Resit GCSE Maths & English - Really?

[Guest Guest]

Completely pointless. If everyone has a GCSE in English and Maths then what value does the GCSE have? It's basic "GCSE economics"; if you start printing money, you devalue the currency.

 

Previously colleges would ask for grade C and above to get you on A-level courses. Once absolutely everyone has grade C what will the college do? Ask for A/A*s.

 

As David Mitchell put it on QI,

...it's defying the point of the exam. The point of the exam is to tell people apart, not just to go "You're all great academically, everyone can be Professor of Latin, share the Professor of Latin's salary between you… and starve."

 

How can we possibly tell kids apart if there are only 4 possible grades the kids can get; A*, A, B or C? And do we honestly think endless re-sits and exam coaching will actually increase the pupils competency in the subject, or will they simply learn how to pass the exam?

 

 

What I'd like to see is, as said, a competency course/exam but based on real world situations; understanding APRs, writing letters and CVs, managing your finances. No non-academic person has ever had the need to find out what x is, they have however needed to work out how to make their wage/dole last a full week while still leaving them a tenner for a pack of tinnies and a box of fags at the weekend.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Guest

[elsiegee40]

It's not completely pointless as long as the grade continues to prove a level of competence required for many occupations. There is no reason to believe it won't.

 

The Grade C is seen as a basic pass... the only employers that are likely to inflate grades for Maths are those for looking for A levels as well.

[tmcd35]

Send me a CV without both at C or above, or with grammar like some of the posts above, and it won't get past the waste paper basket.

 

On the flip side, I recently took on a young technician without ant formal education or qualifications. He's proving to be one of the best tech's I've had the pleasure to work with. I'll always prefer a good CV that shows either experience or enthusiam (maybe even both) over perfect grammer or high school qualifications.

 

Personally I think the answer is to improve the focus at KS2 rather than engage in endless resits at KS4.

[sted]

Completely pointless. If everyone has a GCSE in English and Maths then what value does the GCSE have? It's basic "GCSE economics"; if you start printing money, you devalue the currency.

 

Previously colleges would ask for grade C and above to get you on A-level courses. Once absolutely everyone has grade C what will the college do? Ask for A/A*s.

 

As David Mitchell put it on QI,

 

How can we possibly tell kids apart if there are only 4 possible grades the kids can get; A*, A, B or C? And do we honestly think endless re-sits and exam coaching will actually increase the pupils competency in the subject, or will they simply learn how to pass the exam?

 

 

What I'd like to see is, as said, a competency course/exam but based on real world situations; understanding APRs, writing letters and CVs, managing your finances. No non-academic person has ever had the need to find out what x is, they have however needed to work out how to make their wage/dole last a full week while still leaving them a tenner for a pack of tinnies and a box of fags at the weekend.

 

thats why i think thsi constant push to get everyone to university is dumb. If everyone has a degree what does it prove?

 

Secondary education imo needs some radical change my completely unworkable suggestions are as follows

 

gramma schools (for want of a batter name) the really academically minded kids go here

secondary averagely academic pople go here

technicalm school people who arnt academically minded but have tallent for say mechanics/building etc go here to learn a trade(S)

special school thise who just arnt fit to get in the way of other kids be it through poor behavior or actual mental/physical issues (granted they need splitting up while there but you get the point)

 

this would also possibly help disenfranchised kids as some people are just never going to get say maths however much time you spend on it it wont click some people just arnt wired that way same as im not a people person you can make people less bad but not make them good at something they just dont have the aptitude for

[tmcd35]

Secondary education imo needs some radical change my completely unworkable suggestions are as follows

 

gramma schools (for want of a batter name) the really academically minded kids go here

secondary averagely academic pople go here

technicalm school people who arnt academically minded but have tallent for say mechanics/building etc go here to learn a trade(S)

special school thise who just arnt fit to get in the way of other kids be it through poor behavior or actual mental/physical issues (granted they need splitting up while there but you get the point)

 

The problem with that model is when do you diffy (sp.) up the kids? I'm not sure that the 11+ was the wisest time to tell someone "your an idiot go to the idiots school". But the general approach in having a mixture of academic and non-academic courses available for 14-18 years olds without the tunnel vision of the "core subjects" makes sense.

 

I wonder, rather than segragating schools, if there is any milage in getting schools/6th forms/colleges to work in a tighter local federation of schools allowing KS4 pupils to choose from a broader range of subjects and travel between local sites offering different parts of their course?

