blonde poker forum

Congratulations!

In the latest round of reorganisation, you have been given the nod from Mr Cameron that you are to be in charge of education in the UK.

You are given a brief that you can make as many suggestions as you like about how education should be run, changed and improved. These changes will all be considered on their merits and discussed at Cabinet.

However, you get one free change; one thing that, whatever it is, provided it is within your department, will be nodded through by your bosses and will be your legacy.

Will you replace the national curriculum with a different model? Will you get rid of maths? No Shakespeare? Would you get people more involved in learning trades in secondary schools? Smaller class sizes?

How about teaching A-Level age students about gambling? Not just the dangers but the maths: how bookies make money, how algorithms work and how you can look for ways to win. Would this be useful to the next generation, given how popular and easy "flick-in-cash-out" mobile gambling is nowadays?

Over to you.

(http://www.teachem.co.uk/images/content/headmaster.jpg)

I'd make school dinners free and actually healthy.

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.

They get that already at my daughter's school, so think you mean extend the scheme.  They currently get them up to year 3, but think the plan is to extend it to all primary schools. 

Actually changed my mind, I'd make it illegal for teachers to moan to their friends about holidays.

Yep extend it then, great that your daughter gets that. IMO healthy eating (and exercise) are one those butterfly effect things that will profoundly impact a child's life.

Love this fella for that reason

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/07/01/article-1291154-08EB5503000005DC-33_468x311.jpg)

I'm sure it'd be very popular with middle class voters - but wouldn't it be hard to justify the cost? Especially given that if (older) pupils want to eat chips - they'll eat chips.

And shouldn't educational reform be a bit more about ... education?

yup. that'll do it.

I'd have smaller classes and make them streamed by abillity.  However, I'd have promotion/relegation to/from streams at the end of each year.  I'd also have a "Conference North Division" for pupils who have no interest whatsoever in being educated.

Don't you have to teach people the value of education?  :)

Streaming or setting (by subject)?

People who are good at Maths might be awful at English (for example);

Oh no they isn't.

I'd like it to be by subject if that isn't too much administrative work.  My aim would be to create a dynamic environment, where going down a stream isn't seen as a negative, just a time to regroup, take things at a slower pace and focus on a promotion campaign the next year.  The lower streams would still do the same syllabus, but spend a bit more time on the solid basics than the top end stuff.  You're still in the game, just less likely to get 90%+ that particular year.

This has benefits for morale as well - pupils won't think "I'm in the lower stream fullstop this year", but might intead be thinking "I'm in the top stream for maths, but need to work harder on my history".

i'd make coding mandatory from primary school up to 18.

Streaming and setting are different things - if you're Secretary of State you should probably use the right vocabulary :D

A lot (maybe most) schools already do this, and I think the problem is that in practice very few pupils ever change set. But if if was designed with this as a specific objective it could make a difference.

I'd bring back competitive sport from the age of 9 upwards. Have national championships across a range of sports so that you could for instance be the U15 champion school for 2016. I would have it for athletics, swimming, football, and netball.

+1, I think they are heading this way.

Learning foreign languages at a much younger age would also be good.

Ban any type of exam until GCSE and associated league tables

Some of the points are covered already, at least in our area.   French is introduced in junior school - I think my daughter started year 5 and did a bit this year too.  The meals are pretty good, not a chip seen on the menu until Friday (can't beat fish fingers and chips on a Friday) http://www.crownwoodschool.com/ff_files/04_School_Life/School_Meals/images/Summer_Autumn_2015.pdf   and for £2.20 it's cracking value and worth every penny.

Some kids are shown a language called Scratch in junior school but sadly we seem to have skipped this.  From September when we go to senior school the kids will be introduced to basic programming and if they choose to continue with it it will evolve into more complex things.

I'm not sure what I'd like to change, I think they do a pretty good job here.  

Real life at schools

Other half's son is in his first year of secondary school

This week they did sex education

"So Jamie" I enquire the other night "good day at school, what did you do?"

other half "today was sex education wasn't it Jamie?"

Jamie "Yes"

me "what did you learn then?"

