To think that schools need to get much tougher on low level disruption & it's no wonder we're apparently falling behind other countries in terms of educational attainment.

[Cortina]

After reading the Ofsted report for a local primary I have been thinking that parents and teachers should get much tougher and expect higher standards of behaviour from children. It's no wonder we're apparently falling behind in terms of educational attainment when so many excuses are seemingly made for poor behaviour and low level disruption. At the risk of sounding ancient the sort of letter received by pupils below would be unthinkable 20 years ago.

Excerpts from Ofsted 'letter to pupils':

Sometimes we saw that the work teachers set was either too hard or too easy or a bit boring and then unsurprisingly some of you lost interest and started to misbehave. We think you behave well most of the time, especially in interesting and enjoyable lessons. Sometimes, when the lessons are a bit dull and not so exciting, some of you get restless and begin to disturb others.

The letter goes on to make excuses for low level disruption and some occasional bad behaviour and say that this isn't the children's fault at all. It ends with a request that they smile through and that the officers have noticed it's a good, safe school so they're lucky.

If I read this as an 11 year old child I would assume:

1. I could blame the rather dull lessons & poor lesson planning/teaching for my disruptive behaviour.

2. Wonder why on earth rather dull lessons were on the agenda at all? If the adults think lessons are sometimes boring and a bit pointless then I may as well switch off.

3. To think there were no sanctions or consequences for poor behaviour.

I think we need to wake up. Our children are going to have to compete in an increasingly globalised world. Can you imagine this being written and circulated to children in South Korea, Singapore or China? How the teachers would laugh at us circulating letters like this to pupils.

And I hate to bring up the private/state thing but how many prep schools do you think would have this philosophy? Surely we set our children up for failure with these sort of platitudes and half-baked excuses for poor behaviour.

My wider experience tells me that these sort of attitudes are not isolated to one (good by the way) Primary. I can see that they are trying to 'get the children on side' but I don't think it's working for reasons stated above.

Cortina, thank you for that, but it's not a case of surprising me I think, more that their success is probably unlikely to be in a traditional/academic way.

Luckily they are at a school where they are recognised for their strengths/potential (which I do recognise too). I guess I was being lazy and using 'bright' as shorthand for the traditional/academic sense of the word; dd1 is dyslexic and struggles but works hard; dd2 wants to run a roller disco if being famous doesnt work out and spends most of her time gazing out of the window dreaming about OneDirection. But both are doing ok.

But to go back to the issue of low-level disruption: it seems very easy for parents to blame schools, or say it wouldn't have happened in their day, or at private schools etc, but this doesnt recognise the fact that non-selective schools have no say in their pupil intake and that they work very hard to provide individual children with the support they need. In some cases this works and in some cases it doesnt. Where it does work, everyone says "oh what a fantastic school"; where it doesn't, the school tends to get the blame and I don't think that's right, given the constraints that schools are under.

Cortina, IMO that's nonsense, hard work can only get you so far in a given time period. I'm rubbish at art, I would never be able to display the creative spark let alone technical ability that is required for an A. People would also generally accept that an A is beyond a lot of people in music or PE.

Why don't you? Or do you think that talent isn't required to get the top grades in other subjects like maths?

It is only an A* at GCSE. Any adult could be taught the technical skills and creativity required. It just requires work.

Any adult, Milly? Any subject?

Thanks for the laugh.

noblegiraffe - read 'Drawing on the right side of the brain' (can't recall author) might change your perspective. Carol Dweck discusses how most believe a 'talent' for art is always only a God-given and innate. Good art can be taught and I believe certainly up to GCSE level someone inherently 'average' (whatever that means) can get an A or A* if they are prepared to put the hours in and have wonderful, inspiring teaching. Drawing on the right side of the brain explains that if we can't do it instinctively we can be taught/teach ourselves to perceive light and shade - or something like that - and that's apparently half the battle with 'art'.

If you don't have the requisite 'hardware' to excel in PE perhaps but other than that getting decent/very good grades isn't as hard as you might imagine at GCSE. I find it SO depressing so many seem to think you are hard-wired to only get a C or B in maths etc. If you can do that you can do so much more with determination and the right approach. We are not talking about a masters here but entry level qualifications.

NG, I was referring to Art. Obviously there will be some exceptions where people have some kinds of serious disability.

No DS1 got an A* in music and is not really musical

I agree with Cortina. THe mechanical aspects of drawing and painting - how to represent light and shade, various pencil techniques and so on, can be taught to pretty much anyone.

