The General Conversation Area

[ayase]

anyone who thinks just dumping all the most troubled, challenged and disruptive kids all in one class will work, is sadly mistaken. In my experience it amounted to this: half of the class is stoned, one guy whips his knob out and tries to convince one of the girls to perform fellatio (and even achieves an extent of success on occasion), at least one boy is hyper aggressive and succeeds in chasing our teacher out of the class at some point, after which everybody either starts smoking cigarettes out the window or assume the lesson finished and leave.

I'm not exaggerating, in fact it was often much worse! We had a different teacher for every subject (accept our science teacher, everybody liked her) virtually every two weeks, because no one could handle teaching these classes, or just gave up trying to teach us. It was completely fruitless.

I meant kicked out of the education system altogether. Since we don't believe in corporal punishment in schools any more and those people's parents clearly shouldered no responsibility for them then tough, no-one can help them now. Pack them off to the colonies or something.

 

[Vashdaman]

I've spoken to almost no-one who disagrees with this, including a non-trivial number of people I know who work in education in different ways

Of course, teachers are often the biggest critics of assessments like SAT's, as it increases stress and hamper the performance of them, as well as the pupils. And I agree that it can be considered something of a symptom of the society as opposed to 'the root cause', but I think it's more of an overall and deliberate general shift towards this certain direction on all fronts. One goes in hand with the other, but I think a change is absolutely vital, as far as I'm concerned it just can't continue, it's failing too many.

But, at some stage, you also have to consider to what extent does any one individual deserve to have concentrated resources (both in terms of man-power, money, time, and a variety of other things) directed their way just because they are struggling? Compared with other species, Homo sapiens do not do so badly in this regard imo.

But do you think all the demographics of pupils are having an equal amount of resources directed their way? There are some serious issues within our society that we all seemingly want solved, but unless we take the education seriously, and deeply consider how we can improve it for the groups of children who are deemed to be 'failing' in comparison to other pupils, then we don't really want these issues resolved.

I meant kicked out of the education system altogether. Since we don't believe in corporal punishment in schools any more and those people's parents clearly shouldered no responsibility for them then tough, no-one can help them now. Pack them off to the colonies or something.

But then your not even trying to solve anything. your just giving up on a huge amount of kids, everything would just worse if this was ever implemented. Why don't you try and find the causes for the problem first, before you condemn these kids?

 

[ayase]

I meant kicked out of the education system altogether. Since we don't believe in corporal punishment in schools any more and those people's parents clearly shouldered no responsibility for them then tough, no-one can help them now. Pack them off to the colonies or something.

But then your not even trying to solve anything. your just giving up on a huge amount of kids, everything would just worse if this was ever implemented. Why don't you try and find the causes for the problem first, before you condemn these kids?

I've already established the cause - Their parents have failed to raise them as functioning individuals, which it is their responsibility (and theirs alone) to do. While it's a shame that some kids have useless parents they shouldn't be allowed to disrupt the learning environment for those who want to learn, no matter what their abilities. I'm trying to solve the problem for the kids who aren't creating a problem in the first place.

And that's it - to my mind school should be made up of ability focused groups of kids who want to be there. Those who don't want to be there can simply leave. It's not like there are going to be any jobs for them at the other end of the system anyway. Perhaps they'll become tomorrow's violent revolutionaries, I wouldn't begrudge them that.

 

[Vashdaman]

I can understand your overall point to an extent, but why do you think these parents are failing their children, what's the cause? And when we look at the specific groups who are achieving the least, such as the afro- Caribbean example I gave in my previous post, why are they failing? Are parents of afro-Caribbean descent just worse at parenting? I don't think it's just the parents that are failing the children, I think it's also the structure and content of our mandatory education system.

 

[ayase]

I think some of it is probably just handed down, some of it is whatever else people's lives have shaped them into - Which can be quite random. I don't see people reacting well to the idea that the state might mandate how people raise their children, so I think we're stuck with the way things are for the foreseeable future. The luckiest will be born intelligent into a caring, wealthy family. The unluckiest will be born stupid into a poor, abusive family. You draw a straw when you're born. It's not fair, but then life isn't.

“Idealism is what precedes experience, cynicism is what follows.” Another one for your quote thread there. No matter how much people want the world to be right and fair, you can't increase someone's intelligence, provide equally for everyone or make all parents care for their children. You just can't.

