|
Hypocrit Politicians of all hues, who shut the door to others...after they'd received and benefitted form their Grammar School educations (the few as most were public school) and their free University places.
|
Hypocrit Politicians of all hues, who shut the door to others...after they'd received and benefitted form their Grammar School educations (the few as most were public school) and their free University places.
I think our current politicans, ie tthose of the Tory cheek, are content to let the public perception outlined by GB persist.
The history, as ever, is more involved. Comprehensive education was, albeit with pro-Grammar opposition in both main parties, a consensus from the early sixties onwards until Mrs Thatcher and her cohort seized the helm of the Tory Party. In part the driver was the egalitarianism of Crosland and other thinkers in the Labour party - and some tories. The other factor, which the Conservatives now forget, was the middle classes.
Plenty of middle class kids failed the eleven plus or its equivalent, my teachers thought I'd be one of them. Those kids went to the Secondary Modern where in many, but not all, cases chances of furthering themselves to A level and university were slim indeed. Their articulate and politically engaged parents were at the forefront of the battle for a comprehensive education. One that did not perform the impossible task of seperating sheep from goats at the tender age of ten years and six months.
The task of requiring schemes to convert the country to Comprehensive education fell to Crosland in 1965 but there were already many such schools in existence. Both parties approved schemes in huge numbers from 1966 to the late seventies. Famously the largest proportion of approvals bear the signature MH Thatcher!!
My kids both went to a comprehensive and got at least as good an education as I did in a West Riding Grammar school from 1971-78.
|
|
|
|
|
I feel a sense of world-weariness creeping on. I used to be a Head of English in a comprehensive school, before retiring some years ago.
One of my dominant memories was of successive governments (of whichever hue) periodically reinventing the wheel; there was wave after wave of reforms to the exam system, to syllabuses, to school management structures etcetera - and an increasing sense that teachers were asked to do more and more things that took them away from actually standing between the tables and the whiteboard and doing what most of us wanted to do when we joined the profession. So while the influence of a teacher on individuals can be considerable, especially if he or she can maintain enthusiasm in the face of almost inevitable cynicism, in the larger scheme of things teachers are powerless, especially as governments stopped listening to them years ago.
The job of Secretary of State for Education has frequently been little more than a stopover for greater things and, as with most government jobs, the pressure is on to be seen to be doing something, irrespective of whether it's of any use.
I don't see Mr Gove as able to offer anything particularly useful.
Oh, and before somone goes into Daily Mail mode, I am not a socialist, have never belonged to a political party, have never voted Labour and would probably be somewhere near the centre if I stopped to think about it.
Edited by FP on 03/12/2013 at 14:50
|
|
First of all let's not treat these results as gospel. There were commentators on the radio this morning pointing out deficiencies in PISA methodology and statistics. Professor Dylan Wiliam, Emeritus Professor at the Institute of Education Uni of London has tweeted And until PISA controls for effects of private tuition & student motivation when taking meaningless tests I can't take the results seriously.
FP hits the nail on the head. Nothing will improve while teachers run to stand still with constant changes in the curriculum and the mode, marking and league table values allocated to particular subjects.
The league tables themselves are a curse of course. The absurd weight placed on relatively small variations leads to subjects being taught to the test rather than understanding of the subject. My OH is a dedicated teacher who wants to instill a love and understanding of science in her charges. In the current regime, and in this respect there's not a rizla paper between the parties, it's a race to gain enough knowledge to tick the boxes for a C or above. The kids are so inured to this that they moan at any attempt to explore concepts. Parents complain unless their kids are taught in terms of the markscheme.
Then again every cloud has a silver lining. Mrs B's latest project is working with a University team engaged in the never ending task of producing material to support the latest twist in the curriculum. Better paid than supply teaching andmuch more satisfying.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 03/12/2013 at 16:15
|
|
Well the answer to the thread title is an easy one. Yes. Obviously. The question is how much?
We've seen a few of these studies this year and all of them make grim reading for Britain. Those who have been saying 'exams are too easy' for years have been vindicated, because 30 consecutive years of pass rate increases just don't tally with these results. There's a reason why employers barely value an A grade at GCSE these days.
