To wish parents appreciated their kids’ education more?

[MayasJamas]

Another meet up with middle class parents last night, another inevitable diatribe about how the education system teaches kids nothing but how to pass exams.

As a teacher, I bite my tongue. I truly wish parents could see what young people are actually learning. How the world works (scientifically, sociological, ethically). How to question what they read and hear. How to draw, write, speak, listen. How in English, even in GCSE lessons, we regularly discuss the deepest of human issues: war, love, injustice, misogyny, kindness, religion, prejudice.

I completely agree that the GCSE system is flawed and too much pressure. I have a Y11 child myself and it is too much. But it seems to be a middle class hobby to slag off everything that schools and teachers are trying to do. It’s ironic because, generally speaking, these privileged children are the ones who will benefit most from the education system their parents deride. They’ll go on to study subjects they enjoy at A Level and uni, to have rewarding careers in whatever field they choose. They literally couldn’t do that without education. Generally speaking, teachers and schools are also trying to make those opportinities available to all. I teach underprivileged kids who want to become brain surgeons and journalists and politicians. Education will help them to do that.

But no. ‘It’s just a memory test’. ‘They’re not learning anything relevant to real life’. I don’t want a medal btw, but AIBU to think parents are quick to shit on the system that is actually (on the whole) enriching the lives of their kids?

Education has changed so much since I left school 40+ years ago. I was taught general knowledge, art, music, poetry, scripture, and basic household maintenance, as well as all the 'exam' subjects. DCs, on the other hand, were taught almost exclusively to pass exams. It is a box-ticking process, with handouts and a bit of PE.

The same way that it's done in some other countries and the same way it's done across difference universities and different professional bodies. You need a set of guidance and then, presumably some kind of "policing" of standards via random testing etc by the body(ies) overseeing them.

Here you go, this is the kind of thing I was referring to:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwydyz2ej1no
Hart surprising, IMO.

Presumably they use previous tests & mock exams to reach a grade like they did for a whole cohort during Covid.

Continual assessment does sound miserable!

Probably based on homework and previous school exams/tests, so relying on the teachers/school assessment, ALONG WITH, the grades being achieved on the exams the pupil did take, assuming English was the only one they missed in that session. I.e. if your son's school record showed generally high marks, AND he was getting A's or similar in the exams he DID sit in that session, there's not much "risk" they'd get it wrong and pretty high confidence that he'd have got an A had he sat the exam.

Yes. This was in 2013 btw. Well before covid.

He sat zero highers. He was seriously ill.

Doesn't have to be miserable, its used throughout comprehensive school in Finland and teachers seem to be quite happy with it, but what's described in that article does not sound so well thought out!

That maybe so but it’s easier to administer over a school age population of 600k than it is over a school age population of 10 million. It’s comparing apples and oranges

Not sure there would be much difference in difficulties of administrating, its not like you'd have the same number of staff in charge of administering it in both systems or need different methods - you just have a basic set of guidelines and trust schools to follow them. Have entrance examinations for university so there's no chance of schools deliberately inflating grades to get more students into university, while avoiding the stress of big exams for all those who don't want to go on to university (those that do want to go will know they can't avoid big exams, they'll need to be able to do them at uni anyway)

I never saw tour previous post.

In Scotland you hand in one essay.
Then in the exam you analyse two pieces of work, ( but we all know the questions). Then there are questions about new work you have never seen before.

No idea how he got a grade for not sitting his exam, unless he had an emergency y and it was based on his prelim result .

It is a useful skill to have. It also develops fine.motor skills, your child's handwriting practice now might help them with suturing if they go to work in health care.

Or maybe dusting off ancient relics on an archaeological site.

Or 100 other things.

It really does!
It’s continual stress. Takes the complete joy out of learning and will be teach to test more than ever.

You can't think why a child who will be doing handwritten exam papers in order to gain the qualifications upon which their acceptance into university will be based might need clear legible handwriting.
Ohhhh kaayyyyy.

I think this is a cynical teacher approach, and definitely not a good examination. It's the teacher teaching to a test.

When I took A levels, in 1974, the questions were often quite unpredictable. If you had studied the paper's content reasonably attentively, you would be able to confabulate a response that would get you a C or D grade. But if you were both on top of the subject, and clever, it gave scope to ace the exam, snaffle a top grade, etc. I don't know the real parameters nowadays, and my PGCE was a long time ago, but my impression is that it is incredibly difficult to distinguish between the really clever and the very well trained.

They put in an appeal.

Clear, legible handwriting doesn’t necessarily mean joined. Once they get to secondary no one cares if they join or not.

I hated handwriting in school, but understand the importance. But my handwriting never became clear and legible (they tested me for dyslexia at one point because of it), I don't know how anyone managed to read my exams to mark them!
But when I went back to school a few years ago, and it was all on screens, I copied everything out by hand as that's the only way to make it stick in my brain - if I read from a screen I quickly forget details but if I write them out and reread them I remember much better.

Your reply just condemns a generation to massive debt, massive, far beyond marked rate interest, the highest tax possible on mediocre wages, and a lot of pressure to make uni financially 'pay'... Which 50% of the time it doesn't..

But middle class people, teachers, don't think of that... They are too busy being dreamers, telling kids follow your dreams...

Oh, but thank you for paying 7% interest the moment it hits your account... (RBS, Santander, more like 4%)

but what are you ment to say, there is no hope etc ?

So - sorry let me get this straight - middle class teachers should tell working class students to stay in their lane, not go to uni, not aspire to be a doctor or a lawyer or an architect, or a scientist or an archeologist, or whatever else they want to be?
Make it clear to them, then, that the careers that are open only to those who attend uni - of which there are many - should be the preserve of the privileged? Is that really where we are? I agree that the university system - like the education system - is flawed. I’m not a fool. But I won’t close those doors to intelligent, ambitious young people who are just as capable of making their own decisions about whether to take on university debt as those more privileged. That doesn’t make me some sort of naive dreamer. Idealistic, maybe. But I’d be a shit teacher if I did what you advise.

The big fences were introduced in response to the Dunblabe school shooting, to prevent members of the public having free access to to school sites, not to keep the children in.

Our local secondary school only got the huge, jail like fencing installed last summer so I don’t think it was a Dunblane thing.

They should be realistic. Yes, follow your dreams, but also have a plan B. Don't put all your eggs in one basket etc.

I've known far too many children who'd been "bigged up" to think they were the next Darcy Bussell or David Beckham meaning far too much time/effort spent on non academic things, only to have their dreams dashed and nothing to fall back on.

Likewise, a friend of our son was "bigged up" by both family and teachers to aim high to become a doctor - meaning he did A level Biology, Maths and Chemistry - he wasn't a "top of the class pupil", and ended up crashing and burning due to the stress and left with no A levels at all.

You have to be realistic when aiming high. Nothing wrong with managing expectations and abilities etc.

But we seem to have developed the mantra of "you can be anything you want" when in reality, most really can't and have to accept their limitations.