Mumsnet Talk

Anyone else see this last night?

Thought it was quite interesting.

Did no one else go to a school where pupils were asked questions throughout a lesson without anyone putting their hand up?

Or you might get asked even if your hand wasn´t up?

Can´t believe that they are talking about it as if it´s revolutionary!

Do teachers really only engage with the same few without involving others?

Saw the last 5 mins, and no, it's not new stuff! I did my teacher training 10 years ago, and they were talking about the same 'traffic light' system to check understanding. You have to use this carefully - wasn't there a boy balancing the cups on his head? I used flags once, and discovered a couple of air traffic controllers in the making who were waving planes down from the sky! And I think most teachers wouldn't just rely on the same few to answer questions, but try to involve the quiet ones without making them feel like they're being singled out.

I especially loved the drama about the sticks - me and DH were on the edge of our seats. Completely made it look as though teachers have nothing better to worry about! (BTW - I'm on MN and off work with laryngitis; I'm not skiving, promise!)

Oh I´m guessing that will be Emily who has taken hers out-I´m afraid I couldn´t warm to her at all.

I mean great that she´s clever-but OMG, she just could not cope with not being asked all the time.
I guess for some it´s not enough to be doing well, you have to be showing it off all the time.

I´m getting old as I couldn´t believe how immature many of them seemed tbh.

I was also surprised how sorry the teachers seemed to feel for the ones who always put their hands up being made to take a back seat.

Didn´t really notice anyone say how great to be giving others a chance.

I thought it was a disaster and with experts like Dylan, apparently one of the top educationalists in the country, no wonder we are in the state we are in.

Agree with MrsColumbo, the traffic light system was a farce, with many kids deliberately using amber before the lesson had started and others using red for the hell of it. The sticks was a joke too. Emily was fantastic and spot on. It led to a huge waste of time, asking people who didn't have a clue and then they tried numerous attempts to get it right. The teachers were right in that it also forced some pupils to take part when they didn't feel comfortable doing so. Dylan seems to be believe in a one size fits all approach and that all children are exactly the same and are all equally motivated. It's almost as if he has been dropped in from Mars and hasn't got a clue. the ten minute exercise regime tires many of the pupils out and involves as much time in changing into kit as it does for the ten minutes activity. He seems to believe that this will keep them focussed in lessons. But even if it did, its effect would weear out after the first or second lesson, and it required the kids to come into school early to help the experiment along.

Even Dylan had to listen to the teachers when they said that there was a danger that the able kids were being demotivated, and said that it would be a disaster if that happened. Eveerytime a teacher told him that it wasn't working, he said that it was up to the teacher to adapt the system in some unspecified way in order to get it to work.

The most ludicrous thing that Dylan said, which shows the extent of the decline in our education system due to the interference of "experts", was that the small individual whiteboard was the most important change in education since the invention of the slate. The clever kids immediately understood the patronising aspect of the whiteboards and began taking the piss and playing games with it and writing funny messages on it.

I thought the kids were excellent and very mature. Emily was fantastic, as were Sid and Kate, the student observers, who were very constructive. Sid was excellent and kept saying that the 10 minute PE was not a great idea, but I doubt that Dylan will listen to him. Dylan is an "expert", he has read lots of "research" and he is determined to impose his "experiments" on the school.

I felt sorry for the kids being "experimented" on and for the teachers who realised that lots of it was nonsense. The poor state school kids have to put up with "experts", but I bet the top public schools in the country don't use these "experts", but use experienced teachers who use tried and tested methods that they know work.

"Emily was fantastic and spot on. It led to a huge waste of time, asking people who didn't have a clue and then they tried numerous attempts to get it right"

So what do you do-just ignore them & move the pace along at the speed of the best?

Teachers know their pupils. They don't need to randomly draw sticks to decide who to ask. They can involve children as and when they feel it will be constructive.

Drawing a stick at random, and then having to ask the most disruptive kid in the class is a recipe for disaster. Already some of the kids have removed their sticks from the box, because they obviously are not keen on being asked. If Dylan insists on carrying on using sticks, then it will obviously lead to disaster as these same kids will start deliberately subverting the system, playing up and choosing silly answers. The class will descend into a laugh and the kids will eventually run rings around the teacher, who will continue fiddling with sticks while Rome burns.

I agree that Kate & Sid came across well-and that they improved once they started taking a more active part in class.

For Emily, I think if she wasn´t so used to always being picked, then she wouldn´t find it such a trial not to be.

I can see it might be demotivating for her, but it can also be demotivating for others listening to the opinions of the same few.

But if you´re never asked, you never will be keen on it.

It just seemed so stereotypical to me-ask the same old same old & ignore the rest.

The fact that Kate and Sid were stakeholders and listened to, did mean that they were more motivated and understood the difficulties of teaching. I hope that this attitude continues, but I think it will eventually wear off. I don't agree with this approach of children monitoring teachers and commenting on their teaching capability. In the long run it will also lead to disaster as it eventually undermines teh teacher's authority and lessens the respect that the children have for the teacher. This will eventually lead to kids feeling justified in slagging teachers off and expecting the school to listen to them. It will eventually lead to discplinary problems. It all looks good in a theoretical research article, but back in the real world, there is a reason why it has never been done throughout hundreds of years of teaching. But Dylan and the progressives are "experts", they have read research which tells them that the millions of teachers across the world in the past were all wrong.

But I think that teachers can ask kids without needing sticks. It is a matter of judgement and the teacher makes the judgement call. Using a rota system were kids are asked every two minutes may not be productive and may not move the lesson along. Some kids do not always pay attention and continually asking them may soon turn out to be counterproductive. Dylan thinks that they are all sitting there equally motivated to learn. That is not always the case. One teacher had problems with maintaining discipline. If she continues with these methods then the disciplinary problems will increase because the clever kids will start subverting the system and all the traffic light systems in the world won't be able to police it.

Yes I´m not sure on the pupils monitoring teachers.

I meant that Sid & Kate seemed to improve once they started participating in lessons more.

And I do think that sometimes children have to be for want of a better word forced to join in or answer when they´re not sure.

By immaturity I meant the pupils putting cups on their heads.

I mean 2ndry school-really?

But to an extent they did seem to help that Miss Obi-especially when she then got together all those with red cups to go through it again.

She was a bit "shouty" but does seem to want to do what´s best for the pupils as opposed to what´s best for her.

But diddl, I was disruptive at school and kicked out of many classes. I know how disruptive kids think and how they play a game to take control and get the upper hand over the teacher. I would have subverted the system immediately and used a red cup at every stage, even if I understood it all. I would have encouraged all of my friends to do teh same. I would have written jokes on the individual whiteboards. If teachers had chosen me to answer, I would have come out with mnonsense answers to get a laugh. It won't be long before many of the kids in the class start doing all of that.

Teachers have a knowledge of their individual pupils and know how to control the class, and know who to ask. I think these methods are a joke and the kids will start joking around with them, and they will backfire on the teacher.

It was an interesting show. I agree with a lot of what has already been said. I would add however, for all her good intentions, Miss Obi did seem a little clueless that some of the kids were not keeping speed with her and she blamed it on naughtiness rather than the fact that it was going over their heads. I thought the red cup thing worked well to show her that she does need the buy in of the kids and they can only progress if they know what bthey are doing. If the experiment hadnt happened she would have ploughed on regardless and left behind more and more students. Stopping and checking understanding is key and she didnt seem to do this before. Whether it was the cups or another method I do think it did highlight that issue to her and that can only be a good thing.

