Poor UK education standards

It is your “chalk face” . . . so carry-on.

Apologies for harking back to the dark days of 1986 !!
So 3 and a half decades ago? That's the sort of time I was born, it's before a lot of current trainee teachers were born, it's before quite a few parents of the current secondary school kids were born.

Self discipline, social awareness, personal responsibility, acceptable norms of “good behaviour”, should all have been instilled, encouraged, and established before secondary school.
On that I totally agree with you. The point is that for a minority of children they aren't. Wishful thinking about belting them does not change that failure of parenting.

The argument may be about encouraging self-discipline . . . but, if there are - clearly - no repercussions for NOT behaving, then expect the problems you have now . . . and to which you teachers then subject the greater population, when the feral little sods leave the school gates, for good.
In the nicest possible way, get fucked. Are you blaming the parents for their uncontrollable little shits or total lack of interest in their offspring's education? The sad fact is that by the time a child gets to secondary school their personality, attitude and likely exam grades are usually mapped out by that stage.

No, I am NOT a teacher, but for the last ten year, I have been transporting those excluded from mainstream schooling, to their designated “Special” places of education.

Those “excluded”, would be the ones with “no limits”, the ones unaware of their personal responsibilities; the ones who have themselves NOW been failed by the liberal, “right-on”, self-expression, personal development, individual fulfilment, that has failed society as a whole - and the individuals - for at least a couple of generations.
Thanks. If you want to make some attempt at fixing the system the answer is not normalising violence between teacher and student. What would make a big difference is if schools could get rid of the nasty violent disruptive students that ruin their own education and the education of other students around them.

Currently to be expelled requires consistent shit behaviour over a period of at least 6 months, a behaviour management plan to be drawn up, evidence collected from anyone involved, meetings between senior teachers and management and governors, a 'managed move' to a different school, that managed move to fail, then repeat the above process a couple more times before it's finally decided that child is not suitable to remain in school.

The local authority are still legally required to provide an education so thousands of pounds will be spent providing an online education through a 'virtual school' or the student will be referred to a PRU.
 

lextalionis

Old-Salt
It'd be relatively easy to think of a good curriculum. Indeed, the current National Curriculum for England is very good, but few schools, if any, actually bother to teach it. I've known primary schools never really teach history. Instead, they teach "themes" spending weeks, for example, talking about Victorians in random, haphazard manner.

Then again, that's not what schools are for. They are a form of mass childcare in which, if the little buggers manage to learn something, all the better. The exams are a form of selection for the professions and, usually, for the better things in life. They do that job well enough.

There's not much point trying to reform schools. The good schools are usually private and, although less often these days, grammar and church schools. The same awful pupils with the same awful parents end up going to the same awful schools with pitiable teachers at their wits end. After six months of getting fatter and more stupid (thanks to Wu Flu), they might be glad to go back.

A good education can be had with the right books, tutors and a half-decent school. It's not hard, just rarely done.
 
So 3 and a half decades ago? That's the sort of time I was born, it's before a lot of current trainee teachers were born, it's before quite a few parents of the current secondary school kids were born.

On that I totally agree with you. The point is that for a minority of children they aren't. Wishful thinking about belting them does not change that failure of parenting.

In the nicest possible way, get fucked. Are you blaming the parents for their uncontrollable little shits or total lack of interest in their offspring's education? The sad fact is that by the time a child gets to secondary school their personality, attitude and likely exam grades are usually mapped out by that stage.

Thanks. If you want to make some attempt at fixing the system the answer is not normalising violence between teacher and student.
What would make a big difference is if schools could get rid of the nasty violent disruptive students that ruin their own education and the education of other students around them.

Currently to be expelled requires consistent shit behaviour over a period of at least 6 months, a behaviour management plan to be drawn up, evidence collected from anyone involved, meetings between senior teachers and management and governors, a 'managed move' to a different school, that managed move to fail, then repeat the above process a couple more times before it's finally decided that child is not suitable to remain in school.

The local authority are still legally required to provide an education so thousands of pounds will be spent providing an online education through a 'virtual school' or the student will be referred to a PRU.
Oh dear . . . You are only a child yourself !!

At only thirty something years of age, you have clearly been taught, indoctrinated, and “bought into”, the present situation that fails so many.

You - with your contemporaries - have no experience of what life, society, and education, were like when the “system” did work.

The parents that are now sending their children/teenagers, to you classrooms, are themselves products of the “system” you complain about.

After thirty years of trying the same thing - and EXPECTING A DIFFERENT OUTCOME - you might think, imagine, someone might be open-minded enough to consider alternatives.

