Originally Posted by Albion 69

"The use of mixed-ability classes in state schools is leading to a "tragic waste of natural talent", according to Sir Cyril Taylor, one of Labour's top schools advisors.

In a brutal attack on the comprehensive system, Sir Cyril said "one size fits all" policies resigned millions of bright pupils to educational failure as they were dragged down by weaker classmates. He said only a third of children named among the top-performers at the end of primary school in 1999 went on to get three As at A-level seven years later - the standard needed to get into an elite university.
Sir Cyril - architect of the Government's academies programme - claimed Labour had failed to prioritise bright children over the last decade amid fears it would "upset left-wingers".

He said problems were exacerbated by:

* The Government's failure to root out poor teachers - leaving as many as 20,000 staff who are "not up to the job"
* An erosion of his academies programme, which has seen failing local councils put in charge of schools
* Refusal to give good head teachers complete control of discipline and changes to the curriculum.
The comments, in a new book, A Good School for Every Child, will come as an embarrassing blow to the Government which has placed Sir Cyril's ideas at heart of education policy since 1997. "

Children's talent 'being wasted in comprehensives' - Telegraph

Despite the large increase in funding the basic problems remain , poor teaching and poor discipline the two being inextricably linked. The disruptive pupils know teachers have little power which leads to a creeping tolerance of bad behaviour effecting the whole class. The days when kids feared certain teachers is long gone and is now reversed , respect and discipline is the prerequisite for any well run school yet this is constantly undermined.
Being a teacher especially the supply variety in one of Britain's bog standard comps must be one of the most difficult soul destroying jobs imaginable .

Aye - send 'em all to Eton and tax the rich to pay for it. That's fair, isn't it?

Originally Posted by Albion 69

Being a teacher especially the supply variety in one of Britain's bog standard comps must be one of the most difficult soul destroying jobs imaginable .

From speaking to the people I know who are teachers of both the supply and permanent variety, you're not too far off. They say there are very few teachers that inspire the 'fear of the Gods' into children anymore. When I was at school, (only 10 years ago) there were at least 5 out of the 30odd that could scare the living **** outta a kid just by looking at them. The lack of dicipline comes mostly from the homelife though, it just continues in school because the kids haven't been taught respect.

Speaking from experience Albion, I would have to dispute your claim that teaching is the most soul destroying. You should try working in telesales...

Originally Posted by Dr The Evidence

From speaking to the people I know who are teachers of both the supply and permanent variety, you're not too far off. They say there are very few teachers that inspire the 'fear of the Gods' into children anymore. When I was at school, (only 10 years ago) there were at least 5 out of the 30odd that could scare the living **** outta a kid just by looking at them. The lack of dicipline comes mostly from the homelife though, it just continues in school because the kids haven't been taught respect.

Speaking from experience Albion, I would have to dispute your claim that teaching is the most soul destroying. You should try working in telesales...

Agree DTE most disruptive kids have parenting issues , teachers need the support of parents sadly many are worse than the kids.

How could i forget Telesales !

I agree with this.

In my school there was a group of us in mathematics who just weren't challenged. It was so easy it was actually pointless wasting time doing it.

Originally Posted by Dr The Evidence

When I was at school, (only 10 years ago) there were at least 5 out of the 30odd that could scare the living **** outta a kid just by looking at them.

During my schooling, most of the discipline was meted out by the coaches in the Athletic Department. If you acted a fool for ANY teacher, she'd simply contact your coach. Coach Hilton, in particular, had a paddle with a two-handed grip. I've seen him lift 15 year-olds off the floor with it for the minor offense of being disrespectful to his geography teacher. Although many hated him at the time, I think most of us look back on him with a certain degree of respect....I know that I do.

As with so many posts recently I have to say the very first thing we need to do is make it harder to bring private litigation, if schools weren't so scared of being sued then perhaps they'd be able to confront the parents and discipline the children.
Remember when a teacher could take a group of children out to the school field to run off some of that excess agression whilst reciting times tables or something similar? Can't do that any more for three reasons: 1) parents need to authorise in writing and triplicate before their child can be taken out of the classroom, 2) it is bound to be against the child's human rights for some bogus reason and 3) all the school fields were sold off.

