What should the state's role in education be?

[SDeuchars]

I'm starting this thread because I almost posted something about it in the "Reasons" thread.

In What should the state's role in education be?, Dale Bassett (Senior Researcher at the independent think-tank Reform) argues that the education industry should return to its core business of "academics":

There's no doubt, then, that the state has massively expanded what it offers (and
compels) in terms of pre-18 education. We have gotten used to the idea that the state
should do increasingly more in education, in terms of both prescription and provision. This
has come at a huge cost, with per pupil funding now more than double the level of
1997-98. But is it really the state's job to be getting involved in everything from childcare
to cookery? And does all this activity distract from what really matters - kids learning the
knowledge and skills they need to go on to bigger and better things?

As he points out:

it?s the poor who are failed most. Children on free school meals are half as likely to get
five good GCSEs as those who are not.

The problem is that for some families (and you can't easily predict which ones) if the State doesn't get involved in all the other things, then the children will not be in any position to get the knowledge and skills they need to improve their chances in life.

eg providing before-school childcare with a breakfast - this increases the chances of some children coming to school with enough food in them to be able to focus on learning

It's the sort of thing where hopefully a small cost intervention when they are still young will make them less likely to end up with more expensive intervention later, or a life on benefits.

Ok, I'll kick this off by stating that imo schools are required to do too much. In attempting to ameliorate the effects of poverty & social disadvantage the core academic, educational purpose has suffered.

There are also statistics for 'looked after' children and their chances of succeeding in education.
My grandson comes under that categorisation. As soon as he started school, I very quickly became aware that the attitude of the headteacher was just that and my grandson's card was marked from thereonin.
This, among other things was the reason why he has been home educated since and he is doing very well.

I agree, Marjorie. A friend of mine (Indian Trinidadian) living in SW London almost all the DCs lives had a son and a daughter in the same secondary. The younger DC was written off by the school ('black boys do badly') and lived up to that reputation. After working in a fitness club and going off the rails for a couple of years, he realised that he could do more and went to university to do forensic science.

AMIS, the problem is that the help is not targetted. For example, because Sure Start seemed to improve the chances of disadvantaged children, there was a decision to get all children into nursery.

Most of what is done in education is not based on any evidence whatsoever. Oliver James, for example, suggests that lack of opportunity for a baby to bond with a small number of carers is yielding the behavioural problems we are seeing in infant classes. However, government wants to have all adults in work, so it provides incentives such as nursery vouchers and inappropriate parenting is blamed for bad behaviour of 7yo children.

Similarly, a recent meta-study showed that there has been no increase in attainment in literacy between 1948 and 2009. However, that does not stop the government fiddling with the early education system and starting children earlier and earlier, despite anecdotal evidence from parents (and home educators) that that does not help and may even make things worse.

I have been copy-editing a GCSE book on ICT and I am appalled by the propaganda in it. And I hear that other subjects also contain propaganda (not including stuff to do with religion).

It should be a home-school partnership. I am not at all keen on 'wrap around' childcare. School shouldn't be a baby sitting service or have to teach DCs things they should learn at home-like how to use a knife and fork.
The whole school system needs a rethink on what it is for. One size doesn't fit all.

Academic achievement isn't the be all and end all. We do not need huge numbers going to university.

There should be pride in practical subjects.

I am very anti the grammar school system and pro comprehensives, but they have somehow missed their way.

I went to a secondary modern school, in fact I went to 2 different ones and they were both excellent. They didn't treat everyone the same, they had everyone from those, like me, who needed an academic education and went on to university and those who could barely read or write.

Those who struggled stayed with one teacher for the basic subjects, he knew them well but they mixed with everyone for PE, music etc. The second one had it's own farm, it was a rural area, and they worked around that.I did O'levels and went on to the grammar school.

We should have pride in those who can do woodwork etc and they should be just as valued. Unfortunately now it is DT and there is a lot of theory rather than skill teaching. It is the same with cookery -it is now food technology and involves a lot of theory.

Children who could be motivated by being very good at something and working basic literacy and maths around it are put off.

Money needs to be spent at the start with small classes-it would pay off later.