I watched it but was distracted by ds staring open-mouthed at the shouty teacher whose lesson none of the children appeared to understand.

We used to get asked questions without putting our hands up when I was at secondary school 30 years ago!

i agree she was just steaming ahead without checking whether the class was following. But you don't need trafiic light cups to find this out. What are they teaching teachers at teacher trianing college? Don't they cover ways of assessing how successful a lesson is? Do they come out qualified, steam ahead regardless and then thank their lucky stars that Dylan tells them about the traffic cup system?

Completely fascinating programme, I'm glad there is a thread about it.

I could see the point of the lolly sticks in theory as it forces them to deal with the fact that many children were being left behind, rather than ignore it; participating in a lesson shouldn't be optional.
But then the teacher will have to deal with the fact that it will slow things down; effectively it will bring down the average level of what is said in class. I could see it working brilliantly for a small group of a similar ability, but it is going to make things even duller for the most academic kids, and surely things are boring enough for them already?
It also looked like the kind of technique which is going to have more value for certain kinds of activity; if you are teaching them something without which they will struggle to progress to the next level (say, basic grammar in a foreign language) it will have more utility than if they are doing something less vital (say, a particular set of specific vocabulary).

It made me feel even more freaked about the prospect of sending my kids to our local not-that-great comprehensive.

I was quite shocked (speaking as someone with no knowledge of what lessons are like in comprehensives, or indeed in secondary schools at all these days) by certain things though; the way some of the kids sat with their feet on the chairs, the way one of the teachers attempted to use emotional blackmail on the kids ('I was really upset that some of you were late for the exercises when I made the effort to get here early myself'). Are these things normal?

I think these things are normal. kids are very clever and play the system. They are not robots sitting there eagerly waiting to learn. I think that many of these experts have no real understanding of human nature. They are theoretical and not realistic. They don't undertsand how the road to hell is paved with good intentions. They don't understand how their well-intentioned systems could possibly lead to a breakdown in respect and the consequent disciplinary problems. But the good news is that they will soon find out and learn a few lessons themselves. The kids will teach them.

Fortunately, I think Michael Gove is a realist. he won't be employing these "experts". It was the last lot who believed in their techniques. Gove believes in free schools but I don't think he will give free rein to the expert educationalists.

DH commented that the Hawthorn Effect would be much in evidence in this programme (where a group singled out for a special project does better regardless of the actual efficacy of the techniques).

oh, I have another 'what is normal in schools?' question.
I thought if I had been a teacher having to introduce the white boards & coloured cups, I would want to start off by saying 'Anyone who plays up with their cup/board and has it confiscated will be given extra homework; since you're not going to give me feedback on whether you've understood through these means you will have to give it to me through extra work.'
Would they be allowed to do this/are there obvious reasons why it wouldn't work? <naive>

Dylan was typical of the nanny knows best mentality. Teachers were telling him it wasn't working, but he ploughed on regardless. He said they would have to use these methods, they would have to find ways to adapt them (the implication being that if they weren't able to make them work, then it wasn't the methods that were at fault, but the teachers themselves). He was totally inflexible, adamant that he knew best and that the techniques that he had read about would lead to salvation. He was the expert, he had read the evidenced-based research, he would show the teachers how it should be done. The militant tendency had nothing on him. God help the education system.

I was a bit when the teachers thought Dylan's ideas were new techniques - they have been being used in many Primary schools for at least 10 years! I got the impression that while the school was great for being up for change, it didn't seem to be doing the best WRT "Teaching and Learning"

I agree, a good teacher should direct appropriate questions at all the children, so that none of them feel they can just sit back and not participate. They shouldn't need lolly sticks at all.

Am I the only one thinking that the maths would be better taught in a slightly more ability grouped way? <<prepares to be flamed>> That way the maore able could move on (as Emily was obvously keen to do) and the ones who are struggling can get a bit more practice before moving on.

Just googled the school - clearly Ofsted thought the same as me!

link - scroll down a bit to see key findings

"I could see the point of the lolly sticks in theory as it forces them to deal with the fact that many children were being left behind, rather than ignore it; participating in a lesson shouldn't be optional."

I agree with that.
And I think there will be some who will take more notice because they might get asked something.

And tbh if a teacher has to ask the same question so many times that it slows the lesson down because nobody knows the answer, then surely that is an indication of something being wrong?

I´m sure when I was at primary school the hands up thing was to stop children all shouting out & at 2ndry school it was rarely used as a method of choosing someone to answer a question.

The teachers have to give them a chance because they are on TV. If you spoke to the teachers down the pub, I bet you would get their real view of them. Just because a child puts their hand up, doesn't mean that they are dominating the class, because it is up to the teacher to decide whether to ask that child to answer or not. Teachers can involve pupils without patronising primary school type coloured traffic light cups. These things are OK for 5 and 6 year olds, but to give them to secondary school children is the height of patronisation and of course any self-respecting teenager will take the piss and treat them with the contempt they deserve.

Dylan has moved on from teaching to being one of the top educational experts in the country. He has read the trendy ideas and has a trendy earring to go with them. I just hope that the sensible coalition with practical realists like Michael Gove, who want to improve standards in education and give poor children in state schools an education that rivals that of Eton, reject trendy theories and experiments and ask experts from some of the top schools in the country to advise them.

agree w/Proles re giving the techniques a chance.
It's a huge change for the kids to get used to, never mind the teachers; showing what happened in the first lessons in which they were used was pretty meaningless really.

and all that big deal that was made out of some of the kids removing lolly sticks with their names on; I mean, of course they would try that, of course most of them wouldn't like that method at first because it takes power away from them; and it could be dealt with fairly easily by the teachers keeping hold of the lollysticks!

Haven't seen the show but re 'no hands up', well, I can't say I never use it but not often. I think most teachers now use lots of different strategies depending on the situation, eg

One of the things I do is 'put two hands up if you DEFINITELY know the answer, one hand if you think you might know and hands on your hand if you're like, miss, what are you on about?!'

then sometimes ask a maybe and ask a definite to confirm (if only a couple of hands on heads), praise, or if someone if v confident who isn't usually, I might ask them - or send kids over to help others...

Or, another strategy, is I might say I am going to ask ANY ONE of you to talk (so a bit of warning!) and give them one/two minutes to ask the person next to them and be ready. Then I usually watch and pick someone who I can see has learnt from someone else (and praise both).

It's about knowing your class and the children in your class IMVHO. That's why the best experiment would be smaller class sizes IMVHO...

did anyone else think: ok, that is the cup for telling the teacher they're going too fast; what colour cup should you use for telling the teacher they're going too slowly?!

(God, I would have been a stroppy cow if I had been in that class.... would probably have been truanting and shagging the thick-but-attractive boys behind the bikesheds if they'd expected me to sit through lessons like those....)

I would have thought any reasonable teacher would randomly ask pupils questions and not just the ones with their hands up. It's not about ploughing through your lesson plan and getting to the next break. It's about finding out what the pupils understand and if they don't doing something about it. I thought the maths teacher was appalling, she either didn't realise her pupils didn't have a clue about what she was talking about or didn't want to face up to this and do something about it. I though the attitude of the other teacher was brilliant and the class were so much better, instead of being shouted and screamed at and threatend with detention all the time.

Loved the mini whiteboards fiasco and the fact the kid couldn't spell 'arsed' correctly ...she should have pointed that out

'Or, another strategy, is I might say I am going to ask ANY ONE of you to talk (so a bit of warning!) and give them one/two minutes to ask the person next to them and be ready. Then I usually watch and pick someone who I can see has learnt from someone else (and praise both).'

that sounds good.... much subtler and less mechanical than lolly sticks.... and kind of squeezes more benefit out of the process of asking a question.