Originally Posted by Opinionated74

As with so many posts recently I have to say the very first thing we need to do is make it harder to bring private litigation, if schools weren't so scared of being sued then perhaps they'd be able to confront the parents and discipline the children.
Remember when a teacher could take a group of children out to the school field to run off some of that excess agression whilst reciting times tables or something similar? Can't do that any more for three reasons: 1) parents need to authorise in writing and triplicate before their child can be taken out of the classroom, 2) it is bound to be against the child's human rights for some bogus reason and 3) all the school fields were sold off.

Your list raises an interesting question, one i often ask myself ( yes i am mad ) ... if we abolished all human rights legislation would this country be a better or worse place ? I feel a new thread coming on ..... http://www.politic.co.uk/legal-debat...html#post60689

Originally Posted by Albion 69

Your list raises an interesting question, one i often ask myself ( yes i am mad )

Sometimes talking to yourself is the only way you can get a good conversation!

... if we abolished all human rights legislation would this country be a better or worse place ? I feel a new thread coming on ..... http://www.politic.co.uk/legal-debat...html#post60689

I don't think it would be a good thing to abolish all human rights legislation, some of it in it's basic form was too hard fought for (I'm thinking universal suffrage, abolition etc.). In fact I would argue for a codified bill of rights much like the US to protect basic rights and then let the judges decide it's (hopefully) common sense application. It would of course mean re-negotiating/cession from EU; there was a reason I chose the word bogus. I was anticipating a debate on corporal punishment and was hoping to head it off with the example of the "field trip".

I think we should abolish the human rights act.
All it has done is given extra rights to criminals.

We had strong liberties before the Human Rights Act we can live without it.

Originally Posted by Albion 69

"The use of mixed-ability classes in state schools is leading to a "tragic waste of natural talent", according to Sir Cyril Taylor, one of Labour's top schools advisors.

From a mixture of having lived with a (head) teacher for several years, having seen many school leavers in an employment situation and from having been involved with one of British Mensa's "Gifted Children" campaigns several years ago, there are indeed many talented children who are pulled down to mediocre performance in school

IMO the slow abolition of the Grammar School was one of the worst things which happened in this country - education-wise at least. Whether the socialists like to think it or not, children are different, have different aptitudes and abilities and need to be taught accordingly. Grammar schools tried to address this by encouraging the more able, whereas many of today's Comprehensive schools simply average children out, failing those at both the top and bottom ends of the scale.

OK, not all grammar schools are so good and not all comprehensive schools are so bad, but Sir Cyril has got his assessment spot on! Streaming by ability is the only way to help children regardless of whether they're educationally good or bad.

This is why selection in schools is good.
The labour government seems keen to remove it, but selection allows schools to pick and choose pupils.
This means the highest performing schools can choose to take the highest performing students. Whilst the average students go to an average school.

We need selection of students.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

The labour government seems keen to remove it, but selection allows schools to pick and choose pupils.

Do they? Funny they seem to me to have encouraged it through the farce that is the right to choose and the ghettoisation of the middle classes around the catchment areas of middle class better performing schools. What is the point of academies if they are not designed to be selective in nature?

This means the highest performing schools can choose to take the highest performing students. Whilst the average students go to an average school.

It also means that the richer families can afford tutoring to get little Freddie or Frannie to pass the 11+ so Mummy and Daddy don't have to continue paying those nasty school fees to the posh independent school, whilst George from the council estate is made to feel very stupid and even though he is a late developer with a talent which could have taken him into engineering he is to become a mechanic working for minimum wage!
Is our education system letting the brightest down?
Yes it certainly is, but I wouldn't be so quick to press selective schools as the panacea, in the end it can cause as many social problems.

Originally Posted by Opinionated74

Is our education system letting the brightest down?
Yes it certainly is, but I wouldn't be so quick to press selective schools as the panacea, in the end it can cause as many social problems.

This is surely a case for both wider catchment areas, which may mean bigger and far more efficient schools, and streaming within each school whether it's a Junior and Infants school or a comprehensive school.

I accept your point about the social issues of schools which are better than others, and that's a fault of the education system, especially resource-wise, but surely the reintroduction of selective streaming within each school would also go a long way to removing this problem, not exacerbating it. It wouldn't matter so much which school was attended since parents could feel more confident that their kids would be given the best education for their individual needs.

Selection would solve the huge problem of the ****ing bastards who waste teacher time, who fail to pay attention and have a general negative view of education and prevent others from learning.

Good selection would remove these disgraceful little monsters from the higher education facilities and put them in the worst of the schools.

I am all for one to help people, but when they outright refuse to help themselves, I draw the line. If they want to fail, let them.

