To think the British educational system is all wrong?

[CookiePlough]

It seems like the aim is to make adults out of children as soon as possible rather than allowing them enough time to just be kids.

My main issues are that 1. kids start school way too early and 2. spend way too much time in school.

What is the purpose of a 4 year old child learning to read and write and do addition and subtraction? How does this help the child either in the present or in the future when they are an adult? I can see that 4 year olds are clearly capable of learning these things and of course being able to read or do simple arithmetic is not a problem. The problem is what are they missing out on in order to learn these skills? In my opinion they are missing out on playing. Unstructured, self determined playing. You can learn academics at a later age but you can't really make up for not getting enough playtime as a child. However, this wouldn't be a problem if the school day wasn't so ridiculously long. There just isn't enough time to play after school. There is no time to go anywhere after school (eg the park), for playdates, for any play that takes longer than an hour, to do extra curricular activities (without missing out on Unstructured play time) or anything else. Everything has to be done on the weekend but then when do you have time to do things as a family?

I understand most kids have 2 parents working full time so kids need to be in some sort of childcare setting but even nursery is preferable at thst age to school as there is more unstructured play and more adult supervision. School requires much more in terms of social skills, resilience etc. Which kids,should learn but not by suddenly being dropped in it.

I'm just ranting because I'm tired and upset rather than explaining my points properly. And it's not like I can change the system. I just feel so sad that kids are missing out on being kids. It's not the worst childhood obviously but it's also not as good as it could be.

I haven't read the full thread but for people saying children start school too early that might be fine for those parents who are invested in their children's success and take them out to activities etc.

For children whose parents aren't doing much with them at all for whatever reason starting school is a lifeline. We've all read the stories of children starting school in nappies unable to feed or dress themselves. Those children need to start school so they are on the authorities radar and someone is looking out for them.

The general social order of things has really broken down over the last 30-40 years with most families having 2 working parents in order to survive and less involvement from grandparents and wider family.

My daughter is in P3 here in NI (so for 6 and 7 year olds). She started pre-school / kindergarten at 3 and P1 at 4 and is absolutely bored stiff by the curriculum and turned off from reading the same boring books (Biff and bloody Chip) over and over again.

I don't think they need to be teaching to a higher level at her age but making the curriculum more stimulating would definitely help!

I agree with this. There’s nothing wrong with looking (and knowing how to look) smart and professional sometimes even if you don’t need to on a daily basis once settled.
My husband works in a warehouse type place. Jeans and t shirt all day every day. He still went to his interview in a shirt and trousers. (Not a full suit and tie as that would be overkill).
I work in medical so wear scrubs all day. I still go to interviews in smart clothes.

The problem with generally lowering standards in some cases mean they start to get too low and it seeps into other things. If you booked an appointment to see a financial advisor and they sat there in jogging bottoms and t shirt would that be ok? Or you do a zoom call with a Doctor and they’re in the pyjamas at home. Or you book a wedding photographer and they turn up in a bright pink tracksuit. Or maybe when you go to see a nurse for an appointment she’s wearing old crinkled clothes covered in old paint?

Once you are in a job and know the dress code it’s fine to dress however. But until then, there’s nothing wrong with learning what is smart and following the rules set by the place you are.
If school says smart attire, you wear smart attire until you have your tracksuit job.

As I said I work in medical so I’m in scrubs. In theory, there’s no reason why I need to be in scrubs. I could just wear tracksuit bottoms and t shirt. But it would look unprofessional and also my workplace specifies scrubs. So that’s what I do.

People really need to stop going on about Finland, their education system which used to be good has been in decline for nearly 20 years. Lots of concern about their falling PISA scores.

https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/rise-and-fall-finland-mania-part-two-why-did-scores-plummet

So did I.
The government now have a very clear understanding of my views on teaching for mastery.
Amongst many other things - I’m coming for over the top grammar as well. You don’t need to know what it’s called just how to do it.
It infuriates me teaching things that I have had to “learn it to teach it”lately- if I’ve got to 40, got post graduate qualifications without knowing something why on earth does a 7 year old have to know it.

Some of the teachers tend to remind them to study more than others, and her maths teacher offers after school study sessions before exams but it's up to the children whether or not they study, but they know if they fail a subject they'll have to go to summer school and if they still don't pass they'll have to resit the year. Basically you can't get through school without learning what you need to learn (in certain cases like some sen cases they have different expectations for a pass though), which is not the case in Britain where you automatically go up to the next year.

It's generally considered to be declining because they've moved away somewhat from what worked and started trying fashionable ideas, and the introduction of smart phones which has caused a decline pretty much everywhere but especially in Finland because so many schools had no phone policies and let kids just be on their phones in class instead of learning.
The basic principles still stand though, the parts they didn't change like frequent breaks, small class sizes, and not too big a curriculum.

I think it depends on the school. My kids primary was all learning through play until year 2 really. It was lovely. I think most schools are just exam factories from year 6 though.
There are so many ways to learn and reasons to learn. I agree with a pp who said they would have been bored if they couldn’t read until 7(me too!) and someone else said Shakespeare and poetry was no use to bottom sets which I couldn’t disagree with more. I think there is so much to learn from Shakespeare and poetry, for everyone, it’s just that the way these things are taught is so rigid and dry.

Do you think a 21 year old who turned up to an interview (Teams or otherwise) in a T-shirt would be taken seriously?

Did you do your Teams interviews in a tracksuit with messy hair?

