To be upset by this? (Or just really naive?)

[mollysmum82]

I attended a teacher training inset at my new school the other day. It was all about 'gcse results development' - basically how they could optimise their 5 a-c results at gcse for the league tables. The head teacher put a list of year 11 children's names on the projector, alongside the grades they were predicted for summer. He told us to 'ignore the e,f,g grade pupils' as they were a lost cause anyway, in terms of achieving the precious grade c for the league tables. He also said to ignore the a, a* and b grade candidates as it was unlikely they would slip under a c. Instead we were told to focus all out attentions on the c/d grade pupils to ensure they got their c (and thus the high place in the league tables for the school).

This attitude really shocked and upset me. It goes against every value I have for individual children mattering and helping everyone achieve their highest potential.

Am i naive? Does every school do this??

My bright, underachieving son was pulled into a management team meeting when he was in year 10, and shown the 'Wall of Shame' (that's what the member of staff called it) - photos of every pupil in the school, arranged left to right in order of predicted grades. He was second-to-bottom.

I assume the staff thought this might motivate my DS to 'prove them wrong'. They didn't know him well enough: he was furious and humiliated and thought "Fuck you then, I'll stop doing anything".

I was spitting mad. It took me a whole year to persuade him that failing his GCSEs just to spite them wouldn't hurt them, just him. And it took him more than 2 years to re-gain any self-confidence.

From a school's POV, it's totally counter-productive, because there is good evidence that children rise or sink to expectations: if teachers 'write off' certain pupils, they are likely to create a self-fulfilling prophesy. :(

I would agree with noblegiraffe. It isn't the system that is failing, it is individual schools.

I work in an outstanding school and I find it constantly amazing how we manage to churn out so many A* and A grades from our very average comprehensive intake. The system isn't failing here, it's working very well thank you very much.

potatoprints > "the system is failing their dc, or at best not supporting them to reach their individual potential".

Yes. Personally, I think it's about learning styles. There is very little left in the secondary National Curriculum for young people who learn through doing rather than sitting still and listening (those called 'activist' or 'experiential' learners). Sensible schools recognise this and do the best they can for such pupils, within the constraints of the NC. Poor schools fail, writing off such pupils and/or punishing them for finding it hard to learn in the unsuitable ways they are taught.

The reason (I hope) schools haven't wholeheartedly embraced learning styles is because its debunked pseudo-science. Not as bad as Brain Gym, but still nonsense.

Well admittedly it's almost 20 years since I did my PGCE, giraffe, and I'm aware of the debate and some significant criticisms - but nothing that justifies dismissing the entire field of learning theory as 'debunked pseudo-science'. :) You may find [[itslifejimbutnotasweknowit.org.uk/files/LSRC_LearningStyles.pdf this report]] interesting, esp. section 5:

Oops! Dodgy link. I'll try again :)

Well admittedly it's almost 20 years since I did my PGCE, giraffe, and I'm aware of the debate and some significant criticisms - but nothing that justifies dismissing the entire field of learning theory as 'debunked pseudo-science'. You may find this report interesting, esp. section 5.

Ok, I had a quick skim through the document which didn't seem that relevant to secondary education and came across this bit
What advice for practitioners?
In the current state of research-based knowledge about learning styles, there are real dangers in commending detailed strategies to practitioners, because the theories and instruments are not equally useful and because there is no consensus about the recommendations for practice. There is a need to be highly selective. As we have seen, for example, in Section 3 with regard to Dunn and Dunn (Table 3),Gregorc (Table 5) and Riding (Table 11), our examination of the reliability and validity of their learning style instruments strongly suggests that they should not be used in education or business. On the other hand, the research of Entwistle (Table 4) and Vermunt (Table 13), which is both more guarded in its claims and built on more solid theoretical foundations, offers thoughtful advice that might, after careful trials and revisions, be extended to post-16 learning outside higher education.

Well, if that's the best they can say about them....!

Here's my link

teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/never-forget-learning-styles-are-complete-arse/

If you're a teacher or other education practitioner, it's worth a proper read sometime :)

I find it incredible that we can have the educational system scrutinized by people who display such a flagrantly obvious ignorance with regards to the methodology employed in the formulation of grades. All this constant, incessant whining, from the self-appointed armchair educational experts we see before us, why not at least inform yourself? I'd like to think that critical inquiry is not the sole privilege of men, in order for mumsnet to be representative of mothers, it must recognize the need to avoid any reactionary standpoints, which seem to abound in this dark corner of the internet.

The ramifications on society as a whole, are huge, when large proportions of the kids who have a chance of passing exams, and going onto career paths of some description,are allowed to fail. IMO, this is exactly where the teachers should spend their energy.

What's that quotation, attributed to Einstein? ?Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.?

Exams are a measure of tree-climbing ability, so to speak. There are plenty of young people out there with other skills which are entirely neglected by our education system.

That in itself might be fair enough: school may well not be the place to teach things like cookery and artistic appreciation and critical thinking and quantum physics and plant growing and book-keeping... But what irks me is the system's insistence that the national curriculum is 'what counts', whereas really, it is a very narrow slice of what you need for life, taught in ways that do not suit many.

I blame politicians rather than teachers. Most teachers know that the curriculum limits learning.