Selection also allows subject oriented schools to pick the brightest students. i.e. a computing school would take the brightest computing students.

This is beneficial in challenging the pupils and truly making our education system a global benchmark.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

Selection would solve the huge problem of the ****ing bastards who waste teacher time, who fail to pay attention and have a general negative view of education and prevent others from learning.

Good selection would remove these disgraceful little monsters from the higher education facilities and put them in the worst of the schools.

I am all for one to help people, but when they outright refuse to help themselves, I draw the line. If they want to fail, let them.

Selection also allows subject oriented schools to pick the brightest students. i.e. a computing school would take the brightest computing students.

This is beneficial in challenging the pupils and truly making our education system a global benchmark.

Certainly the children who have been forced into poverty by your system could be excluded from education altogether and all the poor put into concentration camps after an examination based directly on parental income - but you'd then have to force them all into the army to give them some sort of ability to read and write/obey your orders, risking the danger of an armed take-over. Don't you think gas-chambers might be more efficient?

Originally Posted by kynaston

Certainly the children who have been forced into poverty by your system could be excluded from education altogether and all the poor put into concentration camps after an examination based directly on parental income - but you'd then have to force them all into the army to give them some sort of ability to read and write/obey your orders, risking the danger of an armed take-over. Don't you think gas-chambers might be more efficient?

You are reading into something that does not exist.

By those who waste teachers time I was referring to those who do not try and disrupt those who do try. Selection is good because it means you can seperate students based on ability, preferability, skill and talent.

I believe with selection you can really challenge and open a students mind to the possibilities of what they could achieve. I believe there should always be schools that are specially good at one topic and average at the others. I believe these "one topic schools" should be for every subject ranging from English to accounts and Mathematics to Sociology.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

You are reading into something that does not exist.

By those who waste teachers time I was referring to those who do not try and disrupt those who do try. Selection is good because it means you can seperate students based on ability, preferability, skill and talent.

I believe with selection you can really challenge and open a students mind to the possibilities of what they could achieve. I believe there should always be schools that are specially good at one topic and average at the others. I believe these "one topic schools" should be for every subject ranging from English to accounts and Mathematics to Sociology.

I didn't get your point, are you saying if a child is good at math let him just focus on math? what is the point of school then? it's important to stress on student's needs and to develop their skills, but it's also important to have a variety of skills and to work on the points of weakness

Originally Posted by proudArab

I didn't get your point, are you saying if a child is good at math let him just focus on math? what is the point of school then? it's important to stress on student's needs and to develop their skills, but it's also important to have a variety of skills and to work on the points of weakness

Sorry, I have not explained myself well.

I will explain with your example.

Throughout his school life James has been fantastic at mathematics. As such it would be unwise not to challenge him and further advance his mathematic ability. As such, I believe he should be sent to a school that has a huge focus of mathematical ability. He will learn everything else that he needs to learn, but there will be a huge focus on mathematics.

This will allow those truly gifted students to really develop their abilities and become a true gem of the nation.

This allows the student to have basic knowledge of everything else, but far exceed most in their chosen subject; in this case, mathematics.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

Sorry, I have not explained myself well.

I will explain with your example.

Throughout his school life James has been fantastic at mathematics. As such it would be unwise not to challenge him and further advance his mathematic ability. As such, I believe he should be sent to a school that has a huge focus of mathematical ability. He will learn everything else that he needs to learn, but there will be a huge focus on mathematics.

This will allow those truly gifted students to really develop their abilities and become a true gem of the nation.

This allows the student to have basic knowledge of everything else, but far exceed most in their chosen subject; in this case, mathematics.

but this will also require a huge budget to evaluate student's capabilities and to meet student's needs.
also this might lead to the stereotyping of students and might even lead to the frustration of slow learners. so as much as this method would be appropriate for some students it may harm others.

Originally Posted by proudArab

but this will also require a huge budget to evaluate student's capabilities and to meet student's needs.
also this might lead to the stereotyping of students and might even lead to the frustration of slow learners. so as much as this method would be appropriate for some students it may harm others.

This would of course be voluntary. An information pack about the school and why your son or daughter would be welcome there would be sent out to the parents so they can discuss it with the student.

This would of course require quite a large budget, however, when it comes to children, we cannot spend too little on their future, as they are our future.

These schools and colleges could even partially pay for themselves if they were oepned up to adults. Adults are always entering education and these colleges could be perfect for adults also.

