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

Should education be enforced on children by the state? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    And if so why?

    Let's take a typical secondary school in which 11-16 year olds are given a variety of lessons they must attend with some remaining compulsory (English, maths, science etc).

    What if a school were to make lessons voluntary and available to all pupils? For instance provided you had a rudimentary grasp of basic English and maths (which you should do leaving primary school) you could in theory say spend the morning doing IT for three hours followed by two hours of break and then three hours of R.E and Geography. Students could in theory do nothing all day or spend all day in the library. Or spend the entire day studying chemistry.





    Currently displaying an interest in educational policy and as ever am completely deconstructing the set narrative. Would love to know thoughts!
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    But then you'd have a bunch of kids leaving school with virtually no qualifications.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tiger Rag)
    But then you'd have a bunch of kids leaving school with virtually no qualifications.
    What this guy said


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tiger Rag)
    But then you'd have a bunch of kids leaving school with virtually no qualifications.
    So does the current system though. At least this way people that want to learn won't be slowed down/ distracted by those who don't.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Qualifications don't mean much when they don't teach half of what's needed to get through in life. If it's the parents' duty to teach what school doesn't, how come a lot of parents don't seem arsed to?

    Oh, and pupils that disrupt class do so for many reasons, not just because they don't want to learn. I'd say it's the parents' fault for not raising a child to be ready for school.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    And if so why?

    Let's take a typical secondary school in which 11-16 year olds are given a variety of lessons they must attend with some remaining compulsory (English, maths, science etc).

    What if a school were to make lessons voluntary and available to all pupils? For instance provided you had a rudimentary grasp of basic English and maths (which you should do leaving primary school) you could in theory say spend the morning doing IT for three hours followed by two hours of break and then three hours of R.E and Geography. Students could in theory do nothing all day or spend all day in the library. Or spend the entire day studying chemistry.





    Currently displaying an interest in educational policy and as ever am completely deconstructing the set narrative. Would love to know thoughts!
    We kind of already have that when you pick your options for GCSE.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shawn_o1)
    Qualifications don't mean much when they don't teach half of what's needed to get through in life. If it's the parents' duty to teach what school doesn't, how come a lot of parents don't seem arsed to?
    Who said its the parents duty to teach what the school doesn't?

    Oh, and pupils that disrupt class do so for many reasons, not just because they don't want to learn. I'd say it's the parents' fault for not raising a child to be ready for school.
    How do you raise your child to be ready for school?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shawn_o1)

    Oh, and pupils that disrupt class do so for many reasons, not just because they don't want to learn. I'd say it's the parents' fault for not raising a child to be ready for school.
    Thus is true but whatever the reasons they will be a distraction to those who do.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Who said its the parents duty to teach what the school doesn't?



    How do you raise your child to be ready for school?
    Face it, most secondary schools are obsessed with their leavers' results that they encourage all their students to think about uni. Any advice on applying for jobs thus becomes substandard (and people thus fail to be equipped for working life unless their parents or other close ones help them at every step).
    For my child to be ready for school, i would observe any abnormal behaviours and sort them out before age 4. Teachers aren't supposed to look out for certain people as that's not their job, if teachers are faced with troublemaking kids then all they have to do is warn the parents.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    We kind of already have that when you pick your options for GCSE.
    This goes a lot further and would start from year 7
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)

    How do you raise your child to be ready for school?
    For s start parents should ensure that their. Holder. Are punctual and correctly dressed,

    Additionally basic things reading to them regularly and answering their questions is a start.

    Some parents don't have their kids sufficiently toilet trained by primary schools.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shawn_o1)
    Face it, most secondary schools are obsessed with their leavers' results that they encourage all their students to think about uni. Any advice on applying for jobs thus becomes substandard (and people thus fail to be equipped for working life unless their parents or other close ones help them at every step).
    Perhaps, but there are exceptions to this

    For my child to be ready for school, i would observe any abnormal behaviours and sort them out before age 4.
    Easier said than done, especially if they have some type of learning disability or developmental delay. Better yet, these 'abnormal behaviours' may not make an appearance until they actually start school because it's a different environment to what they've been used to. There are many factors so it's not straighfoward to simply 'raise them to be ready for school'

