Poor UK education standards

So teacher steps out of line and says something silly, is later gently reminded by the grownups that's not allowed, full apology follows. It happens most weeks and I fail to see the outrage.

I would also bet money that the child didn't just say "I'd vote UKIP and I'm not racist" and there had been some disruptive behaviour before that point.
And quite possibly some very racist language as well.
 
I just saw this elsewhere:

cxzlfkfuaaa5vrd_0548dad8f93929b6360a19e320db46a007c2f73f.jpg


Are people (kids or otherwise) taught how to identify simplistic and hysterical nonsense?

Are schools getting better or worse?
 
Are schools getting better or worse?
Depends on how you measure it. OFSTED keep shifting the goalposts on what is "good", making it nearly impossible to work out if you are good or not. Until they show up, like dementors.
You can't really look at exam results either, as they have just changed the whole exam system making it difficult to make accurate comparisons.
In short, nobody really knows, but every body has an opinion. And opinions are a bit like facts, but sh1t.
 
I meant are they getting better or worse from the perspective of the Daily Mail reader? When I go circuit training the classes are held at a local school, and I see notices outlining things such as:

Rewards for good behavior/doing well: no such thing existed when I was at school.

A open and clear system of consequences: when I was at school the system was very inconsistent, with the hardcore troublemakers allowed to get away with anything including violence.

Safeguarding.
 
I meant are they getting better or worse from the perspective of the Daily Mail reader? When I go circuit training the classes are held at a local school, and I see notices outlining things such as:

Rewards for good behavior/doing well: no such thing existed when I was at school.

A open and clear system of consequences: when I was at school the system was very inconsistent, with the hardcore troublemakers allowed to get away with anything including violence.

Safeguarding.
When I was at primary school, we had a system of house points, where everybody was divided into four equal-sized groups throughout the different ages. House points or stars were awarded for good behaviour, hard work, good efforts, sporting prowess and progress. They were deducted for bad behaviour and suchlike.

There was no monetary or material reward. It was more an honour thing. There was a trophy kept on a ledge in the school hall, which the headmaster would award to the house captain of the winning house for that month. The head's speech would include words of encouragement to the other three houses to get it off the winning house next month, and the winning house not to let them.
 
When I was at primary school, we had a system of house points, where everybody was divided into four equal-sized groups throughout the different ages. House points or stars were awarded for good behaviour, hard work, good efforts, sporting prowess and progress. They were deducted for bad behaviour and suchlike.

There was no monetary or material reward. It was more an honour thing. There was a trophy kept on a ledge in the school hall, which the headmaster would award to the house captain of the winning house for that month. The head's speech would include words of encouragement to the other three houses to get it off the winning house next month, and the winning house not to let them.
I imagine today all four groups would get a trophy so no one feels excluded!
 
When I was at primary school, we had a system of house points, where everybody was divided into four equal-sized groups throughout the different ages. House points or stars were awarded for good behaviour, hard work, good efforts, sporting prowess and progress. They were deducted for bad behaviour and suchlike.

There was no monetary or material reward. It was more an honour thing. There was a trophy kept on a ledge in the school hall, which the headmaster would award to the house captain of the winning house for that month. The head's speech would include words of encouragement to the other three houses to get it off the winning house next month, and the winning house not to let them.
The house system has come back in a big way in a lot of schools. No rewards other then the chance to lord it over your mates from other houses. It can work really well to promote engagement but that tends to drop off at year 10 or 11. Exam stress hits them hard, and some kids go a bit mental.
 
The house system has come back in a big way in a lot of schools. No rewards other then the chance to lord it over your mates from other houses. It can work really well to promote engagement but that tends to drop off at year 10 or 11. Exam stress hits them hard, and some kids go a bit mental.
My daughtes school give a pass for her and two mates to go to the front of the scoff line. A bit like the guard used to.
 
Last edited:
Good to see a reward, but making her stag-on seems a bit harsh.
Personally I would have loved being given a weapon and a magazine of live rounds, but then that was just me. At my school we had a house system, but it fell into disuse. More importantly, there was no standard scale of consequences that was applied fairly for all wrong doings - why was swearing punished more harshly than witnessed violence?
 
More importantly, there was no standard scale of consequences that was applied fairly for all wrong doings - why was swearing punished more harshly than witnessed violence?
It really does depend on context and a standard scale of X = punishment, Y = double punishment will inevitably screw over someone who doesn't deserve it.

For example, say swearing in front of a member of staff gets you a half hour detention and physical violence is an immediate 3 day exclusion. Now you have a bully deliberately provoking a reaction from a normally well-behaved kid by continually making offensive comments to them. Bully might well have said "your mum's a ******* dyke and your dad's a rent boy" repeatedly for the best part of a month but when the nice kid eventually snaps and lamps the bully in the mouth, the nice kid gets the black mark on their record of an exclusion as they threw the first punch.

Likewise, swearing in front of a teacher is very different to swearing at a teacher. Kids can stub their toe and mutter "f***ing bollocks" as much as they want in front of me. Call me a "f***ing w**ker" and I lose my temper.

Kids are devious unpleasant little buggers and will use any excuse or loophole they can find.
 
Kids are devious unpleasant little buggers and will use any excuse or loophole they can find.
I believe that children are the future.










Unless we stop them now.
 
Personally I would have loved being given a weapon and a magazine of live rounds, but then that was just me. At my school we had a house system, but it fell into disuse.
This is common story and is true nearly everywhere. But like everything, it comes back around every decade or so and is hailed as the new wonder cure for ____________ (enter issue here).
It will go out of fashion again soon enough, and then come back round again just as quickly.
 
