• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Radical ideas to revolutionise the UK's education system

Do you agree or disagree with these ideas?

  • Reform of National Curriculum - Strongly disagree

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Reform of National Curriculum - Disagree

    Votes: 2 8.3%
  • Reform of National Curriculum - Agree

    Votes: 7 29.2%
  • Reform of National Curriculum - Strongly agree

    Votes: 11 45.8%
  • More lenient mobile phone policies - Strongly disagree

    Votes: 7 29.2%
  • More lenient mobile phone policies - Disagree

    Votes: 4 16.7%
  • More lenient mobile phone policies - Agree

    Votes: 8 33.3%
  • More lenient mobile phone policies - Strongly agree

    Votes: 2 8.3%
  • Mandatory extra-curricular activities - Strongly disagree

    Votes: 8 33.3%
  • Mandatory extra-curricular activities - Disagree

    Votes: 9 37.5%
  • Mandatory extra-curricular activities - Agree

    Votes: 3 12.5%
  • Mandatory extra-curricular activities - Strongly agree

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Extension of the school day - Strongly disagree

    Votes: 10 41.7%
  • Extension of the school day - Disagree

    Votes: 8 33.3%
  • Extension of the school day - Agree

    Votes: 3 12.5%
  • Extension of the school day - Strongly agree

    Votes: 2 8.3%
  • Reform of the term structure - Strongly disagree

    Votes: 3 12.5%
  • Reform of the term structure - Disagree

    Votes: 6 25.0%
  • Reform of the term structure - Agree

    Votes: 9 37.5%
  • Reform of the term structure - Strongly agree

    Votes: 3 12.5%
  • Education voucher system - Strongly disagree

    Votes: 4 16.7%
  • Education voucher system - Disagree

    Votes: 7 29.2%
  • Education voucher system - Agree

    Votes: 7 29.2%
  • Education voucher system - Strongly agree

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    24
Status
Not open for further replies.

PTR 444

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2019
Messages
2,449
Location
Wimborne
Note: The below is primarily focused on England’s education system, although any ideas for other nations are also welcome here.

Following on from the “Radical ideas to revolutionise the NHS” thread, I thought I’d do something similar in relation to the nation’s education system. While most industries have changed with the times, the basic format of education is pretty much stuck in the Victorian era, with an emphasis on outdated subjects which while are interesting to learn, have little practical use in today’s world. I’ve often wondered whether education policy in the UK needs a complete overhaul to bring it up to date with the modern working world, hence I have come up with a few ideas which aim to prepare students better for adult life by closing the cultural gap between education and work:

A complete reform of the National Curriculum, with more emphasis on technical subjects and life skills that prepare students for the world of work
Traditionally, most practical and life skills were taught by parents after school, but as more adults now choose careers over parenting, they have less time to teach their children these skills, so there should be a case for these to be incorporated into the National Curriculum. Things like managing finances, healthy living, workplace skills and personal safety should all be taught in addition to specific technical skills such as cooking, gardening, putting up a shelf, performing first aid etc. The issue with adding these to the curriculum is that other subjects would need to be sacrificed unless you extend the school day. English, Maths and the Sciences would absolutely have to remain, although you could probably get away with trimming down humanities such as RE and History.

More lenient mobile phone policies, with phones integrated into everyday learning and student management
Most schools take a very authoritarian approach to phone use, which is understandable from the context of minimising disruption, however this tends to teach kids that “phones are bad” in the same manner as drugs and alcohol and ignores the fact that smartphones are now an integral part of society and have potential to be used as a tool to teach safe and productive use of technology. Integrating smartphone use into everyday learning would teach kids many digital skills essential for the world of work, manage boundaries around screen time and allow them to engage with a more personalised curriculum tailored to their ambitions. It would also save schools lots of money on providing desktop computers for every pupil and replacing out of date textbooks which could be digitised and updated almost instantly on smart devices. There is the concern that this will glue kids to their phones even more, but I believe that if they are used regularly for learning, pupils will begin to associate these devices with work rather than fun, and hence use them much less in their spare time as they seek a change of activity.

Extension of the school day
As mentioned above, an expanded curriculum would necessitate this, but there is also a case for an extended school day in eliminating the need for parents to provide childcare and ensuring that kids stay out of trouble. An 8:30am start would give most parents enough time to travel to work after dropping off their kids, while finishing at 5:30pm would allow the same for the return journey after work. The problem is that children do still need time with their parents, and making this mandatory would disadvantage those who could benefit from extra family time.

Mandatory extra-curricular activities
Similar to the above, except the additional learning time would be replaced with enrichment activities such as sport, arts, music etc, which students would have to attend 5 days a week. This might be a better approach as sitting in a classroom for 8 hours isn’t really the best thing for personal and social development.

