I've been working in schools for over ten years now and seen many changes over the years - all though I would consider myself a socialist with perhaps anarchic leanings I have over the years started to arrive at an awful conclusion, which has left me drifting professionally and seeking a career change.

In my opinion - compulsory education doesn't work.

And here's why i think that is. With the government and therefore you would assume the electorates', obsession with competitive strategies, in order to reflect a capitalist world which the child will enter, we seem to be forced to be making children compete from an early age. Therefore, the children of rich and usually pushy parents tend, on the whole, to do very well. Children who come into the school from deprived backgrounds unable to read tend to leave with little or no qualifications. Also children who are better off - still - go to better schools because of postcode and the fact that a literate parent can get their child so much further in a mainly academic system. There seems to be no difference between what arrives at the school and what leaves. So much so, with few exceptions, we can usually predict quite accurately, from year five, what the child's final school outcome will be.

I believe, if you took a group of children and didn't send them through a formal education, you would most likely end up with exactly the same end results for society. The poor will struggle and the rich will be ok!

I hate to say this but I see the public school system - still - but within schools. The kids off the estates in 'sink' groups with mainly supply teachers and the kids from the nice houses in the higher sets where they can learn without being distracted by the 'lesser intellects.'

The public school system was wrong - but as they say - there has never been a better system to replace it.

If all children have to take academic exams of course it is going to favour the kids whose parents converse with them with full words, sentences, and proper grammar.

I really hate to say this but i think it is now time to go back to a system that enables all children to succeed in what ever way they can.

Academic schools for the academic and schools that teach subjects that are appropriate to others - so they also can have some success too. Why no,t teach people to build and do plumbing instead of forcing them down an academic route they have no chance of being successful in? And this my friends was the grammar school system.

There are too many of our kids getting nothing from education. Its time to realise that equality of chance can only ever work if all start from an equal base. And the capitalist system we choose to live in will never, never provide an equal base for our children. Most of us naturally always want whets best for our own.

Education in its present form cannot work - we need to scrap it and build it again for a multitude of people in a multitude of possible outcomes.

Education in it's present form is bad, its wrong and it cannot work.

______________________

Didn't Winston Churchill say "My education was interrupted only by my schooling."?

I'll read your essay later, I just wanted to get first post :)

I tend to agree that no one occupation is better, or more valuable than any other. In a capitalist country there will always be jobs that are more highly paid than others, and that is what we are told to aspire to. But who would want to live in a world where everyone is a lawyer and nobody cleans the toilets or flips burgers?

This is why the USA excels at capitalism - they have Mexican illegals to do all the jobs that everyone else would rather get benefit than lower themselves to do.

the failure you've identified is one of parenting not of education.

Presumably most children come into school unable to read, the difference is some of them have the help and support of parents (parents who value education, not necessarily highly educated ones themselves) and others who do not help and support.
To some extent social background is a reasonable predictor of which parents will fall into which group, but it's not the only factor.
Myself for example, my Dad left school at 15, my mum went to nursing college. Probably upper working class i'd suppose if you had to put the family in a bracket twenty odd years ago.
I've been encouraged and helped all the way through school though, as have my siblings. We all have A levels, I have a degree and we all have some sort of career.
I'm pretty glad that i wasn't taught how to plumb or plaster instead just because of the wealth of my parents.

Originally posted by miniminch
I've been working in schools for over ten years now and seen many changes over the years - all though I would consider myself a socialist with perhaps anarchic leanings I have over the years started to arrive at an awful conclusion, which has left me drifting professionally and seeking a career change.

In my opinion - compusory education doesnt work.

And here's why i think that is. With the government and therefore you would assume the electorates', obsession with competative strategies, in order to reflect a capitalist world which the child will enter, we seem to be forced to be making children compete from an early age. Therefore, the children of rich and usually pushy parents tend, on the whole, to do very well. Children who come into the school from deprived backgrounds unable to read tend to leave with little or no qualifications. Also children who are better off - still - go to better schools because of postcode and the fact that an literate parent can get their child so much further in an mainly academic system. There seems to be no difference between what arrives at the school and what leaves. So much so, with few exceptions, we can usually predict quite accurately, from year five, what the childs final school outcome will be.