This would generate revenue which will partially pay for them.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

You are reading into something that does not exist.

By those who waste teachers time I was referring to those who do not try and disrupt those who do try. Selection is good because it means you can seperate students based on ability, preferability, skill and talent.

I believe with selection you can really challenge and open a students mind to the possibilities of what they could achieve. I believe there should always be schools that are specially good at one topic and average at the others. I believe these "one topic schools" should be for every subject ranging from English to accounts and Mathematics to Sociology.

The eleven plus selection always, surprise surprise, overwhelmingly favoured the children of the relatively-rich. Poor families have, inevitably, innumerable problems which it make it very difficult for children to concentrate in school. They can appear - yes - insufferable, but when you come to understand what they have to put up with, you're amazed they can manage to get to school at all. Throwing them out makes the position worse, always. Schools can't reform society - we have to do that. And if we don't we'll be like America, locking up more and more poor people in prisons, at a greater cost that Eton.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

This would of course be voluntary. An information pack about the school and why your son or daughter would be welcome there would be sent out to the parents so they can discuss it with the student.

This would of course require quite a large budget, however, when it comes to children, we cannot spend too little on their future, as they are our future.

These schools and colleges could even partially pay for themselves if they were oepned up to adults. Adults are always entering education and these colleges could be perfect for adults also.

This would generate revenue which will partially pay for them.

i like your idea

but personally if I ever practiced teaching I would like to try the "within-class ability grouping" in which the class is divided into two or three groups based on the student's abilities, but this can be exhausting.
also i think that collaborative learning is effective, in which students are divided into heterogeneous groups to help\tutor each other, research shows that students sometimes learn more from peers, and this will also help students build their self esteem and social skills.

Originally Posted by kynaston

The eleven plus selection always, surprise surprise, overwhelmingly favoured the children of the relatively-rich. Poor families have, inevitably, innumerable problems which it make it very difficult for children to concentrate in school. They can appear - yes - insufferable, but when you come to understand what they have to put up with, you're amazed they can manage to get to school at all. Throwing them out makes the position worse, always. Schools can't reform society - we have to do that. And if we don't we'll be like America, locking up more and more poor people in prisons, at a greater cost that Eton.

in general curriculums in different countries are set to meet the needs of the middle class "average" students.
im with you that in certain aspects the system is set to keep the rich rich and the poor poor, but there are schools\ universities that search for talents and capabilities and provide scholarships.

Originally Posted by kynaston

The eleven plus selection always, surprise surprise, overwhelmingly favoured the children of the relatively-rich. Poor families have, inevitably, innumerable problems which it make it very difficult for children to concentrate in school. They can appear - yes - insufferable, but when you come to understand what they have to put up with, you're amazed they can manage to get to school at all. Throwing them out makes the position worse, always. Schools can't reform society - we have to do that. And if we don't we'll be like America, locking up more and more poor people in prisons, at a greater cost that Eton.

Where did I mention the student paying for it?
I do not want students in these schools unless they truly deserve that place.

Originally Posted by proudArab

i like your idea

but personally if I ever practiced teaching I would like to try the "within-class ability grouping" in which the class is divided into two or three groups based on the student's abilities, but this can be exhausting.
also i think that collaborative learning is effective, in which students are divided into heterogeneous groups to help\tutor each other, research shows that students sometimes learn more from peers, and this will also help students build their self esteem and social skills.

Edit: I am rewording this post:

Normally in schools you receive a moderate amount of information from each class. However, as these one topic schools obviously focus on one topic, you can drastically increase the work load of that subject as the students would have more time to complete it.

As with most subjects students are comfortable with, they require less teacher interference. As such the teacher can give them more information and less interference.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

With these one topic schools you would have students who are at the top of their game. As such a teacher could give them a bomb of information and then let the students weave through it. As these are the best students they should have no problem working out answers and what they need to learn.

Obviously you are still teaching them along the way, I am merely stating that these students wont require as much help.

who said anything about giving students a "bomb" of information?

ever heard of Vygotsky who talked about scaffolding, in which the teacher supports the students during early phases, but when students become more capable the support is withdrawn.

even high achievers need guiding.

the exhausting part is not due giving a huge amount of information, it's about the teacher being able to deal with several groups within the same class, which requires several teaching skills. but this is what makes teaching a combination of art and science i guess!

