Posted: Apr 16, 2019 12:43 pm
by Spearthrower
Fallible wrote:
It's not a superior situation, in fact I started my post with the statement that it makes no sense.


Yeah, sorry... I wasn't intending to reply as if you were saying it's what you think is ideal instead of just reporting what you see as happening.


Fallible wrote:But again, parents not being able to afford holidays in school holiday time is not the fault of schools. Incidentally, not wanting to start a whole Monty Python sketch, but I am one of the kids who never had a holiday at all until I was about 15.


Back in my day, holidays were things only French people did. :grin:


Fallible wrote:I'm not sure what you mean. What are you referring to when you say 'this'? Certainly I agree that the government is only concerned with these things, and consequently schools are also compelled to be.


Government / policy makers.


Fallible wrote:There are definitely teachers who don't care much about their kids, but they are very much in a minority.


Unfortunately, seems like a self-selective process where eventually it will only be these who can bear it.


Fallible wrote:All most want is to do what's best for the children in their care. US entered the profession because he wanted to have a positive impact on young minds, as did his siter and brother-in-law. That is his primary concern, but he and the rest are forced to have to take into account league tables and bean counting.


Aye, when I think of teachers, I think of my own - and the vast majority of them were utterly committed... even obscenely committed. My English teacher was so frustrated by how our partner school (long story) had fucked up our chances at A-level English, she basically taught us a 3rd of our A-level syllabus all over again in her own time over the course of about 6 weeks. I got an A in English and it's all thanks to her.


Fallible wrote:
Given that we know through ample studies that professionals perform worse without breaks, why wouldn't we also expect that of kids? Education is vital as I've argued here in the past many times, but it's not only in school where that education is achieved.


Again, I'm not sure what you mean. Kids do have breaks, every few weeks. Or do the studies specifically concern breaks away?


By breaks, I would include their home-lives in that as well, because the poorest kids are, again, the least likely to have enriched and involving home lives.


Fallible wrote:
Oh, it's all about whatever government is in power. Education is a statement sector - each government promises to make it the best evah to increase our standing in the world. Consequently they won't leave it alone for 5 seconds, and instead continually tweak, chop and change, steadily increasing demands. No one, especially not the kids, has a cat's chance in hell of acclimatising themselves before it's all change again. It's totally unfair.


I really think we need to rethink it all from the ground up, but that does of course entail tweaking, chopping and changing everything again! :lol:

I read a study not long ago that delved into neuroscience and neural plasticity, and suggested that due to the ways in which the brain changed, and particularly with the complexity of knowledge today and the increase in life-expectancy, that leaving school at 25 might be a more beneficial system. With the rise of AI, this might even become a necessity when so many of the lowest-skilled jobs are due to be lost.