Solving the crisis in state education

[judetheobscure]

Thought I'd start a new thread as the state vs private thread is soooo long; and wanted to focus more on possible solutions.

So, fwiw, here are some ideas (aimed at secondary level):

Abolish private schools
Abolish "religious" schools
Abolish grammar schools, foundation schools, CTCs (are they still called this) and any other form of "specialist" school.

Create across-the-board comprehensive system.

Insist on setting. No mixed-ability classes for academic subjects. Allow plenty of opportunity to move "up" and "down" the sets.

Have units within the schools for problem pupils. Remove them from classes as soon as they become disruptive.

Problem pupils who don't improve and who don't have parents that support the school to be sent to boarding schools. (Not necessarily boarding schools for disruptive pupils but normal boarding schools.)

Restrict higher education to top 20%(ish).
Bring back apprenticeships. (Where's a plumber when you need one).
Money saved on universities can go to restoring student grant and better funding for schools.

Train more teachers and train them better. Don't allow teacher training institutions to spend 90% of the course on educational debates and "gender issues" etc. Classroom management and subject specific skills are far more important.

Anything I've missed (tongue-in-cheek)

hmb - well done! Feel free to blow away!

This girl is disruptive and dissurbs others in the class regularly. If I am honest I didn't particularly like her much as she causes me so much grief each lesson. This placement visit has shown her in a completely new light and other teacher's have been very suprosed at my feedback about her. She is so in need of something else than a basic GCSE system.

I do agree that special needs students neeed alternatives too. This girl isn't special needs in terms of acedemic ability bt she is just as much in need of an alternative as well. Unfortunately the school system doesn't provide for these students very well yet.

As an example of how bad it can get for such students, a preganant teacher was assaulted at school last week. A pupil threw a chair at her in his temper. Just like what happened to me last year when 7 months pregnant. Last year not much happened about it - 2 days exclusion, no apologies, still teach him, he is still as rude and aggresive. This time it is being taken further and hopefully this pupil will be dealt with properly.

Congratulations hmb!!!

I think this is a great idea. It sounds similar to the school I taught in in Japan. Some academic work, but also vocational courses and very well respected. The kids left at 18 and went straight into blue collar jobs, but they all had their work lined up before they left school. I didn't come across anyone who didn't know what he/she would be doing when school finished. A couple of students went onto higher education- but literally a couple- no more. I found it quite eye opening, and suspected that in the UK these kids would have been written off for not being academic. I would love to see that system here.

One thing we do have here (although unfortunately almost exclusively in the private sector) is Steiner schools. They have no emphasis on exams and yet the kids leave to do almost anything, from Oxbridge to costume design to neurolinguistic programming.

I just wish this country wasn't so hung up on testing. Lets depoliticise education- and the health service while we're at it.

Just to back up what I and a few others have said about schools being selective through house prices, this is an extract from a Guardian article about our local school.

The school is so sought after that houses in its catchment area fetch up to 30 per cent more than similar ones elsewhere.
Nearby estate agent Maggs & Allen says a Thirties detached house just outside the area is likely to fetch £280,000, while a comparable property inside is likely to go for £360,000.

But why is politics different to religion? At least politics is real and religion isn't. Come on, someone argue my point, please!! I bet you'd all be livid at a political school but can't see why I feel the same about a church school. And Church schools do treat religion as true, and surely it's not a good thing for parents to have to tell their kids that the teachers are talking rubbish? I agree that selection by house prices isn't right, but at least the state-funded schools aren't actively rejecting children because of their parents' beliefs. How can anyone think that right? I am really interested to hear anyone defend that point.

Oh, and churches may have done lots of things way back in history, including burning folk at the stake, but I don't necessarily think that entitles them to state funding. And no, they didn't invent education!!

I agree with you aloha - ban church schools - yes - a large number of them must be peddling untruths (well they can't all be right!) and anyway it's unfair - all schools should be equal.

Also agree with others that it should be a choice whether or not to pursue the academic or the vocational route or perhaps have some flexibilty in the system - maybe a 25% vocational / 75% academic option and vice versa.

Aloha, I can see you need some support here, so I'll be brave, stick my head out and try but I'm not as eloquent as you. I totally agree with you, I am against religion (was raised a Catholic FWIW) and would not like my child to go to a religious school. I didn't realise, before I read this thread, that in the UK even non-religious state school teach RE (or have I misunderstood?) and that horrifies me. IMO religion should have no place in school and all schools should accept everyone regardless of their religious beliefs.

