Changing the education system to a three tiered model?

Grendel

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jan 23, 2000
Posts
8,083
Likes
56
Location
Spanish Announcers table
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Thread starter #1
When my god-kids started at high-school, within the first few weeks there was a noticable change in behaviour attitudes from them.

Both 'grew up' in ways that imo were neither neccessary or needed for the time of life (11/12 y/o's) they were at. Mixing mainly with their own crowd, true. But also being exposed to much older teens that had an influence not always beneficial.

My feelings on this are, wouldn't an (and I know I'll get howled down by some) American style 'middle' school system have benefits here?

Say from years 5 to 8. The demographic would be narrower and the kids may just be allowed to be influenced or remain kids for that little bit longer.

With the rush of everything in modern society one thing really annoys me. This (for want of a better term) sexulization of children at a younger and younger age. For instance, when my god-daughter started high school she was an early developer and the older boys (years 10 and higher) made their attentions known quite clearly. IF she had been in an enviroment with less exposure to more 'mature-bodied' teen boys, would she have remained (and sadly she hasn't) less susceptible to the shallowness that so many teens now seem to fall into?

I just reckon there is to wide a range of age at both primary and secondary (in particular, secondary) schooling at the moment and with the evidence of higher teenage birth rates, teen (and sadly binge) drinking etc. It's normally the older kids that first bring in the younger ones. Would there be any slow down at all if we tightened up the age groups of what our children socialise within at school levels?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

hoss

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
May 28, 2004
Posts
7,140
Likes
2,953
Location
South
AFL Club
Fremantle
#2
Grendel said:
When my god-kids started at high-school, within the first few weeks there was a noticable change in behaviour attitudes from them.

Both 'grew up' in ways that imo were neither neccessary or needed for the time of life (11/12 y/o's) they were at. Mixing mainly with their own crowd, true. But also being exposed to much older teens that had an influence not always beneficial.

My feelings on this are, wouldn't an (and I know I'll get howled down by some) American style 'middle' school system have benefits here?

Say from years 5 to 8. The demographic would be narrower and the kids may just be allowed to be influenced or remain kids for that little bit longer.

With the rush of everything in modern society one thing really annoys me. This (for want of a better term) sexulization of children at a younger and younger age. For instance, when my god-daughter started high school she was an early developer and the older boys (years 10 and higher) made their attentions known quite clearly. IF she had been in an enviroment with less exposure to more 'mature-bodied' teen boys, would she have remained (and sadly she hasn't) less susceptible to the shallowness that so many teens now seem to fall into?

I just reckon there is to wide a range of age at both primary and secondary (in particular, secondary) schooling at the moment and with the evidence of higher teenage birth rates, teen (and sadly binge) drinking etc. It's normally the older kids that first bring in the younger ones. Would there be any slow down at all if we tightened up the age groups of what our children socialise within at school levels?
I agree with you 100% Grendel.
 

coasting

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jan 9, 2004
Posts
6,401
Likes
7
Location
Earth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Cardies
#3
It might have benefits but it would not justify the money it would cost. We all have to grow up sometime. If you don't like the school your kids are in, move them to a nicer school.
 

- PC -

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Posts
30,268
Likes
23
Location
Where No Birds Fly
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide/Sturt/Wingfield
#4
Grendel I can understand your concerns as to your godchild but once again the school system is been turned into a parent substitute. I dont know what the family environment is but I will say this that I feel its up to the parents to bring the child up with enough self esteem to be able to repel or recognise advances like those that are used.

I hate where teachers are made liable if they dont report any signs of abuse..and now you want the school system to be chaperones..

I did read this thread more because I hoped it was about a return to tech colleges and making those not clever enough move into trades..but thats also about self esteem issues apparently
 

Grendel

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jan 23, 2000
Posts
8,083
Likes
56
Location
Spanish Announcers table
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Thread starter #5
PerthCrow said:
Grendel I can understand your concerns as to your godchild but once again the school system is been turned into a parent substitute. I dont know what the family environment is but I will say this that I feel its up to the parents to bring the child up with enough self esteem to be able to repel or recognise advances like those that are used.
Actually that's not at all what I meant to imply (the school system being used as a parental substitute).

What I mean is that at impressionable (well.. all age should be impressionable.. let's just say a more impressionable) age that if there was less wider (and I don't like to admit it but it's how I feel, a negative overall) 'peer' group/s that there would be less pressure on kids (which seems to be overlooked far to often imo) to 'grow up' beyond their years.

