2015 Election season ..........stuff it in here.

[Bilo]

Education will continue to be poor because of the egalitarians who decided to destroy selective education and undermined the rigours of discipline in the classroom. Unfortunately no serious party would be willing to change this issue.

 

As somebody who teaches in an area where the grammar school system is still extant, and has worked in both non-selective and selective schools, selective education remains divisive and skewed in favour of wealthy parents who are willing and able to coach their kids for the 11 Plus exam. The majority of working class kids end up in the secondary moderns as were, so the idea of them being havens of social mobility is a little exaggerated.

 

As for discipline in the classroom, it doesn't begin and end with the classroom practitioner. The best and most strict teacher can only achieve so much without parental support for sanctions and imposition of classroom management techniques.

 

We do everything we can to ensure that discipline is retained in the classroom and work with parents to achieve it, but we have to accept that the days of 'children should be seen and not heard' are, thankfully, well behind us. 

 

The issue of misbehaviour is much more multi-faceted than the abolition of corporal punishment as some would have us believe, we live in an age where the young are encouraged to express their beliefs and to question authority and know their rights. This is clearly going to lead to a challenge to classroom discipline, but believe me when I say that teachers work very hard to ensure their classroom is well managed.

[David Hankey]

Make no mistake, education begins at home.

 

There are too many folk who have kids, let them rule the roost and expect schools to sort them out when they get there.

 

Too many shun their parental responsibilities and duty. So, the question is; why have them in the first place?!!

[SMX11]

What do you mean by "selective education"?

 

A system similar to the old grammar schools.

 

As somebody who teaches in an area where the grammar school system is still extant, and has worked in both non-selective and selective schools, selective education remains divisive and skewed in favour of wealthy parents who are willing and able to coach their kids for the 11 Plus exam. The majority of working class kids end up in the secondary moderns as were, so the idea of them being havens of social mobility is a little exaggerated.

 

As for discipline in the classroom, it doesn't begin and end with the classroom practitioner. The best and most strict teacher can only achieve so much without parental support for sanctions and imposition of classroom management techniques.

 

We do everything we can to ensure that discipline is retained in the classroom and work with parents to achieve it, but we have to accept that the days of 'children should be seen and not heard' are, thankfully, well behind us. 

 

The issue of misbehaviour is much more multi-faceted than the abolition of corporal punishment as some would have us believe, we live in an age where the young are encouraged to express their beliefs and to question authority and know their rights. This is clearly going to lead to a challenge to classroom discipline, but believe me when I say that teachers work very hard to ensure their classroom is well managed.

 

I never see that as an argument against selective education, comprehensive education is far more skewed in favour a wealthy parents as they live or will move into areas where good state schools are or pay for private schooling. Having a larger amount of selective schools would make this 'issue' dissipate over time.

[theessexfox]

I go to a grammar school and I wouldn't say there is a particularly high proportion of rich kids, most are there on merit. 

[SMX11]

This is a quite interesting document on the subject:

 

http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/theselectiondebate

[katieakita]

See Moose is on the wind up again, did he ever admit to what he does for a living, reckon he could be David Cameron.

[Bilo]

The NF are a protest vote which has made the other parties take note. Very similar to UKIP votes.

 

I'm no fan of UKIP, but everything I've seen of the French NF makes them seem a lot more extreme than UKIP would ever dare to be.

[Bilo]

I go to a grammar school and I wouldn't say there is a particularly high proportion of rich kids, most are there on merit. 

 

I'm not saying rich so much as middle class and comfortable, and of course they're there on merit.

 

I'd also say that there will be more 'rich' kids there than there are children from parents claiming benefits. 

[MooseBreath]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27314075

2nd in Europe and 6th in the world for education. Best paid young teachers in the world as previously posted. School spending is ring fenced. Gove has gone. Not that bad really, is it? Teachers act like they're the only people in the world who have to work for a living.

[Bilo]

I never see that as an argument against selective education, comprehensive education is far more skewed in favour a wealthy parents as they live or will move into areas where good state schools are or pay for private schooling. Having a larger amount of selective schools would make this 'issue' dissipate over time.