I completely understand the comparison with politics and it is beyond me how people can't see the point you're making.

I grew up in a country where there is no religion at school, state school anyway. That doesn't mean we weren't taught about or made aware of the importance of christianity in our culture. In fact one teacher made us study the bible, but not in a religious way, only in a literary/historical way, in the same way that we studied the Odysee for instance.

This is my first post on a controversial thread and I'm a bit scared so I'll quickly duck down again.

well siad mammya - no need to duck just yet

I agree with Aloha school is not the place for religious teaching. It is a matter of personal choice and should be a family thing. I don't send my child to school to be indoctrinated into a religion. They don't teach them politics but they are 'beliefs' like religion is.

part state funded religious schools - and if you dont agree dont send your kids there. religeos schools have certain ethos and principles - and saying religeon isnt real could be construde as being offensive.
if i go to church every week have a certain set of faith ideologies i want my kids to learn in a school envorinment to promote a certain culture from within and if i contribute to its funding - then its up to me isnt it.

I pay lots of tax into the NHS. And my friends in London are being offered nuchal scans. I was not allowed a nuchal scan on the NHS because our area does not offer it. But I have paid towards theirs. So is the solution to offer nobody one? That would seem like a negative step to me.

It seems to me that one type of school does not suit everybody. In trying to make everybody the same, will we not end up with total mediocrity? If you don't want your child to have a religious education, then don't send your child to a church school. I do want my children to have a religious education, and for that reason will apply to church schools. I have the choice of 2 primary schools to apply to, (though am not guaranteed into either obviously), and whilst one does fantastically well in the league tables, the other is a church school, and for that reason will most likely be my first choice. If parents who want their children to have a religious eductaion send their children to church schools, then it means the other schools are free to offer a secular education, without parents feeling their children are missing out.

And the church did invent schools - right back to monasteries, they taught people how to read. And unless you were really rich, the church was later on your only means of education. I

Anyway, getting back to the title of the message, this is what I would do if I were prime minister and wanted to sort out the education system.

It seems to me that the biggest problem with the state system is they try and pigeon hole everybody into having the same needs, thereby missing what a large proportion of the kids do need, and I'm sure lots of behavioural problems come from that. For example, if you want to go down the university road, then the path is obvious - GCSEs, AS, UCAS form A2s. But, if you want to be a car mechanic then it is not so easy.

SO....I would divide every school into 2 parts on the same site - academic and non-academic. Up to 12 or 13 every child would follow a core curriculum of a mixture of academic and non-academic subjects (but they could have choices after choosing their basic subjects). Then, instead of doing GCSEs they would switch onto a module system, where they could choose a set number of modules, which could be from either side of the school, but would basically take them down an academic or non-academic route. For those who chose the non-academic route, they could still, say, take a language or two, do some maths and science, but basically be doing subjects such as design, mechanics, plumbing...

Then...at 16, they would choose whether to go on to A levels (and as long as they had done say three academic subjects, this ought to be open to all students), in which case they can then follow the traditional route, or (and this is the bit I'm proud of), leave school at 16. BUT...the school should have links with local industries, because the biggest problem seems to be finding appropriate training at 16. So, link every school with local industries, have some sort of application process for apprenticeships, and an advisor in the school who knows about applying for these things, and there you have it - a second route out of school, but more structured than just 'leave school at 16 and get a job'. I'm sure this would motivate less academically minded children more, and would be much more valuable than them sitting sweating over simultaneous equations and reflexive verbs.

Sorry this is long!

How can it be right for a school to reject pupils because of their parent's beliefs? As a bald statement, no of course it's not right. I agree. (though as an aside, further down the thread here, some teachers were saying that unsupportive parents made pupils more unruly. The worst of these should be taken out of mainstream school. So pupils with parents who don't believe in school are possibly more at risk of being excluded than pupils of parents who do believe in school). Is this wrong also?

But is church attendance the main evidence of your beliefs? to some it will be, to others it won't be. Some who go to church might have a strong but general belief in the power of goodness, take some of the church's teachings to heart. Some who attend church truly try to believe in every word that's said and follow the church line closely.