I hate where teachers are made liable if they dont report any signs of abuse..and now you want the school system to be chaperones..
I don't want the school system to be chaperoned. I want it to be equal and better equipped to serve the needs of the child on a more equitable level. I.e, let the child assoicate mainly within their own immediate age group. This could have effects of lessening bullying (less 'bigger kids') perhaps just as one benefit (just conjecture on my part but worth consideration I feel). Also less body concious imaging that (and yea, media is heavily to blame here as well) deems a certain 'look' must be achieved by 10/11/12 y/o's.

There could be many benefits that would idealy help take pressure off the teacher to be chaperones because they'd actually be focusing on what they're paid to do, teach.

One thing though, if any abuse ANY abuse on your child was going on (hypothetical if you don't have children) wouldn't you be livid if it WASN'T reported?


I did read this thread more because I hoped it was about a return to tech colleges and making those not clever enough move into trades..but thats also about self esteem issues apparently
Actually that too probably wouldn't be such a bad idea in parts (for those kids that had the apptitude for that kid of schooling). Yet even in that a four year 'last level' of schooling prior to an apprenticeship might be able to work?

Anyway, thanks for the feedback.
 

Grendel

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jan 23, 2000
Posts
8,083
Likes
56
Location
Spanish Announcers table
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Thread starter #6
coasting said:
It might have benefits but it would not justify the money it would cost. We all have to grow up sometime. If you don't like the school your kids are in, move them to a nicer school.

Disagree. Bit of re-structuring and after initial setting up (which would be costly) what might the long term benefits and results give back to the community IF we could somehow give a better quality of education?

Yea, they do have to grow up sometime but why should it have to be at (as my expeiriences have so far led me to conclude) 11/12/13 y/o's? That's to early, way to early.

As for moving to another school, that's just avoiding the issue of why the school they're in isn't fulfilling it's duties of giving quality education to all our children.
 

MightyFighting

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Posts
10,300
Likes
57
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Port Melbourne
#8
Grendel said:
When my god-kids started at high-school, within the first few weeks there was a noticable change in behaviour attitudes from them.

Both 'grew up' in ways that imo were neither neccessary or needed for the time of life (11/12 y/o's) they were at. Mixing mainly with their own crowd, true. But also being exposed to much older teens that had an influence not always beneficial.

My feelings on this are, wouldn't an (and I know I'll get howled down by some) American style 'middle' school system have benefits here?

Say from years 5 to 8. The demographic would be narrower and the kids may just be allowed to be influenced or remain kids for that little bit longer.

With the rush of everything in modern society one thing really annoys me. This (for want of a better term) sexulization of children at a younger and younger age. For instance, when my god-daughter started high school she was an early developer and the older boys (years 10 and higher) made their attentions known quite clearly. IF she had been in an enviroment with less exposure to more 'mature-bodied' teen boys, would she have remained (and sadly she hasn't) less susceptible to the shallowness that so many teens now seem to fall into?

I just reckon there is to wide a range of age at both primary and secondary (in particular, secondary) schooling at the moment and with the evidence of higher teenage birth rates, teen (and sadly binge) drinking etc. It's normally the older kids that first bring in the younger ones. Would there be any slow down at all if we tightened up the age groups of what our children socialise within at school levels?
Why worry about schools when we already know that kids get their education from watching movies like American Pie anyway?
 

teams

Cancelled
Joined
Apr 9, 2004
Posts
3,992
Likes
5
Location
victoria
AFL Club
Essendon
#9
MightyFighting said:
Why worry about schools when we already know that kids get their education from watching movies like American Pie anyway?
The biggest problem of society is peer group pressure. Grendel offered a simple constructive idea for alleviating it within the education system. I applaud the idea.
 

campbell

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Dec 7, 2001
Posts
17,827
Likes
704
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
#10
You need to move to Qld.My kids went to a middle school. Their old Principal is now Director of Middle School Education for the Department.
The QLd Education Department is implementing them. across the state.

James old PE teacher last year, moved to a brand new Middle School on the Sunshine Coast as a HOD.

They are a great idea, ours is 5-9 Middle School.The kids have a home room, and the teachers come to them except for science subjects.This makes the kids feel like they belong, they have their own space as a group.

The unis here are even churning out middle school teachers.

So get with the groove and move north, we are not that backward up here..
 

