Did schools used to be like this?

[spiderslegs]

DS started school FT in January & ever since it's been a constant stream of missives, announcements, edicts & raised brow questioning from his teacher.

The first week he was there I had a constant battle with his teacher because I was sending him to school with a padded body warmer on, not a coat, every day she asked me if he 'has a coat, because we play out every day, even when it's drizzling' & yes, you do, but not WHEN IT'S PISSING DOWN. In which case his arms will get slightly damp, as will his legs & face, how would you like me to mitigate against that, full dry suit & mask?

It was warmish & sunny, biblical floods were not on the horizon .

Consequently, EVERY CHUFFING DAY it's been something, last week was battle of the drinks, they have a school issued water bottle (irritating in itself) which I sometimes put in, he has milk at break & a drink for lunch, I was taken aside twice for not giving him a drink - I had he just didn't arsing drink it, maybe they should have asked him to look in his bag again?

Would you like me to pop in a few times a day to ensure he has fulfilled his government recommended level of fluid intake - WOULD YOU?

On Friday the lovely mum that drops him off sheepishly told me teacher asked her to mention she did NOT LIKE HIS SHOES, they are difficult to do up apparently - I'm sorry, I'll get him some M&S footgloves shall I?

Today's final straw was the letter from the eco-co-ordinator that asked me to reduce waste in his lunch box & that they would be speaking to the children about waste in their lunches THEN COLLECTING & COMPARING THAT WASTE - so you'd like to make my son feel like a miscreant & social pariah because he has a Baby-bel rather than a dried up hunk of cheddar planed from a block would you???

So AIBU to want to run through the school screaming - 'I AM A FREE BORN HUMAN BEING - MY CHILDREN ARE FREE BORN HUMAN BEINGS - I WOULD LIKE YOU TO TEACH THEM MATHS, & READING & SPELLING BUT LEAVE THE REST OF IT TO ME PLEASE'

Am I ?

The basic facts of math have not changed, but the teaching has, which is good. Singapore has been roundly booting the U.S.'s ass in math tests for a long while now, so...drum roll...the school I work at has begun using the Singapore system. Because obviously it works. I would be feckin' irritated if they didn't.

Some of the teachers I work with hate the water bottle thing...I certainly don't remember being constantly thirsty when I was kid, but drinking water is never a bad thing, so hey ho as far as I'm concerned.

Christ, reading some of these posts makes me wonder why I bloody bother. I agree OP that some of the school's requests were really OTT, particularly the "we are going to be comparing lunchboxes for waste" etc etc. So, maybe all in one term this is alot to be dealing with and doesn't create a very harmonious relationship with a parent but to suggest that teachers ought not to have a say in your child's welfare beyond "teaching maths, reading" etc I find really depressing.

Of course i worry about my class if they don't have a proper coat on a cold/ wet day, I certainly would ask a parent to send in a coat with sleeves rather than a bodywarmer. Equally I would be frustrated if a parent sent a small child to school in shoes that they couldn't put on and take off.

I do loads of healthy schools activities with the kids and parents at my school. For example my family running club has 51 runners every week aged from 3 to 72. I find that these activities are very well recieved. Faced with several clearly obese children in every class and alot of obese parents I think ANYTHING we can do to help is a good thing.

It sounds like the op just thinks she's too good for the school. Too special to send her dc at the right time, in the same sort of coat as the others are wearing, with the regulation water bottle. Too clever to attend a maths evening (which sounds like a great idea).

Soon after I finished high school I was tutoring maths. Mostly advanced maths (calculus) to HSC students. Somehow I got an 8 yr old to tutor. My goodness, I struggled with working out how to teach her subtraction. I can do subtraction, but if I taught her the method I knew she would be marked wrong - as it is the working out the teachers want to see. If I had had the benefit of sitting next to her in class, I probably would have understood what the teacher wanted - but I didn't. All I had was a few exercises that she had brought home to go by. So actually showing parents what is expected sounds great.

I think you should volunteer op at the school or activity for children to get a taste of what it is like for the teachers day in day out.

I matroned at DD's ballet show and it was eyeopening.

Letter sent home with every child with instructions which were just common sense

Send child water bottle, packed lunch, pink ballet socks, ballet shoes (named), times of show/rehersals.

Room full of excited 5 year old girls. Miss I haven't got any socks, Miss i'm thirsty - have a drink - I haven't got one. Miss i'm hungry - you are ok to have your lunch - I haven't got any. Put your shoes on - one child's were too small, countless had no names in - yes we had nothing better to do than try and match ballet shoes to owner . Mums arriving very late to collect DC without a word of apology.

I ended up feeding, providing drinks, spare socks - which were never returned.

Got a glimpse into what life must be like for teachers.

I agree trying. I don't think any parent ought to feel compelled to attend every single thing that the school puts on but seriously, these are signs of a school with a really comitted staff who care about the children in their classes.

This does puzzle me with maths teaching:

Trying You can do higher maths so obviously know basic numeracy but

"My goodness, I struggled with working out how to teach her subtraction."

If it's not glaringly obvious to you what's going on how on earth is a primary child going to 'get it' even with instruction? Why not keep with the methods that allowed you to understand subtraction

I can do subtraction,"

and which most parents could use to help their child or at least don't stray too far which ends up confusing everyone except the teacher unless the parents go back to school to learn the new methods which will be discarded anyway once the child understands how to subtract. Some of the methods that my children come home with seem strangely convoluted to get to the end result.

'I think you should volunteer op at the school or activity for children to get a taste of what it is like for the teachers day in day out.'

And in return, the teacher could come into my workplace to see how busy and important I am during the day and not on hand to pop into the school every 5 minutes? Great idea!

