We have pooled thoughts on the NHS, how about education?

As was your previous one.

Luckygirl3

ronib

Two of my grandchildren are in a primary school which requires improvement. This is confusing to me as the progress both children have made is pretty good. Joined up handwriting, competent reading and a good understanding of mathematics and history plus an in-depth almost encyclopaedic knowledge of dinosaurs in a 6 year old is very pleasing to witness. His younger brother is also very primed to learn and is developing well as a potential leader of the pack. (Little Emperor syndrome is not confined to the private sector).

I have known children miss months of education through illness and still emerge years later with a doctorate.

Well I do agree with that!

The real joke is that primary school children are force fed a curriculum for which many are unsuited (and they switch off) and which pushes them ahead - and then when they get to secondary school, they do all the same stuff again; and the opportunity to enjoy being a child and to gain wide experience of life and people has been lost.

What is this 'force fed curriculum', in primary school Luckygirl?

One of the problems our secondary teachers found was that, taking children from up to a dozen local primaries there was quite a wide variation in what had been taught, and to what level. Some of it must have been repetitive for some children, but I would have thought that topics would be covered in more depth at secondary.

The children I worked with who were most switched off tended to be those who had never really learned to read properly. It's very hard for them when the reading element becomes harder than their limited capabilities can cope with.

MaizieD interesting comment from you about problems with reading which I presume is dyslexia. I disagree that a dyslexic has limited capabilities as a physical cause, such as a visual impairment, may affect reading ability. Teachers 30 years ago seemed very fast to discard children who struggled to read and I hope the situation has improved by now.

Children who are dyslexic learn to compensate and often are verbally adept and learn in a different way.

Problems with reading are not always to do with dyslexia and the training and support has certainly improved since 30 years ago.

Children who are not encouraged to read for pleasure often lack the stamina to read longer more complex texts as they move on from primary. Many schools make huge efforts to encourage reading -class texts, awards, class libraries, reading time, book weeks etc. but it’s certainly harder than it was when just reading e.g. Vlad the Drac to children in story time meant there’d be a huge demand for copies in class.

growstuff

Doodledog Would you insist that everybody studying a skills-based course has an A level in a traditional academic subject?

I was thinking aloud, but I’d certainly consider it, yes. I’m talking about university students here, so you’d be looking at people going into undergrad courses. Why not?

Oh for goodness sake Luckygirl3 nobody was talking about taking out music and art. He was talking about some of the more bonkers ideas about what people should be taught. When I first became an ICT inspector I had "experts" from industry telling me the children should all be taught MSDos. That would have been useful wouldn't it?
Nor do I agree that children do "the same stuff all over again" at secondary school. The National Curriculum has much more breadth and depth than that if you look at the detail of all the subjects across all the key stages.

ronib

MaizieD interesting comment from you about problems with reading which I presume is dyslexia. I disagree that a dyslexic has limited capabilities as a physical cause, such as a visual impairment, may affect reading ability. Teachers 30 years ago seemed very fast to discard children who struggled to read and I hope the situation has improved by now.

Children who are dyslexic learn to compensate and often are verbally adept and learn in a different way.

No, it was not 'dyslexia' at all (which is, in itself a much disputed term). It was, in most cases, a simple case of Aint Been Taught (ABT) as a result of the crazy method of reading instruction which had been prevalent in many English speaking countries for many years.

I mentioned the Reading Wars in an earlier post. It's a very real and hard fought war and it could well reignite right here now that I've dissed the term 'dyslexia'😁

Children who are not encouraged to read for pleasure often lack the stamina to read longer more complex texts as they move on from primary.

Children have far too much involvement with screens and visual entertainment these days. They don't develop the concentration skills needed for sustained reading. I do worry that they don't develop the ability to 'visualise' what ideas the words are meant to invoke because they are used to having all the 'imagining' done for them on screen.

They don't have to 'read for information' either; they can just ask Alexa!

Chardy

^Yes I was a teacher and yes I privately educated my children from the age of 11 so they would not be in classes where chairs were being thrown around and children showing no respect for teachers^
As a secondary teacher for 35+ years I find that so offensive. I worked in all sorts of secondary schools in different areas, I never heard of a chair being thrown.

A relative of mine who used to teach maths at a secondary school, eventually resigned because a perennially disruptive pupil threw a dart - a real pub-dartboard one - directly at him, and the weak, pathetic head refused to take any action against the pupil.

