to be horrified at the behaviour in bohunt school

[SEsofty]

Just watched the programme about Chinese teachers in uk. Whilst I appreciate that it is reality tv and thus exaggeration for effect I was still horrified with the apparent number of children who were talking in class.

I'm not that accident and went to a very normal school but talking whilst teacher did simply didn't happen. I don't agree with the Chinese methods but talking whilst someone is trying to teach you is simply rude.

My daughter is just about to go into year 9 and my son into year 7 at Bohunt. We feel absolutely blessed to have a top ranking state school (within the top ten cent performing state schools in the UK) in our village.

The opportunities presented to the kids are amazing, with trips this year to Greenland and Kurdistan. They aren't handed these on a plate, the children need to earn the majority of the money themselves. The teachers are inspiring, the pastoral care amazing and the discipline effective. What you saw on the tv was not a true representation and my daughter sat gobsmacked watching. She said it was a farce and that the kids would never get away with that normally. The crew filmed for weeks and cherry picked the worst moments to display Bohunt in an unfavourable light. I am very surprised the head (whose name was continually mispronounced) allowed this to go ahead and actually fail to see the point of analysing such culturally different children.

It's an amazing school and my daughter loves it. The kids are reported on 7 times a year so there is no room for slacking. This last intake was so greatly oversubscribed that the head could have filled the school twice over. Please don't believe what you see. Well behaved kids make for boring tv.

The school is in a MC area and manages results that are almost as good as a second tier private school. According to Mamalou they are not just relatively advantaged but well behaved.

'Almost as good as a second tier private school' now looks even less excellent than before.

Cecily, I am quoting several other posters, mainly BertrandRussell, with the comparison to second tier private schools. This is apparently quite a feat for a comprehensive school.

My Dad used to do supply teaching for a while, in his 50s and 60s. Before that, he'd last taught in a school when he left University, so in his 20s. Then he moved to higher education.

He was horrified that, not only were basic classroom manners not taught or expected, but that he couldn't do anything with the disruptors in many cases. One school, he had a group of hardcore teens who just didn't want to be there (French class) so he sent them to the deputy head, who promptly sent them back again! No disciplinary action taken. Dad wasn't allowed to send them out of the classroom because they would rampage up and down the corridor, causing further disruption to other classes; he couldn't send them to the Deputy Head or Head, so what was he supposed to do with them? You're not allowed to stand them in corners any more because of divisiveness and humiliation. It made life extremely difficult, not only for Dad, but for any of the children who actually wanted to learn.

It was very dispiriting - although after a few days the disruptors did settle down a bit in the face of Dad's unrelenting attitude - but then he would move on and I suppose they went back to their bad old ways. :(

"I'm not sure why privileged background = clever Statesman?"

It doesn't, always, but you'd have to be staggeringly naive to ignore the very very strong correlation between privilege and academic success.

Right from the word Go, kids from more privileged backgrounds are (in general) talked to and read to more, they are bathed in language, they spend far more of their leisure hours in environments which enrich their general knowledge and vocabulary (from aquariums to stately homes), they are taken to the library and have books bought for them. Their parents are usually stricter about time spent on TV and computer games.

As they get to school age, their parents hear them read more often, talk to them about things around them and things on the news more, and are more likely to incorporate maths practice into everyday tasks.

As they approach late primary and secondary, their parents often fork out for tutoring of various kinds.

All these factors have an enormous impact on educational attainment. Schools with privileged intakes should be getting a high rate of students to C or higher at GCSE without even trying very hard--these are not terribly difficult exams, as I said.

"Cecily, I am quoting several other posters, mainly BertrandRussell, with the comparison to second tier private schools. This is apparently quite a feat for a comprehensive school."

I haven't mentioned private schools- second tier or otherwise. Could you give me an example of one, please? With details of the % of high, middle and low attainers in the cohort, and the GCSE results in each group.

I decided that I had better watch it, after commenting so much without.
It wasn't half as bad as I had been led to believe. Those pupils were there for hours and the cameras were running. They showed a very short part and you can bet they put in the worst e.g boy deliberately falls off chair and causes disruption - must go in.
It was generally low level disruption, not surprising with a much larger class than normal and children who were not engaged.
They seemed basically nice children and we have seen far, far, worse than Sophie on TV.
I can imagine them easily getting back on track with a teacher who knows them, work that is made understandable and a smaller class.
If I lived in the area I would be happy for my children to go there, with the proviso that I would need to see it on a normal working day to be sure.

I think they are excellent results for a comprehensive who take everyone. They get the below average and the below average can't get the top exam results or even the average exam results.
To find the average you have to have below average - or the average goes up and the exams have to be harder - and the new below average can't get the average results!
Selective schools only take the above average and therefore it is very unfair to compare. If they were forced to take the below average they would still get below average results.
Those with money and privilege still get children who will be average or below average.
If you take all children for a maths lesson on a topic they know nothing about they will start together but after an hour they will be in completely different places. After several lessons on it the range will be huge. The top will have moved on to apply it and the bottom still won't have confidently grasped the basics. You can browbeat them as much as you like but you can't force the understanding.

