You are the Secretary of State for Education

[Longines]

I've just been through the uni finance process with my son. Everyone can have the student loan if they want it. I had a play with the application process and to get the full ~£3500 grant as well you needed to be from a single parent household on minimum wage. The cutoff point for no grant whatsoever was around £42k household income IIRC.

I'd ban all top down reorganization of education for the next 10 years.

[david3103]

I don't think I could do just one thing.  There are so many things that need changed to bring education forward.  

1) I'd delay the starting age until 7, in turn make the minimum leaving age 19 (unless you were going to do some vocational learning/guaranteed a job)
2) The number of holidays would be cut, kids would learn more and would be kept away from mischief (hopefully)
3) Rotating staff every few years, I think similar to Hutch's point but when I was growing up and at school the fact my teachers tought my parents, aunts and uncles already had you marked depending on who or what they knew,  I also think after a time teachers stagnate and no longer have the drive to teach those who want to learn and this is down to a variety of factors.  
4) I'd give every state school the same dispensation on council tax as the private schools.  
5) I'doffer more vocational training and work towards giving pupils real life skills (including driving lessons)
6) I'd bring back the belt.  

There have been many sensible and well considered posts in this thread. Sadly this isn't one of them.

1). Why? So that you can increase the gap between the 'haves' and the 'have nots'?
2). Obviously if you work children harder and for longer hours they will learn more.
3). Great idea. Let's make everyone change jobs every three years. Where do you fancy moving on to? Not by choice, by edict. There's a shortage of teachers, this idea should help with that.
4). uhh?
5). Yeah, let's teach all the kids how to drive, that's an essential skill. Not like teaching them to be responsible or to have aspirations. Let's teach them how to catch a bus, or how to navigate their way on foot. (Actually, in lots of schools, where such things need to be taught, to the more vulnerable kids, these things are taught).
6). Bravo! Yes, let's return to savagery. Is this part of the vision of the New Socialist Republic of Alba?

[AdamM]

a simple fail/pass/distinction system would be better.

Why is fail/pass/distinction any different  from giving people an A, a C or an E?  What are you trying to achieve?  All that will happen is you can't differentiate between someone with a B, C or a D (as they are just passes).

I don't think there's a need to distinguish between B and C (I'm sure most see D as a fail) because I don't think it has any bearing on the intelligence or potential of that student in later life. I'm suggesting getting away from labeling and grading, and instead focusing on attaining a level of understanding of a subject signified by passing the course. The only reason I include a distinction is so that if that is an area a student truly excels at, it can be demonstrated.

[Jon MW]

a simple fail/pass/distinction system would be better.

Why is fail/pass/distinction any different  from giving people an A, a C or an E?  What are you trying to achieve?  All that will happen is you can't differentiate between someone with a B, C or a D (as they are just passes).

I don't think there's a need to distinguish between B and C (I'm sure most see D as a fail) because I don't think it has any bearing on the intelligence or potential of that student in later life. I'm suggesting getting away from labeling and grading, and instead focusing on attaining a level of understanding of a subject signified by passing the course. The only reason I include a distinction is so that if that is an area a student truly excels at, it can be demonstrated.

It could work with distinction equivalent to A* or A
Pass equivalent to B or C
and fail E to U

But A* was introduced because employers and universities wanted to tell the difference between good and very good; when the demand has been for greater differentiation it seems a retrograde step to return to an older way of doing it.

Completely agree with the concept that more emphasis should be put on understanding though. A lot of state schools cram pupils for exams at the expense of them actually understanding what they're studying, it would be possible to test understanding rather than exam technique and memorisation but would be pretty impossible to get it accepted.

[AdamM]

I just think the way we blast information at them for years, far too much to actually internalise, then ask them to heavily revise for an exam at the end is wrong.

Why not have a greater emphasis on full understanding and modular assessment, before moving on to the next subject/concept?

And as I said before, let kids use calculators, spellcheckers and the internet in their work and assessments, just as they will in adult life.

[Redsgirl]

I don't think I could do just one thing.  There are so many things that need changed to bring education forward.  

1) I'd delay the starting age until 7, in turn make the minimum leaving age 19 (unless you were going to do some vocational learning/guaranteed a job)
2) The number of holidays would be cut, kids would learn more and would be kept away from mischief (hopefully)
3) Rotating staff every few years, I think similar to Hutch's point but when I was growing up and at school the fact my teachers tought my parents, aunts and uncles already had you marked depending on who or what they knew,  I also think after a time teachers stagnate and no longer have the drive to teach those who want to learn and this is down to a variety of factors.  
4) I'd give every state school the same dispensation on council tax as the private schools.  
5) I'doffer more vocational training and work towards giving pupils real life skills (including driving lessons)
6) I'd bring back the belt.  

Do you have children Kmac?

[Mark_Porter]

I don't think I could do just one thing.  There are so many things that need changed to bring education forward. 

