School teaching and funding overhaul planned in England

[Stevenj214]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11825434

An overhaul will no doubt be a good thing, but I'd like to pick up on this point in particular:

"Rank the proportion of pupils gaining the new baccalaureate - meaning they have obtained at least grade C in maths, English, a language, one science and one humanities subject"

For a system which every child must legally participate in, is it at all useful having a single performance indicator such as this?

Many pupils are not academically minded and would benefit more from focusing on a vocational subject along with practical mathematics and english.

Many pupils are more artistic than scientific.

Surely a ranking system should look at:

Academics OR Defined Vocational Level OR Performance to a professional (junior) standard

[turbobloke]

Maybe more radical overhaul is needed. Instead of raising the school leaving age from 16 as Labour planned to do and the ConLibs seem to be going along with - to 17 in 2013 and 18 in 2015 - what about lowering it to 14 so those unsuited to the type of education a school is most capable of providing can go out into the workplace and learn job related skills on the job, making practical sense of the 14-19 label. Who knows we might even see a few more home grown brickies, plumbers and electricians at some point. Then schools would be left to cater for those suited to a more broadly academic type of education. It would need a parallel shift to thinking about quality of degrees rather than quantity.

[AndyClockwise]

We used to have a perfectly good system until successive governments ruined it by their meddling.

Grammar schools provided social mobility for children from lower income families who had shown that they were academic by passing the 11 plus. Those who were not interested in a purely academic way of learning had the option of apprenticeships where they learnt a trade and attended the local technical college for a ONC / HNC etc.

Instead we ended up in the situation where a degree is seen as the ultimate goal. This has reduced the standing of degrees in the real world; instead we have people scraping a 2:2 in David Beckham studies somehow feeling they are equal to those who study a more academic subject. This rise in the number of students doing degrees that are worthless in the real world is the reason why the government has proposed increasing the costs of degree courses.

If we returned to a system where people only studied for a degree as a means to enter their chosen field law degrees; medical degrees etc. then the number of students would decrease.

If people wish to study purely for the sake of self improvement then the OU / evening classes should be the way forward.
The return of apprenticeships would also provide us with people who can actually make & fix things.

[Digga]

Stevenj214 said:

Many pupils are not academically minded and would benefit more from focusing on a vocational subject along with practical mathematics and english.

I'd agree. Stuffing kids into standard-sized pigeonholes is partly where a good proportion of disruption - which affects other pupils - starts.

Keeping kids in school who have no interest in being there is potty. Forcing often very practically tallented kids into a tramlined 'academic approach' is the same and wastes what tlaents they have.

I have a friend who was out of school as soon as he could at 16. He was a real tearaway and an very good laugh - one of what my mother would call my "less appropriate friends - but he was also pretty talented in his own way - not academically.

He now runs a very successful garage business. I'm sure he'd be the first to admit that a bit more of the basics - english, amths and maybe a science - would no doubt have been very helpful, but in reality, that was not achieveable at the time and, in part, was something he was able to 'self teach' as he matured.

(Jammy bd is currently overseeing some beautiful Mk1 & 2 Escort restorations.)

[Eric Mc]

I sometimes think that education should be left alone by the politicians for a bit. It seems to under go a complete "overhaul" every 4 or 5 years.

[Digga]

Eric Mc said:

I sometimes think that education should be left alone by the politicians for a bit. It seems to under go a complete "overhaul" every 4 or 5 years.

Well how have the basic requrements of an education altered in the last forty to fifty years? Very little I'd say, so I tend to agree with Eric here.

I was remarking on this issue to my wife the other day. When we sat "O" and "A" levels, our 'target' and preparation was based on previous year's exam papers - so no decline there. I'd be interested to hear from those in the teachin profession as to how and when standards - which clearly have declined - were allowed to do so.

[Eric Mc]

And I bet those who took their exams in the 70s thought thet they were much harder than yours.

I'm not saying education needs an overhaul - but I cannot remember a single period in the past 4 decades where politicians were embarking on yet more changes to the education system.
I think it is their interefrence and meddling that has made it the mess it is today.

[Stevenj214]

If we go for a business simile, is there or has there ever been a defined "mission statement" for compulsory education?

