5 ms·

Watching my own children go through the education system here in the UK I have noticed how much more of a qualification system it is compared to when I was at s

by Toenex 10y ago

Watching my own children go through the education system here in the UK I have noticed how much more of a qualification system it is compared to when I was at school/college in the 1970's & 1980's. Education seems to be something you try to get along the way to qualifications.

tonyedgecombe 10y ago
I went to school in the UK in the 70's/80's and it was shit, I'd have given my right arm for what my children have had (from a state school).
- gaius 10y ago
  Agreed. Any success I have achieved in life has been despite my British state education, not because of it!
coldtea 10y ago
>Education seems to be something you try to get along the way to qualifications. Which then mean much much less than what they did in the 70s and 80s (due to "qualifications inflation"). And even the best of them (Phds and the like) can leave you with no job prospects.
- kwhitefoot 10y ago
  I went through my education in the UK starting at the age of five in 1960 and I think it is important to remember that education then varied dramatically from place to place. When I describe the schools that I attended many of my acquaintances from other parts of the country react with surprise that my schools were all comprehensives yet had strict discipline (though not obsessed with uniform minutiae as many seem to be now), a strong work ethic, a lot of after school activities, etc., and they encouraged us to be ambitious and creative. Many of my acquaintances in contrast describe schools of the time that were just as bad as any horror story you see in the Daily Mail today. My only knowledge of UK schools now is from the UK online press and if I didn't constantly remind myself that schools are not all the same I might easily believe their sweeping generalisations. Edit: lived in Norway for the last thirty years and all my children went to Norwegian schools.
Angostura 10y ago
I may be lucky. My daughter is in a bog "bog standard" comprehensive in East London and loving it. The school really seems to like kids and has this nice balance between pushing for attainment and growing the whole person. So yes, she's doing well in classes but has also discovered a passion for playing drums, astronomy, Duke of Edinburgh Awards etc. The head teacher says very plainly "I don't want to be the CEO of an Academy, I want to be a headteacher". I hope he, and the people like him manage to survive the changing system.
- OJFord 10y ago
  > The head teacher says very plainly "I don't want to be the CEO of an Academy, I want to be a headteacher". When you say you hope he survives the changing system, I hope he realises he can do so by being the headmaster of an academy. I mean, smart CEOs worry about making enough money to invest in developing the product right? The 'product' of an academy is educated children (or adults, I suppose, if they stay through the sixth form) - so what's the problem? The academy system just gives the head/governors more control to do what's right for that particular school. Sure, some schools are so templated that there's little benefit to be had, but many are unique in a way in which those familiar with the school can manage better without having to abide by national or regional policies that aren't the best fit.
  - Angostura 10y ago
    You do realise that 'regional authority' in this case is the local council? Being An academy doesn't remove most curriculum requirements. What it does do is allow fiscal autonomy and freedom from a bad local authority. However where the school is working with a good local authority, there are very few advantages. Indeed staying in LA control provides tremendous advantages in terms of pooling of resources - IT support, curriculum support, HR and finance for example. In this case the LA is well managed and supportive. Splitting away offers few benefits. You say the 'product' is smart kids. The product of many academies is actually kids who score highly in metrics that can be measured, but don't have a great all-round education. Oh, and a big shiny car for the CEO.

by Toenex 10y ago

tonyedgecombe 10y ago

I went to school in the UK in the 70's/80's and it was shit, I'd have given my right arm for what my children have had (from a state school).

gaius 10y ago
Agreed. Any success I have achieved in life has been despite my British state education, not because of it!

coldtea 10y ago

>Education seems to be something you try to get along the way to qualifications. Which then mean much much less than what they did in the 70s and 80s (due to "qualifications inflation"). And even the best of them (Phds and the like) can leave you with no job prospects.

kwhitefoot 10y ago
I went through my education in the UK starting at the age of five in 1960 and I think it is important to remember that education then varied dramatically from place to place. When I describe the schools that I attended many of my acquaintances from other parts of the country react with surprise that my schools were all comprehensives yet had strict discipline (though not obsessed with uniform minutiae as many seem to be now), a strong work ethic, a lot of after school activities, etc., and they encouraged us to be ambitious and creative. Many of my acquaintances in contrast describe schools of the time that were just as bad as any horror story you see in the Daily Mail today. My only knowledge of UK schools now is from the UK online press and if I didn't constantly remind myself that schools are not all the same I might easily believe their sweeping generalisations. Edit: lived in Norway for the last thirty years and all my children went to Norwegian schools.

Angostura 10y ago

I may be lucky. My daughter is in a bog "bog standard" comprehensive in East London and loving it. The school really seems to like kids and has this nice balance between pushing for attainment and growing the whole person. So yes, she's doing well in classes but has also discovered a passion for playing drums, astronomy, Duke of Edinburgh Awards etc. The head teacher says very plainly "I don't want to be the CEO of an Academy, I want to be a headteacher". I hope he, and the people like him manage to survive the changing system.

OJFord 10y ago
> The head teacher says very plainly "I don't want to be the CEO of an Academy, I want to be a headteacher". When you say you hope he survives the changing system, I hope he realises he can do so by being the headmaster of an academy. I mean, smart CEOs worry about making enough money to invest in developing the product right? The 'product' of an academy is educated children (or adults, I suppose, if they stay through the sixth form) - so what's the problem? The academy system just gives the head/governors more control to do what's right for that particular school. Sure, some schools are so templated that there's little benefit to be had, but many are unique in a way in which those familiar with the school can manage better without having to abide by national or regional policies that aren't the best fit.
- Angostura 10y ago
  You do realise that 'regional authority' in this case is the local council? Being An academy doesn't remove most curriculum requirements. What it does do is allow fiscal autonomy and freedom from a bad local authority. However where the school is working with a good local authority, there are very few advantages. Indeed staying in LA control provides tremendous advantages in terms of pooling of resources - IT support, curriculum support, HR and finance for example. In this case the LA is well managed and supportive. Splitting away offers few benefits. You say the 'product' is smart kids. The product of many academies is actually kids who score highly in metrics that can be measured, but don't have a great all-round education. Oh, and a big shiny car for the CEO.