Education

[reohn2]

If there weren't a need due to a better education system,then there wouldn't been a need would there?

I dunno, some parents are very keen on their children learning instruments and I doubt this could be done properly without a) a private tutor or b) a proper music school.

Straws,clutching,at!
Point covered in a previous post

Ah! So you do understand what I was driving at,you just assumed too much of me

Maybe, I'm not sure how you'd fix the problem you see...you said increase funding, but would one school tend to different types of children? Wouldn't it be better to separate as per ability and type of schooling, something akin to the German system, something a bit like we used to have...

What would the reohn2 system look like?

Do you honestly think I can give you a blow by blow account of how I'd run the education system?
But I know who can and it's not MP's,not the current crop of bean counter at any rate.
If you care to read my posts on this thread the answer is in there.
A clue,it's the teachers

[Freddie]

Straws,clutching,at!
Point covered in a previous post

Not in the least, if you want to become a top tier classical musician, then more likely than not you'll need to attend a dedicated music school. I think it makes my point, that if children have certain skills we are trying to bring out, we need specialised schools to do so. This would be far more efficient than putting them together and giving a one size fits all style education.

Do you honestly think I can give you a blow by blow account of how I'd run the education system?

Well, you seem to think the grammar schools would have no place in the scheme, correct? If so, why? I think more academic children would be pushed to their limit (better for them/better for society) and those who are not quite so academic get more individual time with their teachers through smaller class sizes, therefore bringing out the best in everyone, how would this be bad?

A clue,it's the teachers

Ok, and if they wanted grammars back....?

[reohn2]

Straws,clutching,at!
Point covered in a previous post

Not in the least, if you want to become a top tier classical musician, then more likely than not you'll need to attend a dedicated music school. I think it makes my point, that if children have certain skills we are trying to bring out, we need specialised schools to do so. This would be far more efficient than putting them together and giving a one size fits all style education.

Ok,you start by giving any child the chance to learn an instrument,if they show interest and practice and patience they then do pretty much as they do now and join the school orchestra if they show real promise the tuition becomes more focused,and so on.
At some point they either plateau or show show real talent(the same can be said for academic subjects),at that point more focused tuition can be given,it doesn't have to be private if good teachers are employed by the school but it can be.

Do you honestly think I can give you a blow by blow account of how I'd run the education system?

Well, you seem to think the grammar schools would have no place in the scheme, correct?

IMHO grammar schools seperate and,whether intended or not propgate elitism and division.
There's no reason with properly funded education system why those students can't be educated exactly the same in the same school as all other children.

If so, why?

Why shouldn't those children not be taught in the same schools as others?

I think more academic children would be pushed to their limit (better for them/better for society) and those who are not quite so academic get more individual time with their teachers through smaller class sizes, therefore bringing out the best in everyone, how would this be bad?

And why should all children not be taught in smaller classes to the same ratio,to bring out their best?
Or is it that they aren't worth that same effort because they have different talents?

A clue,it's the teachers

Ok, and if they wanted grammars back....?

[/quote]
And if they didn't?
Do you have any indication or proof that teachers would want a grammar school system?

[Freddie]

Ok,you start by giving any child the chance to learn an instrument,if they show interest and practice and patience they then do pretty much as they do now and join the school orchestra if they show real promise the tuition becomes more focused,and so on.
At some point they either plateau or show show real talent(the same can be said for academic subjects),at that point more focused tuition can be given,it doesn't have to be private if good teachers are employed by the school but it can be.

Where do you get the money to do that though? Most children who go to be classically trained musicians of the highest calibre get a start at a very early age, as their parents cough up the money for them to do so when they are between 5 and 7 years of age. Where does a school get the money to purchase these kinds of instruments that will be knocked about and have to be replaced regularly? I don't see any state school having the funds.

Furthermore, playing purely in the school orchestra, unless it is a proper conservatory, will stifle the children that are most capable and then the quality of music will decline. In classical music, this kind of thing makes an enormous difference to the quality of musicians you turn out.

This is more cutting the heads off high poppies and for what?

