11-Plus Proposal

[trailer]

Can you still pay for your child to go to Grammar school?

Yes. People pay for their kids to board at the Royal School in Armagh even though they live a few miles away.

An Education based on how wealthy your parents are. How very apt. Most definitely the policy we should pursue.

[Milltown Row2]

Can you still pay for your child to go to Grammar school?

Yes. People pay for their kids to board at the Royal School in Armagh even though they live a few miles away.

An Education based on how wealthy your parents are. How very apt. Most definitely the policy we should pursue.

Don't you think that parents' wealth will always have an impact on the education of their children? Currently we have those who can afford to be tutored to within an inch of their lives and those who cannot. Most who oppose the GL would say that kids should attend their local school regardless of ability and I would agree with this. Would this bring rise to "sought after" postcodes where more affluent parents would race to live beside the school with the best reputation?

They do that with primary schools already, I know of many a family that moved to an area because the schooling system around there is very good

[Tony Baloney]

Can you still pay for your child to go to Grammar school?

Yes. People pay for their kids to board at the Royal School in Armagh even though they live a few miles away.

An Education based on how wealthy your parents are. How very apt. Most definitely the policy we should pursue.

Don't you think that parents' wealth will always have an impact on the education of their children? Currently we have those who can afford to be tutored to within an inch of their lives and those who cannot. Most who oppose the GL would say that kids should attend their local school regardless of ability and I would agree with this. Would this bring rise to "sought after" postcodes where more affluent parents would race to live beside the school with the best reputation?

That's a noble aspiration if all local schools were good. There are a lot of schools that are pure shite so given the choice between a shite local school or doing the entrance exam to a better school, it's an easy choice for parents. People with money will have better cars, clothes, food etc. It's a fact of life that we aren't all born equal. I went to a secondary school but key to it's success was streaming - education was delivered commensurate with the ability of the pupils. Mixing low ability and high ability helps neither group.

[trailer]

Can you still pay for your child to go to Grammar school?

Yes. People pay for their kids to board at the Royal School in Armagh even though they live a few miles away.

An Education based on how wealthy your parents are. How very apt. Most definitely the policy we should pursue.

Don't you think that parents' wealth will always have an impact on the education of their children? Currently we have those who can afford to be tutored to within an inch of their lives and those who cannot. Most who oppose the GL would say that kids should attend their local school regardless of ability and I would agree with this. Would this bring rise to "sought after" postcodes where more affluent parents would race to live beside the school with the best reputation?

That's a noble aspiration if all local schools were good. There are a lot of schools that are pure shite so given the choice between a shite local school or doing the entrance exam to a better school, it's an easy choice for parents. People with money will have better cars, clothes, food etc. It's a fact of life that we aren't all born equal. I went to a secondary school but key to it's success was streaming - education was delivered commensurate with the ability of the pupils. Mixing low ability and high ability helps neither group.

Yes. The weak must be excluded. At u-8 training this year I'll be asking those parents whose children aren't to the required standard to leave. I have no interest in coaching some child who isn't good enough. ONLY THE ELITE MATTER IN ALL WALKS OF LIFE!!

[johnnycool]

Can you still pay for your child to go to Grammar school?

Yes. People pay for their kids to board at the Royal School in Armagh even though they live a few miles away.

An Education based on how wealthy your parents are. How very apt. Most definitely the policy we should pursue.

Don't you think that parents' wealth will always have an impact on the education of their children? Currently we have those who can afford to be tutored to within an inch of their lives and those who cannot. Most who oppose the GL would say that kids should attend their local school regardless of ability and I would agree with this. Would this bring rise to "sought after" postcodes where more affluent parents would race to live beside the school with the best reputation?

That's a noble aspiration if all local schools were good. There are a lot of schools that are pure shite so given the choice between a shite local school or doing the entrance exam to a better school, it's an easy choice for parents. People with money will have better cars, clothes, food etc. It's a fact of life that we aren't all born equal. I went to a secondary school but key to it's success was streaming - education was delivered commensurate with the ability of the pupils. Mixing low ability and high ability helps neither group.

Yes. The weak must be excluded. At u-8 training this year I'll be asking those parents whose children aren't to the required standard to leave. I have no interest in coaching some child who isn't good enough. ONLY THE ELITE MATTER IN ALL WALKS OF LIFE!!

The converse of your argument that as the parent of an U8, thon lad trailer is a woeful coach, so I'm going to take our wee Henry Shefflin to that other club where the coaching is better!