Reform of the term structure
The typical school year begins in September after a six-week long summer holiday, with two-week breaks at Christmas and Easter, and one-week half term breaks in between the holidays. This means that much of the leisure economy revolves around these dates, with prices for accommodation, travel and tourism rocketing during the holiday dates. Many schools already deviate from the traditional term dates, however one radical idea would be to abolish set holidays altogether, with school open 52 weeks a year and parents given 12 weeks worth of absence allowance to take their kids out of school at a time of their choice (which would include doctors appointments and other authorised absences in addition to holiday) This means that parents don’t have to worry about taking work leave or arranging childcare during set holidays, although it might disrupt learning in some cases if pupils aren’t given the opportunity to catch up after their leave.

Education voucher system
This would give parents more control over which schools should prosper for their children. Rather than central government funding schools directly, parents would be given a voucher of equal cost for each child, which can be used to enrol them in a state or private school of their choice. The cost would fully cover state schools, although for private schools the tuition fee may still need to be topped up with private finance. The advantage of this is that it would increase competition for good schools and incentivise them to expand, although it could possibly decrease the value of traditional private schools as they become increasingly oversubscribed. Additionally, education vouchers could be used to partially fund university tuition, home schooling and adult learning.

What are your thoughts, and would you suggest any alternative ideas to modernise the UK's education system?
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

mocko

Member
Joined
15 Apr 2013
Messages
46
I'd add one option: teach better critical thinking skills. In the long term Britain could be such a better place if it had a population more able to assess whether they're being told the truth by organisations and those in power.

[edit: also financial literacy. People would have far more independence if they were better equipped to make sensible financial decisions]
 

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
24,791
Location
LBK
I'd add one option: teach better critical thinking skills. In the long term Britain could be such a better place if it had a population more able to assess whether they're being told the truth by organisations and those in power.
Should the government's own school system be the place for that to happen?
 

MP33

Member
Joined
19 Jun 2011
Messages
491
One option is to put the leaving age back down to 16, the age when I left hitting the ground running into work. Or down to 15, I remember when it was raised when I was at Junior School. I also remember news stories of a consequence of this having to open units for disruptive pupils. Before, when they started to be an issue, it was simply possible to give them the boot from the school.
 

Cloud Strife

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2014
Messages
2,400
Point of contention: this is the English school system, not the UK system.

Anyway, to address your points in turn (as a qualified teacher who no longer works in that field):

A complete reform of the National Curriculum, with more emphasis on technical subjects and life skills that prepare students for the world of work

The problem here is cost. The humanities are relatively cheap to teach, which is why we place so much emphasis on them. If we move towards more practical subjects, it requires a lot of expensive equipment that also has to be maintained. I remember chatting to colleagues from the technical subjects, and they said that it was a constant struggle to get enough money to maintain their department.

I do not disagree with emphasising life skills/technical subjects, even as a humanities teacher, but there is a huge question over just how much it will cost. Perhaps a better alternative would be to accept the reality: that some students at 14 are already mentally out of school, and that they would be better served with a modern apprenticeship combined with continued education in English/Maths?

More lenient mobile phone policies, with phones integrated into everyday learning and student management

Absolutely. The current obsession with banning phones in schools is leading nowhere.

Extension of the school day

Problematic. Very very problematic. Schools already take up far too much of children's time, especially at the high school level, and parents/students alike are very resentful towards schools intruding on their home time. I would suggest that a better alternative could be 8:30-17:30, but with a ban on homework and several hours 'free' time throughout the day. Let's take a random English school that I coincidentally attended:


Let's propose something different:

08.30 am Registration/Assembly
08.45 am Period 1
09.45 am Period 2
10.45 am Break
11.15 am Period 3
12.15 pm Period 4
1.15 pm Lunch / free time (within school grounds - from 2.15-3.15, a range of optional activities could be offered)
3.15 pm Period 5
4.15 pm - 5:30 pm - evening break / free time / activities

The problem here is the cost of staffing. It would be ruinously expensive to staff this, especially in a large school where you've got 1000 pupils to think about. The idea itself isn't terrible, as it would provide an environment for students to relax with their friends/whatever, and if there were a wide range of activities on offer daily, it would allow kids to experiment with new things too.

Mandatory extra-curricular activities

I addressed this above, but it can work, as long as it's not compulsory to take part. You could offer simple activities like "leisure time" where they can literally just sit and hang out with their friends. Compulsion doesn't work in education, but if you offer attractive things, then students will engage.

Reform of the term structure

Interesting idea about 52 weeks with 12 weeks holiday to be taken as and when. I like the idea, especially if it was combined with a move towards student autonomy where students have a list of things that they have to be able to do by the end of the calendar year and it doesn't matter when they're done.

I've read about one idea that I liked: the school year would be divided into 6 week blocks, followed by a holiday. You would have one 2 week holiday at some point between June-September, and then the school would divide the rest of the year into blocks followed by a one week holiday. The idea here is that you work hard for 5-6 weeks, then you have a week off to recharge. It's easier on students and teachers, and it means that the batteries can be recharged rather than the current situation where most teachers and students are dead by December/March-April/June.

Education voucher system

The question here: what do you do with oversubscribed schools?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
105,158
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I'd add one option: teach better critical thinking skills. In the long term Britain could be such a better place if it had a population more able to assess whether they're being told the truth by organisations and those in power.