Ooh, I very often say 'I know YOU know, xxx, I'm going to ask someone else' or get them to say whether the answer is right (to child in class who ALWAYS has hands up -think it's nice to acknowledge it tbh)

how many secondary schools use traffic lights?
Hopefully not many. Do the top schools in the county, those that get the best GCSE results, use traffic lights? I doubt it, but I could be wrong. I think Dylan needs a few traffic lights, and I hope that Michael Gove uses a few traffic lights to put a stop to the trendies and restores what was once a top class education system.

Also, Miss Obi (following my other comments) didnt use the red light cups effectivey at first. THe kids said they LIKED the techniques, but then Miss Obi IGNORED Katies red cup. At one stage she said 'Miss!!' and shook it at her. All very well having techniques, and I do think they are good in theory, but they have to be used correctly as well! I know I am giving Miss Obi a bit of a bashing, she can be sweet as we saw, and the conference with the kids and how she took their ideas on board was good, so credit there, but I do agree with the posters saying she needs to KNOW her class better. Then the techniques might not be needed! I think it shows the teachers need to be continually learning their jobs (as do we all) as much as the children need to learn the subject (And bless her, she was ony a new teacher wasnt she? Shows something about how SHE was taught!)

'and restores what was once a top class education system.'

wellllll, I don't think it was quite that simple was it? A lot of children were short-changed, especially in secondary moderns.

Absolutely a good idea. Children learn massively from each other and have skills in different areas. I still think if you cut class sizes and did nothing else, you would see massive improvement (and then we can work on the rest ).

didn't they say Miss Obi had only been teaching for 2 years? And assuming she had been educated in Africa (I think they said she used to be a banker in Nigeria?), her own school experience must have been completely different from this one.

All our classes at school were streamed. English, maths, science and apart from compulsory sport, all the rest of the classes were electives, and I think it was a good way to do it. You got the abilities right, stretching those that needed it, more help to those that needed it and the rest were subjects the students WANTED to do so had an interest and had their 'buy in' to do well.

I wonder if they were short-changed because of the theories of experts like Dylan? I think Gove will turn things around, restore common sense, and remove patronising coloured traffic light cups from being used on nearly adult teenagers. That will be one step to improving education, but clearly, Gove has a lot of work to do in removing the influence of some of the trendy theories that were given free rein in the past.

"her own school experience must have been completely different from this one."

Yes, possibly, like me she was astounded at the level of not listening & messing about.

I found mixed ability (gcse level) a flippin nightmare...and so did most of the kids.IME they performed better when in sets/bands. There is still a range of ability but not so great, More able don't get kept back and weaker ones get help more at their level and don't feel so useless. There is differentiation required for all pupils but not so extreme.

'With a subject like English it is possible to cater to a mix of abilities more easily than with a subject like maths.'

mmm, I thought that. The English teacher had a much easier time with the lolly sticks because she was basically asking for a creative response to something at one point rather than a right answer.

Who is watching tonight??

Didn´t know it was on tonight-was thinking it would be next week.

yes watching now

Emily now has a bit of a f off attitude now as she isnt the 'top dog' and centre of attention!!

Also, missed the start - who took their sticks out?

English and maths improved..English they used the techniques well and in maths, the teacher had that conference with the students and realised the class wasnt keeping up and changed her methods.

Science admitted he didnt use them. And the grades didnt improve there so hmmmmmmmmmm..

Also what do you think of the comments no grades thing?

Sorry but programmes on tv like this really annoy me. The vast majority of teachers have been using these methods for years and years ( one or two have been and gone). But the thing that really gets me is the 'i went to school once' authority with which everyone speaks. By the way Dylan can you explain to ofsted why my pupils have not been able to keep track of their grades because you've decided I'm no longer allowed to share this info with them.
Kids the best way to have fun with your whiteboards is to sit at the front and write rude messages on the back!

Bulby - Are you in Herts? They said at the end they were thinking of rolling out these things across the county - has this now happened?

The school mine are at don´t give grades for the first 2yrs.

It´s pretty easy from comments to see how they are doing!

God help us. If my DS doesn't pass the 11+ and get into grammar, I'm going to have to save up for private school fees. There is no way my DS is going to a school influenced by Professor Dylan, the profesoor of dumbing down.

Comments not grades, that sums up the collectivist anti-competition progressive philosophy. Failure masked as success by feel good comments and no grades to prove what level they are at. The highfliers became disruptive and their behaviour deteriorated because there is no point in them performing as they no longer feel that they get any individual rewards. The only reward is the Alton Towers collectivist reward. That will work in the short term but will wear off in the long term, and the top performers will be levelled down.

There were positive aspects such as an increase in confidence of the lower achievers, but this could be obtained in other ways without impacting negatively on the high performers. One child admitted that with the mini whiteboards he could now copy off of the clever kids, whereas before he couldn't. Dylan will probably soon change the exam system so that exams are done via mini whiteboards and teacher assessment alone, with the result that copying will be rife.

Professor Dylan had trouble understanding why kids didn't want to be seen to get things wrong. He doesn't understand the competitive spirit (and in fact wants to eliminate as all progressives want to do) and how they could be embarrassed by showing that they do not know the answers.

There were some positive aspects, but overall I think it is a disaster of dumbing down and everything that is wrong with progressive education policy. Thank God for the Tories and Michael Gove. Due to them, I don't think the trend of dumbing down will spread.

Almost can't bear to waste energy replying to you, claig, as you have reiterated your views many times throughout this thread, and are obviously very sure of what you think. Are you a teacher? Do you have any experience of trying to teach/ motivate/ help a whole spectrum of pupils (not just the able ones)?

"Comments not grades, that sums up the collectivist anti-competition progressive philosophy."

No it doesn't. It gives them some pointers as to how they can imporve their work. If you are just told you got a C, all that tells you is which grade you managed achieve to this time. Does it tell you anything about how to gain a B? Unfortunately, you can write half a page of useful comments for a pupil, but if a grade it there, they tend to focus on that and forget the rest. There is a time and a place for grades and levels. But they don't need to be given for every piece of work.

"Failure masked as success by feel good comments and no grades to prove what level they are at."

What do you count as "failure"? Anything less than an A*? Comments are seldom "feel-good" if used properly. They are constructive, and should give pupils something tangible to work on, and a chance to show they have done this later.
Am I a failure for aiming to run a half-marathon in under 2 hours when Paula Radcliffe runs it in about an hour? Or is it good that I have set my own achievable target and that I gain a lot (in terms of fitness etc) through training for it, and doing the best I can do?

"The highfliers became disruptive and their behaviour deteriorated because there is no point in them performing as they no longer feel that they get any individual rewards."

Then it is the teacher's job to make them feel less disenfranchised. It doesn't make the ideas rubbish. And why do they matter more than the pupils who are at the "bottom" of the class and struggling?

"The only reward is the Alton Towers collectivist reward. That will work in the short term but will wear off in the long term, and the top performers will be levelled down."

I actually agree with you on this. The novelty will wear off pretty quickly unles it is constantly reinforced by good teachers who have respect from the class.

"There were positive aspects such as an increase in confidence of the lower achievers, but this could be obtained in other ways without impacting negatively on the high performers."

Okay... so they've tried to do this. You agree it's a good thing to try to do. Any other suggestions? We can only try these things. Then a good teacher will take onbard aspects of all of them and tailor them to their own class. As others have said, none of this is exactly new or cutting edge. But all the techniques can be effective if used by a teacher that understands the class and has a good relationship with them.

