To think that social skills need to be given more emphasis at school?

[HennyPennyHorror]

I don't mean just teaching children about kindness and good manners but more than that.

I've been lucky and both of my DDs have been naturally good at socialising but a number of my friends have children who struggle. Not due to spectrum disorders but they're just not naturally socially skilled.

That tricky line between knowing how and when to approach other children, how to relate well...I strongly believe that some people are born with an innate skill in this area and others are not...I wasn't. I've always struggled...my DH is skilled socially...I can see the difference.

I think that lunchtime supervisors should be more qualified and that they should be paid more.

There should be way more emphasis on it in general...I'm not sure HOW it can be taught but feel that it could be.

I can see where my friends DC struggle...I see what they do wrong...but only because I'm an adult now. As a child I was probably similar...this came up in my mind because yesterday my friend was in tears in my kitchen over her DD who has no friends despite being a very sweet and caring little girl she's always rejected by her peers.

Surely this could be fixed? I see it with another friend and her DS and my niece...am I being silly?

Presumably because the private schools are nurturing social skills.
And yet for some reason the majority on this thread are against extending these benefits to state-educated children.
Or that privately educated children are more likely to have parents who did lots of interaction in the early years, more likely to have had a range of enrichment opportunities, more like to get the benfits of a more comfortable lifestyle etc.

There was a thread recently of people whining that they had to learn about topics in school that didn't link to what they've done in later life and seem to think state schools shouldn't bother with drama or arts or a broad curriculum because it isn't relevant to their DC. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess parents with that sort of attitude are unlikely to place emphasis and value on skilled speaking and listening abilities etc either. Of course it's the school that is the difference though.

Just like it was the school at fault when I had to teach y9 students once how to disagree politely because they were used to disagreement equalling shouting because that's what all the adults in their life do.

I've been doing the tramp around various secondary school open days, private and state. The difference in the social skills between private and state is staggering. I assume that the kids chosen to show parents round on open days are chosen because they are good advocates for the school but the state ones have been mumblers and mutterers, unable to answer questions or go off-script at all, zero spark
Really?
Try visiting our comprehensive. Our Year 7s almost run the open evenings. They are confident, greet families at the doors, talk confidently about what they're learning. Our y11/6th formers handle all tours that evening. They give a polite and candid take on the school so no pretentious selling act, just nice, articulate children who are up front. We have children of all abilities and levels of confidence out on the night, including those who may find it out their comfort zone. The quieter children are just as valuable for the open evenings because they will still talk to people. We cater for all and part of that is we don't cherry pick the ones who'll turn on the charm (we don't need to because we are always oversubscribed).

Our students do the tours for visitors and will happy chat to external visitors in lessons and they don't change based on it being Ofsted or a family looking round.

They're a wonderful cohort of children with their own strengths, weaknesses and personalities. I'd sooner send my child to the school I work at than a private school with a slick open evening routine.

because it's as essential, if not more so, than many other subjects. And, just as some parents wouldn't be capable of teaching their DC maths or geography, they can't teach this.

Lola yes, really. The two state schools I've seen are very highly regarded and Oftsed outstanding, and in fact I would send DD to one of them, if we were in catchment (a whole other thread!). I was very impressed by the teaching staff.

The private schools actually were far less slick, no pretentiousness at all, just nice, chatty, confident but not over confident girls (aged about 14, at a guess. Same age as all the schools, in fact). Unlike the states, our guides were able to speak other than what was written on their prompt cards and I gained a much greater sense of the schools' vibe and ethos.

Your bias is showing in your post.

Our local private school was like the one you describe.

I was just challenging the idea from other posters that states schools don't bother with this side of things whereas the private schools are amazing. State school kids can't talk to anyone and mumble but private makes kids confident etc

@BishBashBoshy

That sounds dreadful and I really feel for you.

My own daughter is an introvert. A clever one, and she never fitted in. Her whole primary she spent alone at lunchtime, and she was on the periphery of social groups in secondary.

