Schools could open from 9am to 6pm 25 weeks year

A proposal has been made by a government person or something that schools should be open from 9AM to 6PM, 45 weeks a year. In school we've been debating this and I agree with it... depending on how intense work is, I think it would be good.

Quote:

---

Schools would open until 6pm for up to 45 weeks a year under plans drawn up by David Cameron’s former Number Ten policy chief.

Paul Kirby suggests long summer holidays and short working days for teachers should be scrapped.

Under the highly controversial scheme, which would enrage teaching unions, the average school day would run from 9am to 6pm, while school holidays would be slashed to seven weeks.

---

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...overnment.html

They can keep the children in school as long as they like but if there's no discipline or anything of substance being taught then nothing will change.

The issue with education is selection and discipline - until they are introduced, nothing is going to change. More pissing in the wind. The reason I think they're introducing this is simple though: because of the number of unmarried mothers and children with only one person supporting the household, the state is increasingly now looking for ways to subsidise the single parent family and thus is coming out with schemes like this which are essentially just childcare provided by the state.

That's the natural consquence of a society where marriage is spat upon and the family is viewed as something that isn't necessary.

*waits for somebody with divorced parents to jump down my throat and tell me that having one parent is just as good as having a mother and father* :rolleyes:

this wont happen

I really think the kids need the breaks and teachers have a lot of work to do anyway

this will just unattract anyone from becoming a teacher, and make current teachers look elsewhere

you'll just get schools full of depressed overworked teachers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

They can keep the children in school as long as they like but if there's no discipline or anything of substance being taught then nothing will change.

The issue with education is selection and discipline - until they are introduced, nothing is going to change. More pissing in the wind.

---

What do you mean by selection? (Sorry about my blonde moment life)

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Futz

this wont happen

I really think the kids need the breaks and teachers have a lot of work to do anyway

this will just unattract anyone from becoming a teacher, and make current teachers look elsewhere

you'll just get schools full of depressed overworked teachers

---

Don't you think teachers would get breaks to though? I doubt they'd have to teach for 9 hours a day. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skandair

What do you mean by selection? (Sorry about my blonde moment life)

---

Selective education, ie the grammar school system whereby the most academic children were seperated at around age 11 and put into seperate schools as it was deemed that it was better for those children to be among their own kind whereas the children who didn't go to grammar schools would go into secondary moderns which taught less academic subjects. It's what Germany has atm and what we used to have before our moronic and 1960s dogmatic political class abolished them all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Selective education, ie the grammar school system whereby the most academic children were seperated at around age 11 and put into seperate schools as it was deemed that it was better for those children to be among their own kind whereas the children who didn't go to grammar schools would go into secondary moderns which taught less academic subjects. It's what Germany has atm and what we used to have before our moronic and 1960s dogmatic political class abolished them all.

---

So because my school is failing, should I suffer? I'm not extremely smart but I'm not totally stupid.

I can remember doing this before in drama... something to do with Barrenness T.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skandair

What do you mean by selection? (Sorry about my blonde moment life)

- - - Updated - - -

Don't you think teachers would get breaks to though? I doubt they'd have to teach for 9 hours a day. :)

---

ah **** I thought this meant the 6 weeks etc would be gone, that's what I meant by breaks

'cause I heard they're trying to get rid of the holidays kids have

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Futz

ah **** I thought this meant the 6 weeks etc would be gone, that's what I meant by breaks

'cause I heard they're trying to get rid of the holidays kids have

---

I doubt we will ever work 52 weeks a year haha. I think the 6 weeks holidays need lowering to 2 - 3 weeks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skandair

So because my school is failing, should I suffer? I'm not extremely smart but I'm not totally stupid.

I can remember doing this before in drama... something to do with Barrenness T.

---

Who suggested you suffer? The point in selection is that we realise and accept that some people are more academic than others and thus they should be seperated and put among their own kind (the top 30% odd) where they can work faster, take on harder work and work generally in an environment which is more suited to academic learning.

Selection also gives the brighter kids who are poor a better chance at climbing the social mobility ladder as under grammar schools those kids who were bright but poor had the chance to go to a top quality school whereas now they're forced to go to crap local comprehensives - the wealthy meanwhile can simply pay and send their children to top private/religious schools.

That's why it's always remarkable to see how many of the Labour frontbench (the people who brought us comprehensive schools) send their children to the few remaining grammar schools, independent schools or move into a wealthy area to get into a good comprehensive state school - whereas the rest of us have no choice but to attend the crap local comprehensive that's more like a zoo than it is a school.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Who suggested you suffer? The point in selection is that we realise and accept that some people are more academic than others and thus they should be seperated and put among their own kind (the top 30% odd) where they can work faster, take on harder work and work generally in an environment which is more suited to academic learning.

Selection also gives the brighter kids who are poor a better chance at climbing the social mobility ladder as under grammar schools those kids who were bright but poor had the chance to go to a top quality school whereas now they're forced to go to crap local comprehensives - the wealthy meanwhile can simply pay and send their children to top private/religious schools.

