To ask what exactly is wrong with a '1950 s ' style education .

[mountford100]

I have just come across a thread on the Secondary Education board that suggests a couple of grammar schools are like travelling back to the 1950 s !

Does that mean they expect pupils to behave (not answer back) , work to their best of the ability do their homework, wear correct uniform at all times.

A school that has little or no time for a child seeking excuses as to why they can not abide with basic rules.

Why does there has to be a mitigating reason as why a child misbehaves other than just bad behaviour.

I am extremely grateful i was educated in a grammar school operating with many 1950 s principles (this is despite being near the bottom of the year) .

Have to be .

Before anyone comments on bad grammar punctuation Dyslexia !

So was your dyslexia supported in the 1950s?

Is it OK to dismiss as uneducable over half the students and encourage them to leave school at 15 with no qualifications?

You need all pupils to be able to learn in the same way? Are they not to be supported if they have a different learning style?

The beating of pupils is what stood out for my dad, he left with no qualifications aged 14.

That's not really a thing though. Education has always been of varied quality and style. They are probably referring to the sterotypical unegaging teacher lectures students that say nothing scenario but it's not like there haven't always been bad teachers.

To teach children they're growing up in an unequal society where the men provide and the women facilitate, and this is the way the world should be?

1950's style doesnt mean importing and changing the law to allow assault. Some people are just so literal.

mountford love, you're like a dog with a bone. Bloody obsessed with rules and uniform and structure. It worked for you, it doesn't work for everyone else.

That you are only worthy of education past 15 if you are in the top 20% academically? That lessons are teacher led and dry, copying from the board or even dictation? Take us back there!

I did not go to school in the 1950 s but the late 1980 s- 91.

No Dyslexia was not catered for, however because of the brilliance of the very 'strict' and often sarcastic English teacher i achieved a C at A level.

I believe this was down to the strict discipline her attention to detail and in no small way to what today be labelled her 'belittling' attitude to my work. The result was i worked twice as hard for her and gained a 'then' respectable C grade at A level.

A 1950s grammar school education led to you not being able to use question marks, capital letters or apostrophes correctly, presumably because it didn't support your special needs. There's your answer, right there.

Lessons that are boring and dry, that don't encourage discussion thereby helping to develop informed opinion. Lessons that teach you that your place in a society is fixed. The marginalised become the disenfranchised, the disenfranchised will topple governments.

I believe this was down to the strict discipline her attention to detail and in no small way to what today be labelled her 'belittling' attitude to my work. The result was i worked twice as hard for her and gained a 'then' respectable C grade at A level
Had she been kinder you may have been in receipt of a B.

Virtually no one went on to 6th form, they all went into apprenticeships or work.

have you any idea what it's like to be in a bottom set class room with 30 disaffected teenagers who know they are unable to attain the golden goal of 5 A*-C (as it was before this last shake up), who are so disengaged, that it doesn’t matter that you can drive them on from an E to a D, but they simply don't care because they know the C is out or reach?

Do you think keeping those young people in a formal education is the right idea? Send them to college where they might pass a pointless BTEC in wood whittling. Or, they could get an apprenticeship with paid on the job training.

In some instances formal education goes on too long by about 4 years.

Why does there has to be a mitigating reason as why a child misbehaves other than just bad behaviour

Often there isn't. Sometimes there is. You want a system that recognises that the latter may be the case and can actually do something about it. If a child is behaving badly and there is a genuine cause for that other than simple naughtiness, it doesn't matter how strict you are, you will not be able to change the behaviour.

I don't like to pick up on grammatical errors in a post but when you are explaining how good your English teacher was, and how we should move back to teaching like your English teacher, your English needs to be spot on.

I'm afraid you defeat your own argument.

Like every other teaching method, there's a mixture of good and bad in 'traditional' teaching. I think that the good teacher takes bits from every method and tailors them to the children in the class.

pointless BTEC

Wow - that's offensive.

I did not think i had to be precise when posting on a forum .
Yes i do find punctuation and grammar quite difficult , therefore require twice as long and to double check !

Yeah I'm dyslexic as well. It's a pain. But when the point of your post is about how good your English education was you take the time.

Tory boot camp.

The majority of BTECS are pointless - when was the last time you asked to see a tradesmans City and Guilds etc? Never. You might ask to see his portfolio of jobs. Never has my purely vocational child ever been asked for any of his wood whittling certificates when changing building firms. It's all done by word of mouth. Why do you thin kthe governement removed the GCSE equivalancey from these types of courses?

When i don't double check my grammar can go astray . I also have a tendency to miss words out , especially when rushing !

However, would any school in the 1980 s have been able to help me overcome my disabilities !