I believe, if you took a group of children and didnt send them through a formal education, you would most likely end up with exactly the same end results for society. The poor will struggle and the rich will be ok!

I hate to say this but I see the public school system - still - but within schools. The kids off the estates in 'sink' groups with mainly supply teachers and the kids from the nice houses in the higher sets where they can learn without being distracted by the 'lesser intellects.'

The public school systm was wrong - but as they say - there has never been a better system to replace it.

If all children have to take academic exams of course it is going to favour the kids whose parents converce with them with full words, sentences, and proper grammer.

I really hate to say this but i think it is now time to go back to a system that enables all children to suceed in what ever way they can.

Academic schools for the academic and schools that teach subjects that are appropriate to others - so they also can have some success too. Why no,t teach people to build and do plumbing instead of forcing them down an academic route they have no chance of being sucessful in? And this my friends was the grammer school system.

There are too many of our kids getting nothing from education. Its time to realise that equality of chance can only ever work if all start from an equal base. And the capitalist system we choose to live in will never, never provide an equal base for our children. Most of us natually always want whats best for our own.

Education in its present form cannot work - we need to scrap it and build it again for a multitude of people in a multitutde of possible outcomes.

Education in it's present form is bad, its wrong and it cannot work.

We need to talk miniminch! Maybe that career change isn't too far away.

Something exciting is about to happen in Sheffield and it may be of interest to you from what I have just read in your post, unless I am barking up the wrong tree.

Originally posted by Cyclone
the failure you've identified is one of parenting not of education.


I'm pretty glad that i wasn't taught how to plumb or plaster instead just because of the wealth of my parents.

its not about wealth - you misunderstand me. Clearly you and your siblings had the promise and aspirations which suited the present academic institutions - that should be encouraged.

My concern is for those who it is clear will fail and have no chance of ever reaching or matching your academic standard. The system makes them have to try it even if it is clearly wrong.
We live in a society where academia is valued over manual, practical skills. Only society says one is better than the other. But is it? And is it right to force a child to fail at something when who knows he may have a real gift at something he has never had the opportunity to try?

Plumbers earn more money than i will ever see for all my education.

Is this intellectual snobbery? Or is it another example of how the rich (or those in power) force everyone though a system that is clearly in their favour, so that they can maintain their legitimacy as the ruling class over the rest who see themselves as failures? I don''t know - it seems unfair!

Originally posted by Cyclone
the failure you've identified is one of parenting not of education.


I agree with that - I came from a sink estate, went to sink schools (one of which was closed by OFSTED) and my parents separated shortly after I started school. My mum also has no qualifications from school, but that didnt stop her from encouraging me to do well at school.

I'm now at uni, first in the family to do so as well.

I think its down to the will of the person. There will be some unmotivated 'rich ones' and some highly motivated 'poor ones'.

I was a poor one, but through hard work and dedication, should be a rich one before long. If not, comfortable at least :thumbsup:

i see where you're coming from. But I don't think it's ever the case that it's clear someone will fail. Or at least it's not that they fail because of themselves or the teaching. They fail because they don't have a environment outside school that supports academic learning.
I've nothing against practical skills being taught, but that has to be balanced with a basic level of skills in core subject to enable people to fully engage as members of society. Afterall, a plumber isn't much use if he can't do basic maths or write out a quote.
Aren't the modern apprenticships and gnvq's supposed to address issues of learning practical skills for those who don't want more academics?

PS - regarding plumbers, it's a myth.

"We shouldn't ask: what does a person need to know or be able to do in order to fit into the existing social order?"

"Instead we should ask: what lives in each human being and what can be developed in him or her? Only then will it be possible to direct the new qualities of each emerging generation into society. Society will then become, what young people, as whole human beings, make out of the existing social conditions. The new generation should not just be made to be what present society wants it to become"


who said this? and does it sound more suitable?

Originally posted by Cyclone

PS - regarding plumbers, it's a myth.

But it isn't a myth. Wasn't there some top proffesor recently who gave up his career to become a plumber? It was a better paid job with less stress for him.