1) I'd delay the starting age until 7, in turn make the minimum leaving age 19 (unless you were going to do some vocational learning/guaranteed a job)
2) The number of holidays would be cut, kids would learn more and would be kept away from mischief (hopefully)
3) Rotating staff every few years, I think similar to Hutch's point but when I was growing up and at school the fact my teachers tought my parents, aunts and uncles already had you marked depending on who or what they knew,  I also think after a time teachers stagnate and no longer have the drive to teach those who want to learn and this is down to a variety of factors. 
4) I'd give every state school the same dispensation on council tax as the private schools. 
5) I'doffer more vocational training and work towards giving pupils real life skills (including driving lessons)
6) I'd bring back the belt. 

There have been many sensible and well considered posts in this thread. Sadly this isn't one of them.

1). Why? So that you can increase the gap between the 'haves' and the 'have nots'?

Time in the classroom does not close the gap between the rich and poor families in terms of attainment. It makes no difference, the have not's will not break the cycle by being in school.

I am not a full on advocate for children starting school later, I just don't buy into the fact that you narrow the gap by starting them earlier.

Scandinavia do seem to have got it right but a big chunk of that is cultural. Engaging parents is often the biggest challenge.

[david3103]

I don't think I could do just one thing.  There are so many things that need changed to bring education forward. 

1) I'd delay the starting age until 7, in turn make the minimum leaving age 19 (unless you were going to do some vocational learning/guaranteed a job)
2) The number of holidays would be cut, kids would learn more and would be kept away from mischief (hopefully)
3) Rotating staff every few years, I think similar to Hutch's point but when I was growing up and at school the fact my teachers tought my parents, aunts and uncles already had you marked depending on who or what they knew,  I also think after a time teachers stagnate and no longer have the drive to teach those who want to learn and this is down to a variety of factors. 
4) I'd give every state school the same dispensation on council tax as the private schools. 
5) I'doffer more vocational training and work towards giving pupils real life skills (including driving lessons)
6) I'd bring back the belt. 

There have been many sensible and well considered posts in this thread. Sadly this isn't one of them.

1). Why? So that you can increase the gap between the 'haves' and the 'have nots'?

Time in the classroom does not close the gap between the rich and poor families in terms of attainment. It makes no difference, the have not's will not break the cycle by being in school.

I am not a full on advocate for children starting school later, I just don't buy into the fact that you narrow the gap by starting them earlier.

Scandinavia do seem to have got it right but a big chunk of that is cultural. Engaging parents is often the biggest challenge.

as I see it, the gap widens more because of the delay. Do you think that nice middle-class parents will just allow their children to do nothing in the way of learning in the years between birth and seven? These children, and those of the more wealthy still, already have an advantage when they arrive at four or five. Imagine how much bigger that will be after another two or three years.

[Mark_Porter]

We need to continue to help the parents that struggle then. Putting them all into a classroom in a formal learning situation as early as possible doesn't solve the underlying problem.

Spend more money on Childrens Centres that educate parents - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-32831331

I went to a Childrens Centre in Everton earlier this week, the work they are doing there is amazing in a really deprived area.

It's also about how we define 'learning' at that age. While our kids are sitting down at 4 learning phonics and numeracy, the other kids in Europe are skipping through the woods. By the time they reach their teens they are better at the three R's than our lot and supposedly 'happier'. That could well be mumbo jumbo but there should be a value attached to learning through play that we just don't really understand properly in this country.

[Doobs]

We need to continue to help the parents that struggle then. Putting them all into a classroom in a formal learning situation as early as possible doesn't solve the underlying problem.

Spend more money on Childrens Centres that educate parents - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-32831331

I went to a Childrens Centre in Everton earlier this week, the work they are doing there is amazing in a really deprived area.

It's also about how we define 'learning' at that age. While our kids are sitting down at 4 learning phonics and numeracy, the other kids in Europe are skipping through the woods. By the time they reach their teens they are better at the three R's than our lot and supposedly 'happier'. That could well be mumbo jumbo but there should be a value attached to learning through play that we just don't really understand properly in this country.

Should we be looking to Europe?

They certainly push their kids harder elsewhere

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32608772

Though Finland is ahead of us, Sweden and Norway aren't.

[Jon MW]

I just think the way we blast information at them for years, far too much to actually internalise, then ask them to heavily revise for an exam at the end is wrong.

Why not have a greater emphasis on full understanding and modular assessment, before moving on to the next subject/concept?

And as I said before, let kids use calculators, spellcheckers and the internet in their work and assessments, just as they will in adult life.

I can understand the appeal of adding a skillset (looking up information on the internet) - but I can't see any benefit in taking any away (spelling, grammar and mental arithmetic).

