and I'll go and sort 'em oot fur ye! Far's ma strap......? :lol:
A declaration of war begawd. You are talking on the attributes of your adopted fellows(Weekers,of course).Ahm a Gleber and I can look efter masel.Ahm no feared o' bad reps!!!!
RIGHT!!! Who is paintin' you both out to be ignorant?? Let me at 'em and I'll go and sort 'em oot fur ye! Far's ma strap......? :lol:Goodness knows WBG. Whoever it is is keen on dropping catty hints that they know more about education that ye, me or Gleber2. But they don't seem too keen on delivering whatever it is that they know. Maybe it's an English teacher or a politician. [smirk]
Politician? English Teacher? Well that really does count me out.
One day there was a loud knocking on the Gates of Heaven.
As Gabriel approached the Gates he called out, "Who's there?"
"It is I." came the Reply.
"Gabriel," boomed a voice, "Don't you dare open the Gates. The last thing I need is another darned English Teacher!"
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.