 

[ilmaestro]

But do you think all the demographics of pupils are having an equal amount of resources directed their way?

Probably not, but again I think this is something that affects them before they get into certain levels of education. There were children at my school from all sorts of backgrounds, and once they got to the school they started off on an equal footing. But I would agree that before that point it is likely that they weren't provided equal "life opportunity" to get there, despite the forced and false pushes the government likes to make from time to time.

 

[Rui]

Very interesting discussion, especially as for me (since I left so early I don't have much experience of how things are in other schools).

I think part of the problem with the kids who don't want to be there is that some people don't mature at the government-mandated pace, and if they took a year or so out to get some experience and came back they'd probably do better and be less troublesome. On TV shows I see schools where people are made to repeat a year or boosted to a later year to go faster, but from my experience this was never an option at all no matter what happened. Of course, both are seen as social suicide, but if it was the standard way things were done and managed properly it might be less awkward.

I think streaming by ability would definitely work - if it was done properly (which it isn't) and all of the different levels were properly catered for. I remember in my school that the lowest sets for some subjects, while nowhere near as bad as vash describes at his school, were full of people who often complained of being dumped with the worst teachers with no chance to improve.

Because my school was a single sex establishment, I remember that they liked to promote 'girl-friendly' ways of learning like reenacting scenes as dramas or using demonstrations rather than traditional learning techniques, which is another aspect of the same problem. I am biologically female but I most definitely respond best to what are viewed as 'male' learning techniques, and I'm sure the converse is true for a lot of boys who would benefit from the weird stuff my school was doing. This is similar to what vash was saying about experimenting with different teaching techniques. In my school, they tried to do exactly that but made the same mistake and only accomplished alienating a different demographic. For me personally it wasn't really the core problem at all but if they segregated by ability and also aptitude for learning in different ways, I think a number of underachievers might find themselves a lot better off.

R

 

[ilmaestro]

I think part of the problem with the kids who don't want to be there is that some people don't mature at the government-mandated pace, and if they took a year or so out to get some experience and came back they'd probably do better and be less troublesome.

We need a :headnod: gif for me to use here.

And not just troublesome kids who would potentially have a year to mature in the sense of "calm down", but also kids who aren't emotionally developed enough to interact with the sort of peer groups that are forced on you at, as you say, pre-defined ages. My sister is very "young" for her age, she stayed in school until sixth form (for literally a matter of days) but then dropped out and went to a local college the following year (longer story omitted) - the year off did her the world of good in terms of getting her self confidence back together, and I'm sure there are others in similar positions who don't get that opportunity - at different stages of education - or don't think they have that opportunity.

This is only accentuated at the lower end of education. When I first started school, we had new starters at Easter as well as in September, so that kids weren't coming into school potentially days after their qualifying birthday. I don't know how common this is now - if it even still exists - never mind the potentially controversial nature of being forced into education at such a young age anyway.

 

[Rui]

I think I was also "young" for my age emotionally, so I can relate to that. There was no way I could have figured out (let alone articulated) what the problems I was having were, or solved them, and I didn't get to that point until much later on in my life. Relating to my peer group was similarly difficult and I've never kept in contact with anyone from that time as a result. It was fortunate that my base mindset lent itself to academic attainment in spite of this; if my personality had been any different I'd probably have become one of those problem kids in vash's classes ^^;

One of my brothers is five years old and he changes so much on even a weekly basis that the way we expect kids a year younger than others to be at the same stage of development blows my mind. The other kids in his class are all at completely different levels of maturity, too, ranging from very childish and insecure, to confident and ripe for learning, to hyperactive and bored by the slow pace. My brother finds it boring too (even though he's one of the younger ones and very naughty), as they've spent most of the year learning things my father already taught him before he started. What a waste of time.

R

 

[ayase]

There are of course alternative forms of education such as the Waldorf/Steiner system which by all accounts is good for some people, and would certainly be something I would consider were I ever to have children. These alternatives do already exist, but at a price. And this is the thing. State run education already costs a lot, and if we want to offer everybody a tailor made education to reach their absolute potential then it is going to cost a f*cking bomb. And who's going to pay for it, the taxpayer? That would be really popular, especially with people who don't have children and are already subsidising those who do with child benefits.