Jamie "all about cocks and fannies!"

and he walked off

 

yes, but please not French.

Something useful like Spanish, German, Portuguese, Russian or Mandarin please.

Close to agreeing with this, but testing is necessary in order for the planning of each child's educational needs.
I would 100% get rid of league tables and prevent the results of testing from being used as a stick and carrot on teachers.

Coding requires a level of logical ability that is overly difficult to teach to young children who maybe don't have the aptitude or the desire to develop it. By all means make the opportunity available at Primary age, and give it a lot more focus in Secondary education



I'd suggest you get some new friends. Few of the teachers I know, and I have been married to one for 37 years, moan about their holidays. Most of them use their break from having children to educate and develop to recharge their batteries, be ill, and work.

Surely practicing exam conditions makes you better prepared and less nervous for the real thing? 

I don't agree with this. U don't need to practice life skills too early. I think putting kids and schools under this type of pressure as more detrimental than enhancing

Maybe not at for the below 11 age, but if the first exam a kid ever sits is his real GCSE exam at 16 then that is going to be extremely daunting and unfamiliar. 

At my daughter's school, they have had the use of ipads from reception year.  They can get their homework off the internet etc.  She is 7 and has had her own tab for around a year and I am guessing she was later than most.  I can't see many of them struggling with technology like my generation did.  I know they aren't coding yet, but I can't see them struggling with technology when they left school like most of my generation did.
 

A standardised test in year 7 would show the secondary school the level of achievement for each pupil; it would show them what they need to teach but wouldn't be part of any league tables as the pupils would come from different primary schools and the secondary school wouldn't have had any affect on them by that stage.

Absolutely this.

Off the top of my head:

Entirely remove RE from primary education.
Currently, the RE syllabus is agreed locally, and in our area is longer than the rest of the combined syllabus.
Continue to teach the citizenship, ethics, community elements from the current RE syllabus but from an entirely secular position.

By all means offer RE as an option at secondary level within the 'humanities' options.

In early years, much greater focus on creative, critical and logical thinking than on times tables, spelling, historical facts, etc. Ask most 7-8 year olds and they can rattle off facts about Henry VIII's wives or the Romans. They also know a dozen different ways to multiply and divide. Ask the same kid 5 years later and they've forgotten it. Better to leave that till a later age when they might actually remember it.

Raise the school leaving age to 18 (is this happening anyway?) and go for a more modular 'high school diploma' than entirely separate GCSEs/A-Levels.
Drop the heavy examining at 16.
I don't object to internal testing to gauge development, but no external qualifications until 18 or league tables that affect school funding.

I would like examinations to reflect real world conditions, ie use of calculators, spell-checkers and even internet research. There is no need to commit such large amounts of information and techniques to memory. It is more useful to test that students are able to find the correct information or results using technology.

Outside of general English, Maths and Science, introduce more general studies/citizenship/life skill type courses and then beyond that allow specialisation/options to fill the rest of the kids' time tables.

Few questions on this as I'm so out of touch I didn't even realise parents were being fined.

How much is the fine and how is it implemented? Don't most parents ring in and say 'Charlie is a little under the weather today so we're keeping him home' and then do the day trip they were planning on.

Personally my parents never let me have a day off school for a 'day trip'. I'm struggling to find a really good reason why one needs to take place on a school day.

I think under the right circumstances though, a family holiday or a day trip should be permissible without fining though I think when children get such long holidays it seems rather unnecessary in general.

I would make children with extremely poor behaviour through their secondary schools do a year or two of military service.

Not only are they fined, but it's a fine per parent too, so one child, two different fines.  I'm not sure the logic in that.

"Instead of being prosecuted, you can be given a penalty notice. The penalty is £60, rising to £120 if paid after 21 days but within 28 days. If you don’t pay the fine you may be prosecuted."  - from the gov website.  Doesn't stack up with people that I know that have faced a fine.   

Regardless, £120 is worth it compared to what you pay to go on holiday in official holiday time.

Abolish the proposed baseline assessments in Early Years. Testing children when they join Reception is ridiculous.

Tear up Ofsted and create a robust meaningful inspection framework.

