# How secondary education could be improved



## Left (Sep 16, 2012)

Compulsory science and mathematics until at least age 18, with a focus on conceptual aspects of mathematics rather than rote memorisation
Compulsory logic and critical thinking classes (maybe tied in with maths)
Less focus on spelling, handwriting, literature, etc.
Compulsory yoga, meditation and martial arts
Proper computer science, rather than IT classes taught by people who know less about computers than the people they're supposed to be teaching
Proper sex education, with emphasis on consent, how to give pleasure, good masturbation techniques, etc.
Drugs education, with a focus on harm reduction rather than scaremongering, taught by people who actually know what they're talking about - teachers could talk about their own experiences, positive and negative, with drugs (including alcohol)
Anyone have any other ideas?


----------



## equationgirl (Sep 16, 2012)

What do you mean by conceptual aspects of mathematics?

Shifting the focus of the curriculum away from english/literature etc won't necessarily improve secondary education. Being able to present ideas in a written, clear and concise format is a key part of science and engineering and should be encouraged.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 16, 2012)

_Optional_ martial arts/yoga/meditation is a good idea.

Your list is a reasonable list of options, but don't like the compulsory bit. For instance, not everyone is ever going to grasp maths in an abstract way, and forcing them to try to do so right up to age 18 isn't very sensible.

I do think that A-levels need to be replaced with a far broader system more like the bac or Scottish highers. Kids are forced to specialise far too early in the a-level system.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 16, 2012)

How to assemble flat pack furniture definitely.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 16, 2012)

Increase class sizes so teachers have more non-contact time to plan lessons.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 16, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> Being able to present ideas in a written, clear and concise format is a key part of science and engineering and should be encouraged.


 
And in a lot of fields of business etc.

I'd question the value of 'literature' though - being force-fed specific books and spending months dissecting them put me off reading for years.  In much the same way as being shoved into O-level music put me off doing anything musical again.

In answer to the original question, I'd say a lot less compulsion, more broadening and more options to allow kids (within reason) to do what they have some interest in / have a chance of being good at rather than forcing everyone into the same curriculum and in many cases declaring them failures before they have hit their teens, which leads to school becoming (for many) more about keeping them off the streets than educating them.

And end the absurd snobbery that stops any serious attempt to do anything 'vocational' rather than 'academic' in schools.


----------



## toggle (Sep 16, 2012)

lessons in how to write, to develop your own style that suits your own field are much more important, but would cost a great deal more than feeding kids standardised pap about a few books.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 16, 2012)

trolly op is trolly


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 16, 2012)

weltweit said:


> trolly op is trolly


No, it is argumentative but the OP will I hope stimulate discussion. I don't agree with trying to force all pupils to understand mathematical concepts. Some kids are not really able to understand abstract ideas even by the time they leave school. However I have always thought that the early specialisation into a narrow choice of A Levels gives an inferior and too specialised education compared with both the Scottish and Irish system of a broader curriculum at the top level. This especially now that a different and much larger cohort of students goes on to stay at school until they are 18. The baccalaureate idea is something that even Gove is looking at. It could be awarded for the achievements in A levels without setting up an alternative examination system. I would just mean that each student had to take 5 or more subjects to be awarded the bac.

Of course the Gold Standard supporters will argue that individual A levels need to maintained at their present content and standard but this is I think an outdated way of thinking. The financial Gold Standard was soon abandoned when it was found lacking. The splitting of A Levels into A2s in the first year and A Levels in final year has already meant that students who find they can't hack the difficult stuff drop out of the second year and go off to college or change to Btec and similar courses. The A2 results are also a predictor of final grade results for the A level itself (provided the grade boundaries are not changed without notice). Those who stay on to the second year are much more likely to be up to standard than they would have been in the days before A2.

Another thing that comes out of the OP is the idea that all pupils should stay on beyond Year 11 when the GCSEs are taken. So many more students are 'staying on' beyond GCSE that it might be worth doing away with the GCSE altogether, or rather move it to the end of year 12 and use it as both the A2 and GCSE depending on the grade achieved by the individual. Taking out the expensive and time consuming GCSE exam system at the end of year 11 would mean that that schools would not need to start the 'holidays'/study leave in the second week in May but could continue to teach right up to July when the lower school holidays start.

The extra time released by the examination system and by effectively extending the school year for year 11 pupils could be filled up with teaching not testing. What could go in there? There are many people with ideas for this so I will not answer my own question at this time


----------



## Meltingpot (Sep 16, 2012)

I think some kind of creative / artistic activity should be kept up, or at least available, right through school. I had to drop art and music at age 13 and I think it was wrong (I didn't really need those extra three years of Latin).


----------



## Firky (Sep 16, 2012)

One thing I wish I was taught at school is financial skills, I didn't have a clue how to set up direct debits, money management, what bills to expect at what price etc. I soon learned but it would have been good to know before hand.


----------



## jakethesnake (Sep 16, 2012)

Lower the school leaving age to 14 and massive investment in adult education.


----------



## Dusty Bint (Sep 16, 2012)

16, perhaps, but the principle is absolutely sound.


----------



## Quartz (Sep 16, 2012)

firky said:


> One thing I wish I was taught at school is financial skills, I didn't have a clue how to set up direct debits, money management, what bills to expect at what price etc. I soon learned but it would have been good to know before hand.


 
Shouldn't your parents or guardians have been teaching you life skills like that?


----------



## Firky (Sep 16, 2012)

Amongst working full time and bringing up other siblings, I don't think my parents really had time to sit down and go through council tax bands with me.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Sep 16, 2012)

firky said:


> One thing I wish I was taught at school is financial skills, I didn't have a clue how to set up direct debits, money management, what bills to expect at what price etc. I soon learned but it would have been good to know before hand.


You should have played more RPGs. Once you've mastered budgeting your looting income vs inns, training, new armour and magic items, you're pretty much set.

Having said that, it is harder in the real world to solve a cash flow crisis by going to a pub and asking strangers whether they need anyone killed for money.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 16, 2012)

Quartz said:


> Shouldn't your parents or guardians have been teaching you life skills like that?


 
you could say that about quite a lot of what goes under the 'personal and social education' umbrella. 

but why should kids have their life chances affected by how competent / otherwise their parents are at all that sort of stuff, then pass their incompetence on to another generation?  There's already a huge gap between kids whose parents are able and willing to teach them to read and write before they go to school and those whose parents aren't...

about the only thing I think should be left out of the school curriculum is religious education in the form of teaching only a particular brand of it. 

I've no objection to the concept of religions in general being taught, but when I went to school, Christianity (vaguely C of E) was pretty much taught as fact in primary school (state not church primary school), then nearly three years of RE at secondary school in similar vein followed by about half a term of 'comparitive religion' which came with an unspoken "this is what those heathens believe in - we all know it's bollocks though don't we" attitude.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 16, 2012)

Some things split into days or half days not 50 min sessions.


----------



## Fruitloop (Sep 16, 2012)

What's it for? Doesn't it achieve it's purpose quite well now?


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 16, 2012)

I like the idea of meditation/non competitive physical activity like yoga or pilates.   I think having competitive sports then pretending they're not competitive and we're all winners is silly.   Have competitive sports and be competitive. Have non competitive physical activity too. 

re: what Quartz says about parents teaching certain things.   Many parents lack skills in some areas so school picking up the slack seems sensible. Then those children can go on to be parents who can help their own children in ways their parents perhaps couldn't. 

Critical thinking re newspapers etc. 

Not privatising education.  Not reducing the qualifications levels of teachers.  Not treating teachers like cunts.


----------



## Ich bin ein Mod (Sep 16, 2012)

bi0boy said:


> Increase class sizes so teachers have more non-contact time to plan lessons.


 
At the cost of being able to devote more time to each pupil in class.

