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.

Education is supposed to be a partnership between school and home. It should not be about handing your child over for most of the time and delegating absolutely everything to the school.
There are already calls for shorter holidays and 'why do they need 6 weeks?'

If they did get a day as long as the private school day you could be absolutely sure that some parents wouldn't want the longer holidays to go with it!

I really don't know why we are even arguing about it. The country can't afford it. It won't happen.

Why do we get children breaking down in tears when they aren't 'good enough' at PE or sport but not so many break down in Maths or English class for the same reason? Is it because it's a more visual 'failure'?

I am not resistant to change however we do live in a country where the government like to pick the bits that they like from other countries and ignore the bits that help those bits work.

As previous posters have said it is well documented that teachers in China teach about 40% of the time so have time to prepare for lessons, mark work etc. Teachers in the UK teach for 90% of the time. In order for things to work teachers in the UK need a similar structure - but I guess the UK would go for same time for prep (constantly being told this requirement is under review and may be removed) and same style lessons.

I personally (and my colleagues) put as much if not more effort into our lower sets to see them achieve well and overcome barriers than I would with my top sets.

As for disruption - sadly not tolerating poor behaviour doesn't make you very popular - and they seem to forget on results day who kept them going. I am strict but my pupils do well, them doing well makes up for the lack of popularity! (Mostly!)

They do break down in tears in maths, RooftopCat , especially when they can't keep up. I was especially hoping that Vanilla was going to tell me how she would teach maths to reception age. They tend to lie down in the floor when they can't cope.
My uncle got his stammer in the infants in this 'golden age' of whole class mixed ability teaching. And yet there are people on here who insist that they can all do it and mixed ability is better than teaching to his level.

There were plenty of tears in the other lessons too.......

It is amazing how in the face of facts that UK is behind in international league table and that children did much better in a variety of subjects with the Chinese method after just 2 weeks, exposing the obvious self delusion and the mediocrity of the british educational method (an overall D is good?) the arguments on this thread become increasingly more bitter and absurd.

Children can’t have dogs,… children are unhappy because they study too hard,… abolishing segregation by so called ability from year 1 will lobotomise the entire generation into faceless robots…. It can’t be improved because it costs money,… it can’t be done because I can’t do that ….

It is not funny because those voices reflect the common delusion and are supposedly speaking from the position of authority.

Why are those voices so laud?
Where are the teachers discussing the lessons from this experiment, discussing the positives?

The emperor has no clothes!

Vanilla- what we are trying to do is think about what it was that worked. All you seem prepared to do is shout slogans. You won't answer questions. You won't say what your experience is or where your expertise came from, and you won't engage in any sort of debate at all.

One thing that struck me was that the Chinese school kids must have had pretty good foundations to their knowledge or the improvement wouldn't have happened. I would also really like to have seen what would have happened if the normal Bohunt kids had done the same number of hours work as the Chinese School. Revision is something year 9s tend not to be particularly good at- but the Chinese School kids had no choice.

Also- who says a D is good? A D in what and at what stage?

children are unhappy because they study too hard

China has a very high child suicide rate. I don't think that's anything to dismiss lightly.

What the program told us was that being at school for 12 hours a day and then going home and doing homework achieved better results than being at school for 7 hours a day then doing homework. That could be seen to be obvious. It is impossible to extricate any sort of meaningful comparison of teaching method when you take that into account.

If they wanted to compare teaching method then they needed to have Chinese School running the same hours, and the same number of lessons. You can't say that teaching a class of 50 from the front achieved better results than teaching a class of 30 interactively from the show, because they didn't control the other variables.

When I was at school ( being an ancient person of over 60!) we sat in rows, we had no ability tables and we had no disruption. We had no test scores read out. However I could have placed everyone in that class in order of maths ability! I was in the lessons - I knew who was understanding the lesson or not- who asked sensible questions etc. I bet I was more or less accurate

And yet you think nobody notices that there are actual tables called lowest, lower, middle, top, or even chestnut, willow, etc? The guesswork is completely eliminated. The children in the lowest sets understand their place very well. They can see what work is allotted to what table. It may not make a difference when they are 5 or 6 but by the time they are 12 they know they will never catch up.

My mother and all her siblings attended a rural Irish primary school where there were two classrooms and an age range from 5 to 13, with about 40 children in the school, give or take. She and her handful of peers got taught age appropriate lessons. That is not the same thing at all as a roomful of children the same age separated into different 'ability groupings'.

My own DCs went to a school where they could have gone to a mixed age (3 to 5) early years classroom (they took the traditional route instead). A friend of mine teaches a class of 6 to 8 year olds. One of the theories behind this arrangement is that competition in a peer group becomes less of a factor in the group dynamic.