I did a PGCE at Kings College, London around the turn of the millennium to train to be a teacher. My personal tutor there was on occasion an advisor to the government and through chats with her I found the main problem from their perspective was that (a) the government just ignored their advice and (b) when they didn't it was generally some idea of 'best practice' which the government would try and implement on a national basis without taking into account that different approaches might be better for different regions/schools/individuals. So my approach would definitely include listening to the experts and also having some element of flexibility.

Being top of the class at pedagogy (the theory) wasn't enough to stop me failing in classroom management (and you have to pass every element to pass); but I retried a few years later in Derbyshire - with the same results. Which increased my theoretical knowledge even further but without any useful outcome. It also means I've had experience of teaching in 4 very different schools: a private school (rich, less pupils, but also some very intelligent approaches to learning missing from the State sector); an inner city school (poor neighbourhood but rich school because of subsidies for poor neighbourhoods, very low standards from the intake area); a good state secondary school (poor catchment area but really good teachers and school set up) and a ghastly mediocre state school (poor catchment area but generally awful teaching staff and a system set up for babysitting rather than education).

My first thought would be that the fundamental aim of the education department was to improve education - any ideas about social engineering would be a 'bonus' if they could be implemented without damaging the core objective of learning.

For primary schools I'd make all the pupil assessment internal and teacher based. I'd have a review of best practice teaching methods and encourage schools to follow this, but allow the flexibility not to do so when teaching staff don't think it's best for their individual situations. I would add regular inspections to give some basis of comparison for parents in the neighbourhood to compare schools and also to check whether any deviation from the best practice methods weren't harming pupils chances. Low scores might result in an encouragement to change their ways, but failed inspections could result in Ofsted (or it's successor) imposing a change in their practices.

At the beginning of year 7 I'd have a standardised test for all secondary school entrants so the school can not only assess the correct sets for each subject that pupils need to go into - but also a baseline so that the GCSE results for that year will show the added value score each school has made from the intake's initial potential. I'd get rid of streaming if any school still does it, but introduce setting if they didn't have that.

I'd introduce touch typing courses (within PSHE/citizenship - possibly even English, maybe?), because it's just such a useful skill for almost everyone to have. I think I'd approach term time holidays as - pupils would be allowed up to 7 days off during term time at the Head Teachers discretion (not including unavoidable things like doctors appointments etc.). Most term time holidays aren't in the slightest bit educational and if it means families have to go to the UK coast for the holiday because they can't afford to fly abroad then it's not really that big a deal. But if a family did have something which was actually meaningfully useful then it could be allowed as long as they take into account the advice of when it would be least disruptive to their child's education.

I'd make education mandatory up to 18, but if pupils failed their GCSE maths I'd introduce a supplementary Numeracy certificate for them to take for 2 years which would concentrate purely on the most useful arithmetic that people need for everyday life. They could also do vocational courses/apprenticeships alongside this unless these course included the Numeracy certificate within their curriculum.

I'd definitely ask for a departmental reorganisation so that Universities came under the remit of the Education Department rather than Business (as it is now). And I'd abandon the idea that having everyone stay on to higher education is a fundamental aim. I'd want regular inspection of universities - particularly looking at quality of teaching and drop out rates. If a university failed in either of these they could be downgraded to a higher education college (if they were primarily academic in nature) or polytechnic (if they were primarily vocational or technical in nature) - funding would obviously be impacted by such a downgrade.

I'd also set up an enquiry to try and improve the teaching profession. The problem at the moment is that a lot of schools would be improved by just having more teachers, but if you pushed that through then quality would fall. One approach would be to shove more money into pay - but that wouldn't necessarily improve the prestige of teaching until it got vast swathes of highly qualified graduates to choose teaching rather than alternatives and might not be the best approach anyway. It's a difficult one to resolve - hence the enquiry. :)

Other ideas would probably come as a result of expert consultation - but that'd be a start :)

I would make it so the next person in charge had nowhere near the power as I did.

No more Michael Goves.

Seems a shame that the kid will have to go to school the next day and lie about being ill instead of telling everyone about their day out.