One thing I'm particularly glad of is the fact that as a teacher of a practical subject in Scotland the legal maximum number of pupils I can have in class is 20. Can't imagine having no limit to the number of pupils under my care at one time.


----------



## ericjarvis (Sep 16, 2012)

Ditch the national curriculum and end the obsession with testing. Children are not a product. Education shouldn't be an attempt to create a set of identical products that make it easy for academics to produce statistics. It should go back to being about education.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 16, 2012)

Ich bin ein Mod said:


> At the cost of being able to devote more time to each pupil in class.
> 
> One thing I'm particularly glad of is the fact that as a teacher of a practical subject in Scotland the legal maximum number of pupils I can have in class is 20. Can't imagine having no limit to the number of pupils under my care at one time.


In England practical classes are usually on a maximum of 15 unless things have changed in the last few years. And yes, you are right, if the classes get bigger then there is less time for each pupil. In a class of 30 for a one hour lesson there is enough time to give two minutes each to the pupils if the time was shared out equally. That doesn't even take into account the starting and finishing of the lesson at which time the whole group is being dealt with.


----------



## Ich bin ein Mod (Sep 16, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> In England practical classes are usually on a maximum of 15 unless things have changed in the last few years. And yes, you are right, if the classes get bigger then there is less time for each pupil. In a class of 30 for a one hour lesson there is enough time to give two minutes each to the pupils if the time was shared out equally. That doesn't even take into account the starting and finishing of the lesson at which time the whole group is being dealt with.


 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmsctech/508/50811.htm




> CLASS SIZE
> 138. The scientific learned societies and the ASE highlighted large class sizes in secondary science as making it difficult for teachers to manage practical classes.[260] James Salmon from the Anglo-European School, Essex described teaching classes of "30-32 [students] in labs that were designed for 24".[261] Catherine Crocker said that "if there are 30 pupils most teachers would like to have somebody else in there in practicals, but it does not happen".[262] Data provided by Ofsted, based on inspections carried out in the 2000/01 academic year, shows class sizes in double science GCSE ranging from 6 to 34 students, with a median of 24. A small survey carried out by the ASE suggest that it is the top sets in science that tend to be larger so that it is the most able students who are being most directly affected.[263] In contrast, legislation limits practical science lessons to 20 students in Scottish schools and to 24 in Northern Ireland.[264] The ASE do not believe that it is currently possible to impose a size limit in England. We recognise the difficulty of implementing smaller class sizes in science given the existing teacher shortage but feel that, in the interests of health and safety, this should be a priority. *The longer term aim should be to reduce secondary school practical science classes to no more that 20 students*.


 
As I've never taught in England, I can't comment from experience, but several people who have have said to me that they taught classes with greater than 20 students.


----------



## likesfish (Sep 16, 2012)

Keeping bored 17 intrested in maths science stupid idea 
Critical thinking vital 
Spelling still important as is reading literature important as well.
Yoga meditation and martial arts equally as shit as compulsory football running etc.
Computer sci agree
Not going to happen while the daily mail draws breath
 harm reduction not appropiate for school drugs they feel great but the downsides are fucking massive doesnt take a term to teach that.
 Money management


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 16, 2012)

Maybe for practical lessons there is an argument for class size to be small, but for normal lessons in other subjects, it can be benefical to have larger class sizes. The Koreans do so, and they're hardly lagging behind us.


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 16, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> In England practical classes are usually on a maximum of 15 unless things have changed in the last few years. And yes, you are right, if the classes get bigger then there is less time for each pupil. In a class of 30 for a one hour lesson there is enough time to give two minutes each to the pupils if the time was shared out equally. That doesn't even take into account the starting and finishing of the lesson at which time the whole group is being dealt with.


define 'practical'. I teach drama to classes of 30 (25 in exam groups).  i believe the only smaller class sizes are for technology: food, textiles and resistant materials.


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 16, 2012)

bi0boy said:


> Maybe for practical lessons there is an argument for class size to be small, but for normal lessons in other subjects, it can be benefical to have larger class sizes. The Koreans do so, and they're hardly lagging behind us.


different models, philosophies of what makes good education.  

it's widely beieved that finland has the best education system in the world, but it doesn't fit gove's ultra-capitalist, profit-driven model, so he prefers the east asian tradition of 50 to a class, kids just sitting taking notes while a teacher with a microphone delivers lectures.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 16, 2012)

ericjarvis said:


> Ditch the national curriculum and end the obsession with testing. Children are not a product. Education shouldn't be an attempt to create a set of identical products that make it easy for academics to produce statistics. It should go back to being about education.


 
to a large extent, agree, but the benefit of having a national curriculum (not necessarily the national curriculum we have now) is there's some consistency around the country and it doesn't completely bugger things up if kids move house any distance.

Mum-Tat moved schools (and education authorities) a few times during her schooling, as her dad was in the sort of company where you had to move to get promotion.  This meant each time she ended up repeating some stuff she'd already done, and not having done other stuff that everyone else had done the previous year...


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 16, 2012)

spanglechick said:


> define 'practical'. I teach drama to classes of 30 (25 in exam groups). i believe the only smaller class sizes are for technology: food, textiles and resistant materials.


Yes it is technology that I was thinking of. There may even be some sort of legislation about this I think, relating to safe use of machinery. The health and safety at work regulations have applied since 1974. As for science, art p.e. drama etc., it is pot luck.


----------



## StoneRoad (Sep 16, 2012)

1. Stop politicians moving the goal posts every few months/years
2. Get rid of ofsted/ofqual (or combine them into an suitable advisory body) and the stupidly high level of useless paperwork.
3. Reduce testing to a sensible level - modular tests / coursework as well as exams against a streamlined but broad national curriclum.
4. Treat (and pay) teachers and support staff as the important professionals that they are.

In terms of subjects to be studied. I would include......
Esperanto - for those not blessed with an innate grasp of languages.....
spelling and maths to the appropriate levels for other subjects (extra tuition if needed)
financial and other planning/practical skills as well as personal/social training.
traditional map-reading as well as modern IT skills.

What I would leave out -
compulsory foreign languages, high level maths (unless specialising), all religions except on an equal basis with other schools of philosophy, wiccan etc.

A bit of "pie in the sky" perhaps......


----------



## purenarcotic (Sep 16, 2012)

bi0boy said:


> Increase class sizes so teachers have more non-contact time to plan lessons.


 
No way, class sizes should be decreased so teachers can spend more quality time with pupils.  Or there should be more TA's within the classroom.  

An increase in teacher / TA to pupil time increases the opportunity for a teacher to pick up on any issues earlier, which means appropriate help can be given quicker.

Teachers should be accessible to kids not some distant figure who drones on at them for an hour and then fucks off.


----------



## equationgirl (Sep 16, 2012)

I am constantly amazed at the number of people at work who can't spell or use your/you're & where/were & they're/their/there correctly.

I would go back to a non-modular teaching approach, so that the subject can be taught and understood over a longer timeframe rather than in 8 week chunks then forgotten about. I also think less specialisation at A level would be better, as well as making pupils more aware of vocational training options such as apprenticeships.


----------



## purenarcotic (Sep 16, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> I am constantly amazed at the number of people at work who can't spell or use your/you're & where/were & they're/their/there correctly.
> 
> I would go back to a non-modular teaching approach, so that the subject can be taught and understood over a longer timeframe rather than in 8 week chunks then forgotten about. I also think less specialisation at A level would be better, as well as making pupils more aware of vocational training options such as apprenticeships.


 
Subjects should be better integrated too, instead of being compartmentalised.  There were moves made to improve that, particularly at primary level but I have no idea if that's still the case.


