Does the British education system need reforming?

Just something I think about regularly as it frustrates me looking back.

Anyway personally I think that GCSE learning should begin in year 8, I would see it as a way for students to do what they want early with year 7 being a taster. If they done it this way, then it could allow for the course to be completed in year 9 for some subjects which could allow for the student to do another course in replacement ultimately boosting their GCSE count, general knowledge and could provide more opportunities for the student in future.

I would also say that many forced subjects should be dropped in the years of GCSE education. Currently, the compulsory subjects for KS4 is:
English
Maths
Science
Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
Physical education
Citizenship
source: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/parents/...um/dg_10013877

with history and geography in talks to be compulsory: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...urriculum.html

Personally I would remove or modify the current list. History and geography would not be added, with science, ICT and citizenship being removed and PE would not act as a course but more as a social interaction between pupils whilst also promoting physical activity. I think without the distraction of having to forcefully learn sport it could promote greater communication between pupils and make a more friendly environment, perhaps people even making friends with those who they would not have otherwise. Furthermore, the relax feel of it and just having fun could make the pupil less agitated as stress is released which could improve performance elsewhere.

Also if English literature is required in all schools (I'm not sure if it is, the list only says English), I would get rid of that too. It is pointless as hell for people who never require it, and I'm not even sure when those who want to do it would ever actually need it.

However, I would replace citizenship with what I will call "life skills". This would be one or two lessons a week where basic skills are taught.

Sex education would be included in this, but to a much lesser extent than it currently is. It would teach what to do if someone feels like they have issues and basic contraception methods. It would not include what diseases actually can occur, it would not show different shapes and sizes of genitals, it would not show any sexual images altogether. I remember watching a video in like year 9 where the actors were basically flirting with sexual innuendos and I just thought, "what is the point in this?".

Basic politics would also be taught so that pupils will be educated enough in order to make a good decision in what could be a couple of years for some people.

It would also teach basic finance and taxation. This could provide a better foundation for people in the years they have ahead.

I think parenting should also be slightly explored, again just to provide a better foundation for people especially as teen pregnancy is as high as it is today. But even then, it could help people even if they were to have kids long after school in their 20s/30s etc.

There is more I previously imagined but can't remember at this point.

I've just recently had to design my own curriculum for my uni course so this is all fresh to me.

I'm going to be slightly controversial and say no. The problem with the education system is not that it needs reform but that it keeps being reformed; the result being that no-one knows exactly where they stand. It's inevitable really when abstract questions like 'what is education' and 'what is it for' can bring on passionate and emotion-filled debates with no possible chance of compromise (which does have a fancy academic term for it I can't remember. i think its 'essentially contested concept'). All these silly subjects being added in like Citizenship or, sorry to be blunt "life skills" which is just another name for PSHE really, that don't really teach anything and is seen as a doss subject by everyone involved. Reform needs to be at a grassroots level. Politicians stuck in Whitehall have no idea how their ideas and reforms are being used on the ground (Our form watched Friends in Citizenship). It is that really that needs to change before any more changes to the education system - and you could argue any system really - are made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inseriousity.

I've just recently had to design my own curriculum for my uni course so this is all fresh to me.

I'm going to be slightly controversial and say no. The problem with the education system is not that it needs reform but that it keeps being reformed; the result being that no-one knows exactly where they stand. It's inevitable really when abstract questions like 'what is education' and 'what is it for' can bring on passionate and emotion-filled debates with no possible chance of compromise (which does have a fancy academic term for it I can't remember. i think its 'essentially contested concept'). All these silly subjects being added in like Citizenship or, sorry to be blunt "life skills" which is just another name for PSHE really, that don't really teach anything and is seen as a doss subject by everyone involved. Reform needs to be at a grassroots level. Politicians stuck in Whitehall have no idea how their ideas and reforms are being used on the ground (Our form watched Friends in Citizenship). It is that really that needs to change before any more changes to the education system - and you could argue any system really - are made.

---

Are you doing some teaching course I assume then or..?

So basically you'd want the current system to stabilise in a way so that all lessons having some teaching rather than being a "free" lesson?

Education studies and theology. Not a teaching qualification although will hopefully help me in my future career. Curriculum design was a module I'm just finishing but it has more wider implications than just what subjects are taught and there are some curriculums that don't have any subjects/content at all.

Not stablise as in get stuck in a rut and never change at all but I do think we need to apply the brakes a bit because change is happening too fast before the impact and effectiveness of previous changes can be monitored and assessed properly.