 It doesn't really work like that.

 

I feel pretty sure that, if the figures exist, you'll find that there are significantly more children receiving FSM in non-selective schools than there are in selective schools, even in the same town. It'd be wrong to say that grammar schools are full of posh kids, but experience tells us that the overwhelming majority from poorer backgrounds never made it to grammar school and saw their opportunities affected as a result. At least the comprehensive system allows kids who might be 'late bloomers' and make progress when they're 13-14 the same opportunities as those who show earlier promise.

 

Of course there are some 'sink' schools in deprived areas, but there are also some fantastic state schools in very challenging areas to balance it out. 

[Guest]

Make no mistake, education begins at home.

 

There are too many folk who have kids, let them rule the roost and expect schools to sort them out when they get there.

 

Too many shun their parental responsibilities and duty. So, the question is; why have them in the first place?!!

 

I couldn't agree more with these statements.

[katieakita]

Make no mistake, education begins at home.

 

There are too many folk who have kids, let them rule the roost and expect schools to sort them out when they get there.

 

Too many shun their parental responsibilities and duty. So, the question is; why have them in the first place?!!

 

This

[Bilo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27314075

2nd in Europe and 6th in the world for education. Best paid young teachers in the world as previously posted. School spending is ring fenced. Gove has gone. Not that bad really, is it? Teachers act like they're the only people in the world who have to work for a living.

 

It's worth pointing out that those rankings take into account university education and graduate rates rather than just compulsory education.

 

Other studies, which don't take this into account, paint a more grim picture.

 

This, coupled with the worst English GCSE results since 1988 last August as well as a decline in students achieving the top grades and a teacher recruitment and retention problem that could turn into a crisis left unchecked is some way from a success.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25187997

[Bilo]

Make no mistake, education begins at home.

 

There are too many folk who have kids, let them rule the roost and expect schools to sort them out when they get there.

 

Too many shun their parental responsibilities and duty. So, the question is; why have them in the first place?!!

 

I agree with that.

 

It's far too easy to blame the teacher for failings that actually begin at home.

 

 

This being said, the overwhelming majority of parents I've had dealings with have been nothing but supportive. The parents who believe they're sending off little cherubs to school with a spring in their step and a glint in their eye can cause problems though - their kids are normally poorly behaved and the parents just won't have it.

[theessexfox]

 

 

I'd also say that there will be more 'rich' kids there than there are children from parents claiming benefits. 

But I would say that on the whole, that's more down to how they've been brought up than paying for tutoring. But then again I only see a tiny snapshot of selective education over the UK so perhaps you're right. 

[Guest]

I'm no fan of UKIP, but everything I've seen of the French NF makes them seem a lot more extreme than UKIP would ever dare to be.

 

Maybe but it's a newer softer FN these days. They've even given Jean-marie the hook.

 

I think parties in England deceive the population far more when it comes to their real beliefs, maybe it's an advantage in France that the media/politicians relationship is far different. The parties and leaders are questioned properly in a far better manner on a more regular basis than in England. The population are therefore better informed. It's been a real eye-opener for me. 

 

Don't get me wrong the Front National are still despicable but they are used by the populace to make a point to the other parties. Both in the recent elections and in the presidential elections recently the FN did well in early rounds and then when it came down to a choice of FN and another in the final round, it was usually the other party who won convincingly - whether they were right or left.

 

I'm sure you know the French voting system, but for those who don't, there is a first round of voting and if 1 party doesn't get 50%+ of the vote (obviously quite normal) then the top 2 go through to a second round the following week where everybody votes again.

 

If this had been the case in England many of the seats would have gone to a second round where the two most popular parties go head to head with a fresh vote allowing you to change your vote in the second round. I'm sure that would have given a very different outcome to the election. 

[SMX11]

 It doesn't really work like that.

 

I feel pretty sure that, if the figures exist, you'll find that there are significantly more children receiving FSM in non-selective schools than there are in selective schools, even in the same town. It'd be wrong to say that grammar schools are full of posh kids, but experience tells us that the overwhelming majority from poorer backgrounds never made it to grammar school and saw their opportunities affected as a result. At least the comprehensive system allows kids who might be 'late bloomers' and make progress when they're 13-14 the same opportunities as those who show earlier promise.

