What is really going on in our schools? Well, Laura....

[noblegiraffe]

Laura Kuenssberg appears to have just discovered that schools exist. New to the concept she has written an essay discussing what might be going on in them, from the perspective of someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. Basic errors include "standards haven't crashed because GCSE and A-level results in 2022 were up on 2019".

She mentions the lack of funding, but doesn't mention the lack of teachers. She mentions increased pupil absence but doesn't mention the implosion of support services for children like CAMHS, or the huge waiting lists for SEN diagnosis and the cutting of TAs in schools due to lack of money. She suggests covid might have had an impact, but not that the government have done basically nothing to address this and that their covid catch-up adviser resigned in disgust.

She says a minister says that 'teachers have had a bashing since covid'. Since covid! She doesn't mention this is led by the government and has been going on for years.

So, what's really going on in our schools? Anyone want to help Laura out?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-65360168

I’m so sorry for everyone on here having a tough time in relation to school. Teachers, parents and kids.
Interesting point about things have always been difficult in schools in different ways. I would agree with this. My school experience was of bullying teachers, unchecked sexual harassment and ridiculously strict rules based on fear such as detentions for a tiny label on a shoe or having dared to take off your own blazer on a hot day.
My teaching experience has been nothing but copious amounts of paperwork, target setting, limited funding, teaching to a test constantly and enforcing ridiculous rules.
I still maintain that the problem here is school. Not lazy parenting, not disrespectful kids (although I know they do exist), not underfunding (yes there IS underfunding but I’m talking about motivation here) but an out of date system as a whole. A system based on a model from the Industrial Revolution that aimed to educate people to be literate and capable of going out to work.
The world we live in today is a digital world that is moving at a pace far far faster than education in a school building could ever keep up with. The kids and parents know this. They know the curriculum content is largely irrelevant to today’s world and it does nothing for motivation.
As is clear from my username I resigned a few years ago and de-registered my 3 children from school (although my youngest has never been) as I couldn’t be part of it anymore and my children had lost any love of learning at all from being constantly assessed & taught to regurgitate facts and pass tests.

Behaviour is better now at my school than it was a few years ago when we went full Paul Dix. Then it was utterly appalling. However it wasn’t as bad as behaviour at my previous school where teachers were regularly assaulted. So I agree it is hard to measure behaviour when things like behaviour policies change or a teacher changes schools.

But the figures for school funding (still lower than 2010), the shortage of trainees, the increase in pupil absence, the increase in referrals for mental health and SEN are difficult to dispute. And I’d be surprised if there are any teachers out there who haven’t seen any impact of these.

I agree with a lot of what you say homeedding especially about the tyranny of tests. However, I am lucky enough to teach a subject where I don't ever get 'how will we use this in the real world?'. It's a creative, imaginative quite artsy subject and they do it because they like it. That's lovely.

I don't agree with you that it's all the fault of schools themselves but do agree school culture can be its own worst enemy - but we cannot keep hoop jumping, Ofsted pleasing, parent pandering, employment churning, social engineering, social firefighting without anything approaching adequate funding and with such dire dire issues in recruitment and retention.

A big difference I now notice compared to 25 years ago is SLTs full of 'how high would you like us to jump?' types which then trickles down to teaching staff as an expectation. There used to be far more rogues and rebels in teaching.- far more rebellion, debate and erudite argument. Where do the intellectuals, the future mind shapers, the subject enthusiasts go now?

ASCL and NAHT beginning to militate gives me hope!

I’m a bit confused by those who say the curriculum is now totally irrelevant in the modern world.

Do we not need to learn history in order to understand the present (and not be doomed to repeat it?)

Are the themes of Shakespeare not eternal?

After the pandemic, surely no one can dispute the need for scientific understanding, or the ability to interpret charts and graphs?

What do people think we should be teaching? How to become a tiktok star?

When people are asked what should be taught in schools it invariably becomes a depressing, utilitarian list of tasks (changing a tyre) or things we already teach (mental health/budgeting).

I often find people who are saying that use jargon journalists and politicians use. 'world ready outside thinkers' etc
What does that even mean. They have no clue how to translate those skills into a curriculum yet crap on the one we already have, that does actually teach all those things.
Tere are negatives in all curriculums but the worst part of the current one is the funding, not the content. The second worst part is parents not doing their bit and expecting schools to do all. Some of the things being listed here that should be in this 'dream curriculum ' are things that make up home training. It's the responsibility of families, not schools.

I have been looking at Scottish teachers pay and conditions and they are SO much better than here in England. I would be paid more and work less! Unsurprisingly then when you search for teaching jobs in Scotland there's virtually no vacancies in the whole country and presumably schools get lots of applicants to choose from.

I think unions should be asking for teachers in UK to have the same contracts and pay as our Scottish colleagues.

Apologies teachers in England, not UK.

