Time to ‘rethink school’?

[johnny6]

Unless they employ two teachers per class how would it get better? She still has to teach the class then complete all the paperwork?

And what's wrong with that? Why shouldn't we be aiming for 20 children a class if that contributes towards a better educated generation and better teachers? My OP is not coming from the position of 'teachers are lazy with all their 3 o'clock finishes and holidays I should be so lucky they don't know they are born'.

The main push back in this thread seems to be that we can't change BASED on the current set up as teachers are over worked as it is and children won't be able to cope. When what I'm actually saying is lets rethink how and what we teach, how we set up lessons and what we expect the administration burden to be on teachers.

There is no reason with a bit of radical thinking, why we couldn't extend the day and make learning more impactful on children, whilst at the same time not increasing the burden on either the teaching staff or the children. Yes it might cost more to administer, but how much of that could be offset by future increases in tax revenues because we have a more intelligent, more practical working population who, as a result pay more into the tax pot? How much could be off set by creating stronger source materials for teachers reducing the administration currently required?

Why are we underfunding schools? Surely we are robbing Peter to pay Paul as you just end up with a lower skilled future workforce.

 

[johnny6]

Unless they employ two teachers per class how would it get better? She still has to teach the class then complete all the paperwork?

And what's wrong with that? Why shouldn't we be aiming for 20 children a class if that contributes towards a better educated generation and better teachers? My OP is not coming from the position of 'teachers are lazy with all their 3 o'clock finishes and holidays I should be so lucky they don't know they are born'.

The main push back in this thread seems to be that we can't change BASED on the current set up as teachers are over worked as it is and children won't be able to cope. When what I'm actually saying is lets rethink how and what we teach, how we set up lessons and what we expect the administration burden to be on teachers.

There is no reason with a bit of radical thinking, why we couldn't extend the day and make learning more impactful on children, whilst at the same time not increasing the burden on either the teaching staff or the children. Yes it might cost more to administer, but how much of that could be offset by future increases in tax revenues because we have a more intelligent, more practical working population who, as a result pay more into the tax pot? How much could be off set by creating stronger source materials for teachers reducing the administration currently required?

Why are we underfunding schools? Surely we are robbing Peter to pay Paul as you just end up with a lower skilled future workforce.

 

[dowie]

And what's wrong with that? Why shouldn't we be aiming for 20 children a class if that contributes towards a better educated generation and better teachers? My OP is not coming from the position of 'teachers are lazy with all their 3 o'clock finishes and holidays I should be so lucky they don't know they are born'.

Your position seems to be based on it being convenient for you as a parent to have school finish later. The best school systems seem to have shorter hours than we do, I don't think we set these shorter days for kids because teachers are feeling lazy (and indeed you've made clear you don't believe that either) so on what basis would extending the school day be a good idea? It seems to be quite apparent that shorter hours for kids are there for a reason, namely they'd get pretty exhausted if you make them work longer hours. Making lessons more interesting doesn't necessitate longer hours, if you feel there are other things kids should be learning (perhaps a more vocational or more arts focused approach) then schools can be set up to facilitate that (some exist already).

 

[MikeTheNative]

Your position seems to be based on it being convenient for you as a parent to have school finish later. The best school systems seem to have shorter hours than we do, I don't think we set these shorter days for kids because teachers are feeling lazy (and indeed you've made clear you don't believe that either) so on what basis would extending the school day be a good idea? It seems to be quite apparent that shorter hours for kids are there for a reason, namely they'd get pretty exhausted if you make them work longer hours. Making lessons more interesting doesn't necessitate longer hours, if you feel there are other things kids should be learning (perhaps a more vocational or more arts focused approach) then schools can be set up to facilitate that (some exist already).

From what my GF has told me the problem with the primary school curriculum is that it tries to make them to learn too much too soon and stuff they don't really need to know yet. longer hours mean less time for kids to be kids and by that I mean time for them to socialise and play with one another. As for school being underfunded, ask the Tories they seem hell bent on reducing state school budgets while sending their kids to private schools.

