Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

UK schools 'fall behind Estonia and Slovenia', says OECD Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robinson999)
    i don't have a issue with assessment later in life, just at that stage of life, because education forms the route you are going to take in life, plus they are 2 young, giving everyone a equal foot to start life with, i have never liked the idea of a 11+ exam, i think its just to early in life to write someone off, many of the other steps going to uni, getting a job can be done with some pretty good life experience
    I already said grammar schools don't work for everyone, why do you think state schools equals your life is over?
    Just like university isn't for everyone, footballers don't need any academic qualifications as long as they are good at playing football.
    Besides 11+ is taken at 11. KS2 are taken at 12, which set in motion KS3, GCSEs, A Level. When does one year make a lot of difference?

    bright people will always shin, but its harder to shin in a bad school, if you haven't got the teachers or the equipment, my school didn't have a chem teacher, i remember my set 1 maths class not having a teacher till year 10, its harder
    I didn't have a science teacher for 3 years, we alternated between assistant teachers not qualified teachers. When we finally got a teacher she left after 3 months and this persisted. We had 4 science teachers that year.
    I did an early AS level in Psychology. We didn't have a teacher for one unit, course has 3 units. Because they were under-staffed and the Humanities teacher didn't feel she could teach us, Psychology not being her field. Thus 60% of class obtained a U in that unit and got D overall. Some of us went out and bought the syllabus books and did independent study and got our As.

    its a issue about teachers, and this new teacher training thing what the tories have pointed to will only make it worst, there are failing state schools in poor areas, there has always been a issue with good state school and middle class family buying homes around school area so their child can go there, pricing many out
    You missed my point. Why are bad teachers kept on? They are not getting the results. Since you brought up doctors, I will use them as an example. Would you continue going to and paying for a medical treatment that doesn't work for you? No you would look for alternatives. If someone working in retail is unfriendly to customers, you sack them. What are you trying to say? Why would you keep bad teachers?
    It goes back to my point good teaching is one thing, but there are alternatives like libraries, textbooks, independent study and more expensive alternatives like private tutors and like you said postcode lotteries.

    the USA is a bit different, Harvard Uni its endowment alone could cover the cost of every students fees, and still be world class, Oxford has the biggest endowment in this country i think, and its about 10% of Harvard
    It's relative, education is more expensive in America. They get more endowments but they also invest more money into research than students.

    Here I got this from Harvard website:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Tuition*
    $35,568
    Room & Board
    $14,184
    Health Insurance Fees* $ 2,954
    Books & Supplies $ 2,004
    Local Transportation
    $ 1,316
    Personal Expenses
    $ 3,449
    Federal Loan Fees
    $ 205
    Total Ed.M. Student Budget
    $59,680


    So that's about $35,000 a year. And most people do a 4 year basic bachelors followed by a 4 year professional course (Law, Medicine, etc). So that's about $280,000 for a professional degree. Now most of you don't know this but if you leave the state so say a New Yorker goes to Harvard, their costs double. In retrospect it would be like a student from Liverpool's tuition fees doubling if they study in Newcastle.
    But I will add there are scholarships available and public US universities are cheaper.

    (Original post by Xx.MissEG.xX)
    It depends to what school you go to, but even though our school does offer us support and help, I still do not think the quality of education is as good as it is in a grammar school. Of course the people in a grammar school have to be more independent, but they have a better chance of getting a higher grade. What grades did you get in your previous school?
    GCSES at my state school: 12 A*s
    A Level at grammer school: A*A*A*A*aa and actually if I stayed at my state school I would've probably got A*A*A*A*A*
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robinson999)
    a year you may not see a difference, but from 11 to 16 you can see alot, people learn at different rates, uni is not for everyone, its pretty easy to see that, you need some form of selections there, but at that stage you can go back and go to uni, you can't go back on missed years of young level education

    its more than just being good at playing football to be a footballer
    How you preform in KS2 at 12 affects which KS3 papers you sit and ultimately your KS3 results. You cannot achieve level 6-8 if you don't sit the higher paper. This is then used towards your GCSE subject choices which in turn affect your A levels, then university course and more.
    So yes I was talking about a time span of 1 year which affects the rest of your life. Siting the 11+ a year before would set forth the same chain of events.

