They won’t do that, though, because some of the things I’ve been reading about would go down like a cup of the proverbial with voters. And you’ve got to keep the voters sweet, don’t you?
The one truancy initiative that’s really caught my eye is something that’s been done in the UK, that has actually reduced truancy levels by about a third in some places.
And it’s a little bit like what happened here after the Canterbury earthquakes when some schools in the central city and eastern parts of town were so munted they couldn’t keep operating and had to share sites and facilities with other schools.
I remember our local high school sharing with another school. Which meant that some of these kids didn’t have to turn up to school until around lunchtime.
And, believe it or not, it’s this kind of start time that some schools in the UK are crediting for reducing truancy levels.
One school doesn’t start classes until 11:30. And they say that, not only do they have more kids turning up (we’re talking teenagers here, by the way), but the kids are actually more involved and engaged because they’ve had a decent amount of sleep.
With school not starting until 11:30, they can have a lie-in, do things at their pace and then head off to school.
We seem to be all about allowing adults to fit work around how they operate best these days, don’t we? So why not school kids as well?
I don’t think you could have parents of primary and intermediate kids heading off to work and leaving the young kids at home on their own to get themselves to school.
But I reckon this could be a game-changer for reducing truancy rates at high schools.
But do you think politicians would go with it? I don’t think they would because I reckon most people —as in voters— would go nuts if we told teenagers they could do things in their own time, and they didn’t have to get to school until lunchtime.
Which is why I think that, if politicians are really serious about getting more kids in school, learning, and being prepared for a productive adult life, then they have to be prepared to go with ideas that might go against the grain a bit. Especially if they’ve got more chance of fixing the problem than what’s currently on the table.
I like the idea of school boards having to make truancy and attendance rates front and centre in their thinking and planning. That’s one of the things the Government’s talking about. But school boards are oldies like me too. When I say “oldie”, I mean anyone over the age of about 20.
Because I was talking yesterday to someone who has been out of school for two years and they were saying to me that they can’t believe how out of touch they feel with school life after just two years - and how anyone older than them, must really be out of touch.
Yesterday, it was 51 years to the day since I started school. So I’m really out of touch in terms of what it’s like to be a school student. Which is why I’m more than open to ideas that might seem a bit weird, that might seem like they’re just pandering to teenagers, if there’s a decent chance they might actually work.
Which is why this idea of high schools not requiring students to turn up until they’ve had a bit of a lie-in really appeals.
It feels odd, but I like the sound of it. It goes totally against my inclination to see school as the foundation for forming good patterns and habits to set you up for life. But what do I know? I started school 51 years ago yesterday and it’s more than 35 years since I was a teenager.
And one of the things that’s changed massively since then, is the time our teenage kids actually get to sleep. And that’s because of technology. They’re up all hours of the night on devices and they’re a disaster in the morning because of it.
And teenagers just naturally need more sleep, anyway. So that’s why I’d be right up for this approach. But what about you?
John MacDonald is the Canterbury Mornings host on Newstalk ZB Christchurch. - where this article was sourced
And it’s a little bit like what happened here after the Canterbury earthquakes when some schools in the central city and eastern parts of town were so munted they couldn’t keep operating and had to share sites and facilities with other schools.
I remember our local high school sharing with another school. Which meant that some of these kids didn’t have to turn up to school until around lunchtime.
And, believe it or not, it’s this kind of start time that some schools in the UK are crediting for reducing truancy levels.
One school doesn’t start classes until 11:30. And they say that, not only do they have more kids turning up (we’re talking teenagers here, by the way), but the kids are actually more involved and engaged because they’ve had a decent amount of sleep.
With school not starting until 11:30, they can have a lie-in, do things at their pace and then head off to school.
We seem to be all about allowing adults to fit work around how they operate best these days, don’t we? So why not school kids as well?
I don’t think you could have parents of primary and intermediate kids heading off to work and leaving the young kids at home on their own to get themselves to school.
But I reckon this could be a game-changer for reducing truancy rates at high schools.
But do you think politicians would go with it? I don’t think they would because I reckon most people —as in voters— would go nuts if we told teenagers they could do things in their own time, and they didn’t have to get to school until lunchtime.
Which is why I think that, if politicians are really serious about getting more kids in school, learning, and being prepared for a productive adult life, then they have to be prepared to go with ideas that might go against the grain a bit. Especially if they’ve got more chance of fixing the problem than what’s currently on the table.