 

Of course there are some 'sink' schools in deprived areas, but there are also some fantastic state schools in very challenging areas to balance it out. 

 

I don't think you can fairly compare what remains of selective secondary education on that basis as I mentioned that a lot of them are highly desirable and as a result mainly are severely oversubscribed. No matter what you do, in general, children from wealthier backgrounds are more likely to have the advantages but if there is enough coverage of a selective system of secondary education the bright poorer kids wouldn't be 'pushed out'.

 

I think the perceived failure of the previous grammar school system was because of the failure of technical colleges and the secondary moderns coupled with the idea that you have failed if you didn't get into a grammar school. One thing that is certain is that more children (in term of percentage) from a poor background did attend the top universities.

[Webbo]

It's worth pointing out that those rankings take into account university education and graduate rates rather than just compulsory education.

 

Other studies, which don't take this into account, paint a more grim picture.

 

This, coupled with the worst English GCSE results since 1988 last August as well as a decline in students achieving the top grades and a teacher recruitment and retention problem that could turn into a crisis left unchecked is some way from a success.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25187997

From an article dated 2013;

The UK has made little progress and remains among the average, middle-ranking countries, in 26th place for maths and 23rd for reading, broadly similar to three years ago.

 

Also.

But the biggest gap is between Wales and the other parts of the UK, adrift from most of the middle ranking western countries.

 

Isn't education devolved to the Welsh assembly, run by Labour?

[Strokes]

Make no mistake, education begins at home.

There are too many folk who have kids, let them rule the roost and expect schools to sort them out when they get there.

Too many shun their parental responsibilities and duty. So, the question is; why have them in the first place?!!

The trouble is the parents are allowed to hide behind invented conditions such ADHD and all the other hippy shit.

We don't like blaming them, so the kids are labeled and forever more tarnished. Its the system as much as the parents IMO.

[Bilo]

The trouble is the parents are allowed to hide behind invented conditions such ADHD and all the other hippy shit.

We don't like blaming them, so the kids are labeled and forever more tarnished. Its the system as much as the parents IMO.

 

Sorry, but anyone who thinks ADHD doesn't exist has never worked in education. 

 

It's exacerbated by much of the modern world - the obsession with instant gratification and poor diet, but it certainly exists.

[Strokes]

Sorry, but anyone who thinks ADHD doesn't exist has never worked in education.

It's exacerbated by much of the modern world - the obsession with instant gratification and poor diet, but it certainly exists.

I respectfully disagree, I think if you excuse the behavoir rather than tackle the cause it gets worse and maybe beyond repair. Its not a condition until the label is attached.

[davieG]

Being classed as failure at 11 - super!

[Bilo]

I respectfully disagree, I think if you excuse the behavoir rather than tackle the cause it gets worse and maybe beyond repair. Its not a condition until the label is attached.

 

That's a belief that flies in the face of pretty much every study conducted. At worst, it's overdiagnosed but this doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all.

 

Forty years ago, some said the same about dyslexic and dyspraxic kids. Dyslexic kids were just thick or lazy, dyspraxic kids were clumsy and autistic kids were just weird. The knowledge of the condition doesn't excuse poor behaviour or write off the child, it simply enables us to better teach and assist the child.

[Strokes]

That's a belief that flies in the face of pretty much every study conducted. At worst, it's overdiagnosed but this doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all.

Forty years ago, some said the same about dyslexic and dyspraxic kids. Dyslexic kids were just thick or lazy, dyspraxic kids were clumsy and autistic kids were just weird. The knowledge of the condition doesn't excuse poor behaviour or write off the child, it simply enables us to better teach and assist the child.

I'm not labeling the kids anything, that's the point. I understand the defence but in my (albeit limited) experience, the kids can just be very misunderstood and play up to label.

I concede you will undoubtedly have seen much more examples and are far better judge but I have seen a couple of cases, as you put it, misdiagnosed.

[Guest]

We all have some condition or another they just haven't all been classified yet. It's what makes us relatively unique.