In a capitalist society like ours with a state safety net, better services are available but cost extra; that's one of the things which is supposed to drive people to better themselves. If the state just gives people everything to the highest standards then where is the motivation for anyone to try? The state is there to provide a basic level of service and if you want a better level of service, you can pay for it. If you want it but find you can't afford it, then society is functioning correctly - That feeling is supposed to motivate you to earn the money to enable you to afford it. Unfortunately a lot of people seem to be more motivated to simply whine about it instead, the same goes for many people's attitudes to the NHS.

 

[Vashdaman]

I agree very much with Rui and Mae's view on age maturity and the like, as it is absolutely true, not everybody matures at the perceived 'normal' rate, and even within a school year some of the youngest are almost a year apart from the older ones. I would definitely agree that our system should be more flexible to take this into consideration.

As for streaming, well I'm not so convinced that this is the only way to go, as many schools seem to currently think. There are plenty of other methods that have proven to be successful, but it would just require classes to be done in a different manner than the standard set-up, but the people who run our education seem to be unwilling to try. And of course, by nearly all accounts streaming has so far proven to usually fail the pupils in the lower sets. However, Rui's points are still valid, as streaming never had a hope in hell with the incredibly poor way most schools implement it. Pupils are often streamed into lower sets based on behaviour and attitude ( and quite often percieved behaviour and attitude's as much as legitimate ones) as opposed to academic ability, but then create a self fulfilling prophecy. And this is obviously a stupid thing to do, yet they keep doing it.


@ ayase

I agree that models like the Steiner model, do offer a genuine (and in many ways superior IMO) alternative to this mainstream model. But as you know, many children cannot afford to have that choice, and it's damn shame as many children who couldn't cope with state schooling often thrive Steiner schools. I'm not content to just say, "oh well if you afford it, looks like stuck with the poorly functioning and incompetent school system". Claiming that our state run schools should be **** in order to motivate people, is quite frankly one of the most silly things I've ever heard. It's not much different from claiming that slave trading should exist so to motivate black people to be born with white skin next time. Our government seems to be happy enough to spend tax payers money on illegitimate wars, so I don't see why some extra money can't be put into education. And it's not even just about spending money, it's about correcting things that are just plain stupid, like for example our National curriculum, if it was so good why does nearly every privately run school reject it?

 

[ayase]

Claiming that our state run schools should be **** in order to motivate people, is quite frankly one of the most silly things I've ever heard. It's not much different from claiming that slave trading should exist so to motivate black people to be born with white skin next time.

No it isn't, that's a very silly analogy. People can motivate themselves and change their financial circumstances, in Britain it is within people's power to do so - Difficult yes, but easier than escaping slavery or changing your skin colour. Like I say, I wasn't particularly satisfied with my state education either - But my response to that would be to have enough money to afford something better for my children. Indeed, my attitude to children full stop is that I won't have any unless I am able afford a better quality of life for them than I have had. What's the point in bringing children into a life with a low standard of living, poor education and little prospect of employment? It's almost as if some people want their children to suffer.

And I didn't ever say state education should be **** or shouldn't be reformed, just that I don't think it's fair to spend much more of people's money on it than we already do, and that better, private options are available and in my opinion should continue to be.

 

[Vashdaman]

Yeah, but what can the children do about it? It doesn't motivate anybody (or at least very few), it just punishes the next generation with a poor education. The problem is that most parents do not realise how inadequate state schooling is, and often neither do children. Hence why when they fail, it's always their fault, never the schools.

But I don't have problem with private schools continuing, as I said some of them do offer a good alternative, it's just one that few can afford. So I would like improvements made to our current state schooling system. This was my only point.

 

[ayase]

Yeah, but what can the children do about it? It doesn't motivate anybody (or at least very few), it just punishes the next generation with a poor education. The problem is that most parents do not realise how inadequate state schooling is, and often neither do children. Hence why when they fail, it's always their fault, never the schools.

I'll agree that it is largely out of the children's hands, yes. But that was my point, that ultimately parents are responsible for their children so it's up to them to do what they can for them; whether that's to invest in a better education or at the very least, bring them up so as not be so disruptive that they have a negative effect on other children's state education!