    Teachers aren't supposed to look out for certain people as that's not their job, if teachers are faced with troublemaking kids then all they have to do is warn the parents.
    But you said it's the parents job to teach the kids what the teachers don't?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    This goes a lot further and would start from year 7
    Even at year 10, kids struggle with choosing options because they don't really know what they'd like to do at 6th form/college so lowering the age to year 7 would only worsen this.
    Also, there's only so much to teach. So for example, 3hrs of chemistry a day from year 7 will not take you all the way to year 11. You'd be likely to have learnt the curriculum within a couple of years so what happens then? They just don't come to school unless it's for English and maths ?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    For s start parents should ensure that their. Holder. Are punctual and correctly dressed,

    Additionally basic things reading to them regularly and answering their questions is a start.

    Some parents don't have their kids sufficiently toilet trained by primary schools.
    I don't understand the first thing you said but yeah reading to them could help.
    Some kids are difficult to toilet train. That's not really the parents fault if their kid refuses to sit on a potty/toilet.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Contrary to popular belief, state schooling is not compulsory but education is.

    Parents have the statutory obligation of providing their children with an education based on the national curriculum - but they are not obliged to send them to state institutions to achieve that.

    If your beef is with disruptive individuals, then I would suggest it's the fault of poor parenting or a myriad of other factors including but not limited to difference in ability for appropriate reasons.

    Statistically significant is the correlation between poverty, crime, unemployment, exploitation and even premature mortality for people with a poor education as countless studies will attest.

    Go to any third world country and witness what happens when children do not have free access to a comprehensive education.

    Our system of education is not perfect, but without it, society would quickly spiral into extreme polarisation and all of the divisive issues that would entail.

    Given those choices, individuals putting up with a modicum of inconvenience is a price worth paying to avoid the societal alternatives.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    So does the current system though. At least this way people that want to learn won't be slowed down/ distracted by those who don't.
    What would they be doing all day and where would the resources come from for this?
    • TSR Support Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Yes. For starters, making it optional would be absolutely terrible for social mobility because I am absolutely certain that the drop-out rate for children from low-income families - particularly those from difficult backgrounds - would vastly exceed that of children from wealthier backgrounds.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    It (optional subjects) sounds like a good idea in theory, but not all students know what they want to study or what they'd need for the career choices they're interested in. I wouldn't expect High School students to have that much insight, let alone Secondary Students. Despite this, I would've loved it if I could've picked the subjects I took in school.

    In my school weren't given any optional subjects (this only goes for my year and the years that graduated before us). Three of the five IGCSE's we took were mandatory (maths not being one of them, fyi), and many students argued that we were wasting our time with some of them (ICT and Mandarin). To pass Secondary all you'd need is a passing average grade (50%), which is fine if your scores are good enough to compensate for a subject or two that you're weak in. Junior College was different. Passing average was raised to 65% for the 1st year and 70% for the second year, and every subject must be above that grade or they'd fail you. You could ace your IGCSE's and A Levels, but if you failed Mandarin you get held back (it's a bit more complex than that, but you get the gist). A good portion of my class won't be using their Chemistry A Level. You don't usually need one when you're going to take over the family business.

    There were so many subjects that I felt I was wasting my time with, but we couldn't have chosen if we'd wanted to. We didn't have enough staff to teach the subjects we wanted. The newer years are being given several additional subjects (history, geography, literature, business, economics, etc.), but because this is only going to be available for Secondary (take note, we take IGCSE's in our JC1 and not at the end of Secondary) they're probably going to be wasting their time too.

    TL;DR, my school needs to get their sh!t together. We prep for subjects we won't be taking exams in, and take exams for subjects we won't be taking in Uni. I think that Secondary should be a time to immerse yourself in all subjects available so that you can get a feel for what you like and don't like. I hated physics for my first 2 years of Sec, but ended up liking in in my last year.


    Spoiler:
    Show

    Sorry, this post turned into a rant oml
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Even at year 10, kids struggle with choosing options because they don't really know what they'd like to do at 6th form/college so lowering the age to year 7 would only worsen this.
    Indeed. I struggled with choosing options and there's a huge difference between what you're taught in primary and secondary.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Schools teach basic knowledge. Basic knowledge is a must unless you're hoping to upbring a backward nation.
 
 
 
  • 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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    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.