Originally posted by bonny
But it isn't a myth. Wasn't there some top proffesor recently who gave up his career to become a plumber? It was a better paid job with less stress for him.

yes, he was chasing the myth too.

Ask some plumbers, if you can drag them off the golf course and out of their mercs... ;) Seriously, if you can find one with a merc or on the golf course you'll be doing well.

It's a different question if they are running and owning a plumbing business, do well and like any small business they hire more people make more money and the owner does very well. But most plumbers are independants, or work for large companies, not small business owners.

Originally posted by miniminch
I've been working in schools for over ten years now and seen many changes over the years - all though I would consider myself a socialist with perhaps anarchic leanings I have over the years started to arrive at an awful conclusion, which has left me drifting professionally and seeking a career change.

In my opinion - compusory education doesnt work.

And here's why i think that is. With the government and therefore you would assume the electorates', obsession with competative strategies, in order to reflect a capitalist world which the child will enter, we seem to be forced to be making children compete from an early age. Therefore, the children of rich and usually pushy parents tend, on the whole, to do very well. Children who come into the school from deprived backgrounds unable to read tend to leave with little or no qualifications. Also children who are better off - still - go to better schools because of postcode and the fact that an literate parent can get their child so much further in an mainly academic system. There seems to be no difference between what arrives at the school and what leaves. So much so, with few exceptions, we can usually predict quite accurately, from year five, what the childs final school outcome will be.

I believe, if you took a group of children and didnt send them through a formal education, you would most likely end up with exactly the same end results for society. The poor will struggle and the rich will be ok!

I hate to say this but I see the public school system - still - but within schools. The kids off the estates in 'sink' groups with mainly supply teachers and the kids from the nice houses in the higher sets where they can learn without being distracted by the 'lesser intellects.'

The public school systm was wrong - but as they say - there has never been a better system to replace it.

If all children have to take academic exams of course it is going to favour the kids whose parents converce with them with full words, sentences, and proper grammer.

I really hate to say this but i think it is now time to go back to a system that enables all children to suceed in what ever way they can.

Academic schools for the academic and schools that teach subjects that are appropriate to others - so they also can have some success too. Why no,t teach people to build and do plumbing instead of forcing them down an academic route they have no chance of being sucessful in? And this my friends was the grammer school system.

There are too many of our kids getting nothing from education. Its time to realise that equality of chance can only ever work if all start from an equal base. And the capitalist system we choose to live in will never, never provide an equal base for our children. Most of us natually always want whats best for our own.

Education in its present form cannot work - we need to scrap it and build it again for a multitude of people in a multitutde of possible outcomes.

Education in it's present form is bad, its wrong and it cannot work.

well said..

my son is leaving school this year and going to college..to study music...he mentioned to me before christmas that he was worried about his english and needed some extra tuition or study time because he needs english to get into college...

anyhow he said hed like to drop french as hes hopeless at it and has no desire to achieve anything in this subject, so i telephoned his year head and asked if its possible for him to drop french and have extra studies on his english which he so desperatly needs,

well, anyone would think ive asked the school to let him drop maths the way they responded and said 'in no way was he going to be permitted to drop the language!'

well in the end i just politley told the teacher that i must curtail the telephone conversation as it was wasting my time just like the school is wasting my sons time making him do the language

i left school 22 years ago and seem to remember that studying 'hill sheep farming' wasnt going to get me anywhere...i learnt a lot more when i left school on the subjects i wanted to do, qualified and got work through these qualificatiions

my younger brother was also told that he couldnt go to oxford uni because of his background ie..born and bred on a council estate...but still went to 3 other unis and got his degree and the job he wanted

my 2pees worth

aunty witch xx

I suppose it depends on how you equate your earnings then. If a professor is earning as much as a plumber (which this one was earning less before he became a plumber)

How much time and stress does he have in relation to his pay? Time spent worrying about the next day included.

Plumbers are the most in demand tradesmen I know..a lot are earning in excess of 45,000 a year..

My husband is a plasterer,and has 30 years experience..Academics need plasterers to plaster their walls, and very often they cannot do it themselves as it is a skilled trade and a very tiring one.

