 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Thanks AA actually as you're a teacher it means something as it has when my kids' teachers express their sympathy and frustration over the system.
As I said earlier as a manager I try to accommodate staff if I can but it's just not always possible. I do run the rotation thing or did as it's changed, to allow staff to get a chance. The issue still results in whether it fits with it my case my wife as it does with other a staff and their partners. So you end betting 2 employers trying to be accommodating instead of one school.
I've had the a holiday the last 4 years with my kids but the wife has had to work so stayed at home. My kids broke up today I'm on 2 weeks off well I am until 7 tonight when I'm back at work. My wife is off the second week of the holidays and I'm working. 😆
yeah, i bet most kids would love that. 'sorry kids, no snow time for you, we're going to a cottage with granddad, maybe fit in some hill walking'
Sounds far nicer than freezing your bits off and potentially breaking some bones up a mountain.
It's also missing the point - why should you pander to what the kids want, unless you want to raise a bunch of spoilt brats. But then those self-same spoilt brats won't give a toss about the rules when they're parents, and so the cycle continues.
I think a lot of people on this thread aren't thinking it through.
Yes, I agree (and I'm a teacher) that taking your 7 or 8 year old out for a couple of days at the end of term will have minimal impact on their education. But if it becomes the norm, and you/they expect it, then you'll be taking them out for cheap holidays all the way through.
Now, I teach a couple of lads whose families have a tradition of taking 2 weeks off in November to go to Majorca, have done every year apparently.
Years 10 & 11 were no different. Due to this they both missed GCSE mock exams, and I was told in no uncertain terms by their parents that 'No, they won't be doing any work on holiday, as they need to be able to relax as they'll be doing exams soon.' The irony appeared to be lost in them.
Both came back to school and spent the last 2 weeks of the Autumn term not in any way wanting to engage in lessons (same across all subjects too) as I suspect they'd both been getting royally pissed for the previous 2 weeks, and coming back to a load of teachers wanting them to catch up was way down on their list of priorities.
Then they went on 2 weeks Xmas hols, and to be honest neither has really bothered to pull their fingers out since.
The fault of the term-time holiday? Probably not.
The fault of their parents not really caring about their education, and making it clear that saving a bit of money and having short term enjoyment is more important than long term success? **** yes.
yeah, i bet most kids would love that. 'sorry kids, no snow time for you, we're going to a cottage with granddad, maybe fit in some hill walking'
My 2 love that.
They've never been skiing but would love it sadly we can't afford it outside of term time either.
AA: yep totally agree on the GCSE thing. That's pretty idiotic and presumably the kind of behaviour a blanket ban aims to stop (not that any headteacher' would have approved that one anyway).
Drac: joys of the NHS eh? Mrs (Dr) is working over Easter too, including the bank holidays, so I end up using up all my holidays to care for the kids. So by the time we get the chance to have a holiday together I have to take it as unpaid parental leave which only adds to the cost of going away.
Sounds far nicer than freezing your bits off and potentially breaking some bones up a mountain.
I'm guessing you don't have a lot of experience of Spring skiing in France? Sunburn is usually far more of an issue than bits freezing off. 😀
I'm guessing you don't have a lot of experience of Spring skiing in France? Sunburn is usually far more of an issue than bits freezing off.
More than you'd think actually, as my parents live in the Pyrennees. However, I'm not a fan of skiing. IMO an overpriced waste of time. Much rather be cycling!
February isn't spring
😆
I really hope all those who are so keen on others not breaking rules don't ride their mountain bikes on footpaths...
I really hope all those who are so keen on others not breaking rules don't ride their mountain bikes on footpaths...
Riding on a footpath is a civil matter, whereas taking kids out of school in term-time is a criminal matter. Do keep up!
I lost this on page 3 .. but I did read .. "what happens if the pregnancy is unplanned?" well you still CHOOSE to have the child!! And the come back will be not if I'm the bloke .. well you should have used a flipping condom!!!
yeah, i bet most kids would love that. 'sorry kids, no snow time for you, we're going to a cottage with granddad, maybe fit in some hill walking'
My kids absolutely love spending time with their grandparents.