We spent years hoping that secondary would be different, 6th form would be different....

We did everything we could to encourage her, but in the end we had to accept this is who she is.

She finally found her "tribe" at university. Her now friends are introverts and geeks just like her and she's in a much better place. She actually has a social circle!

It's tough. I can't tell you how much we worried and cried.

You could ask her teacher to look out for her, but in reality there's not a lot they can do.

And getting back to the subject of the thread, (no reflection on your particular issue bish) it's the expectation that this is somehow the schools job that irritates me.

Schools are not there to make up for our deficiencies, nor to create rounded, kind, enthusiastic individuals. That's OUR job.

YABU

Lola that was me and I;m just sharing my recent experiences. I assume schools chose those they consider good advocates for their school to guide prospective parents around, and I'd also assume that a good advocate is a good communicator. These two state schools were not showing that side of things to me.

@LolaSmiles

I agree with you.

Our kids "bog standard comp" encouraged public speaking, drama etc. I NEVER found the kids on open days to be "mumbling" and basically as has been suggested thick and with no drive. What an fucking insult.

The school did amazing stuff and with the leadership of a great head produced brilliant results.

that's your extrapolation, AhNow. The fact is that they did mumble and it was hard to get much out of them. Doesn't mean they are thick - does mean that they are not good communicators. And that is something that could easily hold them back throughout life, which would be a massive shame, would it not?

Getting defensive isn't helping anyone.

I assume schools chose those they consider good advocates for their school to guide prospective parents around, and I'd also assume that a good advocate is a good communicator
And there's the misconception. You've assumed that what you're seeing is the top of both schools.

We don't cherry pick our students for open nights/days (nor has any school I've worked in). We request volunteers and graciously accept their assistance because we are proud of having a diverse student body.
Fine some of them aren't polished but I suppose it depends what sort of applicant the school is trying to attract. We are proud of being an inclusive school for all and aren't going to put on a show of the high achieving, most articulate students to present a certain image.

@AhNowTed - sorry, I was wallowing. I'm glad your daughter is happier now. :)

Back on topic - Soneone above said it was like supporting children who don't have books at home. I don't think schools should take on the responsibility for all of it, parents are definately the lead but where kids are struggling, schools shpuld be there to support them. Social skills are a huge part of life. Someone can be brilliant but socially awkward, someone else can be average but charming. 9/10 it will he the charmer who gets ahead. I know a lot of school do citizenship type classes and I think it would probably fall under that.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with being shy or being an introvert, it's absolutely not a failure or character flaw.

And confident people can find social situations equally as difficult (like my daughter).

No one should be being told to change who they are. It's just that having those social skills to rub along with people smoothly when you need or want to are an important skill which can have a life long impact, particularly if you don't have it and have no one to teach it to you.

But surely it's good for all children to be taught good communication regardless of academic ability? I mean, your post is kind of proving the point that no, schools don't teach kids to be good communicators - and that they're not bothered about that. That you see good communication to be the preserve of certain kinds of people? Again, your bias is really showing. Diversity is one thing, but you're implying that precisely because your student body is diverse, one shouldn't hope for or teach good communication across the board. That it's innate and can't/ shouldn't be taught?

We don't cherry pick our students for open nights/days (nor has any school I've worked in). We request volunteers and graciously accept their assistance because we are proud of having a diverse student body.

So that's self-selecting - the shy/socially anxious ones wouldn't volunteer so they're effectively excluded and miss out. A prime example of how schools CAN influence social skills.

At my son's state school, it's compulsory for certain years to attend open days etc. They have a choice as to what they want to do to some extent. They can do tours, or they can be "runners", run the refreshments stalls, or partake in the various demonstrations (sports, clubs, etc). If they don't volunteer for anything, they're selected by the teachers to help them on a 1-2-1 basis setting up displays etc, so don't have to "socialise" as such, but can still feel part of it and do useful things. That's far better than expecting a socially anxious child to do tours - it's that kind of things that makes things worse rather than better.

As an aside, we briefly looked at HE.

