[im so academic]

(Original post by blueflower114)
I would simply make Primary to University state education free. As it should be. And once was.

Incorrect as the situation is different now then it "once was". For example before only the very best went to university, now we have a situation were many, many 18-year olds get AAB+ yet the standard is not higher. Also, there were fewer universities before.

How do you propose to fund such a system?

[Prepare-Yourself]

(Original post by Cattty)
a PGCE is done either at uni or through a graducte teachers programme, it is a graduate qualification not just some short course- everyone i know who has done a PGCE says they would rather have done the 3/4 yr QTS, we leave with more experience and have gone into more depth in subjects which you cannot cover in one year.
your still talking to these kids rather than teaching them- they want to be there, try teaching those kids subjects they dont wan to learn in a classroom they dont want to be.
people have to go to uni either full time or part time to do a PGCE- if they dont wana go then they should either stop being lazy or quit moaning. you have to qualify to teach children by doing an undergraduate or postgraduate degree, simple as that- you are not a teacher, you have not done teacher training, so you have no knowledge whatsoever of what is covered on my course. pushing your opinion on something which you know nothing about is ignorance

That's not the point, you can and should be able to teach children without doing a 3/4 year QTS.
Again no they don't want to be there, I don't know what kind of centre you go to but these are places kids go to, but they'd rather be at a safer home.
It does not require high intelligence to teach children, due to the fact that you are teaching them key stage 1 and 2 curriculum so you should not need to do a degree to teach children. People who choose not to go to university are not lazy nor moaners again stop insulting people.
You do not need to do teacher training to gather an opinion on whether or not a degree in primary education is necessary to becoming a teacher, in the same way that the education minister has not been a teacher yet has gathered his opinion and action to change the education system.

"and i was letting that person know that those teachers would have had to do a postgraducate degree in education afterwards, i was letting him know that he was wrong as he seemed to think people can just decide they want to be a teacher and teach with any degree" -
You do not need an primary education degree to become a teacher. You can have a degree in mathematics and teach children. You need a degree to do a PGCE.

[Cattty]

(Original post by Prepare-Yourself)
That's not the point, you can and should be able to teach children without doing a 3/4 year QTS.
Again no they don't want to be there, I don't know what kind of centre you go to but these are places kids go to, but they'd rather be at a safer home.
It does not require high intelligence to teach children, due to the fact that you are teaching them key stage 1 and 2 curriculum so you should not need to do a degree to teach children. People who choose not to go to university are not lazy nor moaners again stop insulting people.
You do not need to do teacher training to gather an opinion on whether or not a degree in primary education is necessary to becoming a teacher, in the same way that the education minister has not been a teacher yet has gathered his opinion and action to change the education system.

"and i was letting that person know that those teachers would have had to do a postgraducate degree in education afterwards, i was letting him know that he was wrong as he seemed to think people can just decide they want to be a teacher and teach with any degree" -
You do not need an primary education degree to become a teacher. You can have a degree in mathematics and teach children. You need a degree to do a PGCE.

really? so you force them to go to a youth club do you? sure you do lol.

if you are doing a degree then a PGCE you are doing 4 years anyway, so if you already know you want to be a teacher, it is better to do the 3/4 year QTS rather than doing a demanding one year course squeezing 4 years into one.

the education ministers spend their career gathering knowldge and overseeing the education in this country- you clearly dont have a clue what you are on about.
if u wana be a teacher but dont want to do a degree, then it is the same as wanting to be a doctor but not wanting to train- laziness.

[blueflower114]

(Original post by im so academic)
Incorrect as the situation is different now then it "once was". For example before only the very best went to university, now we have a situation were many, many 18-year olds get AAB+ yet the standard is not higher. Also, there were fewer universities before.

How do you propose to fund such a system?

I understand in our economy today Primary to University education cannot all be free, simply because the country doesn't have enough money to do so.

However this thread was started to ask what we would like to change in our education system in our own opinion, therefore my belief is that everyone up until university age should have free education- simply because we have the right to in this country.

