- + *Bambii* voted on a point for the debate Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
- + Zabrcanec voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Milka Gerovska voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Milka Gerovska voted on the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Milka Gerovska edited the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Kristina Stojcik voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Rlblois joined Debatewise
- + Milka Gerovska voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Milka Gerovska voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + *Bambii* voted on the debate Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
- + Milka Gerovska voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Evels Flulky joined Global Youth Panel
- + *Bambii* voted on a point for the debate Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
- + Kristina Stojcik voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + *Bambii* voted on a point for the debate Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
- + Milka Gerovska voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Milka Gerovska voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + *Bambii* edited the debate Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
- + Zabrcanec voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Milka Gerovska voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Milka Gerovska voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Milka Gerovska voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Milka Gerovska voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
WHY OUR SECONDARY SCHOOL SYSTEM SUCKS
Children are not created equal. Behind the comprehensive education system is some bizarre, fundamentally flawed and discredited communistic notion about equality for all. Of course everyone should have access to superb education; everyone should be superbly educated. But not every child can benefit from academic training and schools should reflect this. Once upon a time there were grammar, technical and secondary modern schools. Never mind the unfortunate category names, these focussed seats of learning provided a more intelligent structure that was at least informed by realism. At the root of today’s education problem is a mistaken in the benefits of inclusion. Partisans argue that top achievers will somehow ‘raise up’ less able learners, inspire them by example. I’ve taught in 64 northeast secondary schools and can testify that this hope remains a dream. On the contrary, the rowdy, the dim and the troubled pull down more gifted and engaged pupils. Teachers don’t have the opportunity to teach; crowd control absorbs their time and energies. Concentration is easily broken, commitment quickly thwarted in the young. It’s not just the dumb who make trouble in class. It’s also the bright kids reacting to frustration, interruption, lack of attention and leadership. I suspect that the naughtiest yobs may well be the smartest, with the most creative brains. We need an educational elite and that means dismantling the comprehensive system.
Why our secondary school system sucks
Yes, because... FOR: Kids leave schools lacking basic skills thanks to flawed comprehensive 'philosophy'
1) Kids leave school lacking basic skills - ability to read, do maths, reason, talk intelligibly.
2) We accept and applaud competition in everyday life, football, pop idols, reality TV, work. Why would education be an exception?
3) The world of work operates through a system of competitive screening: application forms, job interviews, trial periods. Why not get the hang of winning, young?
1) Traditional basic skills are out of date. Communication has shifted and now revolves around different technology such as the mobile phone, the internet, games playing. Kids are adept at understanding, interaction, communication, but in different forms. 2) Sure we applaud winners and commiserate with losers at arm’s length; but when the loser is family we have a different response. 3) The traditional world of work is rapidly changing, and along with it the ladder-climbing, office politics, glass ceilings, and so on. More and more people will work from home and their work will involve computer skills, which can be learnt.
(moved from below)
Vote on this point: FOR: Kids leave schools lacking basic skills thanks to flawed comprehensive 'philosophy'
See history of changes to this point
Why our secondary school system sucks
Yes, because... AGAINST: comprehensive schools are a 'work in progress' and will work eventually
1) Teachers – and students - are already reeling from a regime that tests kids non-stop. Any further change would have a devastating effect on education.
2) The comprehensive experiment is capable of working; it just needs more time.
3) It’s all about money. If there was enough funding, more teachers, smaller classes, the comprehensive project would succeed.
1) Testing is essential for assessment of ability and progress. Too much change? Not if it leads to the best possible outcome – eventually. 2) The comprehensive system has had a good run, since the 1950s in fact. If they haven’t been made to work in 50+ years it’s dead in the water. 3) The ethos of a comprehensive is wrong for achievers. Even with smaller classes and better funded facilities the bright would not thrive.
