• Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

Sign in to follow this  
spygirl

"These are children who will have spent 15 years in compulsory education, often having more than £100,000 of public money spent on their education and yet leave the education system without basic benchmark qualifications,"

Recommended Posts

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-49766178

Now try and experiment.

Select, say, 30% of the top rated kids.

And provide them with structured learning material and resources. Set them weekly goals and homework.

Maybe have an hour or two with a teacher, nothing too much cost or hour wise.

And see who they do.

Poof! Need for schools and teachers rapidly go.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Frank Hovis said:

The secondary reason for schools, after education, is to provide many years of mass child care so that both parents can work and so feed the housing bubble and the government's tax take.

In reality ths may actually be the primary reason.

You wouldn't have been in classes with the remedials.

Yeah I know but in secondary school (it was quite a small one) there was a remedial class and there was around six kids in it.   At primary, I am sure we all left able to read and write.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, One percent said:

Yeah I know but in secondary school (it was quite a small one) there was a remedial class and there was around six kids in it.   At primary, I am sure we all left able to read and write.

Nah, I think you just werent looking.

My form room was the JG classroom.

Theyd drift in whilst we were still doing registration and that sort of stuff.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

 

You wouldn't have been in classes with the remedials.

I seem to remember I was at primary school. August born and starting school 4 months late because of the boomer intake in 1969 may have had a lot to do with it. Also the rest of the kids were destined to be rocket scientists, a school with pushy leftist parents. Tbf I am mildly dyslexic and I post in hope on my phone with no spell check.

As it was I  I did pass both O level English exams at 15 after being treated like shit by the teachers. I get a bit more snobby at arithmetic failings tbh , because after 30 years in an  accountancy  practice I can. The fact the great John Curtice or John Humphrys can't do simple mental arithmetic should concern us more.;)

Edited by crashmonitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, spunko said:

IMO, the onus is unfairly placed on teachers, whereas it's nearly always the parents fault (or parent, more likely - the father is absent) if a child cannot read or write to a basic level at any age of 6. Saying that, teachers cannot extricate themselves completely when most of them are of the mindset that is is best to never assert that there is a "correct" way of speaking or writing and to do so is to indulge in a kind of bourgeois cultural imperialism; and to tell children that they have got something wrong is to saddle them with a debilitating sense of inferiority from which they will apparently never recover. It is madness.

Young people who have been thrust into this sordid social experiment eventually come to know that being treated like this is wrong, even if they are not able to articulate it. The more intelligent ones among us - like I did myself, - sense by their early twenties that something is missing from their lives, this is when the baleful effect of failed teaching methods makes itself felt. To develop an interest requires powers of concentration and an ability to tolerate a degree of boredom while the elements of a skill are learned for the sake of a worthwhile end. Few people are attracted naturally to the vagaries of English spelling or by the rules of simple arithmetic, yet they must be mastered if everyday life in an increasingly complex world is to be negotiated successfully. And it is the plain duty of adults, from the standpoint of their superior knowledge and experience of the world, to impart to children what they need to know so that later they may exercise genuine choice. The Marxist teaching methods in our schools are creating an unjustifiable political authoritarianism that is leading to social chaos.

 

 

 

Pretty much.

But equally teachers get the credit for educational achievement when in fact about 80% of it is down to the parents - plural.

Hence my interest in runnign an experiment.

Despite that useless one eyed cunt doubling spend and bumping up years in education by 2 years, the attainment has not  shifted.

You can predict how well a kid will by primary age - just talk to the kids.

And this is another reson TC are a really bad idea - kids with non FT parents tend to do really badly in life after school.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, One percent said:

I really do fail to see how someone can come out of the education system unable to read.  I don't remember anyone from school not mastering it.  

When I was in school the really poor ones weren't there, and the semi-poor ones were in the remedial class. 

I'd say that the numbers have always been thus -- there's a significant minority that just can't do it (randomly occurring in the data), and another significant minority that just don't want to do it (I'd suggest biased towards FSM -- hence the blip in the statistics).  The teachers know this -- they can identify the ones that'll do badly at 12/13.  In the olden days they just left without any qualifications and weren't in any stats.

The other problem here is in the stats -- They've invented a new grade scale where the old 'they're crap' band now sits between two grades -- 'good pass' sits at about 4.5.  So you either set the pass mark as a 5, in which case the number of 'without 5 good GCSEs' is either worse than 5 years ago (ie, 'good' set at '5') or better than 5 years ago (ie, 'good' set at '4').  This almost certainly accounts for the bulk of the '28% over 5 years'.

Anyway, the solution is probably to set this cohort out separately from the others and give them a specific education, possibly without even doing GCSE (IMO there should be a 'life skill' qualification that shows that they can read, write and add/subtract etc.  There's no point in shoving them through complicated maths where they're just not going to cope and the most likely reaction will be to turn against education and possibly disrupt the others in the class.)  But they won't do that because it is nasty or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Chewing Grass said:

Bring back the secondary moderns, workhouses and mental asylums and all societies ills will be cured.

