I think I figured out how to fix the education system Seriously!

Watch
Luke7456
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
Okay so one thing I have noticed again and again is that the business world beats government for cost effectiveness and performance in almost any category.

Whenever something is privatized it usually does better.

I have seen the difference between private health care and the NHS, I used to only have the NHS when my family was struggling etc but with the business turn around I am now on private health care and boy is their a difference.

Also note, private school beats state schools in the majority of cases.



So here is the idea privatize the entire education system. Okay I know that is controversial and a few people are going to be like how can poorer people afford this?
answer easily they don't pay anything. No one has to except tax payer government etc.

What we do is make schools private business but they get paid by the government for hitting targets EG students scoring 5 A to C grades. Better grades better payments etc.

Of course their will be disadvantaged areas and students with disabilities or poorer performing students so how do we deal with this?

simple firstly the rules mandate the school has to accept students based on certain criteria if they want this business, and they get paid more for turning disadvantaged students round, EG if they are in a poor area where performances are worse they can get bonuses for improvements on that, if they help students with learning disabilities they can get bonuses for that.

any disadvantage or students that could be left behind could easily be fixed by changing the grant/payment system to award schools for focusing on these areas.

When a students performance affects the businesses bottom line experts will start analyse for any way to enhance performance in the same way financial experts go over the economic data in business.

Different companies may try different things but some are going to come up with new ideas for education that are really effective and really do get results. then all of a sudden everyone will start copying those methods and people will look for ways to find even better methods education standards would sky rocket.

Their is a reason capitalism works lets make it work for education.
3
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
One of the reasons private schools tend to do better is that they can afford to pay for the best teachers. If the model is rolled out nationwide that ability is diluted to the point where it doesn't exist. The best teachers will still gravitate to the best schools meaning there's still a gap in the end results.
7
reply
neb789
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
(Original post by Drewski)
One of the reasons private schools tend to do better is that they can afford to pay for the best teachers. If the model is rolled out nationwide that ability is diluted to the point where it doesn't exist. The best teachers will still gravitate to the best schools meaning there's still a gap in the end results.
Pretty much hit the nail on the head, although their model had some interesting points.
0
reply
Luke7456
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#4
(Original post by Drewski)
One of the reasons private schools tend to do better is that they can afford to pay for the best teachers. If the model is rolled out nationwide that ability is diluted to the point where it doesn't exist. The best teachers will still gravitate to the best schools meaning there's still a gap in the end results.
well that could be said about any business maybe the reason McDonald succeeds is they can afford the best managers? same for Burger King? same for pizza hut? same for satarbucks? same for insert a whole load more companies.

by that logic only a very few business would ever succeed because they take all the best employees, and you may say most business fail but I mean Maybe a few McDonald restaurants or Pizza huts might be successful but nationwide most would fail because the best managers are all concentrated elsewhere.

There are many people with talent, who can be trained better then they currently are, if we have a shortage of skilled teaches why? because their isn't a shortage of people who have the capacity to be great teachers.

Hence the strength of capitalism when Business benefit from great teachers they will pay what is needed teacher salary will likely go up and more talented people will seek to be teachers.
0
reply
Tanqueray91
  • Study Helper
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
(Original post by Luke7456)
well that could be said about any business maybe the reason McDonald succeeds is they can afford the best managers? same for Burger King? same for pizza hut? same for satarbucks? same for insert a whole load more companies.

by that logic only a very few business would ever succeed because they take all the best employees, and you may say most business fail but I mean Maybe a few McDonald restaurants or Pizza huts might be successful but nationwide most would fail because the best managers are all concentrated elsewhere.

There are many people with talent, who can be trained better then they currently are, if we have a shortage of skilled teaches why? because their isn't a shortage of people who have the capacity to be great teachers.

Hence the strength of capitalism when Business benefit from great teachers they will pay what is needed teacher salary will likely go up and more talented people will seek to be teachers.
No because teaching and management are very different skills - a lot of people can't teach, however good their skill set in that industry/area are...