Or should we just tolerate woeful coaching/teaching using your analogy?

[Milltown Row2]

Can you still pay for your child to go to Grammar school?

Yes. People pay for their kids to board at the Royal School in Armagh even though they live a few miles away.

An Education based on how wealthy your parents are. How very apt. Most definitely the policy we should pursue.

Don't you think that parents' wealth will always have an impact on the education of their children? Currently we have those who can afford to be tutored to within an inch of their lives and those who cannot. Most who oppose the GL would say that kids should attend their local school regardless of ability and I would agree with this. Would this bring rise to "sought after" postcodes where more affluent parents would race to live beside the school with the best reputation?

That's a noble aspiration if all local schools were good. There are a lot of schools that are pure shite so given the choice between a shite local school or doing the entrance exam to a better school, it's an easy choice for parents. People with money will have better cars, clothes, food etc. It's a fact of life that we aren't all born equal. I went to a secondary school but key to it's success was streaming - education was delivered commensurate with the ability of the pupils. Mixing low ability and high ability helps neither group.

Yes. The weak must be excluded. At u-8 training this year I'll be asking those parents whose children aren't to the required standard to leave. I have no interest in coaching some child who isn't good enough. ONLY THE ELITE MATTER IN ALL WALKS OF LIFE!!

The converse of your argument that as the parent of an U8, thon lad trailer is a woeful coach, so I'm going to take our wee Henry Shefflin to that other club where the coaching is better!

Or should we just tolerate woeful coaching/teaching using your analogy?

If the lad is woeful then its probably not the right sport, some kids are rubbish, some start out rubbish and improve and some don't, some are sent and encouraged by their dad because he was a clubman and so must they...

Streaming in schools has always happened, teachers and schools haven't got the time to sit with one or 2 students to bring them on as they don't have the time!

There is a certain time frame to get the subject covered before moving on to the next topic, that's the fault of the education system for increasing the course not the fault of the school or the teachers (for most parts). The education department are losing teachers every year who go back to working in the private sector as the workload and pressures are far great than the pay they get, no amount of holidays are keeping these people on board and the 'vocation' of teacher is not there really anymore

[trailer]

Can you still pay for your child to go to Grammar school?

Yes. People pay for their kids to board at the Royal School in Armagh even though they live a few miles away.

An Education based on how wealthy your parents are. How very apt. Most definitely the policy we should pursue.

Don't you think that parents' wealth will always have an impact on the education of their children? Currently we have those who can afford to be tutored to within an inch of their lives and those who cannot. Most who oppose the GL would say that kids should attend their local school regardless of ability and I would agree with this. Would this bring rise to "sought after" postcodes where more affluent parents would race to live beside the school with the best reputation?

That's a noble aspiration if all local schools were good. There are a lot of schools that are pure shite so given the choice between a shite local school or doing the entrance exam to a better school, it's an easy choice for parents. People with money will have better cars, clothes, food etc. It's a fact of life that we aren't all born equal. I went to a secondary school but key to it's success was streaming - education was delivered commensurate with the ability of the pupils. Mixing low ability and high ability helps neither group.

Yes. The weak must be excluded. At u-8 training this year I'll be asking those parents whose children aren't to the required standard to leave. I have no interest in coaching some child who isn't good enough. ONLY THE ELITE MATTER IN ALL WALKS OF LIFE!!

The converse of your argument that as the parent of an U8, thon lad trailer is a woeful coach, so I'm going to take our wee Henry Shefflin to that other club where the coaching is better!

Or should we just tolerate woeful coaching/teaching using your analogy?

If the lad is woeful then its probably not the right sport, some kids are rubbish, some start out rubbish and improve and some don't, some are sent and encouraged by their dad because he was a clubman and so must they...

Streaming in schools has always happened, teachers and schools haven't got the time to sit with one or 2 students to bring them on as they don't have the time!

There is a certain time frame to get the subject covered before moving on to the next topic, that's the fault of the education system for increasing the course not the fault of the school or the teachers (for most parts). The education department are losing teachers every year who go back to working in the private sector as the workload and pressures are far great than the pay they get, no amount of holidays are keeping these people on board and the 'vocation' of teacher is not there really anymore

What if the teachers only taught the top one percent in their class or the only the very best child in their class. Is that acceptable?