This is what I would personally like to do if it was possible to do so, so stop taking this thread so seriously because as you kindly pointed out not everything can literally be put in practice simply because it's not always viable to do so.

[Dfurness]

(Original post by navarre)
A world language is not the same as a spoken language. It's all nice and cosy being the official language of the Olympics or a sparsely populated African country, but when nobody understands you, what's the point in learning the language? Arabic would be a far better second language to learn. It'd increase brain functions a whole lot more than a similar language like French, it'd increase cultural understanding a great deal more for a culture almost alien to most British people, and it's spoken by faaaar more people than French ever will be.

I'd rather France weren't such a key trading partner- they're a declining power, after all, and Commonwealth nations and growing economies seem a much better bet. Ireland are our closest neighbour, so you're wrong on that level too.

Actually, the distance between Dover and Calais is 30 miles, the distance between Holyhead and Dublin (where the ferries cross) is 67 miles. France is our closest neighbour, and brings in far more trade than Ireland ever will.

Arabic is spoken by 290 Million people, French by 275 million, there's not much difference in numbers, and realistically it's a lot easier to teach children a language in the same script rather than having to teach them the Arabic script and THEN having to teach them the language.

Also, 23% of people in the UK speak French, and it's not just a 'sparsely populated African country', it's 29 nations, including Canada & Switzerland. French is still a spoken language.

And the reason 'nobody understands you' is because of our piss-poor language education system, not because French is intrinsically difficult or no one speaks it anymore. We need massive reforms of the way we teach languages.

[Dfurness]

(Original post by zeropoint)
I like the idea of the IB, but I wouldn't inflict it on everyone.

To get a high IB score - as I understand - requires excellence in several broad areas of knowledge. I know plenty of people who are excellent in their own field, but completely inept in others. Their impression is that if their ability in arts and languages were considered in their university application, they would not have got in.

Secondly, A-levels allow a very focussed study of material. By picking a number of complementing subjects (Maths, Physics, Further Maths), (Eng Lit, Eng Lang, History), (History, Politics, Economics) you will focus your study much more on where you want to go, rather than having to waste time studying things you have no interest or application in.

I think this is where we differ - I don't think it's possible to 'waste time' studying things. You may find that a particular sub-section of a course may interest you, equally it may not. Either way, I don't think it's right that we constrain ourselves just to 3 or 4 subjects at the age of 16. I know loads of people who regret taking certain subjects (I'm one of them) and by moving to IB, there would be broader knowledge rather than a speciality in one area at the expense of others.

[zeropoint]

I agree that studying a wide range of subjects probably makes for a more well rounded student, and have a better general ability.

Personally I focussed on the science/maths niche, but I would have liked to have studied some language, some politics or some history. That said, I would certainly not want that to counted against my university application. I am good at science (if I do say so!), I am not good at French; as I understand, under the IB system that would make me an 'average' student when applying for a science degree.

I think we'd both agree people should have the freedom to study a wide range of subjects. I just don't think we should force students (age > 16) to learn things they are neither good at, nor interested in, and will damage their hopes of getting to a top university. I'd hate to think some mathematical or literary savant would miss out because they couldn't write a good essay or solve differential equations, respectively.

[lonelykatana]

Reward intelligence, not memory. The amount of people who get brilliant grades by simple remembering model answers isn't right. The exams need to have far more variation from year to year.
Get kids to think, be creative and intelligent. Lets stop drilling past papers into them.
And stop teaching to the exam!

Get rid of crap teachers.
There is a reason children act up for them, there is a reason the kids have poor pass rates. I just about got a D in GCSE Physics, got full marks in Biology and a high B in chemistry.
It had nothing to do with me being poor at physics, the teacher was **** and spent more time shouting at kids she couldn't control (who were otherwise innocent children who didn't step a foot out of place) than actually teaching.
Teachers should have enthusiasm for their subject, should have a wide knowledge - wider than whats needed for the exams and be willing to answer questions that aren't really anything to do with the curriculum.
Perhaps have sixth form students asses their teachers (I say sixth form as I can't help but think the younger ones would just be unfairly harsh to teachers they don't like for some reason or anything.)

