Education and Happiness

How I agree with you all about practical subjects. Unmentioned as yet is *self esteem*. This is gained in the achievements of life and ultimately brings happiness. In my opinion this is why it is so important to teach the basics but then for some, follow studies which will interest them and allow them to become proficient. Many more school leavers would be employable and have the basics to take up a trade that they will hopefully stick at.

gangy5 you took the words out of my mouth with regard to self esteem. Children need to succeed in order to gain self-esteem and for many, the odds are against them succeeding at academic subjects. Also, they need to see the relevance of a subject to them personally. In his teaching career, my husband taught French (as required by the National Curriculum) to children who struggled to be literate in English. They just couldn't see the point of it!
Our friend used to teach "workshop" subjects and he was devastated when these were discontinued. Apart from teaching practical skills, he was able to give them a pride in actually making something. He also taught numeracy by measuring and literacy by following written instructions. He taught them to behave properly and take care because of the dangers of the machinery.
I don't think the fault lies with teachers but with a curriculum which doesn't interest the less academic children. Skilled craftsmen are getting rare in the UK because we only seem to value academic achievement.

Quite agree that our society overvalues academic qualifications and the liberal arts in particular. There are plenty of good vocational courses out there in schools and many programmes for getting the less academic pupils engaged in practical activities. However, the message coming loud and clear from Michael Gove and this government is about making courses more academic, insisting everyone does a narrow range of subjects at GCSE and devaluing vocational courses.

Just before I retired last year my school had an Ofsted Inspection at short notice. I taught PSHE to teenagers and had already prepared my lesson which was on lifeskills. The class had a quiz to identify and then answer questions on different vegetables, then they prepped the veggies and turned them into soup. It was an enjoyable lesson for all of us. The pupils were all abilities and included a student with Aspergers and one for whom English was a second language. Every student was completely engaged and the mix of academic and practical skills gave all the pupils the chance to achieve success. I always tried to include some practical skills-based component in my lessons and as a consequence had very good results across all abilities. Although I was always described as the strictest teacher in the school and had high expectations, I was very popular with the pupils. ( Could there be a connection?)

Magsie I think that your last paragraph is so totally relevant. It's such a pitty that we can't get the powers that be to take this on board. I always sense that when new policies are made that the *people nearest the action* ie. teachers and parents, are not consulted at all. It surely is possible to make education enjoyable for all.

P.S. Mamie you say that Michael Gove and this government are attempting to make subjects more academic. The last time that, I recall, when this happened was during Maggies reign. Home Economics in my mind was the most serious casualty. A whole generation has not been taught to cook, resulting in current unhealthy eating habits and an ever growing burden on the NHS.
Somebody has to get the message accross to the Education Department for the sake of today's children. How about one of you ex teachers coming up with a petition or some alternative approach?

When my children were small I used to reckon that the most useful childcare qualification I had was O level latin and I often wished I had studied greek. My children were always asking me why words were what they were. Why are people walking in the street called pedestrians? why is the place you watch films called a cinema? They would see latin inscriptions on monuments and in churches and they would want to know what they said, then there were roman numbers. They are in the credits of many television programmes and films and again on buildings in town centres and churches. I could answer everything except the cinema question, which is greek.

On a wider basis O level latin has so enriched my own life I understand the roots of so many words in English and when I see latin phrases used in books and speech and in reports of legal proceedings or on monuments and grave stones.

Yes FlicketyB - I too enjoyed Latin and have been grateful for all that it gave me BUT I was one of those academic kids who loved school, had no significant problems and went on to university. We can't advocate that teaching Latin will in any way address the problems we've been discussing here. I am now a retired teacher and agree that pupils with low self-esteem are disadvantaged. A motivated and interested teacher has a better chance of seeing motivated and interested pupils. Teachers appreciate a word of praise, a thankyou note from a parent, a token gift from a child.(that's without getting into the greater politics of education!)
Pupils need only to start with a tiny success or achievement and that opens the door for positive reinforcement and praise. None of us thrives in a negative situation so come on - whether it's your children, your grandchildren OR their teachers a little pat on the back works wonders.

