States with High Taxes vs. States with Low Taxes

Well the education system in the UK isn't exactly known for it's innovation and adaptiveness as far as I know.
While dividing students according to ability may not have a significant negative effect on the "smart class,"(though I still believe it has especially socially.) it will undoubtably have a detrimental effect on the "dumb class" both on the quality of the education and on their motivation and self-esteem.

I disagree. In an all-ability class, the less intelligent students will only be made more aware that they are not as capable as some others in the class.
Perhaps it has not been done this way in the past, but I would have thought that in a "dumb class" the students will not have to struggle with the difficult work they would have to in an all-ability class, and can instead focus on the skills and intelligence they will need for future life.
These lower-ability students will in future be doing more practical jobs, so I would prefer to see them learn what they need to in order to be sucessful in their lives, than force them to sit and watch as students around them complete work they find more difficult, which only amplifies for the less intelligent students that their skills do not lie in an academic field.
It seems to me this would be the best way forwards, as it in fact recognises that being "clever" isn't the only way to succeed, that people who are very creative, or who are skilled in practical activities are as valuable to society as those who get good test scores.
In my mind, this would be astronomically better than lumping everyone together, where everyone will judge themselves against the "cleverest", when in fact they should not be doing so.

And that doesn't happen even more when you divide classes based on intellect? When you are pulled apart from former classmates and friends because you're not as smart as them?
It's not like students go around every day and think about who is the smartest in class, quite the opposite in fact, most students aren't really bothered by it as long as they aren't in the bottom 5%, and these students can benefit from a wide variety of helping and extra classes in my country to let them catch up with the rest. Dumping them all in the same class would not exactly boost their learning proces.

Well for starters, there's not really that much work in high-school in most western countries, and most children will not be overwhelmed by homework and what's taught in class if they recieve proper guidance and help.
Also, what kind of skills and intelligence will they "need" for a future life? This sounds suspiciously like limiting pupils at an early age to low-pay and low-prestige jobs in the future and something that would've been done in the discriminating 1960's.

You or anyone else cannot determine the potential of a child at the age of 12 or even 15. Actually no one can be sure about the potential and learning limits of any child and it would be arrogant to assume otherwise . What you're suggesting is a huge violation of what most public education stands for; equality. It's not your job or anyone else to decide who gets to be a phycisist and who gets to be a mechanic and it's openly fostering elitism and division in society. You've pretty much confirmed my worst suspicions.

This is how you teach without "lumping everyone together:"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences
Just because you're in the same class doesn't mean that everybody has to learn the same way, and just because people start out together doesn't mean that they can't chose different paths later in life, but only when they've sufficiently matured and are ready to take that step and to chose for themselves. It's not like every pupil has to do the exact same thing as the other ones(hence why most schools have optional classes) but it's vital that we do not divide our classes and thus our society at an early stage. I'm pretty much against the excessive testing that is going on in most countries, so I'm not going to argue with you there.

Before replying to all your points, I'd just like to say that you, as well as many others, seem to be of the view that intelligence is the one important thing. You say that those not in the top ability class will be destined for low-pay and low-prestige jobs, which is true to an extent, but it ignores the fact that those jobs could still be valuable and an important part of society.
Society should change its view, and instead see that each job requires different skills, not that someone is an electrician, for instance, because they were incapable of getting a better job, but that they do that job because they are good at it, and have the skills and knowledge required to do the job, which I, for one, doubt I would ever be able to do.
Education at the moment seems to be geared solely towards test scores, which I'm sure you would support me in saying in not an appropriate way of going about it. However, the way forwards is not to teach everyone together, but to recognise that everyone is different, and that some people need an extensive knowledge of various subjects for future life, and some simply do not.

I am afraid I may have to repeat myself slightly, but I think that when everyone is together, the difference in intelligence only becomes more obvious. This is clearly just opinion, but I would say that in a lower-ability class, the students and teachers would be able to recognise that there are many jobs that do not require a high level of intelligence, perhaps practical skill or creative prowess, and so should not focus on what they cannot do, but instead spend time learning things that will be relevant to them. Perhaps only at post-14 level.

Not at all. You simply cannot dispute the fact that some students are cleverer than others.
And of course students would be able to move classes if they suddenly improved in their understanding of the subject material.

