Changing the education system to a three tiered model?

coasting

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jan 9, 2004
Posts
6,401
Likes
7
Location
Earth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Cardies
#26
Well Grendel you can disagree all you want but they are the facts. Why do you think there is a playground? It certainly isn’t for ‘education’. It’s a parental substitute and nothing more. Its to protect children from wandering off and walking in front of a car or something. Its your CHOICE to put children in the playground after class, you don’t have to put children in the playground. You don’t seem to get this. If you feel so much that your child is being damaged in this environment you would pick them up after class and drop them back at class time. Schools don't owe it you to send the 'thought police' into the playgrounds. Sure, Schools are liable for what happens in the playground… but the playground isn’t for education… its a parental substitute and nothing more. If you don’t believe me, ask the school yourself: is the playground a part of education? You will be surprised by the answer. Maybe you want to make it a part of education, maybe you think children shouldn’t leave the classroom at all. My more cynical guess is that you are 60+ and that you voted for John Howard because he makes your kiddies get in trouble if they don't raise the Australian flag once a week. You think, and it’s a common belief among people of your generation, that todays children should grow up and live like you did, to live the way of life you fought and died to preserve. Well what your generation really fought for was freedom from oppressors, the freedom to chose what to do, the freedom to chose to raise the Australian flag when they damn well feel like it.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

- 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
#27
Grendel said:
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.
Its not another area? You brought up the link between kids behaviour and school


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.
That is what I am saying. If a parent promotes good self esteem issues at home the coping mechanisms should be instilled within the child...Middle school is for those ages between 10-14? Then the social skills and sexual peer pressure only arise after puberty anyway and by then I would hope that 12 years of parenting AND junior schooling would have given the child AND the parent time to adjust and respond to what issues may arise.

Grendel you may hate me for this but it seems to me you are one of those people who seek to blame everyone else for your own failings as a godmother and/or parent. If you and your hubby had to work or as a single parent you worked to keep the family unit functioning then yes you would EXPECT the school system to keep babysitting your children. But ultimately parenting STARTS and STOPS at home
 

Grendel

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jan 23, 2000
Posts
8,083
Likes
56
Location
Spanish Announcers table
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Thread starter #28
PerthCrow said:
Its not another area? You brought up the link between kids behaviour and school
Yep as one area of concern. One. Parental, social (outside school) media, enviromental, family many many area's that could be discussed. I am just of the belief that this one area is one that may have benefits that are of more long term gains than the current set-up.

That is what I am saying. If a parent promotes good self esteem issues at home the coping mechanisms should be instilled within the child...Middle school is for those ages between 10-14?
That's again getting back to parental issues to a degree. What I'd have is a middle school probably slightly younger (but negligible enough not to matter for the argument).

Then the social skills and sexual peer pressure only arise after puberty anyway and by then I would hope that 12 years of parenting AND junior schooling would have given the child AND the parent time to adjust and respond to what issues may arise.
That's the thing though, sexual or peer group pressure arrising at 12 from others upwards of 16y/o's towards 12/13y/o's? Or from a demographic of at least 14/15? Two years may not seem much to us now but at that age it's a huge (imo) difference.

Grendel you may hate me for this but it seems to me you are one of those people who seek to blame everyone else for your own failings as a godmother and/or parent.
Can't see how as a single male adult with no children other than god-kids and (grown) nieces/nephews I can hate or be at fault with you? :p


If you and your hubby ( :eek: ) had to work or as a single parent you worked to keep the family unit functioning then yes you would EXPECT the school system to keep babysitting your children. But ultimately parenting STARTS and STOPS at home
Agree, parenting does but where does the education start and stop? Not just at the school, not just at home and not just in childhood either.
 

campbell

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Dec 7, 2001
Posts
17,827
Likes
704
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
#29
Apparently our school has the highest incidnce of single parent families in Australia.

The middle school concept works because they work within their peers.They have not got the bigger kids to deal with in the playground. They get to grow into their own skins at puberty together without the older children pressuring them. I happen to think it works, as I have seen it work.We have a lot of drop kick parents around here, but at least the kids are given a chance when they are at school.
 