IMHO grammar schools seperate and,whether intended or not propgate elitism and division.
There's no reason with properly funded education system why those students can't be educated exactly the same in the same school as all other children.

...and what is wrong with elitism, if the elite is based upon ability? We see elite things everyday and are no worse for it. Far better to nurture an intellectual, musical, sporting (insert thing here) elite, than to squander it based upon notions that everything must be distributed fairly. If ability for one thing or another is not fairly distributed among individuals, then why should we seek to capitalise upon ability as if it is?

Let's face it, people segregate themselves in real life by profession and education. A doctor and plumber are likely only going to come in contact, if they are not old family friends, if one is a patient of the other or one is doing some work in the others home. They are not the kind of people who will typically keep company with each other, as the difference in character and interests would be so disparate as they would have little in common.

There's no reason with properly funded education system why those students can't be educated exactly the same in the same school as all other children.

If you educate everyone exactly the same, then you are being very taxing on some children and very easy on others. If you separate as per ability and talents, then you can get the best out of everyone. Educating everyone the same gets the best out of nobody.

Why shouldn't those children not be taught in the same schools as others?

See previous answer.

And why should all children not be taught in smaller classes to the same ratio,to bring out their best?
Or is it that they aren't worth that same effort because they have different talents?

It is such that the thing you nurture in one child is not what you nurture in another. If a child is struggling with reading, you don't expect the same as the child who excels and you would approach teaching the two children in different ways. This, I think, would best be facilitated by different schools, rather than expecting teachers to be so nimble of mind as to be able to flit from teaching a child with learning difficulties to teaching one who is precocious in their intellect.

And if they didn't?
Do you have any indication or proof that teachers would want a grammar school system?

I don't know if they do or not, but I do not care what they want, frankly. I don't know if teachers are the ones best to judge, I just want a system that works. We had one that did work and it seems to me that much of the rest of the world are not busily squandering the abilities of their children (in whatever field) because they insist everyone must be thrust in together to be equal.

[pwa]

If we were to separate children into different streams due to different types of aptitude we certainly wouldn't do it the way they did it for the old Grammar / Secondary Modern system. That was more of a test of the family's aptitude to train their kids than of the raw ability of the children. Funny how folk always call it the Grammar School system when most of the kids in that system went to Secondary Modern schools. (Past tense except for Kent)

[Freddie]

If we were to separate children into different streams due to different types of aptitude we certainly wouldn't do it the way they did it for the old Grammar / Secondary Modern system. That was more of a test of the family's aptitude to train their kids than of the raw ability of the children. Funny how folk always call it the Grammar School system when most of the kids in that system went to Secondary Modern schools. (Past tense except for Kent)

I know plenty of working class people who passed their 11+. I very much doubt anyone had the time or inclination to train them to pass the test. Maybe the occasional teacher, but there was little to no family involvement.

[pete75]

Pete, you didn't answer my question though...How are your children, who I presume have benefitted from your wealth, much different from the children of old Etonians, who you say benefit from an unfair advantage through their fathers' contacts. Where is the line drawn between fair and unfair advantage?

Isn't it a bit convenient that old money is unfair, whilst new money is not.

They both went to ordinary state schools. I haven't any contacts who could help them get jobs in the city or a hutch up into politics. I'm not wealthy at all- we have or rather had before I retired two normal incomes for not overly successful professional people. I was principal systems analyst in a large company and my wife has her own practice.
Anyhow enough about me. Where were you educated, what was was your family background? Have you any children? Where were they educated? What in your background has shaped your attitude towards the working classes?

[pwa]

If we were to separate children into different streams due to different types of aptitude we certainly wouldn't do it the way they did it for the old Grammar / Secondary Modern system. That was more of a test of the family's aptitude to train their kids than of the raw ability of the children. Funny how folk always call it the Grammar School system when most of the kids in that system went to Secondary Modern schools. (Past tense except for Kent)

I know plenty of working class people who passed their 11+. I very much doubt anyone had the time or inclination to train them to pass the test. Maybe the occasional teacher, but there was little to no family involvement.

