Society/Culture The distrust of education

[CM86]

My friend went to one of these "total school" joints.

Their lunch times were spent talking about how much they ******* hated the school.

Reading a bit about the people involved has shattered the glass a bit for me.

And reading more about the school itself, makes me think it's a gimmick, and the positive results are more from only keeping students who will score well.

 

[Chief]

the positive results are more from only keeping students who will score well

Like any private school.

 

[Chief]

Anyway I will leave the knowledgeable people to it.

 

[CM86]

But yeah, a social, safe and engaging space with set and consistent rules that are clear and make sense. Backed by a social system enforcement is one of the best behaviour management aspects for home, classrooms, schools, youth detention etc etc.

I stand by this comment.

But it doesn't look like this is what's actually happening at that school.

 

[ShanDog]

Love to see how this school would survive off the government tit.

Why? Given it's running in a low socioeconomic area by design, I'd say it would fall flat on its arse. Strange question.

 

[ShanDog]

I stand by this comment.

But it doesn't look like this is what's actually happening at that school.

What makes you think it isn't?

 

[CM86]

What makes you think it isn't?

It seems that it's less so about engaging and embracing the structure and rules. And more the threat/fear of punishment like expulsion and possible physical threats from parents.

As in, it's not so much that the majority of students who attend that school are supported enough that they can adapt and grow within that culture.
It's more that any that can't are removed.


But I've still got to read more about it.

Very hard to get unbiased information on this.

 

[ShanDog]

It seems that it's less so about engaging and embracing the structure and rules. And more the threat/fear of punishment like expulsion and possible physical threats from parents.

As in, it's not so much that the majority of students who attend that school are supported enough that they can adapt and grow within that culture.
It's more that any that can't are removed.


But I've still got to read more about it.

Very hard to get unbiased information on this.

I've watched the mini doco they did on it and read a fair bit - there's some genuine criticisms that can be had about their methods but I think the overall results are outstanding.

Something else to consider given the criticism of private schools simply kicking out non-confoming or poorly performing students (not that Michaela does that AFAIK) - we effectively do the same thing in the public school system here. For example, students who receive multiple suspensions are excluded from the site and simply sent to another. Quite often, the same thing happens and they come straight back, only for lack of other choices. Inevitably, they disappear between the cracks and aren't seen much again.

Academically in SA, if a student doing the SACE fails to complete their work for a subject or fails to pass overall, they are simply "Withdrawn". Then all the staff come back in the new year and pay themselves on the back for a 100% pass rate for the year 12s. I legitimately laughed out loud the first year that happened and had a few give me sideways looks.

Even worse IMO - rather than actually adhering to the achievement standards than the government set out in the curriculum for each year from reception/prep to year 10, students who don't meet the standard are simply bumped up to the next grade because it's seen as such a taboo and made difficult for them to be held back. So you end up with year 10s who have received the same message for the last 10-11 years: it doesn't matter if you don't try. The SACE rolls around and suddenly it does. We set them up to fail, and wonder why we have half the cohort of 17 year olds reading at the level a 10 year old should. We effectively shadow-kick them out of the system while they still physically remain there, often with behaviour issues that have developed and at the expense of the wellbeing of the rest of the classes they are in. Or the whole school culture if it becomes bad enough, and I've seen it as such.

I've become so disillusioned with the way we do schooling, and not because of the gap between the have's and the have-nots in public vs private or anything like that. It's because we set the bar so low and for some reason give ourselves pats on the back while we happily contribute to the cycle of poverty and low education.

What works for middle class areas doesn't work for everyone else, and people who should know better refuse to accept that reality.

 

[CM86]

I've watched the mini doco they did on it and read a fair bit - there's some genuine criticisms that can be had about their methods but I think the overall results are outstanding.

Something else to consider given the criticism of private schools simply kicking out non-confoming or poorly performing students (not that Michaela does that AFAIK) - we effectively do the same thing in the public school system here. For example, students who receive multiple suspensions are excluded from the site and simply sent to another. Quite often, the same thing happens and they come straight back, only for lack of other choices. Inevitably, they disappear between the cracks and aren't seen much again.