----------



## mentalchik (Sep 17, 2012)

firts thing i'd do would be to get rid of the league tables across the board


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 17, 2012)

mentalchik said:


> firts thing i'd do would be to get rid of the league tables across the board


Of course there aren't _really_ any 'league tables'. This was just an inappropriate analogy taken from football and other sports by the tabloids. Try calling up your local school to establish which division of the education 'league' they are in. If they had divisions it might be a bit fairer. The grammar schools would all be in the premier league and would be playing against each other rather than the other schools lower down. Perhaps we could have transfer fees following teachers and perhaps pupils so that schools could buy their way up the table by judicious buying and selling of talented staff and pupils. Value-added scoring could be brought back - it was scrapped before it was implemented at the behest of grammar schools who didn't want their performance to be judged on the higher entry standard of their pupils achieved through selection. Schools in areas of deprivation could be put in the (whatever the Vauxhall Conference is called now).


----------



## mentalchik (Sep 17, 2012)

you might say there aren't but where a school is in the standings is a BIG deal to a lot of people.......the secondary school all three of my sons attended made a huge deal about being top of the table


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2012)

The very best thing to do would be to make every school a general comprehensive and nationalise private schools. Selection is and always will be divisive and destructive.

Plus sixth-form colleges, some of which may be specialist. Children of 11 and young adults of 18 should not be educated in the same institution.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 17, 2012)

mentalchik said:


> you might say there aren't but where a school is in the standings is a BIG deal to a lot of people.......the secondary school all three of my sons attended made a huge deal about being top of the table


I am not saying that there isn't a list of examination results. There is, and all schools are required to publish them. If they are a successful school they will obviously make the most of it. They are in a competitive market and need to attract the best pupils in order to keep up their standards. A school is as good as its intake. What I am saying is that within the overall results table there are not divisions appropriate to the schools achievements as in the case of football.


----------



## magneze (Sep 17, 2012)

Stop every single education secretary bombarding schools with their new ideas and reorganizing things. How about leave the system alone for a bit?

Have fixed grade boundaries that don't vary year-to-year in order that governments can keep telling everyone that kids are getting smarter all the time.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Sep 17, 2012)

A good starting point would be 'not that cunt Gove.'


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 17, 2012)

magneze said:


> Have fixed grade boundaries that don't vary year-to-year in order that governments can keep telling everyone that kids are getting smarter all the time.


Kids _are_ 'getting smarter' all the time. There's good evidence for this, and it would be a failure if it weren't the case really.


----------



## likesfish (Sep 17, 2012)

Get some people who know what the fuck they are talking about  give them 3 years to come up with a plan.
 The implement the plan and review in ten years time.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Sep 17, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> How to assemble flat pack furniture definitely.


I've got a doctorate in that....


----------



## nagapie (Sep 17, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The very best thing to do would be to make every school a general comprehensive and nationalise private schools. Selection is and always will be divisive and destructive.
> 
> Plus sixth-form colleges, some of which may be specialist. Children of 11 and young adults of 18 should not be educated in the same institution.


 
Agree with both of these but also think that 11 year olds are too young to go to secondary school. They should go when they're 13 and then maybe the transition wouldn't cause as many problems as it does.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 17, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> How to assemble flat pack furniture definitely.


Lusty had a go at some DIY again?


----------



## JHE (Sep 17, 2012)

Left said:


> Proper sex education, with emphasis on consent, how to give pleasure, good masturbation techniques, etc.?


 


Don't teachers have a hard enough time dealing with adolescents already without expecting them to teach the little wankers how to wank?


----------



## ericjarvis (Sep 17, 2012)

The biggest problem that prevents us having a sensible education policy is that the people who express their opinions most forcefully are usually people who aren't prepared to accept that their own education was anything less than perfect.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Sep 17, 2012)

JHE said:


> Don't teachers have a hard enough time dealing with adolescents already without expecting them to teach the little wankers how to wank?


 
I've never seen anyone look so embarrassed in my entire life as when my biology teacher had to demonstrate putting a condom on a banana. I think she'd have quit before she'd have taught masturbation techniques.


----------



## equationgirl (Sep 17, 2012)

nagapie said:


> Agree with both of these but also think that 11 year olds are too young to go to secondary school. They should go when they're 13 and then maybe the transition wouldn't cause as many problems as it does.


Depends on the education authority. A few operate a 3 tier school system - primary 5-9, middle 9-13 and high school 13-16/18.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 18, 2012)

How about scapping GCSEs and replacing them with revamped English Baccalaureate qualification? And get rid of loads of coursework and shit? Who's with me? Yeah?

It's this fucking piece of shit's idea: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/sep/17/gcse-exams-replaced-ebacc-michael-gove?intcmp=239


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 18, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I do think that A-levels need to be replaced with a far broader system more like the bac or Scottish highers. Kids are forced to specialise far too early in the a-level system.


 
Disagree with this. Looking at subjects in more depth at A-level was a real turning point in education for me. Prior to that it was little more than a bland instrumental chore. I think the introduction of AS levels was a regression.


----------



## Hellsbells (Sep 18, 2012)

the problem i found (especially with english) was that A levels were really specialised & in-depth (which i liked - but appreciate it's obviously not for everyone), but then English at uni was suddenly vague and broad and just skimmed over things really superficially. In fact i found A levels far harder than my BA.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 18, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Disagree with this. Looking at subjects in more depth at A-level was a real turning point in education for me. Prior to that it was little more than a bland instrumental chore. I think the introduction of AS levels was a regression.


It was similar for me, but you can get that studying five or six subjects, too. It's a function of your increased maturity as much as anything, and people who do the bac or Scottish highers will also experience a change in the way they learn/ are taught as they get older.

What I find wrong is that - at age 16 - you are basically forced to specialise in either sciences or humanities. I did languages and maths at A-level and my teachers came straight out and said I was wrong to do that - 'what are you going to do with that?', I was asked. I didn't know - I was just choosing the stuff I liked doing. Too early to force kids to choose, imo.


----------



## Greebo (Sep 18, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It was similar for me, but you can get that studying five or six subjects, too. It's a function of your increased maturity as much as anything, and people who do the bac or Scottish highers will also experience a change in the way they learn/ are taught as they get older.
> 
> What I find wrong is that - at age 16 - you are basically forced to specialise in either sciences or humanities. I did languages and maths at A-level and my teachers came straight out and said I was wrong to do that - 'what are you going to do with that?', I was asked. I didn't know - I was just choosing the stuff I liked doing. Too early to force kids to choose, imo.


Agreed.  Anyone looking at my O level grades would've predicted languages and least one of 2 sciences.  As it was, because I wanted to take the languages further, I was forced to take English lit (which I'd already found out I was likely to do very badly indeed).


----------



## Sapphireblue (Sep 18, 2012)

Left said:


> Less focus on spelling, handwriting, literature, etc.


 
absolutely not. i work in IT with a load of intelligent people who are border-line illiterate.

not picking up literacy mistakes in essays for other subjects is a big mistake, as it leads to complacency regarding the importance of clearly explaining stuff. i frequently have to point out to people that the way they've written something makes the meaning either unclear, or in worst cases the opposite, of what they're trying to say. 

reading is one of the best ways to improve literacy. it's fine to txt-spk when appropriate, but people need to know the real words these abbreviations are based on!


----------



## sim667 (Sep 18, 2012)

bi0boy said:


> Increase class sizes so teachers have more non-contact time to plan lessons.


 
Worst idea evah.

Less paperwork and red tape for teachers. Better facilities (or alternative courses, i.e. apprenticeships) for disruptive student. The whole system needs better funding and less stuck in the mud middle and top end management, who were last in a classroom in 1970.


----------



## Cloo (Sep 19, 2012)

In my ideal world, though I know it's probably not very doable, I think everyone should study some kind of vocational skills until 14 or 16 say. I think that might improve respect for them (if, being an ideal world, they were well taught) and have a useful side effect of everyone learning some practical shit, like being able to fix things and so on.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 19, 2012)

Less fucking exams!

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/so-youre-good-at-exams-so-what-8145100.html


----------



## friedaweed (Sep 19, 2012)

Scrap compulsory RE and get rid of shite teachers.
*If they can't engage tha yoof give'm the hoof.*

I have lots of other suggestions but can't be arsed.