To an earlier point teachers in England don't actually have contracted hours - our contracts basically say x amount of directed time (ie time which has to be done in school at the time and in the way management says) PLUS any amount of time required to do what is asked of us by management or demanded by the needs of our students but we can choose whether we do it at home, on site, in the evenings, at the weekend, during holidays etc so long as it's all done by the deadlines it's needed by.

This is exactly the problem with our contracts imo. I'd kill for what Scotland has. Well I wouldn't kill but if we had what Scotland has I wouldn't be looking at leaving within the next two years because I can't take it anymore.

It’s crazy (and really infuriating)that Scottish and Welsh teachers are going to be on so much more money than those in England, but from what I’ve read there are a lot of problems in Scottish schools as well. There’s also the problem that it’s really hard to find permanent work. A brilliantly well paid job is of no practical use if there’s a huge surplus of teachers and you can’t actually get one.

A huge surplus of teachers is definitely not the issue here.

And of course, it presents yet more recruitment issues for all those schools close to the England/Scotland border.

I do want it to be a highly sought after job with conditions that attract people to want in and to stay. Obviously if you end up with a surplus you don't train as many - we have the worst of all worlds in England - doesn't attract people to join or stay and shrinking capacity to train decent teachers anyway with universities being stopped from delivering in favour of weird cults.

I'm trying to think what would have to be slashed to make it possible for us to do our jobs in 37 hours a week. A lot!

Teaching time.

If you do the max of 22.5hrs of teaching and have to be given a third of that time for ppa time for those lessons specifically that's 30 hours gone even before buffer time, duties, form time and admin being a form tutor generates. Department meetings, pastoral briefings, head's briefings, cpd, department meetings, dealing with a gazillion emails and the work they generate, reporting and recording, contacting parents, dealing with safeguarding issues that arise, parents evenings, open evenings, options evenings etc etc.

Would definitely make them think more carefully about what they really want to load onto us and what is really necessary for teaching and learning and needs to be done by fully qualified teachers and what isn't and doesn't.

Students can't go to the toilet because they vandalise them, vape and meet up for sex in the toilets, so it's now a safeguarding concern

Christ.

Sorry I'm still reeling from Scottish conditions: if you did 8.30 to 4.30 (minus half hour lunch break) you'd be doing more than your contract requires! Can you imagine? Sounds like heaven even before you get to the part of someone with the same experience as me being on 10k more pa.

And that in a country with surplus teachers! What is wrong with England?

I'm also confused by the posters suggesting the curriculum is at fault because of "rote learning." There's very little rote learning in the current iterations of external exams and a huge emphasis on application and analysis. You won't get very good grades just by knowing stuff. Critical thinking, analysis and application of knowledge are the best skills to teach and learn because you have no idea what is and isn't going to be relevant to you in the future, but you know basic knowledge to "think critically" about.

I'm not denying that there isn't an argument to be made for dropping literature or science for some children at an earlier age and greater access to vocational courses for some, but not because that will better prepare them for the "outside world" but because they struggle to do well with all academic subjects. The exam system may be flawed, but I don't think the curriculum is as redundant as some people make out.

@Dodgeitornot The point regarding the curriculum is more about what we expect of pupils in terms of learning.

Instead of asking children to memorise and regurgitate facts, we should be teaching them how to use the tools that are now available rather than fighting against them. Unfortunately most teachers are not well-informed about the latest technology because there is a lack of good structured and useful continuing professional education.

Yes we should teach children how to structure a piece of writing (spelling and grammar), but equally important is a thorough understanding of how to use the internet, AI and Word that will be so important once they go to work. IT in schools is woefully behind the curve. Critical thinking deserves much more attention that it is given. It is wonderful that children are given a taste of Shakespeare and other historical writers, but for most children it is of no interest and of no practical use.

Most of the current maths GCSE syllabus is irrelevant to most people (and I am a maths teacher). Again the syllabus should teach more practical aspects including how to use technology to solve mathematical problems.

I went to a primary school with 40 pupils to a class. No equipment or text books were provided, we learned from the teacher and the teacher taught whatever he or she felt was appropriate. There were 4 classes with 4 teachers and you stayed in each class for a couple of years or until the teacher thought you were ready to move up. All classes were mixed ages. Each year, a signifcant number of us passed to the local grammar. It was considered an very good school.

We then went to the grammar and were taught a variety of highly academic subjects by very strict teachers. A high percentage of pupils went on to the top universities. Nobody left without at least half a dozen O Levels.

Those that didn't pass to grammar went to a less academic school and were taught much more practical subjects. The emphasis was on future careers so boys were taught mechanics and woodwork, typing and shorthand, horticulture, arts, sport and drama etc. alongside a more basic curriculum for CSEs in maths and English where the exam element was significantly reduced in favour of course work and oral interviews.