Ironically the reason there were five people on my skiing holiday was that the fifth person as their grandma, who doesn't ski but they love spending time with 😀
I suspect what was meant by Munge-chick's comment was to those who were suggesting that if an pregnancy was unplanned then that was an excuse to do whatever you like.
The fact remains however that in the UK there are several choices available in the event of an unplanned pregnancy. Whether you personally would want to take them up on is besides the point and wishing someone gets aids is bang out of order.
I've encountered that attitude from childless couples before they're doing the world a favour by their sacrifice, in that case don't expect in future, the children of others to become care workers in adulthood to deal with their senile infirmity. Don't expect them kids to pay tax in to a pension pot.
I've encountered that attitude from childless couples before they're doing the world a favour by their sacrifice, in that case don't expect in future, the children of others to become care workers in adulthood to deal with their senile infirmity. Don't expect them kids to pay tax in to a pension pot.
And equally I've encountered the entitled attitudes from some parents who think that that should be an excuse to allow them to do whatever they want. Never once have I wished they got aids.
Did they suggest you kill your unborn child?
I lost this on page 3 .. but I did read .. "what happens if the pregnancy is unplanned?"
Should've read on a few more posts!
That's bang out of order. Let me clear something up for you regarding the abortion debate:
The question isn't whether or not it's ok to kill kids, it's whether or not a 10 week old foetus is actually a kid.
Mol that discussion was on the table at the time, we were middle aged with 2 kids coming to school leaving age, true and welly in the Precariat demographic - we got as far as an almost hospital visit. Got in the car park and turned right around. We decided we'd rather be in shite Street and whatever the future threw our way we'd face that as and when.
Someone who got through 2 levels of tube snipping really fought to be here in our humble opinions, and every single day I'm glad she is...
Nothing wrong with that opinion.
The question isn't whether or not it's ok to kill kids, it's whether or not a 10 week old foetus is actually a kid.
It's not actually, it is up to 24 weeks.
you can't have rules that only apply to one type of person I'm afraid.
Why-ever not ???
90% of the time my kid spends in school is not doing him any good educationally. 80% of it is spent unlearning what they previously taught because they have to teach in bits.
The whole of school is simply a way to stretch out a few months into 10+ years ... mostly based simply on the idea everyone needs to be taught the same and they have to fill the time somehow.
The whole point of this is at least 50% of the class would benefit by not repeating the same stuff until they are so bored they switch off and would be far better anywhere BUT school for a significant part of the time.
A simple example is the change in how guidelines for maths at KS2 changed into mandatory... it now MUST take 2 years for kids to learn times tables... schools are not allowed to teach any faster.
This means they instead need to teach a whole load of maths without the kids having learned their times tables so they get taught 4x6 = 4x3 + 4x3.
Next year they are taught the 6x table and have to be told that 4x6 = 4x6 except they have already been taught a workaround...
and the whole point of this ??? 99% of kids can learn times tables 1-10 in a day or so... my kid just learned them one weekend the old fashioned way...
then (last year) his teacher was marking 4x6 = 24 as incorrect.... and instead he had to write 4x3 + 4x3
this year he's ALLOWED to know the 6x table and what he was told last year is incorrect...
I won't even go into his reading where he reads proper books (Pratchett or Dahl and Tom Sawyer) at home but was reading "Jack goes to the park" at school....
School spend FAR FAR LONGER preventing kids learning than actually teaching.
The whole announcement that any time away from school adversely affects their GCSE results is obviously not even a misguided statement but a out and out lie.
And as far as out of order, don't suggest, or make allusion to suggest that I should arrange an abortion just because an uncalculable percentage of your tax may be used in the rearing of that child.
It's not actually, it is up to 24 weeks.
I know. But you may consider it at any age UP TO 24 weeks.
And as far as out of order, don't suggest, or make allusion to suggest that I should arrange an abortion just because an uncalculable percentage of your tax may be used in the rearing of that child.
Did I do that? Where?
The whole of school is simply a way to stretch out a few months into 10+ years
A few months? Don't talk shite.
The whole of school is simply a way to stretch out a few months into 10+ years
A few months? Don't talk shite.
This.
A simple example is the change in how guidelines for maths at KS2 changed into mandatory... it now MUST take 2 years for kids to learn times tables... schools are not allowed to teach any faster.
This is just a problem with your understanding of the teaching.
