What is school for...

School is for teacher to earn money, nothing more. My teachers were so useless, I learnt most of my AS content through reading text books, the rest through watching examsolutions videos.

Reply 21

Larissa14

15

I get what he is saying but I don't think the education system needs to change. Maybe it's because I choose the subjects I want to do so I don't have this problem about being taught un useful things at school.

Reply 22

Arran90

20

Out of curiosity, is anybody here home educated or is a home educator?

Under the 1996 Education Act (England and Wales)

The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable—

(a)to his age, ability and aptitude, and

(b)to any special educational needs he may have,

either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/56/contents#pt1-ch1-pb3-l1g7

In other words, education is compulsory but attending school is not. Parents have the freedom to choose a state school, an independent school, or home educate.

Reply 23

kkboyk

21

Original post by Larissa14

I get what he is saying but I don't think the education system needs to change. Maybe it's because I choose the subjects I want to do so I don't have this problem about being taught un useful things at school.

It really does need to change, especially when you compare the educational system here (and their results over the past years) to other system abroad and you'll see a difference.

The system cannot always stay the same since many outside factors are changing, hence, it also needs to change in order to cope .

Reply 24

DSG7799

4

I'd say primary school is for learning about basic skills you'll need in life, gcses are for getting into a level, a level is to get into university and then after university getting a job. If you do a btec/vocational course that is for getting a job.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 25

username1560589

20

He thinks that the quadratic equation is abstract mathematics. This discredits a lot of what he has to say.
Let

f(x) \equiv ax^2 + bx + c\equiv a(x^2 + (b/a)x) + c

f(x) \equiv a(x + \frac{b}{2a})^2 - \frac{b^2}{4a} + c

f(x) = 0 \implies (x+ \frac{b}{2a})^2 = \frac{b^2}{4a^2} - \frac{c}{a}

x + \frac{b}{2a} = \pm \sqrt{\frac{b^2}{4a^2} -\frac{c}{a}}

x = -\frac{b}{2a} \pm \frac{\sqrt{b^2-4ac}}{2a}

\therefore x= \frac{-b \pm \sqrt{b^2-4ac}}{2a}

QED
Anything that can be proven easily in a few lines with only a few basic mathematical concepts isn't abstract.

Schools aren't good enough to teach academic subjects properly, so they couldn't possibly teach functional stuff on the side. Maybe in an ideal world they would.
If they were able to teach academic subjects properly, the current system would work for functional stuff. If you wanted to learn law, you could self study it or take A-level law. If you wanted to learn politics you could self study it or take A-level politics. If you wanted to learn economics you could self study it or take A-level economics and so on.

I do agree that we shouldn't have to pass subjects that we don't want to do to get onto a degree where that subject is completely irrelevant.

Reply 26

binarythoughts

14

Original post by DanyaI

School is for teacher to earn money, nothing more. My teachers were so useless, I learnt most of my AS content through reading text books, the rest through watching examsolutions videos.

Examsolutions is a lifesaver

Reply 27

DanyaI

12

Original post by binarythoughts

Examsolutions is a lifesaver

True say

Reply 28

kkboyk

21

Original post by morgan8002

He thinks that the quadratic equation is abstract mathematics. This discredits a lot of what he has to say.
Let

f(x) \equiv ax^2 + bx + c\equiv a(x^2 + (b/a)x) + c

f(x) \equiv a(x + \frac{b}{2a})^2 - \frac{b^2}{4a} + c

f(x) = 0 \implies (x+ \frac{b}{2a})^2 = \frac{b^2}{4a^2} - \frac{c}{a}

x + \frac{b}{2a} = \pm \sqrt{\frac{b^2}{4a^2} -\frac{c}{a}}

x = -\frac{b}{2a} \pm \frac{\sqrt{b^2-4ac}}{2a}

\therefore x= \frac{-b \pm \sqrt{b^2-4ac}}{2a}

QED
Anything that can be proven easily in a few lines with only a few basic mathematical concepts isn't abstract.

Schools aren't good enough to teach academic subjects properly, so they couldn't possibly teach functional stuff on the side. Maybe in an ideal world they would.
If they were able to teach academic subjects properly, the current system would work for functional stuff. If you wanted to learn law, you could self study it or take A-level law. If you wanted to learn politics you could self study it or take A-level politics. If you wanted to learn economics you could self study it or take A-level economics and so on.

I do agree that we shouldn't have to pass subjects that we don't want to do to get onto a degree where that subject is completely irrelevant.

I agree with you on your point about Maths.

For the first bold sentence, it's not that schools aren't good enough to teach subject properly, it's the fact that teachers are forced to spend a lot of their time doing unnecessary admin tasks and paperwork which takes a tonne of their time and not use that time to teach properly.

For your last point, what if it was a person wanting to do an art degree and did not want to pass on science and English?

