Silly things teachers think will work(370 Posts)
One of the teachers at my child's school (he is in sixth form) thinks giving out yellow cards and red cards for 'bad' behaviour in class will somehow motivate 17 year olds.
At my 14 year old's school (a different school) he was asked to write a letter to Father Christmas during an English lesson. The teacher was dead serious. REALLY?
I pressume that nether of these teachers have children of their own, but should surely have been taught at uni that these things were completely age inappropriate.
I think one of the main issues here is that the teaching and behaviour of students you get in a grammar is on the whole better than you get in a comp and to an extent this is what enables greater academic progress. Don't get me wrong, there are some fantastic comps - I went to one myself, but in general they need to be better run and students need to disciplined more. I know many people who would be fantastic teachers but who wouldn't touch it with a barge pole because of the working conditions and the constant scrutiny from all sides.
Socio-economic background is a huge determiner of whether someone gets into a grammar school. It shouldn't be, but it is. Students from wealthier backgrounds are more likley to have parents who are educated, have books at home, talk about intellectual subjects and have a wider vocabulary; thus these children will fair better in verbal reasoning because their minds have been exercised in this way before sitting the 11+. Let's also not forget the amount of children who are tutored into the 11+, another factor determined by cash flow. These children will also be more likely to work harder either because parents are pushing them or because they are used to working harder because they will have gone to a better primary school which fosters a good work ethic.
The main issue here is that while many schools do a very good job and there are many excellent teachers, the education system is not fit for purpose. Lots of schools do not provide a good education for students because they are not being run properly and because the government allows this to happen through their mismanagement. The education system is vast, complex and unwieldy and teachers are at the front line of it trying their best to deal with an ever-changing set of demands while ministers indulge in ad-hoc policy making. Comments such as that of the original poster are really not helpful in what is a very difficult set of circumstances. We are all stakeholders in the education system because we all should be stakeholders in our future. Therefore, if it is to work successfully, people need to understand that while we live in an age of entitlement, everyone needs to take responsibility including parents and students.
In short, give teachers a break. Be enquiring about your child's education, but try to understand rather than being unhelpful or accusative.
22% of kids being in the wrong place is a huge problem! In a comp, if they are setted then they can move sets relatively easily. If they are stuck in the wrong school (under the secondary modern model) then you get bright kids with a ceiling placed on their achievement, or a not so bright kid struggling and failing in a grammar when they might have thrived elsewhere.
And there's nothing to say that the majority of the 78% of kids allocated the correct school wouldn't have done just as well in a setted comp.
..and of course a large factor in academic success is hard work.No test can predict whether a teenager will go off the rails during the next 5 years!
But 4 in 5 are correctly placed.I think that's good!
Incidentally do you know how 11+ results correlate to A level results? Just curious because I have known lots of boys bloom in the 6th form
You're right - they should, but a lot of them have below average non-verbal (i.e. reasoning) CAT scores, too. I think data is useful to a certain extent... but children are not machines!
That is why the 11+ selects on academic potential
But that assumes that the 11+ is an accurate predictor of academic attainment at age 16.
We know from statistical analysis that the current 'best' predictive tests of academic attainment at age 16 (CATs, MIDYAS, London reading test - don't know about 11+) only offer a correlation of about 0.7 (with 1 being a perfect predictor) between results at 11 and results at 16. Let's say you look at the top 25% at 11. You think this means that they will still be the top 25% at age 16 and send them off to a grammar school suitable for their obvious academic ability.
Unfortunately, statistics show that 22% of students will have gone to the wrong school based on your prediction. 11% will have failed at 11 when they are in the top 25% at 16, and 11% will have passed at 11 when they are not in the top 25% at 16.
So, 1 in 5 children misplaced as a result of selection at 11 isn't great really.
But wrt to the OP.
Ok I don't believe either of the ideas mentioned are particularly good, but teachers have to try out new things to see how they work otherwise their teaching will become stale and never progress.
'In the comprehensive school, there are children in my top set year 10 who came to us with level 4s and were put in set 3s - essentially, bottom sets. Over the years they have worked and worked and, in some cases, just "got" it at some point, which has enabled them to end up where they are.'
That is why the 11+ selects on academic potential (ie reasoning ability) and not current attainment. So these children you describe should (in theory anyway) have been picked out for their latent ability.This is why the 11+ throws up so many unexpected results because it doesn't discriminate against lazy, badly taught or late blooming kids.
I dont believe in 11-plus. On "stretching" There was one headmaster who should have been stretched on the end of a rope. But it was all some time ago .Things have changed. Nil desperandum
"we shouldn't stretch a section of society's kids because they are 'better off'."
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that we should stretch the all kids who are genuinely academic, and not just simply the ones who are better off who managed to impress (or jump through a hoop) at a very young age.
In Germany it is very clear that who gets into the Gymnasium or the Realschule or Hauptschule depends on their social background. International research is very clear that selection perpetuates social inequality, with the earlier the selection, the worse the effect.