Think of lecturers, for a lot of them who can't teach to save their life, but are doing it because they're excellent in their field...
0
reply
Tanqueray91
  • Study Helper
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
Also, having them reach certain targets will turn schools into exam passing businesses rather than what the current motivation of schooling is - to teach us, and help us understand the subjects, not just get everyone getting a C.
2
reply
Luke7456
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by mobbsy91)
No because teaching and management are very different skills - a lot of people can't teach, however good their skill set in that industry/area are...

Think of lecturers, for a lot of them who can't teach to save their life, but are doing it because they're excellent in their field...
I didn't say the managers would be teachers did I? Managers and Chefs require different skill sets but restaurants are still private businesses, the managers have ways of getting or training great chefs same for teachers or any skill set.

(Original post by mobbsy91)
Also, having them reach certain targets will turn schools into exam passing businesses rather than what the current motivation of schooling is - to teach us, and help us understand the subjects, not just get everyone getting a C.
Exams are supposed to measure a students ability in certain subjects if training to pass exams is not getting the students to the appropriate ability then its not training them for the exams which is the problem,

its the exams themselves. So change the syllabus or exam styles in this case.
0
reply
Tanqueray91
  • Study Helper
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
(Original post by Luke7456)
I didn't say the managers would be teachers did I? Managers and Chefs require different skill sets but restaurants are still private businesses, the managers have ways of getting or training great chefs same for teachers or any skill set.



Exams are supposed to measure a students ability in certain subjects if training to pass exams is not getting the students to the appropriate ability then its not training them for the exams which is the problem,

its the exams themselves. So change the syllabus or exam styles in this case.
No, you didn't say they would be, but that wasn't my point - my point was that you can train a lot of professions - I think one thing which is a lot harder to train to get them all up to as high a standard as the good teachers, is teachers... I think a lot of it is that you're a teacher because you want to be, not because you get paid big bucks. We need so many teachers but can't just afford to pay enough that people are persuaded to be a teacher if they're not actually passionate about it imo.

Yes, maybe the exams are the problem, but whatever is in the exam, there's always going to be a possibility of just teaching people for he exam, and caring less about the other aspects of the child's life, for example general understanding in the subject, as well as the pastoral care... again, I don't think that's something which paying people enough to become teachers is going to be done by... if someone's not really that interested in helping and teaching children, they won't put as much effort in and just simply won't care as much as those teachers who're doing it for the job itself, rather than just being trained to be a teacher for money imo.
0
reply
Mistletoe
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
People assume that private schools are for rich people, completely untrue. My parents got a fat bursary from the military to send us and lots of the other kids were in that situation too. We beat all the local state schools at football ffs.
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
(Original post by Luke7456)
There are many people with talent, who can be trained better then they currently are, if we have a shortage of skilled teaches why? because their isn't a shortage of people who have the capacity to be great teachers.
There is a shortage of people who want to be teachers, though.

Having the "great training" available won't solve that, and still won't solve the problem of their being a gap between the best teachers and the worst teachers which will always happen if you're hiring hundreds of thousands of them.

And your proposal won't help that. If anything, it'll make it worse.
0
reply
Luke7456
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by mobbsy91)
No, you didn't say they would be, but that wasn't my point - my point was that you can train a lot of professions - I think one thing which is a lot harder to train to get them all up to as high a standard as the good teachers, is teachers... I think a lot of it is that you're a teacher because you want to be, not because you get paid big bucks. We need so many teachers but can't just afford to pay enough that people are persuaded to be a teacher if they're not actually passionate about it imo.

Yes, maybe the exams are the problem, but whatever is in the exam, there's always going to be a possibility of just teaching people for he exam, and caring less about the other aspects of the child's life, for example general understanding in the subject, as well as the pastoral care... again, I don't think that's something which paying people enough to become teachers is going to be done by... if someone's not really that interested in helping and teaching children, they won't put as much effort in and just simply won't care as much as those teachers who're doing it for the job itself, rather than just being trained to be a teacher for money imo.
Well that is a bit silly with all due respect Doctors tidy sum, should it only be people who are passionate about been doctors because they care should we just cap the salary at 30k for doctors on that logic?

for any career path their are multiple factors that encourage people into it Money is one factor, Job satisfaction is another factor etc.

You can love a job but it does not pay enough so you don't seek that profession you can merely like a job but others pay better so you pass it over etc etc.