Teachers will obviously say they work with what they're given, and I do have some sympathy with that view. Education has been constantly tinkered with according to a politicians whim for far too long. One week a politician decides such and such should be a priority, so they gerrymander the national curriculum to suit a cheap political point that week. Unfortunately that's always a risk when something is centrally managed and centrally controlled.
I'd like to see an end to the LEA system. They did nothing for me and I can only assume they're just as bad today. I like the idea of 'free schools' in principle and although teaching unions will kick, scream and howl, we do need an end to salary bandings & automatic payrises.
I also don't understand why both major parties support this idea that 50% of people should go to university. But that's probably for another thread.
PS Did anybody feel thoroughly embarassed watching those South Korean kids ace a GCSE in half the time expected on BBC News?
|
I'd like to see an end to the LEA system. They did nothing for me and I can only assume they're just as bad today. I like the idea of 'free schools' in principle and although teaching unions will kick, scream and howl, we do need an end to salary bandings & automatic payrises.
Salary bandings and incremental pay are a sideshow.
You've posted a lot in the Wolly Thinking thread about cutting spending. Neither Free Schools or Academies do much that way. We've already had the fun and games with the Muslim free school in Derby. Apart from the gender discrimination stuff the Islam bit is a distraction. The issue is the lack of governance in these places and in the Academies.
Much more is still to be exposed and that is iteself the tip of a massive iceberg of contracts let to buddies, backhanders etc etc .
I don't know why you say your LEA did nothing for you. What they did was enforce a structure around things like spending public money and letting contracts. They also co-ordinate admission processes, support for special needs and subject specific advisory services.
We're already seeing some scandals around Academies, staff bonuses, opaque recruitment and entry selection etc.
Do you think the Dept for Education can control that sort of stuff across the whole of England from an office in London? ?
Edited by Bromptonaut on 03/12/2013 at 19:38
|
You've posted a lot in the Wolly Thinking thread about cutting spending. Neither Free Schools or Academies do much that way.
Well I actually don't mind Government spending money on education. That's a good use of peoples money. It seems once again we're getting less bang for our buck compared to other countries though, as is also true in Health.
I don't know why you say your LEA did nothing for you.
Because they ignored five complaints about me being physically assaulted in school, eventually my parents took me out and the LEA left me on a scrapheap. A few years later they got me into a 'special school' but it was far too little, too late.
Do you think the Dept for Education can control that sort of stuff across the whole of England from an office in London? ?
Absolutely not. I want as little done from offices in Whitehall as possible.
|
Because they ignored five complaints about me being physically assaulted in school, eventually my parents took me out and the LEA left me on a scrapheap. A few years later they got me into a 'special school' but it was far too little, too late.
Your LEA might have been tardy or useless but they were there and so was the special school they ran.
What would happen if you were physically assaulted in a stand alone free school or academy with no LEA to intervene belatedley or otherwise?
|
|
|
|
PS Did anybody feel thoroughly embarassed watching those South Korean kids ace a GCSE in half the time expected on BBC News?
That's possible because they've been taught the subject rather than how to pass a specific exam.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/14/narrow-education-new-labour-students-assessment
Labour should be ashamed of their part in the 'assessment is all' shambles that sems to represent an unspoken consensus amongst all three main parties.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 15/12/2013 at 20:05
|
|
|
|
|
< The league tables themselves are a curse of course. >
And you haven't said anything about the second-order effect that league tables have in increasing demand for top-of-the-table schools and vice versa. With the third-order effect on local house prices, distance on the school run and so on.
And other league tables too of course.
|
|
I served an apprenticeship and went on to instruct apprentices 20 years later, the criteria for their enrollment was an education to GCSE C or better in Maths, Eng, +3
One of my abiding memories is of trainees being challenged to solve problems, which required the application of a (generally) maths based application, often geometry. Only to be told "we haven't done that for ages" (and I'm not talking about calculating an instantaneous value on a damped sine wave, or calculating the volume inside a parabola rotated about an axis between limits), more often a volume or mass.
I suspect modular teaching methods obviate the need to commit some basic tenets, permanently, to memory and hence have them at your beck and call.
I am also wary of teachers who go from university into teaching without passing through the real world, maths and physics means so much more when it has actually worked for you rather than being an abstract idea. I know this may be contentious, and the argument could be levelled that a doctor doesn't need to have had syphilis to treat it.
