How would you like to see school education changed?

[Puddy_Tat]

i'm not sure i know the answers - from a perspective of having left school over 30 years ago, and not having kids, but a few disjointed thoughts -

yes to abolishing private education (although you'd still get private tutoring at some level, even if it went underground) - and i'd include academies in this. how the heck we ended up with a 'labour' government privatising schools, i still don't bloody know.

ultimately, people (and children - who i suppose qualify as small people ) are different. some people will have talents / potential in traditional academic fields, some in the artistic, or sporting, or technical direction (or varying combinations of them)

there's a balance to be struck between pushing kids to specialise at an early age and letting kids find their own interests and direction and level (which may not match up with their parents' ambitions for them) - and a balance between too much selection and trying to get all kids to achieve a uniform mediocrity in all things (this is an accusation sometimes aimed by right wingers at the comprehensive system - i'm too long out of the game to know whether there's even the slightest basis for this in reality.)

one of the big issues is that kids will enter the education system at very varied stages of literacy and so on (and to a large extent this will often depend on whether or not parents are 'educated' and speak English as a first language.) For whatever combination of circumstances, I started primary school able to read and write (I remember being faintly puzzled why the reception class-room had signs like "this is the door") but many didn't. Kids from home backgrounds where reading and writing isn't a thing aren't less intelligent, but tend to be treated as such from day one and often get steadily further behind.

I'm not sure what the answer to that is. A one off "success / failure for life" thing at 11 is bloody ridiculous. The whole streaming / setting thing - dunno. There must be sensible ways to do it, more or less everything else (academic that is) once you get to secondary level depends on the basic reading / writing / maths, and an 11 year old who hasn't yet got the hang of reading / writing English is going to flounder with most things - is it sensible to shove that 11 year old in to foreign languages and so on? and if you don't, then how do you do it without declaring that 11 year old a failure?

I think there was a certain amount of discreet 'setting' (at least) in my ILEA primary school - most of the time we were whole class, but there were occasional 'groups' where Mr X would do some more advanced maths with one group and Mrs Y would do what was probably then called 'remedial' maths with another group. I don't remember there being any particular stigma or piss-taking about being in either group, so it must have been handled fairly well.

Likewise the question of whether the GCSE is the right answer - I was one of the last years when O Level / CSE was still a thing (I got shoved in to somewhere 'selective' by well meaning parents and that school didn't do CSEs which were seen as for the plebs) - but is a grade 1 CSE better (for some kids) than a GCSE grade seen as a fail?

The way that technical education has been largely overlooked (since the 1944 Act which intended to set up grammar, technical and modern schools - the technical schools were largely not bothered with) is a bloody shambles. snobby attitudes from classically educated politicians / policy makers?

it's amazing how many things secondary school put me off for years - doing english lit (and dissecting the same one or two books for ages) put me off reading for years. likewise music (dreary classical music only) put me off doing anything musical. i was never going to be a great musician, but don't think i've attempted to play any sort of instrument since i left school. and as for games, and alcoholic sadistic games teachers whose idea of encouragement consisted of shouting abuse with a layer of homophobic shite - meh. my sporting abilities are more limited than my musical abilities, but it was a while before i even got back in to watching sport.

as for further / higher education - again not sure what the answer is. i don't think anyone who wants to do this should be deterred by cost / debt, but should people really (feel they) have to do university and get in to loads of debt to get the sort of job that you needed a few o-levels to get in the 80s? (because the recruitment decisions are made by last year's graduate trainees who think anyone without a degree is a pleb) and in turn should university be a consumerist degree shop?

the whole thing's fucked.

 

[Gramsci]

Not an enormously specific point but I would love to see the concept of what is educational broadened out. It has really frustrated me seeing so many parents stressing that they’ve not done anything ‘educational’ with their kid that day and then list a long thing of activities they’ve done which all contribute to learning and development (baking involves maths with weighing out / gardening is learning how to look after nature / playing footy in the garden is physical exercise and develops motor skills and coordination etc). Learning how to change a light bulb or how to clean the bathroom or whatever are really valuable life skills. It has thoroughly depressed me that we have such a narrow concept of what counts as useful learning.

Id agree with this.

Also why is education the preserve of a professional group of people - teachers-?

With sympathetic adults who have the time ( not working all hours) I dont see why children could not learn just as much as in the traditional school setting.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

Also why is education the preserve of a professional group of people - teachers-?

is it even their preserve, or are they largely limited to implementing the diktat of whatever twat is secretary of state this week?