Literally any profession has money/passion as a factor, more money does not necessarily lead to bad performance in fact it incentives better performance in most cases.

passionate caring teachers is a business model that can really work well too.

A lot of schools currently just teach on how to pass exams. I should not be able to pass exams if I do not actually understand the material.
0
reply
Luke7456
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by Drewski)
There is a shortage of people who want to be teachers, though.

Having the "great training" available won't solve that, and still won't solve the problem of their being a gap between the best teachers and the worst teachers which will always happen if you're hiring hundreds of thousands of them.

And your proposal won't help that. If anything, it'll make it worse.
How would it make things worse and not help?? that makes literally no sense. If teacher salaries went up their would be a greater supply of teachers.

Businesses seek efficiency and better performance otherwise they don't last.

Government by its very nature can not have the same incentive that business does.
0
reply
the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
the gap between a classroom teacher's salary and the amount of money needed to live comfortably anywhere south of Leicestershire is unbridgeable.

it will end in tears
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by Luke7456)
How would it make things worse and not help?? that makes literally no sense. If teacher salaries went up their would be a greater supply of teachers.
Because, as you said in your first post, when a school meets or exceeds their targets, they get more money.

So when a school doesn't meet those targets, they'll get less money.
Less money means less competitive teachers means worse teachers.
Worse teachers means scores go down.
Scores go down meaning less money.
Less money means those worse teachers are now too expensive to be employed...

Your whole idea is predicated on the notion that schools can only get better. But what if they don't? You've made no allowances for that.

And you're acting as though the Government has a bottomless pit of money to be able to pay whatever. It doesn't. That's the point.
1
reply
Tanqueray91
  • Study Helper
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
(Original post by Luke7456)
Well that is a bit silly with all due respect Doctors tidy sum, should it only be people who are passionate about been doctors because they care should we just cap the salary at 30k for doctors on that logic?
No, but doctors have to go through much more training, and they also get paid way more than even private school teachers get paid...

for any career path their are multiple factors that encourage people into it Money is one factor, Job satisfaction is another factor etc.
Yes, but I feel that teaching is one where the money is a small factor, because they get paid crap - by your idea, it's not like teachers are going to get paid massively more...

You can love a job but it does not pay enough so you don't seek that profession you can merely like a job but others pay better so you pass it over etc etc.

Literally any profession has money/passion as a factor, more money does not necessarily lead to bad performance in fact it incentives better performance in most cases.
Yes, but how much would you expect teachers to get paid under your idea? Probably not enough to persuade people to do teaching just for the money...

passionate caring teachers is a business model that can really work well too.

A lot of schools currently just teach on how to pass exams. I should not be able to pass exams if I do not actually understand the material.
But you've still got to find those teachers, and that still doesn't eradicate the problem of some of them being absolutely rubbish... As Drewski said, getting a bunch more teachers trained up won't eliminate the gap - some teachers will always be better than others!

I disagree - for GCSEs at least, you do not need to understand anything in my opinion, just be able to do a set process which you are taught, and to memorise things. There's a big difference between understanding something, and memorising it - and yes, there is a problem with the exams imo, but it'll be interesting to see what the new GCSE system is going to do, and whether it's actually a good improvement.
0
reply
BasicMistake
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
(Original post by Mistletoe)
People assume that private schools are for rich people, completely untrue. My parents got a fat bursary from the military to send us and lots of the other kids were in that situation too. We beat all the local state schools at football ffs.
To be honest, they are generally for rich(er) people.
0
reply
Luke7456
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#17
(Original post by Drewski)
Because, as you said in your first post, when a school meets or exceeds their targets, they get more money.

So when a school doesn't meet those targets, they'll get less money.
Less money means less competitive teachers means worse teachers.
Worse teachers means scores go down.
Scores go down meaning less money.
Less money means those worse teachers are now too expensive to be employed...

Your whole idea is predicated on the notion that schools can only get better. But what if they don't? You've made no allowances for that.

And you're acting as though the Government has a bottomless pit of money to be able to pay whatever. It doesn't. That's the point.
and if a business does not meet its target it likely goes under. The government does not need a bottomless pit of money Business is highly efficient and cost effective they need to be to survive. Either they get better or the same for less or they pay more but get much better which will have long term economic benefits.