My over all opinion is that our schools (and I include teachers and administrators) are failing our children, turning them out into the world with no expectation management skills and inadequately skilled (inadequate, not unskilled).
|
I learnt far more after I had finished formal education, probably because by then it was my choice and I could do something I wanted to do.
Free schools are an experiment which has been going 10 years in Sweden, they are failing and this concerns me as what actually fails are the children.
I'm all for freedom of choice, but there needs to be standards of those who are teaching. You can't practice as a lawyer, surveyor, civil engineer, architect without formal qualifications and ongoing training, teaching should be exactly the same.
|
|
I ignored Bromptonauts first post in this thread but I'd like to pull it back if I may, because he just can't help himself but blame Margaret Thatcher for pretty much everything. It's like it's in his veins.
I think our current politicans, ie tthose of the Tory cheek, are content to let the public perception outlined by GB persist.
Of the current Labour Shadow Cabinet; Ed Miliband, Ed Balls, Yvette Cooper, Andy Burnham, Rachel Reeves, Angela Eagle, Mary Creagh and Tristram Hunt all went to Oxbridge Colleges courtesy of a taxpayer grant. Most attended fee-paying or independent schools including Harriet Harman.
Of the Liberal Democrats; Nick Clegg, Vince Cable & Danny Alexander among many others also attended fee-paying schools and Oxbridge colleges.
Sticking the label only to the Tory party is very thin. The fact is all three front benches are dominated by a wealthy elite who've never done a days work in their entire lives.
Don't forget it was Labour, under the leadership of public schoolboy Tony Blair who burned the bottom of the ladder they climbed by bringing in tuition fees, rendering social mobility worse now than it was 50 years ago.
Both parties approved schemes in huge numbers from 1966 to the late seventies. Famously the largest proportion of approvals bear the signature MH Thatcher!!
This is true. When Labour then came back in they were determined to 'finish the job' and continued the policy. Mrs Thatcher changed her position in the 1980s, as embodied by that good line of people like her 'needing a grammar school education to compete with children from wealthy families, like Shirley Williams & Anthony Wedgwood Benn.'
Personally I don't see anything wrong with the most academic being selected to receive an education more tailored to such a mind. I'm sure Comprehensive can work as well, but in this country we drag them all down to match the lowest denominator.
It may seem harsh to 'judge' children at 11 or 13. But do you know what? After they leave school, life is harsh.
Edited by jamie745 on 04/12/2013 at 17:49
|
|
Jamie,
I sought to refute GB's implied view that Labour politicians in the seventies 'pulled up he ladder' on working class kids.
I'm proud to admit a visceral dislike of Thatcherism and its related conditions including the current SoS for Education and his 'neo-con' social and economic perspective.
Mentions of Mrs T in this thread though were limited to her 'seizing the helm' of the Tory party and to her complicity in approving comprehensive schemes. The first is a fact - she got the leadership because Whitelaw was too loyal to oppose Heath and Keith Joseph and Edward Du Cann both had 'history'. The second was a wry observation. As you accept MHT changed her position later.
Some way short of blaming her for everything.
I've no issue with tailoring education acording to ability but that can be done by subject sets in a comprehensive setting.
Judging children at 11 is simply too soon; the developmental spread at that age is too wide. Look at 11 yr old females; a mix of young women and little girls. Now apply that to both genders and their intellectual development.
GCSE is soon enough to make decisions but even then there should be a way back for those that ail to lear the jump at 14.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 04/12/2013 at 21:18
|
|
Bromp, GB didn't think for one minute it was just Labour, the Tories are no more than a fag papers difference to Labour and about as much use, Thatcher was just as quick to pull the ladder up behind her.
|
Bromp, GB didn't think for one minute it was just Labour, the Tories are no more than a fag papers difference to Labour and about as much use, Thatcher was just as quick to pull the ladder up behind her.
Whoever pulled up the ladder the problem was with admision to it. Eleven is simply too early to make a judgement that would then have closed off the A level/Uni option for kids who were not fast developers.
My point upthread is that the Tories now deny their role in the (progressive) move to comprehensive schools.
|
|
GCSE is soon enough to make decisions but even then there should be a way back for those that fail to clear the jump at 14.