If you are concerned about stretching the academic and not merely the children of the already advantaged in society who appear to be more academic at an early age because they've been tutored or given access to more resources or haven't just arrived in the country, or had medical issues or undiagnosed SEN etc etc you cannot support selection.
For example, the average CAT score across our top three sets is the same as that at the local Grammar school - children are set by ability and their teaching is tailored to that, but there is still flexibility of movement between sets which is not possible for the children who didn't get into the Grammar school.
No, no, no. The point is that if they are separated at, say, 11, or even later, there is no opportunity for fluidity of movement between sets/ courses etc.
In the comprehensive school, there are children in my top set year 10 who came to us with level 4s and were put in set 3s - essentially, bottom sets. Over the years they have worked and worked and, in some cases, just "got" it at some point, which has enabled them to end up where they are.
If they had been sent to a different school and set off on a vocational course, that wouldn't be possible. Why should they be denied that opportunity?
And to suggest children aren't "stretched" is not only rude but ignorant.
There we go again: Quote "Somehow it's the better off kids that end up being 'academically selected'" - noblegiraffe. That's whats wrong with this country, the rush to the bottom, we shouldn't stretch a section of society's kids because they are 'better off'. The constant rush for equality at the bottom. Nooooooo
If teaching to the test is taking the fun out of it just stop it, or do it less.
There is a time and a place for teaching to the test but there should be time to do so much more and I suspect grades would be better if we taught to the test less.
Getting pupils to pass exams is only a part of what I am employed to do. The day my job becomes about teaching to a test is the day I go back to my old job .
Hmmm, it would be good if you could just say to the 17year old 'you're not prepared to work so leave' but colleges are judged on their retention rates by ofsted. It's a brave head who throws away that criteria. Red and yellow cards are culturally recognised as a strategy with adults on the sports field so not so patronising really.
There are a large number (which is steadily increasing) of pupils who are at school because there is nothing else to do - not Uni material, no college courses available and no jobs. Also, some subjects in some schools are compulsory and so not only do they not want to be at school, they don't want to be doing the subject. Sometimes a reward/ points/ card system does help with seniors and you cannot assume that they all know how to behave of care enough to do so. If you know it isn;t working then, by all means, complain but if you don't know its effects it really isn't your place to judge.
Teachers are not taught any of that stuff at Uni - they are ultimately left to work out what works for them/ their classes themselves.
As a teacher I think the league tables have A LOT to answer for.
I also think pupils should be able to opt out of school as soon as they have taken GCSEs as long as they have an apprenticeship to go to - and have to return in they drop out of the apprenticeship before completing 2 years.
Teaching to the test takes all the fun out of it
There's a MNer based in Germany who started a thread recently asking for advice on UK boarding schools - that's how bad the German system is!
People who favour selection always bang on about Germany as if its school system is great. Germany's school system has been roundly slated by the UN for perpetuating social inequality. Somehow it's the better off kids that end up being 'academically selected' for academia, and the disadvantaged kids that end up being set on the vocational path. Its PISA scores aren't particularly great either.
Star girl, the GTC was disbanded last year. Just saying. You can work as an unqualified teacher in private education - or the new 'free' schools.
And I'm not sure what you mean by saying that teachers haven't been traine in College for years? Do you mean like a B Ed? Because every year we have ITT students from te local teacher training college affiliated with the University.
I don't think I'd use the cards (I have them for younger students) but I do find that Y12s have their phones out and are a bit too chatty). The teacher's sanctions are up to them and will/should be part of the whole school behaviour policy.
ummm ... arent the league tables already based on "the % of kids getting 5 A*-C grades"
I think that league tables are part of the problem. Schools teach to the test because those test results will be published. In trying too hard to increase the exam results, too many basic skills are missed. Perhaps league tables should be changed- again, it would need re-education of the general populace. I woul far prefer a reporting system which focused on levels of progress, say, than the % of kids getting 5 A*-C grades. Until we get over the obsession with "passing" exams, any alternative would be sneered at.
I, for one, value BTECs for what they are. In some subjects, they are a more appropriate qualification. Try telling that to most people though...
Yes ET I guess we have come to the pivotal reason, perceptions. Why do the 'English' look down on vocational skills. I really don't know, other countries don't. I certainly don't, perhaps we should teach everyone a MFL. But I will hypothesize from local experience, when I want a plumber/electrician/tradesman etc you cant find a good one, they don't come out for days and when they do they are Eastern European. I know several tradesmen that earn 100k a year, it doesn't make sense. I will quite happily pay for a good job but we don't have a nationwide system of training experts in the various trades that I can trust. And I would be as happy to pay for decent work, just as much as I pay my doctor, architect or lawyer. I think if a government was brave enough to radically reform the vocational education so we could trust the quality then perceptions would chance. You could even make the choice of school voluntary and I think it would work. A plumber earning 100k salary and zero debt would be a much better career path than a scientist with 40k student loans and a 20k salary.
If you get rid of league tables, how would you identify and deal with failing or coasting schools? There are plenty.
Join the discussion
Please login first.