EDUCATION

Why do education systems try to teach kids what they don't want to know?

Example: My fifteen year old son hates school and is not interested in much of what he is taught. He is difficult at school (and at home), but this week he has done work experience at a motor mechanic. Each night he has come home filthy with grease and oil, but his attitude is not ever so filthy as usual. Why can't he go to school and do stuff that he enjoys (and give his mother more washing to do, and therefore have less time to nag me)?

Good point. My Dad apprenticed as a brickie in school. There was a time when you choose between vocational nd normal education at 14, those who took vocational got a trade. For some reason they stopped it though sometimein the early 70's or possibly late 60's even. Was gone by time I went to school at any rate.
It occasionally comes backup as an option but never it seems very seriously.

I have to sympathize. In the US, at least, we have a "one size fits all" education system through 12th grade (age 17/18 for most people). I can see the merits in a system that has multiple tracks for the high school years (after about 11 or 12): vocational, college prep, etc. It is a little worrying to me that an important decision such as which track to follow would be forced on kids at such a young age, but a part of me thinks it would be better than trying to force all kids to go down the same educational path.

I thnk between parents, teachers and the pupil an honest assessment can be made of whether a vocational route or not is appropriate.

True, and I would like to think that there can be opportunities to change ones mind at a later date regardless of which path one initially decides upon.

Hmmmmm.......

1) any mainstream school system is going to be largely one size fits all, unfortunately that is the nature of the beast

2) Secondary modern education went in the 60/70's as it was seen as elitist, not offering students enough opportunities and pigeon holing kids at 11. Equally, like todays acusation at some of the older unis, it was clear that if you came from a good background you stood more chance of getting to a grammar school

3) In the last ten years or so, there has been a push back towards vocational learning and alternative pathways. However, vocational subjects have been made more 'portfolio' based, meaning it is written evidence, not being able to do that is actually marked. These are constantly undermined as letting pupils down and now won't count in league tables (leading their value to drop further). We offer/arrange for a small number of students to do other training (we have had a jockey/footie coach/ motocross rider as well as the hairdressers/engineering and mechanics in recent years). However we have to pay other providers for these services and they are so expensive that all the yr10's who were out last year will be in school full time next year. To further undermine this provision, if a child has a target of a C grade in any subject, they cannot go out on these as we get slammed by ofsted for not providing them with opportunities to met these targets, regardless of the childs interests.

4) Despite a push to 'personalised learning' (somehow teaching each child individually, with individual timetables with a finite budget and staff) the leaving age is rising from 16 to 18 over the next few years (need to be in education or training) exacerbating the problem of those who know what they want to do and don't want to learn the majority of the subjects by the age of 13 (for us that is often the farming kids, the kid who is a minor nusiance at 13 is, by 15, so switched off they have become an out and out troublemaker half the time!

5) why do I do this job?


EDIT: (as is said in many professions, there are no new ideas, just old ones tarted up to look new!)

"in many professions, there are no new ideas, just old ones tarted up to look new"- Kafria

And in the oldest profession there are just tarts dressed up to look new! (sorry I couldnt resist that)

I broadly agree with your points save 1. It was a mainstream school my Dad went to and vocational training was offered. The 'work pits' where they taught brick layng ect were still there when I went to school slowly growing over.

Point 3 makes me want to do this a lot

point 4 Farmers kids are just the same here, trouble always, dont want to be in school already got a fututre lined up and feel they should be out there doing it (and fair enough too really).

Point 5- when I've worked out why I do mine I will try to help on this one For the moment lets go with because you are a good soul.

should maybe explain what I meant in point 1 (was trying to be brief as I should be sleeping, but failed later anyway!)

Was trying to express the fact that where you have large numbers of pupils and a set curriculum with 25-30 in a class there is always going to be a certain amount of, you'll do what we've got and in this set pattern, because that is the only way to make it work for the majority.

In terms of the vocational stuff, it used to be up to a school to choose what they put on a lot more. With the introduction of the national curriculum a much more tightly controlled list of subjects was introduced, limiting this. Many schools resisted and kept vocational aspects where they could (my own secondary had it's own farm -another rural area with lots of farmers kids - pressure from ofsted-special measures- has meant a focus on results and the farm disappearing)

There is an arrogance within education policy that really only academic qualifications are important or of value, evidenced by the continued focus on league tables, results and value added scores (a measure of how a child has performed, compared to their target) not to mention the new e bacc, which was on last years league tables, despite being announced after the results were in, let alone after the kids options had been done, it is the table for two years time that will tell the tale of what affect this little change has!