That's why it's always remarkable to see how many of the Labour frontbench (the people who brought us comprehensive schools) send their children to the few remaining grammar schools, independent schools or move into a wealthy area to get into a good comprehensive state school - whereas the rest of us have no choice but to attend the crap local comprehensive that's more like a zoo than it is a school.

---

During my first few years at school I was terrible at it... now I'm one of the smartest in my year (for subjects like English, drama, busines... it's a really bad school okay) and I would of missed out on that school because I started late. Like everything, it's flawed.

I like the idea but I can see people slipping through. It just doesn't seem fair. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skandair

During my first few years at school I was terrible at it... now I'm one of the smartest in my year (it's a really bad school okay) and I would of missed out on that school because I started late. Like everything, it's flawed.

I like the idea but I can see people slipping through. It just doesn't seem fair. :)

---

Under the strict 11+ system that's true, but it's as equally true that the system could be made more along the German model whereby the ability to move students at anytime would remain open and would be generally more flexible.

The people slipping through right now are the children of the poorest who are bright but have the odds against them. And it's a great shame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Who suggested you suffer? The point in selection is that we realise and accept that some people are more academic than others and thus they should be seperated and put among their own kind (the top 30% odd) where they can work faster, take on harder work and work generally in an environment which is more suited to academic learning.

Selection also gives the brighter kids who are poor a better chance at climbing the social mobility ladder as under grammar schools those kids who were bright but poor had the chance to go to a top quality school whereas now they're forced to go to crap local comprehensives - the wealthy meanwhile can simply pay and send their children to top private/religious schools.

That's why it's always remarkable to see how many of the Labour frontbench (the people who brought us comprehensive schools) send their children to the few remaining grammar schools, independent schools or move into a wealthy area to get into a good comprehensive state school - whereas the rest of us have no choice but to attend the crap local comprehensive that's more like a zoo than it is a school.

---

Children in poorer schools are less likely to perform as well as those in more affluent schools due to the standards of teaching, regardless of their intelligence. Private schools offer scholarships for the brightest children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

Children in poorer schools are less likely to perform as well as those in more affluent schools due to the standards of teaching, regardless of their intelligence. Private schools offer scholarships for the brightest children.

---

Because they are condemned to a lifetime of being stuck in the poor local comprehensive school. Imagine how isolated an intelligent child feels when trapped in a local school where 95% of the children have no intention of wanting to learn, the education itself is poor and they're probably socially isolated. The solution? Move them to a grammar school so they can be with people similar in intellect and personality to themselves.

And absolutely, and well done on private schools - but my point is, why not extend such a system to the entire country? It's interesting to note btw that the same people on the left who abolished the grammar schools are very keen on abolishing the private schools.

If this happend I think it would be incredibly unfair as I barely get any free time after school as it is.

My and my mum spoke about this the other day when it was first discussed.
I Basically said: I finish school at 3:20, Get on the bus at 4pm, Get home at 5pm, Eat dinner so I'm done by half 6, Bath etc, Half 7, Homework, around 9pm sometimes which is ridiculous ;)
Then that leaves me with around 1-2 hours free time which is euh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IzzyUhh

If this happend I think it would be incredibly unfair as I barely get any free time after school as it is.

My and my mum spoke about this the other day when it was first discussed.
I Basically said: I finish school at 3:20, Get on the bus at 4pm, Get home at 5pm, Eat dinner so I'm done by half 6, Bath etc, Half 7, Homework, around 9pm sometimes which is ridiculous ;)
Then that leaves me with around 1-2 hours free time which is euh

---

It would be very unlikely that you'd get homework as such, you'd be having dinner later at school so the need might not be as bad. :) Idk tho

I don't think this is really necessary. Are they talking about doing this for both primary and secondary education?

Completely absurd idea, you will have low morale across students and teachers and not even the average work shift (9-5) is that long?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skandair

It would be very unlikely that you'd get homework as such, you'd be having dinner later at school so the need might not be as bad. :) Idk tho

---

yeah but its also the fact of less free time
I only get around 2-3 hours now
Imagine getting extra lessons or after schools omg. Till 7/8pm.

We still practice selection even though the 11 plus was scarpped. Schools just set their own entrance exams. In my area, we sit exams and go to the grammar/tech at 14 which imo is a much better age for selection.

9-6 is ridiculous for both students and teachers!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IzzyUhh

yeah but its also the fact of less free time
I only get around 2-3 hours now
Imagine getting extra lessons or after schools omg. Till 7/8pm.

---

Well say you leave for school at 8 and get home at 7, you'd still get a few hours in. 11 hours.

Teens should sleep for 9 hours so lets take that away too! 9 hours.

11 + 9 = 20

24 - 20 = 4

WOO 4 HOURS FREE TIME!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skandair

Well say you leave for school at 8 and get home at 7, you'd still get a few hours in. 11 hours.