Bromp, there used to be a way back for those failing 11+, it was known as the 'late developers' exam taken at 13 or 14. My best friend at junior school failed 11+, but joined my grammar school for GCE and Sixth form, so did others. This system didn't suit the 'everyone must be equal' dogma then (1960s) fashionable among the politicians and educational experts, so went when they killed off the grammar schools.
|
|
|
I'm proud to admit a visceral dislike of Thatcherism and its related conditions including the current SoS for Education and his 'neo-con' social and economic perspective.
So you do blame Thatcherism for the current state of education? I find that odd, considering she left office 23 years ago and New Labour had 13 consecutive years in which to improve matters. In my view they only made it worse by devaluing education with this crackpot target of 50% to go to Uni & obviously tuition fees.
I've no issue with tailoring education acording to ability but that can be done by subject sets in a comprehensive setting.
I'm sure it can. But it's not.
You use lots of nice language about not writing anybody off, but it seems to me we're writing off almost 100% of state school kids by dragging them all down to the level of the thickest, so as to not offend anybody.
Judging children at 11 is simply too soon
You seem to be saying they should never be judged at all though. Well one day they'll finish school and enter the real world where judgements are made.
Surely the best part of the old grammar school system was how it didn't discriminate on class or parents income? It give bright children from poor families the chance of a good education. I'm sure there were many kids who if judged later, could've made it into grammar school but nothings perfect.
|
So you do blame Thatcherism for the current state of education? I find that odd, considering she left office 23 years ago and New Labour had 13 consecutive years in which to improve matters. In my view they only made it worse by devaluing education with this crackpot target of 50% to go to Uni & obviously tuition fees.
I've no issue with tailoring education acording to ability but that can be done by subject sets in a comprehensive setting.
I'm sure it can. But it's not.
You use lots of nice language about not writing anybody off, but it seems to me we're writing off almost 100% of state school kids by dragging them all down to the level of the thickest, so as to not offend anybody.
Judging children at 11 is simply too soon
You seem to be saying they should never be judged at all though. Well one day they'll finish school and enter the real world where judgements are made.
Surely the best part of the old grammar school system was how it didn't discriminate on class or parents income? It give bright children from poor families the chance of a good education. I'm sure there were many kids who if judged later, could've made it into grammar school but nothings perfect.
Jamie, you are spot-on with your analysis, yet again!
|
|
I
Judging children at 11 is simply too soon
You seem to be saying they should never be judged at all though. Well one day they'll finish school and enter the real world where judgements are made.
Surely the best part of the old grammar school system was how it didn't discriminate on class or parents income? It give bright children from poor families the chance of a good education. I'm sure there were many kids who if judged later, could've made it into grammar school but nothings perfect.
Of course I'm not saying they should not be divided by ability/aptitude at some stage. What I am saying is that 11 is to early to make irrevocable decisions. The 11+ removed the A level/Uni option from a lot of kids. Not always of course, some Secondary Moderns had a 'Grammar' stream which fed into a 6th form. Others, as mentioned by another poster, had opportunity to swap 'missorted' kids at 13 or 14.
The fact that you believe the grammar system was class/income blind suggests you are too young to have experienced it. Then, and now where 11+ still exists, the midle classes floated disproportinately to the top. There's a natural advantage possessed by kids who live in homes where study, reading and the facility to do so are the norm. Travel, even at primary age broadens the mind. And of course income buys private tuition or access to 'crammers' where the exam can learned almost by rote.
Mind you that's also true today. Plenty of comprehensives in the shire counties cruise along on a wave of kids who'd succeed anywhere. The actual teaching and ped***gy is disgracefully poor - that comment from a school improvement practitioner I met yesterday.
|
|
Mind you that's also true today. Plenty of comprehensives in the shire counties cruise along on a wave of kids who'd succeed anywhere. The actual teaching and ped***gy is disgracefully poor - that comment from a school improvement practitioner I met yesterday.
Why on earth is the word p e d a g o g y deemed innapropriate?
|
|
< Why on earth is the word p e d a g o g y deemed innapropriate? >
D a g o is deemed to be a term of abuse.
|
|
So it's not so much the principle of selection you oppose, you just disagree with the age at which it's done? Is that all we're really talking about here?
The fact that you believe the grammar system was class/income blind suggests you are too young to have experienced it.