Teaching 4x3 + 4x3 is getting all sorts of concepts in early. BODMAS, breakapart method etc.
The question isn't "what is 4x6" it's "how can I give this child the tools to multiply 4x116 in their head by the end of KS2".
Mol, you didn't. Someone else may have, hence my caveat in that first rant "if"
Jimdoubleyou, I'd much prefer your example than rote learning times tables, as you say it teaches how to problem solve
And as far as out of order, don't suggest, or make allusion to suggest that I should arrange an abortion just because an uncalculable percentage of your tax may be used in the rearing of that child.
No one did. All that was pointed out is as that when it comes to pregnancy, even an unplanned one, there are choices so that isn't a reason for anyone that expect special treatment. It was available to you and your wife and you made a choice that was right for you. Others make different decisions and live with those consequences.
Quite unprovoked from what I can see, you wished someone would get aids.
I'd much prefer your example than rote learning times tables
I don't like rote learning obviously (nor does anyone else who works in education I suspect) but even I appreciate that some is required. Times tables at least up to 10 are something you just have to know.
My daughter's learning them and she is also learning things like factors and how sums work at the same time.
True but I agree that it is also very helpful to know [i]why[/i] 4x6 is 24.
Of course. But it's far easier to do general arithmec if you simply know it rather than have to back to first principles every time. Especially when you're 7.
Quite unprovoked from what I can see, you wished someone would get aids.
Someone pointed out that people faced with an unplanned pregnancy have a choice.
He said he hopes that person gets AIDS.
Then went on to describe how he and his wife made an appointment but made the choice not to go through with it.
Illustrating perfectly the point that people have a choice.
Quite strange.
90% of the time my kid spends in school is not doing him any good educationally.The whole of school is simply a way to stretch out a few months into 10+ years
School spend FAR FAR LONGER preventing kids learning than actually teaching.
You know what, if you can do it so much better, then home school him. You could also take your holidays whenever you like. Come back in 10 years and tell us how it went.
The whole announcement that any time away from school adversely affects their GCSE results is obviously not even a misguided statement but a out and out lie.
Of course 'any' time away from school won't affect GCSE results. But for most of the kids who's parents DGAS about education and take them off on holidays in term time and allow other absences, then it's generally not just a couple of days, but weeks per year.
90% attendance - which the father in the original story said was acceptable - means 4 weeks of school lost in a year. For many kids that WILL have an adverse effect on their GCSEs.
Example: One of my kid's friends got taken to Disneyland on Ice or some such by her mother, during the week. They didn't get back home til ten or something, so her mother phoned her in sick the following day.
Example: One of my kid's friends got taken to Disneyland on Ice or some such by her mother, during the week. They didn't get back home til ten or something, so her mother phoned her in sick the following day.
My mum did the same for me when I went to see The Housemartins at Brid Spa in 1986.
This is just a problem with your understanding of the teaching.Teaching 4x3 + 4x3 is getting all sorts of concepts in early. BODMAS, breakapart method etc.
The question isn't "what is 4x6" it's "how can I give this child the tools to multiply 4x116 in their head by the end of KS2".
Nope it's a problem of teaching staff not understanding maths (as they were taught to a very poor level by someone whom themselves doesn't understand) with a curriculum set by so called experts whom themselves don't understand maths.
There is just no excuse NOT to teach the kids times tables over a very short period.
Teaching 4x3 + 4x3 is getting all sorts of concepts in early. BODMAS, breakapart method etc.
My 7 yr old can calculate gear ratio's, the circumference of a wheel and the length of a spoke. (This is somewhat co-incidental to the fact this is a cycling forum - because the reason he can do it is because he wanted to learn how to build a bike)
He's equally capable of calculating the height of a ladder and he mostly checked himself using some string ...
He has increasingly hated the repetition at school .. and [b]in most maths he is far advanced over his mother (who is a teacher)[/b]
The difference is HE UNDERSTANDS the maths, his mother doesn't she learns it and teaches it but doesn't actually UNDERSTAND IT. She has QTS but shouldn't really be allowed near a child learning maths, except she knows as much as her peers!
I don't like rote learning obviously (nor does anyone else who works in education I suspect) but even I appreciate that some is required. Times tables at least up to 10 are something you just have to know.
