A teacher asks: what can we do about education? Is the solution more pay for teachers? More grammar schools? Corporal punishment? What do you think?

Cathy Beck is a regular visitor to School Gate. As a teacher herself, she often finds it hard to deal with the vitriol regularly given to those in her profession.So, she asks (and it's a question on a grand scale), what’s to be done about education? I'd urge you to read her piece, as it raises, and attempts to answer, issues which regularly come up on this blog. All too often, we parents complain about education issues, but don't attempt to (think how to) solve them.

So, over to Cathy:

"I can’t think of a bigger question, nor one so commonly asked (and answered) on School Gate. In several months of posting here I’ve done my best to stand up for teachers, usually by pointing out that they’re up against almost impossible odds. Some will agree with that, some not, but the fact remains that, whether teachers are doing their best or not, something’s going wrong. Teachers are not always able to do what they are paid to do and knowing the reasons doesn’t make the problem go away.

I’ve given some thought to suggestions I’ve read here and they seem to fall into two main groups: we should (a) return to older methods of organising and teaching children and (b) we should emulate independent schools. There are plenty of things to be said in favour of both, and plenty against, too ... my main concern being that the genie (our collective obsession with our rights rather than responsibilities to all society) is now out of the bottle. Can it be put back in?

These are some of the recurring themes I’ve observed and my own initial reactions.

Many people want the return of grammar schools. Would they still want that if they knew their child would be one of those who didn’t get in? What alternative to grammar schools would people favour?

Teachers can’t spell and punctuate. Our children deserve the best. Well, the easy answer is that I certainly can. But I confess I’ve encountered Early Years and primary colleagues who can’t. Yes, of course our children deserve the best teachers possible. But how do we define that? Does that mean someone with excellent formal skills or an excellent communicator and disciplinarian? Ideally, of course, we want both. So how do we lure them into the classroom? Will gifted, clever graduates be willing to work for teachers’ pay in the circumstances that so often obtain in the state sector – badly-behaved pupils, unsupportive parents, public derision and endless government meddling? Are long holidays really enough of a draw?

Discipline in schools is poor. I’d agree that far too often behaviour is unacceptably poor. That’s really not the same thing. I’ve seen no evidence that teachers are routinely condoning bad behaviour, bullying and so on. They do their best to impose order on often determinedly unruly, even violent children but what can they actually do?

Corporal punishment should be brought back(the really controversial one). Leaving aside the inevitable moral questions, I wonder whether 21st century parents would tolerate their children being caned? This is, after all a society in which teachers have been threatened by armed and angry parents. Less dramatically, low-level bullying of school staff by parents is commonplace. I wonder whether those who insist that caning never did them any harm would be happy to have their child or grandchild caned?

Make children sit in rows. I have seen this done in Junior schools and it seems generally to work very well. There is the need for a bit of furniture-moving before some lessons but anecdotal evidence has suggested to me that formal learning is enhanced. On the other hand, sitting Infant-age children in rows would show absolutely no awareness of how young children learn. Enough said ...

Private and faith schools get better results and have better discipline. I can’t speak for the discipline in private schools, never having taught in one. Faith schools vary, but I’d say the discipline is much the same as in non-faith schools. All head teachers and class teachers set out to have calm schools and classrooms. They’d be masochists not to. The difference comes from the ways in which children push boundaries and whether their parents support the child or the school in behavioural matters. Faith schools tend to take children whose parents care about education, as do private schools. Decent results tend to follow decent behaviour – and thus uninterrupted teaching – although this doesn’t always follow. And independent schools often get better results because they screen their entrants, one way or another.

So – what would you do if you were the new Secretary of State? I think the first thing to do would be to forget about sleeping at night."

Read School Gate:

Should teachers be role models?

What can be done about disruptive pupils?

Tory education policy: a brave new world?

Comments

[Helena]

Teachers need hugely more support from their schools to establish order and a good learning environment (ie, no disruption etc etc) in the classroom, and the schools need far, far more powers to curb disruption by separating out the pupils who won't (or can't) cooperate.

Without peace and order in the classroom, NOTHING can be achieved - it's the essential sine qua non of good education.

[Cathy]

That doesn't look anything like me! And she's not a real teacher - look at those mixed upper and lower case letters ... tsk, tsk.

Helena: that would be lovely - but how's it going to happen? Where are the disruptive children going to go? I'm sorry I can't offer a prize for the right answer ;)

[Tim]

Fascinating! As a former teacher I'd just add a couple of things to this discussion. One is that there are plenty of others in senior professional positions for whom spelling and punctuation are a problem. But no matter. My other point is that so much of what happens in schools is not just unnecessary, but runs counter to the things we now know about the way that children learn. Let's face it - schools themselves are out-dated and anachronistic.

[Helena]

"What alternative to grammar schools would people favour"

I do think that for a lot of children, the culture they are raised in makes academic 'traditional' subjects pretty irrelevant to their lives. They don't really need to know the dates of the WWI, or the chemical symbol for potassium, or how to do trigonometry, or how to speak French etc.

Because the cultures they come from are practical and artisan, surely that is the way forward for many, many of these children - to learn plumbing, car maintenance etc.

Don't shoot me by saying 'God, how patronising' becuase for many educated people they don't really need to know their subjects either! God knows the last time I needed my degree subject (er, when my son was last revising actually, and I was depressed how much I'd forgotten over the decades).

Let's get real about two things that are unavoidable - firstly, there are jobs that society needs done (plumbing, decorating etc) and secondly, a lot of people who are happy to do them, indeed, don't actually want to do anythign else.

So, PROVIDING they do get a real, real choice as to whether they want to do the more intellectual jobs (lawyer, scientist etc etc) what is wrong with keeping their education to something they actually find personally interesting (fixing cars etc) and that they can earn a living at.

OBVIOUSLY any child from such a background who shows the slightest interest in moving up social class into the professions etc should have EVERY helping hand held out to them.

And yes, of course, in the longer term, it would be great if we were able to produce mass-educated-public, where EastEnders etc were just as happy talking Proust as soaps etc, and that should always be our goal (I think!)(though mayvbe there are counter arguments for saying that being an intellectual is a waste as well....).

BUT if we really do have children who only want to have a decent life moneywise on their own terms, then why force them to learn a whole bunch of stuff they think is pointless and stupid?

So, maybe that all boils down to the reinevntion of the Tech schools that were, I believe, supposed to be the third type of school when Secondary Mods and Grammars were invented. Science, for example, could be so easily taught in practical ways, via plumbing and car maintenance etc.

[KidsRpeople2]

The only group of people in the U.S. still legally subjected to Physical/Corporal Punishment in the 21st Century are children in schools in 20 states. It is ILLEGAL for school employees to hit children with WOODEN PADDLES to punish in schools in 30 states.

