This morning's Sunday Telegraph carries an excellent comment piece by David Cameron on schools. THis is presumably an advance notice to the next policy review report due, and outline proposals to introduce holding kids back a year at 11 in primary school if they have not reached the required educational standards.
This is the sort of thing that should be happening in the UK, just like it happens across Europe and in the USA. However, I can imagine what the Labour Party and educationalists will say about it. They will look at the idea through the prism of failure, and suggest that holding a child back will stigmatise them and ruin them psychologically for life.
It's true that it will be a stigma, but so what? That provides with the relevant drive to not muck about and be embarrassed by being held back a year. There is no point in just pushing kids through a school system even when they're not reaching the required standard to move on. Personally, I would introduce such schemes within secondary schools too. If you don't pass the year, you resit it. Simple as that.
Read the rest of David Cameron's article here.
9 comments:
Being dropped back a year can be a truly horrible experience unless it is well managed, and part of the general school experience.
If the first 3 years at primary school has a fluid class structure, with children moving through as they were ready, it ought to be possible for children to be held back a year without feeling the pain of it. This could be particularly good for summer-born children - on average, the disadvantage of being born in August lasts for life, and latest research shows 20% fewer August chiuldren reaching university that September-borns. Those suffering worst from this disadvantage should be easy to spot.
For those who are below level 4 at 11 - and who will therefore find the move to secondary very challenging - a move to a remedial school - like that used by Ruth Kelly - could make all the difference (and why not let the private sector run them?). But it has to be a different school - why should a school which has failed you in 7 years do better in an eighth? Remedial schools could run from ages 10 to 14, perhaps, to give them the space to deal well with all.
There's a lot could be done within schools too, as the current level of reading/ numeracy failure is unacceptable, and as shown by the West Dunbartonshire project 95% of children capable of reaching level 4 (i.e. all but severe SEN) can be helped to do so. The key is close monitoring of performance and early action within a school.
Of course it makes perfect sense Dizzy, which is why the statists will not only dismiss it as being unfair (please think of the little children!!) They will also use it to try and paint Dave as trying to hold back the tide of glorious educational success of EUssr province Großbritannien.
Keeping someone back sounds horrible. While I can see the arguments for it, I feel it would be too damaging.
Instead, why not make the kids sit an exam, which would choose the most appropriate schools for them to go to?
Oh wait...
It has always struck me as extremely strange that at a primary level we can see huge issues whereby children are moving on without being able to read and write - yet when it comes to GCSE and A level time standards are seemingly rising year on year. Do ALL these kids suddenly improve dramatically? Do we lose some to the educationm system all together?
Thise who objected to the 11 plus who often used the argument that children develop at different ages really should back a plan that addresses this by allowing kids more time to attain the necessary level.
The complete rubbish about " noone fails" has to be changed. If you fail, you SHOULD have to resit, and if you fail again, you do it all again. What on earth is the point of saying, oh, its too damaging, when someone who can't read or write properly ( never mind add and subtract)just continues to fail throughpout the rest of their schooling, which they certainly will. I'm certain that much of the disruption caused in later years is down to cildren who failed at 11 trying to hide their lack of ability
al said: (1.24pm)"Instead, why not make the kids sit an exam, which would choose the most appropriate schools for them to go to?"
I see where you are going with this...
But, then again, maybe there could be some schools that helped some kids who are not interested in "academic" subjects such as reading, writing and arithmetic to develop their practical skills - such as riding a bike, texting, organising rapid deliveries of essential goods and, possibly, proficiency in target shooting - which would lead them into a productive career. For a while anyway....
"...maybe there could be some schools that helped some kids .... to develop their practical skills - such as riding a bike, texting, organising rapid deliveries of essential goods and, possibly, proficiency in target shooting "
Can't they just buy a copy of 'Grand Theft Auto'....?
The logical end of this idea will be spotty fifteen-year-olds still in Primary School.
Like that will help a lot.
logical and realistic ends are two very different things.
Post a Comment