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?

That's what happens if you give too much power to the politically unaccountable... privatising everything, indeed...

Maybe the City has threatened to move to China, or has actually been in league with China all along. Nothing like threatening to move the West's main income source to a communist country with capitalist leanings and a vast population to scare the West into submission - particularly since they would then be making all the goods and controlling all the finance. The City can't help it - they are all just communist puppets.

I think maybe I should start my own conspiracy theory wepage, I think I'm getting good at the mad logic.

And now I am, truly and honestly going to bed. I have enjoyed spewing out all my thought processes to a slumbering world.

Rabbitstew for president! (Can I be your campaign manager?)

Got carried away by Rabbitstew, so just read the OP carefully. It depresses me to read such a negative OP. Teachers in my school (and many others I know) work so hard to give your children a good enjoyable, fun and stimulating education. We do work long hours and we have challenging targets to meet for performance management.

I see many comments on mn that could easily be solved by a five minute chat to the teacher. Posting on MN often makes a mountain out of a molehill (reading levels, homework, the private/state argument / KS1 SATs misunderstanding, etc).

So, please, evaluate MN comments for what they're worth, with a slightly cynical eye.

However... as a teacher, MN is invaluable for assessing the current focus of opinion. (That's not a flippant remark at all.) I even used a quote from MN for our Forest School meeting!

I rely on MN as an invaluable source of information and support, too. It's just that when I see whole value judgments being made out of the molehills that people see in front of them, I like to point out the real mountains as I see them...

I don't want to run this country (although thanks for the vote, stoat!!!), I respect the fact that our politicians have an almost impossible job to do themselves and are at least willing to have a go at it and try to give us some leadership, which we all need, just as good schools need good leadership. But I do want people to get away from the petty carping about the details without once looking up for a view of the bigger picture and what our lives are all about. We can't fix schools if we don't know what we want out of life and society. We are all either so inward looking or not outward looking enough when we attempt to form our opinions and I get so frustrated that this results in us all floundering around in the difficulties of trying to decide how to get the balance right between totally free markets and altruism. Or more specifically, how to encourage more of us to be a bit more altruistic in our dealings with others, rather than relying on just the few who are naturally more altruistic than is good for them... How on earth do we reduce the human inclination to be manipulative one way or the other, without losing creativity? That seems to me what real political argument is about, and how we deal with our schools is really affected by our political philosophy.

But long live mumsnet in terms of all the micro advice that is given, which I have found invaluable over the last few years. And hearing other peoples' opinions is useful in giving yourself a raincheck, even if you don't like them.

"Why do we have to bow to such infidelity? Because the market which nearly ruined us all is stronger than the nations which gave it shelter?" Hear hear Rabbitstew. One of the main reasons governments can not make fundemental changes, is because the county, indeed the world is not run by politicians.

I believe we live in a partial democracy too, where certain people have far fewer choices than others. A serious discussion on state schooling must include reference to economic and political factors effecting and shaping it.

Stoatsrevenege, I the original poster, mentioned in the OP reading depressing personal stories on mn. I do find it depressing, I wonder, are this many children being failed? Or more precisely are their parents expectations not being met? I just wanted to promote a serious discussion, that actually didn't focus too much on personal experiences but took in the wider picture.

Interestingly, many people who post personal gripes and complaints, advice to others from personal exp etc moved away from the thread very early on. I wonder, do people want solutions, or are people as Rabbitstew points out, just very inward looking.

Mini - sorry that sounded a bit defensive on my part. Didn't mean to!

I think it's a bit of both - some children are being failed and some parents are very pushy.

As a forum about primary education, MN obviously attracts people who are interested in their children's education (sometimes, it would seem, too interested ).

As parents are 'letting their children go' for the first time, parents of young children have demands that the school needs to address - social, emotional and academic. This is a huge area of responsibility for the school, and we can't hope to please everyone. This is where MN comes in useful, so people can vent spleen about what they're unhappy about. If you analysed all the posts, I think the subject matter would be very narrow (e.g. reading books (levels and how often books are changed); private/state debate; toiletting; KS1 SATs; phonics; writing; giftedness). I guess it's just an improvement on the school-gate - where you can ask sensible questions without any gossip or bias, and get useful answers.

I also think that many parents of young children expect their children to progress linearly - you know - 'learnt that last week, learn the next thing this week', and they feel that they're not making sufficient progress (and many blame it on the teacher). They don't understand that children need teaching the same thing over and over again. They can only take in a certain amount at a time, as they haven't yet built a big enough scaffold to hang their learning on. Doing things again and again reinforces learning and prepares them for the next step. I think, when parents criticise teaching, their child sometimes hasn't been ready to take that next step.

Because of the narrow demographic, I don't think MN represents views of all users of the state school system, and I certainly don't think that the system is falling in ruins around us. I think it's too rigorously controlled for that.

On the other hand - I find some of the comments about what is happening in some schools totally shocking and wonder how they get through their Ofsteds!

Hear, hear, stoatsrevenge.

Although sadly, I think we are only in agreement because we agree about the aims of education. Some parents genuinely seem to think that school should only focus on the purely academic and that social and emotional development can develop just fine on their own with the right parental support or simply as a result of academic needs being met. They therefore view great swathes of the curriculum as a waste of time. I fundamentally disagree that all children can learn adequate social and emotional skills in that way or that education is all about the academic. This is partly as a result of my personal and political philosophy - as well as personal experience.