Nobody attempted to teach them any formal maths until 1st grade (age 6ish). Of course 4 year olds are going to lie down on the floor or otherwise baulk in formal classes.

'Ability' is a terrible misnomer. What is readily apparent in primary schools is actually attainment, which can be the result of early hothousing, or personality or learning types that fit well or poorly with the teacher's preferred style of teaching.
To paraphrase: 'We seem to gloss over the fact that [British] schools have selection and wealthy, 'pushy' parents are preparing their children from birth to get into [the top sets]'

'Just think how the country could afford it- and understand it is only ever going to be a dream!'
The idea that you should go on throwing away good money after bad and that the country can't afford a rational system that would benefit all children and ultimately produce a better workforce seems really odd to me. But of course, when a system benefits some people it is harder to convince them that change is needed.

Those who do not benefit those condemned to lower 'ability' groups from an early age and marginalised for the rest of their lives by the double whammy of socio economic disadvantage and a school system that acts as a prop for current class realities don't matter; their interests are sacrificed so that the 'cleverest' can get ahead and claim their rightful place on top. The British imagination is very invested in elitism, the opposite of egalitarianism -- 'A question for Mathanxiety - do you want sports day without winners- or is that different?'

Should be When I was at school ( being an ancient person of over 60!) we sat in rows, we had no ability tables and we had no disruption. We had no test scores read out. However I could have placed everyone in that class in order of maths ability! I was in the lessons - I knew who was understanding the lesson or not- who asked sensible questions etc. I bet I was more or less accurate

Vanilla has failed to answer a single question that I have put to her.

Just one here Vanilla - how would you start teaching Maths in the reception class to a very mixed intake? I have chosen that first school intake so that you can't blame the teacher below. There wasn't one.

This thread has done what I thought the absolute impossible for me! I think the 11+ a dire and unfair system. I think it totally wrong to divide children based on tests at 10/11 yrs of age.

However if it is a choice of selection OR this mixed ability teaching all through school- then I am forced into saying that 11+ is the better way. No way would I have ever imagined that anyone could make me think that!
A first for MN changing my mind.

I hate this pretence that the system works in Shanghai when the competition for a good school starts at birth - no way do they do mixed ability.

I hate the way that people in here who have their own children at selective schools want everyone else's children in mixed ability.

I hate the way that people have children and want them out of the house and at school for more than 6 hours a day.

Mathanxiety- are you opposed to selective education?

I also hate the way that 'all brains are the same' . In that case we didn't need the best maths brains to solve the Enigma code- any one could have done it- taught the 'right' method.

Why anyone can say that beats me! Brains are not the same. Otherwise I could be the same as my friend who had perfect pitch- I was just taught wrongly. I can't do something that I would love to do- take a sketch pad in holiday - I just wasn't taught properly!
I ought to be writing my best seller- had I just been taught properly.

You and your children were just lucky that you fell into the band that understood the work mathanxiety and were not bored rigid by it either.

If you are in a class and know exactly how well you and others are doing , without being told, then why not get the appropriate teaching? Maybe next term you appropriate teaching will be quite different.

Another one for mathanxiety - you quoted but didn't answer. Do you want sport's days without winners?

Wrt work/life balance for teens -- as long as they don't have to prepare dinner or keep a house clean, I see nothing wrong with having them in school or involved in extra curricular activities or homework for most of their waking hours. This is how their university lives are going to be after all, and truth be told the early days of their careers are going to be work-dominated too.

DD1 did three sports over her four years in high school - badminton, swimming and water polo. First year -- badminton, second year badminton and swimming, third year swimming and water polo, fourth year same. The school year was divided into three sports seasons. Students could do only one sport per season. In order to stay on the active roster, students had to have at least a C average in their academic classes. Those who were failing a class had to go to academic table and get their grade up before becoming active again.

The following is a slice of DD1's daily life in a public (i.e. state) high school during her sport seasons.
5:45 arrive in school for practice
7:15 shower, dress, grab breakfast in the cafeteria
8:00 school day begins -- school includes daily PE
3:00 school over
3:15 afternoon practice begins
5:30 afternoon practice over -- if no game or meet scheduled go home
OR -- away game
3:15 board bus with team for away game/meet
9:30 - 10:00 arrive back in school on team bus
OR -- home game
3:15 practice while awaiting opponents' arrival
8:00 or 9:30 home, depending on sport (badminton and water polo early home, swimming late)

She did some homework on the bus and some between races and games, and finished the rest at home. She normally had about four hours of homework a night as well as study for tests. There was also homework on weekends. Most weeks there were at least two games/meets, and some weekends featured optional tournaments.