The TRUTH is that school children are treated differently in our great nation based on where they live. A middle school student in Texas DIED by having his chest crushed when his teacher sat on him to restrain him, a Texas high school student suffered deep bruising and welts to his lower back, buttocks and back of his legs when he received 21 "licks" with a wooden canoe paddle, which broke during the beating and had to be taped to continue the beating, a 9-year old Georgia 3rd grader suffered deep bruising injuries when he was paddled with a WOODEN PADDLE 3 TIMES IN ONE DAY (Decatur Co., GA affirmed Corporal Punishment Policy 9/17/09 for school children) and a Publicly Funded Charter School in Memphis, Tennessee physically punishes middle/high school boys and GIRLS weekly during a ceremony called "Chapel" by hitting them with wooden paddles and/or whipping their hands with leather straps IN FRONT OF ALL THE OTHER STUDENTS AS A DETERRENT to publicly induce shame, humiliation and fear! The school employees in the above actions have LEGAL IMMUNITY and are STILL paid by our tax-dollars to be ENTRUSTED with the care and education of our children!

A recent news headline reads, “Nearly 60,000 spankings in Miss. schools last year." "Ouch! For the second time in a month, a school district in Leflore County has been hit with a $500,000 (each) lawsuit from a student alleging injuries from a paddling. It was reported that a state legal adviser, who told Bristol, Tennessee Director of Schools Gary Lilly that while school principals who paddled students were legally protected from allegations of assault, they were not immune from accusations of inappropriate or improper touching.

School boards are asking for trouble to sanction a practice that is intended to inflict pain.

Make no mistake: beating schoolchildren on their pelvic area with a wooden board causes more problems than it corrects -- if it corrects any at all. Teacher-training programs do not include instruction in the "correct method" for hitting students. Zero tolerance for weapons and violence is the standard that should apply to everyone in educational settings. Teachers included

What corporal punishment does accomplish is to degrade the teaching profession, drive good people away, and make the teaching field a safe haven for the dangerously unfit. Its net effect on schools is a negative one. The more that schools indulge in paddling, the higher the dropout rate, along with all the social ills that follow, e.g., gang activity, addiction, mental health problems, unemployment, etc.

The time is long over due for our lawmakers and education policy makers to apply the zero-tolerance rule universally. When paddlers complain, as some inevitably will, they should be advised to look beyond their classroom walls and see how schoolchildren are managed violence free throughout the civilized world. They should look and learn from the 30 states where corporal punishment in schools is forbidden by law. If they can't learn, they can't teach.

Over 50 National Children's Health and Education Organizations have issued position statements to OPPOSE SCHOOL Corporal Punishment including the American Medical Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Bar Association, the National PTA (Parent Teacher Association), National Education Association, Prevent Child Abuse America and the NAACP, among others.

U.S. Congress is currently holding hearings on Abusive and DEADLY practices in SCHOOLS and MUST ABOLISH Physical/Corporal Punishment Nationwide of ALL Children in ALL Schools, The Cost is $0.

[Tim]

A very fair and thought-provoking piece from Cathy. Time to end the disastrous democratic experiment? But seriously, grammar schools are only a problem for people to contemplate because of the cultural and historical overtones. The UK has a cultural problem with voctional training (hence the need to create so many - too many - universities). The failure of pupils at secondary-modern schools was essentially one of funding.

[Cathy]

Tim: Yes, yes and a little disagreement with your very last statement: for many of the children I encounter, school is the only place where they can expect predictability and consistency. Even the luckier ones are unlikely to benefit from the kind of provision they get at school. I can only speak for nursery and Infant schools with any authority, but they are almost universally very happy, creative places where children are busy learning important skills for life. I come home most days with two things - a headache and a sense of satisfaction.

Dear me, I do sound a bit fluffy today.

[Cathy]

Heleana: Your long comment is really thought-provoking and I won't be shooting you down, as I agree with you. I'm glad you emphasised the need to keep options open for all, although I'm not sure how that'd work in practice (ie where the cut-off point is likely to be). I was at grammar school with lots of people who didn't want to do anything remotely academic. Conversely, my German A-level group consisted of myself, a blind girl who had been to special school (her textbooks took up whole cupboards!) and three girls who'd failed the 11-plus and transferred to our sixth form. The latter passed all their A-levels.

I think this solution would ease the problem of the disaffected a bit, but wouldn't address those who really didn't want to co-operate.

Any secondary teachers reading this?

[Cathy]

Kidsrpeople2: I wonder if you read my post? Would you like to come back and let me know what you think of it?

[Cathy]

Tim: Is this another Tim? Thank you very much, and I agree entirely. Although not with all your spelling ;)

I'd like to think we'd all be happy whether our children went the vocational or the academic route, but I can't deny that the sympathy I get from friends (sons at Cambridge, Edinburgh, LSE etc) when they ask how my son (local college, BTech apparently in avoiding getting-up skills) is getting on sting a bit.

Youngest came home from 'options day' today burbling excitedly about film studies and graphics and I did that whole 'Don't do too many non-academic subjects, darling' thing. It's very hard to be the parent of a school-age child and I need to remember that when tempted to put my bossy teacher-knows-best hat on.

[noughtpointzero]

Without a doubt the first thing I would want changed is to have children take the blame more. Teachers should be more critical of children, tell them when they are doing badly and tell them when they are lazy. Too many schools tell their teachers to "think positively" when writing reports, for example, so that 'your child is lazy' becomes something more ambiguous like 'your child has room to improve'. We should be more explicit about failure and tell children and parents exactly when they are failing.

[RDW]

I don't necessarily like the idea of corporal punishment, but at the same time, I hate the way discipline is currently handled at my institution. If I write a kid up, he's supposed to go to detention, but if he doesn't go, he gets an out of school suspension (a.k.a. a free day off). Enough of those, and he gets a 10-day suspension (a.k.a. a second winter break). Of course, there's in-school suspension, but that's not too much better, since most of them get 2 free break periods, and, at least at my school, kids are allowed to talk instead of working. It's almost like a reward for misbehavior.

I think the best answer is to hire one of those drill sergeant guys from TV to come in and make them do some community service like I sometimes see criminals doing on the road. It might be more expensive because of transportation, but it seems like a good option to me.

[pamela]

Make more things optional for children - allow the ones who don't want to learn to have some other form of excellently supervised childcare open for them such as football, make-up, hair & beauty, computer games, quizzes, reading/watching dvds ... ask them what they'd like to do.

This leaves the ones to want to learn free to take part in the subjects they want to learn for whatever reason. A bit like Summerhill school. Not everything has to lead to qualifications, and even watching dvds can be educational if an adult is there to talk things through with.

If children knew they would not be forced to attend, they might actually be more engaged. If teachers knew they wouldln't be judged by attempting to force inane facts into heads which don't want them, they wouldn't feel so impotent and could just be more of a trusted friend an mentor. Then you don't have to worry so much about bad behaviour, as the disengaged child could go do something else more appealing (within reason!!).

I'm sure a lot of bad behaviour is lack of physical activity, so some sort of appealing sport is a must (trampolining, aerobics, fun circuit training etc).