[edit: also financial literacy. People would have far more independence if they were better equipped to make sensible financial decisions]

Yes, this.

It's now easy to look up lots of information about any given topic in a second. Most of us even carry a device in our pocket to do this. However, some of that information is a load of rubbish, some dangerously so.

To me the idea of learning anything by rote (other than the very basics, e.g. basic mental arithmetic) is outmoded. Schools should be concentrating on research and critical thinking from a very early age, while closed-book exams that don't supply sources are now of almost no value in the modern world. Education needs to be about how, not what. I think back to some of my computer science exams which had you write code on a sheet of A4 in pen, I mean what?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Problematic. Very very problematic. Schools already take up far too much of children's time, especially at the high school level, and parents/students alike are very resentful towards schools intruding on their home time. I would suggest that a better alternative could be 8:30-17:30, but with a ban on homework and several hours 'free' time throughout the day. Let's take a random English school that I coincidentally attended:


Let's propose something different:

08.30 am Registration/Assembly
08.45 am Period 1
09.45 am Period 2
10.45 am Break
11.15 am Period 3
12.15 pm Period 4
1.15 pm Lunch / free time (within school grounds - from 2.15-3.15, a range of optional activities could be offered)
3.15 pm Period 5
4.15 pm - 5:30 pm - evening break / free time / activities

The problem here is the cost of staffing. It would be ruinously expensive to staff this, especially in a large school where you've got 1000 pupils to think about. The idea itself isn't terrible, as it would provide an environment for students to relax with their friends/whatever, and if there were a wide range of activities on offer daily, it would allow kids to experiment with new things too.

One option here is to work with the likes of voluntary charitable organisations like Scouting, code clubs, sport clubs and the likes (there's something for every taste and most kids these days do more than one) by offering access to the school buildings as a venue very cheaply on the condition of them running from about 4 to 6pm, which makes things easier for parents who work full time and would help solve the childcare crisis while providing something a bit more than just crowd control. It's very common for a kid to have school until 3:30pm, go home, rush dinner and homework, then go to Cubs for say 6pm. Instead Cubs would be at 4 after a short break after lessons (maybe with a piece of fruit and a glass of water provided to keep them going) and they'd have clear family time from 6pm to bedtime.

Obviously some volunteers can't do that sort of timing, but some certainly can. It might be surprising, but a lot of Scouting volunteers are teachers and they could.

I seem to recall reading that Thailand works like this.
 
Last edited:

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
I think we could start by just teaching the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic, and get rid of all this woke indoctrination about gender neutrality where children are allowed to "socially transition" their gender without their parents knowledge or consent, and if the parents find out and complain they are threatened with the local authority child protection team.

Teaching year 7 and 8 pupils how to masturbate is completely and utterly inappropriate, as is having a drag queen telling pupils that there are 73 genders (a subjective opinion - not scientific fact) and telling a pupil who disputes this to leave the room.

Children should also be prepared for the digital age, and have lessons in online safety, and how to use spreadsheets and databases. They should also be taught life skills such as how to manage their personal finances.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
105,158
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I think we could start by just teaching the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic

Certainly.

and get rid of all this woke indoctrination about gender neutrality where children are allowed to "socially transition" their gender without their parents knowledge or consent, and if the parents find out and complain they are threatened with the local authority child protection team.

Utterly irrelevant to the actual delivery of education, and sounds like a GB News rant with little basis in fact.

Teaching year 7 and 8 pupils how to masturbate is completely and utterly inappropriate, as is having a drag queen telling pupils that there are 73 genders (a subjective opinion - not scientific fact) and telling a pupil who disputes this to leave the room.

Year 7-8 is certainly old enough for sex education to be part of the PSHE (Personal, Social and Health Education) curriculum, and it has been for years. There are basically two options, you teach young people about sex or they'll learn it themselves from pornographic websites, Youtube influencers etc. It doesn't take much thought to work out which of those will lead to better practice of e.g. sexual hygiene in later life.

Children should also be prepared for the digital age, and have lessons in online safety, and how to use spreadsheets and databases. They should also be taught life skills such as how to manage their personal finances.

I certainly agree here. A key part of secondary education should be practical things like those, also home economics (cooking etc) need to make a return.
 

Magdalia

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
5,088
Location
The Fens
One option is to put the leaving age back down to 16, the age when I left hitting the ground running into work. Or down to 15, I remember when it was raised when I was at Junior School. I also remember news stories of a consequence of this having to open units for disruptive pupils. Before, when they started to be an issue, it was simply possible to give them the boot from the school.
I am pleasantly surprised to see that I have not got in first on this.

Increased life expectancy means that people need to work for longer. It never ceases to amaze me that nearly every policymaker wants to add those years onto the end of working life and not onto the beginning.

For a significant proportion of 16 and 17 year olds it would be better for them and better for the country if they were out working and paying taxes, instead of being kept in education not learning very much and being a drain on public finances.