 

Thus a less academically inclinde pupils might spend 2 days at a local college studying plumbing, do basic (non GCSE) numeracy and english it their local school, and maybe travel out to a school doing GCSE Archeology because that's a subject they are interested in (and thus likely to do well at).

 

I think with the school leaving age raising to 18 there's much more scope to tailor education around individual needs and interests.

[sted]

i see few reasons why they cant be all on the same site (though probably best run by different heads) and why you cant transfer if you turn out to be more/less suited to any tier than first thought

 

as to when yes i see how 11+ are not ideal but as long as movement is possible (and if you have a yearly / 1/2 yearly test that means achievement can be aprrised ) it should be a better fit but nothing is ever going to be perfect

Edited September 20, 2013 by sted

[googlemad]

I consider myself to be academically intelligent enough (Well, I obviously had a little slip when I signed the contract to start working in this place!!!) however my first go at GCSE Maths was a D.

 

I did it again the year after at college and easily got into the C bracket. Reason? They did it in a modular format at college so it was basically focus on one subject area e.g. measurements then take exam - Rinse and repeat 4 or 5 times.

 

The modular format was much easier as it allowed more in depth lessons about certain things rather than suddenly jumping from 1+1=2 to Pythagoras!

[witch]

As I said, a basic competency exam is what is needed but some of the things stated on here are worrisome.

 

Dyslexia and to some extent Dyscalcula can, and should, be helped and in no way reflect the individual's actual ability with words or numbers, it is a processing error. Schools who do not help people with these issues are failing them. Full stop.

 

As for whether someone is ever going to need to find "x" - what about when you buy something that is "four for a fiver" and you want to know how much that is each? THAT is finding x. Perhaps that is what is needed as well, showing people how all this English and Maths might actually fit in the real world.

And analysing Shakespeare and writing essays etc? - actually it is useful and it does teach analytical and research skills. But not everything has to have a vocational or everyday reason for doing it. Every time you admire a sunset, enjoy a piece of music, or lose yourself in a book you are doing something that is not "needed" in your life, but something that enhances your existence. Shakespeare has a lot to say if taught properly. (which might be the issue of course). He wrote for the masses, for the poor and ill educated.

We are not all academic, it's true, but there is nothing wrong with being academic and we can all appreciate things outside normal life if we are shown how.

Every child and young person deserves the best teaching there is so that they can become the best person they can be.

[Guest Guest]

As for whether someone is ever going to need to find "x" - what about when you buy something that is "four for a fiver" and you want to know how much that is each? THAT is finding x. Perhaps that is what is needed as well, showing people how all this English and Maths might actually fit in the real world.

 

That's exactly what I was getting at.

[tmcd35]

As for whether someone is ever going to need to find "x" - what about when you buy something that is "four for a fiver" and you want to know how much that is each? THAT is finding x. Perhaps that is what is needed as well, showing people how all this English and Maths might actually fit in the real world.

 

That's exactly what I was getting at.

 

Which, going sround in circles, begs the question - is that GCSE level maths or is that something that should already have been covered during KS3? Does a 'C' grade GCSE prove you can do basic algebra and a 'D' grade prove you can't?

 

The dabate is if constantly retesting until the pupil gets the magical 'C' grade is worth the time/hassle/heartache not whether or not maths (or indeed english) are worthwhile subjects to study.

 

And of course, everyone should expect a quality education regardless of subject or level being taught. Receiving the best teaching does not mean every child being forced to study every subject to the highest level. In fact, I'd argue that's counterproductive and may go someway to explain some pupils attitudes and behaviour in school. $diety knows I was never the best of pupils during the French lessons my school insisted I take.

[CAM]

Because if you start to mention Pi, Radius and 2xy=4x2y to young kids they will not understand. You get the occasional bright spark but the reason they don't get taught such a level of Maths is because it just isn't time yet. By KS4 they are put into different bands depending on their skill levels and ability to understand the subject. Brightest deal with wiggly lines on graphs or some other insane stuff that I can't even begin to fathom, lower tiers handle enough Maths to help them get by in life. I did Intermediate myself which taught me stuff I thought I didn't need until realising algebra helped me to understand the concept of variables in programming and scripts that later proved responsible for kickstarting a career as a data manager into action.