Teens should sleep for 9 hours so lets take that away too! 9 hours.

11 + 9 = 20

24 - 20 = 4

WOO 4 HOURS FREE TIME!

---

+ Homework ;) & Helping around the house and what not

Introducing this now of all times would be very controversial. If it doesn't receive the support of schools and teachers it'll die a short death. Teachers are striking nationally within two weeks over pay, to announce this now is terrible timing. I've been in on Governing Bodies at schools in the North West this past month, the idea is sumararily dismissed everytime when brought to the table.

Schools cannot fund this nor should they be expected to bare it. This type of thinking is reactionary to school systems amongst the Asian Tiger economies, who have far stricter discipline within schools. This is maintained and mirrored by an ideological stance in both the value of education and the fruits of hard work in society. The UK harbours neither of these cultural factors.

In terms of safeguarding and childrens services, the primary focus ought to be on a reform toward better regulated Early Years care. Nurseries are crucial to setting the precedent for school life, if children can't grasp enjoyment of learning and attainment of it at that level, alongside fast declining basic language and learning skills, their progression onward is already soured. If we're going to reverse poor attitudes toward schooling, this is the age group to target, repairing the early damage that irresponsible parenting has already wrought. Teaching the merits of work in a climate of generational benefit claimants.

Education also needs to be alligned with work much earlier. A move away from perpetual schooling on to University is needed, which has grown to ridiculous proportions in the last two decades. But sadly, the small rebirth of vocational courses is already being scaled back at many secondaries, who favour the more easily assessable (in Ofsted terms) GCSE courses. These need reform to, away from dinosaur industries with a focus on maths, science and technology.

If anything we need a serious consideration of reduced hours of attendance or a more broken schoolday in the Scandinavian model. A 9-6 format is senseless in a service sector economy where creative industries and shorter terms of employment on part-time contracts are major growth areas.

This idea will never make it past the current media storm. If it does, it'll be in select Academies only.

TLDR: This isn't China, focus should be on applicable modern education, driven home early with work related skills that relate to the present and future economy, starting as early as possible.


- (Tapatalk)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Who suggested you suffer? The point in selection is that we realise and accept that some people are more academic than others and thus they should be seperated and put among their own kind (the top 30% odd) where they can work faster, take on harder work and work generally in an environment which is more suited to academic learning.

Selection also gives the brighter kids who are poor a better chance at climbing the social mobility ladder as under grammar schools those kids who were bright but poor had the chance to go to a top quality school whereas now they're forced to go to crap local comprehensives - the wealthy meanwhile can simply pay and send their children to top private/religious schools.

That's why it's always remarkable to see how many of the Labour frontbench (the people who brought us comprehensive schools) send their children to the few remaining grammar schools, independent schools or move into a wealthy area to get into a good comprehensive state school - whereas the rest of us have no choice but to attend the crap local comprehensive that's more like a zoo than it is a school.

---

Would they get good teachers still though? Because the issue I have with that idea is that some people might actually be interested in learning more complicated stuff but never get the chance because they are lumped in the lower type school where everything is basic.

I hated for example ICT at my school because it was the same for GCSE and A Levels - make a poster, use a program etc. Luckily it seems ICT is being replaced now by something a lot more hands on focusing more on how to make programs and understand how they work rather than just using them. I could have maybe learnt how to code well with a good teacher but as I never had the opportunity i'll never know (haven't got the time myself due to work).

Maths was another one I found similar to ICT, focusing on sometimes unnecessary stuff. I always thought it would have made sense to have some maths lessons looking at finances, helping people understand important things they will need when they leave. Instead they seemed to focus on things you'll never use again after you leave.

As for the school hours, I can't see this working.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peteyt

Would they get good teachers still though? Because the issue I have with that idea is that some people might actually be interested in learning more complicated stuff but never get the chance because they are lumped in the lower type school where everything is basic.

I hated for example ICT at my school because it was the same for GCSE and A Levels - make a poster, use a program etc. Luckily it seems ICT is being replaced now by something a lot more hands on focusing more on how to make programs and understand how they work rather than just using them. I could have maybe learnt how to code well with a good teacher but as I never had the opportunity i'll never know (haven't got the time myself due to work).

Maths was another one I found similar to ICT, focusing on sometimes unnecessary stuff. I always thought it would have made sense to have some maths lessons looking at finances, helping people understand important things they will need when they leave. Instead they seemed to focus on things you'll never use again after you leave.

As for the school hours, I can't see this working.

---

From a maths point of view, finances are pretty much covered but never put together so it would probably make more sense in a PSHE lesson alongside general budgeting and taxes rather than repeating sex education and healthy eating every bloody year, though that was just my school and I imagine others were different.

I don't entirely disagree with 9am-6pm depending on what the additional time consists of. It would probably just be standard lessons which I do not see working well.

is your title wrong with 25 weeks a year?

Anyway, I'm sure this was proposed AGES ago