My daughter is home educated as I just despair at the state of our education system (not blaming teachers by the way).

Sadly, none of the above, or anyone else's comments, are ever likely to happen in my lifetime - but something has to change, surely?

[Caz]

There are lots of things here I agree with (I'm a secondary teacher by the way).
Behaviour, whatever Alan Steer may think or say, is still a massive problem in many schools. Last week, for example, in a class at the end of the day, I had a group of year 9 boys who decided that for the last 5 minutes of the lesson, they were going to throw an empty plastic bottle around the room. And believe me, the force with which they were throwing it made it a pretty dangerous missile. What can I do? Ask them to stop. Tell them to stop. Well, I did both of those, but to no avail. Try to intercept the bottle - which has to be done surreptitiously or you make an idiot of yourself. These kids get detentions several times a day and don't turn up - but that's basically the ultimate sanction. Their parents are not interested, so there's no support there either.

I do think that for some of these kids an "academic" education isn't really going to do them any good, and that we should be talking about separating them out and taking them down the "technical school" route. The majority of the kids causing disruption on this scale are boys (sorry, I'm not being sexist, that's the way it is in my experience) and most of them are likely to be kinasthetic learners. They won't do written work, they can't sit still. Give them something to DO - car mechanics, electronics, bricklaying - I had a lad one year who was a total PITA, but he wanted to be a bricklayer! - something which may lead to gainful employment later on and which could give them more of a sense of achievement. We're told over and over that these kids have a low sense of self-esteem, which is only being continually reinforced when they come bottom in their class. Yes, they need maths and english, but I teach Music and French, neither of which subjects either interest these kids or are likely to be of any use to them later in life.

Doing this would also mean that we'd be able to give the rest of the kids - the majority of whom DO know how to behave properly, and will, when the disruptive element is removed - a decent education. I used to think, in my naivete that we should endeavour to teach ALL the kids in the class - but having spent so long dealing with poor behaviour, watching the expression of boredom on the faces of the other kids while I work my way through the school's sanction system, I now think we need to be putting the needs of the well-behaved first, rather than attempting to tie ourselves up in knots attempting to educate those kids who simply don't want to be educated and never will. I know that sounds harsh, and I'm not trying to say that we should just write those kids off - but clearly the current, ridiculous, "one size fits all" attitude towards education isn't working. We're all different, and we're all good at different things. What's wrong with admitting that?

Also - I've said this before, but what noughtpointzero says about the fact that we as teachers have to pussyfoot around with language and are often discouraged from saying anything negative either to or about pupils. "Doesn't pay attention" is now translated as "lacks focus" and "lazy" translates as "needs constant reminders to begin their work" and so on. By trying to shield kids like this, we're not teaching them how to deal with failure - and we're not doing them any favours. Life is tough, and sometimes we fail. As things stand now, we're producing a generation that thinks everything will fall into its lap without effort - money, work, whatever they want.

Finally, I'm glad, Cathy, that you've mentioned the hateful comments that are often posted here and at other educational blogs by non-teachers. I find it utterly bewildering that we are the targets for such vitriol and scorn. I know that I work damn hard, usually more than 12 hours a day once you include work done at home and during break and lunchtimes (which are only 30 mins at my school). I have a good degree from a "proper" university (*g*) and I can read, write and add up. I'd love to invite one of those detractors to come and do put their money where their mouths are and come and do my job for a week.

[Another mum]

Having got quite involved at my son's secondary school, I would venture that two of the problems are:

(a) the government - always trying to micro-manage, usually from a position of ignorance. And determined to change things, for change's sake, without thinking through the reasons why, the funding implications etc, often it seems just to show what a great chap the new education secretary is.

(b) the parents - especially those who place no value on education themselves (viz the dad the other day who said that the Head had to "earn" the respect of his feral son). This is perhaps the key strength of the private sector - by definition the parents care.

How to improve? well letting teachers teach and heads manage would be a start .. and for parents, perhaps oblige the NEET parents (often the worst offenders) to attend parenting / adult literacy classes etc as a condition for getting benefits after they get pregnant ...

[Mrs Baum]

Not sure I've got much to actually suggest, except to agree that stronger sanctions and stopping pussyfooting around in terms of school reports etc (at my son's primary school, the lowest grade was 'satisfactory', which took a lot of explaining to Son that it bloody well wasn't what it said!) would be a Good Thing.

It's an interesting question, what someone said about allowing children to learn what they want to. Obviously there have to be limits, as a general all-round education is important, but I think more flexibility in subject choice from an earlier age would help.

For example, my son hates art, but loves food tech. At his school they do half a term of each. He'd love to be able to give up art and do something that he's more interested in, and I don't see why he shouldn't. It would certainly help his motivation, which is low.

I was quite similar at school - academically able, but unmotivated in most subjects. There were several things I would have like to have tried but they weren't options at my (private, very academic) school. If I could have organised my own education I'd have done it very differently!

If I thought I'd have the patience (and knowledge) for home education I'd give it serious thought. But I'd be hopeless!

[Malcolm McLean]

Schools are too repressive, but not sufficiently authoritarian.

A repressive regime tries to impose control by preventing expressions of individuality. An authoritarian regime tries to impose control by insisting on obedience, with threats of punishment. It is possible to be one, the other, both or neither.

Typical of the repressive approach is the use of academic marks as a tool of discipline, technical fixes to problems such as the use of clip on ties, behaviour management schemes, banning of useful technology like mobile phones. It is feminine, and it has a chilling effect on intellectual life. Examination results can be good, but children are forbidden from going beyond the bounds of the syllabus. Relationships between children and teachers are formal and tense.

Repression is typical of girls' schools.

[American Cowboy]

Over here in America we have much the same question. What should we do with education? I suggest we look to one of Britain's greatest thinkers and writers: Clive Staples Lewis. If you want the problem with education today read The Abolition of Man.

[Cathy]

Noughtpointzero: I can't disagree with that - but do parents really want that when it's directed at their own child? Obviously some (and some here, I see) would welcome more frankness, but I bet there are others who don't want to hear the truth.

[Cathy]

Pamela: Your last para is rather dispiriting, but I agree, sadly.

You describe what sounds like perfect utopia for children and teachers, but you know what I'm going to say, don't you? It'd cost far too much in terms of staffing so that's a no-no for a start. Also, there would be huge implications for the exam/assessment system. Plus we have enough trouble justifying 'play' for the under-fives ...

[Kim]

Euphemisms seem to be an integral part of the modern world, unfortunately. "Satisfactory" is a good example - very few schools are happy with a "satisfactory" Ofsted! Perhaps Ofsted should change it to "could do better":-)

I agree that discipline is a huge problem, and I feel for any teacher confronted with a class of rowdy teenagers. It's unfortunate that in many cases parents take the side of the children rather than the teachers. Some schools now have policemen on site, which I think is a good idea, as is internal exclusion, ie children have to sit in a classroom on their own and isolated from their peers so they can't go out at break time.