 

Your career isn't defined at school. Just because you don't use a certain aspect of your lessons in class, someone else did whilst finding no use for something you found useful. We may not use everything taught to us in Maths and English for our careers as adults, but they certainly help with giving you the knowledge or familiarity of those concepts in the event you do need to use it.

 

EDIT - It's also quite odd, but learning German helped me to understand how to analyse and interpret languages. This has helped from my somewhat boredom induced and pointless Welsh self-teaching to working out the structure of a programming language (which has their own forms of "sentence" structure and vocabulary to do it right). Different people find weird and wonderful ways to utilise their knowledge without knowing it!

Edited September 20, 2013 by CAM

[witch]

. Different people find weird and wonderful ways to utilise their knowledge without knowing it!

Absolutely - that's what I was trying to say! All knowledge is useful even if you don't realise it

[tmcd35]

@CAM, @witch - you both make good arguements why Maths is an important subject to study. But you don't answer the question why everybody must get a grade 'C', or indeed even study to GCSE standard at all. It's not slighlting maths (or english, or any subject) as being non worthwhile endeavours. Far from it. It's more taking exception to th words everyone and must.

 

Why must everyone pass at grade C or above?

[AMLinington]

As I said, a basic competency exam is what is needed but some of the things stated on here are worrisome.

 

Dyslexia and to some extent Dyscalcula can, and should, be helped and in no way reflect the individual's actual ability with words or numbers, it is a processing error. Schools who do not help people with these issues are failing them. Full stop.

 

As for whether someone is ever going to need to find "x" - what about when you buy something that is "four for a fiver" and you want to know how much that is each? THAT is finding x. Perhaps that is what is needed as well, showing people how all this English and Maths might actually fit in the real world.

And analysing Shakespeare and writing essays etc? - actually it is useful and it does teach analytical and research skills. But not everything has to have a vocational or everyday reason for doing it. Every time you admire a sunset, enjoy a piece of music, or lose yourself in a book you are doing something that is not "needed" in your life, but something that enhances your existence. Shakespeare has a lot to say if taught properly. (which might be the issue of course). He wrote for the masses, for the poor and ill educated.

We are not all academic, it's true, but there is nothing wrong with being academic and we can all appreciate things outside normal life if we are shown how.

Every child and young person deserves the best teaching there is so that they can become the best person they can be.

 

This post seems to address points I raised and I think there is cognitive dissonance in what I was trying to say. My point was exactly about APPLIED knowledge. Theoretical knowledge and applied knowledge are two different things. I would MUCH rather my children learned how to properly write letters and correct forms of address than whether Puck was secretly hot for Bottom or whatever it was. Literacy is not just about writing essays but it is about use of language, grammar, sentence syntax etc. I'm the first to admit that my grammar is RUBBISH, but that doesn't mean I'm a bad engineer. It IS important to 'find x' but unless there are examples to relate it to, there is a gap between theoretical and applied that some pupils can't bridge - LeBoyfriend is terrible at theoretical maths, but he can work stuff out in his head like VAT percentages considerably faster than me! The point is that he was never tested on the applied side, so it LOOKS like he's bad at it but really he's not.

 

Another thing that cheeses me off is the inability of kids to properly evaluate sources, discuss and understand why some data is worth more than other data - this was something I learned in Science, not English or Maths. I spent most of my time in English reading ahead during the round-robin-reading because other kids were too slow and I'd tune them out and finish the book. I'd get told off for it until I explained to my teacher that I had already READ the book. In the end my teacher gave up and skipped me as she knew I'd have already done the required reading for the exercise.

 

I learned how to do all the really important things from the internet - I've learned more about grammar from The Oatmeal than I did in school. I learned how to format beautiful documents from looking at them on the internet and comparing them to mine. My CV looks the way it does because of an article on a job hunting website, not because I learned it in school and this is what is wrong. I'm not saying that studying Shakespeare and poetry is WRONG per se, but when kids come out of school lacking so many other English language skills, I have to question whether studying Shakespeare was time well spent?

[Andrew_C]

To put another spin on this; if a child (or n% of a cohort) fail English or maths, is it the child that has failed? Or the school?

 

When I did my O levels (yes, I am THAT old) I thought that with 6 good passes I had done "averagely well". Enough to get me into 6th Form on A level courses. English, maths, and a handful of others. Some years later I heard that in 1977, the average passes for kids that year was one. It is right that the Govt want to drive up standards; I'm not sure that they are doing it in a meaningful way, or even at all.