Might add that the relative was generally very popular with pupils - I once saw the dozens of Christmas cards he’d received from them - and was a cheerful, robust type.

At the time there was a shortage of maths teachers - probably still is - but he never returned to the classroom.

What is this 'force fed curriculum', in primary school Luckygirl? A good example would be children who can barely read (and sadly probably take no joy in reading) learning about "fronted adverbials."

I do understand why secondary schools need to go over things and also to find what level each child is at. My point is that, if they are going to repeat these topics in Yr 7, they could do better to be part of a broader curriculum in primary school, and leave that piece of learning till they are actually at secondary school - they will have lost nothing academically, but gained in quality of life and breadth of experience.... in cultural awareness. And they will be that much more mature and ready to absorb the topic.

What is this 'force fed curriculum', in primary school Luckygirl? A good example would be children who can barely read (and sadly probably take no joy in reading) learning about "fronted adverbials."

I was so pleased that 'grammar' was to be reintroduced to the primary curriculum, but what a terrible pig's ear 'they' made of it!

But this isn't at all typical of the rest of the primary curriculum. One example of a stupid outlier doesn't condemn the whole lot.

(I'd've been happy if the semi literate Y7s had known what nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs were😄)

Maizie D if you can imagine a situation where reading has not been taught effectively coupled with problems tracking letters along a line due to visual malfunction, what is your solution? Or if not visually impaired, hearing problems can also cause a delay in learning to read.
Does the prime minister need to tackle reading methods once maths is expanded?

ronib

Maizie D if you can imagine a situation where reading has not been taught effectively coupled with problems tracking letters along a line due to visual malfunction, what is your solution? Or if not visually impaired, hearing problems can also cause a delay in learning to read.
Does the prime minister need to tackle reading methods once maths is expanded?

Well.

Visual malfunction.

The pertinent question is, 'did this malfunction exist before the onset of reading instruction?'. Eye tracking from left to right along the line of letters/words is developed by correct reading instruction. The eye muscles need practice to develop this ability, it doesn't come 'naturally'. If the child hasn't been taught from the start to track through each word from L to R, but has been taught 'other strategies, such as looking at first, last, then middle letters in a word, or looking for words within words, they'll never properly develop the tracking muscles. Poor muscle development can be seen by child rubbing its eyes when attempting to read, often breathing heavily and complaining of headache and tiredness. You can only tell if it's not instructionally induced by it persisting despite some time being correctly instructed.
Some orthographies are read from right to left, if you tried 'reading' from R to L across a page you'd probably experience the same 'symptoms' because your eye tracking muscles aren't trained for that.

Visual impairment is another ball game, of course. Accommodations should be made for that, but it doesn't preclude learning to read unless the impairment is severe, and has nothing to do with 'dyslexia' unless you're giving it a very elastic definition.

P.S. My initial solution to all reading problems is a thorough grounding in, or revision of phonics... It catches the instructional casualties and singles out those with genuine physical or neurological difficulties.

That’s helpful Maizie D. My eldest son had a vision imbalance coupled with a 1980s reading method which caused a lot of frustration. He was also encouraged to skip read I recall.

My second son needed grommets and once my husband took him through an Enid Blyton book, against the wishes of the headteacher, his grounding in phonics was improved and he coped.

My third son had a different set of issues with no learning problems and a very strong work ethic. However having exhausted himself with 11 GCSEs, he declared at 16 that he was going to have some fun before his A levels so squashing two years into one. He got away with it upto a point.

I just hope for better for my grandchildren.

I said on the maths thread that RS is thinking of the needs of the workforce, which is much, much better than not thinking about education at all. And I agree, ronib he does need to tackle literacy next, if not at the same time

maddyone

Charitable Status should not removed. At a stroke it would ensure that thousands of children would be removed from independent schools and put into the already struggling state system, which would impose a lot of extra expense on the state system and disadvantage the state pupils as there would be a rise in class numbers and more children competing for funds to address all the children’s additional needs. Schools like Eton are the minority, most independent schools are fairly small and unremarkable.

Additionally the parents pay for their children’s education twice, firstly through the school fees they pay, and secondly through their taxes that everyone pays which in turn pays for state education. Please do not make the mistake of thinking that the parents of all independently educated children are rich. Many struggle and do without things other people enjoy in order to independently educate their children in the manner and ethos that they choose.