Academically in SA, if a student doing the SACE fails to complete their work for a subject or fails to pass overall, they are simply "Withdrawn". Then all the staff come back in the new year and pay themselves on the back for a 100% pass rate for the year 12s. I legitimately laughed out loud the first year that happened and had a few give me sideways looks.

Even worse IMO - rather than actually adhering to the achievement standards than the government set out in the curriculum for each year from reception/prep to year 10, students who don't meet the standard are simply bumped up to the next grade because it's seen as such a taboo and made difficult for them to be held back. So you end up with year 10s who have received the same message for the last 10-11 years: it doesn't matter if you don't try. The SACE rolls around and suddenly it does. We set them up to fail, and wonder why we have half the cohort of 17 year olds reading at the level a 10 year old should. We effectively shadow-kick them out of the system while they still physically remain there, often with behaviour issues that have developed and at the expense of the wellbeing of the rest of the classes they are in. Or the whole school culture if it becomes bad enough, and I've seen it as such.

I've become so disillusioned with the way we do schooling, and not because of the gap between the have's and the have-nots in public vs private or anything like that. It's because we set the bar so low and for some reason give ourselves pats on the back while we happily contribute to the cycle of poverty and low education.

What works for middle class areas doesn't work for everyone else, and people who should know better refuse to accept that reality.

I agree with this.

But some schools can't expel students. And those students (and increasing number) who fall through the cracks, take a long time to do so.
And that has a big impact on other students.

I'm not saying the only reason private schools get better results is because they can just remove students who will lower their averages. But that 'ease' of removal (in comparison to public) has a litany of flow on effects that improve outcomes for the school's academic averages.

I believe our education system is collapsing. Or, it's always been like this, and I've only been exposed to how bad it is more recently.

I'll have to watch the doco.
Everything I've read so far seems to basically be either about how amazing the school is and how 'leftists are sulking'. Or how terrible the school is and it's a right wing religious school in camouflage.

I'll have a deeper look tomorrow. Unless you know a good article or even a study?

 

[ShanDog]

I agree with this.

But some schools can't expel students. And those students (and increasing number) who fall through the cracks, take a long time to do so.
And that has a big impact on other students.

I'm not saying the only reason private schools get better results is because they can just remove students who will lower their averages. But that 'ease' of removal (in comparison to public) has a litany of flow on effects that improve outcomes for the school's academic averages.

I believe our education system is collapsing. Or, it's always been like this, and I've only been exposed to how bad it is more recently.

I'll have to watch the doco.
Everything I've read so far seems to basically be either about how amazing the school is and how 'leftists are sulking'. Or how terrible the school is and it's a right wing religious school in camouflage.

I'll have a deeper look tomorrow. Unless you know a good article or even a study?

I imagine it would be a straightforward process for a private school to be rid of a 'troublesome' student. Haven't really taught at one before though.

Education has significantly changed in the last couple of decades. The shift toward inquiry learning, reduction in discipline standards, removal of streaming etc have all contributed. A school like Michaela goes back to "old fashioned" direct and explicit instruction with high standards - by far the most effective teaching and learning method. And that's not opinion, it's what has been studied and confirmed repeatedly.

It's no secret the headmistress of Michaela is conservative. Don't think that makes any difference.

I reckon this Time article was one of the first I saw about the school from a few years ago and it was quite well balanced and detailed:

A Day at Britain's Strictest School

Teachers hand out detentions for slouching. But the kids are happy.

time.com

 

[MrKK]

When we replaced corporal punishment, we did so on the pretext that parents would actively parent their children. Neoliberal market forces meant that over time, parents could spend less and less time with their children; this necessitates that those children receive less parenting, both in terms of active parenting ('Johnny, put that down!') and in terms of relationships.