Hollypig

Team Captain
Joined
Dec 11, 2003
Posts
337
Likes
0
Location
The Taj
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
North Adelaide Football C
#11
Grendel said:
Actually that too probably wouldn't be such a bad idea in parts (for those kids that had the apptitude for that kid of schooling). Yet even in that a four year 'last level' of schooling prior to an apprenticeship might be able to work?
Judging from the amount of calls I get to give school leavers work experience I can't see how this would'nt be a bad idea.
In ten years time it's all going to be fine & dandy to go through Uni, pay off the HECS fees, & buy the dream house, but getting a plumber to fix a water leak will be a longer waiting list than public major surgery.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

campbell

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Dec 7, 2001
Posts
17,827
Likes
704
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
#12
At my kids school they have what is called the Edge program.Its specifically for kids who are not academically inclined. They learn how do Barrista coffe, and run a coffe shop for the staff and kids at the school 1 days a week.They learn about concreting, and stuff. The kids get a Cert 1, and a couple are going on to apprenterships directly with employers involved in the prgram. I think its good, as not all kids like school,and we need kids to think that being a concreter or chef, or plumber is ok and cool.
 

hoss

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
May 28, 2004
Posts
7,140
Likes
2,953
Location
South
AFL Club
Fremantle
#13
campbell said:
At my kids school they have what is called the Edge program.Its specifically for kids who are not academically inclined. They learn how do Barrista coffe, and run a coffe shop for the staff and kids at the school 1 days a week.They learn about concreting, and stuff. The kids get a Cert 1, and a couple are going on to apprenterships directly with employers involved in the prgram. I think its good, as not all kids like school,and we need kids to think that being a concreter or chef, or plumber is ok and cool.
Absolutely. Sounds like a very progressive school.
 

Weaver

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Sep 26, 2001
Posts
7,943
Likes
56
Location
Deledio Wonderland
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Southampton
#14
Grendel said:
Say from years 5 to 8. The demographic would be narrower and the kids may just be allowed to be influenced or remain kids for that little bit longer.
At the risk of highjacking your thread, I actually think the idea that kids are growing up too fast is a bit of a nostalgic myth.

It was not so long ago that 15-16 years old was the time to enter the fulltime workforce, get married and start a family. Certainly old enough to be transported to Australia on your own and left to fend for yourself. Plenty of countries out there where 12 is plenty old enough to join the military or work full time.

If anything kids are growing up slower than ever. Plenty of people are staying at home with their parents well into their mid-20s. Plenty are extending their school years into their mid-20s. Plenty don't look at marriage or families until their late 30s.

I'd say that oppossed to growing up too fast, most of us don't really get around to growing up at all (no complaints myself).
 

campbell

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Dec 7, 2001
Posts
17,827
Likes
704
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
#15
hoss said:
Absolutely. Sounds like a very progressive school.
Woodford State High School in country Qld.They sure are progresive. Their middle school model has been copied Qld wide and overseas schools as well.
 

hoss

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
May 28, 2004
Posts
7,140
Likes
2,953
Location
South
AFL Club
Fremantle
#16
campbell said:
Woodford State High School in country Qld.They sure are progresive. Their middle school model has been copied Qld wide and overseas schools as well.
I wonder if that's where Kapow just won the Junior Citizen of the Year award??
 

MightyFighting

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Posts
10,300
Likes
57
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Port Melbourne
#17
campbell said:
At my kids school they have what is called the Edge program.Its specifically for kids who are not academically inclined. They learn how do Barrista coffe, and run a coffe shop for the staff and kids at the school 1 days a week.They learn about concreting, and stuff. The kids get a Cert 1, and a couple are going on to apprenterships directly with employers involved in the prgram. I think its good, as not all kids like school,and we need kids to think that being a concreter or chef, or plumber is ok and cool.
I think it depends who's judging these kids. We don't want them telling any intelligent students to go and become barristas (except, perhaps, in order to get through uni).

Apart from that problem, it's a good idea.
 

coasting

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jan 9, 2004
Posts
6,401
Likes
7
Location
Earth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Cardies
#18
Grendel said:
Disagree. Bit of re-structuring and after initial setting up (which would be costly) what might the long term benefits and results give back to the community IF we could somehow give a better quality of education?

Yea, they do have to grow up sometime but why should it have to be at (as my expeiriences have so far led me to conclude) 11/12/13 y/o's? That's to early, way to early.

As for moving to another school, that's just avoiding the issue of why the school they're in isn't fulfilling it's duties of giving quality education to all our children.
Your original post said nothing about 'quality of education'. The way I read it, your post addressed the issue of young children being impressionable to older students and therefore 'growing up too quickly'. That is not even close to being the same thing. You are not talking about education, what you are talking about is social conditioning. Education is what happens in the school room. It is not the purpose of schooling to dictate the way children should act socially or how fast they should grow up. The fact you suggest it should, or that it should be classified under some form of 'education', I find mildly disturbing.
 

campbell

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Dec 7, 2001
Posts
17,827
Likes
704
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
#20
MightyFighting said:
I think it depends who's judging these kids. We don't want them telling any intelligent students to go and become barristas (except, perhaps, in order to get through uni).

Apart from that problem, it's a good idea.