This current trend for not liking learning by rote is a bit pointless.
This is one reason that months get stretched to years ..
It's the time wasted learning and especially unlearning to get around not just teaching it straight off even if heavens forbid that means by rote.
Learning by rote doesn't need to be horrible... I forget the incentive I gave to my kid but he just learned the rhymes then played a game where he applied them.
The point is it saves all that FRUSTRATING TIME
To illustrate I was with a colleague in Kiev a couple of weeks ago... and he couldn't read anything despite him speaking several slavic languages but being able to guess what a noun was 80% once I transliterated for him.
So he spent [b]an evening[/b] in his hotel room learning cyrillic.
Then he could read and he could then learn new words simply by reading.
He could have spent months picking up the odd spoken word but the next day I hardly had to translate anything because he could read slowly and then find a related slavic word.
Once he had the tools he could work stuff out for himself.
Times tables are one of those tools... just get them done ASAP (or delay them but don't go teaching other ways they will then be told to abandon later)
If the education system really wanted it could teach the entire curriculum in a few months but instead it drags the whole thing out over years.
I took GCE's (before even GCSE's) in subjects I'd not even taken [b]with a few weeks reading[/b] and others with almost no background.
(As an example at school I attended a British Social History CSE for a specific time period... decided I didn't want to take CSE's and entered myself for European Political History for an entirely different time period.
I did next to nothing except read a few text books, learn some key facts and got an A. I didn't take any form of biology at school , read a few text books and got an A....
I actually just skipped school for the last 3-4 months ... I can say had I attended by GCE results would have been MUCH worse.
I got all A's at GCE and spent zero time in school in a GCE stream...all I did was a few months reading...A few months? Don't talk shite.
What exactly was the benefit of the preceeding 10.5 years?
I got taught one thing ... then the year later I got taught that was wrong...
[b]My first day at school [/b]I was taught (from a 5yr olds perspective) that my parents had lied to me and ITA was the way things were written and "Butcher" written outside a shop was not for ME to read...
I then spent the next 10+ years somewhere I would not want to be being taught mainly more lies.
In Yr 2 my kid was lied to and told the 6x table DOESN'T EXIST....that he is not ALLOWED to know it.
Teachers unfortunately seem to think they are actually teaching. I suppose they need to justify to themselves they are actually doing something GOOD not as they are HARMING millions of children and holding them back.
This is especially at primary age ... the problem is that by the end of primary the damage has been done and the kids held back so much they will never achieve their potential.
They will come up with endless excuses to hold kids back as they don't have either the knowledge or the material to teach.
So taking 2 weeks on holiday, actually enriching your life?
The TEACHER doesn't need to do ANYTHING but they believe they do because they believe they are actually teaching.
Sadly they are deluding themselves because most of the time they are holding back...
2 weeks NOT being held back has to be better than 2 weeks in school.
TL;DR; : stevextc's son is a child prodigy, the talented offspring of a genius and an idiot, who is not catered for correctly by schools.
I got all A's at GCE and spent zero time in school in a GCE stream...all I did was a few months reading...
And yet you STILL cannot understand the difference between anecdote and data!
Have you any experience of kids other than your own genius boy?
And yet you STILL cannot understand the difference between anecdote and data!
I can which is why I take issue with the statement that any time off school will be detrimental to GCSE results....
Have you any experience of kids other than your own genius boy?
You mean other than his friends and relatives?
[b]On what data are you suggesting my kid is a genius ?[/b]
He just did some rather basic maths that 99% of 7yr olds could do if teachers hadn't already held them back.
Learning 10x times tables in a weekend is not indicative of anything except having an IQ higher than someone who unfortunately will never learn to tie their own laces!
Generations of children learned times tables at 5 (now called "Reception" as opposed to year 1 which is now year 2)... it is simply that the present system hold them back that there is any expectation of why it would be ages 7-8 not 5!
In the same way there is NOTHING complicated about gear ratio's or multiplying a wheel diameter by a number (or multiplying by 22 and dividing by 7) and all this can be then tested using a bit of string and tape measure.
It all comes down to expectations and the bar has been lowered year on year for decades.
I can which is why I take issue with the statement that any time off school will be detrimental to GCSE results...
Don't be thick.