I believe that peoples worth in life is that whatever they are good at, it is relevant to someone and everyone regardless of their disability, race and background has the ability to achieve their full potential...Sometimes with support

I work for a charity who supports people with mental health problems and learning disabilities to find employment and I see so much prejudice against people who are at a disadvantage in society, but I believe that I can help every single one of them in some way to move forward, and this is the satisfaction that I get from knowing that I make a difference to peoples lives

Oh and actually, the only plumbers I know are all self employed and running their own businessess and making a mint..

Originally posted by bonny
"We shouldn't ask: what does a person need to know or be able to do in order to fit into the existing social order?"

"Instead we should ask: what lives in each human being and what can be developed in him or her? Only then will it be possible to direct the new qualities of each emerging generation into society. Society will then become, what young people, as whole human beings, make out of the existing social conditions. The new generation should not just be made to be what present society wants it to become"

who said this? and does it sound more suitable?

Unfortunately, I don't know who said this, but they are/were clearly very wise. It seems to me to be along the same lines as the Marxist quote: "From each according to their ability; to each according to their need". A person-centered approach, rather than a State or capitalist-centered approach.

This is, of course, very idealistic, but why should individuals be hammered and moulded to fit into some round hole as decreed by society in order to make a living, despite their own abilities, inclinations or needs? Why not see what each individual has to offer, with their own personal growth as important a factor as any other? Have a society based on ENABLING its members, rather than writing off a sizeable percentage of them as useless failures? And then be surprised when a lot of them aren't very happy about that, and react badly to being written off? (Please note: I am not trying to excuse crime of any kind).

It may be Utopian Socialism, but what's so wrong with trying to reach for Utopia?

StarSparkle

Originally posted by StarSparkle
Unfortunately, I don't know who said this, but they are/were clearly very wise. It seems to me to be along the same lines as the Marxist quote: "From each according to their ability; to each according to their need". A person-centered approach, rather than a State or capitalist-centered approach.

This is, of course, very idealistic, but why should individuals be hammered and moulded to fit into some round hole as decreed by society in order to make a living, despite their own abilities, inclinations or needs? Why not see what each individual has to offer, with their own personal growth as important a factor as any other? Have a society based on ENABLING its members, rather than writing off a sizeable percentage of them as useless failures? And then be surprised when a lot of them aren't very happy about that, and react badly to being written off? (Please note: I am not trying to excuse crime of any kind).

It may be Utopian Socialism, but what's so wrong with trying to reach for Utopia?

StarSparkle

Idealistic possibly, but very much in practice. If anyone would like to be involved in a new initiative in Sheffield PM me.

http://www.steinerwaldorf.org.uk/education.htm

Rudolph Steiner by the way.

Originally posted by screamingwitch
well said..

my son is leaving school this year and going to college..to study music...he mentioned to me before christmas that he was worried about his english and needed some extra tuition or study time because he needs english to get into college...

anyhow he said hed like to drop french as hes hopeless at it and has no desire to achieve anything in this subject, so i telephoned his year head and asked if its possible for him to drop french and have extra studies on his english which he so desperatly needs,

well, anyone would think ive asked the school to let him drop maths the way they responded and said 'in no way was he going to be permitted to drop the language!'

well in the end i just politley told the teacher that i must curtail the telephone conversation as it was wasting my time just like the school is wasting my sons time making him do the language

i left school 22 years ago and seem to remember that studying 'hill sheep farming' wasnt going to get me anywhere...i learnt a lot more when i left school on the subjects i wanted to do, qualified and got work through these qualificatiions

my younger brother was also told that he couldnt go to oxford uni because of his background ie..born and bred on a council estate...but still went to 3 other unis and got his degree and the job he wanted

my 2pees worth



aunty witch xx
Many excellent points!
we seem to have got further and higher education right because it is tailored to the individual needs of the human being (remember we are talking about people) Schools see people as equations with potential to elavate or relagate the school it the myriad of school leagues and tables. They look for what they call 'value added'. If a child (they think) can add no value to a school they are usually maginallised into a group where they cannot effect others.

Re the other point - true a plumber would need basic maths and I would have thought they would build that into a plumbing diploma - possibly what the child doesnt need is to go through a maths gcse syllabus which he could fail due to it relevance to his profession. Some children will not learn if they cant connect the relevance.