Also is it really that much different to what we have now? There are calculator and non-calculator papers in maths and coursework will utilise spellcheckers and the internet. There might (as in I don't know) be an issue with spelling and grammar in exams.  I think it should follow the lead of maths; if it's a skill being tested, then that should be reflected in the marking - if it's not the skill being tested than understanding the content is all that is needed.

As an illustration of understanding.
At a state school I had teaching experience at they stopped all maths teaching after Christmas for the year taking SAT's; then they rigorously pushed exam technique and memorisation for over a term to improve the schools SAT scores. None of that helped with understanding - and obviously all that time could have been taken up with actual teaching instead.

In comparison - the private school taught maths such that each set only moved on from a topic when they understood it. Obviously they had the benefit of smaller numbers and so more highly differentiated levels for their classes, but it meant that for the lowest set they wouldn't have covered the whole GCSE curriculum by the time it got to their exams. But they all did well anyway - because they actually understood what they had been taught they just 'worked out' a significant proportion of the parts which they hadn't covered. It would be ideal if all subjects were taught in state schools to the level of understanding rather than with the aim of passing exams (particularly as you then pass the exam anyway) - but mind bogglingly difficult to work out how you could get that passed through Parliament so that it didn't cause problems from either the teaching profession or parents.

[Kmac84]

I don't think I could do just one thing.  There are so many things that need changed to bring education forward.  

1) I'd delay the starting age until 7, in turn make the minimum leaving age 19 (unless you were going to do some vocational learning/guaranteed a job)
2) The number of holidays would be cut, kids would learn more and would be kept away from mischief (hopefully)
3) Rotating staff every few years, I think similar to Hutch's point but when I was growing up and at school the fact my teachers tought my parents, aunts and uncles already had you marked depending on who or what they knew,  I also think after a time teachers stagnate and no longer have the drive to teach those who want to learn and this is down to a variety of factors.  
4) I'd give every state school the same dispensation on council tax as the private schools.  
5) I'doffer more vocational training and work towards giving pupils real life skills (including driving lessons)
6) I'd bring back the belt.  

Do you have children Kmac?

I don't.  Is that prerequisite of being able to comment on education?

[arbboy]

I don't think I could do just one thing.  There are so many things that need changed to bring education forward.  

1) I'd delay the starting age until 7, in turn make the minimum leaving age 19 (unless you were going to do some vocational learning/guaranteed a job)
2) The number of holidays would be cut, kids would learn more and would be kept away from mischief (hopefully)
3) Rotating staff every few years, I think similar to Hutch's point but when I was growing up and at school the fact my teachers tought my parents, aunts and uncles already had you marked depending on who or what they knew,  I also think after a time teachers stagnate and no longer have the drive to teach those who want to learn and this is down to a variety of factors.  
4) I'd give every state school the same dispensation on council tax as the private schools.  
5) I'doffer more vocational training and work towards giving pupils real life skills (including driving lessons)
6) I'd bring back the belt.  

Do you have children Kmac?

I don't.  Is that prerequisite of being able to comment on education?

Every time you post on stuff like this i think you are levelling everyone.  I actually think you are being serious this time.  You actually think the education system would improve if teachers assaulted children?   I won't comment on the other 5 statements although number 3 was funny.  The main reason i attributed my 3 A's at alevel was my comprehensive school had teachers who had 25 years experience of the subject in my school who were happy, relaxed and not under pressure and had stayed in the same school for all 3 subjects.  Obviously i went to school under a tory government.    Trying to imagine a 500k teacher merry go round every 3 summers.  Surely all that would do is create a huge private sector head hunting industry (which the tax payer pays for) which would be totally against the privatisation views you have?  You are good entertainment though.  Keep posting.

[david3103]

I don't think I could do just one thing.  There are so many things that need changed to bring education forward.  

1) I'd delay the starting age until 7, in turn make the minimum leaving age 19 (unless you were going to do some vocational learning/guaranteed a job)
2) The number of holidays would be cut, kids would learn more and would be kept away from mischief (hopefully)
3) Rotating staff every few years, I think similar to Hutch's point but when I was growing up and at school the fact my teachers tought my parents, aunts and uncles already had you marked depending on who or what they knew,  I also think after a time teachers stagnate and no longer have the drive to teach those who want to learn and this is down to a variety of factors.  
4) I'd give every state school the same dispensation on council tax as the private schools.  
5) I'doffer more vocational training and work towards giving pupils real life skills (including driving lessons)
6) I'd bring back the belt.  

Do you have children Kmac?

I don't.  Is that prerequisite of being able to comment on education?

no, but being educated is.

[Waz1892]

Stop fining parents for taking their kids on holiday or on a special day trip. They learn more than they would in school anyway, and surely the odd week off can't affect that education that much.

The local councils fine parents, not schools. And So why bother with school if you can take a holiday when ever you wish.  How long would you allow them to take.....on top of the 6 weeks in summer, 2 at easter,2 at christmas and 1 week in May, and 1 week in October?