Most children don't spend nearly enough time with their parents these days, to the child's detriment. Their role models become either other adults in their life or their friends.

Covid - in my opinion - did two things round where I used to be. One, it made all the children who used to be able to avoid their parents - and parents that used to be able to avoid their children - spend so much time together that they realised they don't know or like each other all that much. This meant that in today's post-lockdown world those kids get freedom as long as they're out of the house, whether we're talking school during the week or simply 'out' on weekends. Two, the kids whose social and emotional needs were looked after by sport found their sport shut down, and they got sick of staying inside all too quickly.

What do those kids do? They start hanging out. Who used to be the kids who'd hang out? The kids who'd have a fake ID or whose older sibling would buy them some booze or smokes. And their parents drank like soaks all lockdowns, anyway. They were just happy not to have to worry about their kids anymore (or worry about having them around).

You've got literal hours of time to fill. Your parents are turning to booze to get themselves through it and they can't even bear to look at you. What would you do if one of the others - who understands - offered you a sip?

The kids learn to look after themselves. They don't feel supported by the adults in their lives. Adults who cannot know their experiences anyway, or how the * is a parent who grew up in 1980 going to relate to a child who's entire life has been captured online? They feel abandoned, and so they lash out; they can't earn enough money to purchase a car, so they steal a bag of chips. Woolies'll let 'em out; why wouldn't they, kid's only 14. What are they going to do, call the police when insurance'll handle it?

Then, sport's back, but sport's hard. You've got to stay fit to play sport, and those friends you made during lockdown don't play, and you can't drink or act up if you start playing footy again. Some kids try and do both; some don't. It's going to take a generation for participation to return to the way it was pre-Covid, and it's going to take longer for engagement levels to improve.

Does that comprehensively answer your question?

So Covid lockdowns and school/sport closures were disastrous for kids who were already in difficult family situations? It was obvious from the start that would be the case but anyone who tried pointing out was a 'granny killer'.

 

[owen87]

So Covid lockdowns and school/sport closures were disastrous for kids who were already in difficult family situations? It was obvious from the start that would be the case but anyone who tried pointing out was a 'granny killer'.

Just a little reductive.

 

[Gethelred]

So Covid lockdowns and school/sport closures were disastrous for kids who were already in difficult family situations? It was obvious from the start that would be the case but anyone who tried pointing out was a 'granny killer'.

I mean...

Say, instead of Covid, the problem was instead a six month block of acid rain. We had time, government treated your roof and arranged for food deliveries to allow your house to survive it, but it meant you had to spend the entire day indoors.

Pointing out that robbing people of socialisation and/or that staying indoors was hard and had consequences does not mean acid rain won't kill you. The problem with an awful lot of the people who made like complaints during Covid is that they treated the whole thing as though it wasn't killing anyone, or if it was those people didn't matter.

Your complaint is somewhat reminiscent of those people.

 

[Millky95]

I mean...

Say, instead of Covid, the problem was instead a six month block of acid rain. We had time, government treated your roof and arranged for food deliveries to allow your house to survive it, but it meant you had to spend the entire day indoors.

Pointing out that robbing people of socialisation and/or that staying indoors was hard and had consequences does not mean acid rain won't kill you. The problem with an awful lot of the people who made like complaints during Covid is that they treated the whole thing as though it wasn't killing anyone, or if it was those people didn't matter.

Your complaint is somewhat reminiscent of those people.

Probably not for this thread but the worst part of COVID was that it was transmissible before you had symptoms and could be simplified as "a bad cold". If COVID caused massive boiled or some obvious skin problem that was visual people would have taken it a lot more seriously.

 

[Chief]

That's the one.

"There were negative effects from lockdown. That means Covid-19 isn't real."

 

[ElectricG]

Knowing what we know now, I don’t really think the lockdowns were justified.

 

[The Punter]

Knowing what we know now, I don’t really think the lockdowns were justified.

Only by assessing decisions in the context of the information available at the time the decisions were made can we judge them fairly.