One year she did a school musical for a season where she didn't have a sport (plays and musicals were also organised on a three season basis).

Her coaches and the director of the musical were teachers, who were paid a nice stipend for their extra curricular contribution. These teachers were at the school from 5:30 am and didn't get home to their families until probably after 11 pm in their seasons.

DD1 also had a Saturday morning job from age 16 and did a lot of babysitting from age 13 on. What she never did, nor did any of my children, or in fact anyone we know, was hang around the streets with groups of friends in the evenings.

She went out a lot with friends and did plenty burning of the candle at both ends, but I let her arrange her own priorities. We always had late family dinners (after 7) and I saw her at groggy early breakfasts and schlepping her and her bleary eyed carpool group to early practice. She herself liked to spend time in her room making jewellery, watching box sets, and chatting on her phone when not busy.

All of my DCs had similar schedules, but DD1's is sort of burned into my brain as it introduced me to the world of HS athletics.

"Wrt work/life balance for teens -- as long as they don't have to prepare dinner or keep a house clean, I see nothing wrong with having them in school or involved in extra curricular activities or homework for most of their waking hours."

Really? I expect mine to do a bit of cleaning and dinner preparing too. And a bit of off timetable stuff.

You forgot to answer the question about selective schools.

We were made to do at least 4 after school activities at my indie. I did trampolining, badminton, hockey, French film club and flower arranging. If we did less than 4 the teachers would choose something for us! We had 4 sessions from fifteen minutes after school finished, so I'd do hockey, prep prep prep on Monday for example or prep, trampolining, prep, free on Tuesday. We had a very high pass rate for GCSE's and A'levels and it certainly kept me fit and got the stress out!

And what about your DS' peers bertrand?

What do you think they're doing in their free time? And would it be more beneficial for them to have a longer school day to attain more academically and have some on site ECs?

lion my DD's private school is not academically selective. But the ethos of the school is that you must join in.

This is made abundantly clear from the off. The HT believes that happy, busy girls are successful ones. And her theory has been proved right, time and time again. The girls GCSE and A level results and astonishingly good.

I think more after school extra curricular activities would be fantastic, Shes- it's one of the things I think the school does really badly.

Exactly. Ironically it was still only the Chinese girls who would be told off for having lights on at midnight still up studying and asking if they could drop extra curricular activities to spend the time studying instead! If I am honest I think this is why they imposed the rule to give them a break and get the blood flowing a bit.

bertrand then why are you opposed to a slightly longer school day?

I would have been deeply depressed had I had that timetable, mathanxiety. When did she read books for fun with no distractions?

I am opposed to selective education if it involves leaving some students in schools that are widely viewed as dumping grounds for students who didn't make the cut. Selective education that separates students into different schools is a recipe for disaster in the stigmatised schools and for the students condemned to them, especially given the British tendency to assign places to everyone from the perceived 'elite' down.

Wrt 'sports days without winners':
(a) a parochial issue - sports days are not held elsewhere;
(b) given that they exist in the UK, sports days are superfluous - nobody takes them seriously and those who do are far too invested in their own superiority (and the inferiority of others);
(c) on a metaphorical level (see my post^^) the idea that there must be a few winners and a multitude of losers in an education system is a rotten one.

All of my children were bored rigid at some point in their school lives at elementary level. There is no perfect school. Being bored rigid and not causing disruption was a really important life lesson. There is more to imperfect schools than academic lessons. When they were in the early grades (up to age 10 or so) they had in their desks (old fashioned desks with a shelf to keep stuff beneath the writing surface) a file labelled 'never done work' that they were to quietly take work from once they finished work assigned for the class to do. The work they chose could be in any area. The sheets contained various items including puzzles/sudoku/other maths/visual/pattern/writing prompts/crosswords, etc. They handed the work in with their class work and the teacher replenished activity sheets as indicated.

Class participation was a huge requirement in all their classes all through elementary level and in high school, where it counted for a percentage of the grade in every subject. This was so in elementary in order to encourage confident speech in a group setting and to teach children to respect everyone's contribution and listen to everyone, as well as in order to learn from both appropriate and off the mark ideas and questions. Nobody at age 7, 8, 9 is going to utter anything so earth shatteringly wise or stupid that it matters -- everyone's contribution is going to be half baked to a large degree. None of this whole class contribution would have been possible at elementary level in set classrooms. Children unused to a classroom where there is a culture of welcoming verbal contribution and sensitive dealing with verbal contribution tend to be very shy when it comes to secondary level verbal participation.

I think the big difference is that your girl's school has pupils with all supportive parents SheGot and they have never had to be in mixed ability classes with those who started school about 2 yrs behind. It may not be selective in a purely academic sense but they are selective.