But they will have had a good family situation with supportive parents who got their kids to bed at a sensible hour, gave them a decent breakfast and wanted the best for them. Not all families are like that. If you take a kid at 11 and test them on what they can do at that age you disregard their future potential. Neither you, nor I, nor any teacher can say what a child might be capable of given the opportunities in the future.

The comprehensive system that I went though, and my kids went through, allowed kids to reach as far as they were able. One boy in my year was so exceptional that he had a promise of a career with the BBC even before he started University. Another boy I knew went to a furniture store to sell sofas. Streaming within the school allowed for different ability levels. If you tried a bit harder or suddenly found your stride you could progress to a higher stream within the same school, yet still play footy with the same friends at dinner time.

Both my comprehensive school and that of my children had the advantage of not being in the catchment of a private school, so the wealthier families with their high aspirations sent their kids there. Those comprehensives were not just a repository for kids who could not go to the better schools. That is why they worked well. If you cream off kids from the state system the state schools effectively lose much of their top tier. The ambience of such schools will be different. For the comprehensive school system to work it has to be comprehensive, and not just basic.

[Cugel]

If we were to separate children into different streams due to different types of aptitude we certainly wouldn't do it the way they did it for the old Grammar / Secondary Modern system. That was more of a test of the family's aptitude to train their kids than of the raw ability of the children. Funny how folk always call it the Grammar School system when most of the kids in that system went to Secondary Modern schools. (Past tense except for Kent)

I know plenty of working class people who passed their 11+. I very much doubt anyone had the time or inclination to train them to pass the test. Maybe the occasional teacher, but there was little to no family involvement.

You do like these huge generalisations, eh? Unfortunately, they tend to undermine any argument you make. One cannot help but think: simplistic ... in the extreme. Unlikely to be an accurate picture of anything other than Fred's wish for a simple world of A or B notions, with only one winner-notion illustrating Fred's simple categorisation of human types.

I suppose I could give you my own experience of learning at home, various schools, passing the 11+ and so forth. What would it signify? One boy's experience - perhaps one of your "outliers".

I'll just mention that I emerged from extreme poverty via fine opportunities (equalised by that Attlee fellow and similar) combined with a mother happy to play spelling, sentences and sums with her 3-year old, despite working two underpaid and very physical jobs. Of course, my experience may have been unique, with every other grammar school lad rising naturally through innate "talent" with no help other than an expensive teacher at a private school. Ha!

Has anyone in this thread discussed what education is for? There is no single answer and no single education mode that is "correct" for all. Humans learn all sorts, for all kinds of reasons, via various methods. The question is, what different formal methods and techniques of learning could be (and perhaps ought to be) provided; and to whom? Perhaps you have one of your singular answers, probably involving some hierarchy of worth you happen to favour?

Would you like a go at this question: what is education for.........?

Cugel

[Freddie]

But they will have had a good family situation with supportive parents who got their kids to bed at a sensible hour, gave them a decent breakfast and wanted the best for them. Not all families are like that.

I don't think that was the case at all. Certainly some, but no more or less than would have done so anyway. There was almost nothing in the way of coaching by working class parents for the 11+
Some may have read to their children more than others, some may have been more involved, but this is just normal variance. There was no coaching as there is today, because there were enough grammars to make such a thing unnecessary. The thing reohn2 claims to want, enough good schools, there then was for those of the ability to enter them. This is not to say the secondary moderns were bad either, they weren't.

What is bad is throwing everyone in together and pretending that it gets the best out of anyone. This is not to say there aren't very good comprehensives, there are, but typically they will be in wealthier areas where working class children are not to be found, because their parents don't have the money to buy/rent a house in said area. How is selection by postcode better than selection by ability for social mobility of the working class?

You do like these huge generalisations, eh? Unfortunately, they tend to undermine any argument you make. One cannot help but think: simplistic ... in the extreme.

Well, that is your stock in trade though, isn't it? Undermining arguments, a la 'it's not true all the time, in every possible circumstance, therefore it has no value'. I think somebody must have told educated people at some time or other that averages don't exist and you must always pretend as if this is so, if you want to appear educated.

Life experience tells us otherwise, but there you go. If we want to appear educated, then it is necessary to run contrary to reality.