I like the idea of school boards having to make truancy and attendance rates front and centre in their thinking and planning. That’s one of the things the Government’s talking about. But school boards are oldies like me too. When I say “oldie”, I mean anyone over the age of about 20.
Because I was talking yesterday to someone who has been out of school for two years and they were saying to me that they can’t believe how out of touch they feel with school life after just two years - and how anyone older than them, must really be out of touch.
Yesterday, it was 51 years to the day since I started school. So I’m really out of touch in terms of what it’s like to be a school student. Which is why I’m more than open to ideas that might seem a bit weird, that might seem like they’re just pandering to teenagers, if there’s a decent chance they might actually work.
Which is why this idea of high schools not requiring students to turn up until they’ve had a bit of a lie-in really appeals.
It feels odd, but I like the sound of it. It goes totally against my inclination to see school as the foundation for forming good patterns and habits to set you up for life. But what do I know? I started school 51 years ago yesterday and it’s more than 35 years since I was a teenager.
And one of the things that’s changed massively since then, is the time our teenage kids actually get to sleep. And that’s because of technology. They’re up all hours of the night on devices and they’re a disaster in the morning because of it.
And teenagers just naturally need more sleep, anyway. So that’s why I’d be right up for this approach. But what about you?
John MacDonald is the Canterbury Mornings host on Newstalk ZB Christchurch. - where this article was sourced
6 comments:
It is a thought. And probably better fits for their future lives lazing in a state unit and drinking and /or roaming the streets until late.
Seems to me it is time we abandoned the whole modern education concept and went back to what worked so well in th 1920s. Children failed to their level so were not overwhelmed and dispirited. An incentive to try. A realisation that all are not equal in life, and that reward is related to effort. A concept which now hits many with great and dispiriting surprise when they try to enter the work force, and when they comapre pay packets. The strap.(Without the latter looming and occasionally applied I would have fooled my way through school instead of doing quite well). Truancy officers with clout. Specified textbooks teachers could teach directly to and from without having to devise it all for themselves. No special reverence for maori.All much simpler for teachers so the industrious objective ones attracted not just the brain washed maori apologists.
You hit the nail on the head John, but what all kids need now is discipline to adhere to some structure and not have the world fawn over their every desire. There is plenty of time to “do your own thing” as an adult, but discipline and respect must be learnt first.
So yes teenagers probably do need more sleep, so put down the electronic wizardry (preferably in another room) and go to bed at a reasonable hour.
Spoken like a true left wing woke. Poor wee kids. A bit tired from a big night on their devices. Diddems. Travelling through Asia and even Africa, parents promote the value of education and make great sacrifices to achieve this. Start removing NZ’s excessive welfare catch-net would change parental attitudes overnight.
An 11:30 start time. Now, that's really preparing them for adult life, John! And do these schools go onto 6pm each night or just finish at 3:30, as usual.
Swanning in 3 hours late for work every day is really going to get them ahead.
John, the truancy problem only took off under Labour in their second term. Before that it wasn't a big deal.
Maybe you should look at what happened in those three years for the source of the problem.
Hint - woke went mad, the curriculum was rewritten to include Maori with everything, and wellbeing took preference over learning.
Lots of kids switched off!
Give me a break! 9.00 is too early? The reason "old school" teachers taught Reading, Writing, Oral Language, and Mathematics in the morning was because that was when kids were fresh and receptive to learning. Arts, PE, sports, Music, Social Studies, etc were consigned to the afternoon. Unfortunately this often included Science.
Primary children should be limiting screen use drastically. Sweden as I mentioned in Heather's blog have banned them from primary schools because of alarming neuroscience research showing dopamine addiction and other brain disorders. Silicon Valley worker parents allow their children only a few hours a week exposure and send them to screen free schools. Research has shown computerized learning is not better than with traditional pen and paper.
Secondary schools also should be cutting back on screen use.It is common for carelessly raised teenagers to be glued to their screens for hours every day and night. Sleep is important for children and screens cause sleep disorders. Staying up late with screens should be actively discouraged not promoted with late start schooling. Also explicit teacher led instruction in a class with less dependence on screens would get kids back into the classroom since they would not be able to cover the syllabus at home anymore.
It is also a fact with our Ministry's aggressive progressive agenda they have promoted screens because to their ideology anything new must always be better. It isn't.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.