(moved from below)
Vote on this point: AGAINST: comprehensive schools are a 'work in progress' and will work eventually
See history of changes to this point
Why our secondary school system sucks
Yes, because... COUNTER ARGUMENTS FOR: Today's kids are as smart and skilled as ever, but in different ways
1) Traditional basic skills are out of date. Communication has shifted and now revolves around different technology such as the mobile phone, the internet, games playing. Kids are adept at understanding, interaction, communication, but in different forms.
2) Sure we applaud winners and commiserate with losers at arm’s length; but when the loser is family we have a different response.
3) The traditional world of work is rapidly changing, and along with it the ladder-climbing, office politics, glass ceilings, and so on. More and more people will work from home and their work will involve computer skills, which can be learnt.
Why our secondary school system sucks
Yes, because... COUNTER ARGUMENTS AGAINST: Bright kids can never thrive in comprehensives
1) Testing is essential for assessment of ability and progress. Too much change? Not if it leads to the best possible outcome – eventually.
2) The comprehensive system has had a good run, since the 1950s in fact. If they haven’t been made to work in 50+ years it’s dead in the water.
3) The ethos of a comprehensive is wrong for achievers. Even with smaller classes and better funded facilities the bright would not thrive.
Vote on this debate: Why our secondary school system sucks
Modified:
30 Apr 2010
Point 1. FOR: Kids leave schools lacking basic skills thanks to flawed comprehensive 'philosophy'
1) Kids leave school lacking basic skills - ability to read, do maths, reason, talk intelligibly.
2) We accept and applaud competition in everyday life, football, pop idols, reality TV, work. Why would education be an exception?
3) The world of work operates through a system of competitive screening: application forms, job interviews, trial periods. Why not get the hang of winning, young?
1) Traditional basic skills are out of date. Communication has shifted and now revolves around different technology such as the mobile phone, the internet, games playing. Kids are adept at understanding, interaction, communication, but in different forms. 2) Sure we applaud winners and commiserate with losers at arm’s length; but when the loser is family we have a different response. 3) The traditional world of work is rapidly changing, and along with it the ladder-climbing, office politics, glass ceilings, and so on. More and more people will work from home and their work will involve computer skills, which can be learnt.
(moved from below)
Point 2. AGAINST: comprehensive schools are a 'work in progress' and will work eventually
1) Teachers – and students - are already reeling from a regime that tests kids non-stop. Any further change would have a devastating effect on education.
2) The comprehensive experiment is capable of working; it just needs more time.
3) It’s all about money. If there was enough funding, more teachers, smaller classes, the comprehensive project would succeed.
1) Testing is essential for assessment of ability and progress. Too much change? Not if it leads to the best possible outcome – eventually. 2) The comprehensive system has had a good run, since the 1950s in fact. If they haven’t been made to work in 50+ years it’s dead in the water. 3) The ethos of a comprehensive is wrong for achievers. Even with smaller classes and better funded facilities the bright would not thrive.
(moved from below)
Point 3. COUNTER ARGUMENTS FOR: Today's kids are as smart and skilled as ever, but in different ways
1) Traditional basic skills are out of date. Communication has shifted and now revolves around different technology such as the mobile phone, the internet, games playing. Kids are adept at understanding, interaction, communication, but in different forms.
2) Sure we applaud winners and commiserate with losers at arm’s length; but when the loser is family we have a different response.
3) The traditional world of work is rapidly changing, and along with it the ladder-climbing, office politics, glass ceilings, and so on. More and more people will work from home and their work will involve computer skills, which can be learnt.
Point 4. COUNTER ARGUMENTS AGAINST: Bright kids can never thrive in comprehensives
1) Testing is essential for assessment of ability and progress. Too much change? Not if it leads to the best possible outcome – eventually.
2) The comprehensive system has had a good run, since the 1950s in fact. If they haven’t been made to work in 50+ years it’s dead in the water.
3) The ethos of a comprehensive is wrong for achievers. Even with smaller classes and better funded facilities the bright would not thrive.