Originally Posted by proudArab

who said anything about giving students a "bomb" of information?

ever heard of Vygotsky who talked about scaffolding, in which the teacher supports the students during early phases, but when students become more capable the support is withdrawn.

even high achievers need guiding.

the exhausting part is not due giving a huge amount of information, it's about the teacher being able to deal with several groups within the same class, which requires several teaching skills. but this is what makes teaching a combination of art and science i guess!

Again, sorry I obviously haven't made myself clear.

Normally in schools you receive a moderate amount of information from each class. However, as these one topic schools obviously focus on one topic, you can drastically increase the work load of that subject as the students would have more time to complete it.

As with most subjects students are comfortable with, they require less teacher interference. As such the teacher can give them more information and less interference.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

Again, sorry I obviously haven't made myself clear.

Normally in schools you receive a moderate amount of information from each class. However, as these one topic schools obviously focus on one topic, you can drastically increase the work load of that subject as the students would have more time to complete it.

As with most subjects students are comfortable with, they require less teacher interference. As such the teacher can give them more information and less interference.

thanks for making things clear

but you are asking too much from the teachers, because every child has his own capabilities, you want this teacher to assess every child and to meet the needs of every child and to evaluate the progress of every child, toooooo much pressure on this teacher. and if you said that you want the schools to work on the student/teacher ratio then again the budget will be higher and this will not allow the school to help students of the working class. and if you don't want the school to have a huge number of students so less profit ( considering private schools in which one of their major goals is profit)

Originally Posted by proudArab

thanks for making things clear

but you are asking too much from the teachers, because every child has his own capabilities, you want this teacher to assess every child and to meet the needs of every child and to evaluate the progress of every child, toooooo much pressure on this teacher. and if you said that you want the schools to work on the student/teacher ratio then again the budget will be higher and this will not allow the school to help students of the working class. and if you don't want the school to have a huge number of students so less profit ( considering private schools in which one of their major goals is profit)

The way I see it is you should have 15 pupils at most per teacher in this school. Not only that but because the students require less teacher interference I believe the teacher can then orally assess the student whilst the others are working.

Then return that student and pick another.
These assessments could be made in group activites as well.
You would want at least one assessment per student per month.

I admit this would be costly, but I believe this would make way for the best education system there is.

You would reform the current system by removing inefficient schools and replacing them with efficient academies. From an earlier age allow students to take more responsibility in their learning.

With their parents, the student and teacher should discuss the students abilities. The teacher can then fill out an assessment form which can be given to the school administrators who run it on a system which determines the courses the student should take. The teacher gives this information to the student and their parents so they can discuss it.

That means resources are distributed in ratio to the student numbers. This would be highly efficient and would save money which can go into further educational programmes.

Obviously, this would take years to implement, but would be truly fantastic.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

Where did I mention the student paying for it?
I do not want students in these schools unless they truly deserve that place.

So where are you going to put them? On the streets? Prison? Graves? Despite all the tory codswallop, you can't actually switch people OFF, even if they are working class or Palestinian.

Originally Posted by kynaston

So where are you going to put them? On the streets? Prison? Graves? Despite all the tory codswallop, you can't actually switch people OFF, even if they are working class or Palestinian.

You seem to be unable to comprehend English. Those that do not fit into the schools of which I discuss would be placed into different schools that need not seek the brightest students, rather act as a place to assist those who fail in their quest for knowledge.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

You seem to be unable to comprehend English. Those that do not fit into the schools of which I discuss would be placed into different schools that need not seek the brightest students, rather act as a place to assist those who fail in their quest for knowledge.

What schools? Secondary Moderns, as I take it? We abolished those long since.

Originally Posted by kynaston

What schools? Secondary Moderns, as I take it? We abolished those long since.

Those who deserve, work and have the ability should go to the one topic schools.
Those who are average should go into normal schools.
Those who do not want to learn at all and refuse all assistance should be sent to special facilities similar to a bording school whereby they stay there until they turn 18 or gain the qualifications.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

Those who deserve, work and have the ability should go to the one topic schools.
Those who are average should go into normal schools.
Those who do not want to learn at all and refuse all assistance should be sent to special facilities similar to a bording school whereby they stay there until they turn 18 or gain the qualifications.

stereotyping children can lead into low self confidence, low self esteem, frustration, and those factors will only limit the ability of children to learn especially when they view them selves as being different than others or even "stupid"!

Originally Posted by proudArab

stereotyping children can lead into low self confidence, low self esteem, frustration, and those factors will only limit the ability of children to learn especially when they view them selves as being different than others or even "stupid"!