I didn't say it was completely blind, but compare it to what we have now. What percentage of kids go to the independent schools? I think it's around 6% but they absolutely dominate the upper ranks of television media, print media, politics, finance and even sport. Half of our gold medalists were public school boys & girls. The other 94% are all battling for the 10% or so top jobs the rich kids haven't grabbed.
The rest of your post is practically stating the obvious, that money helps. Aside from banning parents from helping their children, I'm not sure what can be done about that.
|
|
|
|
< .... all three front benches are dominated by a wealthy elite who've never done a days work in their entire lives. >
I get your drift, Jamie, and agree to an extent. But not with the implied very restricted notion of what 'work' is. You suggest that the only acceptable 'work' is the kind you do and understand.
It may be that many (most?) people would hate to get into Politics, and the only ones that do chose that route early and did PPE at Oxbridge or LSE, possibly because they weren't much good at anything else. It's interesting that several women MPs are throwing in the towel after efforts by both parties to get more into Parliament. It seems that woman-only selection lists are a daft idea, as I thought.
|
You suggest that the only acceptable 'work' is the kind you do and understand.
By 'work' I mean a job outside of politics. A private sector job, running a company, running a charity, working on the public sector frontline, stuff like that. Nobody in the current cabinet has worked in the British teaching profession, but they legislate on it. For most of them, their first steps inside a state school were canvassing for the parents votes.
Today we have this elite career political class who all go to the Eton Group schools, they all go to the Russell Group universities where they all do the same degree. Afterwards they all go straight into political parties, usually as special advisors or researchers. They become MPs at 30, Ministers at 40 and after being thrown out by the British people, Brussels hacks at 50.
David Cameron himself is a prime example; Eton - Oxbridge - research office - special advisor - MP - leader of opposition - Prime Minister. He did have a fluffy corperate job at Carlton TV but only after working as a 'special advisor' on Britain joining the ERM and causing 1 million house reposessions.
Who in the current cabinet has done anything outside politics? Osborne, the man supposedly running our finances, has a part time NHS typing job and Selfridges towel folding to his name. Neither William Hague or Danny Alexander have had jobs outside politics. Vince Cable worked for Shell for two years. Nick Clegg taught skiing for a summer when he was 19 & had a summer job at a bank his father chaired.
The opposition front bench is even worse. Neither Ed Miliband or Ed Balls have ever had a job of any sort outside politics.
Even the ones who have done jobs are a bit iffy. Many of them are lawyers or journalists, I'll let you decide if that's 'real world' experience or not.
|
|
I pretty much agree with Jamie (shock horror!!)
Hague at least went to a proper school before University. Theresa May (banking) and Phillip Hammond (Healthcare products) had reasonable careers before parliament. Gove was a journalist and rayling worked for the BBC. The lovely Theresa Villiers was a barrister and legal academic.
Only the transport minister Patrick McLoughlin seems to have been doing hands on physical work - farming then mining.
The opposition bench is no better either. Harriet Harman was a practising solicitor at the NCCL for a few years.
There are plenty of decent MPs with business expereince, Northampton's Brian Binley amongst them, but they never seem to make Cabinet rank.
I suppose Blair had a proper job as a barrister otherwise John Major is last to do so. In previous generations Heath, Healey, Callaghan and Jenkins all had (WW2) war service to their name as did MacMillan (WW1)
|
|
Theresa May had over a decade at the Bank of England, so frankly she's more qualified for the role of Chancellor than Osborne is. But George is Daves mate, that's how this Government game works it seems.
I knew Philip Hammond had some sort of business career, but what qualifies him to run the MoD I have no idea. The only former serviceman in the cabinet is Iain Duncan Smith who bizarrely has that dogs breakfast of Secretarial roles - Work & Pensions. No politician likes Work & Pensions. Didn't Labour have 6 of them in 6 years or something?
I suppose Blair had a proper job as a barrister otherwise John Major is last to do so. In previous generations Heath, Healey, Callaghan and Jenkins all had (WW2) war service to their name as did MacMillan (WW1)
Former generations War Service probably gave all of them some level of credibility in the eyes of the public. The generations you mention were probably the last time the public at large had genuine respect for the political class.
John Major was rather unique in how he never went to University at all and Thatcher was the last grammar school Prime Minister. Meaning for over 20 years the Tory Party was not led by stereotypical posh Tories, unlike today. Wilson, Callaghan & Heath were all grammar school PMs too.
