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 don't think education turns us into sausages and I massively value the random stuff I remember from school like poetry, history and science stuff. The more education you have, the more choices you have and if you have the brains and wherewithal not to be x worker bee then you can crack on. We need to train people to work as otherwise we are a bit stuffed I think. I would like to see more trade schools. Being able to read is an amazing skill to gain young as it opens up so much more to children.

I see our society getting dumber and dumber so am all for the so called sausage factory and would hate state schools not to cover some of the poetry, literature, art and history of our country. And if course maths is useful but I think there should be more differentiation so those likely to proceed to mathematical careers do the less used in "real life's maths.

Schools should also be able to spend the last month after GCSEs covering proper meal planning and basic cooking, first aid certificate, food hygiene certificate, budgeting, tax, CVS etc. I work with young adults and the level of ignorance and the barriers to work are high. Good parents do a lot of this but we have a lot of dysfunctional families and generational incompetence.

The mortgage idea above is crackers unless something drastic happens to house prices.

The structure of school rather than the content prepares them for the classic workplace: turning up to somewhere at a set time, obeying arbitrary rules, following instructions and being assessed. Under this model, the specifics of the curriculum doesn't really matter — kids forget most of it as soon as the exams they crammed for are finished anyway.

But I think the idea that you need to be aware of how you present yourself is still an important one and it absolutely should be taught in (secondary) school. I completely agree that it's not as simple as 'put on a suit' (not that it ever was for women) but I work in tech and when an external service provider comes in in a suit and tie its either an immediate sign that they don't have a lot of experience working with tech companies or a red flag that they may not adapt their style to our needs. The clothing would not in itself stop me working with someone but I would take note and be watching out for other concerns.

I've also seen female new grads wearing clothing that isn't really office appropriate (too short or low cut). In theory it doesn't matter where I work, but people are human and it does impact how you're perceived. With that it's generally that no one has actually taught them they need to think about the image they present. Is it the job of school to teach this? Well no, but if you leave it to parents then the kids who lose out are again the ones without support (either because their parents don't care or don't themselves know).

I'm in central Europe, we start school at 6, with one year before being compulsory kindergarten, unless parents prove the child is progressing at expected level to be ready for school (mostly used when parents choose alternative private pre-school).

For me the biggest difference is how early you stop the general education - in my country students on academic track study all subjects (3 languages, all sciences, history, ...) until 19, students on less academic track study everything until 15 and reduced volume till 17.
And yes, I believe people are better equipped for living in this world afterwards, having more solid basic grid to attach more information to it, recognising more patterns.
Starting earlier can't offset it, because the ability for abstract thinking comes with brain development at puberty and the extra few years of learning with more mature brain allow for things to click together.

The second biggest difference is that we don't freak that much about tests. 11, 15 and 19 is enough.

We don't have school uniforms and we just wear jeans and T-shirts at school. The ability to dress for occasion is trained through ... occasions.

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.

Similar population to Scotland, where education standards have declined alarmingly.

At the age of five, children are worlds apart already in speech, understanding, ability to concentrate and general experiences. Perhaps that isn't so marked in some other countries. We can't cherry pick aspects of systems elsewhere.

I don't know much about primary schools but as a former secondary school teacher I know that a lot needs to change. Unfortunately, throughout my career I saw recognition of failures leading to so-called improvements which made things even worse, so I have no faith that much will improve.

They would for my company. We advise smart casual for interviews but someone turning up in a t-shirt wouldn't make the slightest difference to whether or not they got the job (assuming there wasn't an offensive slogan or similar!). Ditto tracksuit and messy hair!

Companies are different and have different dress code standards. Kids need to be taught that and that it's important to find out what is appropriate.

Similar population to Scotland, where education standards have declined alarmingly.

Scotland switched to a progressive education model. People arguing for a 'creative' curriculum and soft behaviour management should really look at the outcomes there.

The structure of school rather than the content prepares them for the classic workplace: turning up to somewhere at a set time, obeying arbitrary rules, following instructions and being assessed.