We're not saying you will definitely get worse GCSEs if you take some time off school 🙄
On what data are you suggesting my kid is a genius ?
That was in reference to the tone of your posts, which sound like bragging.
He just did some rather basic maths that 99% of 7yr olds could do if teachers hadn't already held them back.
Teachers don't hold kids back. Teachers have to teach the whole class, and the brighter kids will always get stuff faster and then be waiting for the slower ones.
It all comes down to expectations and the bar has been lowered year on year for decades.
You seem to be ranting in a rather confused way, rather than making an informed post backed by research. Are you saying that teachers deliberately slow down when they could progress faster? Why the hell would anyone do that?
and in most maths he is far advanced over his mother (who is a teacher)The difference is HE UNDERSTANDS the maths, his mother doesn't she learns it and teaches it but doesn't actually UNDERSTAND IT.
To be fair, better at maths than his maths teacher mother isn't bad for a seven year old.
To be fair, better at maths than his maths teacher mother isn't bad for a seven year old.
Well his mother is an English teacher by training... but has to do basic maths... the thing is that she doesn't [b]understand[/b]maths as a reality.
It's like someone who can teach someone to drive but doesn't actually understand how an internal combustion engine works... indeed, when she was learning to drive she kept asking "what gear should I be in for a certain speed" and she was learning in a petrol and practising in a diesel.
In the same way she can calculate basic maths ... but she does it by following instructions she doesn't actually understand the why's because she wasn't taught that way.
she does it by following instructions she doesn't actually understand the why's because she wasn't taught that way.
So... in other words she was taught rote rather than being given a proper understanding of numeracy... ?
the thing is that she doesn't understandmaths as a reality.
Is it because her teachers held her back? If not, what else might be the cause of that?
In case you are unsure where I am going with this - I'm saying people have different aptitudes, and whilst your son 'gets' it easily, your wife (who is presumably intelligent enough) does not. What this means is that what seems like holding some kids back could be required work for the rest of the class.
...anyway, it's probably been done to death a few pages ago, but a lot of what schools do is just keep kids off the street, and vaguely institutionalise them. This isn't a bad thing but hasn't got much to do with education.
Don't be thick.We're not saying you will definitely get worse GCSEs if you take some time off school
Not [b]you[/b], this was the carefully worded and released government statement!
That was in reference to the tone of your posts, which sound like bragging.
Only if you think there is anything exceptional a 7yr old doing what 80% of 5 yr olds were doing a few decades ago!
Teachers don't hold kids back. Teachers have to teach the whole class, and the brighter kids will always get stuff faster and then be waiting for the slower ones..................Are you saying that teachers deliberately slow down when they could progress faster? Why the hell would anyone do that?
Addressing the why first... I'd have thought it was implicit that I believe teachers are holding kids back (and after I can give you an actual real example)
Why would they hold kids back....
I'd argue its as much or more about interest than being brighter... but the short term answer is in your actual post.the brighter kids will always get stuff faster and then be waiting for the slower ones
Why are they then waiting, not being given new and stimulating challenges?
[b]Because the teacher has to prepare them. It creates MORE WORK[/b] and at the end of this MORE WORK it achieves nothing because at the end of TERM or the end of YEAR the kids need to be at a certain level because there is no mechanism for them to do anything different.
I can perhaps illustrate with reading...
My kid loves reading ... not because I'm claiming he's a genius but because he's been encouraged from a very early age by both parents and he sort of half taught himself. (Before he could read he memorised whole books he loved... and he'd follow along stuff like Julie Donaldson .. and when I made a mistake he'd know and he started recognising words.. and half we helped/encouraged him (like reading signs)...
(Again, nothing exceptional here... one of his best friends at school read fluently in 3 languages before reception)
When he started reception he was already reading... he could read Tales of Peter Rabbit for example...
Then he started reception and got told to read books with about 30 words cover to cover. I'm making this up as accurately as I can though..
John has a Dog.
John's dog is called Sandy
John went to the park.
John took Sandy to the park.
John and Sandy played in the park.
Despite it being obvious this was not really reading or interesting he was forced to read these books .. which took him and a few other kids 20 seconds..after which they then had to wait for the remaining 59 minutes (or whatever) whilst behaving!