I also disagree that all children will be emotionally ready for school if we wait long enough. I know, for example, that my ds was academically ready for school at age 4, but not socially or emotionally ready. He would not have wanted to stay in a totally play-based style environment waiting to be socially ready before he was taught to read - which he could already do. He benefited from being in an environment with other children who were socially and emotionally superior but academically behind.

I also think the other children benefited from my ds being advanced academically. They could all admire each others' gifts! And there I go again, having several thoughts in a short space of time...

Then there's the issue of children behind in all areas...

Back to the more general again, then!

I still think that with the possible exception of the absolute extremes, at primary level at the least we can benefit from all being educated together. Secondary education and its purpose are another issue.

Maybe lots of people mistakenly view their children as one of the extremes, in need of special and different measures!

Sorry, stoatsrevenge, I will stop going round in circles and ending up repeating what you and I have already said, now.

I absolutely and totally agree that we start pushing children before they are adequately socialised. More than ever, the workplace is a team arena - working and collaborating, co-operating, sharing ideas, listening and evaluating, making decisions, taking risks.

I really like the way primary ed has developed over the last few years (it was always a bit of an unlikely dream for me!): out + indoor play in YR, with a play centred curriculum; YR/Y1 transition - play based trickling into 'real work'; creative curriculum; clear phonics schemes, differentiated from the very beginning; outdoor learning.... fantastic! Now, If we re-named YR and Y1 'kindergarten', we'd be almost there!

I do wish people would stop thinking that children don't learn anything through play - in Forest School on Friday, one of the girls (Y2) made a seesasw for the elves and hung it on a tree. She found out the the length of the twig had to be the same on each side of the pivot... oh! Eureka! Equilibrium!)

.... and that's why I'm scared about what Michael Gove REALLY thinks.....

Exactly - politics again!

Those with right-wing views often tend to have a more going-back-to-the-old-fashioned-educational-techniques bias than those with left wing views, but not always. Old methods are often equated with the "ruling classes" and a belief that some people are designed to be leaders and others followers and that the potential leaders should be kept separate from the rest, treated differently and educated in a different way. And those who haven't directly experienced modern techniques (which is most adults) tend to be wary of them unless they understand their aims and philosophy and agree with these.

Traditional versus modern... Or just stick with the status quo for now, regardless of what he thinks... which will it be?

And of course, Tories and Labour have moved on from the old debates and more or less mimic each other these days in many areas!

I suspect the old rigid ideas are still hidden in the background, though, but not coherently expressed, even in the minds of the politicians, which is why they all come across as so insincere a lot of the time - no-one believes that they believe what is coming out of their mouths. They haven't developed a coherent new philosophy to make sense of what they are saying.

Watch this:

WOW!!!! That is exactly where I'm coming from! We aren't all agreed on the purpose of education, yet, but we're still all making suggestions on how to change it!

Michael Gove hasn't got a * clue.

I love the "Ted" lectures

The problem with the UK education system is politics, financial vested interests, and a lack of adequately trained teachers.

Children in education need stability, and not radical change after each General Election.
We need better trained teachers who understand how children learn as well as know the content of the subject they are employed to teach. We have too many instructors, who do not have much teaching ability.

There are too many companies trying to sell and market their teaching programs supported sometimes by some very dubious research. A favourite trick is not to publish the research results which do not support their program. (See the small print for terms such as "90% of those who completed the course", how many did not complete the course and why.)

Some education disabilities are diagnosed by companies who have their own agendas and are not always working in the best interest of the child. Nearly all educational disabilities have one or more underlying medical or cognitive causes. These issues should be clinically diagnosed by the NHS, not private companies some of which are non profit organisations with charity status.

Teachers and those in the education system should not be involved in the diagnostic process. They may be able to provide referrals for further clinical investigation and or assessment.

As in most advanced countries formal education should not start until the ager of maturation 7 - * years old so that all children have developed their cognitive abilities and have begun to develop coping strategies using their cognitive strengths to compensate for their cognitive weaknesses. So that when they begin formal education they have all stopped growing out of developmental issues.

But what is formal education? I think sometimes it's even little things like this that result in misunderstandings - it's taking too much for granted. To most people, "formal education" still means the 3 Rs, taught fairly traditionally. Or teaching to read or write, by whatever methods. Surely "formal education" is teaching how to think and appreciate the world around us and our place in the world, not simply how to read, write and add up (although it must include learning to read, write and add up)? But if we aren't agreed on that, then we are all arguing at cross purposes - I will object because my child won't need to be taught how to read by the time he's 7 because he learnt independently at age 3, so will want more out of it than that, panicking that otherwise he will be sitting in a classroom finding life a bit boring etc, etc, etc. I won't object if I'm told he will be learning how to use his brain flexibly and share ideas and what that means and how it is done. I won't object if I'm told he will be learning to think about his place in the world and in his community, still improving his physical skills etc, etc. "Formal learning" as a phrase doesn't sit well with me - it's like saying we should change how things are done up to age 7 and then revert to what we've always done.