 

[johnny6]

Your position seems to be based on it being convenient for you as a parent to have school finish later. The best school systems seem to have shorter hours than we do, I don't think we set these shorter days for kids because teachers are feeling lazy (and indeed you've made clear you don't believe that either) so on what basis would extending the school day be a good idea? It seems to be quite apparent that shorter hours for kids are there for a reason, namely they'd get pretty exhausted if you make them work longer hours. Making lessons more interesting doesn't necessitate longer hours, if you feel there are other things kids should be learning (perhaps a more vocational or more arts focused approach) then schools can be set up to facilitate that (some exist already).

There is no 'convenience' to me, as my son goes to after school club currently and will continue. Also nowhere have I suggested that any change should be free.

There are several examples (including my own experience) in this thread that suggest longer have little impact on children. Again I'm not suggesting we increase the hours to do 'more of the same' as that would be exhausting as a lot of it under the current system is boring for children as it is a box ticking exercise to hit exam targets.

Making lessons more interesting doesn't necessitate longer hours, but it might. A science lesson with a greater practical element might take longer as there might still need to be an element of fact based learning required. Likewise increasing PE, art, drama, food tech etc etc etc would require more hours OR the removal of something else.

I'm not sure why you are against this concept as a whole, and are rather fixating on one small... very small part of which that is increasing school hours slightly. This is about doing multiple things to improve the whole.

 

[johnny6]

From what my GF has told me the problem with the primary school curriculum is that it tries to make them to learn too much too soon and stuff they don't really need to know yet. longer hours mean less time for kids to be kids and by that I mean time for them to socialise and play with one another. As for school being underfunded, ask the Tories they seem hell bent on reducing state school budgets while sending their kids to private schools.

Last week we had 15 hours of homework to complete because of the holidays. I’m not sure doing homework is allowing kids to be kids. I’m also not suggesting additional hours and homework on top. So the net result for a lot of children should be negligible.

 

[RDM]

I'm not sure why you are against this concept as a whole, and are rather fixating on one small... very small part of which that is increasing school hours slightly. This is about doing multiple things to improve the whole.

Possibly because you opened by suggesting the solution was more time in school and mentioned how much after school club cost you. Also you haven't really suggested anything that either couldn't be done voluntarily (clubs/PE are something lots of students already do) and haven't even touched on more parental engagement, instead suggesting less.

 

[MikeTheNative]

Last week we had 15 hours of homework to complete because of the holidays. I’m not sure doing homework is allowing kids to be kids. I’m also not suggesting additional hours and homework on top. So the net result for a lot of children should be negligible.

You just don't want to pay for after school clubs do you?

 

[johnny6]

Possibly because you opened by suggesting the solution was more time in school and mentioned how much after school club cost you. Also you haven't really suggested anything that either couldn't be done voluntarily (clubs/PE are something lots of students already do) and haven't even touched on more parental engagement, instead suggesting less.

Checks OP.... nope no mention of how much after school club costs me. Maybe you would have benefited from longer in school to improve your reading skills. Just a thought.

But yes it would be a benefit for a lot of families so why not call a spade a spade.

Can I live with the 6 odd quid after school club currently costs me? Yes I can, but my school runs their wrap around care as not for profit so is ridiculously cheap. However equally I appreciate that lots of other families either don’t have access to cheap wrap around care, or are on lower salaries or both. Why not support these families and bring the overall average up.

Also I’m not suggesting less parental engagement at all. Parents that currently utilise wrap around care might see an increase with a reduction in homework. Parents that don’t utilise wrap around care might see no overall affect as their children would be in school rather than doing homework.

I do agree with you that it could be done voluntary, however I see two problems with that. Firstly not all children have access to voluntary clubs so you are creating a 2 tier system. Secondly what level of training and expertise are you getting with volunteers? No doubt some of it is perfectly fine but overall would it be better or worse than trained professional teaching staff?