 

[Chief]

Countries around the world made good and bad decisions.

Lockdowns were the right call, but places like the UK also defeated their own efforts with s**t political decisions.

 

[ElectricG]

Lockdowns were the right call,

debatable (again said with the benefit of hindsight)

 

[owen87]

Knowing what we know now, I don’t really think the lockdowns were justified.

I don't think this is necessarily accurate; the dire predictions didn't come true because we took various actions, which makes the dire predictions look inaccurate now, but without action would it have remained so?

We know hospitals were under significant strain even with lockdowns, there's nothing to suggest it wouldn't have been drastically worse.

 

[Gralin]

I still don't know how people can look at what happened in the US and Europe, places like New York and Italy etc and say lockdowns when we didn't have vaccines were clearly not justified

It's like because we didn't have it as bad here the lockdowns weren't needed, instead of maybe the measures put in place stopped it from being so bad here

personally I think the biggest mistakes were made when opening up

governments rolled back support too quickly, some things should have stayed long term as they were shown to be beneficial (like increased welfare payments, sick leave support for causals etc)

basically everything we did right got lumped in with all the things that were questionable and a rush back to the status quo was enacted with bipartisan support

 

[the_interloper]

Countries around the world made good and bad decisions.

Lockdowns were the right call, but places like the UK also defeated their own efforts with s**t political decisions.

I think most would agree at least initially they were, the severity and the length of them I feel most would question.

 

[peetoo]

Countries around the world made good and bad decisions.

Lockdowns were the right call, but places like the UK also defeated their own efforts with s**t political decisions.

It’s like the UK govt spent covid era on the sauce

 

[ElectricG]

I don't think this is necessarily accurate; the dire predictions didn't come true because we took various actions, which makes the dire predictions look inaccurate now, but without action would it have remained so?

We know hospitals were under significant strain even with lockdowns, there's nothing to suggest it wouldn't have been drastically worse.

lol believe me I’m aware of how some like to sit back, watch everyone scramble for a solution in the face of some crisis, and then say “what were you worried about?” It’s not my intention to do that.

Yes, lockdowns reduced the spread of the disease while a vaccine was developed. And the vaccine is proven to reduce the likelihood of severe disease. These are facts.

I guess I have doubts because statistics which show success in reducing/mitigating covid with lockdowns inevitably will not include any data regarding hardship experienced by lockdown.

Personally I’m convinced that the ruling factor in how a country fared through the pandemic was the presence of a centralised healthcare system, rather than the severity of the response. It’s perhaps a bit naive to say, but I think western nations would’ve been better off going full communism on our healthcare system (even if temporarily) rather than locking everyone in their house.

 

[owen87]

lol believe me I’m aware of how some like to sit back, watch everyone scramble for a solution in the face of some crisis, and then say “what were you worried about?” It’s not my intention to do that.

Yes, lockdowns reduced the spread of the disease while a vaccine was developed. And the vaccine is proven to reduce the likelihood of severe disease. These are facts.

I guess I have doubts because statistics which show success in reducing/mitigating covid with lockdowns inevitably will not include any data regarding hardship experienced by lockdown.

Personally I’m convinced that the ruling factor in how a country fared through the pandemic was the presence of a centralised healthcare system, rather than the severity of the response. It’s perhaps a bit naive to say, but I think western nations would’ve been better off going full communism on our healthcare system (even if temporarily) rather than locking everyone in their house.

As the classic ad says;

Investment in healthcare and lockdowns was probably the optimal combination (along with other measures).

Lockdowns like we had in VIC are undoubtedly a blunt instrument, but people forget that right at the very start we tried the softly, softly approach and there were rich folk in Toorak (or similar) having dinner parties with their mates freshly returned from overseas spreading it.

Literally at every turn when the government gave people an inch, people took a mile, then complained that the government was being heavy handed.

No one ever claimed there'd be no negative consequences from lockdowns, and very early on it was recognised that not all kids had equal access to computers and internet, or had parents that could assist them with their learning.