The trouble with bringing back grammar schools of course is what we do with the 80% (or 70% or whatever) of kids who don't get a place. Teachers don't particularly want to work with those children, and it just seems like an effective way of creating more sink schools.

When people say "all schools should be follow the example of private schools or faith schools" it makes me smile. In effect, all that means is "let's exclude the children we don't like/are going to cause trouble". Unfortunately that's not an option for all schools. You have to have a solution for dealing with the difficult children.

[Cathy]

Caz: that was really heartfelt and I very much appreciate your spending so much care and time on it. It's interesting (if depressing) to find out what secondary school teachers think about the job. Makes me glad to be KS1, though that's not to everyone's taste either.

I just think it's very sad that after all these years of trying to give children a happy start to their school careers, so many revert to type once they hit puberty. It does make me wonder if anything can be done to prevent such stupid behaviour. Probably not.

[Cathy]

Another Mum: Yes and yes! It'd take a brave soul to fulfil your final suggestion, don't you think?

[Cathy]

Kim: Exactly! But then some parents really aren't interested in the bigger picture. I know you were quite shocked by some of the comments on the 'lying parents' (;)) thread - me too. People boasting about how they'd break the law to give their child a perceived advantage, thus making them good parents. It's just fear though, isn't it? Educational NIMBYism.

[Helena]

Brief point - on the need for more physical activity for children, yes, absolutely. Tiring them out has always been a key parental strategy! (Remember how babies slept instantly after being taken for a vigorous swim!!! Bliss....)

Second brief point - kineastthic learning (sp?) - yup, agree again. What is SO depressing is that even the few subjects in the traditional curriculum that are 'non-academic' such as DT, are now being turned into academic ones. My son's DT work consisted HUGELY of endless bloody diagrams and write ups and 'how could I have designed this better' analyses, and PRECIOUS LITTLE actually let loose in the workshop MAKING STUFF. No wonder he gave it up! It's all so, so much 'pseudo-intellectualism' - all this trying to turn a practical subject into some kind of 'higher' 'academic' subject. Like turning 'cookery' into 'food technology'. I don't know whther it's because (a) the educationists are up themselves (NOT the teachers, all the bureacrats and experts that run the DoE etc etc) (b) facilities for practical things (workshops, kitchens) are expensive (whereas paper is cheap....) and/or (c) 'paper-teaching' is SO much easier on the teacher than 'practical teaching'.....???

[Helena]

Cathy - on removing the disrupters from the normal classroom....

Various options, all of which cost money which is why they are not done - ignoring the fact that a short-term extra spend saves HUGE amounts later one (but then, of course, the school budget is not the same thing as the prison budget....ie, so long as the cost doesn't fall on a particular budget holder, they don't care about exporting a higher cost to the next budget holder in the chain!)

- 'sin bins' ie, on-school premises for the disruptive children where they can get a mix of 'tough teaching' and 'support teaching'

- 'remedial/reform' schools ie separate establishments outwith the normal schools, where the children can receive the above.

In both cases, if and as the children become capable and willing to 'renormalise' they can be put back into normal classrooms again.

In both cases, the children need huge remedial 'parenting' either from parents who are taught how to parent properly (Cathy's comments about how primary school provides the only safe, orderly environment for many children....scary), or from 'substitute' parents, ie outsiders who take on in some way the task of raising the children that the parents are incapable or unwilling to do. If parents can't/won't nurture and bring their children up properly, then clearly the state should intervene in some way both for the sake of society as a whole (the cost of 'social disruption' whether at school or in the adult world - eg crime - is unacceptable)(except to the Establishment whose wealth and power of course insulate them wonderfully from the problems of the rest of us!!!), and the cost is also far, far too high for the individual children concerned, whose lives are blighted and doomed.)

However, although I understand that getting disruptive children excluded is fiendishly difficult, and the child just about has to have burnt the school down and killed a teacher before the school's allowed to kick them out..., nevertheless I don't know what statutory powers a school has for creating sin bins, let alone what money it might have (though presumably the cost would be offset by the far cheaper cost of only having to teach the 'easy' children in a class!!!!!)

[Sarah F]

Interesting article...I've not read the comments yet.

I agree about the comment that infant school children should not be sat in rows - children below the age of 7 shouldn't be in formal education anyway, in my opinion.

After that though, should children be sat in rows? Well, it discourages talking to each other or mucking about.

While we're at it, how about abandoning all pretense that the kids don't know which table has the brightest and which the dumbest (academically at least) kids. The kids know. They tell the parents.

I was educated in a comprehensive primary school and don't remember discipline being such a huge issue - it is now and I feel the blame lies at the feet of parents, not teachers. I am firmly against the use of corporal punishment, but something needs to be done to help teachers regain the upper hand in the face of children's hostility.
2ndary school for me was a faith school and again, I didn't see discipline problems... so again one must assume the problem lies at home/with society rather than with the schools.

I'd like to see more games/PE and I'd like the kids to experience some of the activities we did - a lot of indoor gym equipment goes unused nowadays due to a fear of injury.

And I'd like to see schools taking a MUCH firmer line against bullying. Time and time again I hear excuses from teachers/teaching assistants about how they're not dealing with the bullies. Their codes of conduct/protocols aren't worth the paper they're written on when they're not followed by the teaching staff.

And finally, I remember some teachers with a huge amount of affection and respect. They were the ones who taught with enthusiasm and sometimes using "different" techniques such as drama. And almost all of them in primary school were male. Perhaps something can be done to encourage men back into teaching in primary schools....again though, I don't know what.

Oh, and another thing: pay. It's not good enough. Most teachers I know complain about the long hours they work and that the school holidays are not weeks of uninterupted rest (at least, not for the dedicated teachers). You want good, enthusiastic, energetic staff? Make it worth their while.

[Sarah F]

Noughtpointzero: good point about school reports!
Parents don't benefit from not being told what their child is actually like at school. I was mortified when I found out that "participates enthusiastically in group discussions" is teacher-speak for "can't shut the little blighter up".
It would have been a lot more useful to me as a parent trying to work WITH the school if the teacher had been able to write what she actually thinks!
My kid is now in Year 4 and his teacher was quite frank in parents evening. She clearly had a lot of affection for my son, but also let me know he mucks about at the start of lessons (no matter who he's sat with) and takes too long to settle down to subjects he's less fond of (maths). She also was quite frank with me and told me not to stress about the subjects he's not as good at: he's still above-average and why shouldn't he concentrate on his strengths was what she said. I am starting to really respect that woman!

[Caz]

Helena - I suspect the reason that some practical subjects like DT can be made more academic than practical could be down to Health and Safety reasons! I couldn't imagine the potential havoc that could be wreaked by the class of boys I was describing being let loose with sharp tools!
And money of course - I managed to squeeze enough money out of my school last year to buy some new equipment that was long overdue. Last thing I want, is a bunch of teenage idiots breaking it, because there's no money for any more.

Sarah F - "Parents don't benefit from not being told what their child is actually like at school."