Just get rid of some degrees. A year ago I wouldn't have said that but having spent a year doing a degree many of you would say is a 'mickey mouse' subject I honestly think they should just be scrapped - Or at least not awarded a degree qualification.
I had less than 50% attendance (I hated it that much.) but no effort into it at all, handed work in a week late on several occasions and still passed with a 2.1 and a first in the more academic side of it.
Tha'ts not right, not right at all. I was essentially rewarded for laziness and a lack of commitment and effort.
It doesn't matter how you sugar coat it, some subjects just shouldn't be taught at degree levels in the current system!
That's not because its tough to get a job in either, I'm a massive believed in education for educations sake.


Bonus:
Get rid of faith schooling.

To be fair I never had many of the problems people have noted!
I never felt forced to do academic subjects.
If a fight broke out a teacher would use physical force to stop it, and no one would complain!
Looking back, I had the privilege of a very good school! Shame I didn't realise when I went through my lazy chavy stage

[ScheduleII]

Bring back a focus on spelling, punctuation and grammar (explicit pedagogy followed by exams where wrong answers are met with an X in red pen and a correction.). Teach philosophy, politics and economics in years 10-11 instead of citizenship/PSHE. Everyone should leave school knowing the fundamentals of these so they can make sense of the world and society they live in and be less drawn to nonsense beliefs.

Bring in the SHAPES bill which I tabled on this site before (Sexual Health Anti-Parent Educator Suppression)- with a couple of exceptions- to stop schools handing out condoms, referring for abortions, partnering with family-planning clinics, providing explicit leaflets, attacking parents' morality (or bringing in school nurses to do any of these things; that's like the new Tennessee laws which clamp down on any nonsense with Planned Parenthood staff going into schools for sex ed.) It would also put the STOP on teachers who let pupils disclose their sexual development, experiences, or relationships or pregnancy and keep it a secret for them. Parental notification would be the expected norm.

Return to the grammar/secondary modern system except the second tier would be called "centres for learning" and they would focus more on non-academic things but still have enough effective teaching such that pupils who went into them at 11 would not be automatically barred from going on the traditional academic path later of A levels/degree if the potential was there- and ensure setting from the point in year 7 when teachers can adequately assess who should be where (January should be fine) in all secondary school Maths, English and Science classes in comprehensives as a second best less politically volcanic move.

[DramaQueenMegan]

(Original post by CXDK)
I only have one but:

Stop extra time for people in exams. There not going to get it in the real world. If someone is less capable in a exam then that should reflect in their grades... that's what grades are there for?

Wait I have a 2nd:

I'm going to uni and I wont get any funding from my parents, the uni sees that my parents are well off and assume I will have money. Meaning I'm not entitled to ANY help with my funding...

I have a mild coordination disorder which means I get extra time in exams, purely because it means I can't write at the same speed as others, and its the same case for people with wrist or hand problems when they get extra time. It has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence or capability, infact i'm predicted to get ABB in my A level results next week, which is based on coursework and essays I have done as well as previous exam results. I think that a lack of capability is shown on your part for jumping to the naive conclusion that extra time in exams and capability are related. Allowances are made in the real world for people with conditions like mine because legally employers cannot discriminate, and unless a person is severely affected then they are able to complete tasks to the same standards as everyone else, and live a normal life.

[im so academic]

(Original post by blueflower114)
I understand in our economy today Primary to University education cannot all be free, simply because the country doesn't have enough money to do so.

However this thread was started to ask what we would like to change in our education system in our own opinion, therefore my belief is that everyone up until university age should have free education- simply because we have the right to in this country.

This is what I would personally like to do if it was possible to do so, so stop taking this thread so seriously because as you kindly pointed out not everything can literally be put in practice simply because it's not always viable to do so.

You might as well say any bull**** that will never be possible then.

[DramaQueenMegan]

1. Lower the price cap on higher education from £9,000 per year to maxium £6,000 per year. The reason I say £6,000 is because I understand why the government needed to make it more expensive because this country is in huge debt, but also £9,000 is so high its going to discourage people from going to university, and unfortunately in many jobs today a person is required to have a degree to reach the top of the job ladder.