Do you - does anyone - have any evidence that the situation pre-1986, was NOT conducive to producing the vast majority of school leavers with a conscious self discipline, social awareness, personal responsibility and acceptable norms of “good behaviour”.
 

lextalionis

Old-Salt
Oh dear . . . You are only a child yourself !!

At only thirty something years of age, you have clearly been taught, indoctrinated, and “bought into”, the present situation that fails so many.

You - with your contemporaries - have no experience of what life, society, and education, were like when the “system” did work.

The parents that are now sending their children/teenagers, to you classrooms, are themselves products of the “system” you complain about.

After thirty years of trying the same thing - and EXPECTING A DIFFERENT OUTCOME - you might think, imagine, someone might be open-minded enough to consider alternatives.

Do you - does anyone - have any evidence that the situation pre-1986, was NOT conducive to producing the vast majority of school leavers with a conscious self discipline, social awareness, personal responsibility and acceptable norms of “good behaviour”.
What is this "situation" that fails so many?

There are some wonderful teachers but any bright young thing who loves her (and it usually is her) subject will be ground down after a few years of poor behaviour, laziness and disrespect from pupils, parents and management.

Good teachers leave because it's a hard, thankless and excruciating job. The best ones set up their own business and teach on their own terms.

Most parents and young people have a very poor attitude towards learning. If a parent contradicts a child's teachers, then all is lost. The child will switch off and plead with mummy (and it usually is mummy) if the teacher cares enough to bring the child into contact with reality.

So the teachers that are left have to contend with a largely incompetent management and children whose parents think of themselves as something like a social worker crossed with a teletubby. The system seems to work almost to prevent learning and discipline, which no amount of government policy seems able to solve.

Do you want your child to learn? Solve the little things, hire a tutor, make him read and the rest will follow.
 
Oh dear . . . You are only a child yourself !!

At only thirty something years of age, you have clearly been taught, indoctrinated, and “bought into”, the present situation that fails so many.

You - with your contemporaries - have no experience of what life, society, and education, were like when the “system” did work.

The parents that are now sending their children/teenagers, to you classrooms, are themselves products of the “system” you complain about.

After thirty years of trying the same thing - and EXPECTING A DIFFERENT OUTCOME - you might think, imagine, someone might be open-minded enough to consider alternatives.
Fine. Enlighten me, oh wise one, how would you go about beating knowledge and behaviour into children in secondary schools?

Do you - does anyone - have any evidence that the situation pre-1986, was NOT conducive to producing the vast majority of school leavers with a conscious self discipline, social awareness, personal responsibility and acceptable norms of “good behaviour”.
Do you have any evidence it was? Are you suggesting poor behaviour in schools did not exist prior to 1987? If so, why was there the need to beat children?
 

lextalionis

Old-Salt
Fine. Enlighten me, oh wise one, how would you go about beating knowledge and behaviour into children in secondary schools?


Do you have any evidence it was? Are you suggesting poor behaviour in schools did not exist prior to 1987? If so, why was there the need to beat children?

Beating children for being not-so-bright probably stopped in the 1930s when the enthusiasm for beating everything that moved began to wane. The belief that intelligence was relatively fixed helped justify the introduction of grammar schools in the Education Act 1944. I remember some of my teachers saying that, even in their youth, it wasn't really used for that. By the end it was a last resort in most places, with most pupils never knowing the feeling of a whacking.

On the other hand, I think children were more civilised before the cane was banned because the world itself was probably a bit more civilised. It's hard to believe but, before GCSEs, most school qualifications (CSEs) were devised and administered by teachers. There was more respect for them. Many children are a bit foul these days because the culture around them (including their family) is quite foul.

On the other hand, most young people are actually reasonably hard-working and reasonably conscientious. Unlike most teachers, my favourite age to teach is GCSE-age, where they are usually quite open-minded and hard-working. The younger ones are often a bit dim and the older ones quite conceited.
 
Beating children for being not-so-bright probably stopped in the 1930s when the enthusiasm for beating everything that moved began to wane. The belief that intelligence was relatively fixed helped justify the introduction of grammar schools in the Education Act 1944. I remember some of my teachers saying that, even in their youth, it wasn't really used for that. By the end it was a last resort in most places, with most pupils never knowing the feeling of a whacking.

On the other hand, I think children were more civilised before the cane was banned because the world itself was probably a bit more civilised. It's hard to believe but, before GCSEs, most school qualifications (CSEs) were devised and administered by teachers. There was more respect for them. Many children are a bit foul these days because the culture around them (including their family) is quite foul.

On the other hand, most young people are actually reasonably hard-working and reasonably conscientious. Unlike most teachers, my favourite age to teach is GCSE-age, where they are usually quite open-minded and hard-working. The younger ones are often a bit dim and the older ones quite conceited.
Like I said in a previous post, the vast vast majority of a child's attitude, expectations and academic ability are determined long before they get to a secondary school (apparently by the time they reach 5 years old most of that has been set in motion). I am curious how whacking them with a ruler will magically change that.
 