----------



## Metal Malcolm (Sep 19, 2012)

sim667 said:


> Better facilities (or alternative courses, i.e. apprenticeships) for disruptive student.


 
I was initially going to put something along the lines of 'make it easier to exclude disruptive students', although of course providing an alternative is a far better solution. I do believe though that in a lot of schools, the large number of disruptive pupils has a far bigger effect than the odd crap teacher. Admittedly I left secondary school some 15 years ago, but there were so many kids causing trouble in every lesson that most teachers spent their time doing crowd control rather than teaching. Several of them caused trouble from their very first day, and despite repeated attempts they remained in the school causing trouble until towards the end of their final year. One in particular I remember getting thrown out for beating the shit out of someone in the same week as threatening someone at the school gates with a knife. He wasn't allowed to sit his exams and the whole previous 5 years ended up being a waste. He should have been kicked out and moved elsewhere in the first year - for a start it would have meant everyone else could have focussed a lot better.

Admittedly, not sure where you could move them, apart from all together into one godawful hellhole...


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Sep 19, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What I find wrong is that - at age 16 - you are basically forced to specialise in either sciences or humanities. I did languages and maths at A-level and my teachers came straight out and said I was wrong to do that - 'what are you going to do with that?', I was asked. I didn't know - I was just choosing the stuff I liked doing. Too early to force kids to choose, imo.


 
Agreed. I did A-Levels in Chemistry and English Lit and they'd considered that so unlikely they actually managed to schedule the exams at the same time. They had to assign a teacher to watch me between exams so I could do one on my own.


----------



## Cloo (Sep 19, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Less fucking exams!
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/so-youre-good-at-exams-so-what-8145100.html


_Fewer!!!_

*gets coat*


----------



## sim667 (Sep 19, 2012)

Metal Malcolm said:


> I was initially going to put something along the lines of 'make it easier to exclude disruptive students', although of course providing an alternative is a far better solution. I do believe though that in a lot of schools, the large number of disruptive pupils has a far bigger effect than the odd crap teacher. Admittedly I left secondary school some 15 years ago, but there were so many kids causing trouble in every lesson that most teachers spent their time doing crowd control rather than teaching. Several of them caused trouble from their very first day, and despite repeated attempts they remained in the school causing trouble until towards the end of their final year. One in particular I remember getting thrown out for beating the shit out of someone in the same week as threatening someone at the school gates with a knife. He wasn't allowed to sit his exams and the whole previous 5 years ended up being a waste. He should have been kicked out and moved elsewhere in the first year - for a start it would have meant everyone else could have focussed a lot better.
> 
> Admittedly, not sure where you could move them, apart from all together into one godawful hellhole...


 
The problem is that a lot of disruptive students are like that because they dont want to be talked at, instead of being taught practically. The education system simply doesnt allow for that.

We need more teachers like phil beadle (there's a tv series he did called the unteachables, very good show).


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 19, 2012)

As if education can be improved without radical changes to society re.distribution of wealth.


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 19, 2012)

sim667 said:


> We need more teachers like phil beadle (there's a tv series he did called the unteachables, very good show).


 
No, that just promotes the idea of superman teacher, when what is needed is collective, social change.


----------



## Metal Malcolm (Sep 19, 2012)

sim667 said:


> The problem is that a lot of disruptive students are like that because they dont want to be talked at, instead of being taught practically. The education system simply doesnt allow for that.


 
Sure, I can see that. Unfortunately while we try to force them to behave in traditional chalk&talk classes, they're learning nothing, while actively preventing the rest of the class from learning to their full ability. Sure, put them in a more practical class, or smaller groups, or whatever - just keep them apart from those who actually want to learn. While they're all lumped in together it does nobody any favours.

I also don't necessarily agree that it's always the teaching style that's at fault. Most of the kids i'm thinking about were just as much trouble in science/PE/technology classes as they were in Maths. It wasn't the nature of the teaching that was the problem, it was being raised from a young age with an attitude of 'School won't teach you anything, fuck the teachers, they can't boss you around'. If you don't want to be there, and you actively disrupt everyone else, what's the point of keeping you there?



> We need more teachers like phil beadle (there's a tv series he did called the unteachables, very good show).


 
And how many of those, nationwide, do you think we can possibly have? We either get more teachers, or fewer better ones. You can't magically have both.


----------



## sim667 (Sep 19, 2012)

Its not a case of either getting more teachers, or fewer better ones, its a case of a less restrictive and paperwork ridden curriculum allowing teachers the freedom to properly engage with students....... Basically every term teachers are told they cant do something, the next term they're told they can, and it always changes likes that and makes things overcomplicated, which leads teachers to bad mouth the profession and put off people who are thinking about a career in it.

Im a teacher, trying to get out of teaching, because I dont like the restrictions, permanent inspections etc etc.

What I really resent is that in the last 3 years I've had 12 training sessions on equality and diversity..... thats the last thing I need training on, i need help with my paperwork, they change it every year and never train us on the changes...... its got to the point now where often I can spend 2.5 hours getting stuff ready for a 1.5 hour lesson...... I dont get paid for prep either


----------



## 89 Til Infinity (Sep 19, 2012)

financial education- making sure kids know the value of money and to not get into debt


----------



## upthejunction (Sep 19, 2012)

No more random policy making in educaiton unless it is based on evidence.  i.e. proper statistical analysis of data and/or RCTs and/or pilots. Everyone has good ideas (to themselves) - test them before you impose them on others.


----------



## Garek (Sep 19, 2012)

Scrap age bands. More pupil led learning and better combination of learning through play. Chance to sign up to lessons on the day ie. turn up, see what's on offer, sign up for those particular classes. Or if you are child who needs routine then the faculties to handle that as well. Abolishment of all rules and regulations that ultimately boil down to "because I said so" eg. "You have to wear a round necked jumper rather than v neck".


----------



## stuff_it (Sep 19, 2012)

sim667 said:


> Worst idea evah.
> 
> Less paperwork and red tape for teachers. Better facilities (or alternative courses, i.e. apprenticeships) for disruptive student. The whole system needs better funding and less stuck in the mud middle and top end management, who were last in a classroom in 1970.


Why should disruptive students get all the good stuff?

I'd like to see more encouragement to do stuff like apprenticeships for the more academically able - just because you are doing well academically doesn't mean that the right apprenticeship wouldn't serve you better.

More flexible timetabling to allow more flexible choices at 14 for GCSEs. 

Bring back Maintenance Grants for over 16s.


----------



## upthejunction (Sep 19, 2012)

Read this - http://jacobinmag.com/2012/09/lean-production-whats-really-hurting-public-education/
one of the people I play football with is an educational statistician and he tells me (until that part of his job was axed) that surestart was having positive, measurable and significant effects on primary school performance but they had not got any data on secondaries as it had not run that long.  Of course that means not only was there evidence it worked to improve educational performance, in particular of the poorer strata in society, but also that such evidence was ignored (or overrridden).  I really am starting to believe we have returned to before the 60s


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 19, 2012)

High schools are too big imo. Bring back middle schools too!
Stop   schools having to go into competition with each other for resources. No more academies..


----------



## friedaweed (Sep 19, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> High schools are too big imo. Bring back middle schools too!
> Stop schools having to go into competition with each other for resources. No more academies..


They still have them in some places, West Yorks has middle schools.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 19, 2012)

friedaweed said:


> They still have them in some places, West Yorks has middle schools.



Unfortunately not in this bit of west yorks. Bang went my dads job 
Early nineties. Middlethorne rip


----------



## friedaweed (Sep 19, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Unfortunately not in this bit of west yorks. Bang went my dads job
> Early nineties. Middlethorne rip


Really? I'm going back a few years when I was doing some work over there. It was all new to me but a lot of folk talked about it very positively.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 19, 2012)

Where exactly. Not leeds not bradford. Not saying I don't believe you tho.


