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.

It depends which guardian report you read!
not what this one says

Another Guardian report here that is highly critical.

"There is nothing intellectual in perpetuating the self serving myth that UK education is somehow the best in the world"
Nobody is saying that.
Why did you say that history, literature and philosophy are of no benefit unless you are going study PPE at Oxbridge?

Yet another critical report
I have stuck to the Guardian since you seem to rate it Vanilla.
There are more but I am off to bed.
It is as I thought with statistics. 200,000 15 yr olds appear to be missing from the Shanghai statistics. At least UK counts them all!

I suggest that people read my 3 links- most interesting.

Ahem, …….. the critical articles you describe are letters from the public and speculative objections but teachers. Being from March and Feb 2015 respectively, they predate the article of 12 August 2015 I linked to, reporting that the results of the experiment were a great success, so the government decided to expand it.

The results in English schools showed benefits for English students, but of course some teachers are afraid of change.

Blimey! Afraid of change? We should all be quaking in our boots!!

Education is all about change!

Time will tell. I would prefer to listen to teachers, who do the job,rather than a minister who hasn't a clue.
It isn't possible to usefully teach a yr5 class the same thing, at the same time, at the same pace where the spread goes between a child who goes off to the secondary school for a lesson once a week- he is so advanced - and one who can't tell you instantly which number goes with 62 to make 100.

You can only do this if you have similar ability in the class.

Bertrand, you are distorting what I said and are repeatedly posting the distortion.

Other posters have already mentioned to you that you come across as aggressive and anti everything.

Teachers are hardly afraid of change- they have had nothing but change for 20 yrs. before it has time to work they are off to the next 'in' thing. Then all change when that doesn't work!

In this class of 50 what do you do when you have about 6 who say 'I just don't get it?'.

"Do our school leavers at 16 really know much about history, do they even know what is philosophy and how much of that literature have they read? What is the material advantage for those not heading to Oxbridge to read PPE?"

This is what you said- could you possibly explain what you meant? Because it does sound as if you are saying that literature, history and philosophy are only useful if you are going to read PPE at Oxbridge.

And I really would like someone to tell me how Chinese schools deal with the liberal arts. Because I think they are very important.

It isn't possible to usefully teach a yr5 class the same thing, at the same time, at the same pace where the spread goes between a child who goes off to the secondary school for a lesson once a week- he is so advanced - and one who can't tell you instantly which number goes with 62 to make 100.

Yet in China and most of Europe they do just that and perform better in Maths. In China they manage to get better results at lower costs in classes of 50. This is what teachers are afraid of. The experiment shown that it is possible to teach a class in a London school in a way that all DC get difficult concept at the same time and all progress to success at a faster pace overall than in the current UK system. This is how it should be. I want my DC to go to that school.

That insane segregation was created by the current teaching ideology in first place, leaving behind summer born children, putting barriers for visual and introverted learners that statistically should account for 50% of the class, and entrenching the advantage of extraverted middle class DC with pushy parents. The setting system disadvantages most as over time it creates a cumulative cap to their attainment. It is the grammar selection by the back door since Reception. The DC working at secondary school level should go to a special school for gifted and talented.

"This is how it should be. I want my DC to go to that school."

Well, I might want my child to go to that school- maths is important. But I'd want to know how they dealt with the liberal arts too. Because they are also important.

what do you do when you have about 6 who say 'I just don't get it?'.

You explain it to them in the way that they get it? Step by step, practicing exercises, using the textbook if you don’t know how to explain in the way that works?

It is just primary maths, not theory of relativity maths… all humans with IQ above 60-70 should get it with the correct teaching method

Vanilla, when you look at the results of the experiment (if we are thinking of the same experiment), they weren't a great success, and in fact appear to have been fudged to appear more successful.

An analysis of the statistics here:

giftedphoenix.wordpress.com/2015/02/22/maths-mastery-evidence-versus-spin/

Of course the government would deem it a success, because they are notoriously bad at maths.

Vanilla:
'There was a discussion about what happens to those who cannot keep up with the Chinese system, but why are there no discussions on the massive number of those who are left behind with our system, if it is so wonderful.

All this differentiation and setting means those at the bottom do not get the same curriculum and the same chances as those in the top set. We say they have lower ability, but maybe they do not respond well to the system due to their learning style. And this starts at the primary school. Surely the purpose of compulsory school education is to take everybody to some suitable level of education, not to segregate into social strata.'

^^This.

You have summed up so well what is so wrong with British education.

I think I'll go back to watching this discussion. For those posters who are interested in what "normal" Chinese schools are like, I found this BBC documentary, which follows the lives of students and teachers in three different schools in Anhui province (rural China - Huangshan is one of the most beautiful places I have ever visited, by the way). I think it reinforces some of the points myself and the other Chinese contributors have made about family, culture and the value of education and also gives some visual insight into the level of poverty that some Chinese families are trying to lift their children out of through education.

