Cyclone Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 Maybe we could, like tutors or children who are home taught. Of course our taxes might have to go up a smidge to pay for one teacher per child or thereabouts... Group teaching is the most efficient way I can see, maybe not the most effective as inevitably there are performance differences that can't be accounted for perfectly within a group. But given the cost constraints that we have I can't see a better, affordable solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 There's a social side to it as well, children need to learn to socialise and play well in groups, that would be hindered if the group was different every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarkysod Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 As A parent of two school age children, I would rather see a shorter week within a longer term time. As it is at the moment both my wife's and my annual holiday leave is separately taken up to cover for half terms and the dreaded six weeks. being able to take time off as whole family would be a lot better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 Wouldn't this just be pandering to the employer? After all this is what it's about isn't it...they demand we're more flexible and in turn it filters down to our children's education. Cohesion and consistency are paramount in child education IMO. The op's idea would seriously interfere with that. And yet many countries which have far more flexible education systems than ours, also have more educational success. That suggests that it's at least possible for the idea not to interfere with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 wouldn't a shorter week just cause you a problem every Friday or Monday though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 And yet many countries which have far more flexible education systems than ours, also have more educational success. That suggests that it's at least possible for the idea not to interfere with it. For example? (I want to read about how exactly they are flexible). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perplexed Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 And yet many countries which have far more flexible education systems than ours, also have more educational success. That suggests that it's at least possible for the idea not to interfere with it. I've a suspicion that a large chunk of that may be down to the way that education appears to be more highly valued in other nations. (As opposed to any particular timetable or teaching method.) It's a route away from poverty in some countries. Children seem to be more interested in learning, rather than looking cool with their mates. It's a broad idea admittedly, but it seems to be the case with many foreign nationals whom I've met. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
123456A Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 ............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted April 1, 2010 Author Share Posted April 1, 2010 Maybe we could, like tutors or children who are home taught. Of course our taxes might have to go up a smidge to pay for one teacher per child or thereabouts... Group teaching is the most efficient way I can see, maybe not the most effective as inevitably there are performance differences that can't be accounted for perfectly within a group. But given the cost constraints that we have I can't see a better, affordable solution. That's an interesting point. A quick check brings up a five year old figure per pupil annual expenditure figure of around £2500 per pupil. But that doesn't include capital costs for 40 year PFI repayments for buildings etc, or other non-core services like social workers, police, community workers, etc that may result from a lower quality education. Put 30 pupils together and you have £75k (the cost of a teacher+ support?) so the numbers may not be as critical as you'd think. 7 day / 52 week schools would obviously not need the same pupil capacity. Perhaps more numerous, more local, smaller, better quality facilities would be the result along with a better pupil/teacher ratio ? I don't know, but I'd be interested to see a study of the implications of a reorganisation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 The pupil teacher ratio wouldn't just need to be better, it would need to be close to 1:1, so that would massively increase the costs just in teachers wages alone. Without that low ratio there would be a huge risk of pupils missing a key lesson that is to be later built on and then there being no time or capacity to fill them in a day later as the other children who are present need the next lesson delivering. I wonder if we are talking at slightly cross purposes, I'm thinking about primary and junior school primarily here, where the whole class is normally taught together, by a single teacher at a set pace. In a secondary school, with setting, subject choices, language choices and so on it might be easier to arrange. Of course it wouldn't be the pupils or parents choice though, as it's no good if the once a week French lesson is on Saturday and that's the day that LittleTony doesn't go to school, then on Sunday when he does go he's not got anything scheduled as he doesn't do History and Classics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.