Keeping 16 and 17 year olds in education was a political ploy to keep them out the unemployment statistics when those were high. That no longer applies.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
105,158
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
For a significant proportion of 16 and 17 year olds it would be better for them and better for the country if they were out working and paying taxes, instead of being kept in education not learning very much and being a drain on public finances.

Keeping 16 and 17 year olds in education was a political ploy to keep them out the unemployment statistics when those were high. That no longer applies.

Totally disagree. The job market is getting less manual and more technical, so more education is needed.

What I do strongly support, though, is apprenticeships for that age group, like the German Ausbildung system. It doesn't have to be the academic route, indeed the academic route probably suits fewer kids than it really doesn't suit.
 

birchesgreen

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2015
Messages
7,179
Location
Birmingham
School until 5:30pm? What kind of dystrophia is this lol, i used to finish at 3:10.

To be honest one of the best things that could happen to Education would be... nothing. No more major reorganisations, no more upheavals for a decent amount of time anyway.
 

Magdalia

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
5,088
Location
The Fens
Totally disagree. The job market is getting less manual and more technical, so more education is needed.
But there are still lots of jobs that don't require all that education. A useful analysis is the head, hand, heart distinction. Yes, the jobs that mainly require use of the head need technical education but there are still lots of jobs that mainly use hands and hearts where practical experience is more important than technical education.

One of the drags on the English education system is trying to impose head job style credentialism onto jobs using hands and hearts.
 
Last edited:

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
105,158
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
But there are still lots of jobs that don't require all that education. A useful analysis is the head, hand, heart distinction. Yes, the head jobs need technical education but there are still lots of hand and heart jobs where practical experience is more important than technical education.

Which is where apprenticeships come in, as the balance can be adjusted as required for the intended role. But these days there are almost no jobs that don't have at least some theoretical aspect. Even cleaning requires knowledge of appropriate use of chemicals and appropriate disposal of different kinds of waste.

I absolutely don't agree with young people being able to leave school at 16 with nothing other than a zero hour basic minimum wage job being in prospect. That's what leads to the sort of demoralised workforce we have in places, which itself leads to social problems like the only highlight of the week being "10 pints and a fight on a Friday night"* as is true in so many small British towns with low prospects.

We have to invest in our young people. ALL of our young people.

* Thanks, Viz.
 

dangie

Established Member
Joined
4 May 2011
Messages
2,189
Location
Rugeley Staffordshire
Cut the number of universities down. In many cases it appears that leaving school and going to university is now standard practice. All it seems to do is delay getting a job for a couple of years. Many ‘qualifications’ gained are of little use when actually applying for a job anyway.
 

BenS123

Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
227
Location
Bournemouth
From experience, mobile phone bans don't work and I know firsthand how well an approach of 'phones as a tool to aid learning' works. Unfortunately this is rare but the school I attend allows students to listen to music while working, do research on phones and take photos of the board for later reference. At recreational times there are no restrictions on phones other than 'don't use them for anything illegal' and 'don't use them to take photos of people without consent'.

During lesson times, any student who is using their phone for non-educational reasons (eg games) gets it taken off them for the remainder of the day and a letter is sent home.

In my opinion, this allows students to fully utilise the educational potential of the device they're carrying around all day, while ensuring they're not used inappropriately.

Mind you, my school is one that likes to see students and young adults and is quite well known locally for the amount of freedom its students have, and also well known for having a low number of behavioural incidents bearing that in mind.
 

Gloster

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
10,913
Location
Up the creek
I could waffle on for ages about how to solve the problems, but as I spent the whole of the period normally devoted to education in private establishments I won’t. One thing I do think should be considered is something common on the continent: offering the less academically inclined pupils (*) the opportunity of mixed day-release and apprenticeship courses, combined with some continuing school work in the most basic core subjects. This could start at 14, although the opportunity to actually earn and spend most of the time away from school would not come until 16. It won’t happen because a) it is a European idea, and b) it will cost money and not produce the quick results that politicians want.

I would also look at the type and quality of university degrees. Many courses just do not need a three-year full time course: a one or two year college sandwich course would be quite enough. It is not just quality, but overproduction: a few years ago the rise of TV programmes highlighting forensic crime science led to a wave of interest. There were quickly universities offering specialist courses and enrolling over seventy students a year: the turn over of jobs means that only an average around half-a-dozen jobs in the specialised branch being offered each year and the courses were too specialised to offer much in transferable skills. There needs to be some central control over the supply of courses, not the free-market dash by universities to maximise their numbers.

* - While you are at school you are a pupil, not a student: a student is in further education of some sort. I recently saw a six-year-old described as a student.
 

Puffing Devil

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2013
Messages
3,005
1. Adopt the "Finnish" Model:

When Finnish students scored amongst the top in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA, a very influential international assessment administered by the OECD) in 2001, many people in the field of education were intrigued. How could this small nation, which had not been characterized by surprisingly high results in the past, be on the top?


2. Abolish private education, with the exception of any legitimately overseas students. Pupils with a confirmed need for boarding to be catered for in the state system.
 

