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?

This thread has made me think I think they should introduce some flexibility in starting school, ie having some criteria for readiness rather than age.

I think a lot of issues in the early years reported on here might be due to some kids not being ready for school and other being way ahead developmentally.

What do people think of that?

Claygate

Freeing schools to respond to learner needs is one thing BUT in essence forcing schools to do what parents want is entirely another.

'Freedom' at the moment seems to be based on whether the Conservatives approve of you. If you are a teacher or academic, then you are piss ignorant and need to accept that choice ultimately resides in parents. If a GP you have to accept full responsibility for primary care provision, even if you don't want to or know your expertise in oncology are limited.

And that seems to me a real problem-not 'freedom' in itself, but the belief that education is not something that can be settled using rational debate, but using a market, as if the expertise of trained professionals, learners and parents were equal.

AdelaofBlois, I could kiss you. (Unusually for me, I'm not in the mood for an academic debate this pm, but wanting to express my approval!).

Hear hear, Adela.

(Sorry, nothing to add to this debate - but Adela your name intrigued me so Wiki'd it - likin' it! )

Adela, you've put it in a nutshell - couldn't agree with you more.

Adela, you speak quite a bit of sense. However, are you saying that the pushy parents, usually mc, are a hinderance instead of of help to effectively delivering a good education? Seems to go against the complaints that it is precisely the lack of those pushy mc parents which hold back some state schools.

Thank you for such positive comments.

No, sofaqueen I'm not, or not as bluntly as that, and am not sure how many think mc parents offer advantages because 'pushy' or for many other reasons.

Most teachers I have seen recognise that good education is a partnership-that parents will know things about their pupils they might not, and that being willing to explain to parents why and how something is done produces better outcomes all round. And most teachers can justify decisions, and are willing to do so, since they are educators in the broadest sense. And obviously that's easier if parents are concerned with education and questioning about it.

But it doesn't work if it isn't reciprocated-if the parent isn't interested in the expertise or knowledge of the teacher, or the curriculum as a whole, or a range of aims for their child's development, and is basically 'pushing' for something to be done that might be disadvantageous. And I see it at the moment in a child who has been given flashcards to read from 18 months, yet can't work unless constantly badgered and has no sign of intellectual curiosity, and whose parents just will not listen to the teacher. And it's beating the real academic drive out of what may be a talented child.

And that's the problem that I find so often, a real confrontational lack of respect for teachers and other parents, a 'pushiness' that is not about questioning but about telling.

I have no idea how free schools and curriculum reforms will work, but there is something very frightening about the idea that the model is one where parents decide, not where all those concerned with children discuss and rationally arrive at outcomes, as if education were simply a matter of different choices, like buying a car, and all you have to do is empower consumers properly.

Blimey, that was long, threw away the 'nutshell' praise a bit quickly. Hope I've not replaced it with 'nutcase'.

I think some middle class parents unfairly lack faith in their schools and teachers and push in the wrong way for the wrong things at the wrong time. These parents think they know more about what to expect from their child and how to achieve it than the people they are supposed to be relying on to teach their children. Middle class parents who generally trust and support their teachers (and this doesn't have to be totally uncritically), respect their expertise, agree with the aims and philosophy of their school, wish to support the school actively, and ask how they can actually help and be helped with any problems they feel their children are suffering, rather than doing all the telling, have a much more positive experience and sometimes even learn something about themselves and their children in the process. These parents understand that whilst in many ways they know their child best, they don't necessarily know how to teach their child best (after all, if we did, then more of us would home educate).

All teachers do sometimes make mistakes, sometimes there are genuinely bad teachers and schools, sometimes there are problems with discipline in the classroom - but not nearly so often as some middle class parents seem to think. The problem with all the bad publicity about State schools is that it creates a climate of fear, or middle class angst, in which parents start to panic about the quality of their child's education, question what they once might have accepted, and generally act like a bunch of terrified wolves caught in a trap, fighting to get out.

Middle class parents have the potential to be a colossal help to state education. Some of them don't reach their potential!!!!!

Ah, I see I am in agreement with AdelaofBlois yet again, but was too busy typing when she posted her last response!!!

Adela and rabbit, you both speak a lot of sense!

I'll tell you another thing that annoys me, while I'm on my soapbox... We are constantly being told that it is a good thing for more and more people to go to university and pay more and more to do so, because if you go to university you will on average earn more than those who didn't. It stands to reason that the more we increase university numbers, the less that will be the case. This is for several reasons, one being that, because attending university does not increase the country's wealth, it does not increase the number of high-paid jobs on offer - that requires people with ambition, entrepreneurialship, talent, etc, who if we want them to set up businesses capable of and needing to employ highly educated people will probably need to have been to university, but they won't by and large have learnt those skills at university. So, it is not so much the university degree that brings the wealth as the personality and ability that is using that degree.

