It's official, English kids are the stupidest in the developed world

[999tigger 10]

Bingo!! You've got it. In Labour areas there is absolutely a policy of deliberate under-education. That's all part of what they claim is 'equality of opportunity' (i.e none), but is, in reality, just keeping a core vote of people unable to claw free of their dependency culture. And that dependency culture keeps their public sector unionised staff in jobs. And that includes teachers who fight every attempt to raise educational standards. It's a brilliant strategy and has served Labour very well. But, it's not so brilliant if you're a bright kid struggling in a school full of idiots.

 

In other areas the deliberate under-educating strategy is to ensure no meaningful competition for the existing middle-classes, who hold all the top jobs. In the days of grammar skoils anyone could get a leg up. But Labour put a stop to that, and the Tories have carried on because it has turned out to suit them as well.

 

The end result of all that deliberate under-educating is clear to see. The gap between top and bottom gets wider as those at the top cling on and those at the bottom have not been equipped with the means to rise up. As it turns out it is policy for both left and right.

 

Spilldig I get the feeling its not exactly a priority.

 

Am won over by Jim's argument that has really blown the lid on everything.

 

Its all Labours fault as some sort of masterplan to keep kids aspirations down and limit their education. It seems the pesky teachers are in on it as well. I wonder did it start as far back as nursery or junior school?

 

Its brilliant and it all seems to be done for the middle classes who have it easy. Bring back grammar schools that would sort the problem out.

[Jim Graham 10]

Are you speaking from any sort of educational experience?

 

I went to a grammar skoil. More recently, I had two kids in the Sheffield education system and the schools didn't even pretend to be trying to educate them. And any parent who complained was singled out as a troublemaker.

 

But, I have done a lot of research on education and when you look at systems across the world the developing countries put a lot more into education than the complacent developed worlds (there are exceptions of course). In Malaysia they are short of funds to build schools but that doesn't stop them. They simply introduced a two shift system to get more out of the schools they have. Look at the USA, for example. Their education system is appalling.

 

Complacent is the word to describe the UK's education system. It satisfies itself churning out 100,000 functional illiterates every year and thinks that's good enough. And that's why the likes of South Korea are doing well.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Jim Graham

[L00b 441]

As a father to an 11 year old in her first high school year, I'm fairly unimpressed by the 'system' so far. As unimpressed as I was by the 'system' in her primary years.

 

I wouldn't speak about under-education as such, but the namby-pamby we-are-all-inclusive approach to testing, marking and evaluating is seriously getting on my manboobs.

 

WTF is all this rubbish about with "% expectations", "predicted GCSE targets" (3 or 4 years before they sit them...really?!?), colour charts and all this politically-correct mumbo-jumbo marketing-speak, etc. to measure an 11 year old's performance? It was the same with SATs when she was in her second or third year of primary, FG's sake!

 

Whatever happened to setting pupils with tests every now and then or even regularly, marking them with points out of 20 or 100 or whatever, and running an average for the month or term, to give a crystal clear picture of the knowledge and aptitude gained in each topic, term after term, year after year?

 

Education powers that be and academic staff ever heard of K-I-S-S?

 

God forbid the school would actually have to report to parents that their kid is thick in maths or history or <etc.> and give parents a chance of measuring to what extent, or of whether it's more of a behavioural issue than an academic issue, etc.

 

No, pie charts and future predictions of what our dear blond heads might do in 5 years' time is all we get.

Edited February 1, 2016 by L00b

[nomoney 10]

makes you wonder when 80% of childern in a school strugle to speak English.

[Cyclone 10]

As a father to an 11 year old in her first high school year, I'm fairly unimpressed by the 'system' so far. As unimpressed as I was by the 'system' in her primary years.

 

I wouldn't speak about under-education as such, but the namby-pamby we-are-all-inclusive approach to testing, marking and evaluating is seriously getting on my manboobs.

 

WTF is all this rubbish about with "% expectations", "predicted GCSE targets" (3 or 4 years before they sit them...really?!?), colour charts and all this politically-correct mumbo-jumbo marketing-speak, etc. to measure an 11 year old's performance? It was the same with SATs when she was in her second or third year of primary, FG's sake!

