[Archived] Education, Education, Education

[colin]

It's pure envy dressed up as a warped ideological theory .

Or just maybe the desire that, just because you don't have a shed-load of money, your children receive a worse education than those whose parents are loaded.

[American]

So you're saying that the education of society as a whole should suffer from lack of competition because of one group? You're living in a fantasy land if you think that other schools will just suddenly improve.

The US spends much more per pupil than Germany, yet have less educated children.

[Drummer Boy]

The day some misguided idiot scrapped grammar schools and secondary schools - a system that allowed people who learn differently to learn differently - was a very sad one indeed for education in this country as the ideologists took over education and it's been downhill ever since as the lowest common denominator rules the roost and people are taught in a style that does not suit them. It was never about who was cleverer or would earn the most, it was about whether you learnt academically or vocationally - I'm no better than the bloke who fixes my car but we go about our work very differently and we learn new skills very differently. The sooner education is structured around this premise and not some foolish concept of everybody being the same, the better. It might even help raise skill levels across all areas from trades to professions to services.

And another thing: some of the people with whom I went into higher education are in the teaching profession at all levels from primary school to university and they will tell anyone who asks that education standards have dropped. To be honest, a quick look at what my teenage children are learning at their age relative to a generation ago is proof enough to me - it almost beggars belief how far behind they are relatively speaking.

In this context, the private education bit seems almost irrelevant - it is simply an escape route for desparate parents who want a good education for their offspring. They may not get any better an education from QEGS but they are prepared to run the risk. What an indictment on the state system!

[Paul Mellelieu]

The day some misguided idiot scrapped grammar schools and secondary schools - a system that allowed people who learn differently to learn differently - was a very sad one indeed for education in this country as the ideologists took over education and it's been downhill ever since as the lowest common denominator rules the roost and people are taught in a style that does not suit them. It was never about who was cleverer or would earn the most, it was about whether you learnt academically or vocationally - I'm no better than the bloke who fixes my car but we go about our work very differently and we learn new skills very differently. The sooner education is structured around this premise and not some foolish concept of everybody being the same, the better. It might even help raise skill levels across all areas from trades to professions to services.

And another thing: some of the people with whom I went into higher education are in the teaching profession at all levels from primary school to university and they will tell anyone who asks that education standards have dropped. To be honest, a quick look at what my teenage children are learning at their age relative to a generation ago is proof enough to me - it almost beggars belief how far behind they are relatively speaking.

In this context, the private education bit seems almost irrelevant - it is simply an escape route for desparate parents who want a good education for their offspring. They may not get any better an education from QEGS but they are prepared to run the risk. What an indictment on the state system!

Idiotic beyond words. So a test at 11 should determine your next five years education? Even the Tories don't back that one. It's also not true that educational standards have dropped: the opposite is true. 0/10

[Paul Mellelieu]

Most comprehensives don't fail , that's probably true ...........but you can be damn sure that the ones that do are in the cities and the others that succeed are in areas where the parents are in effect "paying" for their kids' good education through their mortgages .

So what's the difference ? Someone paying the school directly - or those who pay by moving to an area where they know the school is good ? Not much IMO .

The danger is if you remove fee paying schools and selection schools you just end up lowering standards at the top and do nothing to address the massive problems at the bottom . It's pure envy dressed up as a warped ideological theory .

At the end of the day there's nothing to stop you now if you want to improve your "second class " education . What can you not learn now that the teachers didn't tell you then ?

You are quite right of course about education and mortgages. But only up to a point- these are still state schools. The explosion of private education just makes the situation for working class kids more difficult. Have a look at the intake to Oxbridge if you think it doesn't matter. It's not envy, I'm well off enough to pay for my child to have gone to private school, and I've managed to get more bloody qualifications than you care to mention. But a system tilted against poorer kids just ain't fair.

[Paul Mellelieu]

So you're saying that the education of society as a whole should suffer from lack of competition because of one group? You're living in a fantasy land if you think that other schools will just suddenly improve.

The US spends much more per pupil than Germany, yet have less educated children.

Maybe Germans are cleverer that Americans. I mean at least they like football. Yanks seem to have fun watching a game of rounders for days on end. Your first point I just don't understand. Night night.

[American]

I can tell you had a bad education when your only response is always to bash me because I'm an American. Also explains why you don't get the first part....

[jim mk2]

It's also not true that educational standards have dropped: the opposite is true. 0/10

A-level and GCSE results may show record number of A grades but any experienced teacher and most parents will tell you that exams are much easier than they were 20 to 30 years ago.

An "A" at A-level used to mean a student was special but so many students now have 3 or 4 As that Oxbridge and other leading universities now make students sit further tests in order to sort out the brightest and the best.

Education standards haven't risen : they've been "dumbed down" to use a horrible modern expression.

[American Rover12]

I can tell you had a bad education when your only response is always to bash me because I'm an American. Also explains why you don't get the first part....

**Not his fault he had a bad education, it's QEGS. And it's cause he wasn't rich that he went to QEGS. And without the good education he'll never be rich. So his kids will go to QEGS. And they won't get a first class education. And they'll bash you too, American. It's a vicious cycle.

Least that what appears to be the message and what I've gathered form this thread.**

Disclaimer- all words encased in ** brackets are not to be taken seriously, just me poking fun at people and education. I tend to go a little overboard. These views do not represent that of the board, it's moderators, administrators, it's members or even mine.