[JimStynes]

Mixed ability happens in primary school and all work is differentiated into usually 3/4 groups. This becomes more difficult as they get older and the gap starts to widen. I would imagine by the time they get to 3rd year that children would benefit from being organised into ability groups for at least a few subject areas like math, literacy and science.

[Milltown Row2]

Can you still pay for your child to go to Grammar school?

Yes. People pay for their kids to board at the Royal School in Armagh even though they live a few miles away.

An Education based on how wealthy your parents are. How very apt. Most definitely the policy we should pursue.

Don't you think that parents' wealth will always have an impact on the education of their children? Currently we have those who can afford to be tutored to within an inch of their lives and those who cannot. Most who oppose the GL would say that kids should attend their local school regardless of ability and I would agree with this. Would this bring rise to "sought after" postcodes where more affluent parents would race to live beside the school with the best reputation?

That's a noble aspiration if all local schools were good. There are a lot of schools that are pure shite so given the choice between a shite local school or doing the entrance exam to a better school, it's an easy choice for parents. People with money will have better cars, clothes, food etc. It's a fact of life that we aren't all born equal. I went to a secondary school but key to it's success was streaming - education was delivered commensurate with the ability of the pupils. Mixing low ability and high ability helps neither group.

Yes. The weak must be excluded. At u-8 training this year I'll be asking those parents whose children aren't to the required standard to leave. I have no interest in coaching some child who isn't good enough. ONLY THE ELITE MATTER IN ALL WALKS OF LIFE!!

The converse of your argument that as the parent of an U8, thon lad trailer is a woeful coach, so I'm going to take our wee Henry Shefflin to that other club where the coaching is better!

Or should we just tolerate woeful coaching/teaching using your analogy?

If the lad is woeful then its probably not the right sport, some kids are rubbish, some start out rubbish and improve and some don't, some are sent and encouraged by their dad because he was a clubman and so must they...

Streaming in schools has always happened, teachers and schools haven't got the time to sit with one or 2 students to bring them on as they don't have the time!

There is a certain time frame to get the subject covered before moving on to the next topic, that's the fault of the education system for increasing the course not the fault of the school or the teachers (for most parts). The education department are losing teachers every year who go back to working in the private sector as the workload and pressures are far great than the pay they get, no amount of holidays are keeping these people on board and the 'vocation' of teacher is not there really anymore

What if the teachers only taught the top one percent in their class or the only the very best child in their class. Is that acceptable?

Teachers teach the subject, they apply the teaching methods that they have been taught, there isn't much more they can do, reports, meetings, marking and all the other non teaching things are done also within and after school hours, teachers have less 'frees' to carry out their paper work, in fact they have a small budget for paper and if they go over that they have to pay for the paper themselves.

To say they only teach  the one percent is wrong, they have 30 plus kids in a class, they can't individually go around and teach each child separately, smaller class sizes would be the best solution, again not a school problem or a teaching problem, all about the department and when money is available.

[trailer]

Can you still pay for your child to go to Grammar school?

Yes. People pay for their kids to board at the Royal School in Armagh even though they live a few miles away.

An Education based on how wealthy your parents are. How very apt. Most definitely the policy we should pursue.

Don't you think that parents' wealth will always have an impact on the education of their children? Currently we have those who can afford to be tutored to within an inch of their lives and those who cannot. Most who oppose the GL would say that kids should attend their local school regardless of ability and I would agree with this. Would this bring rise to "sought after" postcodes where more affluent parents would race to live beside the school with the best reputation?

That's a noble aspiration if all local schools were good. There are a lot of schools that are pure shite so given the choice between a shite local school or doing the entrance exam to a better school, it's an easy choice for parents. People with money will have better cars, clothes, food etc. It's a fact of life that we aren't all born equal. I went to a secondary school but key to it's success was streaming - education was delivered commensurate with the ability of the pupils. Mixing low ability and high ability helps neither group.

Yes. The weak must be excluded. At u-8 training this year I'll be asking those parents whose children aren't to the required standard to leave. I have no interest in coaching some child who isn't good enough. ONLY THE ELITE MATTER IN ALL WALKS OF LIFE!!

The converse of your argument that as the parent of an U8, thon lad trailer is a woeful coach, so I'm going to take our wee Henry Shefflin to that other club where the coaching is better!

Or should we just tolerate woeful coaching/teaching using your analogy?

If the lad is woeful then its probably not the right sport, some kids are rubbish, some start out rubbish and improve and some don't, some are sent and encouraged by their dad because he was a clubman and so must they...