PTR 444

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2019
Messages
2,449
Location
Wimborne
The problem here is cost. The humanities are relatively cheap to teach, which is why we place so much emphasis on them. If we move towards more practical subjects, it requires a lot of expensive equipment that also has to be maintained. I remember chatting to colleagues from the technical subjects, and they said that it was a constant struggle to get enough money to maintain their department.
I hadn't thought about the cost of providing equipment, but if it's out of the depth of most schools' budgets, giving pupils access to technical college at a younger age might be a better move.
I do not disagree with emphasising life skills/technical subjects, even as a humanities teacher, but there is a huge question over just how much it will cost. Perhaps a better alternative would be to accept the reality: that some students at 14 are already mentally out of school, and that they would be better served with a modern apprenticeship combined with continued education in English/Maths?
I think what could have merit is reducing the age in which one can take an apprenticeship from 16 to 13. This would mean anyone in year 9 upwards could leave school if they want to, provided they have been enrolled onto such a program.
Absolutely. The current obsession with banning phones in schools is leading nowhere.
Agreed, and the longer it carries on, the more dysfunctional society will become.
Problematic. Very very problematic. Schools already take up far too much of children's time, especially at the high school level, and parents/students alike are very resentful towards schools intruding on their home time. I would suggest that a better alternative could be 8:30-17:30, but with a ban on homework and several hours 'free' time throughout the day. Let's take a random English school that I coincidentally attended:
I think I'd totally approve of a longer school day if it meant getting out of doing homework :D
I addressed this above, but it can work, as long as it's not compulsory to take part. You could offer simple activities like "leisure time" where they can literally just sit and hang out with their friends. Compulsion doesn't work in education, but if you offer attractive things, then students will engage.
While the idea of sitting around and hanging with friends will raise red flags with a lot of people (because it is seen as "doing nothing"), I have no issue with this at all. I think this is a great way for students to reflect on the day they had and recharge their batteries ready for the next. With this taking place on school premises, pupils may also feel more comfortable sharing any concerns with other pupils and staff.
Interesting idea about 52 weeks with 12 weeks holiday to be taken as and when. I like the idea, especially if it was combined with a move towards student autonomy where students have a list of things that they have to be able to do by the end of the calendar year and it doesn't matter when they're done.
More student autonomy would be good as this will teach students how to manage their own time.
I've read about one idea that I liked: the school year would be divided into 6 week blocks, followed by a holiday. You would have one 2 week holiday at some point between June-September, and then the school would divide the rest of the year into blocks followed by a one week holiday. The idea here is that you work hard for 5-6 weeks, then you have a week off to recharge. It's easier on students and teachers, and it means that the batteries can be recharged rather than the current situation where most teachers and students are dead by December/March-April/June.
Isn't this the same as what happens now except without the 6-week summer break? Or are you proposing that students choose which 2 weeks between June - September they want to take off, and working the rest of their term around that?
The question here: what do you do with oversubscribed schools?
The voucher system would incentivise them to expand. They could do this by purchasing the premises of schools that have failed through not having enough pupils.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
105,158
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Isn't this the same as what happens now except without the 6-week summer break? Or are you proposing that students choose which 2 weeks between June - September they want to take off, and working the rest of their term around that?

The point is to distribute the holidays rather than having most of them in one big chunk in summer.
 

py_megapixel

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2018
Messages
6,996
Location
Northern England
The voucher system would incentivise them to expand. They could do this by purchasing the premises of schools that have failed through not having enough pupils.
Attempts to force some kind of free-market-ism into public services have been made many times. Can anyone provide a significant example where it has actually been a positive thing for the service in question?
 

PTR 444

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2019
Messages
2,449
Location
Wimborne
Cut the number of universities down. In many cases it appears that leaving school and going to university is now standard practice. All it seems to do is delay getting a job for a couple of years. Many ‘qualifications’ gained are of little use when actually applying for a job anyway.
I would also look at the type and quality of university degrees. Many courses just do not need a three-year full time course: a one or two year college sandwich course would be quite enough. It is not just quality, but overproduction: a few years ago the rise of TV programmes highlighting forensic crime science led to a wave of interest. There were quickly universities offering specialist courses and enrolling over seventy students a year: the turn over of jobs means that only an average around half-a-dozen jobs in the specialised branch being offered each year and the courses were too specialised to offer much in transferable skills. There needs to be some central control over the supply of courses, not the free-market dash by universities to maximise their numbers.
Just a quick plug - There is much more to university than just preparing for a graduate job. Even though I'm not currently working in a role that requires a degree, university helped me a lot with my confidence and independence (bear in mind that I started my education at a SEN specialist school, and I am the only pupil from that school who has a Master's degree). I would not be the person I am today had I never enrolled.