----------



## equationgirl (Sep 19, 2012)

friedaweed said:


> They still have them in some places, West Yorks has middle schools.


So does Worcestershire.


----------



## Gmart (Sep 19, 2012)

There has to be a priority on the learning environment, even if that means diverting the disruptive children to a PRU-like space for personal supervision. This costs money, which is not being made available (see general society problems). Therefore those who are disruptive must go home until they can behave. This might seem unfair, but to keep them in the classroom would be unfair on those kids who wish to learn, and to my mind they must get priority.


----------



## friedaweed (Sep 19, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Where exactly. Not leeds not bradford. Not saying I don't believe you tho.


Huddersfield/Calderdale way. Still going strong by the look of it.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=c...s=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a


----------



## Gmart (Sep 19, 2012)

jakethesnake said:


> Lower the school leaving age to 14 and massive investment in adult education.


^^^^This

It is a poor start to the relationship between state and individual if the former decides to force the latter to attend if he/she doesn't want to. Let them go out and try and make it without education if they wish, then they can come back to adult education when this fails to work. This would also alleviate the poverty trap to a degree.


----------



## Mungy (Sep 21, 2012)

giving children the opportunity to learn things they are interested in. I wanted to learn German and Latin, but because the "stream" they put me in didn't include German or Latin, the chance was never presented to me. I'd have happily sacrificed PE for almost anything else. Even cookery if that had been the only option.

More teachers; more subjects; smaller classes.

Having spent a long time around people with dyslexia, correct spelling, grammar and punctuation causes no end of stress. As long as you can understand what the other person is communicating, it is less important.


----------



## stereoisomer (Sep 27, 2012)

Secondary schools and colleges should start lessons no earlier than 10am. Teenagers have a different body clock to adults; they're not lazy for wanting to sleep in and forcing them to get up early means they are permanently jetlagged.


----------



## Gmart (Sep 29, 2012)

stereoisomer said:


> Secondary schools and colleges should start lessons no earlier than 10am. Teenagers have a different body clock to adults; they're not lazy for wanting to sleep in and forcing them to get up early means they are permanently jetlagged.


So what time should they finish then?


----------



## Greebo (Sep 29, 2012)

stereoisomer said:


> Secondary schools and colleges should start lessons no earlier than 10am. Teenagers have a different body clock to adults; they're not lazy for wanting to sleep in and forcing them to get up early means they are permanently jetlagged.


Strangely enough, teenagers of my generation managed to drag themselves out of bed at silly o' clock to do at least one paper round before school and then managed to get through school, homework and anything else without falling asleep during the day.

Those who didn't do paper rounds often had to get up early if they wanted to keep their Saturday jobs, or be prepared to sit up half the night babysitting instead.  Tiredness was no excuse for lateness etc at school while there was caffeine.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 29, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Strangely enough, teenagers of my generation managed to drag themselves out of bed at silly o' clock to do at least one paper round before school and then managed to get through school, homework and anything else without falling asleep during the day.
> 
> Those who didn't do paper rounds often had to get up early if they wanted to keep their Saturday jobs, or be prepared to sit up half the night babysitting instead.  Tiredness was no excuse for lateness etc at school while there was caffeine.




Having a job was the reason I wanted a lay in on schooldays!

Some of these academies / free schools are terrifying tho. One wasopen 50 weeks a year 9-6pm school day. Can you imagine that? 
I swear they're teaching kids to prepare for a life of serfdom.


----------



## Greebo (Sep 29, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> <snip>Some of these academies / free schools are terrifying tho. One wasopen 50 weeks a year 9-6pm school day. Can you imagine that?
> I swear they're teaching kids to prepare for a life of serfdom.


Gradgrind would be proud.


----------



## Fuchs66 (Sep 29, 2012)

Bring back the birch!


----------



## likesfish (Sep 29, 2012)

We know how secondary education works its called. ETON.

Unfortunatly we cant afford it for everyone


----------



## Greebo (Sep 29, 2012)

likesfish said:


> We know how secondary education works its called. ETON.<snip>


You mean, remove the national curriculum, select by rich parents and/or academic performance, then get rid of anyone who doesn't respond well to one style of teaching?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 29, 2012)

likesfish said:


> We know how secondary education works its called. ETON.


 
I find it hard to imagine a worse place to send my child to school.


----------



## likesfish (Sep 29, 2012)

Greebo said:


> You mean, remove the national curriculum, select by rich parents and/or academic performance, then get rid of anyone who doesn't respond well to one style of teaching?



Sorry if if your were catatonic eton would figure out away to make sure you left employable throwing an airliner full of money at the problem works 
  Take any failing school give it the resources of eton problem solved.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 29, 2012)

likesfish said:


> Take any failing school give it the resources of eton problem solved.


I pretty much agree with this, though. The question of disproportionate funding is central. Even within the state system, different children have very different sums of money spent on their education.


----------



## Greebo (Sep 29, 2012)

likesfish said:


> Sorry if if your were catatonic eton would figure out away to make sure you left employable throwing an airliner full of money at the problem works
> Take any failing school give it the resources of eton problem solved.


In my arrogant opinion you're refreshingly naif on this, you could make Orang Utan sound like a hardened cynic by comparison. Public (in the UK sense) schools seldom work in that way. Yes, they may appear to get amazingly good results, but when you allow for how little of their intake was statemented, or from backgrounds without particularly ambitious or academically inclined parents, the results are unimpressive.

Having said which, smaller classes and properly motivated teachers who stay with the school for more than a few years can go a long way to improving results.


----------



## likesfish (Sep 29, 2012)

Take the most disruptive kid give them stables a 2km lake a shooting range swimming pool workshops etc etc etc 1:1 attention 
 3 square meals bording school so they are not dealing with whatever happens at home problem of behaviour solved.

Ok they grow up to be functional sociopath with retarded emotions but theybare an academic success and can mold society to there will.

 Hang on oh fuck


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Sep 30, 2012)

My state school had a rifle range, swimming pool and workshops. Not that unusual.


----------



## stereoisomer (Sep 30, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Strangely enough, teenagers of my generation managed to drag themselves out of bed at silly o' clock to do at least one paper round before school and then managed to get through school, homework and anything else without falling asleep during the day.
> 
> Those who didn't do paper rounds often had to get up early if they wanted to keep their Saturday jobs, or be prepared to sit up half the night babysitting instead. Tiredness was no excuse for lateness etc at school while there was caffeine.


 
Wow, good for you. I had to leave for the school bus at 7.30 and it was hell. Being an early riser doesn't make you morally superior, never mind what early risers might think


----------



## Greebo (Sep 30, 2012)

stereoisomer said:


> <snip>Being an early riser doesn't make you morally superior, never mind what early risers might think


*shrug* Didn't say that it makes anyone morally superior, nor that I enjoyed getting up that early, but it had to be done.  It was a trade off to avoid needing a Saturday job, which would have clashed even worse with other things I wanted to do.


----------



## toggle (Sep 30, 2012)

Mungy said:


> Having spent a long time around people with dyslexia, correct spelling, grammar and punctuation causes no end of stress. As long as you can understand what the other person is communicating, it is less important.


 
yes and no. it can be helpful, but if done in an instructive, not a punitive manner. a lot of the more traditional attitude towards spelling and grammar seems to be that if you punish for failing to achieve perfection, improvement will follow. with no attempt to do anyhting other than state 'learn the rules on your own' as a method of improvement, or setting kids to repeatedly write out words, hugely painful for a dyslexic. this dosen't really help. there are ways that can help and those should be used instead of this punitive approach.