"One child admitted that with the mini whiteboards he could now copy off of the clever kids, whereas before he couldn't. Dylan will probably soon change the exam system so that exams are done via mini whiteboards and teacher assessment alone, with the result that copying will be rife."

Yeah right... whatever!

"There were some positive aspects, but overall I think it is a disaster of dumbing down and everything that is wrong with progressive education policy. Thank God for the Tories and Michael Gove. Due to them, I don't think the trend of dumbing down will spread."

You've mentioned the Tories and Gove in every single post (or at least the majority of them). I think we get your point!!

I am glad you get my point. I am posting my opinions on where I think things are going wrong. I disagree with your views and agree with Gove, that is why I quote him. I am saying that there is a difference in philosophy between Gove's thinking and Dylan's and your thinking. I think it is important that people realise that. I think it is a very important subject and that is why I post what I think is wrong about the experiment carried out by Dylan.

I'm just intrigued as to what your opinions are based on.
From what I understand, you're not a teacher, and you have no children at secondary school.

I have to admit that, when I first trained as a teacher 4 years ago, I was shocked by some things. By some of the behaviour, by some of the techniques that were used in the classroom. I was always a "high achiever", someone that had to be stretched, and someone that came into teaching "late", because I worked in scientific research. I say that only because I want to you to understand that I really empathise with people that are "academic" and need stretching and enjoy being the centre of attention.

My experience of school was skewed, because I took it for granted that I would be praised for everything I did, that I would succeed. But this isn't the same for everyone. I make a tremendous effort to ensure that all pupils have a positive experience in my lessons, and so I have used some of the techniques mentioned on this programme.

So I have based my opinions on research I have read, classes I have taught, and feedbck from pupils.

You have given us many of your opinions, but have not answered any of the questions I asked you.

I also wonder what Gove's experience of education was. Comprehensive? Inclusive? Has he been into a class and tried to teach pupils? Was he ever a teacher? Whatever the rights and wrongs of "experts" like Dylan (and I'm not saying I agree with everything he said), at lease some of what he said and suggested is based on experience.

I didn't answer your questions because of your aggressive tone, which made me think that you were not really interested in my opinions. I certainly don't mind answering your questions, because as you say I "am obviously very sure of what I think". I think it is a very important subject, which is why I am interested in it.

I will now read through what you said and answer your questions.

Okay, I apologise if I came across as agressive. I guess I am just passionate about this!

I am not a teacher and I have a DS at primary school. But I don't think that invalidates my opinions. Michael Gove is not a teacher but the changes that he makes will affect you and all other teachers. I have tutored children many years ago and of course I have been a pupil in schools and have been a management trainer, so through my life experience, I have developed my philosophy of what works in teaching children and adults. I also was a straight 'A' student like Emily and also one of the most disruptive pupils in the class. I think that has given me an extra insight into human nature, since I had both good and bad and knew all of the tricks. For example, I think Dylan doesn't understand the importance of the competitive instinct in children, even though he is a professor and one of the country's leading educationalists. He couldn't understand why Emily and the other top students didn't want to be shown to get things wrong. He also didn't understand that not all studenst are equally motivated, his quote was "they all want to show you what they know". That is rubbish. Some kids are deliberately disruptive as I was, and I didn't want to show the teacher what I knew at all.

"Comments not grades, that sums up the collectivist anti-competition progressive philosophy."

"No it doesn't. It gives them some pointers as to how they can imporve their work. If you are just told you got a C, all that tells you is which grade you managed achieve to this time. Does it tell you anything about how to gain a B? Unfortunately, you can write half a page of useful comments for a pupil, but if a grade it there, they tend to focus on that and forget the rest. There is a time and a place for grades and levels. But they don't need to be given for every piece of work."

I agree that grades are not enough, they should be combined with comments. But comments without grades are not enough at all, as all teh children told Dylan repeatedly. The reason kids want grades is again because of their competitive spirit, which Dylan seeks to erase. They want to measure their performance against their peers and against their previous efforts. The comments were not enough. Dylan said that "grades were bad" and he tried to get the kids to understand that. They will never understand that because they are right and he is wrong. He wants to get rid of grades because he believes that it makes the poor performing students feel discouraged, he wanst to wave a magic wand and eliminate that problem by removing grades. He wants a feel good touchy feely environment where there is no such thing as failure or the perception of failure. To him, everyone's a winner and everyone deserves a prize. This eventually will lead to rthe scrapping of grades in exams themselves, to which you sade "yeah right". Here are some more top educationalists in the country advocating just that
www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/531279 9/Exam-grades-should-be-scrapped.html

To summarize, both grades and extensive comments are required, but as all the students said, including some of the poor performers, the grades are the most important thing.

"Failure masked as success by feel good comments and no grades to prove what level they are at."

"What do you count as "failure"? Anything less than an A*? Comments are seldom "feel-good" if used properly. They are constructive, and should give pupils something tangible to work on, and a chance to show they have done this later.
Am I a failure for aiming to run a half-marathon in under 2 hours when Paula Radcliffe runs it in about an hour? Or is it good that I have set my own achievable target and that I gain a lot (in terms of fitness etc) through training for it, and doing the best I can do?"

I don't think an E grade is a failure if the child has tried their best. I realise that not all children can get 'A' grades. It is Labour and their grade inflation policies that want everyone to get an 'A' grade. What I mean by "failure masked as success" is that Dylan's policy is a cop out and one that New Labour would love. It removes grades so that there are no objective measures of success that are easily understood by students, parents and employers and replaces them with comments, which cannot easily differentiate pupils. It is deeply unsatisfying to the pupils, because as they said repeatedly, they want differentiation. It also can hide a failing education system, which suits politicians. I agree comments are vital, but I fear Dylan's way would lead to no grades and comments that mask a deteriorating education system.

"The highfliers became disruptive and their behaviour deteriorated because there is no point in them performing as they no longer feel that they get any individual rewards."

"Then it is the teacher's job to make them feel less disenfranchised. It doesn't make the ideas rubbish. And why do they matter more than the pupils who are at the "bottom" of the class and struggling?"

Exactly, it is the teacher's job and good teachers can do that without traffic light systems. I think the ideas that Dylan was imposing on the teachers, quite often against their advice and against the advice of the students, will eventually hamper the teacher and lead to further disenfranchisement, disassociation and disruptive behaviour, as we saw when top students like Emily and her friends arrived 15 minutes late for lessons, which she had never done before. I don't think it was Emily's fault, but a natural result of Dylan's methods. I think that the bottom of the class is equally as important as the top of the class, but I think there are other ways of engaging the whole class and asking them all questions which don't involve lolly sticks selected at random. I think the teacher's judgement is crucial and I think that random questions based on drawing of lolly sticks could lead to problems within the class.

"The only reward is the Alton Towers collectivist reward. That will work in the short term but will wear off in the long term, and the top performers will be levelled down."

I actually agree with you on this. The novelty will wear off pretty quickly unless it is constantly reinforced by good teachers who have respect from the class."

Exactly. Again, I think that Dylan's methods, with his student observers etc. will eventually undermine respect for the teacher, as will the use of mini whiteboards over the long term. This is disastrous because without respect, disruptive behaviour will ensue.

"There were positive aspects such as an increase in confidence of the lower achievers, but this could be obtained in other ways without impacting negatively on the high performers."

"Okay... so they've tried to do this. You agree it's a good thing to try to do. Any other suggestions? We can only try these things. Then a good teacher will take onbard aspects of all of them and tailor them to their own class. As others have said, none of this is exactly new or cutting edge. But all the techniques can be effective if used by a teacher that understands the class and has a good relationship with them."

