South Park The Last Outpost
The Web
South Park
Home bullet Forums bullet Other Stuff bullet Off Topic bullet Sets In Secondary School?
Print View · Subscribe Pages: none
Sets In Secondary School?

FullAuto ( 1,042 ) · Group: Administrators · Rank: spacer · Posted On: August 11, 2006 at 06:01 AM


Apparently, children placed in lowers sets feel thick. The prosecution suggests that children in lower sets ARE thick, m'lud. Unsurprisingly, the elite in the upper sets support the system, because it makes them feel superior. Snobs.

Governemnt research, while suggesting that properly-placed student sets are best, has obviously gone somewhat awry:

"The research demonstrates that young people are mainly concerned with being able to learn. This is more important to them than being with their friends."

It's been a while since I was in school, but I know that bit is wrong.

I think mixed-ability classes would be much better overall, even if sets did stop me from stabbing Michael Hockborn in the arm when he said "I don't get it." for the twenty-fifth time in Physics. Funnily enough, I was in the top set in school, for everything, and it was a fucking pain. They kept on expecting me to do work, for starters. I would much rather have been in the lower sets.

What set were you? Did your school have sets, or were the 'special' and 'slow' kids mixed in with you, among the dim, the bright, and the merely mentally unexcellent?


silvertongedevil ( 333 ) · Group: Contributors · Rank: spacer · Posted On: August 12, 2006 at 05:29 PM


The rest of my class were in bottles and jars. It was the only way I could be top of the class!

Trust me, I'm a doctor.


FullAuto ( 1,042 ) · Group: Administrators · Rank: spacer · Posted On: August 12, 2006 at 07:39 PM


Boom, and indeed, boom.


Ivory ( 241 ) · Group: Administrators · Rank: spacer · Posted On: August 31, 2006 at 05:30 PM


i think that everyone should have individual time tables that are right for them. of course this would take money, effort, and listening to the individuals that wont fucking be happening anytime soon!

also... linked set did my head in. frecnh backed english. science backed maths, religion and history and so on... you had to be in the same level set for both. as you can work out this wasnt naturally the way of the world! - i was good at english and shit at french, so in with the bottom set i went for both. now dont get me wrong, that was the ideal place for me in french class, but in english it was SO NOT! it lasted a week before our english teacher told the head she was teaching us higher set work and he WOULD put us in for the higher exams! ha on him.

the problem has always been that in order to use the resources effectivly amoungst the amount of children that now make up one year group, the whole group must be split into smaller parts. these smaller parts must be suitably matched in order to use resources (including teaching staff, materials, and time) effectivly (i use this workd loosely) problem is, as always, the ethos arises...if you tell a child he is good at something consistantly he will grow to fill that view. if you tell the same child he is stupid constantly he will become to believe that view of himself, to some degree in both cases. 'sets' with in schools produce this ethos more often than not. not becasue the teacher promote it (tho often i have to suspect they do) but becasue of the labeling that occurs by way of 'prosessing'. the bottom set, set one, first set, and manymore you could name. these labels (compulsory in the running and management of such groups) are distorted by those who fall into them, and by those who dont. if we remove thses lables, more lables will appear/be given and in turn these will become the derogetory terms we sought to irradicate.

as much as sets within schools seem to have many problems, they also have many benifits. the kid who is top in the bottom class may struggle and fail in the higher class feeling himself unable to cope and keep up. is that kid not entitled to an education that is right for him/her. if schools put everyone in the year group in one class, and said keep up or fail there would be an uprising! we work and learn at different levels, we are all good at different things. Although it falls short in many areas, the 'sets' in our education system try to make it possible for the huge numbers who study to do so at a level suitable for themselves.

we are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars


Pete ( 701 ) · Group: Administrators · Rank: spacer · Posted On: September 1, 2006 at 07:14 AM


I was in top sets for everything. In my second year of GCSE's I faced going down a set in Maths though (there were FIVE sets).

Fortunately the teacher let me stay in the top set. Do you want to know why I wanted to stay in the top set? Let's have a look:

In the top set, you could get anywhere from an A* to a C or, if you were any worse, just fail completely. In the test paper, all you had to do to get a B was answer 50% or more of the questions correctly.

Just one set lower and on a different paper, I would have had to get somewhere in the region of 80% of my answers right to get a B with only marginaly easier questions, and the lowest I could go down to in this set would have been a D or maybe even an E I think.

Humorously, I could only actually answer about 55% of the questions on the paper (I was counting how many questions there were because I knew what mark I had to hit). Fortunately I got almost all of those questions I answered correct and got my B.

Naturally I liked my odds better in the top set as a result. The injustice of the system at the time meant that one set lower, the TOP mark I could have gotten was a B. One set below that and it's a C. In the bottom set, the BEST you could hope for (if memory serves) was a D.

Crap system eh?

I could never understand why they didn't just have the same exam questions for everyone, split the questions into five parts instead of increasing difficulty and then everyone could have a crack at the harder questions.

Someone who's in a lower set may be shite at one bit, but brilliant at another bit.

Anyhow, that was more about the exam system. The class sets themselves I agree with more, but am still note in 100% agreement about them.

Aren't the Asgard supposedly technologically superior?


Ivory ( 241 ) · Group: Administrators · Rank: spacer · Posted On: September 4, 2006 at 06:09 PM


as with most things in our education systems they tend to be planned with good intentions, and fall short somewhere....usually in how they are run and supported.

exams are STUPID! (excluding coursework) they test people on one day of there lives, the test format it self [produces an atmosphere of anxiety. and most of all the government are concerned with how they look at the end. not supporting the kids to achieve the best THEY can! compare if you will;

child 1 has always been keen on maths, and english. they achieve high grades easily and are in all the top sets. they get two b's at gcse level.

child 2 struggles with both maths and english. in year seven they are told they probably wont even be entered for GCSEs. by the time they reach years ten and eleven they are entered and gain a gcse grade d and e respectivly.

in my oppinion BOTH pupils have done well. but child 2 has developed most significantly. the government do not care! they only care about those who got c or above for there stupid fuckin statistics!

grrr! sorry im ranting, but you get my point!

we are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars


bullet Active Viewers

There are 0 member(s) and 1 guest(s) browsing ( details )


Who's Online
46 Guests

View Details

Forum Statistics
7903 Members
451 Topics
2647 Posts
Most Online: 583
Just Joined: Victorbymn

Site Statistics
64 Articles
Disclaimer About Us Copyright © 2005 The Last Outpost