Saying that however, university absolutely isn't for everyone. Many young adults would benefit more from going down the apprenticeship route, hence my suggestion of allowing some pupils to leave school at 13 to pursue this. If there is a need to reduce the number of graduates, pricing tuition fees differently for each course according to demand for that sector might be a better idea than cutting down the number of universities. For example, a Nursing or Medical student might receive a grant rather than a loan to cover their course, whereas someone doing Forensic Crime Science might only get a loan to cover 50% of the tuition fee cost, with the rest having to be paid through private finance.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

The point is to distribute the holidays rather than having most of them in one big chunk in summer.
Ahh that makes sense. So pupils could for example take their 2 week summer break at the beginning of June, with one-week holidays at the end of July, beginning of September, end of October, beginning of December, end of January, beginning of March and middle of April?
 
Last edited:

Cloud Strife

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2014
Messages
2,400
Ahh that makes sense. So pupils could for example take their 2 week summer break at the beginning of June, with one-week holidays at the end of July, beginning of September, end of October, beginning of December, end of January, beginning of March and middle of April?

Yes, what you do is distribute the holiday dates so that it's balanced between schools. You give a week off at Easter and two weeks at Christmas to everyone, then you create a rota so that only one or two schools from a given council are on holiday at a given time. Let's say there's 9 weeks of holiday a year:

Weeks 1-4 - school
Week 5 - holiday
Weeks 6 - 9 - school
Week 10 - holiday
Weeks 11-14 school
Week 15 - holiday (Easter)
Week 16-20 - school
Week 21 - holiday
Weeks 22-25 - school
Week 26 - holiday
Week 27-30- school
Weeks 31-32 - holiday (Summer)
Weeks 33 - 38 - school
Week 39 - holiday
Weeks 40-44 - school
Week 45 - holiday
Week 46-50 - school
Weeks 51-52 - holiday (Christmas)

This gives 11 weeks holiday a year, with a couple of two week holidays in there. There will be random bank holidays and in service days there too, so it adds up to the current 39 school week. Then this rota changes each year - the only 'stable' holiday is Easter and Christmas. The summer holiday would be placed anywhere from the middle of June until the middle of September, but generally speaking, schools would have four weeks from the beginning of June until the end of September.

This system is much more student and teacher friendly, because they have regular breaks to look forward to. You also decrease the disruption caused by longer holidays, which is a common problem after the summer holidays.

Many young adults would benefit more from going down the apprenticeship route, hence my suggestion of allowing some pupils to leave school at 13 to pursue this. If there is a need to reduce the number of graduates, pricing tuition fees differently for each course according to demand for that sector might be a better idea than cutting down the number of universities. For example, a Nursing or Medical student might receive a grant rather than a loan to cover their course, whereas someone doing Forensic Crime Science might only get a loan to cover 50% of the tuition fee cost, with the rest having to be paid through private finance.

Yes, the German system of apprenticeships works very well. There is absolutely no point in keeping some students in high schools from 13-14, their minds are already outside school and it's a waste of their time to keep them there. You want to make sure that they have the chance to get qualifications if needed, but it would make much more sense to allow them to get stuck in at a job where they can learn a meaningful and employable trade. A friend was thick as mince in school, but he loved to strip car engines as a teenager. These days, he's earning a fortune as a mechanic who specialises in engine rebuilds. If an apprenticeship had been available at 13, he would have saved 3 years of his time.

About the tuition fees: the only thing I would change here is that the loan should still be available for 100% of the cost, but you might want to charge 50% of the loan as if it was private finance. It shouldn't be difficult to evaluate each year which jobs are in demand.

I hadn't thought about the cost of providing equipment, but if it's out of the depth of most schools' budgets, giving pupils access to technical college at a younger age might be a better move.

Yes, this could be a much better option. You can actually do a lot with this, such as granting day release to students to pursue a more technical education.

Teaching year 7 and 8 pupils how to masturbate is completely and utterly inappropriate

I'm speaking with my teacher hat on here:

Some children are playing with their genitals as early as nursery. It's normal and nothing to be ashamed of, and in fact, it's an ordinary part of child development. If you work in this field, you'll know that it's nothing abnormal for them to explore their own bodies from a young age, and good quality sexual education will focus on the fact that while it's fine to explore your own body and to learn how it works, it's not acceptable for others to touch it. Year 7/8 is absolutely the right time to discuss masturbation, not least because this is a very vulnerable and difficult age for most children.

It's important to note that we don't teach them how to masturbate, but about what masturbation is. It's taught quite clinically and unemotionally, and the whole point is to make them aware of how their bodies work. If you read testimonies of child abuse, you'll notice that a common theme was that the victim didn't know or understand what was going on with their body. They were often frightened, and it was made worse by the abuser threatening them or manipulating them in some way. If the child is aware of their body, then they have a powerful weapon against any predator.

I have no comment about drag queens because I simply don't care and it hasn't featured in my professional life so far. For what it's worth, good quality sexual education has nothing to do with sociological concepts.

One critical thing is that teachers are much better at teaching about sexual education than others. Both boys and girls are suffering under the weight of unreal expectations, not only from pornography, but also body image issues. I remember teaching some classes about pornography years ago in the UK, and one thing that kept coming up was that both boys and girls had ridiculous ideas about what the 'ideal' body was. I could talk about this subject for hours, but the general principle is that we, the teachers, are well placed to explain and translate to students that what they see on the internet is not normal.

