if all parents were all a little more 'hands off' wouldn't the schooling system be more relaxed again

[southeastastra]

and all children would walk to their local schools to mix with children who all also lived in the local community.

and children could be free to learn at their own pace. can't help but feel that 'helicopter parenting' really has buggered up the system

Yes, it's so easy to see the past as a Golden Age. It wasn't, it's just that back then many DCs from certain social backgrounds were expected to 'fail' academically both by society as a whole and even by their parents, as in 'not for the likes of us', thus were never directed towards academe. Though we laud the old grammar schools, the fact is, most were populated by the children of the middle class professionals, not the kids of coal miners, iyswim. No one measure dthe 'perfomance of ANY school child, let alone the 11+ failures, or, mor eto the point, non takers!

Its just that today all is measured, qualified, quantified.

Yes, many schools may not apparently be cutting the mustard, but, as has been said, how many DCs at those schools come from those 'not for the likes of us' backgrounds?

I agree, it's the NC causing the problems -- and parents are desperate because of it. Hence the helicoptering.

"Let's also remember that those parents we whinge about today, who have no interest in their children's education and no ability to help them with their homework are, by and large, a product of the old system."

No, they aren't. NC was introduced '88, I believe. An eleven year old in 88 is now thirty one.

Huge disparities between schools and the ability to jump between them by virtue of test scores (grammar) and tense-making ridiculousness such as handing out sealed envelopes for a divided class, plus classes that are too large.. make it so.

I've said before ds' school discourages seething and frothing in a variety of ways and it works. And Gramercy does have a point.

Far better is not good enough. How can whatever happend 30 years ago justify the abhorrent standatds of education in over half of the schools in the country?

By Rollmops Fri 18-Jun-10 12:53:21
The current system is so 'relaxed' it's comatose for all intents and purposes.
Over half of the schools are providing unacceptably low standards of education.
If parents didn't take control of the education of their children, the said children would leave school illiterateangry

Rollmops imagine you are Ofsted and in danger of being replaced by the new government are you going to say most schools are doing well or are you going to say most schools are "failing"?
Ofsted - "We are really needed because look at all the poor schools out there!"

Speaking as a teacher in the half judged good by Ofsted.

Sorry, non sequitur.
Ofsted inspects. Therefore is not directly involved in educating pupils and can be easily replaced with similar body.

Or are the Gov going to say - if half of the schools are crap then clearly this system of regulation provided by Ofsted is not working lets do something/use someone else?

Nothing like a new name and a shiny bit of branding to make everyone feel like standards are going to rise, new Gov like new management love change, make them feel like they are doing their job properly.

I'd imagine Ofsted are feeling like everyone else in the civil service atm - slightly nervous about the future of their jobs.

Sorry Rollmops I would argue it does follow as you are basing your assumption that over half the schools in the country have abhorrent standards purely based on reports from Ofsted Or are you telling me you have visited every school in England and are therefore in a position to judge yourself?

TheStarsWillShineTonight did you know that the people who actually conduct the inspections are private contractors ?

• CfBT Education Trust cover the contract area for the North www.cfbt.com/aboutus.aspx

• Serco Education cover the contract area for the Midlands www.serco.com/markets/education/about_us.asp

• Tribal Group cover the contract area for the South. www.tribalgroup.com/Aboutus/Pages/Welcome.aspx

I imagine they are feeling slightly nervous about their jobs though. Along with the LA advisors.... healthy schools advisors, RE advisors, extended schools advisors....

poor advisers

Mrz, again: "We are really needed because look at all the poor schools out there!"

Why would Ofsted be needed, they are not directly involved in educating, they inspect and to extent, regulate.

As half of the schools are failing - according to Ofsted - and that despite the regulations that have been put in place based of the very inspections of Ofsted, the agency has clearly not done a very good job, has it?

Rollmops, Ofsted keep changing the goalposts, which makes comparison between numbers of failing schools now, and failing schools two years ago, absolutely meaningless.

In a recent meeting (about Ofsted) we were shown video footage of a literacy lesson and were asked to grade it. Everyone in the room graded it 'unsatisfactory'. Two years ago this lesson was rated good-excellent by an Ofsted inspector.

Two years ago Ofsted inspectors concentrated on the teaching taking place. Now, they are concnetrating on the learning going on in the classroom and will ask children about what they are learning / have learnt during the lesson.

It is a totally different inspection regime, and has led to the increased numbers of 'satisfactory' and failing schools.

Sorry Rollmop I thought you realised that education is all about Ofsted and tests and papertrails and locked gates and tracking and ...you surely didn't think it was about teaching and pupils!

Mrz, isn't it wonderful that someone has realised that it isn't and there will be end to wasting resources on that useless yet bottomless pit.
However, the current education system is in a pathetic shape with or without inspection results. Ask any major employer, it's slim pickin's....
Our local Über-Outstanding-Fabulous Primary is a true example of dismal level of actual learning that takes place. Children get to dress up as a most nations in the world and role-play ad nauseam, but their reading levels are sad and grammar is terrifying.
Not tarring all outstanding schools, nor failing schools with the same brush, there always are exceptions, but.....

Well until education is about teaching and pupils things aren't going to improve.

Employers are not yet employing products of the 'literacy and numeracy strategies' and the concentration on core subjects. This year, 16 year-olds will be the first to leave school having had the benefits of a rigorous early english/maths education.

We'll see if there are any improvements noticed by the employers.

Education changes so radically, so often, that you can't make generalisations about current education practice based on the performance of people coming out of college.

but not all schools followed the literacy and numeracy strategies as they were never statutory

True, but you must admit that teaching has become much more rigorous in core subjects over the last 10-12 years.

I was just making the point that you can't comment on current educational standards based on the performance of adults in their twenties.

I'm afraid I've never been a fan of the strategies or framework

Me neither (particularly the framework which was obviously written by baboons), but I'm talking about core subject teaching being more rigorous. And the strategies have been useful in clarifying a skills progression.

It's strange, but when I started teaching in 1995, I hadn't even heard of an objective or a plenary! There's so much good practice that has been introduced to improve teaching over the last few years.

RollaCoasta said:

"Employers are not yet employing products of the 'literacy and numeracy strategies' and the concentration on core subjects. This year, 16 year-olds will be the first to leave school having had the benefits of a rigorous early english/maths education."

I have kept statistics on reading ages, for the secondary school I work at, for the past 10 years. The children who were the first to experience the National Literacy Strategy from YR (Reception) on (entered Y7 Sept 2005) showed a slight improvement in reading ages, but we still have between 40 -50% entering Y7 with a RA (Reading Age) below chronological age.

Now, statisticians tell me that this is all fine and dandy because there has to be a 'bell curve'with a distribution of scores on either side of the 'average'; but, if the NLS had improved anything the 'average' point of the curve should have noticeably shifted to the right and it hasn't. As far as the teaching of reading is concerned schools are no better now than they were before the NLS.

Interesting Maizie (and a bit disappointing) - but now you'll just have to wait for the products of synthetic phonics. (They're in Y4 at the moment!!! )

Keep those lists going!!

The children of some of our first synthetic phonics class are due to start nursery next year

Did you mean secondary school?

We were probably a bit delayed with the introduction then.... never even got any training here, so that all bodes well! KS1 SATs results certainly haven't been affected over the three years it's been in place(approx 30% L3, 60% L2 and 10% L1 each year) and spelling is dire (truly dire) .

Still, we're putting all our eggs in the expensive basket of Read Write Inc in September.....