Also, why on earth do we want to pass the message on to young people that they should go to university so that they can earn more over their lifetimes???!!!!!!! That is not at all what we actually want and need - for everyone at the end of university to go around chasing the jobs that pay the most, without considering the actual contribution those jobs make to society. We actually want more people to chase the jobs that don't necessarily pay incredibly high sums, working as scientists in labs, working as teachers, working as social workers, working in engineering, working in areas of computing that don't necessarily lead them to become Bill Gates. If these jobs had more prestige and respect, they might attract better candidates, rather than being left over to those who didn't do quite well enough to become lawyers, accountants and bankers. At the moment, respect seems to equate more to the size of your salary and the noise of your voice than the use of your job to the people around you. In other words, salary and usefulness seem to have virtually no connection, because we are all chasing either the salary or the profit we can personally make at the moment.

ps whilst I know that this doesn't relate directly to primary education, it does relate to my point that the education process is a long continuum and we need to keep in sight of what our long term aim in education is at all times in order to allow the education system to make sense. Yes, ensure basic literacy and numeracy standards are high by the end of primary school, and ensure that those who do not go to university still have the right skills to be able to contribute something immediately in their working lives, but no, don't forget why we are doing that and what our ultimate aim is, because that will help dictate HOW the aim is achieved.

pps I'm not saying that accountants, lawyers and bankers can't be useful, either (I am a qualified lawyer...), just that we shouldn't give people the impression that these people are more useful than everyone else, just because they can generate themselves very large profits. They do actually need other people to help run a civilised society - and people who are willing to exercise their considerable skills in areas that do not directly generate money.

ppps I do think some people are overpaid and others underpaid and undervalued, and lived with a colossal sense of guilt as a result when I was working in that field...

... but it did fit my skillset.

Rabbitstew, you are on a roll!

I agree partly about middle class angst, but it does not have to be negative.

At out local, mainly middle class state primary, lots of parents chip in, as they understand for example that in a class of 34, the teacher can not do a lot of one-on-one reading in Y1 (essential at this age). As a fair few parents do not work, or work part time (single income households) a lot of them come in and help for an hour or two with one on one reading.

Also, I am a typical Mid cl. parent, and quite anxious, and often have a chat with the teacher, but never to TELL her what to do, always to ask how I can help my DC, and I always feel we (teacher and I) have the same goal.

I think middle class parents can actually be very useful to a school! We also have an after school running club, set up by two dads, and a writing club (teacher and a parent run this) and a gardening club (a dad again). I don't get the overly-involved- middle-class-parent bashing really, I think they can be a positive influence for a school.

Ah, Chandon - but you agree with me! I said there were two types of middle class parent, the genuinely pushy and those who actually want to be helpful. I often chat with my children's teachers, too, but always to find out and try to understand, not to dictate - my belief is that the teachers know what they are doing, but that I also need to understand so that I can be on board with it. It appears to be the school's belief, too, given the number of attempts they make to invite more parents into the school. I also volunteer in many different ways at the school in ways that the school appears to think are helpful. In other words, I try to work with the school and help it, not carp at it for failing my children.

I think part of the problem is lack of time and stress - some parents dash in, make a complaint and then dash off to work without the time to listen to the explanations, feeling harassed that they appear to need to do more than that to get their worries through to the teacher. In other words, some parents suffer from a lack of time, and unfairly blame the teachers for this. Others are so stressed by recognising they have a lack of time that they just become negative about everything and think they can't change things and that there's nobody else out there trying to help change things for them.

And then I think of my reasoning for not wanting to become a social worker - nobody thanks you for it, you have no respect, nobody ever does anything other than point out your failings, and you don't get paid enough to put up with all that - much more tempting to become a lawyer, someone who is listened to and respected for their intelligence if not always their altruism. Altruism has little currency. There aren't even many people left who can at least rely on the thought that God might thank them any more, because few people believe in God - they want recognition on earth to validate their internal feelings. I would certainly want recognition on earth to validate my internal feelings if I were a social worker! That's why I'm not a social worker - that and I don't think I'd have the stomach for the tougher aspects of the job. We should admire people who have the ability to cope with day upon day of mixing with misery and trying to improve things.

So, people should be held to account in a constructive way. At the moment, everyone is too destructive and critical.

Sorry, not everyone. The way many journalists report things doesn't help, though.

Rant over for now!!!!!!!

And then there are my opinions on the current Government's attempts to encourage more altruism at the same time as allowing the requisite amount of self-interest required to run a successful capitalist economy... I think they have the balance wrong - they are effectively asking for too much altruistic work to be done for free or virtually nothing, by volunteers with no expertise. And where will they get these volunteers from? Well, the most wealthy and capable are often already pretty busy earning money and aren't time rich. They are also sometimes spending more money than they should on paying people to tell them how to avoid paying tax, then salving their consciences by giving money to charities which, whilst absolutely essential, cannot and should not replace state provision - not if we really do all object to patchy and occasionally unprofessional services. The people left with a bit of time to actually volunteer for free or otherwise get involved are often the less adequate people who need the services in the first place - so we are effectively asking them to run their own services to look after themselves, or rely on people with agendas that do not actually include thinking of their needs to run things for them, which is a bit unfair.

How can we free up more time for the less needy to actually help the paid professionals to help the needy? I don't think we can do this by telling people to run their own schools and ports and look after their own forests. Nor do I think we are generating the necessary goodwill in the way we are going about things at the moment to encourage the already very busy to get even busier. We are all getting far too scared about the cost of living to want to be helpful at the expense of our own personal gain. I am one of an increasing minority who can actually afford to help for nothing without it damaging my and my children's future excessively - but only if I feel I can rely on state education, etc, to help me to do this. Otherwise, I will go back to my highly paid job in order to pay for my children's private education and private health care, and won't have the time or inclination to get involved any more.

So, how on earth do we all get out of this mess??!!!!

I agree, betelguese. I think this shows that we need better co-ordination between schools, not increasing diversity of types of school, methods of funding and general educational intentions.