The issue is that very often they are not taught to anyone, even undergraduates at Art school are often not taught the technical skills of basic art. Unless we get a resurgence of sixties style art schools (which I actually think may happen with the growth of interest in crafts amongst the public), people will fail to learn how to paint and draw.

I hate the OFSTED letters to the putpils. they always sound so patronising and I don't think are helpful at all.

So the fact that everyone isn't getting an A* in art is mainly the fault of art teachers. Right.

If you don't think that there is a point at B grade beyond which students have reached the limit of their ability (say in maths) then surely the conclusion to your argument is that with hard work and a good teacher there is no limit at all? If they can get an A* then why not an A at A-level? Or a first at uni? If you don't agree that everyone is capable of getting a first in maths at uni, or an A at A level then there must be a ceiling for each individual. Why could that ceiling not be, for some people, a B at GCSE?

I think Cortina is right in some subject and wrong in others. Some subjects hard work would get you a very long way; others it will.
I had a friend who was a really hard worker. She would tell you how long she'd revised for a test... often 5-6 hours. She was generally clever too, so she used to come top in most things. I was one who used to occasionally look at a book in the 10 mintues before going into the test. Typically she beat me by many marks. However there were two subjects she never beat me in. One was technical drawing. Although she was brilliant at art (I'm not) I could beat her on that. The other was maths, which she was desperate to beat me at, but I could always do better.

My dm taught maths. She always said that her best result a pupil got for her was an E at GCSE. She had no disability, and dm said she probably was one of the hardest workers she taught, and dm spent a lot of extra time helping her. It's a bit insulting to this girl and diminishing her achievement to imply that if she'd "worked harder" she could have achieved an A.

Yes, I believe there is a ceiling for people. The ceiling will only apply beyond a certain point. We wouldn't, for example, say that just because not everybody has the dexterity required to become a surgeon that most people should fail fine motor skills tests done by small children. So it is where that line falls, and I don't think it falls at GCSE for many subjects.

Claiming it falls at GCSE has become common, because that is how schools can justify getting year 9s to sit GCSEs and get Cs. They will simply claim that the students were not A or B material anyway, but I disagree.

It is not the fault of Art teachers that they were sometimes not taught traditional art techniques themselves. It is not the fault of Art teachers that they lack time and resources and often support from management.

But in general if you want your child to be taught Art properly, you have to pay for your child to join a club to be taught it, in much the same way that you have to pay for ballet, piano, judo and so on. Because state education does not provide time, resources and often expertise for children to become competent at them.

I worked hard at maths too DeWe and didn't take a GCSE as I was considered not to be able enough, effectively maths disabled. A different approach could have got me the grade I wanted (I believe), no one thought I could and I didn't understand. I am going to take it so I'll keep you posted. :) I've since watched explanations re: maths on youtube and the scales fell from my eyes, it had never been explained so well to me you see.

Most can achieve more than they think, that's the thin, and if you can get a B there's no reason on earth an A* is permanently out of reach as I said before.

DeWe, I don't think it is purely a matter of hard work. For the girl you mention, there is the issue of what Maths she was taught prior to your Mum helping her in the run up to GCSEs, what help (or lack of it) she was given by her parents for all the years prior to your mum helping her, and where that girl may have been able to go in later life.

So while she should be proud of the E, it doesn't mean that E was inevitable if she had someone like your mum bringing that child up from birth, and it doesn't mean that just because she got an E at that point in her life, she can't use that achievement as a springboard for more Maths achievement later in life.

And I think this is all rather different to the whole issue of a child saying, Oh, you got 5A at 11 so inevitably you must get A at GCSE or whatever, while the person who got 4B will get a C, when people change hugely over the course of their time at school.

Milly it's this that makes me shudder and it's all too prevalent I fear:

And I think this is all rather different to the whole issue of a child saying, Oh, you got 5A at 11 so inevitably you must get A at GCSE or whatever, while the person who got 4B will get a C, when people change hugely over the course of their time at school.

We had a maths workshop at school recently and they said a child who is predicted a low level 4 at 11 will probably spend more time on method X a few years earlier than a more capable pupil. This is at a good school and this fixed mindset seems to be creeping in more and more IMO.

I thought these levels there were there to act as a safeguard not a straitjacket!

Spiderpig
"Mamateur- I am speechless.You are blaming your DN's inability to behave on the teacher, because he should have been able to control him???
That is priceless!"

No I'm not.