And it would motivate me, as I've said. Yes, the system is somewhat corrupt and some who would probably rise to the top if given the chance don't get one, and some who by all rights should sink to the bottom are able to stay at the top. Until they are adults responsible for themselves this is all still within their parents' control however, and as (hopefully) responsible adults themselves, they should be the ones to take responsibility for the well-being of their children. Sometimes they don't, and I think it is largely parents who are failing their children, rather than the State or the education system.

 

[Rui]

My parents could not have afforded to send me to a paid school; perhaps by the times my siblings rolled around but definitely not for me. Actually, that would probably have been a better outcome, ironically, but I'm a freak

If they insist on making it law to be in education then I feel it's their duty to make that education sufficiently broad, otherwise the government are just forcing failure and misery on everyone involved. The NHS is a good parallel except you're not obliged to go to a doctor when you're ill - it's something that comes naturally.

A lot of the changes that would help wouldn't greatly add to costs (my aforementioned posh grammar school at least could have managed it). Educators already waste countless millions each year investing in gimmicks to improve learning, yet the underlying system seems to be as miserable as it was in my day.

An anecdote from my five year old brother's life: he was taught to count, read and (to a limited extent) write before school by his parents. When he went to school, those parents were actually told off for teaching him outdated things like the alphabet instead of the phonic system they use nowadays, and told that it would have been better if my brother hadn't been taught anything at all before starting(!). The teacher then wasted months of her life unteaching my brother the alphabet for spelling and teaching him phonics from scratch. I don't understand what the point was in telling him he was wrong constantly for spelling things out; surely the human mind can cope with learning both? My brother's school disagrees, because it's easier for them if he sucks at phonics than if he is skilled at English in general. It's this kind of mass production attitude to learning that completely turns me off the education system.

R

 

[ayase]

An anecdote from my five year old brother's life: he was taught to count, read and (to a limited extent) write before school by his parents. When he went to school, those parents were actually told off for teaching him outdated things like the alphabet instead of the phonic system they use nowadays, and told that it would have been better if my brother hadn't been taught anything at all before starting(!). The teacher then wasted months of her life unteaching my brother the alphabet for spelling and teaching him phonics from scratch. I don't understand what the point was in telling him he was wrong constantly for spelling things out; surely the human mind can cope with learning both? My brother's school disagrees, because it's easier for them if he sucks at phonics than if he is skilled at English in general. It's this kind of mass production attitude to learning that completely turns me off the education system.

In which case I would promptly take him out of that school, tell them where to shove it and send him to another one. I think we have to stop thinking of ourselves as being entitled to a certain quality of service and start thinking of ourselves more as consumers free to shop around - If you're not satisfied with how a school is being run, don't patronise it in the same way you wouldn't patronise a badly run restaurant. Competition does wonders for quality of service. Not everyone can afford it I know (my parents couldn't have done either) but as I say, I'm of the opinion people shouldn't even be having children in the first place if they can't afford them.

 

[ilmaestro]

Yes, the back-and-forth between phonics and other methods (ones I like to refer to as "actually learning English" and other such controversial suggestions) is one of the more hair-tearing things in modern education imo. I doubt your brother's story is one in isolation.

When I was entered into my primary school the only thing they suggested to my parents was not to teach me how to write, but as an intelligent and inquisitive child it was far too late for that. Who doesn't want to be able to write things like their own name and such, once they are aware of the concept?

 

[chaos]

....On TV shows I see schools where people are made to repeat a year....

Let me just see if I got this right. You don't fail a year in school here? If you do fail, what happens?
I've failed my junior year at high school (too much drinking and playing pool to be bother to show sober for tests) and I had to repeat all subjects even those I've passed. The whole experience helped me mature a lot faster and in a warm, I do find that to have had a positive impact on me.

 

[ilmaestro]

There is no real pass/fail criteria at the vast majority of schools in the country. You could be kicked out for some reason, though.

--

New world record set today at Fenway Park for the largest recorded toast at one venue. Unfortunately, this wasn't just a massive piece of bread.

 

[Rui]

Drinking and playing pool? You ruffian, Chaos!

I have never seen anyone fail a year at school here. If you do anything bad enough to warrant that, you'd generally just be expelled. I guess you can fail to be accepted for A Levels or Uni but that's not really the same as being held back for a normal year of education.

R