Is school pointless?

[idkkkk]

I want to know what the ladies on this board think about schools. Considering that 1 in 2 Brits don't know basic arithmetic, or grammar, and a lot of the things learnt in school go in one ear and out the other. Yet we are "educated" for 10-15 years on these topics.

Couple that with bullying, and exposure to all sorts of very objectionable and destructive things, is school really what we make it out to be? Are our assumptions about education even valid? Is teaching a teen highly abstract ideas that were conceived by people 2-3 times their age a sensible thing to do?

I dont think school is pointless. I think it wotks brilliantly for half the population. I do think there needs to be something better/different on offer for the other half though. I dont know what - something more vocational with a very sound maths and literacy core.

The truth is I don't expect a 18 y/o to appreciate the beauty of say differential calculus

Back in my day, that was on the O level syllabus.

Perhaps we should be expecting more of schooling?

The problem is the lack of decent education which is underfunded!

But how do you know children won't eventually use chemistry, maths etc? We don't know what careers they will enter as an adult.

@noblegiraffe

It makes sense since a lot of the knowledge is forgotten because there is no use for it as they age.

So you have a utilitarian view of education? If it's not directly and immediately useful it shouldn't be taught?

I believe a child should be allowed to explore their own potential using tangible things. Kids and teens like to play with things - let's start with that assumption. If say they have an interest in cars, well, lets get them to design and build one, and slip in some maths and physics whilst we're at it.

We teach them abstract things that they are doomed to forget. If we teach them experiences then it'll stick for longer and they have an appreciation for how it pieces together.

As they get older, then the more abstract things will make more sense and there is a greater appreciation for knowledge.

The other issue is, 90% of the things you learn, you won't ever use. Whereas, if we explore the potential of each child on his own terms by allowing them to dabble and not force things onto them, and give them the freedom to find things that intrigue them, then we allow them to discover their own full potential.

Anyway, we adults don't remember half the things we learnt - why is this so controversial ?

This isn't an issue of "more knowledge", it's a case of kids being taught things that they have no material need for. It's not like they are design engines so that their is an actual need to use physics or chemistry or math.

I do actually design engines. Rocket engines. You never know what that child is going to be when they grow up. And if I’d had to start learning basic math and physics at age 18...that’s a good decade of adult me being useless.

What's with the hyperbole ? no one is saying stop teaching kids full stop, but that maybe the model we have adopted is not very effective. It makes sense since a lot of the knowledge is forgotten because there is no use for it as they age.

If you want people to answer the question "Does the education system need tweaking?" rather than "Is school points?" then it's probably worth asking it in the OP.

Anyway, maybe I'm unusual but I can recall quite a lot of what I learned at school. Even topics I hated like electrolysis and trigonometry. Even if a lot of what I learned in secondary education wasn't strictly necessary, it was interesting, useful, and provided me with a greater depth of knowledge about the world we live in.

I was going by what the article said.

I believe a child should be allowed to explore their own potential using tangible things. Kids and teens like to play with things - let's start with that assumption. If say they have an interest in cars, well, lets get them to design and build one, and slip in some maths and physics whilst we're at it.

Yeah and let's teach them maths by doing a bit of baking as well

If they haven't had a thorough grounding in maths, how do you think you will 'slip a bit of maths' into building a car?

Knowledge comes before application.

The other issue is, 90% of the things you learn, you won't ever use.

The problem is you can’t predict which 10% you will use and when. That’s why it is best to teach children a good foundation covering a wide range of things. Besides how is a child supposed to find out what they like if not exposed to many different types of knowledge?

@titchy

The irony of the grammar and basic errors in your posts.... and ask for asking what to look for in Afghanistan, well, maybe get yourself to some evening classes in current affairs.

How on earth do you think only teaching the very basics and some 'hands-on' knowledge (define hands-on) is going to help?

Or just watch the news? 🤷🏼‍♀️

@noblegiraffe

focus should be on hands on knowledge and given the freedom to dabble in things until they find something they enjoy

That'll be FIFA then.

😆

I believe a child should be allowed to explore their own potential using tangible things. Kids and teens like to play with things - let's start with that assumption. If say they have an interest in cars, well, lets get them to design and build one, and slip in some maths and physics whilst we're at it

So, are we designing individual lesson plans for each child. Or is there going to be some sort of rota of interests which all children have to learn?

@noblegiraffe

I believe a child should be allowed to explore their own potential using tangible things. Kids and teens like to play with things - let's start with that assumption. If say they have an interest in cars, well, lets get them to design and build one, and slip in some maths and physics whilst we're at it.

Yeah and let's teach them maths by doing a bit of baking as well

If they haven't had a thorough grounding in maths, how do you think you will 'slip a bit of maths' into building a car?

Knowledge comes before application.