Again I think that the low achievers can be engaged and asked questions in different ways to Dylan's ways.

"Whatever the rights and wrongs of "experts" like Dylan (and I'm not saying I agree with everything he said), at lease some of what he said and suggested is based on experience."

I think he has read lots of research and has been introduced to special student in the States, but I think he lacks real understanding of human nature, motivation, competitiveness etc., which is why I think that he believes the things he does and tried to implement a flawed system.

Lolololol at 'I have been a pupil'

I have been to see my gp a few times

Does anyone need any surgery doing? happy to oblige...

I used some money to pay a bill today too

Do any of you know of any ftse companies who could benefit from my economic expertise?

didn't you advise Lehman Brothers?

"He couldn't understand why Emily and the other top students didn't want to be shown to get things wrong"

Well, who does?

If they hadn´t been used to mostly/only being picked when they knew the answer it wouldn´t be such a problem.

Also re grades-you can´t miss what you´re not used to!

And being very picky here-did Emily spell "hormonal" incorrectly?

This debate is so interesting. I am a PGCE student (primary) and Dylan William is one of my lecturers. I find his ideas to be really effective but the class does need to be prepared for them - they can't just be imposed from above.

The two most important issues IMO are keeping all children engaged in learning and for them to value learning and I think his strategies work toward this. Classroom life should not be a competition. I think the experiment showed that the classroom ethos ended up being much more inclusive and mutually supportive, and that surely benefits everyone.

I think it is fascinating how different we all are and how differently we understand the world and people. This subject is influenced by our view of the world, it is not compartmentalised. It is about how children learn and how to create excellence. It is about how the best schools (those that achieve the best results) differ from the ordinary. It is about the difference between what created a Margaret Thatcher (Prime Minister of the country for many years) and an Estelle Morris ("not up to the job"). It is about success and failure, excellence and mediocrity. It is about what works and what doesn't. It is about different philosophies and about which ones have stood the test of time and been shown to achieve results. It is about the future of our children and the future of the country. That's why it is so important. Get it wrong, experiment and fail, start from the wrong premise and we risk harming the future of millions of children.

I told DD all about the programme and asked her what she thought about it.

She said it was really frustrating when children who aren't grasping stuff are asked the questions and they take ages to get to the answer. She said that it was much better to be in some sort of ability group.

They are ability grouped at her comp from day 1, but she was in a normal, lovely, mixed ability class in primary.

It seems she is an "Emily"

I thought Emily was fantastic and I fear that she will be harmed and held back by Dylan's methods. It is great that your DD is an Emily, that means that she is another Margaret Hilda Roberts ('The Thatch'). I keep my fingers crossed that your DD's school never adopts Dylan's techniques.

"She said it was really frustrating when children who aren't grasping stuff are asked the questions and they take ages to get to the answer."

But that´s where the teacher needs to intervene & not leave a child saying nothing or pick someone who will be say something on the subject & build on what is said.

I can see how it would be frustrating for an "Emily"-but likewise I wonder how does it get to the stage that some children have no idea at all when asked a question?

I don´t see how someone can be held back tbh.

It´s not as if a class works at the pace of the slowest, is it?

There are strategies for dealing with those situations where the less able don't know the answers. Given a safe classroom environment where getting the answer wrong is not seen as a sign of failure, another child could be asked to explain what they think the answer might be.

This can of course go horribly wrong if the children have competitive attitudes but peer teaching has been found to benefit all children, and in particular the child who is doing the explaining as it helps to clarify their ideas.

We saw what happened to Emily. She withdrew from participation. She removed her lolly sticks from the box of tricks. She no longer wanted to be asked questions. She started coming in 15 minutes late to lessons, she earned not a single point when she was 'special student'. She has become demotivated, she feels there is no longer any point, she no longer cares as she used to. If she carries on like that, then Dylan will have turned a potential Margaret Hilda Roberts into another Estelle Morris. But he will have succeeded in his aim of closing the achievement gap, he will have dumbed her down.

Agree saadia, there are lots of other strategies that can be used. The key to it all is the teacher's judgement and knowledge of the class. Dylan's random lolly stick method removes that judgement and knowledge factor, which is why I think it is a mistake, which can lead to bad consequences, some of which we saw when Emily and her friends, the brightest pupils in the class, decided to withdraw themselves from Dylan's experiment by removing their lolly sticks.

I agree Saadia and diddl - I hope that in mixed-ability classes the teachers are aiming questions appropriately, etc.

DD is quite a competitve child (especially in sport and with her DB ), but she is also very caring and understanding of others. I guess I was just very surprised that she felt like that. She is not mega-brainy like most of the DC of mumsnet posters, but is keen to learn.

I am a teacher, and am astounded that these techniques are considered to be new. sometimes they work, sometimes they dont. i wont be rushing out to buy lolly sticks personally.....

In answer to soemone's question early on in the thread - i do use 'emotional blackmail' with my students ;I will tell them if they have/are upsetting me,so that they realise I am another human being as well as a teacher. I dont consider it blackmail, and has helped me to build stronger relationships with my students. she was right to tell them she was upset.

I agree that the lolly stick method should be used with discretion. I missed the first prog, will have to catch up on it - did Emily withdraw right at the start?

"We saw what happened to Emily. She withdrew from participation. She removed her lolly sticks from the box of tricks"

Threw her toys out of the pram once she could no longer be the centre of attention?

If more of the class were engaged & participating I can´t see how that was a bad thing tbh.

If Emily hadn´t got so used to always being asked it would not have affected her as she wouldn´t have known any different.

I agree with olivo, emotional blackmail can work because the children then identify with the teacher and don't want to let the teacher down. The key is to get the pupils on the side of the teacher, then they will do anything. The danger is if they become demotivated and lose respect for the teacher, because then they will be disruptive.

Emily didn't withdraw right at the beginning, but being very clever, she soon circumvented the experiment by removing herself from it.

Of course techniques should be used to engage all the children, and I am sure that good teachers can do that without the blunt instrument of randomised lolly sticks, which had a demonstrable harmful effect on the highfliers.

Emily didn't throw her toys out of the pram. This is the key thing that Dylan failed to understand. He doesn't understand how a highflier thinks, he doesn't understand what makes a straight 'A' student. My guess is that he never was a straight 'A' student, which is why he doesn't understand it. He succeeded in killing the goose that lays the golden egg, and still he thought that he was correct and the methods needed to be pursued.

But my point is, had she not ever been placed in such a position of always being asked, it wouldn´t have bothered her so much.

And there are other pupils to consider.

And being a bitch here, but removing your stick so you never get asked in those lessons?-clever? OK!

I think this also raised questions about how we define intelligence - part of that is surely the ability to have an open mind.

she couldn't be bothered anymore. She'd let him get on with his experiment, but without her. He had succeeded in destroying her motivation.

She only ever put her hand up when she knew the answer, not all the time. When she didn't know the answer, she didn't want to be asked. She cares more about these things, because she is exceptional, she is a highflier. It was always up to the teacher to choose her to answer, just because she had her hand up, didn't mean that the teacher couldn't have picked a child who didn't have their hand up. It's not Emily's fault that she put her hand up, but it is entirely Dylan's fault that he totally destroyed any motivation that she had.

She was exceedingly clever and well-motivated, a model student, which is why I feel so sorry for her that she has been subjected to an experiment which destroyed her motivation, within a matter of weeks. And now they want to roll Dylan's experiment out to all the schools in the county.