I completely agree and have been arguing this at my school where for some stupid reason, when we enter assessment data, pupils grades aren't "allowed" to go DOWN. (Needless to say, I ignore that and tell it like it is. Whether that's altered later I have no idea). Why not, if they've not done the work? And as a parent, I'd like to be informed if my child is causing a problem or has a problem at school.

In my experience - and I've taught at a number of fairly tough, low-achieving schools, there is often an unwillingness to face up to the behaviour problems that exist. And in those schools I've worked at that do face up to it (like the one I'm at now) there just isn't the money to put into place the things that are needed to deal with it, like exclusion areas (yes, we have one SMALL room, which because of that, is only usually used for the most serious offenders, and not those kids who are "merely" disrupting the learning of others), or employing the staff and creating the facilities for the alternative curricula that might help some of these kids. Everything we're doing now is just a band aid - radical solutions are required but the way things stand now, nobody has either the money or the balls to apply them.

Oh and Sarah F, thank you very much for this - "I feel the blame lies at the feet of parents, not teachers." Sure, there are poor teachers, just as there are people who aren't great at their jobs in all walks of life, but it's so demoralising when over and over you see comments that indicate that all the problems in schools are down to the teachers, and that we're all rubbish because we can't control some of these kids. Respect and discipline begin at home and from the way a number of pupils talk to us and treat us, it's clear that there are neither of these in the home. And while we do all we can to foster the principles of mutual respect, if there's no secure foundation, then our efforts are wasted.

[Jos]

I've been reading the comments and thinking about the question, and it's taken a while to compile my two cents' worth, but here goes:

1) Teachers need to be respected more in this country. At present teachers are not allowed to speak frankly to parents about what their children are like both socially and academically, and they are not allowed to manage discipline appropriately. I am absolutely opposed to corporal punishment in any form - in Holland it was abolished in the mid-1930s without the whole country going to pot, and the knee-jerk reaction of 'bring back the cane' really gets me going. However, teachers DO have to be allowed to deal with disruption. When I was at school, disruption was not tolerated. Children who disrupted lessons were excluded from the lesson in question on the spot, placed elsewhere and given swift punishment, usually in the form of detention or extra work. Parents were not allowed to protest this, though obviously genuine appeals against genuine injustice were a different matter. Teachers aren't childcarers paid to look after the precious offspring during school hours, they are there to educate. Behaviour that hinders this role needs to be dealt with.

2)Which brings me to the issue of inclusiveness. I really think the balance has swung too far in favour of inclusion for all children with special needs and/or behavioural problems. There has to be very substantial investment in supporting these children, some of whom will come from backgrounds with very poor parenting, others who will have serious problems with autism and other disorders. There is no one-size-fits-all solution for this group as a whole. Re-socialising children who don't have a stable home environment is quite different from meeting the learning needs of children on the ASD spectrum. Sorry, but the government will just have to bite the bullet on this one. Inclusive education where it is appropriate, specialist education where it is not, funding please!

3)Less centralisation, fewer targets, less standardised testing. Yes, we need assessment - but we do not need children to spend whole chunks of time learning how to jump through the SATS hoop just to feed the statistics machine. There are better ways of assessing progress and aptitude which cannot be drilled for, and teacher assessment should ALWAYS be a component of testing.

4) Value vocational subjects properly and teach them properly, in specialist vocational schools if necessary, and with specially trained teachers who are actually plumbers/electricials/builders/hairdressers/beauticians. We need people who are skilled in the essential crafts. Let's have an education system that provides these skills, alongside good literacy and numeracy, and then perhaps we will start turning out young people who can make their way in the world without feeling lost and disillusioned.

@Caz, SarahF:

Last year my daughter's Year 3 teacher did speak very frankly to me about the way my daughter wasn't meeting her potential, wouldn't start tasks when set them, rushed through things and lost her temper in class at the drop of a hat. We identified the reason as one of self-esteem and loss of confidence (she is a rabid perfectionist and any error is a disaster, so it was safest not to start at all and therefore make no errors!). We set out a programme of confidence boosting measures and worked on it together and turned things around very quickly. Without that teacher's frankness, it might have been a very different story. Parents need to grow up and learn to take constructive criticism!

[Cathy]

All: No time to reply to comments as I'd like to (yet), but I really appreciate what's been said and how friendly and constructive everyone's remarks so far have been. If only all parents were so concerned and also supportive! Thanks!

[john]

The wrong question is asked about grammar schools. It's not the 'alternative', but as there used to be, proper alternatives. In their heyday they formed part of a system that also included appropriate provision of commercial, technical or general training. That larger vision was inclusive in a way that 'comprehensive' (such a misleading word) probably never has been.

[Frederick Roots]

What do private schools, faith schools, and grammar schools have in common? It's easy really, their intake of pupils come almost entirely from a section of society which prizes education, hard work and ambition. Their parents are more often than not successful and intelligent. The children have been steeped in a vat of careful socialisation since the day they could first take notice, and probably before. It is this which separates these exemplar schools from the local comprehensive and nothing more. It should be obvious to all that if your clientèle is thus composed and if in addition you either impose a rigorous entry test to screen out the bottom 80% of the full ability range as do grammar and most private schools, or insist on the acceptance of a demanding code of ethics as do faith schools, most of the potential problems in education have been got rid of at a stroke. Is it so surprising, that a school with an element of its student population dragged up on council estates by unambitious, feckless unmarried mothers (think of Karen Matthews) has a different job to do? Of course as a teacher of thirty years in the comprehensive system, I do not pretend that most children are from such families, but those that are, have dire experiences and achieve feeble outcomes. Not only is their own experience of school damaged by lack of ambition, behaviour problems, and the deprivation of early learning opportunities, but so is the experience of those they disrupt in class. My last comprehensive school was a very good one. It had a substantial population of children from professional and technical work backgrounds. It was a joy to work in by comparison to some others I had seen, but latterly (2001), the twenty percent from dysfunctional families were REALLY having an impact in creating disorder and disruption. The children were streamed, so generally more advantaged pupils did not have lessons in the same groups as the most difficult, but their impact on the coarsening of school life, their oppositional attitudes and the parental support they could muster in defying normal conventions had inevitable effects on the rest. My own sons attended the school, gained good results, degrees (one gained a first) and are in technical professions now. They were among many like them, but the greatest factor in success or failure was the family the youngsters came from. Some kids attend school ready to learn from age four. Others are completely feral and remain so for the duration. Children only attend school for five and a half hours a day. Where they spend the other eighteen and a half is pretty crucial to success or failure.

[Frederick Roots]

I've been reading the comments. It strikes me that most of our 'educational' problems are in fact cultural ones and not matters of organising schools differently. Over the span of my teaching career, our culture changed. When I started out, most working class families recognised that 'sticking in' as they put it, was a good way to get on and to become a respectable citizen. They valued that concept, that and the idea of 'having a trade'. Ninety-eight percent wanted their children to cooperate with the school in 1970, and tactfully handled, they would enforce that cooperation if it came to it. Now things are very different. The numbers of families abandoned by men is huge. Chav culture abounds and chav culture is inimical to educational achievement. When Katie Price is a role model and the values of rapper gang 'musicians' play out in children's ears for as long each day as we are in school, we have little hope of addressing underachievement by organisational changes in schools.