2. Make politics as a subject compulsory in years 10/11. Too many people in this country have such little knowledge of our government that they are unable to make an informed decision when voting.

3. Make education completely secular. I remember in primary school being forced to sing hymns and say out loud the school prayer. Religion should not be forced upon kids by schools, kids should be able to decide if they want to be religious or not without any bias being forced upon them and when they are of an old enough age to make that informed decision.

And also to whoever has said that teachers do not need degrees, I have never heard a more ridiculous statement in my life. Sure anyone with a good previous record can handle well behaved, privately educated classes of 12. But take a class of 30 with pupils who have a disruptive home life, or a dyslexic or autistic child, they won't be able to handle it to save their life, whether primary or secondary school teachers.

[Jam']

OP you've only really suggested syllabus modifications, not education system reforms.

I would do the following:

Make GCSEs and A Levels not modular, to an extent:

Pure Maths modules C1 + C2 taken in one exam
Applied modules would be taken separately though.
AS and A2 would remain separate.
Eliminate january exams.

Remove Resits:

Only GCSE English and Maths can be retaken

Only one exam board.

[DramaQueenMegan]

(Original post by Jam')
OP you've only really suggested syllabus modifications, not education system reforms.

I would do the following:

Make GCSEs and A Levels not modular, to an extent:

Pure Maths modules C1 + C2 taken in one exam
Applied modules would be taken separately though.
AS and A2 would remain separate.
Eliminate january exams.

Remove Resits:

Only GCSE English and Maths can be retaken

Only one exam board.

I understand why you have said remove resits as you get some people who just don't try hard for the exam because they know they can resit. However some people need resits for genuine reasons, for example my friend was involved in a minor car accident on the day of one of her exams, was unable to attend the exam therefore had to resit.

[Jam']

(Original post by DramaQueenMegan)
I understand why you have said remove resits as you get some people who just don't try hard for the exam because they know they can resit. However some people need resits for genuine reasons, for example my friend was involved in a minor car accident on the day of one of her exams, was unable to attend the exam therefore had to resit.

I suppose resits could be available to candidates in extenuating circumstances with proof and these have to be approved by the awarding body or JCQ.

[navarre]

(Original post by Dfurness)
Actually, the distance between Dover and Calais is 30 miles, the distance between Holyhead and Dublin (where the ferries cross) is 67 miles. France is our closest neighbour, and brings in far more trade than Ireland ever will.

Arabic is spoken by 290 Million people, French by 275 million, there's not much difference in numbers, and realistically it's a lot easier to teach children a language in the same script rather than having to teach them the Arabic script and THEN having to teach them the language.

Also, 23% of people in the UK speak French, and it's not just a 'sparsely populated African country', it's 29 nations, including Canada & Switzerland. French is still a spoken language.

And the reason 'nobody understands you' is because of our piss-poor language education system, not because French is intrinsically difficult or no one speaks it anymore. We need massive reforms of the way we teach languages.

Dude, you crazy? We share a flipping LAND BORDER with Ireland. How can we possibly get any closer than that?

The estimates that put French at 275 million speakers are very liberal, count many people in Francophone countries as speaking French when they can't, and are estimated by French speaking universities, who surprise surprise, may be a little biased and have a vested interest.

23% of people in the UK do not speak French. Perhaps 23% can understand a little French, or can read it a little, or know how to say Bonjour. But I know more people who speak Hindi than know French, and I live in the most multicultural city in the UK.

Our education system is pretty good, just not in terms of languages. We need reform, yes, but teaching French is a step backwards, not forward. The powers of the 21st century sure won't be French speaking, and there is a multitude of languages with far more speakers.

[OU Student]

(Original post by lonelykatana)
It had nothing to do with me being poor at physics, the teacher was **** and spent more time shouting at kids she couldn't control (who were otherwise innocent children who didn't step a foot out of place) than actually teaching.

Sounds familiar. I also noticed it depended on how we were taught as to whether people would play up. We had a few teachers who would just give you a textbook, tell you to read and get on with the activities. People played up. On the other hand, we had teachers who would actually interact with students and made the lessons more interesting. Instead of questions out of a textbook, we had discussions.

