The Virtual Pub
Come Inside... => The Snug => Topic started by: Snoopy on December 12, 2007, 11:41:56 AM
-
http://education.guardian.co.uk/policy/story/0,,2225967,00.html
I don't know what happens in England these days but in Wales children may start school at the age of 3 but "formal learning" does not start until they are 7. The intervening 4 years are spent in "Directed play with learning outcomes" whatever that may be. Then at the age of 7 the formal bit starts and teachers express surprise if your child cannot read and write ~ that, apparently, is the fault of the parents for failing to teach them at home. Parents are offered instruction sessions to show them how to do this.
Dunno 'bout you lot but to me it looks like a scheme to force all parents out to work and let the state raise the children ~ bit like they tried in Communist China under Mao.
I am not saying that parents should be paid to stay at home but I am saying that, where there are two parents, the tax system should allow one to stay at home until the child is ten and that could be achieved by allowing the transfer of tax allowances between couples. At present I do not/cannot go out to work and am classified as a disabled pensioner ~ my wife can and does work. She gets the normal tax free personal allowance and so do I but we cannot offset my underused allowance to increase hers thus we actually lose out.
-
I don't see why?
I was three in the January and started school in the September, why on earth start them so late?!?!?
It should be possible for two people who according to various surveys are above the national average earnings wise to be able to afford one of them to stay at home for the formative years. It isn't. And it's a disgrace.
-
See also.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7141169.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7141169.stm)
Joined up thinking?
Pah!
-
Parental background continues to exert a significant influence on the academic progress of recent generations of children.
Why are schools in 'poor' areas not as good as schools in 'better' catchment areas?
Without a good influence from their parents, pupils will be less well behaved in school and disinterested in academic achievement. They then cause disruption in the classroom, use up resourses that more able pupils need and cause a lowering of moral in teachers, the good ones leave and only less able teachers will take the job.
I definitely blame the parents.
-
I saw this reported ‘in depth’ on the BBC the other day but they failed to reveal what the statistics were really based on…
I mean, did they: -
a) Ask each three year old how much its parents earned.
b) Send home detailed questionnaires asking parents how much the earned.
c) Make a blind assumption of earnings based on area.
If as I suspect it was c) then the whole thing is meaningless and just highlights that there is a huge variance in the quality of schools depending on where you live.
-
I saw this reported ‘in depth’ on the BBC the other day but they failed to reveal what the statistics were really based on…
I mean, did they: -
a) Ask each three year old how much its parents earned.
b) Send home detailed questionnaires asking parents how much the earned.
c) Make a blind assumption of earnings based on area.
If as I suspect it was c) then the whole thing is meaningless and just highlights that there is a huge variance in the quality of schools depending on where you live.
What one might refer to as a "Post Code Lottery" in fact ~ if someone else hadn't already got there first
-
It doesn't work either way. Mr Wench's school is one of those that people fight to get in. However, there is a huge difference in social/earning status in the surrounding area meaning he has kids who get Wiis for Christmas and kids who get pants from Asda for Christmas. Also leading to a vast difference of behaviour in the kids.
-
It doesn't work either way. Mr Wench's school is one of those that people fight to get in. However, there is a huge difference in social/earning status in the surrounding area meaning he has kids who get Wiis for Christmas and kids who get pants from Asda for Christmas. Also leading to a vast difference of behaviour in the kids.
Well obviously. ::)
The ones with pants are going to take the Wii out of the ones that don't.
-
Poor even by your standards DS. noooo:
C-. Could do better.
-
...kids who get Wiis for Christmas and kids who get pants from Asda for Christmas. Also leading to a vast difference of behaviour in the kids.
The question is which group are the better behaved?
-
I guess we can guess, but the question is reasonable.
-
Poor even by your standards DS. noooo:
C-. Could do better.
redface:
-
...kids who get Wiis for Christmas and kids who get pants from Asda for Christmas. Also leading to a vast difference of behaviour in the kids.
The question is which group are the better behaved?
To generalise the Wii kids are. Of course there are exceptions but in general that is true.