I don't see how the government can remove charitable status as long as a school works within the current charity laws. I have no idea what that would mean to a school. Perhaps someone who wants it taken away from schools could tell us what laws schools would be abiding by to get it - or perhaps they don't know either.

Currently, some people do not pay for dentistry; the state covers certain fees. It gives them limited choices and outcomes. Will all those who want to stop others from paying for their children's education agree they will only have the same as those on NHS Low Income can get for their teeth until all dentistry is free for all of us?

I can give you the simple answer, as I do know, DaisyAnne.
Effectively it would mean the school would have to close because all of the school's assets would have to be re distributed to other charities.

Perhaps someone who wants it taken away from schools could tell us what laws schools would be abiding by to get it - or perhaps they don't know either.

The original, ancient, meaning of charity was people (mostly the wealthy and religious institutions) providing help for the poor. The poor, those who had very little or nothing. It always seems particularly ironic that Eton was a charity school which took paying pupils to increase their income to enable them to provide schooling for the poor.

How ever the charity meaning and laws have changed over the years there is absolutely no way that private, fee paying, schools approach anywhere near a main function of providing an education for the poor. Which is what one feels ought to be the main criteria for charitable status.

My DP went to Christs Hospital on a scholarship, probably one of the few schools with charitable status that retained a truly charitable element in the 1960s/70s in that, although his parents had to pay fees they were means tested and, in theory, attendance wasn't permissible for children whose parents earned more than an upper earnings limit. There were few children there from working class backgrounds even then. It is still a fairly prestigious school for the middle classes.

I realise that people from the private education sector wouldn't be happy about it, but if an elected government has it in its manifesto, then people have voted for it. And we're always being told that in a democracy we have to accept the 'will of the people'.

Yes, interesting MaizieD, my DH went to CH a decade or so later and I agree with what you say about the school and its charitable ethos. Owning half the City of London as it does naturally gives it a unique historical position.
I'm not sure that "working class" is the best description though as it conjures up images of dockers and factory workers. You don’t have to be working class to be relatively poor in terms of income.
My uncles all went to CH too, their family backgrounds were that of being in the ministry or in the Navy.

"Yes I was a teacher and yes I privately educated my children from the age of 11 so they would not be in classes where chairs were being thrown around and children showing no respect for teachers."Sorry I forget who posted this.

I sympathise and would have done the same if I had young children.
It's not sufficient reason to retain private education as national strategy. All private education perpetuates social class rigidity. The initiative must be political.

It’s what comes with charitable status that’s the problem, I.e tax advantages. The whole thing would take an age to unpick and IMO isn’t the top priority for educational reform.
Many posters talk as though the parents of pupils at state schools have lower aspirations for their children. For about 90% of them that’s rubbish, and the govt is letting those parents down in the here and now.

I'm not sure that "working class" is the best description though as it conjures up images of dockers and factory workers. You don’t have to be working class to be relatively poor in terms of income.

That is a very narrow view of 'working class'. My DP's father worked at the main GPO sorting office in London and his mother did clerical work. Not exactly middle class. DP says that the 'middle class' pupils were mostly sons of clergy, not a highly paid profession. And there was the upper income limit (with ways round it). I wouldn't say that CH was by then 'truly' a charity school but it retained more of its charitable ethos than did Eton

I assume that its property holdings in the City were a result of the fact that it was originally a central London school and had charitable endowments from wealthy central London property owners. Who had no idea of how valuable they would be 2 or 3 centuries later...

I don’t want to appear too contrarian but
1. The top public schools own land outside England and a hostile government will encourage relocation of buildings, staff and pupils. The schools will continue.
2. I believe that universities enforce more social class rigidity than private schools. Put simply, if you want to be a Labour politician and your family is wealthy go to LSE. If you prefer a more conservative mindset then PPE at Oxford seems to be the route.
3. The argument around private education and privilege has been discussed for years and years. I think that British society remains in the main hierarchical, rigid and fairly static regardless of whether or not individual children are privately educated.

1. The top public schools own land outside England and a hostile government will encourage relocation of buildings, staff and pupils.

That's fine. They're welcome to buzz off. They don't exactly contribute to the economy, do they? And we can do without their alumni thinking that they are entitled to rule us...