In Yr 2 he had a teacher who encouraged them to keep learning/exploring and he and 2-3 other kids were allowed to the bigger kids library to choose books. Over last summer he read amongst other books Tom Sawyer but start of Year 3 he was given books a level above John goes to the park [b]and forced to bring them home to read[/b]... as the new teacher insisted they all read from the Yr 3 reading list.
Again these are simply books with no story, no character development etc. and he actually stopped reading for pleasure he started hating it that much. Luckily she left (got a year head position at another school)
As to do teachers... you can choose to believe or not but..
a) His teacher said bluntly he was reading these books as she didn't have time to read every book in the school
b) Before his mother went back to work she volunteered as a TA. (Bargain for the school with an unpaid QTS working as TA) and she oversaw the Reading testing. [b]She was explicitly told NOT to test certain kids as they were too far ahead already. [/b] (Not our kids year group)
However, take a step back... breathe...
What this all culminates in is taking some exams aged 16 and now 18...
From Reception through to GCSE are simply a set of expectations as to where a kid needs to be start of the next term/year.
[b]There is simply no facility for what that kid does if they finish that years curriculum after 1 term ...
[/b]
As my OH is discovering and as I presume many enthusiastic teachers have found out before... [b]the state education system[/b] has no facility at all for anyone who learns more quickly except to hold them back.
You can't be put up a year... etc. so if it takes 1 term then there is nothing for the teacher to give you for the other 2 terms that won't then impact your NEXT year... etc. etc.
So I bolded the state education system... so to pre-empt the next question of why then don't we home educate ...
There are some purely practical reasons, social interaction reasons etc. all of which can be overcome but then what NEXT ???
There are a few kids that went to Uni aged 10... for example...
It rarely works out well... think about it.. suddenly they are in a group of Freshers aged 10-11??
This actually happened to one of my best friends though his home education was more to do with his father's work than by design.. he finished his 1st degree (in the US) aged 14... (he's 50 this week btw) .. [b]then what? [/b]
Anyway, he's over the drugs now and has always strongly said that it is a terrible thing to do to a kid... There was a UK one who got famous after running off from Uni to be a prostitute aged 14 or something.. (you can google Sufiah Yusof ) and even if nothing goes badly wrong they are not allowed to work full time until they are 18 ...
Point is the school system simply delivers suitably qualified people off a conveyor belt aged 18. There is no market for the system to deliver university post grads at 14...
Going faster than the conveyor simply means that they end up in limbo .. be that on a term by term basis or going to Uni aged 10...
Jesus, maybe you should take your kid on a holiday you seemed stressed!!
Blimey that's a long old post boasting about how great your kid is and moaning about how average your current school is.
I suggest you put him in a private school where his needs can be better catered for.
Or find a state school which uses differentiated instruction.
[i]the state education system has no facility at all for anyone who learns more quickly except to hold them back.[/i]
You're wrong. Teachers have to provide differentiated work for all pupils, the school is responsible for ensuring pupils progress 'n' levels each year/key stage.
Yes, there are genius children for whom almost no conventional educational experience is appropriate but they're very few and far between.
Equally, there are a large number of state Special Needs schools catering for children who will never attain within a conventional exam system.
Is it because her teachers held her back? If not, what else might be the cause of that?
It's because HER teachers didn't understand maths either.
In case you are unsure where I am going with this - I'm saying people have different aptitudes, and whilst your son 'gets' it easily, your wife (who is presumably intelligent enough) does not. What this means is that what seems like holding some kids back could be required work for the rest of the class.
[b]I don't disagree[/b] (see my above post)
But the point is it IS holding them back....
I'm not even saying it's a BAD thing.... [b]what I'm saying is if a kid has already finished the entire syllabus for a term or year [/b]then it's not only doing them no harm going on holiday for a week or even two.. its probably good for them and also good for the rest of the class.
We go cycling every Sunday.... it's contingent however on the kid having done chores and homework. I can't see why if a kid can pass the end of term test with >95% or end of year test > 95% why they can't take some time off.
The issue I fear is with those who can't... but by definiotion the ones who actually NEED the extra time.
Blimey that's a long old post boasting about how great your kid is
Again, how is it boasting how great my kid is when all he is doing is the same level that my whole class was expected to attain in the early 70's.
and moaning about how average your current school is.