Em, I get your point but the discussion here is about bringing the fun and creativity into education and I just think when education seems to be so utility driven to talk about the pleasure and delight that study can give is important. No, of course latin isnt for all children but other things may enthrall them. My 4yr old grand daughter has discovered sewing. She loves it and all the family have some kit she has completed. The enjoyment children get from cooking has also been mentioned. An education is incomplete if a child has not discovered the joy of learning something simply for the pleasure it gives them not its utility in getting them a job.. That something may be latin or philosphy or needlework or cooking. And the irony is the rounded more complete person this produces actually increases their life chances.

When my son started high school in 1983, there was something called "creative studies", consisting of cookery, needlework, woodwork, metalwork, art and design. Half a term was spent on each of these subjects and both sexes did all of them.
By the time he left, "creative studies" had been replaced by "technology", and instead of cooking anything, (for example), they had to "design a biscuit dispenser" !!
Whether the change was to do with "health and safety" or just to be "modern" I don't know, but I was told lately of a school where they did "woodwork" but weren't allowed to actually saw any wood; - it was cut up for them and they just had to put the bits together!
Someone who works in tailoring and alteration told me that students come into her shop with a button that needs sewing on, and will pay her £2.50 because they don't know how to do it.
Seems it's up to us grans to teach the children to use their hands and grapple with the real world, which has been proved to be an important factor in developing intelligence.

There were always people who couldn't sew. My mother had a student job as a child-minder. The children's mother sent all mending (at least things were mended!) to a dress-maker, including re-threading elastic into knickers! When my mother said she could do stuff like that the woman was amazed. So maybe the modern trend is to behave like the privileged rich.

A quotation from I don't know where:
Anyone who thinks playing and learning are different doesn't know the first thing about either.

One of the major problems is the culture of learning in many secondary schools, particularly for boys - unfortunately it is not cool to be clever, or even to try at lessons and learning.

My own son had some very bright friends at primary school who went on to the local secondary school rather than the grammar school - none of them reached their potential academically at the secondary school, unlike most of the girls in his peer group, most of whom gained a very good selection of A-C GCSE's

Working with 16+ NEETS( not in employment education or training)
I see that many of them have barely improved their skills since the age of 11 -12. Bearing in mind these are the young people who leave at 16 and do not have college places to go to or jobs/apprenticeships.

I think the anti-learning culture, where it exists, is in the boys rather than in the schools per se. Clearly our school system doesn't take into account this fairly prevalent developmental stage. Perhaps it would be a good idea if we could find useful work for such boys (girls too where necessary) for their anti-learning years and then get them back into schooling later. In practice, it would be difficult, but who knows ... one day ...

Our local high school does recognise that boys develop differently to girls and that their attitude also affects achievement. They have put in place a range of strategies to encourage and assist boys in the run up to GCSE's. One of the strategies used with the less academic boys is to partner them with local, skills-based businesses for one or two half days a week. Some of the girls' parents were cross that the boys were being singled out in this way, but I thought it made perfect sense; limited resources need to be targeted to where they will do the most good. Now, several years on, the strategies have obviously paid off.

My children went to single sex private schools where they did extremely well. I thought that the less distractions they had in the teen years the easier it would be.

I think that an educated person is more likely to be happy, their mental horizon is wider and they are more likely to be able to take an objective view of life, to plan for the years ahead and to solve problems.

In the uk school begins at 5 years old- an age when in most parts of the world children are still playing. I heard on You&Yours yesterday about a private school where 5 yr olds were streamed or put into sets. There have been studies in the US where children who played up to the age of 7 did better in later years especially in creative subjects and were certainly happier.

In Northern Europe most children are 6 when they start school. In Germany they go to Kindergarten from the age of 3. Children love to go to kindergarten. Adults look back on their kindergarten days with pleasure and sometimes have still got friends from that time. Kindergarten is always creative except when the children are interacting socially. They usually eat together at a table- controlled eating of healthy foods- and then they do a lot of singing and jumping about and playing in the fresh air.