 

[johnny6]

You just don't want to pay for after school clubs do you?

That’s it you got me..... thinking about it maybe I should also convince my school to dig out a swimming pool so I don’t have to pay for swimming lessons every Saturday.

 

[Mr C]

I've been pondering recently about this and i base my idea on nothing but my own assumptions and ignorance. I think that perhaps instead of changing school days and hours we should add an extra year.

It would come before the GCSE years. The year would focus solely on how to live in the modern world and healthy lifestyles. Consisting of a lot of nutrition and P.E. classes to combat obesity. Financial planning, politics, coping with stress, marketing and how to not fall for scams, online safety / security, the internet of things, dealing with illnesses and first aid in regards to minimising the strain on the NHS, teamwork, religion in depth, sexual education, family planning, mental wellness and mental health issues and job interview etiquette.

The modern world is so fast paced and constantly evolving i think we need to combat mental stability alongside an increasingly sedentary lifestyle for future generations. As people are now living much longer an extra year before employment or further education shouldn't be too damaging in the long term.

With such a heavy focus on fitness and nutrition i think it might be a fact that this year would have shorter school days as not to exhaust the children. I think a year out with no homework away from the constant stress of exams would possibly help weaker students deal with anxiety and stress better perhaps lowering the fail rate in the subsequent GCSE years. I would hope such an idea would reduce strain on almost all the resources of the country with higher future productivity due to a fitter healthier more focused and less stressed populace.

I assume this would require an entire new department for schools but that would be funded by the government as a long term investment due to savings from gained productivity in the future generations.

I understand schools already do all of the above but on a much smaller scale and normally shoehorned around the core subjects. I think a year for students to unwind and train themselves physically and mentally will go a long way into future independence. Finally i would probably have the year taper back into normal school routine probably to refresh the previous year. It could also be an optional year either in an opt out basis with exemptions or for gifted students.

 

[DarkHorizon472]

And what's wrong with that? Why shouldn't we be aiming for 20 children a class if that contributes towards a better educated generation and better teachers? My OP is not coming from the position of 'teachers are lazy with all their 3 o'clock finishes and holidays I should be so lucky they don't know they are born'.

The main push back in this thread seems to be that we can't change BASED on the current set up as teachers are over worked as it is and children won't be able to cope. When what I'm actually saying is lets rethink how and what we teach, how we set up lessons and what we expect the administration burden to be on teachers.

There is no reason with a bit of radical thinking, why we couldn't extend the day and make learning more impactful on children, whilst at the same time not increasing the burden on either the teaching staff or the children. Yes it might cost more to administer, but how much of that could be offset by future increases in tax revenues because we have a more intelligent, more practical working population who, as a result pay more into the tax pot? How much could be off set by creating stronger source materials for teachers reducing the administration currently required?

Why are we underfunding schools? Surely we are robbing Peter to pay Paul as you just end up with a lower skilled future workforce.

The real question is why are teachers over worked and not supported ?

The key skill of experienced teachers is managing a classroom while delivering educational content to variety of abilities and specific needs. Instead they are given a wide range of areas to cover including vast amounts of pointless bureaucracy. There are a lot more teachers leaving now causing a major recruitment crisis, increasing their hours still will simply make this worse.

 

[lunar]

Part of what you say is taught in PHSE or Citizenship

 

[RDM]

Checks OP.... nope no mention of how much after school club costs me. Maybe you would have benefited from longer in school to improve your reading skills. Just a thought.

Misremembered. It’s half term so I am not as diligent with my reading.

But yes it would be a benefit for a lot of families so why not call a spade a spade.

Can I live with the 6 odd quid after school club currently costs me? Yes I can, but my school runs their wrap around care as not for profit so is ridiculously cheap. However equally I appreciate that lots of other families either don’t have access to cheap wrap around care, or are on lower salaries or both. Why not support these families and bring the overall average up.