----------



## toggle (Sep 30, 2012)

Greebo said:


> In my arrogant opinion you're refreshingly naif on this, you could make Orang Utan sound like a hardened cynic by comparison. Public (in the UK sense) schools seldom work in that way. Yes, they may appear to get amazingly good results, but when you allow for how little of their intake was statemented, or from backgrounds without particularly ambitious or academically inclined parents, the results are unimpressive.
> 
> Having said which, smaller classes and properly motivated teachers who stay with the school for more than a few years can go a long way to improving results.


 
yep, a lot of high performing private schools will simply suggest that since they do not provide support for anyhting like dyslexia, that somewhere else would be more appropriate. it's not about providing extra resources, it's about exclusivity, gaining resulots through teaching the easy to teach.

it's as false a picture as the private schools that refuse to enter kids in for exams that they aren't predicted a/b grades in. they can get a 90% result, but only by telling half their kids to go sit exams elsewhere.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 30, 2012)

There are posh private schools that cater for special needs like dyslexia.
Remember the furore about ruth kellys kid going to a posh prep for kids with dyslexia?
Also, apparently tories brought in extra support for disabled students at uni.


----------



## likesfish (Sep 30, 2012)

Eton gets £30000 per year per pupil with all the infra structure already in tip top condition

Compared with £8000 per year per state school.


----------



## Gmart (Oct 1, 2012)

likesfish said:


> Eton gets £30000 per year per pupil with all the infra structure already in tip top condition
> 
> Compared with £8000 per year per state school.


Is there even a solution to this? There are some schools which have built up assets over the years to facilitate their learning environment, while there are some which have had their funding cut consistently. What's the answer? Steal these assets?

There will always be a private sector which provides a stratified system. The parents of these children will be relatively more insistent on better education practices, although the idea that they pay for the schools to raise their children for them will mean that these children might well grow up deformed mentally.

This leads to the idea that all schools should be mixed gender simply because that is how society is, and to artificially create an environment without the other gender could be injurous in the long run.

There is still no consensus on whether schools should start later due to kids requiring more sleep. Starting at 10am was suggested, but when should school finish? 6pm? 7pm? How much time would be needed to get through the course? What courses should remain on the National Curriculum if one should remain? Should private schools be required to cover the National curriculum, (finally correcting the current privileged system where the private schools are trusted by the government to teach without the oversight of OFSTED)?

What happens to kids with special needs? Should they be within the general population? Will they get the attention they need if surrounded by kids who are hoping to learn at a more normal rate? (I use the term 'normal' statistically). Is it more important to maintain the 'comprehensive' system even if the education/support of both these sets of kids suffers? If we allow setting, then isn't that the same as selection on the basis of ability, leading to a duplication of resources which will also impact on the learning environment?

And what about bureacracy? It is easy to state that bureacracy should be limited, but who decides? There is always a good reason for extra systems, so who decides? Teachers complain all the time of the multitude of forms and tests which are imposed by the central government.

Should there be end of year exams?

Should kids who fail a year be kept down for the next year?

If we accept that kids who are misbehaving violently are entitled to support, and kids who are just there hoping to learn are also entitled to support, should the former be allowed to remain in the classroom to the detriment of the latter? And if they should get personal support elsewhere to help them 'behave', then what happens if they don't? And who pays for this more expensive form of support?


----------



## Schmetterling (Oct 2, 2012)

And how about this, so aptly put, by Dorris Lessing:

"Ideally, what should be said to every child, repeatedly, throughout his or her school life is something like this: 'You are in the process of being indoctrinated. We have not yet evolved a system of education that is not a system of indoctrination. We are sorry, but it is the best we can do. What you are being taught here is an amalgam of current prejudice and the choices of this particular culture. The slightest look at history will show how impermanent these must be. You are being taught by people who have been able to accommodate themselves to a regime of thought laid down by their predecessors. It is a self-perpetuating system. Those of you who are more robust and individual than others will be encouraged to leave and find ways of educating yourself — educating your own judgements. Those that stay must remember, always, and all the time, that they are being moulded and patterned to fit into the narrow and particular needs of this particular society.' " 
(The Golden Notebook)

So, I think the discussion needs to not only be about the improvement of _how_ we are taught but also _what_ we are taught.


----------



## Gmart (Oct 6, 2012)

Schmetterling said:


> And how about this, so aptly put, by Dorris Lessing:
> 
> "Ideally, what should be said to every child, repeatedly, throughout his or her school life is something like this: 'You are in the process of being indoctrinated. We have not yet evolved a system of education that is not a system of indoctrination. We are sorry, but it is the best we can do. What you are being taught here is an amalgam of current prejudice and the choices of this particular culture. The slightest look at history will show how impermanent these must be. You are being taught by people who have been able to accommodate themselves to a regime of thought laid down by their predecessors. It is a self-perpetuating system. Those of you who are more robust and individual than others will be encouraged to leave and find ways of educating yourself — educating your own judgements. Those that stay must remember, always, and all the time, that they are being moulded and patterned to fit into the narrow and particular needs of this particular society.' "
> (The Golden Notebook)


 
A great quote, thank you. 



Schmetterling said:


> So, I think the discussion needs to not only be about the improvement of _how_ we are taught but also _what_ we are taught.


 
Agreed, for example a section on how to deal with banks and debt might be useful, and critical thinking. Still most people only focus briefly on these issues I listed above. We can all agree that education needs to 'broaden one's mind' and other ideals, but when it comes down to it we should not be scared to state that when it comes to education the learning environment in  the classroom must be paramount, and the spread of abilities need to be narrow to maximise the good work that can be done. Any impediment to this can be discussed elsewhere and helped.

Resources are limited, and it does not help to assume that they are unlimited just because we would all prefer them to be so.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 6, 2012)

Gmart said:


> Is there even a solution to this? There are some schools which have built up assets over the years to facilitate their learning environment, while there are some which have had their funding cut consistently. What's the answer? Steal these assets?


They stole them so putting them back in the hands of the rightful owners would be both righting an historic injustice and taking a step towards a more fair society.

And for anyone who wants closer private school involvement with state schools, this is the sort of attitude that the bosses of these places has to the working class:



> "Shouldn't we be talking about aspiration?" said Dr Spence, whose school sponsors an academy on the Isle of Sheppey in Kent, a predominantly white working-class area. "We have masses of Asian candidates for our scholarships, Afghan refugees, but it is difficult to find white working-class boys."
> 
> Richard Russell, headmaster of Colfe's School in Lee, South London, said afterwards: "It's a really important topic, but it is also a very sensitive topic.
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 6, 2012)

Gmart said:


> There will always be a private sector which provides a stratified system. The parents of these children will be relatively more insistent on better education practices, although the idea that they pay for the schools to raise their children for them will mean that these children might well grow up deformed mentally.


 
Wow.


----------



## mentalchik (Oct 6, 2012)

Education could be helped overall if politicians were banned from interfering full stop


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 6, 2012)

@SpartistWurzel What's wrong with what he's saying? Obviously it's not a surprise that immigrant communities prioritise education, but lack of interest in it from any specific group should be a concern.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 6, 2012)

Maurice Picarda said:


> What's wrong with what he's saying? Obviously it's not a surprise that immigrant communities prioritise education, but underperformance from any specific group should be a concern.


Well, aside from the fact that it's simply a marketing campaign to  fill the gaps left paying parents withdrawing their kids, the words are dripping with contempt.


----------



## Gmart (Oct 7, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> They stole them so putting them back in the hands of the rightful owners would be both righting an historic injustice and taking a step towards a more fair society.


 
The rightful owners I presume you mean 'the people'? Leaving aside that this includes the rich as well as the poor, that is a bit too vague. Do you think we will avoid having a society with richer people in it? People with more valuable skills will no doubt be paid more and it is part of freedom for them to use this as they wish. That will include paying for advantages for their children. High inheritance tax amongst other measures could mitigate this, but we will never be able to stop it.