 

Whatever happened to setting pupils with tests every now and then or even regularly, marking them with points out of 20 or 100 or whatever, and running an average for the month or term, to give a crystal clear picture of the knowledge and aptitude gained in each topic, term after term, year after year?

 

Education powers that be and academic staff ever heard of K-I-S-S?

 

God forbid the school would actually have to report to parents that their kid is thick in maths or history or <etc.> and give parents a chance of measuring to what extent, or of whether it's more of a behavioural issue than an academic issue, etc.

 

No, pie charts and future predictions of what our dear blond heads might do in 5 years' time is all we get.

 

The staff would probably love to keep it simple, but successive governments have increasingly dictated not just what, but how they must teach.

[spilldig 190]

Bingo!! You've got it. In Labour areas there is absolutely a policy of deliberate under-education. That's all part of what they claim is 'equality of opportunity' (i.e none), but is, in reality, just keeping a core vote of people unable to claw free of their dependency culture. And that dependency culture keeps their public sector unionised staff in jobs. And that includes teachers who fight every attempt to raise educational standards. It's a brilliant strategy and has served Labour very well. But, it's not so brilliant if you're a bright kid struggling in a school full of idiots.

 

In other areas the deliberate under-educating strategy is to ensure no meaningful competition for the existing middle-classes, who hold all the top jobs. In the days of grammar skoils anyone could get a leg up. But Labour put a stop to that, and the Tories have carried on because it has turned out to suit them as well.

 

The end result of all that deliberate under-educating is clear to see. The gap between top and bottom gets wider as those at the top cling on and those at the bottom have not been equipped with the means to rise up. As it turns out it is policy for both left and right.

 

That about sums it up for me Jim. I remember when Bliar said, education education education, I think if I had been drinking my tea at the time, I would have spat it out in disgust because I think that's the last thing he wanted, and dumbing down got worse after that. As for doing away with the grammar schools. Disgusting is the only word I could use to describe my thoughts at the time.

 

---------- Post added 02-02-2016 at 10:23 ----------

 

The staff would probably love to keep it simple, but successive governments have increasingly dictated not just what, but how they must teach.

 

Agree with this too. Over the years teaching staff have repeatedly called on the government to stop interfering.

[Jim Graham 10]

Spilldig I get the feeling its not exactly a priority.

 

Am won over by Jim's argument that has really blown the lid on everything.

 

Its all Labours fault as some sort of masterplan to keep kids aspirations down and limit their education. It seems the pesky teachers are in on it as well. I wonder did it start as far back as nursery or junior school?

 

Its brilliant and it all seems to be done for the middle classes who have it easy. Bring back grammar schools that would sort the problem out.

 

The teachers don't need to be 'in on it'. They are part of a system that demands nothing from them in achievement terms, only in compliance terms. No teacher has ever been sacked for teaching badly. They only get sacked for behaving badly.

 

As long as they behave themselves they can fail kids throughout their careers. Sheffield has dozens of failing schools but not one teacher has ever been sacked for not being up to the job.

 

---------- Post added 02-02-2016 at 11:22 ----------

 

spilldig;That about sums it up for me Jim. I remember when Bliar said, education education education, I think if I had been drinking my tea at the time, I would have spat it out in disgust because I think that's the last thing he wanted, and dumbing down got worse after that. As for doing away with the grammar schools. Disgusting is the only word I could use to describe my thoughts at the time.

 

In support of that statement I offer you the fact that during their time Labour spent billions on new PFI schools, teaching assistants, support staff, 'initiatives' (remember Every Child Matters?) and educational quangos. But at the end of their reign there were 400,000 teenagers in failing secondary schools.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Jim Graham

[Anna B 1,417]

As a father to an 11 year old in her first high school year, I'm fairly unimpressed by the 'system' so far. As unimpressed as I was by the 'system' in her primary years.

 

I wouldn't speak about under-education as such, but the namby-pamby we-are-all-inclusive approach to testing, marking and evaluating is seriously getting on my manboobs.

 

WTF is all this rubbish about with "% expectations", "predicted GCSE targets" (3 or 4 years before they sit them...really?!?), colour charts and all this politically-correct mumbo-jumbo marketing-speak, etc. to measure an 11 year old's performance? It was the same with SATs when she was in her second or third year of primary, FG's sake!