It will come at a cost though. Financial and on the teaching staff, more time teaching means less time planning. In reality it means more time planning outside of school. So lots people get cheap childcare but education will suffer.

Also I’m not suggesting less parental engagement at all. Parents that currently utilise wrap around care might see an increase with a reduction in homework. Parents that don’t utilise wrap around care might see no overall affect as their children would be in school rather than doing homework.

I do agree with you that it could be done voluntary, however I see two problems with that. Firstly not all children have access to voluntary clubs so you are creating a 2 tier system. Secondly what level of training and expertise are you getting with volunteers? No doubt some of it is perfectly fine but overall would it be better or worse than trained professional teaching staff?

You are suggesting less parental engagement in the child’s education as even more of it is being done in school and even less of it at home.

All the clubs at our school are free and run by teachers voluntarily. Up the teachers hours significantly and you won’t see as much of that as they won’t have the time or energy.

 

[sideways14a]

I work in higher education, with a couple of different big Scottish unis over the years.
While with both of them i have been constantly amazed at the quality of students pouring out of secondary school and into our hands. Some really should have had a 7th year at school before coming anywhere near a uni, and these students hold good grades as well.

I think we let down our young so much with primary and especially secondary education, many are so far from being academically suitable its shocking - a view shared by many of my academic colleges who despair at the state of some that flood through the doors.

 

[Rroff]

I work in higher education, with a couple of different big Scottish unis over the years.
While with both of them i have been constantly amazed at the quality of students pouring out of secondary school and into our hands. Some really should have had a 7th year at school before coming anywhere near a uni, and these students hold good grades as well.

I think we let down our young so much with primary and especially secondary education, many are so far from being academically suitable its shocking - a view shared by many of my academic colleges who despair at the state of some that flood through the doors.

I didn't need a 7th year at school - but I'd have benefited from a couple of year between leaving secondary school and going on to higher education - I didn't really develop the right mindset for the kind of learning at a higher level until I was more like 18-19 possibly even 20.

 

[Lakeland]

I work in higher education, with a couple of different big Scottish unis over the years.
While with both of them i have been constantly amazed at the quality of students pouring out of secondary school and into our hands. Some really should have had a 7th year at school before coming anywhere near a uni, and these students hold good grades as well.

I think we let down our young so much with primary and especially secondary education, many are so far from being academically suitable its shocking - a view shared by many of my academic colleges who despair at the state of some that flood through the doors.

Do you think teaching the kids more content would help? Or do you think we should teach them less and use the gain time to enable them to secure the knowledge?

I suspect you're seeing the same issue secondary schools face, the school before us has to get students to pass tests and that becomes the main focus for the leadership team. Students are good at passing the tests but the tests have little to no use for progression to the next level of education.

 

[Andrew_McP]

I don't have anything useful to add myself, but this episode of the 'Dear Lovejoy' podcast, with Drew Bovey (Educating Manchester) is worth listening to...

https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/dear-lovejoy/id1196671475?mt=2&i=1000399015588

https://soundcloud.com/user-107796169/ep-56-drew-povey-educating-lovejoy-interview-special

It's a podcast which frequently throws up some interesting guests and ideas.

 

[sideways14a]

A lot of it is down to focusing on getting exams passed and not actually learning about how to learn which is where a lot of these fresh students have issues.
Also doesn't help the free for all in the Scottish system, well free if your a Scot, its not restricted to our home grown numpties - we see plenty from Europe that seem to suffer the same.

Then every so often a cracker comes through the system, students who want to learn and actually show some common sense as well as an appetite for knowledge.

I am still stunned at the low % you can get to actually pass modules and exams, 40% and under (iirc) and you can get a degree if you keep it up... i mean FFS i would have thought a minimum of 55% absolute minimum but... nope.

 

[Lakeland]

Students not learning how to learn infuriates me too. It's one of the things I always push but it's difficult when you're one cog in a complex system as you're often back to square one by the next lesson.