We realised that the academic stuff we could do without any issues (not downplaying the skills teachers have. They have much more than just academic skills). However, we absolutely knew the social aspects were beyond us. So we purposely sent her to school to learn those social skills. Not giving up our responsibility, we still try at home.

The public/private school debate is sort of irrelevant. You get good and bad private and public schools and each school approaches opens days differently. Some schools do pick the kids they know will make the best impression, other schools want to show a more representative image. Open days are a very limited way to get an idea of the school.

Plus, private schools generally mean that the parents have money which probably means they have a certain type of personality anyway and so can maybe teach their kids that outside of school. Money also often means more opportunities and experiences which again teaches kids things.

Plus some schools have the entrance exams which may include something about social skills. One school by us has a sort of group activity where the kids are assessed on team work etc - like a group interview! So obviously that then significantly affects the demographic of the school which in turn attracts a certain personality.

I went to a village school in the 1970s. There were all sorts there - posh kids through to deprived, and a good amount of ones with what I know now were SEN (although they were labelled "naughty" or "odd" back then).

Now, the headmaster was bonkers about manners. We all sat at tables for lunch and everyone - everyone left that school holding their knife and fork properly, not putting hands/elbows on the table, asking for things to be passed, putting their knife and fork together at the end of the meal etc etc. There was no judging or singling out - it was the same rules for all. The dinner ladies were very much involved, too. I can still remember all their names!

Seeing my dcs' zoo-like set-up for lunch at school I was very disappointed - particularly for those who could really have benefited from some instruction.

It does seem that some educators regard life skills as elitist. They are not.

9-3 = 6, that's only a quarter of their day. If they sleep about 11/12 hours, they still have 6 hours with carers.

If their parents work full time - they spend very little time during the week with them.

Hence 'carers' not 'parents'

Cassias it’s a lottery who you get to show you round you can’t draw conclusions about the school or all state schools. I think credit to the school that they don’t just allow their socially adept kids to do this.

Dd aged 12 showed parents and one mother confided she was worried her dd wouldn’t get in. Dds response was “yep you had better be worried it’s pretty unlikely”. That’s the thing with 12 year olds you get an honest answer!

@CassianAndor

I'm not defensive at all. I just choose to support the schools my kids went to, and don't expect anything other than quality teaching of the curriculum and an environment in which they can learn.

You come across as plain rude.

Ted but so do you. Your first contribution to the thread was this

This is the PARENTS job.

Rude.

You're very defensive Ted. You've taken my comment which is to do with my observations of different social skills at different kinds of school and run with it, in completely the wrong direction. I don't know what you'd call referring to children i describe as 'mumblers' as 'thick' (your words), but it's sure as hell not polite.

And the whole point of the OP is that teaching this kind of thing should be part of the curriculum. If SRE is something for teachers to teach then so should this be. It's vitally important. Look how much we all fuck up through poor communication. It effects every part of our lives.

@HennyPennyHorror

And I stand by that 100%.

It IS the parents job.

To bring up their own children and assume that schools can bridge the gap because parents can't or won't socialise their own children.

@CassianAndor

Yes I did take this comment was in poor taste..

"but the state ones have been mumblers and mutterers, unable to answer questions or go off-script at all, zero spark."

And in my experience this is not fair, at all.

poor taste? Your extrapolated from that that I was saying they were thick with no drive. If I'd meant that I would have bloody said it. Communicated it, in fact!

Is any experience that's not your experience not fair?

and one of the things about education is that it bridges gaps between the haves and have nots. And one of those things is communication and confidence. But you think that if parents don't have those things themselves and therefore struggle to teach them to their children, tough shit.

And you're calling me rude??

Ted

Schools have a duty of care towards all of the children they educate. Education is not simply maths and English.

Schools have a duty to help children learn in every way how to better themselves. How to get on in the world.

What you seem to advocate is a Victorian style factory education. The three Rs and nothing else!

Your argument is so basic and blind that it's not worth wasting any more time on you.