It all sounds far too centralized. Surely the curriculum should be set out only in outline by the authorities- you have to reach certain standards in literacy,numeracy etc but after that offer what your catchment area needs as well.
I know funding is always an issue but in the past local business used to provide a lot of help in the vocational side becaus eit was the building companies locally who most benefited from a trained workforce coming off the conveyor belt.

If it was me, if kids wanted to play sport all day, I'd let 'em. As a teacher I'd also get them to write game plans and learn how to score. Also, give them turns in how to be a Captain. Get 'em to do a bit of research on sports. Also, get them to write up their thoughts on sport and write stories or essays. From the centre point, their love of sport, I'd teach them English and Maths. A phys ed teacher can read and write - and even kno geography if they want to play basketball in the U.S or China.

Apply the above (generalized) principles to anything kids enjoy. A Food Tech teacher can read and write and add up numbers (my Food Tech wife can, anyhow). Indeed, any teacher can teach basic math or English (or should be able too!)

I envisage no change to any teaching structure, except that kids might do Food Tech every day, or Sport, or Maths, or English, or any other subject there's a teacher for.

Every kid's got an interest in something, find it, and put 'em in a subject area/s that suits their desire. (Then sneak in other vital learnings by hook and crook. Teachers just need to have more knowledge and "think" more broadly than the kids they teach).

How would fund such a scheme? The possible divergent amount of potential interests could be huge.

Just do it. No change. There's plenty of English teachers who could teach basic sports.

While part of me says that's a pie-in-the-sky idea, another part of me sees the appeal. It somewhat reminds me of certain strands of unschooling (though there are many variations on that) which I'm familiar with after being homeschooled for most of my formative years. It can be a viable educational model during early years, though once one reaches (Jr.) High School I think it becomes much harder to use such a loose approach. I'm not sure how it would work in a school with large numbers of students as opposed to a homeschool environment, though. I suppose one could offer a variety of 'themed' programs that orient learning around a key interest (be that sports, food, or whatever else) and let kids choose the one they are most interested in.

In any event, I would be extremely interested to see how that would work in a primary school if it were ever applied as an experimental program.

I just can't see it being implimented without costing a fortune. You'd need to train teachers to cover many bases, training would take longer. If you have one pupil who wants to be a brickie, one who wants to be a joiner, one who want to be a chef and another that wants to be a high diver and another that wants to do archery- how do you provide for these wishes or even organise or conduct classes?

Well, that's why I said they should have a choice of options, not literally every possibility a child could be interested in. I don't want to be presumptuous about teachers, especially not with Kafria in the thread, but if you're talking about primary school than the level of knowledge in each subject being taught is considerably lower than in secondary school. That's part of the reason I could see it maybe working at a primary school level but not later on.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I just can't see it being implimented without costing a fortune. You'd need to train teachers to cover many bases, training would take longer. If you have one pupil who wants to be a brickie, one who wants to be a joiner, one who want to be a chef and another that wants to be a high diver and another that wants to do archery- how do you provide for these wishes or even organise or conduct classes?

Teachers would have to use their research skills to bring themselves up to scratch. How motivating that would be.

I'll get the popcorn ready incase Kafria pops along shall I?

Eldorion wrote:Well, that's why I said they should have a choice of options, not literally every possibility a child could be interested in. I don't want to be presumptuous about teachers, especially not with Kafria in the thread, but if you're talking about primary school than the level of knowledge in each subject being taught is considerably lower than in secondary school. That's part of the reason I could see it maybe working at a primary school level but not later on.

One teacher could work with each kid in his/her "trades" class to work on small affordable projects.

You guys think money cures all. Motivated people cure things. Money can be a burden - and is usually wasted anyhow. We need teachers who can think. I think too many teachers take on teaching because of the holidays and other perks. It is no longer a high status job - and that kind of thinking is plain wrong. A good teacher is worth their weight in gold (even types like my wife and, presumably, Kafria ).

"I think too many teachers take on teaching because of the holidays and other perks."

I think I might just put this helmet and flak jacket on while I eat my popcorn.