Nonetheless, there is no doubt that the privilege we have in schools is far too great, and so we are confronted with a choice. Recognising that it is politically impossible to just seize their assets and abolish them, we need to find a way to make them the same as all other schools, by at least leveling the playing field. That means that they must be covered by the National Curriculum and Ofsted, neither of which happens at the moment.



butchersapron said:


> And for anyone who wants closer private school involvement with state schools, this is the sort of attitude that the bosses of these places has to the working class:


 
The article shows a complete confusion as to why the poorer, white part of society is not taking advantage of the means-tested bursary places which the Elite schools offer. This is no surprise, the Elite live their lives under the impression that the UK is a fair society, whereas the poorer parts of society do not share this view and thus exercise a general attitude of rebellion and apathy which is quite consistent with an oppressive regime. 'They' note that other sectors of society take advantage, but this is because the newly arrived are not yet aware of the oppressive regime they have moved to, recognising their relative freedom in comparison to the relatively more oppressive regime they invariably came from.



butchersapron said:


> Wow.


 
I thought you would like that, I consider even single gender schools to be injurious because such an artificial set up means that the kids may go years with little or no contact with the other gender being around. 

Still no reply to #104


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2012)

Gmart said:


> The rightful owners I presume you mean 'the people'? Leaving aside that this includes the rich as well as the poor, that is a bit too vague. Do you think we will avoid having a society with richer people in it? People with more valuable skills will no doubt be paid more and it is part of freedom for them to use this as they wish. That will include paying for advantages for their children. High inheritance tax amongst other measures could mitigate this, but we will never be able to stop it.
> 
> Nonetheless, there is no doubt that the privilege we have in schools is far too great, and so we are confronted with a choice. Recognising that it is politically impossible to just seize their assets and abolish them, we need to find a way to make them the same as all other schools, by at least leveling the playing field. That means that they must be covered by the National Curriculum and Ofsted, neither of which happens at the moment.
> 
> ...


 

Bizarre post and bizarre logic. Group a has exclusive access to resource b and this is harming society. Step c would/could extend this access to include group d and remove the society wide damage. You suggest against taking step c as this would then make groups d+a have access to b. Which is the point of taking step c.

I don't recognise that it's politically impossible to abolish private schools, in the same way that i don;t think it's politically impossible to abolish much anti-social behaviour.

No, the point wasn't that i liked you - a teacher - describing pupils as 'mentally deformed' but surprise that you could think it's acceptable - you being a teacher - to think in these terms.

Eh? Post #104 has nothing to do with me. The poster you were replying to was not me. This is your first reply to me on this thread.


----------



## Gmart (Oct 7, 2012)

Mentally deformed

However you wish to put it, I do indeed feel that forcing kids into an environment where there is only one gender and/or where there is a particularly narrow representation of society is injurious to the nurture of that child. Whether a parent has the right to injure their child that way is another debate. They currently have the right to circumcise, which is probably far worse.

#104 is a general comment on this thread and was posted as a response to the thread as a whole, and it describes carefully some of the greater problems in education.

The richer section of society does use its greater assets for the good of itself and by consequence its progeny. I was not supporting this, just stating that I could not imagine how we would be able to stop this while maintaining the ideal of freedom. I would prefer to use the tax system, rather than introduce arbitrary asset seizures, there are already too many of those with sound systems now able to be seized by the police.

I might not agree with the actions of the richer section of society, but within a free and tolerant society I have to accept that there are some who I will disagree with, even if they are impacting on others with their actions. For example one might argue that driving a car for pleasure is impacting on the environment. Do we therefore ban such actions? I would argue not. One has to be careful under what circumstances one set of people get to tell another set of people how to live...


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 7, 2012)

Gmart said:


> I might not agree with the actions of the richer section of society, but within a free and tolerant society I have to accept that there are some who I will disagree with, even if they are impacting on others with their actions. For example one might argue that driving a car for pleasure is impacting on the environment. Do we therefore ban such actions? I would argue not. One has to be careful under what circumstances one set of people get to tell another set of people how to live...


 
Lol, it's not a 'free and tolerant society' then for all is it? It's one that is driven by, and benefits the richest.


----------



## Gmart (Oct 7, 2012)

steph said:


> Lol, it's not a 'free and tolerant society' then for all is it? It's one that is driven by, and benefits the richest.


Not everyone will have the freedom to buy a Porsche if they want to, of course not. There will be some who can, some who cannot - I see no point pretending otherwise, I also see no way of ensuring that everyone can have this level of freedom within a world of limited resources.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 7, 2012)

Is the 'freedom' (lol) to buy a Porsche important then? Surely a 'free and tolerant society' is about more than that.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 7, 2012)

Still, it sums up the sort of things that 'free market' and 'libertarian' types usually regard as important in societies/economies though.


----------



## Gmart (Oct 7, 2012)

steph said:


> Still, it sums up the sort of things that 'free market' and 'libertarian' types usually regard as important in societies/economies though.


In the context of education it is clear that the teacher only has a finite amount of time in the classroom. 

In #104 above I gave this example to illustrate:


> If we accept that kids who are misbehaving violently are entitled to support, and kids who are just there hoping to learn are also entitled to support, should the former be allowed to remain in the classroom to the detriment of the latter? And if they should get personal support elsewhere to help them 'behave', then what happens if they don't? And who pays for this more expensive form of support?


 
Imagine you are a parent of one of the kids who wish to learn, and yet the teacher is being distracted by the violence of the other kids to the detriment of the learning environment. How would you feel? 

So are you disagreeing with the statement that resources are limited?


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 7, 2012)

So, in a discussion about improving secondary education, you make a point about a 'free and tolerant society' (which isn't), and then, even as a teacher, the example you use to illustrate this is 'the freedom to buy a Porsche'?!

And having defended inequality ('it would be wrong for us to stop the richer in society'), you're now trying to make a point about limited resources in the classroom. Just. What?!


----------



## Gmart (Oct 7, 2012)

steph said:


> So, in a discussion about improving secondary education, you make a point about a 'free and tolerant society' (which isn't), and then, even as a teacher, the example you use to illustrate this is 'the freedom to buy a Porsche'?!
> 
> And having defended inequality ('it would be wrong for us to stop the richer in society'), you're now trying to make a point about limited resources in the classroom. Just what?!


I make no excuse for stating the ideal of a free and tolerant society, and there is no point assuming that there are unlimited resources when there are not, especially within the classroom.

I was not of course 'defending' inequality, as if I would prefer it that way. In the example above it would be great to have two, three or more teachers to take over the teaching of those kids who are disruptive, escorting them to another classroom maybe without interfering with the learning of those kids who wish to learn. However in my experience it seems to be necessary to deal with the violent/disruptive child to the detriment of the time given to the child who wishes to learn.

As far as 'stopping' the rich goes, I just cannot imagine how this would happen - I will support greater taxes on them, but to prevent them from choosing how to spend their money?? All you would do is to drive such industries underground for the same reason as always: because people want to pretend that the world is different to how it is. People earn money and wish to spend it on their kids education. Instead of trying to find ways to prevent them from doing so (and failing), we would do better to build a system which incorporates this freedom within it.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 7, 2012)

Not to ignore the fact that teachers clearly have an incredibly difficult task in the classrom with some pupils, but seriously, where the fucks the capital/class/inequality analysis in any of this?


Actually, I know the answer to that - it's can't/shouldn't as it may upset the freedoms of the privileged and wealthy.


----------



## Gmart (Oct 22, 2012)

steph said:


> Not to ignore the fact that teachers clearly have an incredibly difficult task in the classrom with some pupils, but seriously, where the fucks the capital/class/inequality analysis in any of this?
> 
> 
> Actually, I know the answer to that - it's can't/shouldn't as it may upset the freedoms of the privileged and wealthy.