 

Whatever happened to setting pupils with tests every now and then or even regularly, marking them with points out of 20 or 100 or whatever, and running an average for the month or term, to give a crystal clear picture of the knowledge and aptitude gained in each topic, term after term, year after year?

 

Education powers that be and academic staff ever heard of K-I-S-S?

 

God forbid the school would actually have to report to parents that their kid is thick in maths or history or <etc.> and give parents a chance of measuring to what extent, or of whether it's more of a behavioural issue than an academic issue, etc.

 

No, pie charts and future predictions of what our dear blond heads might do in 5 years' time is all we get.

 

Many many teachers would agree with you. They have had all this statistical stuff forced on them, and it takes hours to do.

 

I've even seen nursery teachers following children round with a clip board ticking boxes as they gather 'evidence' of the tot's attainment levels. Did you know the nursery curriculum starts at 0-6months old, with things like 'responds to nursery rhymes'

 

Ridiculous.

[L00b 441]

Many many teachers would agree with you. They have had all this statistical stuff forced on them, and it takes hours to do.

I have no doubt, Anna.

 

No doubt I'm being selfish here, but...it's my kid I'm talking about: fixing the 'system' in 2, 5 or 10 years is no good to her, nor to us in that context.

 

It's a good job we're pretty much hands-on with her, always have been from day one, and that there's nothing we place higher than her education.

 

But I can't shake these feelings that we as parents are not a majority by far, that this educational vigil and (ad hoc) propping is a constant uphill struggle against the 'system', and that the gradient is getting ever steeper through lack of constructive/useful feedback from the 'system'.

 

I want to know as precisely as possible how Miss L00b is doing at school, good and bad, so that I know what if anything we're doing right, what we're doing wrong, and what more needs to be done. I'm not dumb, I work with STEM PhDs and senior boardroom types every day of the week. But I have trouble deciphering and guesstimating between the generic type sentences and averaged-and-extrapolated catch-all-grades-on-a-short-scale how well (or not) she is doing in this, that and the other subject from the miasma of meaningless stats and buzzword that we're getting by way of reports.

I've even seen nursery teachers following children round with a clip board ticking boxes as they gather 'evidence' of the tot's attainment levels. Did you know the nursery curriculum starts at 0-6months old, with things like 'responds to nursery rhymes'

Miss L00b was Montessori'd, then did her first nursery school year at the Lycée Français d'Irlande, in Dublin. No clip boards in sight, and the reporting and feedback at the time was 'conventionally' educational and behavioural, without a trace of political aims, targets or interference.

 

So, I wasn't aware of clipboards...but am not surprised in the least. 'Systemism' is gaining, and it is the undoing of most educational systems that strip the human and experience components from tuition styles

Edited February 2, 2016 by L00b

[tzijlstra 11]

So, I wasn't aware of clipboards...but am not surprised in the least. 'Systemism' is gaining, and it is the undoing of most educational systems that strip the human and experience components from tuition styles

 

The correct expression is 'managerialism' - the government has a natural desire to want to manage everything which leads to a complete death of professionalism. Freidson (2001) writes about this (The third order: in the context of medicine mainly, but the premise extends to all professions and he is spot on. Another very interesting book(let) on this topic is by the excellent Ivan Illich, who wrote about this as early as the 60s - warning that we are heading to a system where the "form of education" exceeds the "form of learning" to the disadvantage of the subjects, ie. children.

 

The scary thing to me is that this managerialism is increasingly crushing quality university education as well. Universities were a bastion of professional quality where promotions were based on quality of research and teaching, increasingly it is based on quality of bureaucracy.

[Eric Arthur 10]

The staff would probably love to keep it simple, but successive governments have increasingly dictated not just what, but how they must teach.

 

I don't buy that excuse. Teachers are at the heart of devising and implementing education policy, not politicians. Teachers have been failing our children for years.

[Cyclone 10]

I don't buy that excuse. Teachers are at the heart of devising and implementing education policy, not politicians. Teachers have been failing our children for years.

 

They certainly would be the best to devise and implement education policy.

Unfortunately they aren't in a position to do so.