Just get rid of some degrees. A year ago I wouldn't have said that but having spent a year doing a degree many of you would say is a 'mickey mouse' subject I honestly think they should just be scrapped - Or at least not awarded a degree qualification.

Some degrees are better as apprenticeships.

[swypey]

(Original post by lonelykatana)
Reward intelligence, not memory. The amount of people who get brilliant grades by simple remembering model answers isn't right. The exams need to have far more variation from year to year.
Get kids to think, be creative and intelligent. Lets stop drilling past papers into them.
And stop teaching to the exam!

Get rid of crap teachers.
There is a reason children act up for them, there is a reason the kids have poor pass rates. I just about got a D in GCSE Physics, got full marks in Biology and a high B in chemistry.
It had nothing to do with me being poor at physics, the teacher was **** and spent more time shouting at kids she couldn't control (who were otherwise innocent children who didn't step a foot out of place) than actually teaching.
Teachers should have enthusiasm for their subject, should have a wide knowledge - wider than whats needed for the exams and be willing to answer questions that aren't really anything to do with the curriculum.
Perhaps have sixth form students asses their teachers (I say sixth form as I can't help but think the younger ones would just be unfairly harsh to teachers they don't like for some reason or anything.)

Just get rid of some degrees. A year ago I wouldn't have said that but having spent a year doing a degree many of you would say is a 'mickey mouse' subject I honestly think they should just be scrapped - Or at least not awarded a degree qualification.
I had less than 50% attendance (I hated it that much.) but no effort into it at all, handed work in a week late on several occasions and still passed with a 2.1 and a first in the more academic side of it.
Tha'ts not right, not right at all. I was essentially rewarded for laziness and a lack of commitment and effort.
It doesn't matter how you sugar coat it, some subjects just shouldn't be taught at degree levels in the current system!
That's not because its tough to get a job in either, I'm a massive believed in education for educations sake.


Bonus:
Get rid of faith schooling.

To be fair I never had many of the problems people have noted!
I never felt forced to do academic subjects.
If a fight broke out a teacher would use physical force to stop it, and no one would complain!
Looking back, I had the privilege of a very good school! Shame I didn't realise when I went through my lazy chavy stage

So what was this mickey mouse degree you done?

[momo123momo]

1. Reinstate Grammar schools so poorer children have more chance of succeeding in life.
2. Teach children so they learn vakuable lessons not just how to pass exams.
3. Kill Michael Gove so he cannot do any more damage.

[Dfurness]

(Original post by navarre)
Dude, you crazy? We share a flipping LAND BORDER with Ireland. How can we possibly get any closer than that?

The estimates that put French at 275 million speakers are very liberal, count many people in Francophone countries as speaking French when they can't, and are estimated by French speaking universities, who surprise surprise, may be a little biased and have a vested interest.

23% of people in the UK do not speak French. Perhaps 23% can understand a little French, or can read it a little, or know how to say Bonjour. But I know more people who speak Hindi than know French, and I live in the most multicultural city in the UK.

Our education system is pretty good, just not in terms of languages. We need reform, yes, but teaching French is a step backwards, not forward. The powers of the 21st century sure won't be French speaking, and there is a multitude of languages with far more speakers.

We share a land border with Ireland through Northern Ireland, how much of our trade do you think realistically travels over the land border? Pretty much nothing, everything still has to be sent to the mainland, so the distances over sea are a better measurement.

The 'powers' of the 21st century - The UN, EU, NATO, Interpol, most of the institutions in Switzerland, all use French and English as official languages. However many Hindi speakers you know is irrelevant, the business language in India is increasingly English, there's no practical advantage to learning Hindi.

Also, when you say a 'multitude of languages with far more speakers', French is the 5th most spoken language in the world, after Mandarin, Hindi, English & Spanish. There's no way we could teach Mandarin or Hindi in schools (we don't have the resources & their difficulty would mean they'd take up large chunks of the school day) so we're left with Spanish and French.