I'll just mention that I emerged from extreme poverty via fine opportunities (equalised by that Attlee fellow and similar) combined with a mother happy to play spelling, sentences and sums with her 3-year old, despite working two underpaid and very physical jobs. Of course, my experience may have been unique, with every other grammar school lad rising naturally through innate "talent" with no help other than an expensive teacher at a private school. Ha!

Unique, no! These black and white extremes you are conjuring up, not me. You are constructing strawmen, so that you may take them down - this is not what I'm arguing, and I think you know it.

Unusual, perhaps? You are old enough to grow up in a time where the wasn't the ever present glow of flat screen televisions and this skews things rather in the modern day. I imagine your mother was just doing what her nature compelled her to do for you, she wasn't prepping you especially, but she wanted what she wanted for you and that was to read and such.

Has anyone in this thread discussed what education is for? There is no single answer and no single education mode that is "correct" for all. Humans learn all sorts, for all kinds of reasons, via various methods. The question is, what different formal methods and techniques of learning could be (and perhaps ought to be) provided; and to whom? Perhaps you have one of your singular answers, probably involving some hierarchy of worth you happen to favour?

So, we actually agree on something, but you have to dress it up as a Cugel intellectual take down. I mean, really, it all so tiresome.

Have I not already said that children have different abilities and gifts and these would best be taken advantage of by different schools for such. This concept is obviously horrific to you and a number of others, but I don't see why. No one yet has said they believe that a child is a blank slate, most everyone agrees that children will have differing talents (do you?), so why then expect them to achieve their full potential at a one size fits all school.

Would you like a go at this question: what is education for.........?

To show people how clever you are by going against what is palpably sensible and presenting that as the educated view? No, no...I jest

I think it has value in and of itself, but you cannot provide the same education, as per the dictates of the god of equality, to a precocious child as to one that is struggling. Now, it may be that one struggling will, with help, surmount his difficulties and show himself to be a very capable, but how likely is it that a child who is borderline illiterate at age 11 is going to do so...not particularly.

Does this mean we throw them away? (I will put this is capitals to help you) NO!
Does it mean that they have no value and cannot do well both by themselves and the society in which they live? NO!
Does it mean we try and educate them in the same way we would a child who is obviously academically forward? NO!

It is on the last point we have a disagreement. Of course, you will give us a long post telling me how I think everything is black and white and I'm some kind of scoundrel for recognising reality for what it is, but I accept reality and don't think nature can be so easily subverted.

As I said before, if we want to appear educated in the modern world, then it is necessary to run contrary to reality.

Maybe it is something to do with Man's egotism, his supposed mastery over nature showing that we have truly arrived as the apex species? She will be bent to our will and not us to hers....I don't know precisely, but it all just seems rather fruitless to me.

[reohn2]

Ok,you start by giving any child the chance to learn an instrument,if they show interest and practice and patience they then do pretty much as they do now and join the school orchestra if they show real promise the tuition becomes more focused,and so on.
At some point they either plateau or show show real talent(the same can be said for academic subjects),at that point more focused tuition can be given,it doesn't have to be private if good teachers are employed by the school but it can be.

Where do you get the money to do that though? Most children who go to be classically trained musicians of the highest calibre get a start at a very early age, as their parents cough up the money for them to do so when they are between 5 and 7 years of age. Where does a school get the money to purchase these kinds of instruments that will be knocked about and have to be replaced regularly? I don't see any state school having the funds.

Taxes,put the emphasis on all education not league table post code lotteries,I've covered this in previous posts

Furthermore, playing purely in the school orchestra, unless it is a proper conservatory, will stifle the children that are most capable and then the quality of music will decline. In classical music, this kind of thing makes an enormous difference to the quality of musicians you turn out

If schools are properly funded then school orchestras will have better instruments and teachers and not burned out teachers spending all their time chasing there tail working long hours with little appreciation and poor pay

IMHO grammar schools seperate and,whether intended or not propgate elitism and division.
There's no reason with properly funded education system why those students can't be educated exactly the same in the same school as all other children.