No they have a round table with kids, principal, teachers and parents or selected kids, who normally would leave school becuase of disinterest or whatever.
 

- PC -

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Posts
30,268
Likes
23
Location
Where No Birds Fly
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide/Sturt/Wingfield
#22
PerthCrow said:
Grendel I can understand your concerns as to your godchild but once again the school system is been turned into a parent substitute. I dont know what the family environment is but I will say this that I feel its up to the parents to bring the child up with enough self esteem to be able to repel or recognise advances like those that are used.

and now you want the school system to be chaperones..
Coasting said:
Your original post said nothing about 'quality of education'. The way I read it, your post addressed the issue of young children being impressionable to older students and therefore 'growing up too quickly'. That is not even close to being the same thing. You are not talking about education, what you are talking about is social conditioning. Education is what happens in the school room. It is not the purpose of schooling to dictate the way children should act socially or how fast they should grow up. The fact you suggest it should, or that it should be classified under some form of 'education', I find mildly disturbing.
As I mentioned in my first post , parents need to have a look at themselves if their kids allow themselves to be dictated by peer pressure then it wont matter what school they go to it wont change. It could happen at sports clubs or anywhere..even the net

Schools are for the purpose of teaching..and while the school is a social area HOW your children cope is up to the parents.
 

Grendel

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jan 23, 2000
Posts
8,083
Likes
56
Location
Spanish Announcers table
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Thread starter #23
coasting said:
Your original post said nothing about 'quality of education'.
Error on my part then but I would of thought it (better quality of education) would be taken as a 'given'. Apologies.


The way I read it, your post addressed the issue of young children being impressionable to older students and therefore 'growing up too quickly'. That is not even close to being the same thing.
Disagree. Education is not just the classroom situation. It's what is being exposed to in the (for want of a better term) 'playground', social surrounding etc. If we had a more gradual increase in that peer group surrounding I think there would be myriad benefits to doing so.


You are not talking about education, what you are talking about is social conditioning.
Again disagree. Education is wrapped up within social conditioning simply through peer group pressure. The less pressure there is on developing children the better from my pov.


Education is what happens in the school room.
See above.

It is not the purpose of schooling to dictate the way children should act socially or how fast they should grow up.
It may not be the purpose of it but there is a consequence of placing together several hundreds of children from varying ages together for five days a week. That is social conditioning that 'you go to school, you prepare for work' etc throughout life.

They will still be getting an education and social awareness but at a level (just my take on it) that builds a gradual increase as their social skills blossom.


The fact you suggest it should, or that it should be classified under some form of 'education', I find mildly disturbing.
Why? That I would like for a gradual movement from toddler -> young child
-> middle child -> late child *teen* -> young adult -> adult.

Rather than toddler -> primary aged child -> secondary aged child -> adult.

There's been talk for years of bullying, peer groups, body image etc etc that more and more kids are finding the pressures of schooling harder to deal with.

What I'm looking for is a way to ease the pressure on the child.

If you think that's disturbing again, I ask why.
 

campbell

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Dec 7, 2001
Posts
17,827
Likes
704
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
#24
hoss said:
Freo board. Sounds like you've a great kid there.

yeah hes a good kid.

His 5 minute speech was on the historry of the Fremantle Dockers.One of the judges is hte Chairman of the Womens Business Council in Qld, and she is a mad Lions supporter. He was sure emphasing the Freo close wins over Brisbane.Being a Lions supporter I even found it funny.
 

Grendel

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jan 23, 2000
Posts
8,083
Likes
56
Location
Spanish Announcers table
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Thread starter #25
PerthCrow said:
As I mentioned in my first post , parents need to have a look at themselves if their kids allow themselves to be dictated by peer pressure then it wont matter what school they go to it wont change. It could happen at sports clubs or anywhere..even the net
Agree to an extent, parenting is a concern in many ways but that's moving into another area that could probably be a thread on it's own. As for the sporting clubs? I suppose it could happen yet there'd be more scope for a child to leave a club than a school I'd imagine. Also clubs structure tighter (in most cases I'd presume) age groups anyway. U'9's, U'12's, U14's, etc.

Schools are for the purpose of teaching..and while the school is a social area HOW your children cope is up to the parents.
Strongly disagree. How is a parent meant to get the child to cope when the parent isn't present IN the situation (i.e at the school). Help at home where possible, yea. But all of us have to learn to adapt without mum and dad (do you look to mum and dad for how you cope in your work for instance?). What I think a three tiered system would do would allow for that learning (weaning away from having to cope/rely on mum and dad in a sense) to be introduced on a gradual or even if you like, a gentler scale than the model we currently operate under.
 
Top Bottom