Streaming in schools has always happened, teachers and schools haven't got the time to sit with one or 2 students to bring them on as they don't have the time!

There is a certain time frame to get the subject covered before moving on to the next topic, that's the fault of the education system for increasing the course not the fault of the school or the teachers (for most parts). The education department are losing teachers every year who go back to working in the private sector as the workload and pressures are far great than the pay they get, no amount of holidays are keeping these people on board and the 'vocation' of teacher is not there really anymore

What if the teachers only taught the top one percent in their class or the only the very best child in their class. Is that acceptable?

Teachers teach the subject, they apply the teaching methods that they have been taught, there isn't much more they can do, reports, meetings, marking and all the other non teaching things are done also within and after school hours, teachers have less 'frees' to carry out their paper work, in fact they have a small budget for paper and if they go over that they have to pay for the paper themselves.

To say they only teach  the one percent is wrong, they have 30 plus kids in a class, they can't individually go around and teach each child separately, smaller class sizes would be the best solution, again not a school problem or a teaching problem, all about the department and when money is available.

Is the 11+ too late then? Why are we not streaming from age 7 or 8? The 7+ or the 8+ ? These weaker kids are holding back the class holding back the teacher, Christ they're holding back society.

[GJL]

Can you still pay for your child to go to Grammar school?

Yes. People pay for their kids to board at the Royal School in Armagh even though they live a few miles away.

An Education based on how wealthy your parents are. How very apt. Most definitely the policy we should pursue.

Don't you think that parents' wealth will always have an impact on the education of their children? Currently we have those who can afford to be tutored to within an inch of their lives and those who cannot. Most who oppose the GL would say that kids should attend their local school regardless of ability and I would agree with this. Would this bring rise to "sought after" postcodes where more affluent parents would race to live beside the school with the best reputation?

That's a noble aspiration if all local schools were good. There are a lot of schools that are pure shite so given the choice between a shite local school or doing the entrance exam to a better school, it's an easy choice for parents. People with money will have better cars, clothes, food etc. It's a fact of life that we aren't all born equal. I went to a secondary school but key to it's success was streaming - education was delivered commensurate with the ability of the pupils. Mixing low ability and high ability helps neither group.

Yes. The weak must be excluded. At u-8 training this year I'll be asking those parents whose children aren't to the required standard to leave. I have no interest in coaching some child who isn't good enough. ONLY THE ELITE MATTER IN ALL WALKS OF LIFE!!

The converse of your argument that as the parent of an U8, thon lad trailer is a woeful coach, so I'm going to take our wee Henry Shefflin to that other club where the coaching is better!

Or should we just tolerate woeful coaching/teaching using your analogy?

If the lad is woeful then its probably not the right sport, some kids are rubbish, some start out rubbish and improve and some don't, some are sent and encouraged by their dad because he was a clubman and so must they...

Streaming in schools has always happened, teachers and schools haven't got the time to sit with one or 2 students to bring them on as they don't have the time!

There is a certain time frame to get the subject covered before moving on to the next topic, that's the fault of the education system for increasing the course not the fault of the school or the teachers (for most parts). The education department are losing teachers every year who go back to working in the private sector as the workload and pressures are far great than the pay they get, no amount of holidays are keeping these people on board and the 'vocation' of teacher is not there really anymore

What if the teachers only taught the top one percent in their class or the only the very best child in their class. Is that acceptable?

Teachers teach the subject, they apply the teaching methods that they have been taught, there isn't much more they can do, reports, meetings, marking and all the other non teaching things are done also within and after school hours, teachers have less 'frees' to carry out their paper work, in fact they have a small budget for paper and if they go over that they have to pay for the paper themselves.

To say they only teach  the one percent is wrong, they have 30 plus kids in a class, they can't individually go around and teach each child separately, smaller class sizes would be the best solution, again not a school problem or a teaching problem, all about the department and when money is available.

Is the 11+ too late then? Why are we not streaming from age 7 or 8? The 7+ or the 8+ ? These weaker kids are holding back the class holding back the teacher, Christ they're holding back society.

Is there an age that you think streaming is acceptable?

[trailer]

Can you still pay for your child to go to Grammar school?

Yes. People pay for their kids to board at the Royal School in Armagh even though they live a few miles away.

An Education based on how wealthy your parents are. How very apt. Most definitely the policy we should pursue.