 

[Gramsci]

is it even their preserve, or are they largely limited to implementing the diktat of whatever twat is secretary of state this week?

Its what purenarcotic posted made me think the idea that education is narrow.

One gets into discussions of the right teaching methods, but perhaps idea of what education is should be broadened out.

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

Why are teachers the people who are teaching?

why are plumbers the people who are plumbing?


you can do these things without qualifications but most people want someone with a bit of training when their child won't flush.

 

[Gramsci]

Why are teachers the people who are teaching?

why are plumbers the people who are plumbing?


you can do these things without qualifications but most people want someone with a bit of training when their child won't flush.

Im not a "plumber" and I learnt how to fix toilets. My old experience got from my self help housing days. The idea behind it was partly about breaking down barriers of only the professionals can do stuff.

Found my old copy of self help housing repairs yesterday. Written by an architect to do this.

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

And people can do home schooling.

In fact most parents probably did do a certain amount already.

I don't think teachers are desperately trying to horad the education sector to themselves.

 

[scifisam]

Having school buildings open longer in the day, with classes available from 8am to 8pm, for kids age 14 and up. Obvs I don't mean send the kids in to school for twelve hours - I mean timetabling more like it is at some universities. It'd mean that some kids (and some teachers) wouldn't have an early morning every day, commute times would be staggered, social distancing would be easier, and possibly it'd be possible to offer a wider range of subjects.

Get rid of exams and national testing until GCSEs. GCSEs are still really useful, though; because they're marked anonymously - even coursework is often second marked externally - and that means they're a much fairer way of comparing knowledge and skills. Obvs some kids have the advantages of smaller classes, private tutors, etc, but it'd be even worse if they could get a better grade by using their charm or simple bribery.

Like Thora said, extend early years principles for a couple of years. It's way too big a change at too young an age now. More play overall would be beneficial at all ages.

Keep uniforms unless the kids and parents vote to get rid of them in their school, but bar intentionally expensive items, and daft rules about shoes and hair. Have it be more like normal primary school uniforms, which are generally practical and very cheap.

Id like to suggest schools be abolished.

Why is it that education can only take place in an institution that is compulsory to attend?

What is the justification of making children and young people do this?

The idea that school are buildings one has to attend should be ended.

One thing the pandemic has shown is that schools important job is to be a childminding service so the workers can get back under the yoke.

It's not compulsory to send your child to school. Plenty of parents choose to home school.

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

Invest in education the way countries normally only invest in the military.

 

[Detroit City]

smart sexy female robots

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

smart sexy female robots

elearning isn't quite there yet

 

[Detroit City]

elearning isn't quite there yet

indeed S-S

 

[petee]

i'd like to be paid more please.

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

Pah. next you will be asking for less stress.

 

[Cloo]

Starting formal education at age 6, like most of the rest of the world.

I think starting at 4 as we do is nuts - some kids at 4 are articulate and have already picked up reading and others are barely out of nappies and naps and can hardly speak in sentences (regardless of their intelligence) and it just cannot help to start when the playing field is so uneven. Difficulty adapting to even the early years curriculum must set a lot of kids up for failure.

 

[LDC]

More external speakers, bring some living history into the school. "Remember that thing we talked about last week kids, well here's Bob who was there."

Plenty of good ideas on here. chilango for the People's Education Co-ordinator!

 

[Aladdin]

As an advocate of much, much less testing and grading for pupils I can't support a simplified grading system the other way around either. Open to abuse, yeah Mr X let's all give him a P for Pedo!

But if you mean the implementation of a proper feedback system that pupils had faith in and the provision of comprehensive pastoral care that allowed for the highlighting of staff/pupil interactions based on testimony from pupils, then yes.

But if we trained teachers to a very high level (instead of a tick box exercise that readies them for admin and test instruction), really give them a level of training that allows them a certain level of autonomy in the classroom, then we'd automatically weed out - or improve - a lot of the lesser desirable traits we sometimes find.

There was a time when a University education meant the person had freedom to explore ideas and develop as a thinking individual.
I look at newly trained teachers now and see that they've studied the "teaching of x subject" for 10 weeks as a module within their training.
When I trained we studied the philosophy of ed for the entire time at uni. We studied the history of ed..the theory of ed..alongside what an integrated curriculum meant. We were exposed to the idea of a spiral curriculum and that all subjects could be integrated in order to provide for a well rounded well developed learner.