I’m not sure I agree. I don’t need to move myself and my belongings every 45/60 mins, and completely change my focus from one subject to another, and have a new supervisor and adjust to their way of doing things 4/5 times across the day. If I forget to bring a pen I can usually find one in the office, as long as I’m dressed appropriately no one much cares what I’m wearing. I can choose more technical work, or people based work to suit my preferences and personality. I don’t need to work with people who are disruptive and certainly don’t need to accept discrimination or bullying.

If I thought my experience of work was going to reflect my experience of school, I’d never have gone to work. If we made adults work in the way we make children learn….

That’s very interesting, thanks for the update. Finland is often held up as the pinnacle of education with children starting school later and leaving with higher levels of education than in the UK. However, in reality there is no magic answer or short cut and you won’t get a well educated population without putting in a decent amount of time and effort in into academics in childhood. That being said, there are many ways to skin a cat and it maybe that the Finnish way is better in some aspects.

What a lot of people seem to think in schools is about 'preparing kids for the workplace' is actually priming kids to get into lessons and do the work. It's about school, not the workplace.

If anyone really thinks about the effort required to get a bunch of teenagers to go into lessons and engage with the content, it's incredible.

There is no evidence finlands success in education is related to starting at 7. Many countries with very poor educational outcomes have kids starting at 7- no one ever mentions them in this “stat”

PISA scores (which places Finland near the top globally although not recently number 1) also rank the uk education system very highly, so we can’t pick and choose what we think it’s useful for.

there is a fascinating book looking into the reasons behind high scoring education systems. They are overwhelmingly societal and point in time, and in the main this is not replicatable in other countries

it was identified 10 years ago that one factor in Finland’s successful education system was the complete lack of immigration. The authors suggested it would be interesting to see what happens in the future as Finland was starting to welcome migrants and refugees. It has steadily slipped down the rankings since then.

yet no right thinking person would suggest we ban foreigners to make out education system better (and it wouldn’t work, but you know what I mean)

However, in reality there is no magic answer or short cut and you won’t get a well educated population without putting in a decent amount of time and effort in into academics in childhood.

You also won’t get it without decent investment at the chalk face. Teachers need to be able to focus on actually teaching, not being all things to all pupils, not filling in roles that belong to other professionals and not trying to parent the kids they are teaching. I’m all for pastoral support in schools, but offered by trained professionals not by teachers adding a bit of extra training into their skill set.

Part of the problem is assuming that because most kids are at school, school is the best place for everything from mental health and social care support to complex needs assessment.

So Finland's population is a little smaller than those of Manchester and Birmingham added together.

While greater London and the SE accounts for about 30% of the UK population of around 68m.

That's why I said "classic" — we still have an education system that is better suited to train people for factory labour. You're absolutely right that many modern workplaces (and self-employed or freelance situations) are much less arbitrary and restrictive than school is. UK school is not good at fostering a life-long love of learning, and it's not good preparation for the world as it now is either.

it was identified 10 years ago that one factor in Finland’s successful education system was the complete lack of immigration. The authors suggested it would be interesting to see what happens in the future as Finland was starting to welcome migrants and refugees. It has steadily slipped down the rankings since then.

Finland's decline started 20 years ago.

The suggestion that immigration contributes to educational decline is refuted by the fact that EAL students in England outperform non-immigrants, and the amount of immigrants in London is cited as one of the main reasons that London schools massively outperform the rest of the country.

The Marxist viewpoint is that school is designed to replicate the workplace so that children obey and don't question authority etc, and I think there are elements of truth to that. There are a lot of power struggles and attempts to exert unnecessary control in schools.

One of the most challenging but rewarding classes I ever taught was a Year 11 set who weren't doing GCSE Literature and weren't expected to pass Language, so they were doing an Entry Level qualification. I loved teaching those lessons - we worked on CVs and cover letters, email communication, interviews, reading non-fiction critically, participating in group discussions - all functional literacy skills that will benefit them in the future. I can't understand why these practical, functional literacy skills aren't standard for all, because I had a "bottom set" Year 11 leaving school with an entire career literacy toolkit in their back pocket, something I know higher sets didn't have.

There are a lot of power struggles and attempts to exert unnecessary control in schools.

The school in England that exerts the most control over its pupils gets absolutely astonishing results, so perhaps deciding what is 'unnecessary' isn't clear cut.

