Primary school closing early.

Cakeguts

Graham_Devon wrote: »

They didn't though. We always had such items in the classroom, especially in Primary School.

And newspapers bring a whole new level of difficulties. Firstly, where do you get them all from? Secondly, they will need vetting for indecent photos etc.

Not sure that's a good use of teachers time.

You'd be better off looking at the levels of money paid at the top of the newly formed academies and waste that goes on there, including dinners out etc rather then trying to take crayons off the kids.

Obviously I am very old. We had our own pencils and crayons with our names on them. You shaved a bit of wood off the top end of the pencil and wrote your name on the wood in ink. Parents did the shaving if the child was too young to do it themselves.

The classrooms of the schools I went to were not full of stuff and things and we were told not to waste paper.

It is interesting to me that the people of my age were educated in schools that were not full of "things" and yet our standard of eduation was better than it is today. So clearly all this stuff is not needed for a good standard of education.

Carl31

molerat wrote: »

As for providing pens and crayons, you would be surprised at how many parents would not provide those items. Parents have the right to have their children educated free of charge but are not interested in having any responsibility towards that education. I know of parents that will have no input in their child's education such as helping with homework (which the child should not be doing anyway in their own time !) as it is not their job, that is for the teachers.

i dont think that attitude is just limited to parents view of education

Many people in this country has lost sight of personal responsibility, and rely squarely on others to do everything for them

Cakeguts

ilovehouses wrote: »

It's easy to tell why - politicians keep telling them that if only people would vote for them all their problems would be solved.

You only have to look at politicians trying to answer the unanswerable to see how this works. I'd love to see some more honesty and, occasionally, see a politician shrug their shoulders and say 'what's it got to do with me - who am I; your mother?'

The other thing is that the school education system doesn't reward people who think outside the box. It is all spoon fed with the answers for the exams written in the questions.

If you have an education system where people are rewarded for mediocre work and not allowed to fail at anything you get a population who can't think for themselves because they have never had to and they also feel that they can get whatever they want with no input. This means that "they" will solve your problems, give you a job, educate your children, etc. What is more you are entitled to have "them" solve your problem because you are a great human being who can't fail at anything.

The head of the primary school was quite obviously a "they" will solve the problems that I have created at this school person. When "they" didn't the head took the decision to close the school early.

Malthusian

Cakeguts wrote: »

It is interesting to me that the people of my age were educated in schools that were not full of "things" and yet our standard of eduation was better than it is today.

If the standard of education was better than it is today why are so many people your age (present company excepted, I'm sure) unable to use a smartphone or a computer, Internet banking, Excel spreadsheets, code in BASIC etc etc - all skills that children and young adults from today's education system possess?

Obviously I'm not blaming your school for not teaching you how to use Excel when it didn't exist. But an education system which taught kids how to recite all the kings of England with the years they took the throne is clearly not better than one which teaches kids skills that are useful, such as computer literacy.

Many children who graduate from today's education system can't read and write. However, many children who graduted from the education system of 50 years ago couldn't read or write either. Basic literacy rates have remained about constant.

There are plenty of private schools in the country. If the educational system was so much better 50 years ago, why are there no private schools offering to educate kids in the superior way that was used 50 years ago? With no computers, Maths lessons using slide rules rather than calculators and Kings of England instead of Excel? If the education system of 50 years ago turned out better-educated kids, parents would be beating down their doors.

Don't say "national curriculum", it's a joke - if you can run a Sharia school, you can run a school with no computers and 1950s-style teaching.

economic

Malthusian wrote: »

If the standard of education was better than it is today why are so many people your age (present company excepted, I'm sure) unable to use a smartphone or a computer, Internet banking, Excel spreadsheets, code in BASIC etc etc - all skills that children and young adults from today's education system possess?

Obviously I'm not blaming your school for not teaching you how to use Excel when it didn't exist. But an education system which taught kids how to recite all the kings of England with the years they took the throne is clearly not better than one which teaches kids skills that are useful, such as computer literacy.

Many children who graduate from today's education system can't read and write. However, many children who graduted from the education system of 50 years ago couldn't read or write either. Basic literacy rates have remained about constant.

There are plenty of private schools in the country. If the educational system was so much better 50 years ago, why are there no private schools offering to educate kids in the superior way that was used 50 years ago? With no computers, Maths lessons using slide rules rather than calculators and Kings of England instead of Excel? If the education system of 50 years ago turned out better-educated kids, parents would be beating down their doors.

Don't say "national curriculum", it's a joke - if you can run a Sharia school, you can run a school with no computers and 1950s-style teaching.

You do not need to go to school to learn how to use a smart phone, use excel or know basic programming. All those skills can easily be gained through self learning - A 60 year old can learn it just as a 20 year old can. A 20year old may learn it faster as he would have better hand-eye coordination and is sharper (IQ / how fast you think falls with age) but thats got nothing to do with schools.

Schools need to adapt to the changing world and changing economy. 50 years ago we had no idea how much technology would take over. How do you know now, when we do know the future continues to be in tech, that we are doing enough in teaching kids and "lighting a spark" in kids with things like programming, science, maths etc?

Perhaps we are way behind, and quite possibly we are behind by a long way as evidenced by all the big tech companies having not been founded by anyone schooled in the British education system.