I would make education like medicine, where evidence is needed before changing something rather than, at the whim of an official.

I would aim for 35% of students get into Uni rather than 50%. It would make unemployment look bad for 18-21 year olds but some form of post school learning in practical subjects would be better for many young people rather than a degree.

I would make GCSE's A grades be only awarded to the top 10% of exam takers rather than everyone who spelt their name correctly as it is at the moment.

I would then give me counting classes as this clearly is more than one item.

Do you mean by literally only whoever the top 10% is that year, or by making them harder so that typically only the top 10% get a good enough grade?

Seems unfair to make a 'Genuine A' student a B if the overall population did better one year.

I agree.  I do like the idea of making the A harder to obtain, but if you mark it comparatively to the year group you don't allow useful comparison between different year groups when they are going for jobs?

"I'd introduce touch typing courses (within PSHE/citizenship - possibly even English, maybe?), because it's just such a useful skill for almost everyone to have"

I can touch type faster than almost anyone I know and it's most useful in all the jobs I have had.  I don't understand why all computer game fanatics from the 80s/90s can't do it.  If you play enough games you just "know" where every key is on the keyboard.   Z = left, X = right, L=jump etc

Yes, I would make it the top 10% that year.

I took my GCSE's 25 years ago (OMG) either my generation was really stupid or every grade we were awarded needs to be raised by one to make us comparable to this year.

You don't get that comparison anyway.  The proportion gettings a greade A now is entirely different, and I am not entirely convinced that the quality of scientists coming through now is any better than it was then.  I mentally adjust depending on the year of graduation.  By doing this I am not saying the kids of today are useless, or incapable, just that they are marked more generously.

I don't think there is going to be much difference between years if averaged over the whole country, so there is some merit in it.  But I don't think it can't really work, because there are differences in subjects.  I suspect the average person studying latin is going to be a bit brighter than the average person doing sociology or media studies.  Do we limit the A grades to 10% in both, and do we have set fail percentages too?  Having said that I did further maths and getting an A in that was notably more difficult than even maths and physics, so maybe some A grades will always be worth more than others.

I'd like to do something about the number of scientists coming through university.  You just have to make it more attractive.  Whether you tweak the funding or the fees, I am too far removed to give a view, but there must be something. 

Back when I went to University it was something like 10% of the over 18s went to University and the maths department at my University numbered hundreds of students, now near 50% go, and the maths department has been closed. 

From personal experience, I really couldn't fault my daughter's school much at all.  She seems to be thriving, and hasn't had a bad teached yet.  I was very sceptical about phonics, but am a complete convert; they seem to be able teach them all at different pace depending on ability; they seem to have quite a bit of freedom on what they choose for their homework, so they can all find something they want to do and can get enthusiastic about.  It all seems much better than the schooling I experienced at that age.

Or we could move away from the old fashioned grading system entirely.

measuring intelligence by exam results is like measuring digestion by turd length :)

What do you propose as a replacement?

you are the Secretary of State for Education you can't just get rid of exam results without introducing something in their place.

Might go against what I said earlier but secondary school id do life skills such as credit rating, obtaining a mortgage, insurance, basic first aid, cv writing, interview skills, managing a budget etc

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

all of this

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).

What?

(https://s3.amazonaws.com/lowres.cartoonstock.com/animals-goldfish-gold_fish-fish-fish_bowl-fish_tank-rmun160_low.jpg)

One of the most worrying developments in education in recent years is schoolgirls wearing trousers, particularly in the 16-18 age bracket, total ban pls!

Can I assume that I've finished writing Super System 2015?

I only have so much time on my hands you know.

Writing?

Didn't trust anyone else to get the maths right, so decided to do it all yourself?

Fair enough.

We can also assume you've finished your dinner, played a few games of chess and you've done your gym sesh for the day ;)

100% agree with the first point.

Ofsted no longer does what it was supposed to do, but in part this is due to the constantly changing views on what is important in a school. We need to stop interfering in the education process and focus instead on providing the resources needed to provide that education. Whatever form of school inspection you have needs to be carried out without warning and brief. Remedial actions following inspection should be clear and time sensitive, and, above all, appropriate.