Church attendance seems to be the main critieria for selection at church schools. If you feel you can attend church only if you believe in all the church teachings, then you have a moral problem. If you believe you can attend church, yet not follow the church line on everything, then you don't have problem.

Your church school may be not be oversubscribed, and/or may have a liberal admissions policy so you don't have to do much if anything to show evidence of church attendance. Your church school may be oversubcribed and/or have a strict admissions policy - much more than church attendance. So parent's beliefs are put on der the spotlight.

So it's difficult to generalise about church schools or the parents of pupils. IMO. (must dash - children are fighting over gameboy!)

Our local church primary does its selection purely on siblings/geography, and parents beliefs or church attendance are not an issue. But, the education itself will be a Christian one.

mammya - I agree with you, no need to duck down

dottyparker:-

'if i contribute to its funding - then its up to me isnt it. '

Well, no. That's what is unfair. We all contribute to funding religious schools whether we support them or not. The state contributes far more towards funding them than their congregations do. But those of us who aren't church members have a lot less say in how they are run. The church has a built-in majority on the governing body of a church school, so that even if a majority of parents are non-believers, their views will have little effect.

Aloha, the only reason I'm not arguing your point is that I agree with you 100% and think you put it very clearly.

But we all contribute to prisons, and don't expect a say on how they are run, or who should go or not.

I really think the problem here isn't having the church schools, it's the lack of good places anywhere else. It seems like those of you who are against church schools wouldn't want your kids to have that sort of education anyway, so it's not really that you particularly want them to get into that school. In the same way that if there were aloha's political schools, as long as there was somewhere for your child to go to that you were sympathetic to, then does it matter whether some children are having a more political education. So maybe the thing to do isn't get rid of schools which are doing well (i.e. the church schools), but to improve the secular schools. If you were guaranteed a place at a non-church school that you were happy with, then would you care about the existence of church schools? Surely the issue isn't to make all schools exactly the same, but to give parents a choice on the sort of education they want. I would be very sad if church schools were abolished, because I think it important for my children to have that religious upbringing. But I wouldn't want all schools to impose that on the children, and I'm sure you don't want that either.

Just reread that - didn't mean 'lack of good places anywhere else' - meant really shortage of good places in some areas - I know there are good non-church schools! Just meant that you can't always guarantee a place at a good school.

Musica, it seems to me that you are missing one important point that those of us that are against religious schools are making: what we object to (well one of the things we object to) is that we have to pay for those schools through our taxes, even though they exclude our children. The fact that we wouldn't want our children to go to such a school is true but that's another issue.

No, I do understand that point - what I mean is that, given that we all want an education for our children, wouldn't it be better to have different sorts of schools available. All we are paying for really is for the places for our children. And if you specifically don't want a religious education, then you wouldn't want to get into a church school anyway - as long as there was a place at a school you wanted for your child. There are lots of things we support with our taxes that we are excluded from. And certainly the church schools in our area don't exclude nonChurch going people anyway.

Batters, I agree with what you say about vocational subjects. It has taken a long time for them to be accepted as equals. Hopefully with the increase in vocational GCSEs and A-Levels this will contune to increase their equality. Part of our problem here is that only one system seems to be accepted as the norm - GCSEs, A-Level, Uni. I would just love to see something for those pupils where school doesn't work for them.

Aloha - of course schools teach politics. For example they teach that vaccination is a great discovery and that it has saved thousands of lives. Now I would dispute that "fact", but it doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't be taught.

for some people religious beliefs are facts- for me thier not. Things which are taught as "facts" often aren't- in almost everything there is a shade of grey. However schools almost have to teach everything as black and white as they are teaching for exams. Hopefully at the same time children learn to enquire and make up their own minds.

The idea about having more vocational subjects as a well respected alternative sounds great. I mean, I don't want a stupid nursery nurse or plumber... it's been my experience that school-smart people do very well at these jobs too. It's not either/or, obviously. (To be honest, I've found I've had the best luck with the very intelligent builders, whereas a really stupid inorganic chemist is of no harm to anyone.)

Robinw, just wanted to say that I finally get what you said about the governors. That's what really matters and why I'm starting to like voluntary controlled schools and be very upset by voluntary aided schools. I didn't understand anything when this all started-- it's been very educating and interesting. Anyway, I still don't agree with you, but it's been great to learn all of this. Thinking of you and your mum...