Nope I'm reasonably happy with the school... there is no advantage educationally to him going faster, I'm merely pointing out that he could be absent from today till the end of summer term and it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to his GCSE's...
He's 7 and he's managed not to be stabbed at school and he's not taking drugs... and I see no reason that wouldn't continue until he's 11..
I suggest you put him in a private school where his needs can be better catered for.
Again why?
It's not like it will change anything (except perhaps access to drugs).
School is just a placeholder where kids are parked before they are allowed to work....
School is just a placeholder where kids are parked before they are allowed to work....
Hopefully they will learn a few social skills along the way.
No bold or caps on that one,slacking.
Yes, there are genius children for whom almost no conventional educational experience is appropriate but they're very few and far between.
Rather than argue about "genius children" (I'm not Mozart's father asking why the school hasn't had him write a symphony) I'm simply taking a simple bit of fact, extrapolation and logic.
Fact: 50% of children are below the mean academically.
Extrapolation: Academic performance has a tangible link to IQ and has a normal distribution
Logic: A kid in the top 25th percentile will progress much more quickly than a kid in the lower 25 percentile
You can add some very conservative figures to that...lets simply say (for a nice easy model) they are 25% faster than a lower 25 percentile
Lets say they spend 4 hours a day in school actually LEARNING. (They have to eat, piss and whatever)
That means that for each day of 4 hours the top 25% kid is 1 hour ahead .. after a week then are 5 hours ahead and after 39 weeks that's 195 hours a school year!
They can't start the next school year 195 hours ahead ... but even supposing they could what would happen at the end of THAT year...
Hopefully they will learn a few social skills along the way.
[b]Again I agree..[/b].. and one reason I'm not pushing to home educate.
It would be nice if it also pleasant, fun even 😀
It's because HER teachers didn't understand maths either.
It sounds like you haven't spent much time teaching maths or other things to a diverse range of people....
what I'm saying is if a kid has already finished the entire syllabus for a term or year then it's not only doing them no harm going on holiday for a week or even two
I'm saying the same thing. I'm in favour of the discretionary approach with the power to grant leave when it's appropriate. In other words, if a genius kid is already well ahead, then it might be deemed appropriate.
You are making a good argument for education tailored to the needs of different abilities, stevextc. And it's long been realised (because it's obvious) that bright kids learn quicker and would benefit from specialist education. And also that slower kids learn more slowly and also benefit from specialist education. But this takes a lot more resources - we'd need three times the teachers and three times the classrooms for a start.
AND
There are also significant downsides to society from segregating kids. That's why grammar schools were a bad idea.
I haven't got kids so I prefer them to have to be on holidays at set times, means I can avoid the whiny little shits.
Oh, Steve, the whole bold, italic, general ranting thing? Makes you come across as a bit mental. Hard to take your point of view seriously as a result.
Fact: 50% of children are below the mean academically.
Are you sure about that? I would be frankly astonished were that actually the case.
[i]Median[/i] perhaps?
(probably should have spent more than a few days on that Basic Statistics CSE eh? 😉 )
stevextc - MemberFact: 50% of children are below the mean academically.
Only if precisely no children are exactly at the mean.
And it is a perfectly uniform distribution.
Hey,
I was taken out of skool term for holadaze, and I are not ficker than yoo.
DrP
@Mattbee ha ha ha that's an awesome response! Especially those poorly disciplined children with awful parents who let their darlings scream shout, whine, and tear things to pieces .... what happened to go manners and a harsh thwack 😀
Especially those poorly disciplined children with awful parents who let their darlings scream shout, whine, and tear things to pieces ....
I call it 'free play' or 'montessori' or something.....
I just see my kids as a disruption from my frantic smartphone Facebooking schedule, TBH... 😉
DrP
Can somebody explain to me what stevextc's rant about how rubbish the teachers are at his school (but actually he's reasonably happy with it - even if I suspect that's damning with faint praise), how awful the system is that it means bright kids have to be held back (but actually there's no advantage to him learning faster) has to do with whether kids taking holidays during term time has an impact on the education of whole classes (of kids who mostly aren't as educationally advanced as steve's)?
I took it to be a shining example of the self absorbed ****ery of modern society.