Obviously there's nothing wrong with having a rich family, being posh & going to great schools. The problem comes when every member of Government has the exact same identical background, they become a very blinkered, disconnected group of people.
|
|
To be fair our system doesn't and with one exception never did, require ministers to have a background in their department's work.
The exception was Lord Chancellor. Chris Grayling is first since circa C17 not to be. Since he's no longer required to straddle the constituional divide between executive and judiciary then its not necessary. However, given the constitutional importance of the law it's a bit early yet to say if the experiemnt is a success.
|
|
< The opposition front bench is even worse. Neither Ed Miliband or Ed Balls have ever had a job of any sort outside politics. >
Professional football referees do thet job because they like football but weren't good enough to be players?
Discuss?
|
To be fair our system doesn't and with one exception never did, require ministers to have a background in their department's work.
Good. If that was a requirement then every field and department would become a members-only closed shop. We shouldn't ban outside thinking, I'm just saying I think most politicians should have at least done something outside the political sphere.
Professional football referees do thet job because they like football but weren't good enough to be players?
Probably
|
|
|
|
. You can't practice as a lawyer, surveyor, civil engineer, architect without formal qualifications and ongoing training, teaching should be exactly the same.
It is - you need a degree and a post graduate qualification to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
First of all let's not treat these results as gospel. There were commentators on the radio this morning pointing out deficiencies in PISA methodology and statistics. Professor Dylan Wiliam, Emeritus Professor at the Institute of Education Uni of London has tweeted And until PISA controls for effects of private tuition & student motivation when taking meaningless tests I can't take the results seriously.
FP hits the nail on the head. Nothing will improve while teachers run to stand still with constant changes in the curriculum and the mode, marking and league table values allocated to particular subjects.
The league tables themselves are a curse of course. The absurd weight placed on relatively small variations leads to subjects being taught to the test rather than understanding of the subject. My OH is a dedicated teacher who wants to instill a love and understanding of science in her charges. In the current regime, and in this respect there's not a rizla paper between the parties, it's a race to gain enough knowledge to tick the boxes for a C or above. The kids are so inured to this that they moan at any attempt to explore concepts. Parents complain unless their kids are taught in terms of the markscheme.
That's it! I am just over a year into my teaching career now. The best lessons (for teaching and learning) are those where we mess about doing experiments and discussing what's going on; actually working out what's happening in a physical situation or exploring the concepts behind the universe. I can't do those very often because I am under constant pressure to whip the kids along to get their Cs or better. I also find that, as a physics teacher, the poor quality of maths skills has a knock-on in my subject, but maths are also fighting against truly bizarre curriculum changes. There is a culture of 'everybody gets a prize' still engendered in schools, which leads the children to believe that another chance is always around the corner, but life doesn't work that way. I did go to a comprehensive school and I did very well, but I knew I had one shot at everything at age 16 in order to get any further, but that was 13 years ago.
Social media isn't helping either; many children cannot read and absorb more than a single sentence at a time.....
|
I disagree that if you fail you should be thrown on the scrapheap. If you fail then go on to succeed it demonstrates you are willing to learn and put the effort in to better yourself.
Should we tell every athelete who doesn't win their first race that they have failed and should jack it all in?
|
|
If teachers know about this and are as committed as they would have us believe, why aren't they being as militant over this as they are over their pay and pension changes? The larger unions seem happy to call a strike over that.
Is it because teachers suspect that one of the recommendations to improve education might be longer terms with a less onerous load for pupils, fewer holidays and industry comparable competency requirements?
|
|
My father was a teacher for 42 years, my aunt also taught for 35 years. Both had qualified in the 1920s/1930s and had a wide knowledge, not just Maths and English (including grammar) but also of Geography, History and a broad grasp of General Science. When they were working, up to the 1960s, class sizes were typically much larger than today, visual aids were limited to slide projectors or, rarely, 8mm movies, yet levels of literacy and numeracy in school leavers were generally higher.
Contrasting their level of capability with that of the current crop of teachers (yes, I do know some) or even with that of my ex-wife (who qualified as a teacher in 1968) there is a huge difference. As I used to find errors of grammar and spelling in my childrens' school reports, I am less than impressed by NUT propaganda about the superhuman qualities of their members and how poorly rewarded they are.
|
yet levels of literacy and numeracy in school leavers were generally higher.