Grendel

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jan 23, 2000
Posts
8,083
Likes
56
Location
Spanish Announcers table
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Thread starter #30
coasting said:
Well Grendel you can disagree all you want but they are the facts.
What facts? Social conditioning and education being inter-mixed? Never said they weren't.


Why do you think there is a playground? It certainly isn’t for ‘education’. It’s a parental substitute and nothing more.
From your pov perhaps. If you think education isn't happening in the playground I disagree.

Its to protect children from wandering off and walking in front of a car or something.
Thought it was also to encourage physical activity, learn that 'social interaction', to eat, toilet breaks etc.


Its your CHOICE to put children in the playground after class, you don’t have to put children in the playground.
You've misintrepreted the post. The 'playground' sessions being 'between classtime' not 'after' classtime (i.e end of school day).


You don’t seem to get this. If you feel so much that your child is being damaged in this environment you would pick them up after class and drop them back at class time.
There's a choice to be made in any education system. What I'm looking for is a better choice. Or is that wrong of me?


Schools don't owe it you to send the 'thought police' into the playgrounds. Sure, Schools are liable for what happens in the playground… but the playground isn’t for education… its a parental substitute and nothing more.
Oh please be realistic. Education happens at all levels of society at all ages of society. What I'm proposing is a re-structure of one level to get that education more focussed in area's of childhood development. No 'thought police' just a re-working of the current model from two to three tiered. Don't read into it more than is there.


If you don’t believe me, ask the school yourself: is the playground a part of education? You will be surprised by the answer. Maybe you want to make it a part of education, maybe you think children shouldn’t leave the classroom at all.
Okay, any school teachers in here that care to comment on this please do so. From my own (and as stated that's all it is) pov I think I've covered this playground bit by now.


My more cynical guess is that you are 60+ and that you voted for John Howard because he makes your kiddies get in trouble if they don't raise the Australian flag once a week.
Nearing 40, no children of my own voted for Howard as a protest vote (believe it or not) as my electorate is one of the safest Labour seats in the country.

Not a very close guess.


You think,
Yep, try to. [/QUOTE]and it’s a common belief among people of your generation,[/QUOTE] Which, the 60 plus demographic that I'm not in that you thought I was or the 35-44 demographic that I'm always entered into in surveys (when I am asked to do them)?

that todays children should grow up and live like you did, to live the way of life you fought and died to preserve.
Please God no. I'd like for kids of today to have far wider opportunities than I ever did.. and they SHOULD have those opportunities. However there's so much MORE choice and MORE to learn now than at any time (and it's only going to increase as knowledge increases). What I want is for that information juggernaut that is coming to be able to be absorbed by developing children at a rate that need not overload them at to early an age.

Education should be a delight and a desire so why then do so many kids seem to be turning away from it? There's something wrong there imo and we should see what and where and how we can change that attitude around.


Well what your generation really fought for was freedom from oppressors, the freedom to chose what to do, the freedom to chose to raise the Australian flag when they damn well feel like it.
My generation fought for nothing pretty much. Early eighties and since we're free and easy IIRC. Been fine for my generation.

But my generation doesn't/didn't have to deal with the pressures that todays youth will undergo. It's a bigger, faster and much much more to learn than what my generation went through.

With that in mind it's why I don't really see where there is any harm in trying to best educate on a gradual increase our children without putting to much pressure on them to soon.
 
Joined
Sep 9, 2003
Posts
553
Likes
1
Location
Traralgon
AFL Club
Richmond
#31
Well i'm a graduating year 12 student this year, so take from this what you want.
Simply you are lumping too much blame on the school when it is largely the home environment that actually causes kids to 'grow up' fast. It is the increase of parents who work and the decrease of stay home mothers. Along with increases in seperated families. This is what causes the increased pressure and stress to grow up upon children. I have experienced all three sides myself.
School is actually a release,where you can go and be a kid. Not having to basically run the house for a large chunk of time.
Also you are nto recognising the benefits had by older students influencing younger students. Our junior campus(7-9) is filled with immature trouble making kids, who just stuff around. Fighrts occur at least daily. Yet when they reach our senior campus (10-12) The maturity of older students rubs off and they do follow suit and grow up. There are very little cases of harassment, we have had 1 fight in the last 2 years. It is just alot better.
Hope this has provided you with a different perspective
 
Top Bottom