DN behaved badly in his class and the teacher's only method of dealing with it was to send him out. I believe they should have been able to cope with low-level disruption, talking etc. Annoying, unacceptable yes, impossible to stop, I don't think so.

We always made DN fully responsible for his behaviour and worked very hard with the school to get the very different child we have now one year on. Getting a bereaved teenager at 13 is not easy and having him excluded from every class was driving us to despair.

When I had a thread about this several teachers said that the PGCE does not include classroom control, but I could well be wrong.

I think it does include classroom control.
But the Tories don't like PGCEs, they like Teach First and are pushing that.

I have to say that some of the teach first teachers at DN's schools are great because they are very enthusiastic about their subject and keen to excite and stimulate the children. A couple of them are really suffering from very disrupted classes though. In some (of our many many) meetings with the school other teachers have voiced their exasperation at the failings of the TF scheme.

I have a friend who did a PGCE and she said they were told they may need to resort to sending a child out of class in the first years but once they were more experienced they shouldn't need to.

Lack of parental support is a massive issue - I don't think the school would have done what they did for us (daily updated on his behaviour so we could reward and sanction) if we hadn't shown our solid support for them and backed up all their actions at home.

My PGCE did include classroom control, but then, I had an excellent mentor at the school where I was based. Even the college tutors felt that he was exceptionally exacting and a perfectionist, but I am eternally grateful to him. He gave me the tools to become good at my chosen profession.

There were also sessions in college regarding classroom management. As I recall, we spent a long time covering behaviour management.

Well that's a relief Karma I'm pleased to hear it. My personal little although possibly unworkable idea is that kids should be able to watch some classes on the Internet as homework and then discuss it with the teacher in classtime. This would allow all children to concentrate without distraction, absorb more information and have thoughts, and then make the class time more interesting. It's easier to supervise than homework as well. Haven't noticed the government coming to me for advice though!

Mamateur what do you think the teacher should have done. I hear what you are saying as I have sat in classrooms with disruption etc and he is not learning if he is sent out.

Where I worked there was a behaviour policy that issued warnings and sometimes the teacher would write the students name on the board but they were still in class learning.

Of course another problem is that children are much more easily bored these days.

Alemci, they do both of the things you describe. I think they children are very well informed of their rights, and parents come storming down to the school if they think their little one has been mistreated. They are under huge pressure to make the lessons interesting and fun. At DN's supposedly outstanding school two of the subjects in English, lasting several weeks, have been The Simpsons and Eastenders. So not much chance of them covering the classics then! I would have thought teachers should be able to to use, to a sensible extent, embarrassment, i.e. come out front and tell the class what was so interesting etc. but apparently they can't even do this. Maybe someone will come on and tell me this will damage the child but for me, with the job I had on my hands, I just wanted them to get tough with him, not say 'stop it or I'll tell you to stop it again', if you see what I mean.

To be fair to the school, their zero tolerance and constant exiting eventually worked, but only because we imposed strong sanctions whenever he was exited. In fact, it gave us a clear line. Without home support the child would have gone into a holding pattern until it was time to leave.

teachers should be able to to use, to a sensible extent, embarrassment

Humiliating pupils is way down the list of recommended classroom management techniques. Building good relationships with the students is near the top. You can't have them both.

stop it or I'll tell you to stop it again
They didn't though, did they? They said stop it, or if you continue you'll be thrown out of the class to the detriment of your learning, but to the benefit of everyone else's.

Milly, so the kid who had got an E might have got something better if you went back to their birth and gave them a different life. Well, teachers unfortunately get what they are given and don't have that option. So saying 'some children are only capable of getting a B' will take both nature and nurture into account. And of course they are talking about children at school. Saying 'ah, but that kid could get an A if they had a completely different life and took their GCSE at 40' is a bit irrelevant to a school.

You agree that there is a ceiling for people in subjects, but you don't think that it falls at GCSE for anyone. Based on what exactly?

just because not everybody has the dexterity required to become a surgeon that most people should fail fine motor skills tests done by small children

GCSE A* is hardly comparable to a fine motor skills test done by small children is it? It's not like a baseline assessment.

Claiming it falls at GCSE has become common, because that is how schools can justify getting year 9s to sit GCSEs and get Cs. They will simply claim that the students were not A or B material anyway, but I disagree.

I disagree too. Completely. I only believe in early entry for those who want to bank their A* early, or for those who are going to go off the rails in Y11. Progress can certainly be made, for most students, between Y9 and Y11. But that doesn't mean that that progress can be carried on indefinitely up to the top grades.