I know that's a common perception but are you sure it's true?
Anyone who deals with the public won't be at the job long before meeting the person who has 'forgotten their glasses' and needs stuff read for them. I'd probably been in a County Court for a fortnight when a colleague explained. That was in the seventies so middle aged folk would have been educated in the 'golden era' to which you refer.
My guess is that both real illiteracy and its gradations are pretty much a constant. These days though there are no hiding places in low/no skill work.
|
|
|
|
I disagree that if you fail you should be thrown on the scrapheap.
Who said anything like that?
|
|
|
|
|
Many children cannot read? Unbelievable who's fault is this parents who couldn't care less or teachers who are expecting to be taking the job of the parents.
Are we putting to much pressure on children to achieve to early.I should imagine private education is the best but the cost is to high for most people.We are short of Engineers people who build things and work with their hands.Good luck with your job Bobby.>:)
|
|
I refuse to believe todays youngsters can't read. They're constantly texting, twittering & bookfacing. You can't do that if you can't read. Okay it's not Shakespeare, but it's still reading!
|
I refuse to believe todays youngsters can't read. They're constantly texting, twittering & bookfacing.
aint u herd of dislecksyer mate?
|
|
I'm 29 but even when I was at school, dyslexia was still known as being 'a bit thick.'
Such individuals were encouraged to get used to lifting heavy stuff.
|
I'm 29 but even when I was at school, dyslexia was still known as being 'a bit thick.'
Such individuals were encouraged to get used to lifting heavy stuff.
Mercifully the world has moved on. Kids who are dyslexic or, like my nephew, autistic get proper attention now.
|
Mercifully the world has moved on. Kids who are dyslexic or, like my nephew, autistic get proper attention now.
Well yes, that's all wonderful. I suppose the problem now is adults love to apply these 'conditions' to plenty of kids who are in fact just s***bags who need a kick in the leg.
But we hate ever admitting that. Little Keiron is never just a s***bag is he? No, he's got a disorder of some sort.
|
Well yes, that's all wonderful. I suppose the problem now is adults love to apply these 'conditions' to plenty of kids who are in fact just s***bags who need a kick in the leg.
But we hate ever admitting that. Little Keiron is never just a s***bag is he? No, he's got a disorder of some sort.
Like all the best public predjudices there's a grain of truth in that one. Mrs B, a supply teacher, is heartily sick of kids inroducing themselves and their 'condition' in a way which suggests they're untouchable.
OTOH, there a few names from my own schooling in sixtes who we'd now recognise as being 'on the spectrum'. A few were removed and ended up in Special Schools. These days they stay in mainstream but with support.
|
|
|
Bit of all of those things I suspect Dutchie.
A what age do children in Holland begin learning to read?
In England we start a lot earlier than rest of Europe. We then regard kids not reading fluently at seven as backward.In France or Germany they'd only just be at the Pierre et Jane stuff at that age.
I've an abiding memory of my son, aged 5, following a book and cassette combo while we waited for a meal in French cafe. The waitress's shocked emphasis on the phrase 'Ile lire?' said it all.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 07/12/2013 at 21:56
|
|
I was six years Brompt,long time ago.I don't know if this system has changed for children I have to check.
Our granddaughter is nearly two and we read to her and show her words.I wouldn't force it let them be children they are adult long enough.Don't class a child as a failure because some politician thinks it is right to teach a certain way.Politicians come and go.Our daughter best friend is a primary teacher not always a easy job..;)
|
|
I agree that the Govt should stop re-arranging the curriculum every other month and let some stabilty into the system. As for the rest of it; it comes down one thing discipline.
I don't think kids have changed that much from when I was at school, albeit I left in 1964, they would rather lark about than learn. Except way back then you didn't dare lark about because you suffered the consequences. Now it seems there are none. No effective means of immediate punishment for any miscreant. It is a lot easier to teach a subject when you have the attention of the pupils, whether it be by fear of retribution or not. If they have to pay attention then the subject matter goes in and everyone benefits, instead of the class clown disrupting the whole process. Give teachers the power to punish properly, those that won't or can't should think carefully about their future, but most importantly about the future of their pupils. Get them by the b******* and their hearts and minds will follow. Cheers Concrete
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