I'm confused - I saw the end of yesterday's prog and all the able girls - including Emily - saw the value of the experiment and realised that just answering the questions that you already know the answer to does not amount to learning.

yes she did say that. But she also said lots of contradictory things throughout the program. What do you expect her to say when the cameras are on her? she tells the experimenters what they want to hear. The teachers were the same, near the end of the 12 week experiment, Dylan finally asked the teachers how many of them were using the "greatest development in education since the invention of the slate" (i.e. the mini whiteboards). There was lots of mumbling and murmuring and shuffling of feet, and we found out that hardly any of them had used them. If we were to ask the teachers off camera, down the pub, what they really thought, I suspect we might get a more truthful response.

The program was edited by the producers. I bet there were loads of failures of the system that they chose not to show us. They picked the excerpts that they wanted to show us. If we had been there throughout the entire 12 weeks as 'student observers' then we would really have seen what went on. the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Emily's behaviour and performance deteriorated. Whatever excerpts the producers decided to show, there was no escaping that fact.

I honestly think the experiement will benefit Emily and others like her from having to live up the label of the being the "cleverest". It's just so unhealthy for her to see herself this way because she feels that she can't make mistakes.

What this also implies is that in order for the more able to feel superior, the less able must be kept down.

"When she didn't know the answer, she didn't want to be asked."

But that applies to a lot of pupils, and how does it teach anything if you´re only asked when you know?

But no one else took their lolly stick out to prevent it happening.

All highfliers, like Margaret Hilda Roberts and Emily, have to bear the cross of being the 'cleverest'. It is their competitiveness and their perfectionism that make them highfliers in the first place. It is a two-edged sword and Dylan succeeded in blunting the sword. He thereby achieved his target of narrowing the attainment gap at the detriment of Emily. This will look good on presentations to politicians, who can then talk about the narrowing of the attainment gap, the improvement in education and standards, and the greater levels of inclusivity. But it is achieved by dumbing down exceptional students like Emily. But the politicians don't care, their kids are at private schools which don't ask Dylan to carry out his experiments. Diane Abbott's son is safe, he is at a top private school.
Emily is not as lucky, although she is probably every bit as clever as Diane Abbott's son. But she has the misfortune to be at a school that believes in these experiments.

"in order for the more able to feel superior, the less able must be kept down."

Sadly this is, I think, what underlies Dylan's beliefs. He probably believes that this is happening. his role is to correct it and overturn it by keeping the more able down in order to narrow the attainment gap.
He wants to eradicate competition and eradicate grades in order to equalise attainment. That's what i don't like about this pessimistic, progressive. pernicious philosophy. I believe in every child achieving the maximum that they possibly can and that no child should be limited. I believe in engagement for everyone and more competition to fire up all pupils to extend their boundaries and progress to achieve their full potential.

I want more children to have the ambition, competitiveness and perfectionism of an Emily or a Margaret Hilda Roberts. I want less pessimism, less policies that prevent progress and less "not up to the job" style defeatism.

"how does it teach anything if you´re only asked when you know?"

If you are asked to answer something that you don't know how does that teach anything except embarrassment or a "don't care" attitude.

Not everyone likes to answer in front of everyone else even if they do know the answer. I didn't all through school as I was teased for it.
I think it would be better to let the people who want to answer do the answering and leave it to the teacher's knowledge of their students as to who would benefit by being asked to answer regardless of whether they had put their hand up or not.

exactly right juule. These "experts" don't seem to understand human nature at all. They seem to have spent too long in ivory towers reading their research papers and making presentations to politicians. When the kids tell them exactly how they feel, they don't even listen to them. they know best, they are some of the "top educationalists in the country".

Diane Abbott must be laughing up her sleeve that she made sure her son was well out of it.

Diane Abbott told us that she would "go the wall for her son". The trouble is other people's children are up against the wall, and nobody does anything for them.

When you are asked something that you don't know, you are forced to consider the question and to use what you know to, to find links, in order to refine your thinking. This also tells the teacher your level of understanding so they are better informed about how to proceed with the teaching.

"If you are asked to answer something that you don't know how does that teach anything except embarrassment or a "don't care" attitude."

Well if you´ve listened you can probably have a good go at it tbh.

And of course teachers can use their discretion and not ask someone who might not have a clue, or ask in pairs.

Can I just ask what was the "secret student" all about?

The 'secret student' was effective. Each day one student was chosen by the teachers, unknown to teh students themselves, and this student earned points if they behaved well in lessons. I think this went on for 40 days and if the class earned enough points then they got the reward of going to Alton Towers. It was successful in improving their behaviour. If the scheme went on for a year, my guess is that the effectiveness of it would soon drop off, but it did work over the 40 day period.

diddl, if you missed part of it, you can watch episode 2 again at this link

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00v3fk1/The_Classro om_Experiment_Episode_2/

I don't think the bright kids have a right to constant ego-boosts at everyone else's expense, and if the lack of that is what's annoying them then they need to grow up and suck it up.
BUT I do think they have a right to stimulating classes which allow them to fulfil their potential, and I would question whether these methods, which seem to be slowing the class down in order to make sure the less bright kids haven't got left behind, are allowing them to progress at a suitable pace for them.

there are clearly benefits to this approach but there's going to be a trade-off; so I'd hope any reforms that close the attainment gap partly by bringing the top ones down would be accompanied by some consideration of what this has done to the brighter kids and trying to make up for it....

But if you've listened and not really understood, you might not feel confident enough to have a crack at it with the focus of the class on you. You might be afraid of getting it wrong. It's sometimes easier for some children to not try and tell they're peers they're not bothered rather than the alternative of trying and getting it wrong. You can't fail if you don't try. Not everybody likes to be outspoken in large groups particularly if they are unsure of what they are talking about.

claig
Not in the UK, so can´t get it.

I think there were some good ideas, but like all things they need tailoring to the situation.

I did like the "no hands up" policy & the idea that anyone might be asked.

But again, it doesn´t have to be an all or nothing approach imo.

How did things work out for Miss Obi?

The majority of the kids don't like being asked. tht's why they never used to put their hands up, because they thought they would get it wrong. Emily only put her hand up when she thought she would get it right. She hated getting it wrong, which was why she removed her lolly stick from the box. Forcing the kids to answer when they don't want to is a bad tactic and doesn't teach them to get it right, it just makes them nervous and embarrassed. That's why it should be used sparingly, so as not to demotivate the pupils. Emily ended up being demotivated by it. Dylan's aim was for them not to be afraid of failure, but Emily was so afraid of failure that she removed her sticks. In the end what happens is that the kids accept the failure, but that can have a negative impact, because they end up not caring anymore whether they get it right or wrong. That's what happened to Emily, which is why she started giving up.

Miss Obi wasn't in the second episode.

But if you haven´t understood, then you should say so.

I think some didn´t put their hands up because they were never asked.

Also, it doesn´t always have to be a question with a correct answer.

We obviously disagree about Emily I just see her as pissed off that it was no longer the way she wanted it.
Most of us hate getting things wrong, but generally you discover that the world doesn´t collapse around you.

TBH, with Emily I would have thought it would make her more determined to do everything possible to prevent it happening again.

I think it´s good to include the reluctant ones tbh.

Thinking about it more, I think Dylan was totally wrong in his premise and his aims.
His objective was to banish fear of failure. To do that he wanted to remove competition, get rid of grades, which are a mark of success, and to increase engagement to foster the attitude that there is no shame in failing. The problem with his system is that it is a one size fits all approach and certainly doesn't work for high achievers. He is not using any differentiation for the children.