No it doesn't. Knowledge of programming is not predicated on understanding machine code or x86 instruction sets. You learn programming and you work towards a lower level understanding. Engines can be built without fully understanding how they work or even working very efficiently (or maybe not at all), but this evolutionary approach allows for a kid to develop more skills than just abstract concepts he will probably forget anyway.

I've lived in the developing world, and I'm very grateful to have had an education that very few where I lived had access to - there wasn't a secondary school in (or anywhere near) the village where I worked. My education has given me options in life many of my colleagues couldn't have dreamed of. I wasn't married by 18, and I'm not a subsistence farmer. I haven't given my child a lethal dose of medication because I didn't understand the instructions on the packet - because not only can I read, but if I'm unsure I can check online etc. I don't go hungry for part of the year because I'm able to earn enough to ensure we always have enough food. I could continue....

define health, and happiness. The WEF definitions are based around the GDP which is ludicrous.
We have an obesity issue, addictions (sex, drugs, alcohol), and have you seen the levels of anxiety and depression as of late? The picture is more complex than educated or not.

You asked the question OP - I’ve responded - there are many other perils in the modern world that schools can’t solve. The parent is the principal educator - actively supporting the child and the school throughout. We have structured a society where that role is undervalued.

We are a nation of binge drinkers, we do not exercise enough, this can’t be fixed by schools, personal responsibility plays into this. Where people are drug addicted or addicted to alcohol - they are ill, they need proper medical care - which needs to be funded through tax. Mental health is a Cinderella service - but can’t be solved by schools alone.

@PlanDeRaccordement

The other issue is, 90% of the things you learn, you won't ever use.

The problem is you can’t predict which 10% you will use and when. That’s why it is best to teach children a good foundation covering a wide range of things. Besides how is a child supposed to find out what they like if not exposed to many different types of knowledge?

Disagree, that is inefficient. Allow the kid to explore his potential and find what interests him. We have to go by the data, and if 50% of brits don't know basic math, that's a big problem.

@bathorshower

I've lived in the developing world, and I'm very grateful to have had an education that very few where I lived had access to - there wasn't a secondary school in (or anywhere near) the village where I worked. My education has given me options in life many of my colleagues couldn't have dreamed of. I wasn't married by 18, and I'm not a subsistence farmer. I haven't given my child a lethal dose of medication because I didn't understand the instructions on the packet - because not only can I read, but if I'm unsure I can check online etc. I don't go hungry for part of the year because I'm able to earn enough to ensure we always have enough food. I could continue....

That's a straw man, read the discussion then comment.

Knowledge of programming is not predicated on understanding machine code or x86 instruction sets.

I didn't say it was.

But imagine your kid has decided on an engineering project. You decide to 'slip in a bit of maths', let's say, trigonometry. If your kid hasn't been taught anything about triangles, angles, how to rearrange or solve equations, then how exactly will you just 'slip it in'?

@pigcon1

define health, and happiness. The WEF definitions are based around the GDP which is ludicrous. We have an obesity issue, addictions (sex, drugs, alcohol), and have you seen the levels of anxiety and depression as of late? The picture is more complex than educated or not.

You asked the question OP - I’ve responded - there are many other perils in the modern world that schools can’t solve. The parent is the principal educator - actively supporting the child and the school throughout. We have structured a society where that role is undervalued.

We are a nation of binge drinkers, we do not exercise enough, this can’t be fixed by schools, personal responsibility plays into this. Where people are drug addicted or addicted to alcohol - they are ill, they need proper medical care - which needs to be funded through tax. Mental health is a Cinderella service - but can’t be solved by schools alone.

Strawman. 64% of brits are overweight (commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn03336/). The argument was educated societies are healthy, that is simply not true. Unless you are suggesting that "educated" societies are not so educated after all.

"Almost half the adults in England only have the maths skills of a primary school child, according to a report out today."

Primary maths covers a lot more than basic arithmetic. In fact, if 50% of adults can do Y6 maths I'd say that's bloody brilliant!

I meant if 50% can only do y6 maths...

So, are we designing individual lesson plans for each child. Or is there going to be some sort of rota of interests which all children have to learn?

My exact thoughts!! And what do you do for the kids that aren't Interested in anything??

It sounds like you've swallowed a load of the home ed hyperbole about how school is just a tool of oppression, totally useless and teaches children all the wrong things. Either that or you're a bored teenager who is fed up of being told what to do by adults.

No, the school education system isn't perfect by a long shot, and absolutely some children fall through the cracks. But schools have really moved on in many ways from these outdated stereotypes. It's far from pointless in my experience. There are a lot of good things in and about schools these days. Like many things, government cuts and an overload of paperwork don't help, and a huge part will be down to individual teachers. But in general as a system it broadly works and is convenient. There are wider social factors at play that prevent many children from accessing education through schools and they probably wouldn't do well with an autonomous approach any more than a top down one unfortunately.

I said that educated societies are healthier.. not that they are utopias (healthy!).

You asked - many have responded - what I can’t say is that I agree with you, but that’s ok too.