[Digga]

Eric Mc said:

And I bet those who took their exams in the 70s thought thet they were much harder than yours.

Very good point - we only ever saw past paers from the Eighties....

Eric Mc said:

I'm not saying education needs an overhaul - but I cannot remember a single period in the past 4 decades where politicians were embarking on yet more changes to the education system.
I think it is their interefrence and meddling that has made it the mess it is today.

I totally agree.

You have to wonder how much of this was delibereate obfuscation - to hide the problems or the agendas behind which changes were made. In the latter, I wonder how much of the keeping kids in school is an admission that we have, in certain areas, a ferral underclass who are unemployable and uncontrollable (or not controlled) by parents or the overstretched police service?

[Busa_Rush]

Stevenj214 said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11825434

An overhaul will no doubt be a good thing, but I'd like to pick up on this point in particular:

"Rank the proportion of pupils gaining the new baccalaureate - meaning they have obtained at least grade C in maths, English, a language, one science and one humanities subject"

For a system which every child must legally participate in, is it at all useful having a single performance indicator such as this?

Many pupils are not academically minded and would benefit more from focusing on a vocational subject along with practical mathematics and english.

Many pupils are more artistic than scientific.

Surely a ranking system should look at:

Academics OR Defined Vocational Level OR Performance to a professional (junior) standard

"grade C in maths, English, a language, one science and one humanities subject" - I think that should be a target for all pupils . . . regardless of what career they want later on or how academic they are. That's equivalent to the old three r's . . . and grade C isn't hard to get anyway.

[markh1973]

AndyClockwise said:

Grammar schools provided social mobility for children from lower income families who had shown that they were academic by passing the 11 plus.

It's an IQ test it gives no real indication of academic ability at all. You can be taught how to pass it. When I took it most of pupils had private tuition to help them. Th spread of academic ability at my grammar school was huge. Most pupils didn't even take the maths GCSE exam which would have enabled them to get an A grade - the best they could do was a C.

[Stevenj214]

Busa_Rush said:

"grade C in maths, English, a language, one science and one humanities subject" - I think that should be a target for all pupils . . . regardless of what career they want later on or how academic they are. That's equivalent to the old three r's . . . and grade C isn't hard to get anyway.

I disagree.

I am a big supporter of education, lifelong learning and in particular languages. However for a child/teenager who is simply not interested in "learning", particularly subjects such as biology and french, should the priority not be to ensure they can read, write and do functional maths alongside something they are interested in/have an aptitude for?

[turbobloke]

Education White Paper published today confirms Labour's ROSLA plans. And other things.

http://publications.education.gov.uk/eOrderingDown...

[s2art]

markh1973 said:

AndyClockwise said:

Grammar schools provided social mobility for children from lower income families who had shown that they were academic by passing the 11 plus.

It's an IQ test it gives no real indication of academic ability at all. You can be taught how to pass it. When I took it most of pupils had private tuition to help them. Th spread of academic ability at my grammar school was huge. Most pupils didn't even take the maths GCSE exam which would have enabled them to get an A grade - the best they could do was a C.

If it really was an IQ test then it wouldnt be possible to be taught to pass it. IIRC you can get a small improvement by becoming 'test aware' and doing lots of tests, but its difficult if not impossible to make a significant gain. I think the old 11+ was a combination of knowledge and problem solving (IQ like) tests.

[Busa_Rush]

Stevenj214 said:

Busa_Rush said:

"grade C in maths, English, a language, one science and one humanities subject" - I think that should be a target for all pupils . . . regardless of what career they want later on or how academic they are. That's equivalent to the old three r's . . . and grade C isn't hard to get anyway.

I disagree.

I am a big supporter of education, lifelong learning and in particular languages. However for a child/teenager who is simply not interested in "learning", particularly subjects such as biology and french, should the priority not be to ensure they can read, write and do functional maths alongside something they are interested in/have an aptitude for?

I see your point but other countries manage it so by not doing the same, we're missing a trick. Then again most other Euro countries start teaching things sooner - especially a language. I've seen 10 year olds (Dutch and German) speaking better English than some English kids.

[12gauge]

The unions have already called it a 'vicious assualt'

So its probably a step in the right direction.