Of course I won't decide what jobs people can do, and what they cannot, but for the most part students will come to understand themselves what they are and are not capable of.
I would simply place them in a class with other students that share a similar ability level in a given subject.
This would by no means violate equality, every student would have exactly equal chances to excel in school, regardless of race, gender, class or anything else. All it does is recognise that some people are more intelligent than others, and so require a higher level of education, and other students would struggle to reach the same level, and indeed would simply not be interested in that level of learning.
In fact, my whole idea is to limit division in society as much as possible. I cannot stop it completely of course, but I believe skills, talents and interests of all kinds should be valued in schools, and people should come to realise that jobs that require less intellect are not lesser jobs for it, they are simply different.

I also do not believe this system would need to force anybody to do anything. For the most part, students who are not as intelligent know this, and what I would do is point out to them that this is not all that matters, and encourage them to look positively on the things they can do. The very few people who think they are capable of something they are not would have to be gently nudged to realise otherwise, but this happens already and must always happen.

You seem to have misunderstood me slightly. I am against 'lumping everyone together', and that theory is not so different from what I am arguing for.

Here it depends on what you mean by an 'early age', but I would say by the time children are 13, it is not too difficult to determine the different levels of ability. As stated above, there should be room for shuffling around later, but generally an informed decision could be made at this stage in education.
I also do not think that these classes will divide up society as you say they will. Of course they will to some extent, but no more than happens anyway. In my system, everyone should be taught that those in other classes to them are not better or worse than them overall, simply the level of competence in a given subject differs.
Also, you seem to place too much emphasis on levels of society and how much they matter. I prefer to acknowledge their existence, but to realise that they do not truly matter, a plumber can have just a fulfilling and happy life as a lawyer.
This must be better understood by everyone.

Oh HELL NO, I won't read any of dat. I saw Warburg posted something about Gardner, that's important (although I won't read what you said ).

In my experience, and I don't care if I sound arrogant because I am, my class mates always took advantage of my intelligence when doing TPs, and I didn't say anything because I like doing things my way (and mainly because I'm a perfeccionist). My point is, they took advantage of me not because they are not intelligent enough, they took advantage because they like mediocrity, and that's a different thing.

No worries, I usually don't read these long, rambling arguments, but now I seem to have gotten into one. Darn.

And what do you mean when you say they like mediocrity? Do you mean they are not motivated to try harder?

Yeah, I would say our motto is "Llegar al 6", that means to get a 6 (we get graded from 1 to 10), which is with what you approve. But don't take me seriously, I'm half asleep right now, I'm very influenced by a book, and I'm full of prejudices.

Oh god... I wish we could cut this monstrosity down, but I enjoy it too much to let it go.

While it's all good and dandy to believe that a plumber or a taxi driver should be as highly valued in a society as a lawyer, that simply is not and probably never will be the case. There are simply a higher supply of people ending up as a plumber and capable of being a plumber compared to a lawyer, and with the long education and hard work it takes to become a lawyer, it should be more prestigious. I recognize the value of the people preforming the tasks that needs to be done, but I don't envy them or look up to them the same way I do to highly educated people.

So how would the first lesson go?
"Hey kids, I know you all wanted to be in the class where all our world leaders went, but look on the bright side, one day you may become a plumber!"
Let's face it, people

How and by who would it be determined whether a pupil would have suddenly improved? Not the teacher hopefully.

By putting people in different classes based upon ability, you'll inevitably create division and elitism on the school and further in life. A student that has been sent to a certain class will most likely form stronger and more lasting bonds with those than others on the school. There's also the problem that one class(most likely the intellectual in our current society) will be seen as the "ruling class"(no pun intended) and another would be seen as the "serving class."(most likely the practical) This is simply a reflection of reality and the world outside of the school, and while you might claim that jobs are all important, the realities will inevitably dawn for the students. There are simply fewer persons capable of taking on the jobs that demand higher intellectual capacity and these jobs will be better paid(unless the state drastically alters this) and thus more prestigious, and while people do chose jobs based upon their interests and competences, many will perfer a higher paying to a lower paying one.

It seems rather naive to think that students will simply follow the advice of the teachers etc.(I certainly wouldn't) I would like to know what "gently nudged" means, because it sounds supiciously like forced in my ears. I like how you can just claim that people suddenly know their own bounds and abilities and don't overestimate themselves. This doesn't seem to correspond to the human race that I know of and it certainly doesn't correspond to the arrogant teenagers that I know. A lof og people will not willingly join the low-prestige classes(see above) and I could mention some examples where parents would simply refuse to acknowlegde that their kids are not capable or willing to follow in their footsteps or continue the family business.