Education has turned into the doling out of bite sized bits of stuff and it has become a tick box exercise now. See how students are marked on the curve in certain universities?.
I encounter young teachers who have not broadened how they themselves think or how they look at the world. Insular single-thought people who look to assessment as their little god to prove that they are good teachers and students are good learners.

Education, a truly good education, needs to empower the learner to achieve understanding of their world and develop a person's abilities and talents in order to be able to change and adapt within a changing world.

Creative impulse is the single most important aspect of a developing person that should be encouraged and given space within "education". Learning should stem from inquisition and the innate desire most young children have to explore and learn. Children really are like sponges at an early age. I dont actually agree with formal education as it is at all. I dont agree that kindergartens should not be reading because they are 4. If a child shows they want to read at 3 then why stop them? I dont agree that one size should be made fit all. Iearning doesnt have to be delayed it just should be appropriate to the learner. This is where we as adults make the mistake of deciding what and when x should be learned. A highly intelligent child should not find themselves bored in school. They should be given the freedom to explore knowledge and learn skills at their pace. So if a child wants to read then dont stop them just because they're not 6 years old. I've never understood delaying learning for one child for the sake of others.

I believed when the internet came along that it would be a great leveller. That information and knowledge would be free and that there would be a freedom for all to learn whatever we want at whatever age we are. I believed it would be a revolutionary influence on society.
So what went wrong?
One thing that it didnt change was generational societal attitudes. The inbred belief system passed down from adult to child that they shouldnt try to move outside the social box they were born into. And this mindset exists still. This is what needs to change. And I'm not sure that formal education will do that?
Learning to think is about the most important lesson anyone can learn. Maybe a revolutionary education would be along these lines. But until teachers become thinkers and engage learners in such thought processes as reasoning, thinking, observation of their reality, freedom of thought and ability to express thoughts and challenge views...until the teachers lead by example, I can only see more of the same happening.

There also should be equal weighting and respect for all subjects. Children should be given every opportunity to develop as well rounded individuals. And if they have talents in certain subjects then they should be given every chance to further develop those talents.
I grew up in a home where my dad told us every day that school was a system. And that we could beat the system. That we were not to be controlled by it but that we should use it to get what we want. He had the right idea in some ways. He worked night and day to make sure we got every chance. We did without lots of things because of his determination to give us chances. He grew up in an alcoholic home with few chances. He was highly intelligent and frustrated in school but he decided at 11 what sort of education he wanted and he left one school and walked into another one and asked for a place there and got one. His parents knew nothing. He realised that to have a chance himself he needed to find change. I dont know how a child becomes that sort of person? But I do know that if a child believes they have some control of their life and they see the world for what it is, they can be quite radical thinkers and they can have a belief in themselves that has not been strangled by society.

So to wrap this up. Education should provide children with the space to grow into well rounded individuals, through intellectual and physical pursuits and challenges that will also allow for the development and encouragement of thinking and feeling. Education should be individual and communal. The learner should have opportunities to develop skllls, expand knowledge and be given every opportunity to empower themselves through learning. No child should be held back for the sake of others. At the same time, no child should be pushed beyond their stage of development. Primary ducation should be a space where children grow at their own individual pace without judgement or comparison allowing for differences in abilities and accepting that each child has specific needs.
As children grow into teenagers they will know themselves better and will have developed interests and talents. These should be further developed and encouraged.

The world is changing rapidly and we are living in a time where life long learning will be crucial for all. So education will need to adapt rapidly. Teachers will need to radically rethink what it means to be a teacher. The most important skill will be "adaptability".

Sorry if thats a bit lingwinded

 

[nagapie]

Creative impulse is the single most important aspect of a developing person that should be encouraged and given space within "education". Learning should stem from inquisition and the innate desire most young children have to explore and learn. Children really are like sponges at an early age. I dont actually agree with formal education as it is at all. I dont agree that kindergartens should not be reading because they are 4. If a child shows they want to read at 3 then why stop them? I dont agree that one size should be made fit all. Iearning doesnt have to be delayed it just should be appropriate to the learner. This is where we as adults make the mistake of deciding what and when x should be learned. A highly intelligent child should not find themselves bored in school. They should be given the freedom to explore knowledge and learn skills at their pace. So if a child wants to read then dont stop them just because they're not 6 years old. I've never understood delaying learning for one child for the sake of others.