I have seen such behaviour and worse at Bohunt and many other schools as well as private schools in the south east.As for the trips-there are common at many private and increasingly state schools who are wannabe private schools. On any such trip (which are attended by a very small minority of perhaps 20 out of 1600, but are used for prospectus 'adverts' for the schools) fund raising is hugely supported by parents, but children from deprived backgrounds are unlikely to have the support to reach the huge goals required in my experience, thus it is mainly the bright middle class who go. The trips purport to help local causes in developing countries, however 15 year olds painting schools when suffering altitude sickness or taking 50 footballs, in my mind is less effective than sending a couple of professional builders or simply cash IMO. Bohunt also used to have its SEN department in one if the few rooms in the school on first floor, forcing many children with special needs to travel to other schools thus creating selection through the back door. And don't get me started on the spin on results published by other academies and their 'bussing' policies using tax payers' money!

Oh yes! Results can definitely be manipulated into whatever they want to show! All sorts of underhand tactics go on! That's a whole new thread!

Ah.

"Comprehensive schools can't possibly have good results. This comprehensive school has good results. Ergo this comprehensive school has manipulated its results"

Err...Never said so. Can you tell me where I said that???? Having actually worked in education (always in comprehensive state schools) for many years, I have seen it all.

Heads are under immense pressure to perform to the government's ridiculous expectations. Academies are often money driven and run like businesses. Believe me, you don't have a clue what goes on!

"Heads are under immense pressure to perform to the government's ridiculous expectations. Academies are often money driven and run like businesses. Believe me, you don't have a clue what goes on!"

So you tell me how Bohunt's results have been manipulated?

"The trips purport to help local causes in developing countries, however 15 year olds painting schools when suffering altitude sickness or taking 50 footballs, in my mind is less effective than sending a couple of professional builders or simply cash IMO."

Yup, there are some serious concerns about voluntourism for exactly these reasons. It is all very much about laminating the CV, I am afraid.

Could be any number of ways...

Removing kids from courses they aren't likely to get a C in is a common one.

However, I didn't ever say this was definitely happening at Bohunt. It happens in lots of schools. Grammar schools and even 'rubbish private schools desperate for money'.

You really are a bit of a 'Sophie' aren't you? Twisting words, jumping to conclusions and criticising half the posts here!!

"However, I didn't ever say this was definitely happening at Bohunt"

No, you didn't. But we were talking about Bohunt's GCSE results and what they meant about the school, and your first post on the thread was - "Oh yes! Results can definitely be manipulated into whatever they want to show! All sorts of underhand tactics go on! That's a whole new thread!"

It doesn't not seem to be a huge leap of logic or "twisting of words" to think you might be referring to the school and the results that were under discussion.

My children go/went to a comprehensive and I am happy with their education. I am simply stating that schools, especially academies, which have a free reign on expenditure, can choose to spend tens of thousands on PR, paint and free transport to help bolster middle class children up take of places. Although OFSTED increasingly want to see "3 levels of progress" to be an outstanding 'gold' standard, to include all levels of ability, at the end of the day it's the number of shiny A*s which seem to win out for prospective parents, and Academy heads (for bonuses??). Bohunt is in one of the most affluent areas of the country, although there are rural pockets of dreadful deprivation nearby, but they tend to go to other schools with different foci (the Beeb didn't mention in the first programme that Bohunt students have been offered Mandarin from Year 7 for many years and are used to Chinese teachers in school.

No. I was responding to the poster before me who said "and don't get me started on the spinning of results posted by other academies...."
So, either read all the posts properly before jumping to conclusions or stop twisting words.

So were the students we saw new to Chinese language or not. I think it implied they were complete beginners. And am I right in saying this is their GCSE year? Is it advisable to pick up a new language in GCSE year?
Also, if this GCSE year, I'm not sure I'd want my child 'experimented on'. How many weeks are they doing like this?

They were year 9, so before main GCSE course starts. They were not learning in Chinese. The experiment was to teach core subjects by the Chinese method, although that was undone when they introduced english methods of hands-on craft skills and puzzles to engage the students.

Removing kids from courses they aren't likely to get a C in is a common one.

You can't manipulate the headline figure like this, because you can't remove kids from the English and Maths figures.

So Bohunt getting 85% A-C including English and maths means that at least 85% of the previous y11 cohort got A-C in English and maths. This is brilliant compared to the average.

They were year 9, so before main GCSE course starts.
Oh, that's ok then. Thought it was a it risky otherwise.

They were not learning in Chinese. They weren't learning in Chinese, no, but one of the female teachers was definitely teaching them the Chinese language, as a MFL I thought.

A friends son who attended a local private school was asked to his gcses privately so his results would not be included with the schools. I think they wanted to take him off role.

That's awful zazzie

My friend's DD in private school in Scotland was told they could only take a Higher in maths if they got As in National 5 exam (similar to GCSE). I think that's so they only get the top students taking it to again get top results.

I notice some of the private schools publish % of GCSE, A levels etc then compare them to the national average - and not just other private schools probably so it's harder to see how 'good' they actually are.

No, you can't for English and Maths but you can in other non core subjects. I've seen it done many times. I really felt bad for the kids who had studied for two years on a course only to be told they couldn't sit it.

I knew someone that happened to, mrsnewfie - she was in one of the first cohorts to be taking GCSEs after the league tables started and even in the early days, schools were being careful about who was allowed to take what, in case they "skewed" the results. I thought it was disgusting then, preventing children from taking exams in case they didn't get a high enough result - still do really.