Then comes the first day at school and the children look forward to this. They know it is a big day and it is duly celebrated. The whole family gathers to see them off. They sense that the playing is over but at 6+ they are ready and itching to learn to read and write. Of course they do play and swim but are expected to learn to sit still and be quiet. Ideally that is. It doesn't run that smoothly and there are faults in the system.
If a school system needs changing then it is best if it is improved when the children are small. In later years most teenagers won't feel happy at school, they don't feel happy anywhere but need keeping in some sort of system until they get to an age when they want to learn and then they need good advice from good teachers and not someone worn out with paper work, stress and noise in the classroom.
I think a lot of harm was done to the school system by David Blunkett, when he ( was it him?) started the dreaded league tables.
There is system which caters mainly for children's happiness and that is the Summerhill school. This was all the rage in the 80s with children apparently being allowed to anything they pleased. Later I heard that a lot of these students had difficulties with real life later on and the youth suicide rate was quite high. I don't think this is the answer.

Baggy, I quite agree, its the kids themselves not the school!

Interesting article in the Guardian today saying that nearly a quarter of pupils in English schools are from ethnic minorities. Almost seventeen per cent in primaries and twelve per cent in secondaries have English as a second language. Of course, this does not mean that these children will underachieve, but it does, perhaps, demonstrate the challenges in teaching and differentiation that schools may face.

Sorry, just realised I was guilty of using educational jargon in last post! Should perhaps explain that differentiation means adjusting planning and teaching to take account of different abilities, levels of language acquisition, special needs etc. Also apologies to those who already knew that!

expatmaggie; children are starting school at 4 now; my grandson is just turned 4 and will be starting in September. Don't even have two intakes now [Sept and January]. I knew someone who went to Summerhill [I'd forgotten the name of it till you mentioned it]. They all went round on rollerskates and such like. Think she was a bit screwed up as well. Anyone know much about Steiner schools? Spoke to someone who taught at one a couple of years ago, and it all sounded very sensible and good for the children.We all see what happens to children that are child stars and don't have a proper childhood..feel that starting school early and having tests done is the equivilant of that.

Most children in Scotland start school later than in England. At the very youngest it's 4.5 but that is generally discouraged. Most are nearer 5 or 5.5. (Depending on birthdays).Even then I think it's a bit young but I'd hate to see them go any younger than that.

I didn't realise that they were starting school at 4 or 4.5, but have heard this is usual in France,too. There is very strict school system there -or was- I' m not so sure of my facts.
We have Rudolph Steiner schools here in Germany and they are an alternative but have draw backs for parents. Firstly they charge about €300 per month (£ 275) Then the school expects parents to play a big part in school life; build garden houses and log cabins, climbing frames etc. all wood of course as they are close to nature and alternative in their outlook.

We have such a school nearby and I had teacher from there in my Cambridge Certificate Advanced English course. He said all the rooms have to be round which means they build or plan everything themselves and then the history of the world began with some Indian God, and it all sounded a bit queer to me and I wouldn't have sent a child there, even if I had had the spare cash for two children. One thing is, though. When they are at school the children are happy but later on they have to come to terms with life 'outside'

There is not such a large intake of children in the Steiner School. Compared to GB we are a classless society and my daughter sat next to a millionaire's daughter and a guest worker 's daughter in the beginner's class. Private education, although becoming more popular is thought to be a bit suspect and those schools have some very difficult pupils.

They can start as soon as they are 2+ out of nappies in France and Spain. Reading and writing start at 6 in France and my grandson in Spain started at 4. French schools are formal rather than strict I would say. There is very little creative stuff in primary; art, music, dance and PE are rare and special events. Lots of French and Maths taught in a very formal way from workbooks that the parents have to buy. Having said that, my personal experience based on limited observation (taught English in primary schools for a year here) is that literacy skills are certainly no higher than in the UK and there is very little creative writing. They are only in school four days a week and it is a very long day, from our village the primary school children leave at 8 and come home just before six.

It sounds a long day for a child that has got up early in the morning. When they are 7 years of age school starts here at 7:45. My grandson is waiting for the bus at 7.15 from the village where he lives. It is an early start on dark winter mornings and I found the getting up at 6 a.m. hard when my children were of school age, but the children coped. It is good that they get used to starting early if they are going to hold down a job in Germany where everything starts at that time.

Thanks for all the contributors to the forum - really enjoyed reading your responses. STill interested in knowing how people would respond to some of my original questions.