[Ketlane]

Just to adjust some of the discussion - I think that the policy being proposed is that if they didn't have GCSE C in Maths and English, they would have to continue to study the subjects - though not necessarily for GCSE. So schools/colleges could choose appropriate courses.

And as an aside, the IB demands Maths and your first language for all....

[witch]

Another thing that cheeses me off is the inability of kids to properly evaluate sources, discuss and understand why some data is worth more than other data

 

I don't think you are very old so I am very surprised to read this - did you not study history at school? All three of my children studied history (and english lit) and it was then that they learned how to evaluate sources and do exactly what you say is important in terms of data. In fact, there is a "sources" paper in the exam. Their grasp of how to evaluate things, and what it was like to actually live through the history they studied is far far better than mine ever was. I went to a grammar school and we were just told to learn the facts.

 

As for theoretical versus applied, that is definitely a teaching issue. If you really have learned everything since school then your school was appalling - the schools I work in spend a great deal of time teaching children how to put things across whether it be written or verbal. Essays are very useful to stretch a child's imagination whilst also practising spelling, grammar, syntax, and all those things you mention.

They don't often read in a round-robin way anymore either.

As for teaching - didn't you become a teacher? And yet your grammar etc, by your own admission, is rubbish. Right there is one of the problems this country has when teaching english and maths. Teachers need to be taught grammar etc before they are allowed to be teachers AFAIC

If a teacher is rubbish at english or maths, how can they teach the children what they need to know?

Edited September 20, 2013 by witch

[Guest Guest]

Apologies if this has been stated already but;

 

If every child must get a C grade,

then the gov. must think every child is capable of a C grade,

as historically only just over half achieve a C in English and Maths then the education system has always been a failure,

therefore most teachers are incompetent...

 

 

Obviously the above is nonsense, but if you are to assert that every child can, and will, get a grade C you must therefore acknowledge the current model of eduction is not working. If you do not want to acknowledge that, and believe that most children achieve what they are meant to achieve then what? Only possible solution I can see is "fiddle" the children through the exam by way of making it easier, exam coaching/hand holding, etc...

[Guest Guest]

If you really have learned everything since school then your school was appalling

 

They don't often read in a round-robin way anymore either.

 

I can honestly say I've learned everything since/prior to school. I used to get ~100% in just about every test I did (in the subjects I cared about. I was not going to apply myself to MFL, RE, HE, or English...) up until KS4 as all I did as a primary child was watch the schools programs and open university. In KS4 I didn't really go to school, did zero coursework when that made up around 30-40% of the grade, yet still got A-C in all my preferred subjects, including English (sort of shows how low the bar is when I could only possibly get 60-70% of the marks). The teachers used to think I must be cheating as even when I was in school I either caused havoc or went to sleep in class so they would quiz me on the spot and be amazed I already knew the answer - I don't think it ever occurred to them that I might have already learned it off the TV and the reason I was a nuisance was because I was bored.

 

It was only once I left school and, if I'm honest, started using the internet that I learned how to write letters, CVs, express myself in somewhat of a meaningful way!

 

FYI the school I went to, although attainment is always high, value added is by far one of the worst in the county. Unfortunately they didn't have value added when I was at school.

 

 

And btw they still do round-robin at the school I work in - one of the best in the county in both attainment and value-added.

@witch It's interesting that, although we are supposed to have a national curriculum, schools can be so different. Nothing you said in your post ringed any bells with my education or (at least what I've seen) at the school I work.

Edited September 20, 2013 by Guest

[CAM]

@CAM, @witch - you both make good arguements why Maths is an important subject to study. But you don't answer the question why everybody must get a grade 'C', or indeed even study to GCSE standard at all. It's not slighlting maths (or english, or any subject) as being non worthwhile endeavours. Far from it. It's more taking exception to th words everyone and must.

 

Why must everyone pass at grade C or above?

 

Because Grade C is the bar used to judge the performance of a school and student success (5 A*-C including English and Maths to be precise). As I've stated already, employers seek Grade C or higher and that is why it is important to achieve in these two subjects.

 

We could lower the pass rate to G if you like since technically that is a pass, but then people would be complaining about schools letting students down and allowing them to leave with rock bottom grades being seen as acceptable.