    Yes there is more to being a footballer than playing football. But having gone to a grammar school or not doesn't put you at a disadvantage, that was my point. Just like people need to stop labelling all state schools as bad.

    thats a issue and well one that needs to be solved, trouble is we have more teachers, yet they are not coming through in the right areas, we have less students studying maths and science at uni, and than even less going into teaching, as a science grad who can go on a earn more money outside of teaching
    That's the principle of life, supply and demand. Why are physics teachers harder to find than biology? Simple less students study physics. Which makes them in demand and there's a limited supply. Logically their wages are higher.

    bad teachers are kept cos there normally very few to come in and take there job, then it becomes a case do you pay more to teachers who get better results, that won't solve much

    your normally wouldn't pay for treatment if its not working but than that can be down to a number of factors and not just the doctor, retail its easy to go no go away because you can easily get people to fill the role

    libraries are useful if you have one near by or if the school has one, a few don't nor are they filled well enough, textbooks are useful if you know where you are going, again a cost factor comes into pay
    You pay for people that are good at what you're doing. Keeping bad teachers in schools doesn't do anyone any good. Also teachers are paid performance wise once they hit the top earning bracket. This has been the case for years now.

    I'm not saying blame doctors if a treatment doesn't work but logically if one method doesn't work you try another. Same for teachers, I'm not saying they are to be blamed, they aren't purposely bad teachers but some people are not suited to teaching.
    Actually teaching is pretty mobile/flexible like retail. Look at the recession figures, during every recession the supply of teachers exceed demand and during economic prosperity the reverse is true. Because of how easily it is to enter the profession and secure a job.

    I have never heard of schools/cities without a basic library.
    Any teacher can point out good textbooks for you. Not to mention internet access in school and EMA to help finance the cost of books if you are that poor.

    scholarships if you can play American football, or if you are pretty poor, must of the American people i know who come over here for a term have huge amounts of debt, there family has had to save up from when they were born or bank loans, 2 come from North Central College which is about $30,000+ a year

    US public uni will be cheaper than our if the fee rise passes tomorrow

    putting more money into research than student is a pretty common thing, must UK uni do it
    I agree with you about American education.
    The private universities are expensive beyond belief but there are public alternatives and even cheaper alternatives like undergrad at community colleges.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barden)
    Surprise surprise, nobody is considering that maybe a few other countries' educational standards have just got markedly better, rather than ours getting worse...
    And you think it's ok that we have doubled the education budget over the past 13 years and our education system is at best as good as it was in 1997?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by usainlightning)
    And you think it's ok that we have doubled the education budget over the past 13 years and our education system is at best as good as it was in 1997?


    Why do you say this? Just because we've slipped in the rankings, doesn't mean that our education hasn't got any better, by the same token that it doesn't mean that its got any worse.

    It may well be that the improvements made by other countries are so vast, that they are overshadowing improvements that we have made.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robinson999)
    why do we need to teach everyone by age groups, its like a factory education
    You have a point but school is not just for academic learning, it's for social development as well.
    It would be hard for 12 year olds to be friends with 18 year olds. Their level of thinking and maturity would be different, 18 years would be more interested in drinking/clubbing than 12 year old.

    in teaching that are not higher, science and maths teachers get more grants for joining the teaching career, but they will get paid the same, the number of people taking physic degree is falling, departments can't get the funding (which after today is going to be a massive issue, short sighted government), students not taking up the degree, biology teachers are hard to find as well
    I wasn't aware of how much teachers earn but I do know a physics degree has a higher return that biology degrees, but I'm talking in general.

