State education system, is it broken?

[minimathsmouse]

I believe the wheels have fallen off the state education system. You might not agree but I have read so many posts here from parents who have had and are still having huge problems with their child's school. Many people seem to have worries about standards of teaching, clashes of ideology and problems with making up the deficit with tutors and home study. Horrendous SEN provission, huge class sizes, lack of provision for able pupils, the list goes on. It is truely depressing to think so many children are not receiving the education they deserve.

How many people believe the whole system has failed? Are falling standards only due to poor teaching or wider problems that are not being addressed within the system?

Appletrees - the problem with your argument is that you are not listening to those who disagree with you. I am not saying that the core skills are not of crucial importance (in fact, if you read my messages, I specifically say that they are - given my academic background, I would hardly deem them to be of limited importance or let my children near a state school if I thought it didn't also view these skills in this way). I am merely disagreeing with you wholeheartedly that, in the state schools I have volunteered in and sent my children to, they are not already seen as paramount and taught extremely well, ensuring that all children do indeed leave the school with appropriately high levels of literacy and numeracy.

In other words, I disagree with you that every school is failing its children and therefore that every school should change its current methodology - because it isn't necessary in many cases. It stands to reason, therefore, that I don't believe current teaching practices are doomed to failure, as clearly they aren't in many schools. Therefore, if it works in some, including schools in areas of deprivation and traditionally low academic achievement, it is just as capable of working in all as your scheme of things (ie if you change it to your approach, you will still have schools that are failing their children, in addition to yet more upheaval in the education system that does not bring about the desired results but merely further reduces morale).

So, why change everything for everyone as you suggest - ie throw the baby out with the bathwater - as though everything that is currently done in state education is doomed to failure????? And why dismiss so casually absolutely everything that doesn't specifically come under the banners of literacy and numeracy? It's not as if you are not practising your reading, writing and thinking skills in other areas of the curriculum - you are in fact applying them to a particular topic of interest. So I really cannot get my head around what it is about working on particular topics that you do not like. Do you think it is dangerous to learn about Victorians in primary school - even though in doing so you are having to read about them, talk about them and write about them?????????

In other words, for those of us who are not being failed by state education, your view of what is currently the case just doesn't fit with what we see. And therefore, as we try to understand what exactly it is that you want to change and what you don't, we get rather confused. Some of the time, it sounds as though the only thing you really want to change is when you do PE and art during the day, because actually, by making numeracy and literacy interesting, you are describing what goes on in my dss' school already.

Appletrees Wed 17-Nov-10 10:53:25

"Does it not occur to you that German core skills may be good not because of playtime until the age of six, but because of intensive core skills learning for the first four years of education after that? Or because the demands and expectations of early streaming mean great pressure to achieve in core skills?"

But what about Finland (still leading the world in education)? What about Sweden (which used to lead the world in my day)?
No intensive early pressure there.

Nurseries are plentiful and well staffed, but lay heavy emphasis on practical skills and crafts rather than drilling in the 3 'Rs: a typical Scandinavian 4yo can be expected to help prepare his own lunch and recognise common poisonous mushrooms, but is less likely to be able to write his own name. Yet when they do start learning to read they usually do so very quickly.

From my own Swedish childhood, I do not remember any expectation that we would learn to read before the age of 7. What I do remember was that the core skills of reading and writing were closely related to subjects such as geography and history: we learnt to read and write in a context .

I have never felt that the fact that I was expected to be able to bake a cake unsupervised before I was expected to be able to read has in any way detracted from my later academic experience- and I was a very academic child.

ps Appletrees - would be interested to know if you (or anyone else) is aware of any research that indicates that family involvement in the education process has little or no effect on educational achievement in other countries. After all, you are saying that it should not have any effect, or should not be required, so it would be useful when comparing education systems to see what goes on elsewhere and how involved families are in other countries with their children's education.

"To start from the beginning: parents are being asked to listen to their child read, because teachers have no time: they are being asked to practise their times tables, because they won't be learnt in school time: they are being asked to supervise homework which one must assume is essential to learning or why hand it out to five and six year olds. Methodologies at the moment therefore do not allow for crucial skills (this cruciality is not accepted by rabbit, but there we go) to be learned during six hours of school time. These are facts."