The point is school should give the necessary education in things like maths and grammer and programming. But at the same time, much more more crucially, it should be aimed at helping kids think for themselves, not spoon fed facts and answers so that they can pass exams and help make the school look good.

Cakeguts

Malthusian wrote: »

If the standard of education was better than it is today why are so many people your age (present company excepted, I'm sure) unable to use a smartphone or a computer, Internet banking, Excel spreadsheets, code in BASIC etc etc - all skills that children and young adults from today's education system possess?

Obviously I'm not blaming your school for not teaching you how to use Excel when it didn't exist. But an education system which taught kids how to recite all the kings of England with the years they took the throne is clearly not better than one which teaches kids skills that are useful, such as computer literacy.

Many children who graduate from today's education system can't read and write. However, many children who graduted from the education system of 50 years ago couldn't read or write either. Basic literacy rates have remained about constant.

There are plenty of private schools in the country. If the educational system was so much better 50 years ago, why are there no private schools offering to educate kids in the superior way that was used 50 years ago? With no computers, Maths lessons using slide rules rather than calculators and Kings of England instead of Excel? If the education system of 50 years ago turned out better-educated kids, parents would be beating down their doors.

Don't say "national curriculum", it's a joke - if you can run a Sharia school, you can run a school with no computers and 1950s-style teaching.

I can problem solve.

There is a state secondary school near me where the education system is very very similar to what I had 40 plus years ago and parents are beating down the doors. It is very oversubscribed.

In the first year children make up 5 years of reading standard. To reach the level that this school starts its education at they need to make up 5 years. They are rated outstanding in all areas including special needs. They are taking children who need to learn to read properly in the first year of secondary school does that sound as if the local primary schools are offering a good standard of education?

Being able to do lots of things badly doesn't make a good education.

If I need to use an excell spread sheet I can teach myself to do it. I use Sibelius in my volunteer job to arrange music for adults to play. This means that not only can I read and write music on the programme I can also harmonise tunes so that they fit the instruments and the standards of playing that I have. I would not be able to do this if I couldn't problem solve.

http://mcsbrent.co.uk/ If you want to see the success of the school near me. Reading the blogs of the teachers who work there is also very interesting.

economic

the other issue is that some kids are unfortunately not realizing their potential by being stuck in classrooms with kids who are of inferior IQ.

what i think should happen for every school, is that kids are grouped into groups of low IQ, middle IQ and high IQ. And teach kids appropriately to their IQ/ability.

So if we pick computing say, a low IQ group of kids should be taught very basic things like simple code writing, all the way upto if statements in a very basic programming language like BASIC. In the high IQ class we would teach them a lot more for eg functions, recursion, for/whilst loops, compiling/error checking etc in a language like C or Java or Python.

Cakeguts

economic wrote: »

the other issue is that some kids are unfortunately not realizing their potential by being stuck in classrooms with kids who are of inferior IQ.

what i think should happen for every school, is that kids are grouped into groups of low IQ, middle IQ and high IQ. And teach kids appropriately to their IQ/ability.

So if we pick computing say, a low IQ group of kids should be taught very basic things like simple code writing, all the way upto if statements in a very basic programming language like BASIC. In the high IQ class we would teach them a lot more for eg functions, recursion, for/whilst loops, compiling/error checking etc in a language like C or Java or Python.

My theory about all of this is that the English language is a code. So if you can't get the letters of a word in the right order you are not going to learn coding on a computer because that also requires memory and the ability to get commands in the right order.

Basically if someone can learn to code they can learn to write words. Which means that if there are children leaving primary school who can't read or write or do simple arithmetic they are the same children who also can't learn to code on a computer. So it isn't just a case of children not learning to read at primary school it is a case of children not reaching the level of any of the education that I had when I was young. Probably the learning level of a 7 year old at age 11 compared to what we had when I was young and the ones who find reading and simple arithemtic too hard learning nothing at all.

economic

Cakeguts wrote: »

My theory about all of this is that the English language is a code. So if you can't get the letters of a word in the right order you are not going to learn coding on a computer because that also requires memory and the ability to get commands in the right order.

Basically if someone can learn to code they can learn to write words. Which means that if there are children leaving primary school who can't read or write or do simple arithmetic they are the same children who also can't learn to code on a computer. So it isn't just a case of children not learning to read at primary school it is a case of children not reaching the level of any of the education that I had when I was young. Probably the learning level of a 7 year old at age 11 compared to what we had when I was young and the ones who find reading and simple arithemtic too hard learning nothing at all.

Children of course need to learn to write words before they can code. If people can not write words by a certain age then they are simply !!!!!!. There has been a failure in the child nearly always because of upbringing. Even the worst schools in this country has children who can write English.

That is why we should have groups of children with differing abilities. Low Iq (below 85), average IQ (85-110) and high IQ (110+). The sizes of the groups may differ depending on the school but there clearly should be some division based on natural ability.

Those in the low IQ and many in the average IQ groups wont go to uni, they will get basic jobs straight out of school. There is no point teaching these kids programming or polynomial equations so why force it onto them?

Owain_Moneysaver

economic wrote: »

So if we pick computing say, a low IQ group of kids should be taught very basic things like simple code writing,

But at the moment we have kids leaving school at 16 who can't write their own name, or eat with a knife and fork.