Do you know how many boys believe that women are naturally hairless? Do you know how they react when they see a woman with body hair?

This, fundamentally, is what sexual education is about. It's not about teaching children to masturbate, it's about ensuring the safety and well-being of children.

While the idea of sitting around and hanging with friends will raise red flags with a lot of people (because it is seen as "doing nothing"), I have no issue with this at all. I think this is a great way for students to reflect on the day they had and recharge their batteries ready for the next. With this taking place on school premises, pupils may also feel more comfortable sharing any concerns with other pupils and staff.

Yes, exactly. This is actually quite a good way to ensure rest too, something that a lot of children really need. We have a mental health crisis among children, and taking away a major source of stress (homework) and replacing it with time for them to simply be themselves isn't a bad thing. The only issue here is that some parents rely on children as unpaid labour, such as preparing meals for the family or taking on childcare duties.
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
6,910
Location
UK
The problem here is cost. The humanities are relatively cheap to teach, which is why we place so much emphasis on them. If we move towards more practical subjects, it requires a lot of expensive equipment that also has to be maintained. I remember chatting to colleagues from the technical subjects, and they said that it was a constant struggle to get enough money to maintain their department.
It's also worth remembering that an employer may put you through technical training, but not necessarily history or French, and I think often the critical thinking and literacy skills the humanities tech are things that maybe don't contribute to the economy; but are of a benefit to society.


Absolutely. The current obsession with banning phones in schools is leading nowhere.
Some schools seem crazy, I appreciate that phones can be disruptive, but surely teaching children about heathy relationships with their phones is going to be better in the long run.
Problematic. Very very problematic. Schools already take up far too much of children's time, especially at the high school level, and parents/students alike are very resentful towards schools intruding on their home time. I would suggest that a better alternative could be 8:30-17:30, but with a ban on homework and several hours 'free' time throughout the day. Let's take a random English school that I coincidentally attended:
I had a friend who went to a private school, after the days lessons they'd have a hour of "prep" time. From what I understand it was supervised homework with teacher guidance. This seems like a reasonable idea, as I certainly found that my attainment decreased once I ventured above the level of education of my father.
I've read about one idea that I liked: the school year would be divided into 6 week blocks, followed by a holiday. You would have one 2 week holiday at some point between June-September, and then the school would divide the rest of the year into blocks followed by a one week holiday. The idea here is that you work hard for 5-6 weeks, then you have a week off to recharge. It's easier on students and teachers, and it means that the batteries can be recharged rather than the current situation where most teachers and students are dead by December/March-April/June.
That seems not unreasonable, I would certainly offer more leniency for parents wanting to take their children on holidays outside of peak time.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

To be honest one of the best things that could happen to Education would be... nothing. No more major reorganisations, no more upheavals for a decent amount of time anyway.
I would probably support moving away from a top-down, politician-lead programme, but empowering (and funding) teachers to do the right thing for their community and school wouldn't be unwelcome.
But there are still lots of jobs that don't require all that education. A useful analysis is the head, hand, heart distinction. Yes, the jobs that mainly require use of the head need technical education but there are still lots of jobs that mainly use hands and hearts where practical experience is more important than technical education.

One of the drags on the English education system is trying to impose head job style credentialism onto jobs using hands and hearts.
Perhaps we should give people the chance to improve their lot in life? Or do we want a generation of barely literate, subservient people who are just clever enough to do the dirty jobs and operate the machines.
 
Last edited:

Cloud Strife

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2014
Messages
2,400
It's also worth remembering that an employer may put you through technical training, but not necessarily history or French, and I think often the critical thinking and literacy skills the humanities tech are things that maybe don't contribute to the economy; but are of a benefit to society.

This is the everlasting argument in education. I think the critical problem is that such skills are not needed or valued by certain students, and perhaps it's better to remove them from the classroom and place them into an environment where they will have to wise up fast. It's important that these should be skilled technical apprenticeships, not just 'preparation to work in KFC on a zero hours contract'.

Some schools seem crazy, I appreciate that phones can be disruptive, but surely teaching children about heathy relationships with their phones is going to be better in the long run.

It's largely due to the fact that schools are far, far behind the curve when it comes to scientific research. There's a growing field in Poland right now called 'neurodicatics', that is, educational neuroscience. The idea is that many things in schools are not based on science, but on gut feeling. By basing learning on science, we embrace things like phones and remove things like rote learning.

I had a friend who went to a private school, after the days lessons they'd have a hour of "prep" time. From what I understand it was supervised homework with teacher guidance. This seems like a reasonable idea, as I certainly found that my attainment decreased once I ventured above the level of education of my father.

This is an option, but I think it's quite dreary for students. I'd absolutely hate it! But again, perhaps if it was made clear that it wasn't homework, but rather an hour for students to work on their own hobbies/interests, it would be completely different.