Don't you think that parents' wealth will always have an impact on the education of their children? Currently we have those who can afford to be tutored to within an inch of their lives and those who cannot. Most who oppose the GL would say that kids should attend their local school regardless of ability and I would agree with this. Would this bring rise to "sought after" postcodes where more affluent parents would race to live beside the school with the best reputation?

That's a noble aspiration if all local schools were good. There are a lot of schools that are pure shite so given the choice between a shite local school or doing the entrance exam to a better school, it's an easy choice for parents. People with money will have better cars, clothes, food etc. It's a fact of life that we aren't all born equal. I went to a secondary school but key to it's success was streaming - education was delivered commensurate with the ability of the pupils. Mixing low ability and high ability helps neither group.

Yes. The weak must be excluded. At u-8 training this year I'll be asking those parents whose children aren't to the required standard to leave. I have no interest in coaching some child who isn't good enough. ONLY THE ELITE MATTER IN ALL WALKS OF LIFE!!

The converse of your argument that as the parent of an U8, thon lad trailer is a woeful coach, so I'm going to take our wee Henry Shefflin to that other club where the coaching is better!

Or should we just tolerate woeful coaching/teaching using your analogy?

If the lad is woeful then its probably not the right sport, some kids are rubbish, some start out rubbish and improve and some don't, some are sent and encouraged by their dad because he was a clubman and so must they...

Streaming in schools has always happened, teachers and schools haven't got the time to sit with one or 2 students to bring them on as they don't have the time!

There is a certain time frame to get the subject covered before moving on to the next topic, that's the fault of the education system for increasing the course not the fault of the school or the teachers (for most parts). The education department are losing teachers every year who go back to working in the private sector as the workload and pressures are far great than the pay they get, no amount of holidays are keeping these people on board and the 'vocation' of teacher is not there really anymore

What if the teachers only taught the top one percent in their class or the only the very best child in their class. Is that acceptable?

Teachers teach the subject, they apply the teaching methods that they have been taught, there isn't much more they can do, reports, meetings, marking and all the other non teaching things are done also within and after school hours, teachers have less 'frees' to carry out their paper work, in fact they have a small budget for paper and if they go over that they have to pay for the paper themselves.

To say they only teach  the one percent is wrong, they have 30 plus kids in a class, they can't individually go around and teach each child separately, smaller class sizes would be the best solution, again not a school problem or a teaching problem, all about the department and when money is available.

Is the 11+ too late then? Why are we not streaming from age 7 or 8? The 7+ or the 8+ ? These weaker kids are holding back the class holding back the teacher, Christ they're holding back society.

Is there an age that you think streaming is acceptable?

I'd imagine after 3rd year - so 13 /14. Up until then I think rejecting children isn't the best way to build a fair society.

[Milltown Row2]

So rejecting children aged 13/14 is ok? You're a laugh

Forget about the 11 plus, I'm not exactly for it, I'm for streaming in schools which will suit all abilities, smaller classes less topics to cover and supporting services within the schools to allow the teachers to teach instead of the other crap they have to do on top. There is NO MONEY to allow that, now if you had a hard time in school and are just venting that's fine, vent away but your solution is flawed.

Teachers are and should be accountable, that's why we have the ETI to inspect schools and act on complaints

[FermGael]

Why are you so pro streaming at secondary level ?
Most of the evidence is actually dodgy enough.
https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/evidence-summaries/teaching-learning-toolkit/setting-or-streaming/


Looking at other countries education systems that are top of the Pisa tables etc streaming is not done

[Milltown Row2]

Why are you so pro streaming at secondary level ?
Most of the evidence is actually dodgy enough.
https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/evidence-summaries/teaching-learning-toolkit/setting-or-streaming/


Looking at other countries education systems that are top of the Pisa tables etc streaming is not done

Ive taught mixed abilities for 12 years before leaving teaching, the class was geared towards lesson plans that allowed me to work with high flyers and not so high, my classes were no bigger than 16 .

When I moved to teaching level 3 and 4 students the ones that were lucky to get a level two certificate never passed level 3, they just couldn't do the math side of engineering and so fell by the wayside, I'd have spent long periods of time going through methods after methods but eventually did just previous test papers and they sometimes got through it but never retained any knowledge.

I was spending more time (that I didn't have) with kids that didn't have it, it may sink in for them at a later date (as it did for me) but I always felt I was spoon feeding at the end!