Big Picture: Your Say on OPTIMAL EDUCATION SYSTEM

[kris123]

Dear Parents,

I think that it would be interesting to hear your views on the Optimal Education System for England.

We often complain, recognise the issues, but rarely provide solutions to solve them. This is your chance to be heard. Its also a chance for many of us to amend our views to that of others, to learn something new.

Thanks for your respective inputs. Seeker! I am counting on you to put your thoughts here.

I would be grateful if we would, as tempting as it is, avoid personal attacks on parents that present different views, and rather suggest where these views could be wrong.

This is a once in a generation chance to make yourself heard and to maybe make England a better place.

------

From my experience of education systems in various countries:

ASSUMPTIONS

a) it must be looked at in holistic manner, ie, primary, secondary and higher education at the same time

b) kids should start at fully comprehensive schools and as they progress they should become more and more selective. Only 1% or so will ultimately end up at Oxbridge, and this is normal.

c) system should be transparent, with a significant element of internet based teaching and supervision: curriculum, marking, etc. It would be great if all parents, or even grandparents and other family members could with parental permission of course, take on larger responsibility for supervision of their family members performance, curriculum, to do list, targets etc. You could even have a council run system focusing on underperforming children.

d) right incentives in place, aimed at making the school best it is, with headmasters paid according to (a) improvement and (b) performance. So rather than being focused on KS2 in the primary schools, which is a sad measure of mediocracy, schools should focus on % kids that make it to next stage (say grammar schools). With grammars the same method, ie % of kids that obtain a free university place. At the moment primary schools invest more time into underperforming kids, in order to achieve higher KS2 results, leaving the more able of the kids almost wasting their time. This is silly.

e) private sector can operate as totally independent, as it does, both with selection process and tuition. It should however follow the A level system if children want to have a chance for a free university place (read below).

SPECIFICS

Primary schools based on location, ending at the age of 13.

Secondary school from the age of 13 - 16: divided into grammar and comps. I would think that 20/80 rule of the thumb could work well, but i might be wrong.

GCSE selection process into colleges, often in the same premises as the Secondary School, but it would give a 2nd chance for kids, and motivate the grammar school kids (remember that there would be more of them, meaning overall quality of grammar schools could hence suffer).

NEW standardised ONE A-level test, including basics of Maths, English, Sciences, Hummanities, which all A level students take, on which some student ranking can be made. It does seem surprising to me that the current system might develop a great mathematician who has no understanding of geography or history or the ability to write a simple letter. Other A levels could be taken normally as before, further maths, further english, biology etc.

Higher Education:
Proposal that 20% of top students could study for free at university, subject to remaining in UK for x years after graduation. Should they leave they should pay for the education they received, as its a society making an investment into these individuals.
80% would be required to pay, albeit they would be offered the loan on it - which I must say worries me somewhat, as young adults will start their lives covered with 30k in debt, something that almost reminds me of slavery where you could free yourself by buying yourself out. This debt can have a significant knock on effect, as the already in debt ones will have reduced capacity to credit cards, mortgages. ALso, how will it work in event of default and bancrupcy of individuals? It represents a significant moral hazard for the entire system, as being 30k in debt as a student, many would have a strong motive to leave uk and simply default on this debt. 30k is a lot of money. Views?

-----------

This is my start up message, please let me know how you would change the system and why?

Thank you.

Where would we be heard? What will happen to this thread?

yes :)

Maybe I am naive, but if this thread works, and a lot of people express their views, talk, then I am sure that somehow someone who has some authority over these issues could read this.

I have a feeling that the current education secretary is very keen to change and improve the system. New governments find this task easier, as they do not have to admit to a decade of mistakes.

Indeed the current news I am reading, that on looking at education systems in other countries, that of primary schools underperformance, indicate some degree of openess by our ruling elite to change things.

Maybe they will realise that if you pump in billions into flawed education system, you will still get the flawed education system.

You cannot have a grammar school and a comprehensive co-existing.

The grammar has creamed off the most academically able. Therefore the comprehensive cannot be truly 'comprehensive', can it?

Will the 'top 20%' of plumbing students get their apprenticeships fully funded too?

"It does seem surprising to me that the current system might develop a great mathematician who has no understanding of geography or history or the ability to write a simple letter.".. it doesn't to me. These skills represent very different areas of intellectual ability. High ability in one not necessarily imply that with a bit more teaching, that person would have high ability in the other. It's called intellectual diversity.