The boy who had trouble with his behaviour never bothered trying, because he thought he would fail, so why try and then fail?, it's better not to even try. He's an adherent of the Homer Simpson philosophy "Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try."
Children like that need their confidence boosting and they need better individual teaching, differentiated to their level, so that they can see that it is possible to succeed by trying. They shouldn't be competing at Emily's level. Dylan's solution is to remove competition altogether, so that failure won't be so evident to this boy. This boy fails because he doesn't try and he needs individualised teaching that can help him to succeed in small steps.

But the most pernicious mistake in Dylan's experiment, is that he doesn't understand teh mentality of highfliers. He doesn't understand what makes them tick, what makes them successful. He's read the articles about failure and how people should overcome the feel-bad fear of failure. he doesn't understand that teh most successful people on the planet, the real highfliers, are precisely those who have the greatest fear of failure. read the biographies of the rich and famous and you will see it appear very often, they are driven to succeed through fear of failure. They are perfectionists like Emily, they hate and fear failure more even than the boy at the bottom of the class does. they will do anything to succeed, they will go the extra mile, because they don't want to fail. That's why it was the cleverest kids like Emily who removed their lolly sticks from the box, and not the other kids. Dylan was intenet on removing their fear of failure. He forced them to continue using lolly sticks and they got more and more questions wrong. They started getting more and more despondent and in the end they no longer cared if they got it right or wrong or if they arrived at class 15 minutes late. Dylan had succeeded in removing their fear of failure, he had extinguished the flame that drove them to succeed. the light had gone out and they didn't care anymore, they didn't try anymore, what was the point? He had diminished their ambition, lowered their aspiration, turned off their engine and dumbed them down.

The low achievers fail because they are afraid to try. The high achievers try because they are afraid to fail.

The solution is not to remove competition and grades etc., but to differentiate between the pupils and let them compete with children of a similar level.

Dylan's experiment is bound to fail because it is a one size fits all policy that doesn't meet the needs of high achieving kids. It is just more of the progressives' dumbing down policy dressed up in new clothes and armed with lolly sticks and mini whiteboards.

I don't really see how you get this idea that Emily is such a high-flier - did they actually mention her grades or show her work? She was top of her class but maybe that's because the others were working at a below-average level. I know she was on the school's G/T programme but that is relative to each school. And was she actually being challenged or was it all too easy for her? - because if she wasn't then she is not achieving her potential and that is a disservice to her

I would also say that there are many ways to be successful - you cannot say that all successful people have the same mindset.

"The high achievers try because they are afraid to fail."

But that doesn´t seem to apply to Emily who apparently gave up.

Well it seems to me that the experiment did have some positives.

But if it meets the needs of all but the "high achievers" then it is surely meeting the needs of the majority.

Poor Emily, put her in the same school as Diane Abbott's son and she will give Abbott's son a run for his money. She will show what kids from working class estates can do when they get the same tuition as politicians' kids.

Emily is a highflier because of her character, in the same way that Margaret Hilda Roberts was, and in the same way that all highfliers are. Emily will rise to whatever level is required, because she has the mentality of a highflier, she is a winner, because she competes at the level required in order to win. That's why kids need competition and don't need Dylan's anti-competitive, "grades are bad" destructive policies. She is a champion and she competes at whatever level is necessary. It's an accident of birth that she is at the school where she is. If she was at St. Paul's, like Harriet Harman was, or at Diane Abbott's son's school she would excel. Instead, she is at a school that is trying an experiment. if she was at a grammar school, like a certain grocer's daughter was, then there would be no stopping her. But at her school, they wave lolly sticks around, remove competition and have a comments not grades policy. Sometimes you have to wonder if it is done on purpose to keep the hoi polloi in their place.

diddl, this is the point that juule made. Kids don't want to be forced to answer and get things wrong. Particularly, the highest achievers. They develop at their own pace and they need to get things right one step at a time. Dylan wants to chuck them in the deep end and start getting things wrong. Well that's what happened, it sank Emily's chances and she started to flounder.

Well tbh, I thought that she perhaps thought that she was better than she was & when others who didn´t usually join in started to, she got quite a shock.

I would have thought that that would have made her up her game tbh.

Kids have to believe that they are good, that's what gives them confidence. That's why all these entitled Hooray Henrys are full of confidence. We should build up all kids' confidence levels and you don't do that by forcing them to get things wrong.

There is a very fine line between encouraging children to up their game and in damaging their confidence.

I thought this programme made for an interesting comparison with the one on the private prep school - Sunningdale last week. I know they are catering for very different children - but at Sunningdale learning was considered fun and competition important. They all wanted to participate in the lesson and were more mature in many ways than the year 8s in the comprehensive (even the 7 year olds!)

I thought some of the ideas were interesting on The education experiment (though not that new really) but no techniques can really compete with the having parents who value education and encourage their children, having knowledable and enthusiastic teachers who are good practioners (ie compare the maths teacher with the english teacher - same kids, totally different atmosphere in the lesson) and working in smaller groups which need to be ability based. Classes of 30 pupils with such a wide ability spectrum is very difficult to accommodate. I suspect most of the best comprehensives set extensively.

"diddl, this is the point that juule made. Kids don't want to be forced to answer and get things wrong."

No, most of them don´t.

But children who are reluctant to participate need to be drawn in. It doesn´t have to be either always picking the ones who know or picking the ones who don´t.

"There is a very fine line between encouraging children to up their game and in damaging their confidence."

Yes of course, but you can´t keep on asking the same few who have their hand up because they are sure of the answer.

Likewise grades/comments-doesn´t have to be either or.

It seems that teachers/pupils get too stuck in a way of doing things & cannot cope with change which is ridiculous.

thanks for that mention of the Sunningdale programme. I will watch that, as I think that competition is key. It will be interesting to see how successful they are.

diddl, I agree with you. Kids do need to be drawn in, but subtly by skilful teachers, not by randomised lolly sticks. I don't think teachers should only ask children who have their hands up, but the lolly stick approach is an extreme in the opposite direction. I agree that you need both grades and extensive, helpful comments.

But I also think that picking randomly is OK-this can also be tailored to suit by for example not always asking yes/no questions.

And the lolly sticks-well, I know our teachers for example would just have a list pick randomly or otherwise.

I´m sure I remember writing out maths answers on the board in front of the class tbh.

The problem is that it was just a very small snapshot of the school & his ideas.

And some of the teachers seemed to do what was suggested just as suggested with no imagination for example.

Yes an element of picking randomly is OK, so long as it is not overused, like the day in day out lolly stick approach in every class.

To be honest, I think that some of the teachers didn't really believe in the approach, which is why so few of them had bothered to use the "greatest development in education since the invention of the slate" (the mini whiteboard). If it was really that good, I think they would have been dying to try it out. Maybe they lost a little bit of faith in Dylan when he overegged the pudding with that piece of hyperbole.

I did think the whiteboard was a good idea for what was intended-getting everyone to hold up an answer.

I did feel sad that some of the teachers didn´t seem to want to even listen to things that might improve things for their pupils.

It´s like everything, the same old same old every day soon gets, well, old!

It amazed me how the teachers could read the 30 whiteboards when they were stood at the front of the class. Some of the whiteboards had mini essays on them. By the time the teacher had managed to squint and read all of the whiteboards, I would have thought that half the class would be chatting and mucking around. But maybe they edited that out of the programme.