More emphasis should be put on making sure that people like JonMW get the right training to enter the teaching profession, and that they bring with them the freshness that is needed.

As somebody who works in education and has done for the vast majority of my professional career, here is my suggestion.

I'd make all senior and middle management reapply for their position every 3 years. There is soooooo much dead weight high up in schools, people who have reached as high as they'll ever go and have no further ambition. They just simply fill time and maintain their position putting in the minimum effort and hold dynamic, young, motivated teachers down. If they are still the best person for the job and had success during their tenure, they'll be re-appointed. No harm, no foul.

It is a completely hidden problem, but has a significant effect on schools.

To put it into context, it is the equivalent of a football team playing their once star player up front, 20 years past his prime and leaving the 18 yr old wonderkid on the bench and never giving him an opportunity.

Hutch

are teachers outside the private sector in the UK still on defined benefit pensions..so having jobs for life is a big issue once you've got years of service?

no performance related pay? 

The pension situation is a little different for me as I moved from the state system to the private system after several years of service and it was financially prudent for me to take a more unique road. No performance related pay Tighty in the private sector, no.

This is another potentially horrendous situation. The idea of comparing every child to 'the national average' is fundamentally and mathematically wrong. By very definition, children should be equal to, above and below the national average in equal amounts. All that will happen is that line managers will assign themselves the top sets, with pupils who will attain higher than national average and give all the bottom sets, with little chance of success when compared to national average, to the NQTs. NQTs will become disillusioned very quickly and the retention rate in the industry will continue to decline.

There are some very simple things that can be done. I doubt they will happen - Gove's legacy lives on.

I suspect some people have been to Uni, but I would like to see that regardless of parents/household income that the particular student should be able to claim just as much loan/grant.

I think now the students with parents with £60k+ get pretty much no financial help from Student Finance. This to me seems quite unfair.

Also good to see a complete lock I student fees. £3500 under labour, £9000 Tories and of course there was debate to change again. No real opinion on price, but surely be good to lock the max price

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.  

Child care is expensive enough as it is without increasing school age to 7. Don't think it would work

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.

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?

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.

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.

Do you have children Kmac?

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.

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

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

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.

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.   ;D  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.

no, but being educated is.

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?

It's not a question of how long, it's a question of when. Two weeks at Easter is no use if the event you want to take your kids to is in February. I suspect that most parents would be happy with half the number of days but take em when they need em.

Gypsy children only have to make 200 attendances per year BTW, and 1 day = 2 attendances  so 100 days per year. this is one of the very few pieces of positive discrimination we have, it's been in force for decades but it's up for repeal this year.

Never knew that!!

Me neither.

Not sure what I think about it either.

Any decent links justifying or explaining the difference?

Any decent links

We had a class in school from years 7-9 called 'Citizenship' that covered all of this.

Used to do lessons in four week blocks of things like managing finances, first aid, gardening, general DIY things and home maintenance, introduction to politics etc.

All for something like that being mandatory, if only for an hour a week. We got an hour a week of that, and three hours a week of religious education. Ratios were well off.

Download the first pdf



https://www.google.co.uk/search?site=&source=hp&ei=Sb9gVbvRB-WY7gbSl4PQDQ&q=Gypsy+pupil+200+attendances+&oq=Gypsy+pupil+200+attendances+&gs_l=mobile-gws-hp.3...5190.38017.0.39480.28.28.0.1.1.0.486.4478.3j21j3j0j1.28.0.ekpsrh...0...1.1.64.mobile-gws-hp..16.12.1924.3.0bigA6zhpxU

That explains the difference and the reason for it - but is there any evidence that there is any benefit to it? Isn't it just massively damaging for the longer term prospects of any child who misses so much school (for any reason)?

I suppose it depends how you define long term prospects Jon. Missing school and missing education aren't always the same thing.

Not at all, I was just asking you to confirm the obvious,  as I really can't imagine any parent saying they should 'bring back the belt' even one like me who thinks kids in this country are namby pambied far to much these days.
Out of interest, what kind of heinous crime do you think a child would have to commit during the school day to warrant coming home with a large red whelt accross their bottom?
Maybe it couldn't be their bottom, or the backs of the legs because of the obvious reasons.
What about the hands then? After the initial injury it would only take a day or two for the bruising to go down enough for them to be back writing away like good uns.