I said reading shouldn't be on the curriculum. That doesn't mean if a child enjoys books and finds they are starting to read independently it should be stopped, it's not Animal Farm! In a child-lead, play based education there is no holding children back. That sentence of yours does not chime with the rest of what you are saying. It makes it sound like reading is above play and it's not, that is the mistake on which our whole early years education is based on.

 

[nagapie]

Id like to suggest schools be abolished.

Why is it that education can only take place in an institution that is compulsory to attend?

What is the justification of making children and young people do this?

The idea that school are buildings one has to attend should be ended.

One thing the pandemic has shown is that schools important job is to be a childminding service so the workers can get back under the yoke.

I agree with this ideologically, I hate the institutionalisation of schools.
I agree with this as a teacher, I know my job is used to prop up many systems I don't agree with .
But I confess the parent in me does a little gasp at this. Despite the fact that I wholly endorse home schooling and I am a teacher, I don't feel I have the abilities to expose my chidren to everything they need. And, they both love school. What would this look like? How would this model support everyone?

 

[Aladdin]

I said reading shouldn't be on the curriculum. That doesn't mean if a child enjoys books and finds they are starting to read independently it should be stopped, it's not Animal Farm! In a child-lead, play based education there is no holding children back. That sentence of yours does not chime with the rest of what you are saying. It makes it sound like reading is above play and it's not, that is the mistake on which our whole early years education is based on.

Sigh.
Is that what you thought I waa saying?

 

[Thora]

Some children learn to read and write a little in nursery even though it’s not on the curriculum - I’ve never seen anyone whip a book away because it’s in the curriculum for next year. It just means nursery aren’t sitting children down for a phonics lesson (though actually that’s creeping in).

 

[Cloo]

I'd like to see everyone made to do vocational subjects at secondary level, rather than it being a 'thick kids' option - people would learn about and respect more the skills involved, more people who might be good at it would find more self-respect, and everyone would learn something useful.

 

[nagapie]

Sigh.
Is that what you thought I waa saying?

You spoke about stopping children from reading, which didn't fit with any of the previous discussion.

 

[LDC]

I'd like to see everyone made to do vocational subjects at secondary level, rather than it being a 'thick kids' option - people would learn about and respect more the skills involved, more people who might be good at it would find more self-respect, and everyone would learn something useful.

I think there should be a current running through all education of basic DIY skills, increasing in complexity as kids get older and with options to follow them up in more detail if someone gets a taste for plumbing/wiring/plastering etc. Same with health related stuff; start off teaching nutrition, basic cooking and meal planning, exercise, and first aid and then cover more detail as kids get older.

 

[Aladdin]

You spoke about stopping children from reading, which didn't fit with any of the previous discussion.

No I didnt.

I said reading shouldn't be on the curriculum. That doesn't mean if a child enjoys books and finds they are starting to read independently it should be stopped, it's not Animal Farm! In a child-lead, play based education there is no holding children back. That sentence of yours does not chime with the rest of what you are saying. It makes it sound like reading is above play and it's not, that is the mistake on which our whole early years education is based on.

I think I was flexible about what education means in my post ? My point about reading was that children should learn when they are ready. And that tying the beginning of formal education to a chronologically defined age is not a good idea.
You have misinterpreted my post.

 

[rekil]

A dog to wander into every classroom at least once a term.

 

[chilango]

A dog to wander into every classroom at least once a term.

Some schools do this.

 

[chilango]

I'd like to see more outdoor ed.

 

[LDC]

What about physical stuff? How would that fit it? Compulsory? In what form? Any competitive elements to it? Would it just be play?

 

[scifisam]

I agree with this ideologically, I hate the institutionalisation of schools.
I agree with this as a teacher, I know my job is used to prop up many systems I don't agree with .
But I confess the parent in me does a little gasp at this. Despite the fact that I wholly endorse home schooling and I am a teacher, I don't feel I have the abilities to expose my chidren to everything they need. And, they both love school. What would this look like? How would this model support everyone?

Also it's very different for secondary. I used to know a lot of homeschoolers because of the city farm - they had homeschooling sessions there, which is one of the ways homeschooling works in the long term - but they were all under about 13. Above that, science becomes really difficult to teach, and it's a rare parent who can teach all the secondary school subjects that give their kids a wide range of options in life. So rare that I'd say that parent doesn't exist.