I was arguing how to teach pupils even though they have various different needs/skills without damaging the quality of the education.

It's extremely difficult to determine the potential of a human being at any stage in their life and by choosing for them, you might end up hurting their potential even though you are merely trying to help. There is also the problem with the people determining what students go where. It would most likely be the teachers, and it would put a massive responsibility and strain on an already underpaid and overworked group of people.
See above for more about the classes.

This doesn't really have anything to do with our debate. I'm empasizing levels of society because you want to start growing them at an even earlier age than now. I'm fully aware that a lawyer can be miserable while a plumber may be happy, but that's not really what we're discussing

This is what I see in my school. The kids who are in the lower level classes (i.e. math lab) are often looked down upon and seen as dumb and stupid, and everyone always assumes that these kids are the dropouts and thieves and gang members and criminals of tomorrow. I've encountered this all too often and I will admit, at times, I have looked at some of the kids in the lower level classes that way. This makes the students not only not able to make many friends outside that group (which only adds to the prejudice), but convinces them that they are stupid and nothing will ever come of their lives. My friend who is in the lower level classes, keeps on telling me how stupid he is, and how he doesn't even try any more because if he's stupid, there's no point in trying. This is what dividing up the kids based off intelligence does.

Now back in 6th 7th (and even 8th grade to an extent), We had our classes for the most part just normal classes and it was not divided up by intelligence( Math was divided up into Algebra Pre Algebra and regular math in 8th grade, but it didnt make much difference because there were intelligent kids in all three levels). Sure people figured out who were the struggling kids in the class and who were the smarter kids, but there was really no labeling like there is now in highschool. Everyone was friends with everyone, and there really wasn't much prejudice.

I must admit to being too idealistic in my last couple of posts, I have got rather carried away with my ideal society and all of that, of course Warburg you are right that most of my hopes simply are not the case, and are perhaps not likely to be the case.
I think this all comes down to the different experiences we have had in our lives. I have not experienced genuine predjudice againt less able children. There are people who are not liked by others, but also many people have friendships that transcend the sets of ability, and I do not think anyone looks down upon anyone else simply for a lack of intelligence in my school.

The fact of the matter is I can only truly speak from the experience I have had, the problem being that my school is really rather good, with good students and good teachers, so I cannot claim to speak for all schools in my country, as I'm sure neither of you fine gentlemen can. There is also the fact that no one system can work for the whole world, perhaps not even for all the schools in a country. I know that in my country setting for ability in subjects is optional for different schools, perhaps it is best to let each school decide, perhaps not.

I would also like to note Warburgs point about arrogant teenagers, but also like to add that, while there are some of these, I know far more people with more reasonable aspirations, and have the utmost respect for people of my age pursuing more practical jobs. One of my friends has been doing a course in electrical engineering, alongside core school subjects, which I would say is a great way of doing things, as he is skilled in that area, and he has been in a "lower set" for a few years in most of his subjects, and I do not believe his life or career path has been hindered by it.

I don't really have a lot to add. I was a bit quick on the trigger(calling your statements arrogant and ignorant was rather unconstructive to say the least) Thanks for the debate and I think we can both agree that people shouldn't be looked on with less respect for choosing practical jobs, which we as a society are deeply dependent on to function.

Thank you. I like to pride myself on being able to discuss things with people and not end up insulting and disliking them, and it seems to have worked out in the end, although a bit of a rocky start, I must admit.

Speaking about practical jobs, I believe in Italy, after 8th grade, students go to schools specifically for the career path they want (kinda like trade schools here in the US). @Daddy92 could explain better.

How is that working out for their economy?

Fantastic! Italy has one of the best of the world economies and....oh shit, they're in the euro, aren't they?

That's not the problem...

I'm not saying that is 100% the entire problem; they do have a very corrupt government and, you know, they're Italians, that and they seem to have the inability to efficiently use taxpayer money to grow the economy, either the corrupt gov't is using the money for itself, or the country is funneling all of the money elsewhere. While Italians lose money, and their government has been unable to get the country out of economic recession.

So yeah, that's not the problem.

Blame the government, not the education system.

Pretty sure Italy has public schools.

And? That doesn't mean the education is at fault. The education system in Italy is pretty good, or so I've heard, and it is not the problem.