Would you bring in official guidelines for this punishment?  Would each school have a nominated flogger or would all teachers be free to whack away as they saw fit?
Would there be a age restrictions?
Would there be a limit to how many blows and how often, and an independent overseer to make sure little Freddie didn't end up with more stripes than a zebra because he's teacher had taken a personal dislike to him?
Before you answer these questions Minister for education, think about a child you care about, maybe a niece or nephew being on the receiving end.

 :goodpost: :goodpost: :goodpost:

I had the belt at primary school. Was always across the hands. It didn't leave any long lasting marks, but it made me think twice about doing something I shouldn't have been doing.

Think yous have had a different kind of experience.

We used to get it on either the hands or arse, we often got a choice of the cane or detention, most of us chose the cane as it was 15 mins of pain v half a Saturday stuck in detention. Don't see the big sweat about corporal punishment really...

Regardless of any lasting physical/emotional effects do you think you deserved your punishment every time?

Would you be happy for your son to be punished in the same way for the same offences?

Thankfully I was never sent to the office to face Mr Sell's fabled slipper, in fact no one in my knowledge ever was, but our teachers assured us it existed and he would use it if necessary
.
Apparently it never was then and I can't see why it would be now, even though I understand that a lot of kids don't seem to have been brought up with the respect for their elders that our generation had but unfortunately I can't imagine any child saying I didn't really care much for Mrs so and so but she slapped me a few times and now I think she's mint.

Also, there is the possibility of  teachers abusing their authority which as you probably guessed is my main problem.
My poor old grandad still used to get upset when he told us about an incident that happened over sixty years ago, when he was caned in front of the class simply because a particularly nasty teacher wouldn't believe a poem he had submitted was his own work.  
She called him a liar when he protested and then beat him.
As you say Vinny the pain was only temporary,  but the humiliation and injustice obviously stayed with him his whole life, and that's not something I'd be happy to risk happening to other kids. Surely we can do better than that?

Aye, I guess we def had different experiences then. I wouldn't necessarily want it brought back, was just saying it wasn't the worst experience and it did make me think. I obviously didn't think often enough at the time :)

Yeah I stuck my finger in a plug socket when I was six.
It wasn't the worst thing that ever happened to me,  but it did make me think!  ;)

Enough of this crap, go and have a look at my dinner!

As you wish.

A solid 9/10.

Been threatening to visit Tom for a long time, then I got extradited to scotchland. One day tho..

Those who think that corporal punishment 'didn't do them any harm' are ignoring the fact that they grew up to believe that it was ok to assault children.

That's a ridiculous statement.

The two are totally different.

I was assaulted by a teacher and I got the belt at school. I knew what the difference was.

I went to a posh grammar school and got battered by the teachers on a few occasions, thoroughly deserved I might add. The sixth form prefects were allowed to dish out some beatings as well, but they were not quite so deserved. Either way I was totally fine with it, all part of building character. Prefer to deal with a few scrapes growing up rather than be a pussy-o wrapped in cotton wool I guess. Learning there are consequences to everything you do is a necessary lesson I think. Better to get a clip round the ear at school than a bottle in the throat at a pub!

Not at all ridiculous, using violence on a child is wrong whatever you feel inclined to call it.

It is ridiculous. Clearly two different things.

Having checked, I am surprised to find that assault in legal terms doesn't involve actual contact, so let's find a different word and my post becomes

"Those who think that corporal punishment 'didn't do them any harm' are ignoring the the fact that they grew up to believe that it was ok to hit children"

For the avoidance of doubt, there is no situation in which it can be correct for a teacher to hit a child.

I can honestly say that if corporal punishment was brought back, I would leave the profession without a moment's hesitation.

There is NOTHING a child in my care can do that makes me want to physically assault them. Kids are kids, they're not perfect and they have to make mistakes to grow.

I couldn't bring myself to do it, I don't have it in me to strike a child with a belt.