...and what is wrong with elitism, if the elite is based upon ability?
We see elite things everyday and are no worse for it

Really?
I give you the present PM and the previous two

The dictionary,elitism:-
noun
The belief that a society or system should be led by an elite.
The dominance of a society or system by an elite.
The superior attitude or behaviour associated with an elite.

Far better to nurture an intellectual, musical, sporting (insert thing here) elite, than to squander it based upon notions that everything must be distributed fairly. If ability for one thing or another is not fairly distributed among individuals, then why should we seek to capitalise upon ability as if it is?

We'll have to disagree,because of your belief that some are more deserving than others due to their wealth,I seek a more fair society,because a fairer society is better for all not just the few.

Let's face it, people segregate themselves in real life by profession and education. A doctor and plumber are likely only going to come in contact, if they are not old family friends, if one is a patient of the other or one is doing some work in the others home. They are not the kind of people who will typically keep company with each other, as the difference in character and interests would be so disparate as they would have little in common

You're describing a stratified society based on money,which is a reflection of a stratified education system,a seperated system of them and us.

There's no reason with properly funded education system why those students can't be educated exactly the same in the same school as all other children.

If you educate everyone exactly the same, then you are being very taxing on some children and very easy on others. If you separate as per ability and talents, then you can get the best out of everyone. Educating everyone the same gets the best out of nobody

.
But that's not what I said is it?

And why should all children not be taught in smaller classes to the same ratio,to bring out their best?
Or is it that they aren't worth that same effort because they have different talents?

It is such that the thing you nurture in one child is not what you nurture in another. If a child is struggling with reading, you don't expect the same as the child who excels and you would approach teaching the two children in different ways. This, I think, would best be facilitated by different schools, rather than expecting teachers to be so nimble of mind as to be able to flit from teaching a child with learning difficulties to teaching one who is precocious in their intellect

You're assuming again,which is not what I said is it?

And if they didn't?
Do you have any indication or proof that teachers would want a grammar school system?

I don't know if they do or not, but I do not care what they want, frankly. I don't know if teachers are the ones best to judge, I just want a system that works. We had one that did work and it seems to me that much of the rest of the world are not busily squandering the abilities of their children (in whatever field) because they insist everyone must be thrust in together to be equal.

If teachers aren't best to judge then who?
Do teachers not know their job,or what's best for the pupils and students?
Or is it that you believe they can't be trusted?
IMHO the problem is tiered system underfunded with burned out overworked teachers on the bottom tier as PWA states,"hanging on with their fingernails".

I'll state it again,the education system at state level is an underfunded shambles for the majority in the control of elitist politrickians who don't know their arris from their elbow about educarion for the most part,whilst providing the best for those who can afford it.

And I'm not of the opinion the that all pupils/students are of the same equal ability only that each one should have the opportunity to be as good as they can be in a fair equally and well funded education system, something which is sadly lacking presently.

[Carlton green]

Has anyone in this thread discussed what education is for? There is no single answer and no single education mode that is "correct" for all. Humans learn all sorts, for all kinds of reasons, via various methods. The question is, what different formal methods and techniques of learning could be (and perhaps ought to be) provided; and to whom? Perhaps you have one of your singular answers, probably involving some hierarchy of worth you happen to favour?

Would you like a go at this question: what is education for.........?

Cugel

The question wasn’t addressed to me but I do think that the question is a rather important one that is too often over-looked. IMHO the primary purpose of education is to enable someone to: understand where they fit into the society, place and time around them; make reasoned and informed decisions; and to sustain themselves and their family. There are secondary purposes too and for some reason or other they are given equal importance to the primary ones ... life isn’t perfect and people confuse issues.

There are, I think, merits to both the Grammar/Secondary Modern and the Comprehensive systems. As children aren’t easily and accurately split into just two groups based on academic ability there will always be mismatches. Because they cater for virtually all abilities and they do not fragment society into the able and others I favour well run Co-Ed Comprehensive Schools (ie. Those Comprehensives that foster aspiration, respect for learning, respect for your fellow pupil, respect for the staff and are appropriately managed for a secure future). Having mentioned ability I do recognise that those at the extremes of each end of the ability range might well need a different setting to thrive best in. Sadly not all schools are well run and I’m certainly not someone who would expect any parent to put principles before saving their child from a failing school.