Basic english yes - but shakespeare, heaney and plath - for all ?even those that would simply benefit more from learning to write letters and post on here?
As someone said most peoples education begins when they leave the oppressive environment of the school. Blake said How can a bird sing when it is in a cage.
How unnatural is a school?

Some time ago I read about a school in London which specialised in chosen subjects. They allowed each student to choose their own timetable and study at their own levels for their own choice of hours with the exceptions of one hour of maths, science and english every week for everyone.
I'm told the students leaving the school were incredibly bright in their chosen subjects but had huge gaps of knowledge with things like geography and very few basic skills to back up their specialist knowledge.
I found this very interesting. I've worked with a number of students, from those who have been rejected from schools throughout Sheffield and right through to private education.
Personally, I feel a fixed approach to maths science and english is essential and I agree with core subjects but I also think they could be taught in relation to a students interest.
If a student enjoys woodwork then teach maths in relation to woodwork, lengths divided by widths etc. It has been known to work.
A problem associated with this could be there extra training required for teachers.
I get better results from my students if I relate what I am teaching to the things they are experts on - their own lives. If I can give them an example to cross reference from in their life they normally get the point faster.
The one thing I dislike about teaching is that I have approximately 50% of students who don't give a damn about my subject. It's a waste of time for me and them and I'd rather just have the ones who enjoy my subject, I could probably teach at a more advanced level and save time from resolving issues with the young saboteurs.

For everyone that has Pm'd me, Thank you for your interest it is appreciated and welcomed.

I will reply to you all and let you know how you can help get this off the ground.
At present we are a group of 14 with a dream, some experience, heaps of enthusiasm, and a fantastic source of support.

A brief example:
Some distinctive features of Waldorf education include the following:

Academics are de-emphasized in the early years of schooling. There is no academic content in the Waldorf kindergarten (i.e. pre-class 1) experience (although there is a good deal of cultivation of pre-academic skills), and minimal academics in class 1. The letters are introduced artistically in class 2, with the children learning to read from their own writing in class 2 or 3.

During the primary school years (classes 1-8) the students have a class (or "main lesson") teacher who stays with the same class for (ideally) the first eight years of their schooling.

Certain activities which are often considered "frills" at mainstream schools are central at Waldorf schools: art, music, gardening, and foreign languages (usually two in primary grades), to name a few. In the younger grades, all subjects are introduced through artistic mediums, because the children respond better to this medium than to dry lecturing and rote learning. All children learn to play recorder and to knit.

There are no "textbooks" as such in the first through fifth grades. All children have "main lesson books", which are their own workbooks which they fill in during the course of the year. They essentially produce their own "textbooks" which record their experiences and what they've learned. Upper grades use textbooks to supplement their main lesson work.

All children learn a stringed instrument from class 3 onwards. This often includes one-on-one tuition as well as orchestra.

Learning in a Waldorf school is a non-competitive activity. There are no grades given at the primary level; the teacher writes a detailed evaluation of the child at the end of each school year.

The use of electronic media, particularly television, by young children is strongly discouraged in Waldorf schools.



If you are interested then please take a look at these links and see if they resonate with you. Especially as we really need you to understand what you would be involved in. Don't let it be just the case of "oh I hate state education, I'm trying the alternative"

http://www.steinerwaldorf.org.uk/education.htm


http://www.steiner-australia.org/other/overview.html

http://www.steiner-australia.org/other/Wald_faq.html

http://www.freedom-in-education.co.uk/Steiner.htm


These are just a few. As each Steiner School is different so would ours be. But I invite you all to our meeting to find out how and why.

If this is something that interests you, and you attend our meeting then expect to become immersed in it's production in some way. To make an initiative like this happen it's a case of all hands on deck.

interesting ideas, but the last bit sounds a bit worrying. They discourage the use of electronic mediums. Does that mean the children will lack basic IT skills?

Espadrille, I take it you are retraining to be a plumber then since it's so lucrative?

Some information on plumbers salary myths

The idea that plumbers - and other tradesmen - are currently raking it in due to a shortage of skilled workers, is not a new one. Two years ago plumbers in Edinburgh were said to be earning up to £50,000 a year - which is equivalent to a police superintendent’s salary.