Although there is no doubt a lack of meritocracy in our society, and the rich and powerful have a lot their own way to the detriment of the many, this is not a reason to ignore the fact that we live in a world of limited resources, and thus there needs to be a decision made between an emphasis on the learning environment (where disruptive students are removed from the classroom) and an emphasis on the disruptive students (where the class has to stop each time they misbehave). I appreciate that the stock reply is that there should be no child left behind, but first and foremost we need to maintain the learning environment for those children who wish to learn. The disruptive students can therefore go home until they decide that learning is a constructive use for their time. It is due to this logic that education should become voluntary from 14, so that the learning environment is not compromised at this key time. The resources could then be diverted into the worthy Adult Education sector to facilitate this needed safety net, thus ensuring that the individual can always start again when things go wrong.

This will not stop the vast problem of privilege in the Elitist society we have, but it might stop the non-Elite section from stopping itself from learning.


----------



## Hellsbells (Oct 22, 2012)

I don't really think that would work somehow. I wasn't a disruptive student in the slightest, but if education had been voluntary after the age of 14, I doubt i'd bothered carrying on going to school! And i imagine the same would go for a hell of a lot of 14 year olds who would far rather not get up in the mornings.


----------



## sim667 (Oct 22, 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-20005342

Interestingly I've just been reading this about the lack of black and asian history teaching in school history lessons.....

I think it rings true about a lot of subjects, not just history, but english (literatures from different backgrounds), Music from different backgrounds etc.


----------



## BlueSquareThing (Oct 22, 2012)

sim667 said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-20005342
> 
> Interestingly I've just been reading this about the lack of black and asian history teaching in school history lessons.....
> 
> I think it rings true about a lot of subjects, not just history, but english (literatures from different backgrounds), Music from different backgrounds etc.


 
And the Telegraph's running a column by Nick Gibb about history "coming alive" again as they start to make it all about the Really Important Facts kids will have to learn (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/9624840/Soon-history-will-come-alive-again-in-class.html) 

Ah, the return of white male dominated history. Fantastic


----------



## Gmart (Oct 28, 2012)

Hellsbells said:


> I don't really think that would work somehow. I wasn't a disruptive student in the slightest, but if education had been voluntary after the age of 14, I doubt i'd bothered carrying on going to school! And i imagine the same would go for a hell of a lot of 14 year olds who would far rather not get up in the mornings.


If they have got to fourteen and don't consider education to be something constructive to get up for in the morning, then I doubt they will be a constructive part of the learning environment that the school is trying to maintain. Best to let them work out what they want to do without impacting on those who do wish to learn. They can come back to further education when and if they feel that they need to later.

There should be adequate opportunities for these students to choose to train in the non academic sector if they wish, as an artisan of some sort. There is a great need for plumbers, electricians, builders, scaffolders all decent jobs with decent wages and these opportunities should be available, again probably through further education and/or technical colleges.

I see no point in forcing them into a classroom where they do not wish to be. That is like putting a human bomb into the learning environment and is unfair on those who wish to concentrate on getting the education they require either for training purposes or university.


----------



## porp (Oct 28, 2012)

Boys compulsory school attendance to end at age 12. Tiring physical labour to be the norm for them until say age 16 or 17.They can spend their exhausted hours away from that labour in a mist of sex (real and imagined), soft drugs, computer games and general crapness. At age 17, purged of their demons and all-too-aware of what life could hold for them, school /  college education starts again in earnest.


----------



## Gmart (Nov 2, 2012)

Perhaps the time has come to have year end exams, and if the student does not pass all of them, then they have to repeat the year until they can pass, rather than pushing them forward before they are able to progress in all subjects?


----------



## Gmart (Nov 3, 2012)

The general lack of ideas here is exactly how the Tories will impose their 'solution' on this sector. It seems just too boring for the electorate to go into the details about what actually to do within the classroom to prioritise the learning environment - much easier to just throw imprecise ideals from the sidelines while not being closely cross-examined. Much like the politicians with their 'No Child Left Behind' mantra.

For example, do people accept the need for selection by ability? What about the voucher system to cause a wider variety of schools to cater for different students with different abilities? What is the limit on so-called 'comprehensive' education? At what age should competition be allowed in to the classroom? At what age should students choose their key subjects? And this is all supposing that the classrooms can maintain the learning environment which is not always possible with the politicians forcing students who don't want to be there into them.

At what point do we say that the child can go home until they are prepared to accept the learning environment of the classroom? Until then let the parents put up with him/her. Past (say) 14 surely it would be fairer on the kids who wish to learn to ensure this happens.

At the same time a child care service for all run by the government for those parents who need to go to work would be far less expensive than letting the private market meet the demand. If schools are to turn into a babysitting service then maybe we need to state this.


----------



## purenarcotic (Nov 3, 2012)

You seem very keen to give up on challenging students, Gmart, I hope you're not a teacher.


----------



## Gmart (Nov 3, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> You seem very keen to give up on challenging students, Gmart, I hope you're not a teacher.


I am a teacher, and I am not 'keen' on giving up on them, I am stating that as a teacher one has a choice in the classroom between concentrating between those who wish to work, and those who do not. Every minute I spend on the latter, is a minute that the former do not learn from.


----------



## purenarcotic (Nov 3, 2012)

Gmart said:


> I am a teacher, and I am not 'keen' on giving up on them, I am stating that as a teacher one has a choice in the classroom between concentrating between those who wish to work, and those who do not. Every minute I spend on the latter, is a minute that the former do not learn from.


 
What about spending time finding out why that young person doesn't want to learn and engaging them?  Not all kids don't engage because they don't want to be there, some of them are doing it for a wide range of emotional reasons.


----------



## Gmart (Nov 3, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> What about spending time finding out why that young person doesn't want to learn and engaging them? Not all kids don't engage because they don't want to be there, some of them are doing it for a wide range of emotional reasons.


That's exactly my point. That time will not be spent on the child who DOES wish to learn in the classroom. What about that child? Your post seems to be implying that I want to ignore the challenging child (not at all) but that is the same as saying that your post wants to ignore the child who wants to pass the exam and get on in life. This is not a world of unlimited resources. There are only a certain number of minutes in the classroom.

Allowing any child to disrupt the learning environment is the opposite of what a school is there for. 

So of course there need to be systems in place to support children of all types, but it must be recognised that in the event of a resource clash, ie where a teacher has to choose which child to support, then the answer has to be to maintain the learning environment even if that means that the other child must leave the classroom and go home until someone can persuade it that learning is a good idea.


----------



## purenarcotic (Nov 3, 2012)

Gmart said:


> That's exactly my point. That time will not be spent on the child who DOES wish to learn in the classroom. What about that child? Your post seems to be implying that I want to ignore the challenging child (not at all) but that is the same as saying that your post wants to ignore the child who wants to pass the exam and get on in life. This is not a world of unlimited resources. There are only a certain number of minutes in the classroom.
> 
> Allowing any child to disrupt the learning environment is the opposite of what a school is there for.
> 
> So of course there need to be systems in place to support children of all types, but it must be recognised that in the event of a resource clash, ie where a teacher has to choose which child to support, then the answer has to be to maintain the learning environment even if that means that the other child must leave the classroom and go home until someone can persuade it that learning is a good idea.


 
Still sounds very much like giving up on a kid to me.  But anyway, I'm a bit pissed so I'll leave this now.


----------



## Gmart (Nov 4, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Still sounds very much like giving up on a kid to me. But anyway, I'm a bit pissed so I'll leave this now.


No probs - I am of course not giving up on the other kid, there needs to be support for him/her, but this debate is easily sidelined by failing to recognise the unlimited nature of resources in education. I have a syllabus to get through, and an exam to prepare the students for. I am of course eager to help, but class time has to be used for that, not spending time persuading students that studying is a good idea - they should come into the classroom with that idea already there.


----------



## magneze (Nov 4, 2012)

It's a difficult balance. For example, my stepson has commented before that the disruptive students seem to get the teachers attention to the detriment of the rest.


----------