Your 'A' level system sounds like a IB to me, which I am sure is a system that works well for many. But there's no doubt about it, many countries with such systems, especially universally studied systems (think the US, not France) find their university 'freshers' a good year if not more behind similar UK students, having not yet specialised.

Our primaries 'under-perform' for many reasons, and a lot are social. e.g. Under parented, neglected, non-school ready kids. We have more of this than many other European countries (against which we measure our 'performance') because we have a far more comprehensive social security system.

The current system isn't 'keen to change', it's keen to save money. Happily for the ruling elite, many of their proposals will assure the ascendancy of their own children. Over ours.

Maybe it would be simplest to just have 20% of universities fully government funded, all courses, allowing all kids to apply for a place, and if they get accepted - great, if not - the they have a choice of others. Almost like a grammar school system. Acceptance could be on entrance exams, or just a-level comparisons - though i think that making it very transparent like the entrance exam does appear justified to me. And just like in these grammar schools, these 20% of universities would bound to attract smartest kids and with time they would become centers of excellence. Plumbing of course would not be there, but engineering etc yes.

As to coexistence of grammar and comprehensive. I am afraid that this is a natural process for me, and if done fairly, with access to grammar for all students (and via boarding schools if needed - you know that there are literally no grammar schools with boarding places, or there are really small and with a tiny percentage of boarders, what I find this surprising in the country which has such long standing history of boarding).

I know that there is a talent drain of students into grammars, leaving comps somewhat depleted of quality, but i really do not think that this is a major problem, as long as every child has a fair access to these grammar schools. Maybe the age at which grammar schools start could be raised to 13, or 15 like lycee system in France, so that students have a chance to learn out of their own will and ability (rather than that of their parents one).

Also, from my experience of state primary here, I think that the biggest single problems are:

1. children who single-handily manage to ruin a class of 34, not only in terms of used language, specific home experiences, 24/7 access to video games and adult videos, but also by simply wasting the teachers time and energy and goodwill. Idiocy is very time demanding, and highly unrewarding for the teacher, who at some point will give up on their ideals and will just look forward to the ring at 3pm.

2. wrong set of measurement criteria, promoting mediocracy over actual performance. School performance i think is measured for reaching level 5 in ks2, so once you are level 5 the school invests more money and time to bring the level 4 students up, neglecting the potential of level 5 students who sit at school and do nothing. While this has a merit for i agree that early identification of underperforming students is needed, the negligence of the performing students is simply silly and a totally wrong. Its almost best for school to receive an outstanding from ofsed (another silly measurement criteria) and brag about it. Perhaps another measure for school would be a % if kids who actually made it to grammar school, though a grammar school system would need to be greatly expanded from 160 schools to some 600 (20%). The system could however be introduced in LA where the grammar schools exist.

You change these small things and you are already a step ahead, even if the funding is cut, and class sizes are increased to 40. Students who want to study will study and perform, regardless of the money the school has, while students who do not care, will not care - also regardless of the money the school has.

Final change would be to enable greater transparency of children performance, so that not only parents but also other members of the family find it easy (with parental permission) to supervise and monitor children. Grandparents are actually very handy, often having more time and experience and will actually. There is nothing more annoying and misleading than hearing from the teacher that your child is brilliant and then actually discovering that he/she can barely do the basic math. This misinformation is almost dangerous as it offers parents a false sense of comfort.

---------

So hearing this, why would you think that the fully comprehensive system is better and at what moment in education life would you stop it?

I know that many people say that it is fair, but it does not provide the incentives to study, leaving a vacuum for indi schools (where incentive to study is at least not to waste the fees paid for the school).

In any case, fully comprehensive system will also stop at some point anyway. At university level the gap between good and bad is astonishing, with some universities in this country being leading places globally, while others are frankly just the waste of time for students, teachers and of course the taxpayers (still) generating masses of unemployed and frankly often unemployable people (i would personally rather hire someone without any further education than someone with the terrible one, as being at a terrible uni for me raises a question why this person ended up at this university in the first place* - especially if the school before was a good independent one).

Thanks for your inputs. Please provide your views to make it a bigger thread. This is your chance to be heard!

Having read your three threads currently on the boards, Kris, I am beginning to suspect you are a journo.

"This is your chance to be heard"?? Really??? Are you Michael Gove?

Great comment Pixie.

I think that this just calls for me to drop off this thread too.

At least this MumNet experience has taught me a lot about the internet, and the world to be. Fascinating, you just got to get wet to learn how to swim.

How odd!

but a journalist in which country

Kris' English certainly wouldn't have got her/him a job in any newsroom I've ever worked in ...