Fine. Enlighten me, oh wise one, how would you go about beating knowledge and behaviour into children in secondary schools?
Oh dear ! Reading and comprehension, are difficult with this one!

READ WHAT I WROTE!!

"Self discipline, social awareness, personal responsibility, acceptable norms of “good behaviour”, should all have been instilled, encouraged, and established before secondary school".

Do you have any evidence it was? Are you suggesting poor behaviour in schools did not exist prior to 1987? If so, why was there the need to beat children?
To my knowledge - and, from my own experience - it was always the (mere) THREAT of punishment, that was sufficient !!

+ + + + + +

End of conversation - it is now becoming cyclical.
 
Oh dear ! Reading and comprehension, are difficult with this one!

READ WHAT I WROTE!!

"Self discipline, social awareness, personal responsibility, acceptable norms of “good behaviour”, should all have been instilled, encouraged, and established before secondary school".
I read what you wrote. That is categorically NOT the case for the minority of students that cause almost all of the discipline and behaviour issues.

Given that those values are not being instilled before secondary school, how will beating secondary school students magically instil those values? Or is corporal punishment only to be employed against the small children that cannot fight back? I'd call that bullying personally.


To my knowledge - and, from my own experience - it was always the (mere) THREAT of punishment, that was sufficient !!
Really? That highlights just how unaware you are of the reality. If you threaten a punishment but do not deliver, the threat becomes meaningless.

Crack on with the mong buttons :)
 
Last edited:

lextalionis

Old-Salt
I read what you wrote. That is categorically NOT the case for the minority of students that cause almost all of the discipline and behaviour issues.

Given that those are not being instilled before secondary school, how will beating secondary school students magically instil those values? Or is corporal punishment only to be employed against the small children that cannot fight back? I'd call that bullying personally.



Really? That highlights just how unaware you are of the reality. If you threaten a punishment but do not deliver, the threat becomes meaningless.

Crack on with the mong buttons :)
I think that the problem of behaviour is a problem of the parents' values. If they refuse to discipline their little darling (out of whose backside the sun shines day and night, if you'd believe them), then they will be little demons. Most such parents hold education in little esteem because they failed their exams, or they misspent their school years. Beating their brats won't solve that problem.

If parents would care to make adulting their full-time occupation, most of the serious problems would vanish and the lesser ones could be dealt with by things like lines, detention and a stern look.
 
I think that the problem of behaviour is a problem of the parents' values. If they refuse to discipline their little darling (out of whose backside the sun shines day and night, if you'd believe them), then they will be little demons. Most such parents hold education in little esteem because they failed their exams, or they misspent their school years. Beating their brats won't solve that problem.

If parents would care to make adulting their full-time occupation, most of the serious problems would vanish and the lesser ones could be dealt with by things like lines, detention and a stern look.
Yep. You can spot the ones who are going to be the discipline nightmare in 14 years by watching parents take a toddler round the supermarket. Toddler grabs something, parent takes it off them and says "No".

Toddler grabs again, parent takes it off them and says "If you do that again we are leaving and not getting sweets".

Toddler grabs again, parent takes it off them and says "I warned you what would happen".

Toddler grabs again, parent takes it off them and carries on with shop.

Toddler cries, parent takes toddler to sweet aisle.

That is a teaching experience as the child is learning. The lesson that child has learnt is "Warnings mean nothing and if I keep being a dick I get what I want". Teach that lesson every day for the next 3 years and it's no surprise Archie is a knob when he gets to primary school.
 
Poor education standards in the UK? Well the school kids are all having in best part of six months off. So it will go even more into ratshit.
Not quite.
a) No one knows how long this will go on for. They might go back after the Easter holiday (late April), might be after the May half term (early June), might be next academic year (September), might be later. Assumptions at the moment are plan for September and if it's in June/July then even better.

b) A lot of that time will have been holidays anyway. Factor in 2 weeks for Easter, 6 weeks for summer, a week's half term and a couple of INSET days and that '6 months off' actually becomes 3 and a half months of taught lessons missed.

Although it is going to have a massive impact on what kids know and the return to normal schooling is going to be ******* rough.
 
Doubt they’ll go back before June. The school year ends in July anyway. So September is more likely.
I think most schools have written off the rest of the school year.
 
Doubt they’ll go back before June. The school year ends in July anyway. So September is more likely.
I think most schools have written off the rest of the school year.
Without wanting to sound like a ********, I'm involved and know when the school year runs.