Episode 1 doesn't load, but episodes 2 and 3 seemed fine to me. It's from 2008 (before the Olympics), so a little dated. I think I watched it when it aired originally!

(Those primary school children are so cute...)

"It isn't possible to usefully teach a yr5 class the same thing, at the same time, at the same pace where the spread goes between a child who goes off to the secondary school for a lesson once a week- he is so advanced - and one who can't tell you instantly which number goes with 62 to make 100."

My DCs were all taught in non-differentiated and non-set classrooms from age 4 to age 13/14. It is easily and usefully done even with great differences in ability. The beauty of a system like this is that nobody feels like a failure from early childhood on.

I loved that documentary when it first aired zhx3 - so interesting.

one of my DC since had a teacher (primary) who let the children self differentiate .for example he would teach say adding decimals and then have 3 different levels of worksheet and the kids took which they thought right for them.it was at a small school with a class of 13, not sure it would work as well in a class of 30

I have done that with a class of children, MadamArcati, and it worked well but they were set in the first place. I can't see that it would work with the huge spread that you would get in a class of 30 that were not set.
The system seems to say that all children have the same ability and are just empty vessels to fill.
My mother was taught in that way in 1920s/1930s. In any argument about education she comes out with 'no one in my day came out of school without being able to do basic arithmetic' - she then undoes her argument, in my eyes, by following it immediately with 'I was bored stiff'. I can't get her to see that she was sacrificed for the common good. They went over and over stuff until they all got it. She didn't need that and should have moved on to other things very quickly.
I do not agree with separating children at 11yrs of age but I do agree with setting in the secondary schools. Having all abilities doing the same maths lesson after the age of 11 is a recipe for disaster. Frustration for the top, incomprehension at the bottom , but the ones in the middle will be OK. The middle section will be the largest but that doesn't mean that you ignore the above and below average.
Left to myself, without government interference, I liked to teach maths in a mixed ability primary by grouping. Starting with the same subject and letting the top end move on with it and getting lots of practise with the basics at the bottom. Only moving on once they got it.
The Unit Plans that were in vogue were very like the Chinese method. Given a plan to follow - right down to what to say- take the whole class with you- very fond of the use of white boards so that all children had to think and couldn't doze off. You were conscious the whole time of having to hold back the top, and you couldn't hold them back long enough for the bottom strugglers. The plan went on relentlessly - it was for the whole year. At the end of the week if they hadn't grasped it there was no time because next week was a completely unrelated subject! However you were told it didn't matter you would be visiting it again next term.
No one feels a failure if they are given work they can be successful in- they do if they are sitting in a class and 3/4 are getting all the answers and they don't understand it.
I wonder how much experience you have in teaching maths to a mixed ability class of 30 , Vanilla. You can't treat you pupil with an IQ of 70 the same way as one with an IQ of 135 - it is unfair to both. Brains also work in different ways.
The Chinese methods takes no account of individuals - it says they are all the same, you fill them with knowledge and they regurgitate it.
It doesn't take into account odd blockages and misinterpretations. The brightest girl in my primary school class ( went in to be a doctor) couldn't take in that 3.40 was the same as 3.4 despite the many explanations of the teacher that the rest of us all got. At least she asked- had she not been so bright she probably would have kept quiet. How many children keep quiet because they don't want to appear stupid? Another friend can't understand now why she thought for years that 'several' meant 7! How do you even notice these quirks in a class of 50 as you steam ahead with shy children unwilling to question?

They don't feel a failure if they get differentiated maths lessons. My DS was in the lower maths group. He was very anxious with new concepts. He came 3rd in the whole year in a maths test but they wanted to keep him in the lower group because of his personality. They assured me that he was covering the same work but in a slower way. We all wanted to get through to him that he was very good at the subject and he could afford to make mistakes. He carried on in secondary in lower groups until he finally got the confidence and shot up to top set and top public exam results.
I don't think he would ever have got that confidence in the Chinese way because he would never have asked a question had he not understood. He didn't want to appear silly and he didn't like making mistakes.

mehit whilst I agree that teachers have had to face a lot if change vis a vis method etc, I think there has been relatively little change in terms of educational ideology in recent times.

Many (most?) in management positions are rigid in their ideological views and extremely resistant to change. It is quite clear what the HT at Bohunt thinks and this fed through to the lack of support for this experiment in any meaningful terms.

Summer born children are behind to start with. You can't help it. I met a 4 yr old last week. She has done a whole year in reception and she goes into year one in a few weeks. She will still be 4 yrs old until the last week of this month. As she goes into year 1 the first of the class will be turning 6 yrs.
2 of my sons didn't even start school until they were 5 yrs.
I have a picture of my son at 3 months just lying in my arms not able to do much. Beside him is his cousin who is walking, has a few words, eating normal family meals, looking at books etc - they are the same school year.