Any reforms should be led by the industries and the universities, since they're the ones who know what they want and ultimately that is the main goal of the education system. Currently it's exam boards, schools and the government who are making ridiculous guesses at what should be taught, what should be funded, what should be encouraged. The goal posts are being moved continuously by bureaucracy making it hard for teachers to keep up and leaving the students with the short end of the stick when the teacher has no idea what how to teach the new criteria. Obviously a broad range should be taught so that employers can look at how people think in different ways so cutting out entire subject areas (Like sciences or creatives) is probably a bad idea.

As far as lives skills I agree, current use of PSHE time or similar is pretty inefficient and either talks all about sex (Because the government needs something to point at when pregnancy rates rise) or stuff that's barely useful. Basic financial education is popularly requested for as is being politically informed, the only issue with the politics is the bias that any teacher could have.

Generally I think KS4 at the moment is fine and only needs minor adjustments and needs to be left well alone. The current problem is the 'KS5', to much emphasis is being placed on A-Levels and universities and not enough on practical skills and apprenticeships. I needs to be less academic and more job focussed, neither GCSEs or A-Levels leave people in a decent state for the world of work.

I swear I never did citizenship.

I agree with mike though, there's too much change and it never really gets a chance to settle + test how it's really going to work. Especially at GCSE level, when I was going through school then, every subject I took had been changed in the last few years and it made it impossible for a) the teachers to know what they were really doing or b) find past papers to revise from.

I feel as though PSHE should be more focused on years 7 through 9, and then actually focus properly on the exam subjects in KS4 - although the list they've proposed makes sense to me, I'm not sure proper ICT is really necessary (my old school now offers 3 different types, a Microsoft certificate, something else which is more like electronics and proper ICT, which I think is MUCH more useful). At KS5, however, I think I would have really benefitted from more 'real life' experience, I only had a few assemblies on interview skills, or anything to set you up for life, whereas every lesson I had was crammed into passing exams and going to Uni, which I don't think is a healthy perspective, particularly for those people who don't have much of a good chance of getting in!

We don't do citizenship in our school, we do R.E, but apparently other schools do 1 year of r.e (short course) then citizenship. I wish we had started GCSE'S earlier. In total I will leave school with like 6 or 7 GCSE's but some people have got loads. Smart people at our school got their GCSE's donbe in year 9 and in yr 10 and 11 have been doing iGcse and A levels

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jssy

We don't do citizenship in our school, we do R.E, but apparently other schools do 1 year of r.e (short course) then citizenship. I wish we had started GCSE'S earlier. In total I will leave school with like 6 or 7 GCSE's but some people have got loads. Smart people at our school got their GCSE's donbe in year 9 and in yr 10 and 11 have been doing iGcse and A levels

---

The problem with advanced or express exam sittings is that if you were to apply to university, offers usually involve sitting the 3 exams of your 3-grade offer (usually) at the same time as each other. It's nice to spread them out though, my sister did 2 extra GCSES last year (ontop of the science ones she was supposed to do) and was able to spend more lessons on her Microsoft Certificate and French lessons.

The British education system is a shambles and has been delivering poor results for years. As other users have touched upon, we keep throwing money at the schools system by building shiny new buildings yet the results do not improve. We continue to reform the education modules yet the results do not improve. We consistently lower the grades and the results do improve - but only via the government and the examinations boards making the exams easier.

The problem goes back to the 1960s when the Labour government of Harold Wilson abolished the grammar schools system and replaced it with comprehensive education, which since the 1960s the Conservatives have done nothing to reverse. From this point onwards, the system is slipped from what was a world class system to a complete shambles which politicians play merry-go round with at election time - making promises as Lord Adonis of Labour does in the video below such as throwing yet more cash at a system which is already awash with funding.

With the grammar schools system we allowed poorer students to excel and have the same education system as those who were wealthier. Indeed, I often criticise most things government gets involved in - grammar schools I find are one of the only examples where government involvement actually produces a healthy outcome (and it pains me to say that). At the moment with the comprehensives, we have a system where most are condemned to poor schools unless a) they can afford to be sent to a private school b) they are lucky enough to live near one of the few remaining grammar schools c) they are wealthy enough to move into the catchment area of a good (rare) comprehensive school.

Nadine Dorries MP and Nigel Farage MEP make this case very clearly in the video below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B99O_J-gFsI

The solution? bring back the grammar schools. But the political class simply will not do so.

No.

What a silly silly idea.
Just simply move to Australia... Get an awesome education and stay with us sexy people.
End of.