Reply 29

Dracul

3

Original post by Joinedup

It's a valid point, but TBH the ideas a lot of parents have aren't necessarily that fantastic either.

Sometimes, but who has more right to the child, parents or the government?

Really, school doesn't even teach good academics these days, almost none of the natives in this country can speak a foreign language, or know anything about classical literature or maths and chemistry beyond a pre-school level. Almost every foreign country I've spent time in the people seemed more knowledgeable and educated than us Brits.

Reply 30

username1560589

20

Original post by kkboyk

I agree with you on your point about Maths.

For the first bold sentence, it's not that schools aren't good enough to teach subject properly, it's the fact that teachers are forced to spend a lot of their time doing unnecessary admin tasks and paperwork which takes a tonne of their time and not use that time to teach properly.

For your last point, what if it was a person wanting to do an art degree and did not want to pass on science and English?

This might be true in some cases, but in others it's bad schools employing bad teachers who teach poorly

Depending on the specific arts subject, English may or may not be relevant. Therefore English should be a requirement for entrance to degrees and employment where English is an important part of the subject, but not for subjects where it isn't important.

Science isn't relevant to arts, so shouldn't be required.

Students should be encouraged to study these subjects and teaching should be available should they want it. However, they shouldn't be required to pass subjects that are in no way relevant to the subject they want to study at degree level or pursue a degree in.

Reply 31

jelly1000

21

Original post by morgan8002

This might be true in some cases, but in others it's bad schools employing bad teachers who teach poorly

Depending on the specific arts subject, English may or may not be relevant. Therefore English should be a requirement for entrance to degrees and employment where English is an important part of the subject, but not for subjects where it isn't important.

Science isn't relevant to arts, so shouldn't be required.

Students should be encouraged to study these subjects and teaching should be available should they want it. However, they shouldn't be required to pass subjects that are in no way relevant to the subject they want to study at degree level or pursue a degree in.

but in most of the UK their are no compulsory subjects post 16 and prior to that people don't always know or change their mind about what they want to do before then so it makes sense to keep all options open.

As an aside I do believe Maths should be more real life situation orientated for most of us

Reply 32

username1560589

20

Original post by jelly1000

but in most of the UK their are no compulsory subjects post 16 and prior to that people don't always know or change their mind about what they want to do before then so it makes sense to keep all options open.

As an aside I do believe Maths should be more real life situation orientated for most of us

They changed the law last year. English and maths are now compulsory post 16 if you haven't passed. Even disregarding the law, those subjects are required for a lot of degree programmes and employment, so you have to do them anyway.
People should be allowed to study or have a job based on their ability in the relevant subject. The most important factor in getting onto a course or getting a job shouldn't be some other arbitrarily chosen subject that has no importance or relevance to the subject that the student chooses to study or have a career in.

Currently, subjects that have no relevance to the student's main studies or career have to be studied alongside their main subjects. This means that if the student isn't good at some subject that someone in government decides is important, they have no career options at all. Forcing people to study irrelevant subjects doesn't keep all options open, it denies any options.

I disagree. Pure maths needs to be taught alongside applied maths. Pure mathematical techniques must be taught to some level before applied maths at that level can be understood properly. Pure maths is generally also more interesting.

Reply 33

Arran90

20

The state secondary school curriculum is based on the old grammar school curriculum and over the decades questions have been raised as to whether this really was the best or most appropriate curriculum for 90% of society. Even the old secondary modern curriculum was a further watered down grammar school curriculum with a few practical subjects - usually chiselling wood and baking cakes - thrown in. It never taught much in the way of life skills.

There are conflicts of interest over school curriculum reform. One faction of society believes that schools should focus purely on an academic education and should not be responsible for teaching anything in the way of life skills or social skills. Another faction of society is critical of traditional academic education in that it does not prepare 90% of children for the real world and believes that schools should focus more on teaching life skills instead. Even former teachers say that a traditional academic education does not benefit, or is completely wasted on, the bottom 10% of society like children from council estates in Knowsley and Hull. They would be better off mastering the basics of primary school maths and English, and learning useful life skills and how to be more self reliant.

One reason why children are home educated is because their parents believe that schools are too academic and children have a better opportunity to learn life skills and social skills outside of a school setting.

There was a British Constitution O Level about the workings of the government and politics but it sadly didn't make it into the GCSE era. I have the book by Kobrin and Scott and it is a splendidly compact and easy to understand overview of the British government. The book was published in 1979 so some things are now out of date and developments since then are not included.

Reply 34

Larissa14

15

Original post by kkboyk

It really does need to change, especially when you compare the educational system here (and their results over the past years) to other system abroad and you'll see a difference.

The system cannot always stay the same since many outside factors are changing, hence, it also needs to change in order to cope .