The secondary school had a remedial class where the children were not expected to do any CSEs at all. They spent their time purely on more practical topics including learning how to use money (there were a lot of very confused kids when the coinage changed!). There were lessons in hairdressing, basic nursing and childcare.

Unfortunately, the desire to equalise opportunity for all and the inappropriate drive to send high numbers to university has been a disasterous experiment. We need to return to a system of providing an appropriate and motivating education for all. Yes we still need to teach Shakespeare and simultaneous equations to our high performers, but it is pointless and wrong to teach it to everyone.

We are trying to produce a homogenous raft of school leavers and that is not a good thing. The old saying of "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.” is very valid here. We need to encourage more creativity and difference rather than focusing on exams to produce an innovative and useful workforce.

I disagree. I think large parts of the curriculum are redundant.
And I think this is a fundamental reason why children and young people today are mostly unmotivated because how do you teach a digital native when they can just Google it?

Take this prediction to start with;
“Half of today’s work activities could be automated by 2055.”
Less than 5% of occupations can be automated completely, but 60%could see 30% of their constituent activities automated.

This is a very different world to the one schools and universities were designed to serve. As I said schools came into being around the time of the first Industrial Revolution, and early schools were less about improving children’s minds than producing a punctual, obedient workforce for the new factories. As a conveyor belt for sorting, training and disciplining future workers.

“If you look at early images of the factory and early images of the school room, there’s not a lot of difference,” says sociologist and education specialist John Holm at SocioDesign in Australia. “The children are in rows, they’re facing front and they’re looking unhappy.”

Not much has changed today. To be clear I’m not saying ALL of the curriculum is redundant. Clearly people need to be able to read and write, and yes historical events are important to know about but to effectively force this onto kids just turns them off. They need to know that learning isn’t just for ages 4-18 but a lifelong process. (As an aside I had no interest in history as a child or teen but like many others am developing an interest though life).

Also putting information into separate subjects is outdated. Kids of today need more than facts and knowledge for the future. They need more than the ability to pass an exam. They need skills such as critical thinking, self motivation, skills to manage the amazing leaps forward in digital tools now available, to know how to interpret search results, critically assess the quality and accuracy of information they find online and to make ethical judgements about how to use it. We need them to be able to think creatively to come up with solutions to increasingly complex global problems. Project based learning rather than Individual subjects.

The whole mindset needs a complete overhaul I believe. Even the role of teacher needs a rethink. I believe strongly that the future of teaching is more of a ‘facilitator of learning’ than a person who stands at the front and ‘teaches’.

I realise that this is a radical approach and change to how things currently are but I honestly believe if we don’t have these conversations and start to look at the world we now live in these issues in education will continue to get worse.

@homeeddingwitch I totally agree and think you have probably put it better than I did.

Agree wholeheartedly. It’s so homogenous isn’t it. A one size fits all approach is putting about 80-90% of kids off learning completely. (My estimates based on my teaching experience).

@homeeddingwitch and @Easterbunnywashere

I went to school in the 80s. No one knew what jobs now would look like. Our curriculum was boring in part, fine in other parts, brilliant in others. We aren't really in a position to guess.

Children are not 'digital natives' - the pandemic experiences showed teachers that all too clearly. Uploading a video to TikTok does not a technical wizard make. I'd argue that the teachers learned more about utilising tech in that time than any children did.

CPD and equipment are all fine to talk about, but we have no money.

Which is what this thread has mostly been about really. There just isn't the funding for any of the fundamentals in the bottom two rows of Maslow's hierarchy (physiological and safety). We need to get those sorted before we mess with the curriculum AGAIN.

Teenagers might be digital natives but they are totally uncritical thinkers. That's part of what we're teaching them, in my subjects.

Listening to R4 this morning they were reporting that nearly a third of the £594 million for schools that the government had allocated for covid catch-up has gone unspent and will be reclaimed.

This, on the face of it, seems outrageous. Why, if schools are so desperate for cash are they not using the money given to them, particularly when it was for helping students catch up from the impact of covid lockdowns.

And the answer is because the government are incompetent.

Aside from the fiasco where they ignored their covid catch-up adviser and decided that the entire focus for schools would be tutoring, and then awarded the tutoring contract to an entirely unsuitable Dutch HR company on the basis that they made the cheapest bid and eventually had to be ditched because they were terrible, schools were then told that they could make their own arrangements for tutors for kids. The government would contribute to the cost.

And that's the problem. The government wanted a large part of the funding for the tutoring to come from school budgets. Just like they wanted a large part of the funding for the proposed (and rejected by the unions) teacher pay rise to come from school budgets.

Schools CANNOT afford money from their school budgets to contribute to tutoring, and therefore the government money went unclaimed.

How can the government not understand the financial pressures schools are under? They are probably blaming schools for the failure of the scheme when it was obvious to anyone watching what would happen.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-65346438