Er..no, they're not. Parents are asked to listen to their children read because they need to practise the skills they have been taught. They will also get the practice at school, but some children will accelerate because they practise more at home.

You are asked to supervise homework where set because some parents want to feel involved in their children's education. You don't have to, and it doesn't matter hugely whether you do or not, since it shoiuld be designed to be possible to do independently.

Tables are learnt in school time - where on earth do you get the idea that they are not? Like any skill, they benefit from practice - are you saying that just because they need practice, therefore we cannot possibly be teaching them properly at school? That's ridiculous.

In response to your first post rabbitstew: yes you did eventually accept that they were a priority, after earlier questioning their importance and setting them down as merely "useful".

No, I don't think all schools are bad, not at all. It's clear that they aren't. It's equally, and absolutely, clear that despite the fact that some schools are great, many schools are failing to instil core skills. We can't just say, well it's alright over here for my kids.

That's like being told that half the world is starving and retorting, well my fridge is full. Or that a fifth of people need state support and saying well I've got enough money, why do anything about it?

We have a National Curriculum. It's not working, nationally. It's not supporting the children who most need it. Change is needed. I explained very clearly one of the main reasons why it doesn't work for all -- because it relies too heavily on parental involvement and is thus doomed to failure for large parts of the population.

If you like the idea of different types of schools for different demographic areas then you could make a case for that, though I wouldn't agree with it. It would mean making assumptions about the type of parents and children who are likely to fail, and that would not suit the social mobility road crew at all. Of which I'm one, of course!

What exactly would be lost? For the great prize of improved core skills? Very little. Y1-4 a focus on core skills? Plus art, drama, and so on in the afternoon -- obviously you approve, as you like the way things are done in your school at the moment. Very little would be lost.

This constantly recurring idea, that we use literacy skills in topic work. This is true. I've said it myself. But if literacy is not the focus then how much use is it as a core skill task? It's obvious that if you are writing in Y3 you need to write about something, so it can be the Romans or the rainforest: but make literacy the focus and not the topic. Enormous emphasis at the moment is placed on attractive posters, or powerpoint design, or projects with half the work done by the parent. Replace that emphasis with an emphasis on core skills. Which DO include use of adjectives, flow, connectivity etc etc.

Once those core skills, achievement and enthusiasm are there, Y5 and Y6 are two years for expanding into humanities and homework.

I would also say, I agree very much with education on the various intelligences we have. Emotional, kinesthetic and so on. It's tremendously important and would instil in children the value of respecting every member of the class for their abilities and intuitions. It's the sort of thing I imagine would suit an afternoon a week of discussion and role play. I don't think it features much in UK education but it's about encouraging the children to be self-reliant, to respect themselves and to use intiative.

Feenie: my last child has just left primary. Certainly he was not listened to reading by teachers throughout school, on a regular basis. None of my three were, but I can accept that things have changed since my oldest went through. But not my youngest -- who doesn't know his times tables because he's the youngest and I didn't devote time to it. He's only reading now because I have the time to listen and read with him. Do I blame the school? A bit, though as I have the skills and ability to reinforce school teaching, and the full awareness of how important they are, I obviously blame myself more. But for the parents who haven't a clue how or why, how could I blame them? Their children will lose out. It plainly is working in some schools. But not in all, kids are leaving school without knowing these things.

Reading at home isn't just practise. When the teacher listens once a half term (my situation) it's how your kid learns to read. If tt's aren't learned by rote in school, they are learned (by rote) at home. What's the difference?

PRACTICE

the shame

I feel for Beta because one of the main reasons people choose independent for primary, ime, and one of the reasons independent primaries can be more successful, imo, is because they don't have to follow the NC. Rotten to go independent and then find the NC is looming over you still.

