to wonder if school staff rooms involve much parent bashing?

[lottielou39]

A comment below (in the thread about childcare being too expensive for people to do poorly paid part time work) from someone who worked in a nursery and said the weekly meetings were mostly about parent bashing, got me wondering. What are school staff rooms really like? I'd love to be a fly on the wall. Are parents slagged off on a daily basis? Which parents cause the most dread? Is it ever possible for a parent to have a valid gripe (in the eyes of the school staff room) or are they always stupid and annoying?

Likearollingstone - what makes you think that lawyers don't do a degree and a conversion course, a little like teachers?

Well seeing as dd's first HT described me as being the most difficult and demanding parent she had ever had the misfortune to meet I daresay my name was mud in the staff room .
Had she been more effective at ensuring dd's statement was met as it should have been by law then I wouldn't have had to be difficult or demanding.
Dd's current HT says I am someone he is happy to work alongside to ensure dd fulfils her potential.
Funnily enough the terms of her statement are met at her current school and we work in partnership to support dd and I am very reasonable and flexible as a consequence.

IME the people who go into teaching without the desire to teach don't last very long at all in the job.

It is now also much harder to get onto teaching courses, the entry requirements as a result have increased.

Am interested - what do you think should be the entry requirements and training requirements to becoming a teacher?

Vast majority of parents are supportive and lovely. Nothing we tell them about their dcs comes as a surprise. Don't generally discuss parents unless they complain. Sometimes they have just cause. However, this is becoming increasingly common: a request expectation of one-to-one coaching for dc, who has done very little preparation for a piece of GCSE controlled assessment, believing that actual work is for the swots and lo and behold has done badly. Parent suggests teacher's teaching/expectations were not sufficiently 'clear', and if only dc had the teacher's individual, undivided attention for an hour after school it will make all the difference to their dc's grade.

Yes I know they do, but you don't get a job where you're having a significant impact on society without proving you're good at it...

I know of one member of staff that was shagging a parent, but it wasn't in the staff room - it was a different part of the school. Her DS1 made house captain and he & %232 is always getting nice little pats on the head My kids don't get anything...wonder why..?

How do you think teachers should prove their capability?
Do you think this inclass experience is not part of the professional course teachers take, or the induction year afterwards? How would you improve this?

I think it should be more in depth in terms of psychology in particular child development and neurology. I also think ther should be more practical training and possibly a research orientated element. I know this would vastly reduce the number of applicants but I think they should be paid more and have have more professional diplomas and continuous learning.

What do you think we should do then? If not a degree and a PGCE? And now for most entrants a Masters as well...

Think the research element... A doctorate would make a huge difference... Those that really wanted to and were interested would... Those that weren't wouldn't make it that far. I know it's an idealistic solution but I believe that's how things could be improved. Even if only senior teachers did this and then trained teachers below them... I don't get a sense of real coaching and development in the teaching profession.

Some SN provision is appalling, I will agree. My own well-regarded school has made some improvement but sadly the wrong person is in charge with little access to the right funding - if you were a frustrated parent venting about where I work I'd completely understand. It is incredibly frustrating when you have experience of other schools in other parts of the country doing it so much better and demoralising when the response from SMT is to throw it back at the class teacher when the particular issue is so complex to be beyond your specialism or slap you across the wrist for suggesting that more must be done if we are to meet that child's needs. Grr.

There is a research component. I did a research project in my PGCE many years ago, and all the trainees I mentor (both PGCE and GTP) have to do one too.

Neurology? How so?

I have have a degree in Biochemistry (final year specialism in neuroscience), a PhD and another degree in Psychology, so know a bit about child development and neurology. But if I were an English teacher, I would probably know a little less, it's true.

Teaching needs to become a respected profession based on science IMO.

They do have extended vocational practise - several weeks, plus a year's full time induction which must also be passed, also involving various courses and an assessment element.

There is usually a research element of any PGCE/Education course - a bit like a dissertation I suppose.

There is continuous development every year - 5 days of INSET plus various courses. There are also professional development and trining in staff meetings most weeks.

I agree that there is not much on psychology/neurology, although there are some elements of this.

How much knowledge/experience do you have of current teaching courses and continued practises?

An education doctorate? Before becoming a teacher?

Yes but, fallen you are probably one of the good teachers who make a difference...

Okay, so what is being said here is that my Ds has been to 5 schools and I have never seen a SMART IEP.

The kind of scientific rigour require to write on is not included in teacher training.

Almost all Ofsted reports on even outstanding schools state significant room for improvement in using data/knowledg of prior learning to inform teaching.

So why ar so many teachers unable to do this? And why isn't evidence-based practice a part of the teacher training curriculum given it is an Ofsted inspected attribute?

By research, I don't mean a 3 month dissertation, I mean 2-3 year phd.

All the recently and newly qualified teachers I know are continuing their studies to Masters level, and certainly this involves further research.

What is your experience of teacher training and CPD?

"Almost all Ofsted reports on even outstanding schools state significant room for improvement in using data/knowledg of prior learning to inform teaching. "

Because OFSTED keeps changing what they actually want and don;t ever leave a system in place long enough for anyone to become adept at it

A doctorate would make a huge difference. It would mean that a lot of the dedicated and excellent teachers out there would never have gone into teaching, as they couldn't afford to spend that much time in education themselves not earning. I know I certainly wouldn't have been able to afford another 3 years (I believe thats how long a doctorate usually takes) without any meaningful income. There is a lot of further training involved in teaching, I have taken part in a number of coaching projects, am involved in a 'teaching and learning group' and have regularly been observed by other teachers as part of their continued development. Some schools are good at it, others aren't. Unfortunately I think that will get worse as we are all forced encouraged to become academies without central LA control and guidance.

You want all teachers to have a PhD before they have even been a teacher?
They'd need to be in working as a teacher in order to gain the necessary research surely?

Teaching is a crucial job which benefits society in untold ways... I just want to see it treated like one. Anyway off now, sorry of I've offended anyone.

I doubt teaching will ever be respected by some people sadly. Wouldn't matter what qualifications were in place.

We use data all the time. Really, all the time. Obviously, I'm talking about secondary, because that is my sector. We assess frequently - summatively and formatively. We are judged ourselves, individually, on the progress made by all our students collectively and individually. No excuses. Whether they have SEN, or EAL (or indeed have very, very limited English), or challenging circumstances outside school, or very low attendance, or just don't work very hard, they must make progress, and I need to demonstrate that they have done so. I personally need to do it for my own performance management, and I need to do it for my department as a HoD.