Where the hell did that come from.

I mentioned nothing of stereotyping anyone.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

Those who deserve, work and have the ability should go to the one topic schools.
Those who are average should go into normal schools.
Those who do not want to learn at all and refuse all assistance should be sent to special facilities similar to a bording school whereby they stay there until they turn 18 or gain the qualifications.

What are 'one topic schools' when they're at home? What are 'normal schools'? What are 'special facilities' if not prisons? If you are not stereotyping children according to parental income, what are you doing?

Originally Posted by kynaston

What are 'one topic schools' when they're at home? What are 'normal schools'? What are 'special facilities' if not prisons? If you are not stereotyping children according to parental income, what are you doing?

I am discriminating against children who are not bright enough to get into certain schools.

What in Gods name are you on about. I have mentioned nothing about parental income, class, race or anything.

These children are admitted to these schools based on merit. Nothing else.

Get that through your head. There is no ulteria motive other than trying to give British children the best education there is that is unrivaled in any country.

I do not wish to be rude, however, you seem to think just because some of us are Conservative that automatically makes us "evil wealth loving monsters", I am afraid that is just not the case.

nought wron with "Merit" schools, I went to a poor funded grammar school due to "ability" but lots of us had tutoring, and i dont think everyone can afford that.

Originally Posted by Citizen Smith

nought wron with "Merit" schools, I went to a poor funded grammar school due to "ability" but lots of us had tutoring, and i dont think everyone can afford that.

Though I believe the state should provide top notch education with excellent systems, I also believe those who can afford it, should be able to "purchase" an education.

By this I refer to public schools.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

Though I believe the state should provide top notch education with excellent systems, I also believe those who can afford it, should be able to "purchase" an education.

By this I refer to public schools.

and what about smart children who have so much capabilities but can't afford it

Originally Posted by proudArab

and what about smart children who have so much capabilities but can't afford it

Has the definition of Top Notch changed since last week?

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

Has the definition of Top Notch changed since last week?

only sending them to schools is not enough, there are other factors that can limit their education even if they are sent for free to "good" schools.

your idea is interesting but it's not doable. there are other methods that schools can apply and all children can benefit without making anyone feel different from the others, or with only targeting only small ratio of students.

Originally Posted by proudArab

only sending them to schools is not enough, there are other factors that can limit their education even if they are sent for free to "good" schools.

your idea is interesting but it's not doable. there are other methods that schools can apply and all children can benefit without making anyone feel different from the others, or with only targeting only small ratio of students.

Sorry I thought you was referring to paying for school.
I was thinking to myself "wtf, has this guy been paying any attention".

Of course it is doable. The only difference between my idea and the current system is that the children are in different schools that better suit there talent.
If the current system works; as it does, then my system will work. The only difference is mine will encourage youngsters to exceed.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

Sorry I thought you was referring to paying for school.
I was thinking to myself "wtf, has this guy been paying any attention".

what guy? Usually when i read any of ur posts i would be thinking isn't this little boy supposed to be doing some homework or something!

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

Of course it is doable. The only difference between my idea and the current system is that the children are in different schools that better suit there talent.
If the current system works; as it does, then my system will work. The only difference is mine will encourage youngsters to exceed.

check the previous posts when even you said that it needs huge budget => not doable

Originally Posted by proudArab

what guy? Usually when i read any of ur posts i would be thinking isn't this little boy supposed to be doing some homework or something!

That was rude.

check the previous posts when even you said that it needs huge budget => not doable

Of course it is doable.
There is plenty of money in Britain. You only have to unlock it.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

That was rude..

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

Of course it is doable.
There is plenty of money in Britain. You only have to unlock it.

day dreaming!

Originally Posted by proudArab

day dreaming!

No. You clearly are unaware of how much money is wasted through inefficient computer systems in the NHS, European Policies, International Development etc

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

Though I believe the state should provide top notch education with excellent systems, I also believe those who can afford it, should be able to "purchase" an education.

By this I refer to public schools.

In doing which they also purchase a vastly increased chance, of course, of going to the best universities and being employed in hugely-well-paid jobs, in which they can award one another million-pound bonuses for breathing - at the cost of those who have no money to give their children even holidays, and, since they have to be out at work, have no time to talk to those children - who therefore turn into 'problems' to be bullied. Happy tory days: all for the best in the best of all possible worlds - for the rich.