 

EDIT - And to add, BTEC courses which weaker students tend to get put on are also equivalent to a C for a Pass grade at GCSE level.

Edited September 23, 2013 by CAM

[tmcd35]

Because Grade C is the bar used to judge the performance of a school and student success (5 A*-C including English and Maths to be precise). As I've stated already, employers seek Grade C or higher and that is why it is important to achieve in these two subjects.

 

While I do understand that, as was said above, it devalues the bar if you make it compulsory. Also, I wonder if employers know what a grade C in either subject actually represents? How meny employers know what the GCSE sybilus contains and what exactly is being tested? The arguement being that an individual may have a perfectly acceptable standard of Maths for most employers and yet maybe only passed at grade D or E because they didn't understand some of the more advanced topics.

 

I remember doing Maths as part of my BTec and I'm pretty sure those models where not GCSE standard, just the basics. And the BTec I took is supossidly equivalent to a couple of A-Levels.

[AMLinington]

I don't think you are very old so I am very surprised to read this - did you not study history at school? All three of my children studied history (and english lit) and it was then that they learned how to evaluate sources and do exactly what you say is important in terms of data. In fact, there is a "sources" paper in the exam. Their grasp of how to evaluate things, and what it was like to actually live through the history they studied is far far better than mine ever was. I went to a grammar school and we were just told to learn the facts.

 

As for theoretical versus applied, that is definitely a teaching issue. If you really have learned everything since school then your school was appalling - the schools I work in spend a great deal of time teaching children how to put things across whether it be written or verbal. Essays are very useful to stretch a child's imagination whilst also practising spelling, grammar, syntax, and all those things you mention.

They don't often read in a round-robin way anymore either.

As for teaching - didn't you become a teacher? And yet your grammar etc, by your own admission, is rubbish. Right there is one of the problems this country has when teaching english and maths. Teachers need to be taught grammar etc before they are allowed to be teachers AFAIC

If a teacher is rubbish at english or maths, how can they teach the children what they need to know?

 

No, I'm not very old and yes, I did learn how to evaluate sources in both Science and History - sources were history but the value of data and error margins and data reliability were Science. My school was one of the best in the county at one point and I came out with very good GCSEs and yes, I DID train as a teacher - I trained as a SCIENCE teacher and the inability of pupils at my placement schools (the second more so than the first surprisingly) to understand the limitations of the experimental process and their inability to identify the 'suspect' data sources was atrocious. I tried to evoke a class discussion about an experiment we had just conducted (I forget what it was) with the aim of getting the class to consider that the experiment method was 'inaccurate' by the nature of things like the vessels they used to measure the chemicals having large scales and to think about how they might improve the accuracy of the experiment. They looked at me blankly and then said things like "have someone hold the table so it doesn't wobble" or "Use a robot to mix the chemicals" after this it went downhill and I moved onto a different exercise and this is partly why I gave up teaching in the first place.

 

There isn't any need to be mean, I am a literate and eloquent individual I just struggle with where to put semi colons - this doesn't make me a worthless SCIENCE teacher - I taught Science, not English. As a teacher I'm not interested in the grammar when the ideas are there but my point is that they aren't - kids are so used to being spoonfed the answers that they can't think for themselves.

 

Of course you have the bright, enquiring minds but it frustrates me so much when SO MANY kids can't even apply a little bit of logic to something.

 

I'm leaving this thread now as I no longer wish to be shot at for expressing my feelings in this debate. I've shared my thoughts and have strong feelings that a better structured vocational programme could be a really valuable asset to our education system rather than force kids to bang their heads against brick walls again and again. I stand by this.

 

Also, it is worth pointing out that I had to pass an English literacy test before I could become a teacher and basic grammar WAS tested in this. I'm just employing self deprecating hyperbole in response to your previously implied grammar faults with my post. I'm not actually 'Rubbish' at grammar at all.

Edited September 23, 2013 by AMLinington

[witch]

There isn't any need to be mean, I am a literate and eloquent individual I just struggle with where to put semi colons - this doesn't make me a worthless SCIENCE teacher - I taught Science, not English. As a teacher I'm not interested in the grammar when the ideas are there but my point is that they aren't - kids are so used to being spoonfed the answers that they can't think for themselves.

 

I'm leaving this thread now as I no longer wish to be shot at for expressing my feelings in this debate. I've shared my thoughts and have strong feelings that a better structured vocational programme could be a really valuable asset to our education system rather than force kids to bang their heads against brick walls again and again. I stand by this.