    to be fair i get confused to why poor teachers are still in the job, to be fair one of my worst teachers was at GCSE science, than I took A/s level physics and he was awesome, a very small class of 6, he could teach, thats a case of large class sizes affecting how a teacher teaches
    not all teachers and paid performance wise
    Class size can be a factor, but Korean schools are currently ranked 2nd best in the world and used to be ranked 1 in the past. And we are known for class sizes of 40+.
    Similarly my Further Maths class was about 40 students and the majority achieved A*/A. I'm not saying that's always the case, but it works the other way too.
    Based on the research I've seen conducted on class size, it doesn't affect you as you become older because you become independent and have that keen interest in your subjects. But at primary school levels its important because at that age you don't have an interest in subjects. It's important you are not over looked so a smaller class size is effective there.

    Once teachers hit the top earning bracket, they are paid performance wise. They don't earn less if they under-perform but they wont earn more unless they meet their targets. That's the case once they've been in the profession and hit the top earning bracket. What makes you say otherwise?

    a basic library maybe, if its any good another fact, internet access in schools if you can get at it, and well EMA is being scrapped
    I brought up EMA as the study was conducted in 2010 when EMA was still available.

    after watching this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U
    i'm wrong about everything, everyone is wrong :p:
    Haha that's what I have been saying, university is not for everyone. Neither is grammer schools. Schools are for academic thinkers, stage coach is great for theatrical thinkers and sports clubs are best for physically talented people.
    Thanks for the link btw, love it!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robinson999)
    true, its helpful for those on low income, my school had a lot of people on EMA and some did waste on buying games or what every, i don't think it was a great system to just given them free money
    I agree with you, EMA was not a good policy. It also links back to your earlier point, forcing people to stay in education who would rather be elsewhere so they end up disrupting the lesson for the majority. Education is a choice, not a way to earn £30 per week to spend on what not. I had friends on EMA too and I was less than impressed to hear what they spend it on. Glad to hear they are being scrapped.

    with sports clubs even if you are shocking they still try and get you to learn how to play the game, they don't give up or write you off, you may not play week in week out, or in the first team, but still they try
    I meant professional sports clubs not the local team. Everyone can join a state school/local club but only the top get into grammar schools/professional clubs. No harm in trying but someone we're just not good enough and that's life.

    private school money talks sometimes, they are not for everyone, but they are not that great when they miss bright students because they can't sit exams
    There are private schools that has exams to find bright students. One of my favourite examples is Oxford High for girls (33% Oxbridge rate and 100% will get into their firm or insurance, often Russell Group universities).
    If you pass their test, they will accept you regardless of GCSEs because they look for potential. They also have scholarships since they are a private school and not everyone can afford them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Haha, classic Mail headline. :awesome:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robinson999)
    i'm not glad its being scrapped as some people needed that money, i just wasn't a fan of how it was given
    Interesting, what makes you say they need it? Couldn't you extend that out to GCSEs students too? And then you can't draw the line.
    But yes I agree it's delivery failed.

    private schools also get away with not paying tax on profit :ninja:
    Not sure if that's good or bad considering they are not funded by the Gov. but at the same time they are an empolyer. :confused:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barden)
    Why do you say this? Just because we've slipped in the rankings, doesn't mean that our education hasn't got any better, by the same token that it doesn't mean that its got any worse.

    It may well be that the improvements made by other countries are so vast, that they are overshadowing improvements that we have made.
    The education system has gotten worse as well. If you compare 2000 to 2009, then
    Reading 523 -> 494
    Science 532 -> 514
    Mathematics 529 -> 492

    The difficulty on the test is the same, so the quality has been dropping. Fact is, it's much more important to have a good system, than to spend a lot of money on the education system. The schools don't get better because they give every student a computer, or use a whiteboard.