However, while skilled trades are enjoying renewed popularity and their career conventions are attracting hordes of interested new recruits on the back of such widely discussed pay packets, Alan Wilson, commercial officer with Snipef - the Scottish plumbers’ union - pours scorn on huge salary predictions and urges an air of caution for aspiring money-makers.

"It is generally a widespread myth that plumbers earn the vast amounts which people talk about and are constantly being perpetuated," he says.

"Down south there may be the potential to earn more due to a shortage in a supply of skilled workers, but here in Edinburgh and in Glasgow the salary of a plumber is likely to be in the region of £22,000 to £25,000 a year - and that’s with ten to 12 years of experience and including overtime and call-out charges. This has always been closer to the truth."


We don't live in London, so we can probably assume rates quite similar to Edinburgh here in Sheffield I expect.

ABout what i'd have expected for skilled tradesmen, but remember that's after 10 years experience.

Originally posted by Cyclone
interesting ideas, but the last bit sounds a bit worrying. They discourage the use of electronic mediums. Does that mean the children will lack basic IT skills?

Espadrille, I take it you are retraining to be a plumber then since it's so lucrative?

Some information on plumbers salary myths



We don't live in London, so we can probably assume rates quite similar to Edinburgh here in Sheffield I expect.

ABout what i'd have expected for skilled tradesmen, but remember that's after 10 years experience.

why would that worry you?

Children don't need to be sat still in front of a box, they have it all in their imaginations and much more given the chance

Originally posted by bonny
why would that worry you?

Children don't need to be sat still in front of a box, they have it all in their imaginations and much more given the chance

IT skills are on a par with being able to read and write these days. Without them you are cut off from and essential tool and means of communication. Why make life more difficult for them, skills are most easily learnt when young.
I'm not suggesting that they should spend hours sat in front of a 'box', but learning to type and the basics of a gui and command line interface won't hurt them.

Originally posted by Cyclone
IT skills are on a par with being able to read and write these days. Without them you are cut off from and essential tool and means of communication. Why make life more difficult for them, skills are most easily learnt when young.
I'm not suggesting that they should spend hours sat in front of a 'box', but learning to type and the basics of a gui and command line interface won't hurt them.

I would have to totally disagree with that. Computers, Tv and such are not the be all and end all in this day and age by any means. People do and can be very productive without them thus being more creative and imaginative.

But It is a vast debate and I expect we will have to agree to disagree.

i'd certainly agree about the tv, it doesn't aid creativity very much as it's passive.

Using a computer though is a life skill just like being able to count. Hence the government trying to address the digital divide, and a diverse cross section of people coming here to chat about various issues. Computers aren't just about games, they are a business tool, a communication device, an entertainment device (that's the games) and a teaching device.

I suppose the question becomes one of what the ideal age to start to introduce computer skills is.

I remember using logo in early junior school years. It helped strengthen my interest in technology, science and specifically IT. It taught me about basic ideas involved in programming, and amongst other things probably helped put me on the path to my career. I was playing about writing little programs using basic by the age of 10, which helps develop analytical, logical and problem solving skills. I also played packman, that probably helps develop the (virtual) reactions needed to run away from ghosts :D

Hi Mini,
like your style.

I think that one of the problems with education is that young people study subjects which they are likely to pass or excel at, rather than subjects which are likely to give them pathways to worthwhile work.

I feel that I am lucky with my upbringing [especially with what I have learned from some of my social worker friends in the last couple of years] in that I was always focussed from an early age into being a useful person with practical and technical skills. It is easy to blame your parents, but even though I haven't any myself I have seen in the last 2-3 years how lucky I am.

I am surrounded by younger people who have been told that they will have their life sorted if they get a degeree, and went on to get a qualification in a subject which is, in reality very little use to society in general, and they have finished up with poor or no work and regret.

Also there are too many people of my age and younger, who think that society owes them a living. And are not prepared to work hard for anyone, not realising that to get anywhere in this life, you have to work hard to get any success at all.

I know loads of intelligent, and some incredibly talented people who are spending the best years of their lives, kicking their heels and avoiding menial work. That's a tragedy.