It's all about behaviour management, the core methodology is: Compliance = Opportunity

Trust me, having taught in inner city schools in which pupils had multiple "deprivations" the use of an MCTC "D" Wing system in which everything that makes institutional life even slightly unpleasant has to be earnt by means of sustained compliance works just fine.
 
It's all about behaviour management, the core methodology is: Compliance = Opportunity
Is that in the sense of everyone starts off with nothing and you have to demonstrate good behaviour to get rewards? Or that everyone starts off well and then privileges are removed for poor behaviour?

I am slowly forgetting what proper challenging behaviour is like as I spend more time in a nice school. A couple of weeks ago we had a kid in the sin bin for nicking some food from a local shop (in uniform, the idiot). At my previous school that would have just been ignored or a quarter of the school would have been excluded within a week.
 
This is common story and is true nearly everywhere. But like everything, it comes back around every decade or so and is hailed as the new wonder cure for ____________ (enter issue here).
It will go out of fashion again soon enough, and then come back round again just as quickly.
Surely the individual has to get something out of it? That was the problem at school - there was very little reward for effort or achievement.

Anyway - sometimes I look at UK Education News

Two recent things caught my eye:

Our failing education system means it’s still no easier to climb life’s ladder

Sixty years ago he published The Rise of the Meritocracy, a dystopian satire in which he presciently detailed the rise of women and national populism. The narrator, a sociologist, describes the negative outcomes of a system in which the elitist hereditary principle has been replaced by a society based on the formula, IQ + Effort = Merit. This system ossifies into yet another self-serving oligarchy. What Young believed is this “merit” – genes dictating the ability to pass exams, – fails to take into account the value to society of virtues such as kindness, courage, imagination, sympathy and generosity.

In other words, he forgot about soft skills and social skills. I once glanced at an American book called The Successful Engineer, aimed at Graduate Engineers starting out in industry, Government, the Armed Forces, etc, and he made the comment that even for Engineers most of success is dictated by social interaction. Imagination and creativity have long been stifled, but are needed for any sort of business start up - and the left brain analytical types need them too

Education in the UK has always been a middle-class mincing machine in which too many poorer children are written off too soon because they don’t display certain habits of mind. “Effort” is very much harder in a damp, overcrowded, unheated home. Andreas Schleicher, OECD director of education and skills, said last week that, in the UK, poorer children did better in schools with a good disciplinary regime, by which he meant an environment for learning in which pupils respected and trusted teachers, and teachers had high expectations of pupils.

Arguably, what fosters that mutual respect is an understanding of the influences on children in all their diversity. For instance, a 10-year American study showed that parents of children from a low socio-economic group valued obedience, neatness and honesty, while middle class parents emphasised curiosity, self-control and consideration. We know that early years and schools can do much to compensate for this when a child does not come from a home bursting with social skills, activities, tutoring, self-discipline and ambition – so why do we still do so little?

I would hope the author includes kids that are not part of the in group for whatever reason - wearing glasses, being crap at sports, having an accent....

Young, in his own patriarchal way, was trying to redefine what is meant by social mobility and “success”. How do we create a fair society in which every individual is able to develop what economist Amartya Sen called “capabilities” – the right to feel of value, to engage in society, to have the resources to live a thriving life, not merely survive? The aim, for all our sakes, ought to be that six out of six poorer pupils have the knowledge that life offers promise.

Perhaps by putting emphasis on values and to accept different individual have different needs and abilities?

How serious do you need to be about developing thinking skills in your students? | The Schools' News Service

At the end of the last ‘Target: Mars’ summer school for upper KS2 students this year, I was approached by the mother of one of the participating pupils. She was eager to express how closely the skill sets listed on the certificates awarded to students matched those her company looked for during candidate selection – and how valuable those skills really are in the workplace.

She was talking to me in a personal capacity but was from one of the giant science-led pharmaceutical companies based in London.

Our corporate division reports that the majority of employers are looking for a certain set of skills in prospective candidates – including critical thinking, creative thinking, communication and the ability to meet deadlines when under pressure. The earlier we start to develop these skill sets the more beneficial it is. It helps children during their education and helps to broaden their career options.

The approach used by Thinkers in Education has proven to increase engagement, raise aspirations, deepen learning, and build the ever so important thinking and social skills.

Many posters here and people who write letters to papers insist education should consist of dryly learning facts parrot fashion.
 
Last edited:
I and my wife both attended a very minor public school on a county scholarship as did many local kids. The school bred a few famous figures, one or two still on the go today. It was always noteworthy that the most intelligent and brightest going on to university were the scholarship kids from the lower working class. The boarding house fee paying "yobs" were ever the more sporting types; some as thick as the proverbial two short planks! Owing to trades union pressure led by a union activist one Dave Prentice, I understand, at county level who allegedly averred the system only benefited the kids of Tory toffs of our area, we no longer have the scholarship to the school which is now fee paying only. We are now the only town within our county without a Grammar School.
 
Many posters here and people who write letters to papers insist education should consist of dryly learning facts parrot fashion.
And that right there, is the problem. Ministers and civil servants, tend to be old men, who went to public school a long time ago. Where rote learning of facts was the norm. It has come back, in a big way but really has no place in modern schooling. We are preparing young people to enter a world that no longer exists.
 

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer
And that right there, is the problem. Ministers and civil servants, tend to be old men, who went to public school a long time ago. Where rote learning of facts was the norm. It has come back, in a big way but really has no place in modern schooling. We are preparing young people to enter a world that no longer exists.
I believe it does for certain instances such as mental arithmetic, spelling and grammar because not everything can be likened to thinking about which button to push.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top