I like one primary school that I know where they have an input day on Monday and then they work at their own pace, choosing when to do the work-for the other days. If they want to do all the Maths on one day they can. They have a personal planner with 'must do', 'should do'and 'could do' and if the first isn't finished by Friday they take it home. They rarely have to-they like the responsibility and the control it gives them.
Schools are getting away from the national curriculum-for example they are getting back to working through topic and they have days where they go cross curricular and 5yr olds work with 11yr old-all through the ages.
It just needs more of it-more scope and vision and putting the DC in the centre, instead of expecting the same hoops at the same time.

Basically the government should stop interfering.

piscesmoon - I was with you up to the point of you being anti Grammar Schools. GS was a great way for poorer families to improve their (bright) children's life chances. As apposed to mediocrity for all.

It used to be Chatalaine-but not these days-you only have to read on here about the tutoring and practise papers and it gives the middle classes a very unfair advantage. They trot out the 'way out for poorer families' knowing that they would claw the place for their DC if they could! I can't see them saying 'my DC only got it through two yrs of intense tutoring-it must go to the really bright DC who hasn't had the chance to practise!!

I also think it absolutely disgusting that DCs were thrown on the scrap heap at 11 yrs of age! (It happened to me and I can tell you that that is what it felt like). It sorts the top from the bottom but it can't sort those in the middle-a line has to be drawn between 2 DCs who are the same.

It is also a complete nonsense. My brother failed at 11+. He then passed at 12+ and at the age of 13 he went into the high flyers fast track of the grammar school. He was the same DC!! It was a complete waste of talent. You only have to look on Friends Reunited to see my old 'failure' classmates who have had all sorts of careers in all walks of life.

In contrast there were those who took up a grammar school place and left school at 16 yrs. A few people went up-none went down. I wouldn't mind it if there was a change at the end of each year as they were reassessed.

In contrast, in the comprehensive then can go up and down in streams-they are not written off. My DSs comprehensive isn't mediocre-it regularly sends DCs to top universities. My DSs have done extremely well. Unfortunately it tries to get everyone to that level-some get disillusioned and opt out with poor behaviour etc.

I never understand why bright DCs of poorer families deserve to have their life's chances improved and yet the less bright should know their place and stay poor!!

I think the major problem with the old grammar school system was that it was a pass or fail system, rather than a 'let's see what sort of school would suit your talents best'.

I did hope when they introduced the 'Specialist College' system that it would go more towards that but it doesn't. We applied for DS1 to go to a good school because it was a languages specialist college and he's really good at languages. Unfortunately we don't live in the catchment area so he didn't get in (it's also a very 'good' school). Every school in the town is a 'specialist college' so why do they still have catchment areas.

And they really don't have schools that cater for children who like practical subjects (as well as making the practical subjects more 'academic' with lots of writing to do!)

The main problem is that we have tried to give everyone a grammar school education because that is what the education system 'values'. And it isn't working for many people.

Well put Tinuviel.

SDeuchars what's the 'propaganda' in the ICT book- can you quote any of it?- or is it secret?

My first response was: if school is not going to do those kinds of things, will the parents? It would be quite a culture shock, I imagine. But actually I've found, with the subjects the article is discussing such as cooking, childcare, money management, arts and crafts, I have taught myself as the need arises in adult life, which I think is the best, most effective way as your motivation for learning is at its highest.

But, you need the skills to teach yourself. It won't matter what subjects, academic or otherwise, the schools provide if it's not going to stop children being put off learning for life, as so many are.

It also motivates a lot of DCs for life. Many a famous person puts down their success to one particular teacher who inspired or motivated them.
I would have been sadly lacking. I love reading and history but I have 3 DSs and only one reads for pleasure-all dropped history at the first opportunity.
DS1 is the scientist-I hated it as a subject-he did it at degree level.
DS2 is the one good with his hands-but not in the way that I am good with my hands.
DS3 is the artistic one, he takes after my father (who died before he was born and so couldn't help in any way) I marvel at his drawings-mine are at infantile level.
I am very thankful that school provided them with the level of teaching, motivation and encouragement that they required. I would have failed them badly if I had taken it upon myself. (I can't see the point in paying tutors, just so they didn't have to mix,when it all came free at school).
A good teacher is worth their weight in gold!