[Paul Mellelieu]

A-level and GCSE results may show record number of A grades but any experienced teacher and most parents will tell you that exams are much easier than they were 20 to 30 years ago.

An "A" at A-level used to mean a student was special but so many students now have 3 or 4 As that Oxbridge and other leading universities now make students sit further tests in order to sort out the brightest and the best.

Education standards haven't risen : they've been "dumbed down" to use a horrible modern expression.

A single piece of evidence to back up your Murdoch infused claims, and we might have an argument. And I share a bed with a very experienced teacher.

[Paul Mellelieu]

I can tell you had a bad education when your only response is always to bash me because I'm an American. Also explains why you don't get the first part....

I wasn't bashing you, it was just a bit of fun. I mean I live in Manchester.

I've had a good education btw. I really couldn't make head nor tail of first point.

[Paul Mellelieu]

**Not his fault he had a bad education, it's QEGS. And it's cause he wasn't rich that he went to QEGS. And without the good education he'll never be rich. So his kids will go to QEGS. And they won't get a first class education. And they'll bash you too, American. It's a vicious cycle.

Least that what appears to be the message and what I've gathered form this thread.**

Disclaimer- all words encased in ** brackets are not to be taken seriously, just me poking fun at people and education. I tend to go a little overboard. These views do not represent that of the board, it's moderators, administrators, it's members or even mine.

It must must an American thing, but i don't get this post either.

[jim mk2]

And I share a bed with a very experienced teacher.

....... and I hope you and he are very happy together !

Read and learn.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/aug/26/alevels.gcses

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_...ticle656188.ece

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article688111.ece

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article503131.ece

Not only A-levels easier, they can also be taken in the so-called "soft options", ie non-academic subjects that proper Russell group universities rightly see as lacking intellectual rigour.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_...icle1084917.ece

http://education.guardian.co.uk/alevels/st...2259108,00.html

Record exams results have not come about because kids are brighter or work harder, or that teachers are better than in previous generations; the exams are easier, end of story.

[tony gale's mic]

i did my a levels in 2003 in maths, biology and chemistry and even at the time i thought they were pretty easy. not that i was certain i'd do well, as i could have stuffed things up on my own part, but they were very straightforward, especially with the modular system.

[Paul Mellelieu]

....... and I hope you and he are very happy together !

Read and learn.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/aug/26/alevels.gcses

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_...ticle656188.ece

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article688111.ece

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article503131.ece

Not only A-levels easier, they can also be taken in the so-called "soft options", ie non-academic subjects that proper Russell group universities rightly see as lacking intellectual rigour.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_...icle1084917.ece

http://education.guardian.co.uk/alevels/st...2259108,00.html

Record exams results have not come about because kids are brighter or work harder, or that teachers are better than in previous generations; the exams are easier, end of story.

Actually I can't anything in those articles to support your case. More kids do more A levels and the "top" universities need to set the bar higher. Some subjects are "easier" than others. That's not news. Tried to to open the Sun link, but all I got was a message saying "You have a brain, we cannot connect you."

To me evidence is academic research.

[tony gale's mic]

Actually I can't anything in those articles to support your case. More kids do more A levels and the "top" universities need to set the bar higher. Some subjects are "easier" than others. That's not news. Tried to to open the Sun link, but all I got was a message saying "You have a brain, we cannot connect you."

To me evidence is academic research.

Already universities ask for AAA/AAB for the top courses, the bar can't get much higher. A levels are too easy and this is coming from someone who took three of the harder ones only five years ago.

[Paul Mellelieu]

Already universities ask for AAA/AAB for the top courses, the bar can't get much higher. A levels are too easy and this is coming from someone who took three of the harder ones only five years ago.

Are they easier than 20 years ago is the question. I'm not sure how you would know.

[broadsword]

The alternative hypothesis is that kids are consistently getting brighter.

I know which one I favour.

[Paul Mellelieu]

The alternative hypothesis is that kids are consistently getting brighter.

I know which one I favour.

The other option is that schools are better at getting kids through exams.

[philipl]

I don't know about schools but I'll repeat that as far as my personal experience goes, there has been an overwhelming improvement in attainment at University level now compared with the mid-70s when I was at University and the mid-80s when I was at business school.

[broadsword]

I know someone who did a Maths doctorate who said standards are getting worse.

Students cannot handle unfamiliar problems, they only do well when faced with a familiar template to a problem.

Attainment does not necessarily equate to intelligence.

[Redrose49er]

Record exams results have not come about because kids are brighter or work harder, or that teachers are better than in previous generations; the exams are easier, end of story.

More people are climbing Mount Everest, has it got lower or are climbers better? More sprinters break 10s for 100m, has it got shorter? Same for the 4 minute mile. Exams are not necessarily easier, downloading coursework from the internet is. Also, rising wealth throughout society has a positive impact upon educational achievement.

[American]

I think Bryan sums it up best. Teaching to the test means more people can do well on the test, but then they don't learn how to figure stuff out for themselves.

[Paul Mellelieu]

I think Bryan sums it up best. Teaching to the test means more people can do well on the test, but then they don't learn how to figure stuff out for themselves.

Now we're making progress. The education system wants good workers, not people equipped to understand how the world works.

[American]

I'd slightly disagree. They want good test takers not because they will become good workers, but because there is no better tangible way to judge if the education system is succeeding or not.