What I said is true! Btw Kafria doesn't sound like one of them. She's got too many opinions for that! Anyone would think she actually thinks and cares about education. Indeed, she would be the first to implement a "learning" environment as opposed to an "educating" environment. Teachers should be "mentors" rather than "educators". (I hate people trying to "educate me"- see my Mencken phrase below, which hints at my fears about that - I respond to people who encourage me to "think" for myself.)

I understand and even agree with that but I do hope your tongue is at least partly in your cheek when you say teachers are in it for the perks and holidays, as I suspect the day to day grind, the beurocracy the targets etc far outweigh the perks in their miserableness.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I understand and even agree with that but I do hope your tongue is at least partly in your cheek when you say teachers are in it for the perks and holidays, as I suspect the day to day grind, the beurocracy the targets etc far outweigh the perks in their miserableness.

What you say is true of my wife. She works herself into the ground, at a cost to her mental well being, but much of her problem (and work load) is due to lazy, self-serving teachers around her - exactly those types I was bagging a moment ago. Genuinely dedicated teachers (and other folk, too, actually) are forever sucked dry by the fore mentioned lazy self-servers. It kills me to see my wife screwed over. She is "vocationally" a teacher. The best kind. The most "used up" kind.

I think the system has helped suck much of the good teachers down or out. I had a teacher, Mr Blair, I got him for history and was lucky enough to get him for the final three years of his teaching life before he retired. He taught English as well as History and in fact he taught my parents English when they were at school. And the sad thing is he could not teach now as he did then. His methods were unothodox- he stood on a chair and sang nazi propaganda songs to give us a flavour of the manner in which Hitler cultivted popular support. He never in all the years I had him as a teacher referred to a text book, he dictated everything walking up and down the class. And he was brutal in the markng as he marked you down for bad spelling, punctuation and grammar (he even once took 5 points of one of my papers because I used the term 'due to' more than four times, but it improved my writing and made me more aware of word selection and finding new ways to say things). I was therefore shocked when my little brother took history and I learned the teacher was not allowed to mark you down for bad spelling or punctuation as that was only done now in English class- which is crazy as histroical knowledge (like many others) is not much use if you are in capable of imparting that knowledge clearly and precisely. He also broke loads of minor rules which he got into trouble for a lot. He gave away reams of A4 to anyone who asked for it- I got loads becasue I have always written and he was aware of that, but he got pulled up for it, likewise when he gaves us the keys to his classroom so we could play D&D in there during lunch breaks, using more of the schools paper- he thought it was a good thing, imaginative and creative using numbers and writing. It all got him into trouble until he was just fed up and glad he was retiring- and yet he was easily the best teacher I ever had and had a lasting effect on me for the better.
But the sytem killed off that sort of teacher it seems long ago.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I think the system has helped suck much of the good teachers down or out. I had a teacher, Mr Blair, I got him for history and was lucky enough to get him for the final three years of his teaching life before he retired. He taught English as well as History and in fact he taught my parents English when they were at school. And the sad thing is he could not teach now as he did then. His methods were unothodox- he stood on a chair and sang nazi propaganda songs to give us a flavour of the manner in which Hitler cultivted popular support. He never in all the years I had him as a teacher referred to a text book, he dictated everything walking up and down the class. And he was brutal in the markng as he marked you down for bad spelling, punctuation and grammar (he even once took 5 points of one of my papers because I used the term 'due to' more than four times, but it improved my writing and made me more aware of word selection and finding new ways to say things). I was therefore shocked when my little brother took history and I learned the teacher was not allowed to mark you down for bad spelling or punctuation as that was only done now in English class- which is crazy as histroical knowledge (like many others) is not much use if you are in capable of imparting that knowledge clearly and precisely. He also broke loads of minor rules which he got into trouble for a lot. He gave away reams of A4 to anyone who asked for it- I got loads becasue I have always written and he was aware of that, but he got pulled up for it, likewise when he gaves us the keys to his classroom so we could play D&D in there during lunch breaks, using more of the schools paper- he thought it was a good thing, imaginative and creative using numbers and writing. It all got him into trouble until he was just fed up and glad he was retiring- and yet he was easily the best teacher I ever had and had a lasting effect on me for the better.But the sytem killed off that sort of teacher it seems long ago.

Exactly my point! Do we want revelators or robots, doers or drudges, perserverers or parasites? I wouldn't give marks btw, I'd show kids the difference between "good" English and "poor", and encourage a love of it. I'd be a perfect teacher, come to think of it. I don't say that in a vain way.

"I don't say that in a vain way."- Orwell

Of course not. {{{ }}}