 

Also, it is worth pointing out that I had to pass an English literacy test before I could become a teacher and basic grammar WAS tested in this. I'm just employing self deprecating hyperbole in response to your previously implied grammar faults with my post. I'm not actually 'Rubbish' at grammar at all.

@AMLightfoot I'm sorry that I have upset you, and I am not sure why you feel that I implied grammar faults in a previous post?

My point was that - and I had no understanding of your remark about being rubbish at grammar being "self-depreciating hyperbole" - if teachers do not have the grammar and spelling skills then it is hardly surprising that a lot of children struggle, and whilst some children will never be able to achieve a C grade in English, for others it may be because they were not taught the required skills very well because the teachers didn't have them either.

I have just walked past a sign saying "Toilet's", and I know that inside the door it says "Please wash your hand's".

Nobody seems to care very much about it. I know several teachers who cannot string a grammatical sentence together despite having passed this english test they all have to take.

I wasn't being personal, I was trying to make a point.

I do think that spelling and grammar IS important though, in everything the children do and I have always thought that each piece of work should have two marks, one for presentation and one for content.

I also advocated a basic skills exam

Edited September 24, 2013 by witch

[AMLinington]

@AMLightfoot I'm sorry that I have upset you, and I am not sure why you feel that I implied grammar faults in a previous post?

My point was that - and I had no understanding of your remark about being rubbish at grammar being "self-depreciating hyperbole" - if teachers do not have the grammar and spelling skills then it is hardly surprising that a lot of children struggle, and whilst some children will never be able to achieve a C grade in English, for others it may be because they were not taught the required skills very well because the teachers didn't have them either.

I have just walked past a sign saying "Toilet's", and I know that inside the door it says "Please wash your hand's".

Nobody seems to care very much about it. I know several teachers who cannot string a grammatical sentence together despite having passed this english test they all have to take.

I wasn't being personal, I was trying to make a point.

I do think that spelling and grammar IS important though, in everything the children do and I have always thought that each piece of work should have two marks, one for presentation and one for content.

I also advocated a basic skills exam

 

I find it futile and frustrating that the government thinks that the answer to the illiteracy issues in our nation are to force kids to study the subjects longer. How much did they pay that quango to decide that when a couple of days worth of consultation with almost anyone would have reached a different conclusion?

 

The answer is money - it is cheaper to force kids to study a subject for 2 more years than to actually spend the resources on working out why the kids are barely able to read in the first place.

 

When I was a child my parents read to me and I devoured books (still do) - I was once called a liar by a teacher because I was bored with the childish books on the bookshelf in our classroom and wanted something harder. Her words to me when I selected a book for children 2 or 3 years older than me were 'You won't be able to read that' - I promptly stood there and read her the first page.

 

The problem STARTS in the home - MANY (and not all) children do not get read to - either because their own parents can't read (or struggle with dyslexia and so choose not to) so by the time they get into the classroom at age 4 they are already at a disadvantage. When I started school I could already read and my primary school teacher had the temerity to admonish my mother telling her that it was the schools job (she was a bit of a female-dog if you want the truth). So they are in overcrowded classrooms where one-to-one support opportunities are limited and so they don't progress as quickly as they should at that age. As they move up the school their disadvantage is amplified as there are expectations of minimum skill level and many children hide their failures lest they end up in the 'remedial' class, which can lead to behavioural issues.

 

This is a broad generalisation of course as each child is different, but by the time that child leaves primary school their ability to absorb information is slowing and the damage has already been done.

 

There are literacy and numeracy programmes in primary schools and parents are supposed to spend X amount of time per night with their child and log it in log books and so on but many parents don't have the time, which comes back around to money and the economy - 2 generations ago, it was the norm for mothers to stay at home to keep the house and raise families - they had the time to spend with their children - even if it was little exercises like getting the kid to read the shopping list and add up prices and stuff (my nan did this). When I was growing up, my parents struggled because my mum stayed at home but my sister and I benefited from it. Now both parents have to work to make ends meet and children are (for the most part) in some form of child care facility or other. I firmly believe this is where the problems start and we should be addressing literacy and numeracy from the ground up, not the top down.

 

Schools are only one component part of a larger issue that begins in the home with the attitude of the parents, and this is where we should start...