Any school should be pushing to get their students back in as soon as possible, even if it's for 3 days before the summer holidays start. Routine and order are important for the young muppets and putting that back in place is actually quite a big deal.

Personally I'd like to see schools reopen after Easter, even if it is staggered year groups (Year 7 and 9 in one day, Year 8 and 10 in the next) to take account of staff shortages. It's more work but having them all sat at home is helping no one.
 
Do you - does anyone - have any evidence that the situation pre-1986, was NOT conducive to producing the vast majority of school leavers with a conscious self discipline, social awareness, personal responsibility and acceptable norms of “good behaviour”.
pre ‘86 the school leaving age had been raised, this meant that the scunners unsuitable for education (Secondary modern to learn how to work in a factory, or Grammar School for the gifted) could no longer be sent down t‘pit and in t’mill. This was the start of the slippery slope leading to T Blair deciding that every child should go to university. TV and later, tinternet convinced kids that all they had to do was win the Lottery or Britain’s got Talent and they were minted, assuming that a career as a footballer or Games Tester wasn’t offered on a plate.
These kids went on to breed (making babies is so easy that it actually takes some brains to avoid it), rinse and repeat... parents can’t be ärsed (someone else’s problem) so kids grow up without guidance, or parents in many cases...there’s no point beating them, because they probably get that at home and you’re likely to end up in court, or facing half a dozen taxis full of cousins and uncles rocking up if you’re oop north...
Most kids will try their best to achieve their potential despite the chimps flinging shït around the room, and most teachers give their all to facilitate this, sadly, it’s almost impossible to filter out the dross unless they overstep the ‘acceptable level of violence’ so 95% of time will be spent with the undeserving 5% of the students. Until the system changes to allow the (conventially) uneducateable to learn in different ways, it will ever be thus.
 
Most kids will try their best to achieve their potential despite the chimps flinging shït around the room, and most teachers give their all to facilitate this, sadly, it’s almost impossible to filter out the dross unless they overstep the ‘acceptable level of violence’ so 95% of time will be spent with the undeserving 5% of the students. Until the system changes to allow the (conventially) uneducateable to learn in different ways, it will ever be thus.
What's that? People working in education have similar opinions? Craziness.

As I said earlier: If you want to make some attempt at fixing the system the answer is not normalising violence between teacher and student. What would make a big difference is if schools could get rid of the nasty violent disruptive students that ruin their own education and the education of other students around them.

Still, I'm sure beating the **** out of them will be a miracle cure, eh @RCT(V) yep, carry on mong buttoning :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Niamac

GCM
It was in the fifties and sixties that I went to school and University. I was lucky enough to get a good education but let there be no doubt at that time it was a sausage machine for even those who passed their eleven plus. If you got on with it you came out with the necessary bits of paper to get you a fair start in life. Those who failed the 11+ fared less well and, given the snobbishness of the then educational establishment, were taught by less accomplished teachers. (Averages only as I'm sure there were some dedicated teachers and good heads in Junior Secondaries - Secondary Moderns in England). What we never did was to use education to prepare kids for their likely career path. This is something that was well established in Germany and Switzerland.

The Social Revolution of the Sixties could not abide this situation and the movement to Comprehensives and "Child Centred Education" was the result. These ideas are theoretically good but the execution was at best mixed. This then lead to a middle class flight to the private schools, grammar schools, church schools and the like. Now we have got a two tier system defined by money and location and that is not doing society much good.

The next revolution was the target of getting 50% of the next generation through University. Again a good idea but not very well executed. In their determination to reach the headline figure a lot of colleges were re-labelled and allowed to set up the courses they wanted. That led to a proliferation of University departments with "Studies" as the second word in their title. Currently 1 in 7 of undergraduates are taking "Business Studies". Whether we need that level of managers in the future I'm not sure but everyone wants to steer now; nobody wants to row. What we are not getting is a sufficient volume of usefully skilled graduates viz. doctors, vets, scientists and engineers and we are importing them.

The next bright idea was to turn the universities into commercial concerns; "the discipline of the marketplace etc" and make the younger generation shoulder the debt. (I'll never vote Lib Dem again) The Universities have reacted by being more commercial and touting for foreign students who are much more remunerative. This has in some over-subscribed and useful departments imposed a quota on native-born students. One just needs to scan the the graduation lists to see what is happening.

There is no doubt that the education system in this country is good by many standards but it is divided and many young people are getting a poor start in life because of that. The principles of the Education Act after the war were good; a bit like Beveridge but we never executed it properly and we have never spent enough money on it or made sure that we got a better result for what we did spend.
 
Are you blaming the parents for their uncontrollable little shits or total lack of interest in their offspring's education?
Yes, and blaming the teacher for not reintroducing it.
 
Top