I went to my children’s parents evening this week, I have twins that have just started secondary school.
I was amazed to find out one has been fast tracked on ability to a top set whereby he is heading towards doing his GCSE’s a year earlier if he carries on at the level he is working now.
My other twin is an average student, so is in the middle set.
To be told this was not a shock as I have been told the vast differences all through primary school.
What I am confused with is that all schools will not agree that this is streaming children, which was abolished years ago, they frown at you when the word streaming is use.
I am not against children working to their own levels I would encourage it.
Why hold one back so others can catch up has never sat right with me, so I am all for this new system.
So is this the same as streaming?
Why don’t schools like to admit it is one of the same thing?
Do you agree with set abilities?
I don’t know if all are aware that children’s leaving age at secondary schools is now 17.
If my son does achieve his Gcse’s a year earlier he would then be able to start his As level at 15.
Do people feel this is a good idea?
I think it can only be positive; I would like to ask others views there might be something I haven’t thought about.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Is streaming in schools a bad thing?
so by definition it's good :D
Orgasminator
We like the idea of different ability groups for classes as not all children learn at the same rate..
But (is'nt there always a BUT) as long as the children with lesser abilities are not over looked!!!
As with the children its the same with teachers!! not all teachers are the same & as long as its not going to be the best teachers for the fast achievers & the other pupils get the less dedicated teachers...
But (is'nt there always a BUT) as long as the children with lesser abilities are not over looked!!!
As with the children its the same with teachers!! not all teachers are the same & as long as its not going to be the best teachers for the fast achievers & the other pupils get the less dedicated teachers...
Sex God
its nice if a child can get ahead,, i think it give them a better chance in the real world,,
its hard in the real world. might end up like richard branson if they lucky
its hard in the real world. might end up like richard branson if they lucky
I like it,
Means the kids who have the aptitude and are willing to put the work in are recognised and their education is pitched at a level they are able to cope with.
On the flip side, I don't believe other less able children should be cast aside though, if anything the children who are struggling should be supported more so.
There is nothing wrong with giving a child targets to drive their involvement with school. Bring back competitive sports while their at it!
Means the kids who have the aptitude and are willing to put the work in are recognised and their education is pitched at a level they are able to cope with.
On the flip side, I don't believe other less able children should be cast aside though, if anything the children who are struggling should be supported more so.
There is nothing wrong with giving a child targets to drive their involvement with school. Bring back competitive sports while their at it!
Quote by staffcple
I like it,
Means the kids who have the aptitude and are willing to put the work in are recognised and their education is pitched at a level they are able to cope with.
On the flip side, I don't believe other less able children should be cast aside though, if anything the children who are struggling should be supported more so.
There is nothing wrong with giving a child targets to drive their involvement with school. Bring back competitive sports while their at it!
They are Staffs, in some cases to the detriment of others.
Ah streaming....A word that the pc brigade do not like to hear. Well here is my take on it.
We all know that most feel that Grammar schools are for the elite, the cleverer ones out there which is true. We also know that politicians have done wonders in nearly wiping them out. We live in a borough where there are quite a few.
Is streaming not the same as Grammar?
In a Grammar school all the clever ones learn together, in a secondary school the clever ones are seperated from the less cleverer ones shall we say. That to me is exactly how it should be. Grammar schools are hated by so many people and almost wiped out, but the same level of elitism is going on in every secondary school. The clever ones are not taught with the less cleverer ones.Why should a child who is clever and bright, be put into a class where there are lots of other kids who would struggle with their times tables?
Streaming is a good thing as each child is set work that is in their level of ability, the same as the other class members. Putting the clever ones in with less clever ones, will have a very detrimental effect on the clever child.
Streaming is the same as Grammar, just done in a slightly different way but.....schhh don't tell the politicains or they will want kids of all abilities stuffed in the same classes, don't want too much elitism now.....do we?
Sex God
Quote by kentswingers777
In a Grammar school all the clever ones learn together, in a secondary school the clever ones are seperated from the less cleverer ones shall we say.
Sorry, I don't want to take the thread off track but I went to a Grammar school and within that we were 'streamed' for various subjects. I'm pretty sure this is still the case in the school I went to and other similar ones. Just because a child has passed a test to get into a school (be it the 11+ or any other sort of entrance exam) it doesn't mean that all pupils will excel at the same level of teaching.
Personally I have no problem with pupils being divided into different learning groups, so long as it is done in a positive way that benefits all pupils. Different teachers have different skills and if matched to the right students they can bring the best out of them.
Sex God
I think you'll find that the 'buzz word' du jour is 'personalised learning' 
and believe me, that is hard enough when you have 32 kids in a class and they are setted or streamed or whatever you want to call it. Mixed ability and that would be a complete nightmare!
Erm... before I completely digress, I'm a fan of setting. As a teacher I find that it benefits most kids. It allows you to teach to their potential, to push as necessary and to review/revise/support as necessary.
To be fair, I'm at the start of my teaching career, but so far I'm definitely in favour of setting.
and believe me, that is hard enough when you have 32 kids in a class and they are setted or streamed or whatever you want to call it. Mixed ability and that would be a complete nightmare!Erm... before I completely digress, I'm a fan of setting. As a teacher I find that it benefits most kids. It allows you to teach to their potential, to push as necessary and to review/revise/support as necessary.
To be fair, I'm at the start of my teaching career, but so far I'm definitely in favour of setting.
Warming the Bed
'Streaming' is still frowned on in education circles..unfortunately the word has not been explained too well in (or by?) the media.
Schools which streamed students would put the supposed high flyers into top sets for *all* subjects. Setting or banding does the same thing...but crucially it would apply differently in *each* subject. A student could be in a top set for maths but a lower one for french, for example.
Adam,
I have an inferiority complex...but it's not a very good one.
Schools which streamed students would put the supposed high flyers into top sets for *all* subjects. Setting or banding does the same thing...but crucially it would apply differently in *each* subject. A student could be in a top set for maths but a lower one for french, for example.
Adam,
I have an inferiority complex...but it's not a very good one.
Sex God
Quote by Oldham_Bloke
'Streaming' is still frowned on in education circles..unfortunately the word has not been explained too well in (or by?) the media.
Schools which streamed students would put the supposed high flyers into top sets for *all* subjects. Setting or banding does the same thing...but crucially it would apply differently in *each* subject. A student could be in a top set for maths but a lower one for french, for example.
Adam,
I have an inferiority complex...but it's not a very good one.
:thumbup: Yep, that's what we do - I teach various sets in each year and there are kids who are in set 5 for me but set 2 for Maths etc.
Quote by poshkate
In a Grammar school all the clever ones learn together, in a secondary school the clever ones are seperated from the less cleverer ones shall we say.
Sorry, I don't want to take the thread off track but I went to a Grammar school and within that we were 'streamed' for various subjects. I'm pretty sure this is still the case in the school I went to and other similar ones. Just because a child has passed a test to get into a school (be it the 11+ or any other sort of entrance exam) it doesn't mean that all pupils will excel at the same level of teaching.
Personally I have no problem with pupils being divided into different learning groups, so long as it is done in a positive way that benefits all pupils. Different teachers have different skills and if matched to the right students they can bring the best out of them.
Yes I am fully aware they are streamed at Grammar schools too. My point was that when they first start thay have been singled out through the 11 plus. Which some would say is elitism....Sorry should have been a bit clearer.