Absolutely, I'm a product of the secondary modern system and  the cheapest and shortest school career in modern history.

And fuck it, don't I know how privileged I am for it by privately educated Socialists. Yes you, Mr Cuntbyn.

Edited by crashmonitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dgul said:

When I was in school the really poor ones weren't there, and the semi-poor ones were in the remedial class. 

I'd say that the numbers have always been thus -- there's a significant minority that just can't do it (randomly occurring in the data), and another significant minority that just don't want to do it (I'd suggest biased towards FSM -- hence the blip in the statistics).  The teachers know this -- they can identify the ones that'll do badly at 12/13.  In the olden days they just left without any qualifications and weren't in any stats.

The other problem here is in the stats -- They've invented a new grade scale where the old 'they're crap' band now sits between two grades -- 'good pass' sits at about 4.5.  So you either set the pass mark as a 5, in which case the number of 'without 5 good GCSEs' is either worse than 5 years ago (ie, 'good' set at '5') or better than 5 years ago (ie, 'good' set at '4').  This almost certainly accounts for the bulk of the '28% over 5 years'.

Anyway, the solution is probably to set this cohort out separately from the others and give them a specific education, possibly without even doing GCSE (IMO there should be a 'life skill' qualification that shows that they can read, write and add/subtract etc.  There's no point in shoving them through complicated maths where they're just not going to cope and the most likely reaction will be to turn against education and possibly disrupt the others in the class.)  But they won't do that because it is nasty or something.

Me n onsies school seem to have this tradition anywhere the ~10% who barely/never turned up during the last 2-3 years of schooling would, on the first day back in  September, somehow manage to take time out out of their busy day, to sit of the wall of the path into school going - 'Your going to school fucker' and variations of that.

I still claim that if you want to improve education than you need a much lower payout - 0 - for people who dont have GCSE passes in Maths and English.

Then make them earn their benefits by attending a special course to receive Maths n English tuition. In a uniform.

You'll see a massive drop in ebenfit claims.

or a massive rise in skills.

win win

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, dgul said:

When I was in school the really poor ones weren't there, and the semi-poor ones were in the remedial class. 

I'd say that the numbers have always been thus -- there's a significant minority that just can't do it (randomly occurring in the data), and another significant minority that just don't want to do it (I'd suggest biased towards FSM -- hence the blip in the statistics).  The teachers know this -- they can identify the ones that'll do badly at 12/13.  In the olden days they just left without any qualifications and weren't in any stats.

The other problem here is in the stats -- They've invented a new grade scale where the old 'they're crap' band now sits between two grades -- 'good pass' sits at about 4.5.  So you either set the pass mark as a 5, in which case the number of 'without 5 good GCSEs' is either worse than 5 years ago (ie, 'good' set at '5') or better than 5 years ago (ie, 'good' set at '4').  This almost certainly accounts for the bulk of the '28% over 5 years'.

Anyway, the solution is probably to set this cohort out separately from the others and give them a specific education, possibly without even doing GCSE (IMO there should be a 'life skill' qualification that shows that they can read, write and add/subtract etc.  There's no point in shoving them through complicated maths where they're just not going to cope and the most likely reaction will be to turn against education and possibly disrupt the others in the class.)  But they won't do that because it is nasty or something.

https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/headteachers-dismiss-idea-school-challenging-16934139

Schools and academies pay for the education of pupils from their budgets. 

Secondary schools receive about £5,000 per pupil.

Ms Mahoney said the cost for each placement in the council’s alternative provision came to about £9,000.

She added: “If you look at other alternative provision you could be looking at £18,000 to £20,000. 

“So this is quite a tight provision we can offer them - we’re trying to make sure they can manage it.”

Fuck that.

Take the money out of their parents benefits.

And, yes, every single one will be from a bennie family.

~£200 for a high viz jacket and boiler suit then send the fuckers out picking up dog shit.

Job for life there in boro.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/09/2019 at 11:40, spygirl said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-49766178

Now try and experiment.

Select, say, 30% of the top rated kids.

And provide them with structured learning material and resources. Set them weekly goals and homework.

Maybe have an hour or two with a teacher, nothing too much cost or hour wise.

And see who they do.

Poof! Need for schools and teachers rapidly go.

 

 

Tell us - how many years where you educated for, and did you ever learn grammar and spelling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Happy Renting said:

Tell us - how many years where you educated for, and did you ever learn grammar and spelling?

I won't go for the open goal there but I regret the loss of grammar tuition in our schools; I wasn't taught it.

My local radio presenters, most of whom are pretty bright rather than Alan Partridges, repeatedly end their sentences with prepositions.

It very much grates and they clearly know no better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I blew a lot of taxpayers' money getting educated, and I have to laugh when I hear about a "shortage of engineers". I'm sitting on my bum, waiting for a turnup in the market. I'm glad it wasn't my own money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Happy Renting said:

Tell us - how many years where you educated for, and did you ever learn grammar and spelling?

I wasnt taught grammar at school

I bought some (US) style guides - strunknwhite, boston book.

My posting on here are casual, chitchat.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.