I have to say, modern state education has really gone too far when a school, with a straight face it appears, can ban babybels on the grounds someone may slip on the wax!

Babybels - the scourge of our times. Just eradicate the evil waxy monsters and no one would ever die.

Because the method that I was taught subtraction mean that some DCs never understand it, Juule. They can get them right and they can have a wonderful page of ticks but they haven't a clue why.

A good example is my music certificates. As a DC I did theory of music and I have a whole batch of music certificates to quite a high grade, each one has distinction stamped on it.
I was good at maths and it was logical. I could give an augmented 7th or a diminished 5th, transpose music to a different key etc. Simple.
HOWEVER I haven't a clue what an augmented 7th is, or why you would use it. I didn't know what the music sounded like, or how it was different when transposed. Therefore, it looks impressive, but if I wanted to take music further it would be exposed-it is meaningless.
It is the same with maths-you can get it all right- but if you don't understand it will be exposed further on. I had a job tutoring yr 6 in maths as a 'one to one' and that really exposed the ignorance- I had to go back and really make sure that they knew why things happened.

Exotic I'm a bit split on this. I think that we learn some things initially just by memorising methods and then later finding out the detail. For instance, being given formulae to work out areas. So, with your music, had you gone further with it you would probably have come to understand the whys of 7ths or 5ths. Particularly if you were interested in the whys.
But I think an explanation of what is going on can help some children and further detail is beneficial if the child wants to know more. For some though, just knowing what to do is better to start with and the why can follow shortly after.
It probably depends on the child (as ever).

Was the y6 you tutored taught with more recent methods?

I do agree with you that the 'pay back' method of subtraction was misleading and didn't help understanding of what was going on in any way.

The bright ones learn by any method and so it really doesn't matter-they will pick up that you are not borrowing and paying back. Not all do. The year 6s had the 'modern methods' the problem was not the method, but that they were moved on too quickly. (my bugbear with maths in schools-at one time you kept going until they got it but now it is 'week 5 time to do 3D shape).
I had to go back and do a lot of work on place value.

I agree that, if I wanted to,I could find out what my theory of music meant- but do you not think it could have been explained at the time and that they could have picked up that I was doing it as a maths exercise? I may have been slower, and not got distinctions, but I wouldn't now have meaningless bits of paper (but very nice meaningless bits of paper).

The way it is taught now it is stressed that once DCs are comfortable with it, and understand it, they can choose the method that suits them. (all these years later I still borrow 10 and pay one back-but I wouldn't teach it like that-the bright DC may well end up doing it)

Jo Boaler author of The Elephant in the Classroom: Helping Children Learn and Love Maths suggests that girls need to know the whys whereas boys are happy with the hows and if girls can't be told the whys they can become very disillusioned with Maths.

Exotic, I thought that things were revisited for those who didn't understand the first time - sort of week5 3d shapes then again at week10. Although, I suppose if it was too quick the first time, the same would happen the next time maybe and the ones who did understand the first time would be a bit bored the 2nd?

I don't know with your music exam. Was it the theory that was being tested? And you were a distinction at that.

Bettybathroom All boys "how" and All girls "why"?

Juule I'm sure there are exceptions. I wonder if other teachers have noticed this tendency.

That is the thinking juule-'they haven't got it-never mind it is revisited' -in the 'old days' when teachers go to decide for themselves I taught it until they understood it. Some things you can leave and get second time around but place value is essential-you can't build without foundations. The problem with the maths hour was that you were teaching the whole class and with the best will in the world you are conscious that the top go slower than they need and it is too fast for the bottom. IMO the bright need a few quick examples and can move on but those with difficulty could do with pages of examples so they could have the satisfaction of knowing what they are doing and getting it right.

I have left teaching and I think the unit plans have now gone-but it set out the lesson-down to what the teacher was to say!

I think that is a bit sexist Betty as if all girls are the same and all boys the same! Some DCs want to know why and some don't-regardless of that they all need to know why.

Yes it was theory of music-I was star pupil-without a clue what it meant. I never used them on a CV when young-too terrified that I might be expected to have knowledge!!

at OP embracing velcro. Make sure you're not wearing a wooly jumper at the time!

Our school ran a useful parents' session about their phonics teaching, cause they use signs for each sound.

Suddenly it became clear why DD had been running round the house saying things like, 'Rain! RRR! RRR!' and growling like a dog. I'd thought the pressure was getting to her...

I would say that those who are good at maths are the ones who want to know why-regardless of gender. Those who are not good just want the lesson over without drawing attention to themselves and if it 'works' it is good enough for them!

It's not my observation it's that of a specialist maths teacher. Just because it's sexist doesn't mean it's not the case.

Totally agree with your last posts, Exotic.

and

"I never used them on a CV when young-too terrified that I might be expected to have knowledge!!" :o

And it was something she had observed within a group of able mathematians.

I have taught a small class of very able mathematicians -and it wasn't something that I observed. I think that it is one of those things like 'men are better at parking than women' and it has just been proved incorrect. I would have been happy to agree with it because I am terrible at parking, but I have other female friends who can get in a very small space.
I think that it is too broad a statement to be useful.

'Suddenly it became clear why DD had been running round the house saying things like, 'Rain! RRR! RRR!' and growling like a dog. I'd thought the pressure was getting to her...'

think that's my favourite post of the week, Boulevard.

Exotic "I think that it is too broad a statement to be useful"

It's useful if used in the right way. Jo was exploring why girls find maths less interesting or perform less well than boys. She feels teachers tend to focus on the hows rather than the whys, leading girls, who she states more often eed the whys, to become less engaged in maths.

I don't think that whether you want to know the how or why of something should be based on whether you are male or female.