Of course it was all scribbled in different size handwriting with thick marker pen and adorned with various extraneous drawings and witticisms. I wonder how much time was used up by each whiteboard session?

has everyone said WE HAVE BEEN DOING ALL THIS FOR YEARS ITS REALLY NOT NEWS
OR NOT

LOLly sticks - dont like
i just read off register.

no hands = do or " someone who hasnt spoken all lesson"

traffic lights - peopel do but i think is bollox and is much better for literal subjects liek maths

I think Dylan should consider a University Challenge buzzer type system. That would increase the engagement and interaction. You wouldn't be able to hear yourself think, for buzzers going off and playing all sorts of tunes.

re traffic lights i think its ALL down to the relationships with the teacher that i BORE Myself stupid saying is at essence the KEY to education

without that relationship oyu might as well go home

today i said to my class "if you are sitting there thinking " what on earth is she on about now i really dont get it and wonder whats for tea" put your hand up"

and they did adn i helped them

mini whiteboard can be over used
is very good in maths
not so good in arts subjects uinless pretty much a one wod anseer or short sentence

exactly short answers are fine, but anything over a sentence or two seems impractical.

Well that ´s the other thing, not every thing will work for every lesson.

What did anyone think of the sport before lessons?

Thought it was a good idea-although if as many as possible walked/biked, that might help.
(Not always possible I know)

Actually, what is a secondary timetable like in UK?

Mine start at 8am & generally have three double lessons with a break after each double lesson.

Finish at 1.15

most primary schools do shake to wake

every school is diffo
still get the odd 9 - 3
some 8 - 2 all different

bear in mind though, teachers can read very fast indeed

Is that secondary school, Badger?

The thing that hacks me off with these experts is the:
"this is my system, it will always work"

Teacher: "your system isn't working in my class"

Expert: "there is nothing wrong with my system, it must be the way you are implementing it"

ARG!

I think teachers should be allowed to work out the dynamics of their class (and they are different for each class) and teach!

Some of you wanted to know what the teachers involved thought, well here is your chance. I am one of the teachers involved in the programme

The first thing you all need to realise that THIS IS TV!! It was edited, they filmed over 150 hours and cut it down to 2! There are 26 pupils in the class, yet it seems to be Emily, Sid and a couple of others.

All of the teachers at school know they are not new techniques, I was taught them during my training like most teachers are. The point of the experiment was to get ALL teachers of one class trying the techniques to see if it raised achievement.

For those who said the teachers were unwilling, that is untrue. We all tried the techniques however we were supposed to add another technique every lesson, which sometimes did not fit the scheme of work. The meetings were usually at about 5pm, which is a long day if you start at 7.30 and have other lessons still to plan and marking to do!!

The main point is, overall the techniques improved the whole class, not just Emily and the high achievers but the lower ability and the shy pupils. At the start of last year Sid was shy... enough said! The sticks are great to use (or any random selection method) but sometimes hands up can work too. Whiteboards are great for some lessons, but not for others. ‘Comments not grades’ worked well as pupils do not read comments if there is a grade and they need to understand how to improve. It was never suggested that you do not give them a level after they have read the comments through, and thought of targets first. The behaviour of the class did improve too.

thanks for the feedback, nice of you to give us your perspective. Is it being rolled out throughout the school and throughout the county?

I'm not a fan of that system, but it was a fascinating programme. I thought Sid, Emily, Kate and all the rest of the kids were magnificent, as were the teachers who were up for trying out change. Good luck to the whole class and the teachers.

classroomexperimentteacher, that is very interesting - thank you for clarifying.

If a technique improves the behaviour and engagement of the whole class then it is IMO priceless. Yes, we must keep challenging and motivating the HA but too many children switch off and decide that education is not for them, and that is absolutely tragic. Anything that can keep them interested and challenged must be taken seriously.

There is rumour that lollypop sticks for the whole school are on order! The pupils are already asking if they will get grades or just comments after seeing the programme, which has got to be positive.

I think these ideas are encouraged at most schools. Primary schools do these techniques really well already, probably because behaviour is easier and pupils are more engaged. I think Dylan hopes that the programme will get teachers to try them out more often.

Oh and the other point, Dylan only actually came 3 times during the term. It was cut to make it look like he was always there.

"Dylan only actually came 3 times during the term."

that explains why he had to ask the teachers if they were using the mini whiteboards so late down the line. I couldn't understand how he wouldn't have been on top of the situation, since he was introducing it

That was interesting classroom

So there was no detrimental effect-not even to Emily?

Wasn't it Dylan's goal to eliminate grades completely? Didn't he say that that was the goal but in the short term they could remain since the pupils were so keen on them?

just watched it again. Dylan says it's crazy that kids are hooked on grades, and that they are like drug pushers hooking the kids on grades. He says it will be hard to break them of their addiction. He's certainly not a fan of grades.

I don't think there were really any negative effects. It was a shame when Emily started being disruptive and chatty, but it has not lasted. I think the disruptions were also due to a camera crew walking around the classroom!! I found it very distracting myself!

When 'comments not grades' were first introduced we said straight away what people on here have already mentioned - about national curriculum and ofsted. We were told that we should still use levels, but keep them in our markbook, or give them out after pupils have read comments and acted on feedback.

at the end of the program the narrator said that in the next month all of the teachers would be trained in the techniques and they would be introduced in all classes. Was the narrator spinning a little bit? Did the headteacher not end up implementing the idea?

I found out about this when I watched the programme. But apparently we will be trained soon, so it could be true - as I said, there is a rumour that hundreds of lollypop sticks have been ordered!!

one of the teacher's was surprised how the children reacted to the comments. He said he could never have expected their negative reaction. The comments were subjective and said things like "lack of effort" etc. the kids reacted very negatively to these comments and said "I don't care" etc. They preferred objective grades, however low. They objected to these subjective comments and disputed them. Couldn't this lead to a lack of motivation and withdrawal?

Thanks for getting back to us, classroom. I think you're all stars for sitting through PD sessions at 5.30 while on camera (!) and allowing TV cameras into your classrooms (with all the distractions that would inevitably bring) while you were introducing new ideas to the pupils.

Have the pupils said much about it since they saw themselves on TV?

The children reacted like this in every lesson when they did not get grades. It was not the comments which they were annoyed about - they didn't even read them. They straight away saw that there was no grade and kicked off.
They did not want to have to read the comments, they just wanted to see a grade, then they would usually bin the work!!
I don't think the comments would ever be 'lack of effort', they would be constructive comments which could help them improve, which usually would be subject and skills specific. However if you saw some of the work handed in (wikipedia 'projects') then 'more effort' is a reasonable target!

The pupils who were on it haven't said much but they saw it a couple of weeks ago. The whole school is buzzing about it though - perfect time to start introducing the techniques to other classes.

Hope it all goes well. Have a good year

It´s actually quite sad (imo) that they see a grade as more important than something that might help them improve.

Or that they are so "programmed" that they are so resistant to change.

TBH I don´t think that there are many jobs where you get grades rather than feedback!

( this is secondary)_

every secondary teacher in state sector will have heard of these techniques
i cannot believe its news to this school

The randometer would be cheaper than lollipop sticks!

'every secondary teacher in state sector will have heard of these techniques
i cannot believe its news to this school'

Of course it is not news to the school... it is TV - they made it look like that. The students planners already ahve a traffic light system in the back which teachers use. Most teachers use random name generators from the internet. The programme has been edited !!!!

If any one is interested, I have found trafic light paper cups for sale at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/school s/the-six-secrets-of-a-happy-classroom-2086855.htm l
packed 50 cups

Sorry put the wrong address on the last post.
If any one is interested, I have found trafic light paper cups for sale at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/school s/the-six-secrets-of-a-happy-classroom-2086855.htm l
packed 50 cups