(Original post by mobbsy91)
No, but doctors have to go through much more training, and they also get paid way more than even private school teachers get paid...


Yes, but I feel that teaching is one where the money is a small factor, because they get paid crap - by your idea, it's not like teachers are going to get paid massively more...


Yes, but how much would you expect teachers to get paid under your idea? Probably not enough to persuade people to do teaching just for the money...


But you've still got to find those teachers, and that still doesn't eradicate the problem of some of them being absolutely rubbish... As Drewski said, getting a bunch more teachers trained up won't eliminate the gap - some teachers will always be better than others!

I disagree - for GCSEs at least, you do not need to understand anything in my opinion, just be able to do a set process which you are taught, and to memorise things. There's a big difference between understanding something, and memorising it - and yes, there is a problem with the exams imo, but it'll be interesting to see what the new GCSE system is going to do, and whether it's actually a good improvement.
I don't know what the adequate salary for a good teacher would need to be I don't need to know that and would be guessing so would most people right now. The market can work that out and come out with appropriate numbers.

I accept in the past it has been possible to ace exams without understanding by memorizing and rote learning this is the fault of the exam system and syllabus not the fault of schools, whom currently coach students to pass exams.

Rubbish teachers would either be re trained or fired.
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
(Original post by Luke7456)
and if a business does not meet its target it likely goes under. The government does not need a bottomless pit of money Business is highly efficient and cost effective they need to be to survive. Either they get better or the same for less or they pay more but get much better which will have long term economic benefits.
Ok, so a school goes under. Then what? 1000-1500 kids just left on the streets?... What's the next part of the plan?

Under your scheme the gov does need a bottomless pit - or does the money only go up after test scores to a certain point? Doesn't that then negate the chance for a business to be able to pay "what it likes" for the suitable members of staff?
0
reply
Tanqueray91
  • Study Helper
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
(Original post by Luke7456)
and if a business does not meet its target it likely goes under. The government does not need a bottomless pit of money Business is highly efficient and cost effective they need to be to survive. Either they get better or the same for less or they pay more but get much better which will have long term economic benefits.



I don't know what the adequate salary for a good teacher would need to be I don't need to know that and would be guessing so would most people right now. The market can work that out and come out with appropriate numbers.

I accept in the past it has been possible to ace exams without understanding by memorizing and rote learning this is the fault of the exam system and syllabus not the fault of schools, whom currently coach students to pass exams.

Rubbish teachers would either be re trained or fired.
No, you don't personally need to know that, but to gauge whether this idea is viable, you do need to have an idea, so that you can have an idea of whether more people will actually come forward to be teachers or not... You can't just implement a whole idea like this, and say the market can work it out, because if it didn't then work, it'd be disastrous for a lot of people...

There is still the opportunity for the schools not to do this though, and that's down to the teachers... I had plenty of teachers who didn't just make us memorise stuff, but helped us to understand it, and we did very well. I think it's a poor excuse to just blame exams when the teachers should really be taking the responsibility, and I think when you find teachers who are passionate about teaching they do do well with the kids they're teaching.

Just saying that rubbish teachers will either be re-trained or fired is also just a waste of resources and time - it'd be much better to get it right in the first place, starting with the teachers who want to be teaching, and are good at it, and go from there, rather than just gather a whole load of potentially uninterested people after some cash.
0
reply
Luke7456
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#20
(Original post by Drewski)
Ok, so a school goes under. Then what? 1000-1500 kids just left on the streets?... What's the next part of the plan?

Under your scheme the gov does need a bottomless pit - or does the money only go up after test scores to a certain point? Doesn't that then negate the chance for a business to be able to pay "what it likes" for the suitable members of staff?
some pretty big schools for 1000 to 1500 students isn't it? I never went to a school anywhere near that size.

Not sure if many universities go under, but again you could require financial commitments to insurance schemes specifically for such a scenario and have measures in place for that.

with the right commitments required and right controls schools going under would quite rare.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Who is winning Euro 2020

France (74)
28.14%
England (91)
34.6%
Belgium (20)
7.6%
Germany (33)
12.55%
Spain (3)
1.14%
Italy (18)
6.84%
Netherlands (7)
2.66%
Other (Tell us who) (17)
6.46%

Watched Threads

View All