Grammar Schools tend not to fail but then they typically have the ablest staff and parents with the best skills and resources to help the school, they also tend to have the nicest children too. My own local Comprehensive once had an enviably good reputation and represented the amongst the best of such schools, poor management changed all that and over the time that my children were there is moved from being quite reasonable to not a place to remain at. The major part of the problem(s) within schools are due to poor management and disruptive children, which system is best is a diversion and Grammars are the pragmatic solution parents use to solving some ‘disruptive pupil / social issues’.

People have talked about funding problems for schools but I cannot remember a time when people have not talked about funding problems for schools. What I can tell you is that the schools that I attended as a child were no where near as good as those that my children attended, but of course that could be due to many factors rather than just funding levels.

[Tangled Metal]

Some may have read to their children more than others, some may have been more involved, but this is just normal variance. There was no coaching as there is today, because there were enough grammars to make such a thing unnecessary.

I hope this thread has been edited correctly, I only needed this bit to make my point.

The bold bit above says a lot. AIUI there's been a lot of work on the effects of reading too and with your kids from an early age. I believe the research concludes that you're simple act has a huge effect on kids outcomes long after you stop doing it.

As a parent if year 2 child it is very evident which kids have parents who have read to them or who encourages reading. I know of one kid with learning difficulties who's one of the most advanced readers in the class purely because he has parents and grandparents who read to him from a young age and who encourage his reading.

I know others who are still struggling at the end of year 1. I know grandparents of kids at primary schools who volunteer to help out. Their sessions helping out revolve around reading with kids who are struggling. They're basically doing what parents should have been doing.

I cannot stress the importance of reading from an early age for ability. I've had that from researchers in education psychology / child development but tbh is obvious to any parent involved with their kids and kids school activities. IMHO the effect of reading to and encouraging their reading from an early age is tantamount to coaching or tutoring in certain it has that effect long term.

This coaching is often carried out by parents of all levels of society but obviously middle class probably gets associated with this. I come from working class / often struggling grandparents through my baby boomer parents into middle class. At all generations education was considered essential. My grandparents either went to grammar schools or state schools of equivalent standards or due to hard times dropped out young to earn money for the family's survival. No matter what they were all highly literate people who believed strongly in education. All proud when their kids succeeded academically.

BTW my parents went to a good university and through the open university back when it first started. I think my mum got interviewed for the guardian on achieving one of the earliest OU degrees despite being a working mum. It's that dedication to education as kids and adults that IMHO we're losing out lost as a nation. Grammar school or not with that passion for education in families you tend to succeed.

[Carlton green]

I couldn’t agree more with what TM has just said above. We read to our own children and made sure that, as best we were able, we were involved with what was happening at school too - I appreciate that that’s not always easy or possible because some schools are more open than others, teachers are not all saints and parents have many different loads on them. When they were ready for it we also made sure that our children had reading material of their own to share or enjoy by themselves.

As an example of teenage school troubles I recount what a work-mate told me. It wasn’t cool to be a swot a his Daughter’s school so she played about there like the other kids, but at home she worked her socks off (as did several of her pals) and got the top grades required to get into Warwick. So what happens within the child’s home is crucial. Giving your kids opportunities outside of school is somewhat important too; travel, trips to the cinema and the panto, trips to the zoo, sports, music, etc. all help. Indeed what goes on via parental input lays the foundations of a successful time at school.

[Tangled Metal]

We have just finished our 4th cycle tour as a family. Our son has ridden free on 3 of them. He's 6 years old. IMHO the experience of that would have been worth more than the last couple of weeks at school when things were winding down anyway. However we'd have difficulty getting that accepted by the head.

With especially very young children it's really the whole picture that's important. School can give so much but families can too. It's a partnership that is best applied strongly from even EYE times before "big school" at 4/5 yo. IMHO experience at young age is so important.

Parents really do contribute to what adults become. Potential for good and for harm is with parents. Also schools / teachers.