[Helen]

I would like to see schools from 5-14, and then grammar and technical schools from 14 to 18, with genuine chances to move between them if you get to 16 and decide you want to do A levels or decide that actually you'd rather train to be a plumber. I also think that making a choice between grammar and technical schools at 14 would be far better than at 11.

I would abolish all state-funded faith schools, as I don't see why education should depend on whether your parents got the right bit of paper for you as a baby. Alternatively I would require all such schools to take 50% of their intake from a local catchment, regardless of religious background if they wanted state funding.

I would make sure that all teachers had proper qualifications in their subjects, rather than (as is sometimes the case) being a few pages ahead in the textbook. To faciliate this, I would expect there to be proper supply teaching arrangements in place, such as exist in my son's school, where the same supply teachers are used on a regular basis.

I would put more emphasis on teaching and learning and less on policies and procedures and navel-gazing.

I would encourage PE and music in state infant schools (you really notice the difference between state infant and private schools).

I expect teachers to deal with discipline problems in school, as they expect parents to deal with discipline outside school. Teachers complain about discipline, but it's the childcare and teaching professions who have gone on about the rights of children in the past decades and now they are reaping what they sow. Don't just blame parents, they have been emasculated - they are terrified of being reported to social services if they discipline their children. And if my child misbehaves in school, deal with it. I don't need to know and be told off for it as well unless it is very serious or persistent.

[Frederick Roots]

@Sarah F and euphemisms in reports and on parent's evenings.

One of the problems of managing teachers is that some of them, ground down by the everyday pressures of the job, become negative and cease to see that their job is about managing young people and their behaviour. For them, every problem is the kid's problem. When they are allowed unfettered access to parents, they tend to set out on a counter productive rant. I'm caricaturing a bit here, but I'm sure you have seen it. Early on in my career I was exactly like that. I couldn't keep order and thought it was the pupil's fault. There is a difference between educational difficulties that are brought on by the teacher's failure to engage the class, and those that are brought on by vicious misbehaviour. I was put straight by a wily old Head of Lower School during a rant in his office about how I wouldn't teach Johnny B again for some ill-mannered intervention of his in my lesson. Mr Probetts, for such was his name, made it clear to me that I was supposed to be the professional and they were supposed to be the children. Later, he helped me realise that when addressing a mother about her darling son it was a very bad idea to start the chat by telling her that he was the worst pupil I had ever met. Instead, he brought me to realise that in almost all cases it was far better to start by establishing that she and I were engaged in the same thing - helping Johnny to become a fine man and to develop his excellent qualities. So - after that, my discussions began with a cheerful resume of what a grand lad or a smashing girl 'x' was, followed up by a tinge of disappointment at whatever behaviour or attitude was getting in their way and spoiling things. I have since then returned many accusatory reports implying that 'your son was born to be hanged,' and had them re-written to take a more positive point of view on the pupil and to suggest ways that the family and the school could come together to help them.

Euphemism and tact can go too far though and they do if a pupils problems are not addressed in communication with parents. It is all a matter of 'how' things can be broached in a way that will take the matter forward.

[Kim]

Frederick - great posts. Can't add anything to that.

[Tom]

I have to second Jos's call for 'less centralisation, fewer targets, less standardised testing.'

As it stands, the emphasis on testing in the educational system seems designed for the benefit of employers and authorities (a series of universal measures allowing quick comparisons) rather than that of the pupils themselves. Sadly, I think that this is a reflection of a general tendency to treat people as objects to be identified, categorized and manipulated for the benefit of abstract and self-perpetuating entities. Business leaders are always calling for education to be tailored to their needs, and it seems they are getting their way. Yet a move away from this obsession with quantitative evaluation would free children up to express all that creative energy which is currently stifled by the educational system, and allow for exactly that variety of opportunities (vocational, academic, artistic, etc) that most contributors to this thread are calling for.

[Frederick Roots]

Kim said:

" Frederick - great posts. Can't add anything to that."

Ha ha ha - well upon re-reading, I think I could add an apostrophe to the word 'pupils', in the last paragraph of the 12.41 post. Shame on me - and I can't even plead bad handwriting like Gordon Brown. There are probably more examples of the poor basic skills of modern teachers in there too. Good job I retired then....

[Tom]

Oh, and while we're decentralising, we could get rid of school league tables too, which do far more harm than good. There might also be some benefit as regards the issue of parents lying to get their children into certain schools...

[Malcolm McLean]

If business people want to influence education, let them set up their schools on the same basis as faith schools. i.e. pay 15% of the capital costs. Then it can be an Ernst and Young commercial college, or whatever.

I suspect that the schools won't prove very successful, but I may be wrong.

[Gojiro]

Re Helen's comments about school initially from 5-14.

I'm not a teacher, but a friend who is has told me that there are plans afoot to indeed create a line at age 14 where they can choose the route they wish to follow in life. Then their school will help them choose where to continue their education. I would appreciate learning if it is going to happen.

I think it can only be a good thing. If a young girl wants to be a hairdresser rather than a lawyer, it is better for her (and for me, since as I get older I appreciate their skill more and more) to start that training early on so when she becomes a state recognised adult, she is equipped with the skills to pursue the career she wants and have a meaningful earning capacity. This is surely better than being bored for two years and, perhaps, being disruptive through lack of motivation.

[mummy almighty]

All of these issues we encountered. School shouldn't be such a nightmare. But it really is. Ed Balls needs to radicalise the education system and quickly. 'An education for all'is not acceptable. It should be a GOOD education for all.

[James]

Abolish independent schools. I've never heard a sound justification for their existence. I love the Chris Woodhead video interview with the head teacher of Withington Girls' School. "So tell me, why is your fee-paying, selective, independent, single-sex school doing so well?" Erm...

[David Vinter]

I have an academic degree,[ quite good at maths, physics, enjoy classical music,books, hated running, and football, useless at art! ] but as an adult, learned to fly,and very much enjoy working on motorcycle engines,astronomy, or rural photography. I very much admire people that can DO things. Now retired, for most of my life I [like my father] was self employed. Maybe it was being the 'General Knowledge' prizewinner aged 15 at my local grammar school gave me my strange attitudes to my [happy] life. Don't think I am upper,middle or lower class!