That seems not unreasonable, I would certainly offer more leniency for parents wanting to take their children on holidays outside of peak time.

Yes, absolutely so. You divide the schools in such a way that perhaps 20% of the schools are on holiday at one time, meaning that there's no longer a real peak time but rather steady demand throughout the year. The only 'but' is that this system can be unviable for children of teachers, but this could be solved by offering those teachers some extra time off to compensate for the fact that they don't have holidays at the same time as their children.
 

GusB

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
7,475
Location
Elginshire
Homework is something that I really have an issue with. If you'd been unable to complete the work required in school time, many teachers would require that to be completed for the next day on top of any actual homework that was set. Those teachers would have no idea what homework was set by other teachers in other subjects so it could be quite a burden, especially for people who had out of school activities as well.

There should be a clear distinction between home life and school life, especially as we're trying to promote work-life balance.

That should also apply to teachers, who already have a tough enough time during the day. If you want your kids to be better educated, make sure their teachers aren't completely knackered from having to prepare lessons in their own spare time.
 

Magdalia

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
5,088
Location
The Fens
Perhaps we should give people the chance to improve their lot in life? Or do we want a generation of barely literate, subservient people who are just clever enough to do the dirty jobs and operate the machines.
That chance is already there. But what you call the dirty jobs and operating the machines still have to be done, and it does not follow that the people doing them should be, in your words not mine, barely literate or subservient. It would help if the contributions of people who work primarily with hands and hearts were better recognised and valued, in those respects they are much more clever than the people who work only with their heads.
 

DelayRepay

Established Member
Joined
21 May 2011
Messages
2,929
I certainly agree here. A key part of secondary education should be practical things like those, also home economics (cooking etc) need to make a return.

Do schools not teach Home Economics any more? When I was at school (1990s) there was a subject called Technology. This consisted of one term of Home Economics (cooking and sewing), one term of wood and metal work and one term of IT. I imagine they did it this way because all three subjects needed special classrooms/equipment which were in short supply.

Some of what we learned in Home Economics was very useful - how to prepare basic healthy meals for example. Some was less useful, for example how to knit a blanket. What we didn't cover, but would have been useful, was basic repairs to clothing e.g. replacing a button.

I think personal finance should be part of the curriculum. How to budget, how different types of borrowing work, how to work out how much a loan will cost you etc. And of course how to avoid being a victim of fraud, in this digital world.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
105,158
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Do schools not teach Home Economics any more? When I was at school (1990s) there was a subject called Technology. This consisted of one term of Home Economics (cooking and sewing), one term of wood and metal work and one term of IT. I imagine they did it this way because all three subjects needed special classrooms/equipment which were in short supply.

Some of what we learned in Home Economics was very useful - how to prepare basic healthy meals for example. Some was less useful, for example how to knit a blanket. What we didn't cover, but would have been useful, was basic repairs to clothing e.g. replacing a button.

I think personal finance should be part of the curriculum. How to budget, how different types of borrowing work, how to work out how much a loan will cost you etc. And of course how to avoid being a victim of fraud, in this digital world.

I think Home Economics has drifted a bit in some schools now. Suspect woodwork* and IT* are still around though.

* Or whatever stupid name has been invented for them this week, noting that e.g. "ICT" is not a term used commonly in the IT industry, it's a creation of schools and to some extent local Government. Woodwork of course might not lead to a career in joinery but can be useful for basic DIY so is still a useful skill.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

That chance is already there. But what you call the dirty jobs and operating the machines still have to be done, and it does not follow that the people doing them should be, in your words not mine, barely literate or subservient. It would help if the contributions of people who work primarily with hands and hearts were better recognised and valued, in those respects they are much more clever than the people who work only with their heads.

But what would also help would be to bring on some level of progression within these jobs. Obviously there will be some people who are only ever suited to sweeping the streets or similar, and that should be respected rather than looked down upon. But most people benefit from having a career rather than a job - it allows for self-esteem-boosting things like increased responsibility, development/ongoing learning etc throughout their lives, not stagnation on a wage that can never e.g. allow a house to be purchased.

We used to have that - the street sweeper would become the park-keeper, for instance, the day he swapped from a flat-cap to a peaked cap would be a matter of massive pride, and then he'd progress to bigger parks, maybe with a team under him, and at retirement he'd maybe be in charge of the grounds at the main city park and get a nice send-off.

I think that's one key thing we've lost. Curiously despite being a modern industry IT is very progressive - a lot of managers were previously developers for instance. But a good many industries aren't - too many low wage jobs are dead-end jobs, and it's dead-end jobs that are a huge issue, more so than just low wages in entry level jobs people tend to do when they still live with their parents and need very little money to live.
 
Last edited:

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
24,791
Location
LBK
Where else can critical thinking education be given if not there, apart from workplace training?
Why do people need to be taught critical thinking specifically? This is part and parcel of decent history teaching.

“People need to think critically especially when holding the government to account so let’s have the government’s own schools teach it to children specifically” isn’t a cogent line of thought.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top