I could not agree more. YANBU OP

I have been interested to observe the experiences of a friend bringing up her (teen) DC in Switzerland.

Now that is a very serious, academic system but with a high degree of focus on vocational outcomes and readiness for the workplace too.

However, the approach to SEND and issues like bullying seems much more hands off. Children walk to school by themselves from a young age. There is little choice of school.

We expect our schools to do a lot of additional stuff in the UK.

Schools don't operate in some kind of vacuum from the wider society they're in.

If you consider the histories of countries like Switzerland and Finland you can see why their school systems might have gone a certain direction.

The UK too.

I absolutely 100% agree with the OP. Childhood is a precious time that comes around only once.

Education is important but so is childhood. Children go into structured learning far too young. I distresses me when chidlren get labelled as ADHD etc. when the crux of the problem is often that they are being asked to behave in a way that does not chime with their being at that stage.

OP should seek out a Steiner School. There are some now that ar4e state funded.

Perhaps a different take here. My friends little girl is nearly 9, he has a physical health condition that has restricted her greatly from attending school. Her condition does not affect her mentally, she is sharp as a razor. She was meant to start school in 2019, but being an august baby, she would have been young in the year, and so mum requested to defer to 2020 to give her time to get physically stronger. Then covid happened. She didn’t start school till 2021, already 2 years after she should have done. Since then she has attended school less than 20% of the time, and has difficulty following instructions, sitting still and concentrating, and generally displaying the behaviours children learn when at school. The older she’s got, the more set her lack of discipline is, and it’s now become a sort of game to push back against the teachers, because she’s now aware she can’t do what a lot of children 3 years younger can do with ease. The parents are excellent and have great boundaries/discipline etc, but it gets harder the older she gets. Children going to school early gives them such a great sense of concentration and training for when they are older. Are any of us really traumatised from going to school age 5? I rather think not.

Finland started declining well before smart phones became an issue in schools. The radical curriculum overhaul definitely seems to be a big factor.

What is interesting is that people will point to Finland's education system as it is now while pointing to Finland's reputation formed from an entirely different system 20 years ago and suggest that we should be emulating Finland - we would be copying declining success. What people tend to do far less of is point at the consistent top performers on the PISA league tables and suggest that we should be copying their extremely long days and intensely hot-housing methods.

Agree that they start too young. Don’t agree that they spend too much time in school. Where we are, state senior schools finish at 2.45 some days and 2.15 on Fridays. No wonder they’re given hours of homework.
Ours were in lessons from 8.45-4 with homework club until 5. Everything was done at school and their time at home was their own.

Do you think a 21 year old who turned up to an interview (Teams or otherwise) in a T-shirt would be taken seriously?
Did you do your Teams interviews in a tracksuit with messy hair?

Do you think people learn to dress for the occasion because someone checks the colour of their socks at school? Do you think a young adult wears the same thing all day every day, eg to a wedding, a night out with friends, their part time job?

Secondary school does many things, preparing kids for the world of work isn’t one of them.

I have a 17 year old with ADHD. He’s creative, bright, witty and wise beyond his years.
He didn’t finish high school, they put so much effort into squeezing him into a box he didn’t fit and no time encouraging him to explore the things he was good at. He lost his spark for a time and suffered with terrible anxiety.
I’m not really blaming the school but the outdated system they have to teach within.
He’s 18 in May and believes his chance of a job or career are out of the window because he didn’t get any GCSE’s.
It’s a hard slog trying to bring back his confidence.

People often complain that we aren't preparing kids for the world of work. If we were, we'd be teaching touch typing instead of Shakespeare, how to use Excel instead of solve quadratic equations.

There is a lot of debate about what education is for (one of them being keeping kids off the streets and out of the unemployment statistics). I'm not sure it's particularly meeting any of the briefs at the moment - workplaces complain that kids haven't got work skills, universities complain that kids haven't got study skills.

I understand that at least one 'liberal' Scandi country has ditched one pre-formal-school year recently as the kids began to drop down the Pisa charts, so starting 'school' earlier....

One theory is the now ubiquity of tech, so kids aren't running around the forest, they're scrolling on phones.

We always 'cite' Finland but we overlook that their education system is way better funded than ours, their teachers more highly valued (and qualified) and, a biggie, everyone buys into the 'social contract'.

I'm interested to see that the solution to Y6s unable to dress themselves and tie laces is to start education later!! Surely that's a disengaged parenting failure? Such kids should have been in SureStart!

Comfy and smart aren’t necessarily different. I have many smart dresses. Every one is v comfortable.

I'm interested to see that the solution to Y6s unable to dress themselves and tie laces is to start education later!! Surely that's a disengaged parenting failure? Such kids should have been in SureStart!

It is a parenting failure (we were guilty of the tying laces bit) and sadly SureStart funding was cut. Does it even exist anymore?

People often complain that we aren't preparing kids for the world of work.

For me I guess the issue is that things like overly restrictive uniform is cited as “preparing kids for the workplace” when it really doesn’t. The school environment is not like a workplace, other than for staff who work there and kids would be better served by recognising we do school in the way we do but it doesn’t reflect the workplace much. Kids leave school having barely coped thinking their working life will be more of the same, when it generally isn’t.

It’s also easy to cite a system in a country that works well, but ignore the fact these countries have minute populations in comparison! Finland has 5 million residents! It makes such a big difference when there are far less people to look after.

No. Sure Start doesn't exit anymore.