[Mrs Baum]

I really like the changing schools at 14 idea. It gives that much longer to figure out what each child is good at and what would suit them best. There should, as Helen said, be genuine chances to change at 16 though.
I suppose that the current 'pathways' system does that to some extent. Not that I'm fully familiar with that, but from what I've read, there are different streams, from the triple science, most academic pathway, through double science + language and double science no language, to single science more technology. And there might be another beyond that; I didn't look. That's what there is at our local comp, anyway (which is a science & technology college I think)- I assume it's the same in others. Anyone know more about it than me? I could look it up.
I would like to see more flexibility within the pathways though - my son's fairly academic but enjoys the practical subjects too, so he'd like to do a mixture at GCSE. He's actually in a private school at the moment but wants to change back to state, so we're looking at all the options. I also resented the lack of opportunity to take practical subjects in my (private) secondary school, as I was similarly academically able but more practically minded.
That was an interesting comment someone made about the difference between state and private infant schools being huge. We didn't consider sending Son to private school at that stage, as the local school was fine, and my observation of private primary schools has been that they do far more with the children, which is wonderful, but also give them more homework and have a more academic emphasis (perhaps more at junior level than infants) which results in what is in my opinion too much pressure at that stage. My friend's daughter, who is a year younger than my son, had twice as much homework as he did by about year 3. I just don't think that's necessary at that stage - plenty of time for homework at secondary level. How I wish there were a middle ground between the typical state and typical private school!

[Mrs Baum]

By the way, sorry for the lack of paragraphs in my post above - I forgot to put a double space in! Looks messy and horrible.

[Esther]

I think, on one hand, you've got to allow for the fact that not everyone has the same academic ability, but on the other hand, there is a certain point where kids just have to learn to suck it up and do the work. If you don't get a C in Maths at GCSE, you're going to find it hard to find a job for the rest of your life. Sometimes the truth hurts. There's nothing wrong with an A-F grading system on a report card. Sometimes people fail. Learn from the mistakes and try harder. There's also nothing wrong with effort marks of excellent/good/satisfactory/poor.

What would make a positive contribution to secondary schools is if the work done at school actually counted for something. The only thing that really counts is the centralised exam and coursework. That's hardly motivation to learn. But, if all the work done in a subject over the course of a year contributed to an overall mark, and that in turn was a permanent record which future employers, HE colleges and universities would see alongside the standardised exams then perhaps that in itself would be sufficient to make some (and I know it's only some) young people take note of school.

As far as bad behaviour in the classroom, society just keeps taking away all possibilities for kids to be kids and get up to no good. Then, simultaneously, they pump themselves full of energy drinks and junk food and then we wonder why the run amok in class. Kids need to go outside, run around, do team-building activities like building forts or getting through semi-dangerous situations together.

It's not the teachers that are the problem, it's society as a whole. Teachers are just an easy target because our society has stopped respecting knowledge and experience.

[Chris Frankland]

Three things:
1. Put the very best, most well paid, most highly trained teachers into preschool and Years 1 and 2 of primary schools. You then have a solid foundation on which to build
2. Spend more thought, time and money on community and parental involvement. Half the battle won.
3. For long term change: Make parenting skills a compulsory subject in Forms 4 and 5

[Tom]

@ Esther:
'if all the work done in a subject over the course of a year contributed to an overall mark, and that in turn was a permanent record which future employers, HE colleges and universities would see alongside the standardised exams then perhaps that in itself would be sufficient to make some (and I know it's only some) young people take note of school.'

I can't agree with this. On a personal level, the year that I learned most at university was my second year, where I had not one single exam or piece of assessed work. Instead of working towards passing something, I had the luxury of learning for the sake of learning, and was able to push myself into areas I wouldn't otherwise have visited.
On a more general level, I don't like the idea of removing the opportunity for kids to fail 'for free', as it were. Imagine a child who struggles in the first three years at school, but has developed into a decent student by the time exams come round. And more generally still, I think pupils need less testing, less standardisation, rather than more - it's not healthy to feel continually under assessment.

On the other hand, I like your point about giving children the freedom to be kids, to explore their environment. In fact, we could extend this attitude to the first point - allowing intellectual experimentation is important for the same reason as allowing physical exploration. I'm not sure our current system has room for much of either.

[Patricia Smith, Mum of 2]

@ Frederick Roots. How lovely to hear such a dedicated and sensible person! I was luck with my children's education. They both went to a brilliant 'set' of schools and both went on to gain batchelor degrees in comletely different subjects.

It was because I was schooled in a first-rate grammar school, I was told that I was lucky to be there, could be thrown out if I didn't make the most of this valuable opportunity that I believe so strongly in the value of education for its own sake. History, for instance, will never get you a job in a garage or hairdresser's salon, but it will make your life better, more interesting and balanced. Not that I would have believed that at the time!

Teachers are so restrained by the government's officers/lists/rules that people tend to believe that this is because they can't be trusted. Rubbish! They are, for the most part, dedicated, intelligent, well-educated and concerned. Let then get on with it, and let them have the means to punish or encourage, both stick and carrot, and move out of their way!

[Patricia Smith, Mum of 2]

Er, LuckY would have made more sense. Sorry!

[Derek Clifton]

My eldest daughter teaches at a school where a large number of young people come from deprived homes, some where parenting skills are at a low level; often these children are abused at home and are frightened to tell anyone for fear of further abuse. It would appear that there is nothing that can be done in these cases: Teachers noticing the signs of abuse or neglect are made aware of government Rules preventing individual attention by teachers to those effected so a valuable avenue of a sypathetic ear is excluded from the equasion. Head teachers rarely want these issues aired at staff meetings as they might/would effect their OFSTED status as a 'progressive' well managed establishment.....so what to do?
All children in the 'suspect' menu should be coached/coaxed into coming into the open with any issues that cause them concern; start these conversations with, "I think something is worrying you - what could it be?" This question will/may encourage children to welcome a greater trust between them and whoever is doing the questioning, this, of curse, will greatly depend on the ages of those under questioning and the degree of skill of the person putting the questions but, at the very least, something will be seen to be done to improve the present situation for many young children.
I REST MY CASE.......

[Frederick Roots]

@Patricia Smith Mum of two:

Thanks. Regarding your remark about government meddling and the trust of teachers; it is clear that the current government trusts no one but themselves since they have imposed their own ways upon workforces throughout the public sector, usually with disastrous results. It might be better to ask which services they had not ruined with their doctrinaire impositions rather than which they had, as the list would be considerably shorter. Their tentacles extend to every aspect of public life and they interfere in a profoundly damaging manner without any real understanding of the work, or the damage they do to morale. Before I retired, they were even dictating how lessons should be structured and arranged, specifying how many minutes were to be spent on this or that. In particular, their ridiculous 'Literacy Strategy' dominated lessons by imposition. A teacher of decades of experience, could be put in the position of having their performance failed by an OFSTED inspector, because they had not broken a lesson into three stages and begun with a list of vocabulary. It was an outrage, and then of course, they quietly disposed of this policy and removed the requirement to follow the fad that it was. No teacher would have said that literacy and vocabulary were not important; they underpin progress and understanding, but many of us were appalled to be instructed by the DFE that each lesson must begin with a so called 'starter' disconnected from the mainstream of the lesson, then be followed with a list of words on the board and end up with a summing up of vocabulary EVERY TIME, WITHOUT FAIL, ON PAIN OF DISMISSAL. That was what was happening. In my least six months as an assistant head of a 2000 pupil comprehensive school. I received a pile of paper more than 12 inches high from the DFE dictating how their policies MUST be incorporated into the structure and content of school life. Failure to adopt and fully engage with their whims (many of which were later dropped without trace) could render a school a 'Failing School' under an OFSTED inspection. Were these Stalinist interventions imposed on the private sector? Of course not - somehow schools catering for the well heeled and middle class were exempt from these 'essential' and valuable pearls of government wisdom.