You are still describing a school I do not recognise, Appletrees. And btw, I have never been asked by my dss' school to help them prepare powerpoint presentations, etc. Nor have I ever felt that literacy takes a back seat when my children practice writing poems about African animals, etc. I think the problem is, you are dumbing everything down to the lowest common denominator - you seem to think that some children are only capable of gaining good literacy and numeracy skills if they focus on them specifically and unremittingly for several years - in a partial vacuum. I think you are underestimating the learning abilities of children.

And no, it is not like saying half the world is starving but I'm alright. If schools currently can succeed in a variety of demographic areas, then they are not universally failing the poor and starving, are they? Some are failing the reasonably well off, too - and others are doing a fantastic job.

ps maybe some children are only capable of learning good literacy and numeracy skills if they focus on them specifically and unremittingly, I just don't think that is the case for the majority and don't think that the majority should be deliberately held back for the benefit of the minority - I do think that more work should be put into the minority.

pps Appletrees - you say you are aware of the importance of reinforcing school learning at home and feel guilty for not doing it. Why don't you want the message to be passed on to less well educated parents?

Is it really difficult for a parent to encourage their child to practise their times tables, if the parent is allowed to look at the answers?

And if a parent can't read or write, should there not be any encouragement for them to go back and try to learn for the benefit of their children?

held back? It doesn't hold them back.. why does it hold them back?

It doesn't matter how many messages you give - that's not the point. I agree with remedial learning for adults, but it takes time. We don't have that time.

Lucky for you that you don't recognise the school.

You know you mentioned not listening and not reading what other people say. I'm getting the impression that you are not reading what I'm saying and listening to that, particularly in my longer posts earlier. It seems you cherry pick and then set up straw man situations.

Having said that, I do accept that Tarquin and his sequin-encrusted powerpoint had a touch of the straw about it!

Well, maybe thats an important point. Maybe we are generalizing too much - the State system is broken for/in some schools, but not others.

How the system is put into practice counts a fair bit.

x post

I read some research about Home Ed which looked at "who home educates?" It was found in the study that over half the parents had not undertaken degree level study. It was also found that the children from these families DID not do less well at age 11 than the children of graduates.

Eli was it you who earlier used the word "patchy"? It was very appropriate. The system at the moment isn't fair, with the different qualities of education offered by the state, even under the aegis of a so-called national curriculum. It seems like a lottery.

Patchy, yes but how can this be overcome and will a return to the 3Rs make any difference?

Mini, one school we attended did not allow parents in school to listen to early readers because we were not trained. Same school where the teacher listened once every half term. Very slow progression in reading there.

I agree (if this is what you're saying) that parental interest and attention can be much more important than level of education. But some parents have had such poor PRIMARY education that they can't even see the significance of involvement and couldn't help at all if they did.

In what way might Free schools and accademies equalise the chances of all children within all schools. Will this improve levels of attainment in every school? I don't think Gove and Co have a clue.

If anything a lot of what appletrees suggests makes sense, but how can this scheme be applied to ALL schools, will all schools/teachers use simillar methods of teaching and will this work for every child?

But why talk of a return to the 3Rs? People who "disagree" with me say their school is doing very well with the 3Rs, and they know the 3Rs are a priority etc etc, so why change.

If the 3Rs are a priority, and we have moved away from them, then we need to move back. If the 3Rs are not a priority, well there's not much I can say to convince anybody and I'll just put a bag over my head. I can't see the sense in that argument at all.

If they are a priority we should ensure they are instilled.

I'd like to add a quickie point: I see ICT as the 4th R, as it were, and I'd prioritise that too.

Or did NOT....

Appletrees - all you are really saying is that many schools are failing their children. All I am really saying is that many school are not failing their children. Yes, I agree something has to be done about failing schools. No, I do not agree that your solution would solve the problem. Yes, it might work in some schools in some areas, but I think it might result in a several tier system as per your earlier paragraph:

"If you like the idea of different types of schools for different demographic areas then you could make a case for that, though I wouldn't agree with it. It would mean making assumptions about the type of parents and children who are likely to fail, and that would not suit the social mobility road crew at all. Of which I'm one, of course!"

In other words, I think it could just as easily add to the problems of social inequality as reduce them.