I think the UK gets Early Years right (albeit those years begin a BIT too early) but it's the terminal end of education that gets it too wrong.

The idea that a 15/16 year will no longer study maths or English/composition once they finish GCSE exams seems a bit weird, coming from a country where things are compulsory until 18, and even required at early uni level.

And don't get me started on post-16 options--I don't quite understand the need to specialise learning at such a young age, at a time when teens are still trying to figure out what they like.

Have skim read the whole thread but as a mother, grandmother and ex-primary teacher I have to disagree that our system is not fit for purpose. My children had very good educations and my gc are having a great experience at their school.They are enthusiastic and progressing well academically and love the social side. My observation of the EYFS does not match with very small children being drilled in academic pursuits, just pottering around much of the time learning through play, some of it directed. They have loads of time to do stuff after school especially in the Summer.

Schools are, however, struggling financially and cannot support children with special needs adequately. I also agree that the IB would be a very good thing to broaden out, having to choose a path at an early age is difficult. The micromanaging of curriculum and teachers has, I believe, harmed education especially at primary level where enthusiasm and joy is slowly being leeched out of the classroom.

Finland is often cited, the homogeneity and small population did help, and the high qualifications and subsequent respect for teachers can’t have harmed the system. Interesting to note it is less successful now.

I

One problem with secondary education is that you come out with a series of numbers (GCSEs) and letters (A levels). The aim is to maximise this small group of values.

In reality surely this means teaching to the test?.The better you can do it the better the qualifications for the students and the greater the plaudits for the school.

So instead of viewing the works of Shakespeare as a thing of beauty it's about how to ensure you put down the current points when summarising MacBeth 's character failings to maximise your mark.a

we have a less than holistic means of assessing education and simple numeric value though administratively the only feasible method is lacking.

I don't think there is an easy answer but I am sure a lot of parents and maybe teachers do look at the exam as the be all and end all.

If results are the be-all and end-all of school then yes, the Michaela School's methods work. Problem is that the idea that results are everything is flawed, the exam system itself is flawed, the way pupils are taught for their exams is flawed.

The parents who choose Michaela for their children have high ambitions for them and are prepared to support and back the school in their rules. That's not the case for every comp up and down the UK. Building relationships is vital for teaching, but I found it very difficult to build rapport with my pupils and teach them when I was constantly told to fight them on their uniform, their hair, their make-up, their pencil case etc. The focus never seemed to be on what and how they were learning, but whether they were under a sufficient amount of control.

Immigrant children do much worse than native children in Finland these days, wasn't so bad years ago when there weren't so many and they could get enough attention in prepatory education to prepare them for joining the normal classes but now there's just not enough resources to cope with increased amount of children with an immigrant background and the system has not adapted well enough. This is actually one of the big problems in the Finnish system, not the fault of the immigrant children themselves but because they get put in the S2 stream and in many schools that means lower standards for all subjects, not just Finnish, so they aren't learning at the same level as native speakers. My DD was moved out of S2 in second grade so I don't know if it's so bad in my town but I'm going to get my DS moved out rather than wait to find out.

Another big cause I think is budget cuts, education especially suffered cuts in 2008 but also in the 90s which would have impacted the 2003 and 2006 pisa results. Along with moving away from the more traditional teaching methods, though the teachers in my town tend to prefer them thankfully - never even noticed phenomenon based learning, clearly not been implemented much in my town but I heard that's been a big problem in other schools.

yes apologies I’ve realised I read the book about 10 years ago, not that it was research from 10 years ago

that’s my point- it’s not as simple taking one factor that contributed to Finland’s success and replicating it in other countries. It wouldn’t work, and the situation is obviously greatly more nuanced than starting school at 7 or whatever

I broadly agree but don't think the school day is too long.

Starting at 5 or 6 would be better for most children. The way EYFS was implemented in our primary was judgy - charts for being able to do zip coats, I was told my child couldn't hop but it was more he didn't on demand. I'm sure all schools are different and not all as competitive about stuff like this that's often age or size of child related.

I don't believe in formal style uniforms at secondary and see no benefit to them at all in primary and definitely not logoed uniform for small kids. Other countries manage without uniforms pretty well.

That’s why the first point is to reset house prices so that they are at single income level. It wouldn’t happen overnight.