When I began teaching in 1970, I joined what was described as a 'profession'. We were respected and conducted our schools with a high degree of autonomy. As a greenhorn, I was supervised by wily old men and women in their fifties, who had demonstrated excellence and wisdom in the carrying out of their professional duties over thirty years and sometimes more. Were they the crazy lefties portrayed by governments, encouraging homosexuality in the young and dumbing down the unfortunate children in our comprehensive schools? Not a one in my experience. They soon had their beady eyes on the minority of useless, slipshod, permissive teachers and intervened, as they did with me when youthful arrogance got in the way of ensuring that every child in our inner city Geordie school had the opportunities they deserved. We were innovative, imaginative, dedicated, well led, and we were successful. I still meet ex-pupils, some in their forties who stop me in the street and tell me what great times they had at school. Some even tell me that we changed their lives, and I feel humbled by that, and grateful that I had the opportunity to act spontaneously, to use my judgment and knowledge; that I was well supervised by experienced teachers and guided when necessary, and that the damned government did not for most of my career push its grubby nose into the classroom to promote its own half arsed theories at the expense of the pupils; to demotivate and humiliate the teachers and to impose a barren vision of the school on people who knew better.

In the end, I became so disgusted at dancing to Whitehall's tune that I retired five years too early and pursued other avenues. I was well out of it I think. Balls is not a patch on even the middle managers of my school, and he splutters his latest justifications for some unwise intervention, all wide eyed and indignant. What a buffoon to have control of our schools. Vote them out and let's get things back where they should be - in the hands of the people who know.

[Alex]

"Where are the disruptive children going to go?"

That should be a very low priority - they don't want to learn, they won't get any decent exam results and they won't forge decent careers.

Let's start placing the interests of the vast majority of children who DO want to get something from their education first, rather than the minority of pond life scum being treated as the most important pupils.

[Alex]

Posted by: James | 15 Nov 2009 11:50:59

Typical politics of envy from someone who clearly has no experience of independent schools.

If people want to spend money on their children's education, that should be their right - plenty of parents struggle to put their kids through private education, and their kids are eternally grateful, as there are no decent state schools in their catchment area.

Why do we have to have idiots like this who just trot out the Labour Party line when they clearly have no idea what they're talking about.

[Cathy]

I'm afraid I've got hopelessly behind but I'm enormously impressed by ALL the comments on this topic (apart from Frederick's 'wily old men and women in their fifties' - ahem! Old? ;)). Forgive me if I sound a bit smug and proprietorial! I just wondered if people who read and contribute to this blog were prepared to do more than wring their hands (and bash teachers). I haven't read such a set of honest, well-thought-out and positive remarks for a very long time. Ed Balls, please take note :)

[john]

"..fee-paying, selective, independent, single-sex school doing so well", James?

And you want to abolish it? This is giving me an awfully good idea about how to, as they say, fix education. And that is to find a way of removing the envy and mistrust of quality from our national psyche. Like yours James.

[M]

Actually that is a good point about screening for entry into private schools. My son's school (a pre-prep) insisted on the children being potty trained before they started at the nursery. Children who are late potty training often can have LDs like autism. As it happens, my son slipped the net and got in. He did have delayed toileting and he has high functioning autism. He is now being effectively kicked out of the school because they cannot help him with his "needs", so he is going to a state school in the next academic year. To be honest, I think he is probably going to be much better off where he can get 1:1 support without us having to pay extra for it. The other one has delayed toileting but he has a bowel problem. He is staying in private education, but he is an able child.

And yes that is a very true comment about grammar schools. If your child doesn't get in, then what? Are swathes of middle class pushy parents going to settle for that? I don't think so somehow. And what about the able and the learning disabled i.e. bright kids with dyslexia, asperger's etc. Is it fair to bar them entry to a grammar school because they have LDs which might impact on their ability to perform in an entrance exam?

[Frederick Roots]

@Cathy - re 'wily old men and women':

That was my perspective as a greenhorn, twenty-two year old. I soon realised that those people were the 'Greats' of the school, when in my first weeks I saw that the spotty six footers in the corridors took notice of them while conspicuously ignoring me, and worse still, sat in wrapped and silent awe in their lessons while in contrast throwing paper balls in mine. Schools depend on those wily 'old' birds and their authority. One should be proud to be among their number.

[richard bolam]

Nowadays experience is derided. If you are experienced you are old-fashioned, out of date, resistant to change etc. So many Departmental leaders, senior management in schools are young and inexperienced; the more experienced are side-lined. This is, to an extent, an over-generalisation but it is part of our culture now. this has implications and ramifications in so many aspects of education and schools. For example, they have become of age during the period of greatest govt. interference and so don't know anything different. Therefore, they do not know about ways of teaching and managing except for the ways dictated by the Govt. and their lackies (especially Ofsted).

[Raddish]

POSTED BY: PAMELA | 10 NOV 2009 17:40:08

Excellent. After scanning through the article and comments you seemed to be the only one that has realised. It’s about kids, not teachers and schools. What can you give them to do to fulfil each individual’s potential? And then how do you do it? Not the approach we have at the moment.

[AQ42]

I've come to this a bit late but I want to make a point that I have made before in these fora. Before the last war most children left school at 14. Apart from the most seriously unintelligent, they could all read, write and do enough aritmetic to be able to cope with pre-decimal money and imperial measures. Whatever we have done, we have lost that.

[Desmond J Fanning]

A problem I observed when I recieved corporal punishment was not that it hurt, or made you more careful not to get caught, or it was a normal way of life with no real deterent, but some teachers who administered seemed to gain some perverse satisfaction.

[M]

Not all children who left school at 14 in the 1950s, 60s, 70s could add, read and write etc. My Mother in law's writing is terrible. My dad has never read a book in his life. He can add, but he can't write properly. You forget that those who didn't get an apprenticeship or stay in school often ended up on the scrapheap and working in factories and shops. I don't subscribe to the idea that people were better educated in my parent's generation. I think that is a myth.

[Sickofit]

What a load of twaddle M
Every person ever born into whatever generation is different.
No matter how much this government tries to social engineer clones even by trying to keep people 'in education' for a minimum of 18 years people will still be individuals.

Whichever way you look at things exams have gotten easier with every passing year.
O level A's were a rarity in the seventies now you can pass a Balls diploma even though if you fail the core subject module. Google it and see for yourself.

If that isn't dumbing down I don't know what is.