    I believe that boarding schools could improve the quality, but then boarding schools and other private schools need to become more affordable. I think they should say that private schools who want public funding equal to what public schools get, can't charge more than a certain amount.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barden)
    Why do you say this? Just because we've slipped in the rankings, doesn't mean that our education hasn't got any better, by the same token that it doesn't mean that its got any worse.

    It may well be that the improvements made by other countries are so vast, that they are overshadowing improvements that we have made.
    It is of course possible but i think you're in denial. It seems incredibly unlikely that so many countries have made such vast improvements in their education systems relative to ours.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The hidden story, that the leftist media will not report, is that areas of ethnic immigration are to blame. England has been flooded with human stock from the third world and second world, and they bring their ability with them. Not only that. 2nd and 3rd world kids drag down the English kids, because either the immigrant kids will have to improve to the level of the English kids, which is not feasible, or, as happens, English kids will have to drop to the level of the third world and second world kids.

    1st world + 3rd world = 2nd world.

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    As somebody educated abroad, I was struck by how dumb most people are. Education is seen as nerdy and many people can't spell or use punctuation. After eleven years' mandatory education, it's pretty appalling. Many foreign students fell the same, and find it quite amusing. No wonder you need foreigners to come over to your boost your economy!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kickflip)
    The hidden story, that the leftist media will not report, is that areas of ethnic immigration are to blame. England has been flooded with human stock from the third world and second world, and they bring their ability with them. Not only that. 2nd and 3rd world kids drag down the English kids, because either the immigrant kids will have to improve to the level of the English kids, which is not feasible, or, as happens, English kids will have to drop to the level of the third world and second world kids.

    1st world + 3rd world = 2nd world.
    You've got to be kidding me. Drop to the level? Give me a break.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    UK schoolchildren today plummeted down a major international league table after being outscored by pupils from countries including Estonia, Lichtenstein and Slovenia.

    Those are small yet very well developed countries. In fact there is such a thing as the Slovenian Syndrome : slovenians are an advanced people, but no one has ever heard of them. Also, lower student numbers and less ghettos also makes it easier for them to manage good grades. So why is it a disaster to score less? Those places are not communist hellholes, goddamit.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I would assume that the UK has a much higher variance in scores though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Glowy Amoeba)
    Those are small yet very well developed countries. In fact there is such a thing as the Slovenian Syndrome : slovenians are an advanced people, but no one has ever heard of them. Also, lower student numbers and less ghettos also makes it easier for them to manage good grades. So why is it a disaster to score less? Those places are not communist hellholes, goddamit.
    Maybe because the UK is spending much more money than them?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mannix99)
    Maybe because the UK is spending much more money than them?
    Like I said, there are so many more pupils in the UK as well. And the bigger the system, the larger the waste and corruption so even if the UK spends more per student they will not be able to get the same results.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Reading the report shows that England, Northern Ireland and Scotland are doing well and have improved since the last such report, and it is only welsh schools that are bringing the UK average down.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Glowy Amoeba)
    Like I said, there are so many more pupils in the UK as well. And the bigger the system, the larger the waste and corruption so even if the UK spends more per student they will not be able to get the same results.
    It's more a question of population and of method. Countries were the population is homogeneous (South Korea, Japan, China, Finland, etc..) have better result than countries with a high level of immigration (for obvious reasons).
    Moreover, teaching efficiently imply a lot of school discipline: things that democratic countries tend to neglect.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Glowy Amoeba)
    Like I said, there are so many more pupils in the UK as well. And the bigger the system, the larger the waste and corruption so even if the UK spends more per student they will not be able to get the same results.
    Right, which is why big businesses have such a disadvantage in competing small businesses? Like how Tescos are disappearing around the country as they are being out-competed by local independent greengrocers.


    Oh wait no, it works the other way round.


    Fundamentally, the UK education system is a horrible mess and needs a complete overhaul. No more SATS, no more GCSEs, no more A-levels, no more BTecs. Scrap the lot and start again.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 15, 2010
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.