Are the majority of classes in state schools as disruptive as the class on Jamie Oliver's Dream School?

[mummynoo]

After watching Jamie Oliver's dream school, I am wondering if all state school classes are as rude and disruptive as the class featured in this programme. Since my daughter is due to start infants school this September?

Can any teachers who might be reading this give me their opinion. Is it impossible to teach because the pupils are constantly talking over you?

The famous Cyril Burt 'identicals separated at birth' studies were discredited many years ago as he made up his data.

So, Xenia, was the term 'Afro-Caribbean' which you haven't responded to comments on.

Is there a special regularly updated dictionary somewhere that tells people what the latest correct terminology for people of all the different races is?

It's just - that until your post rosebud - I'd not heard that "afro-Caribbean" is offensive. I'll admit that I've used the term myself and with absolutely no intention to offend. I'm quite mortified at the suggestion that I might have done, actually.

Have you told all the various "Afro-Caribbean" companies/societies (etc) that still exist how offensive they are being?

Xenia you're missing the very elementary point about time lapse. The emphasis on inclusivity at recruitment level is not decades old and even assuming the drive has been generally successful time is still needed, obviously, before those recruited under its aegis achieve positions of significant influence/ power. Trying to draw a parallel between the point about that and the time compehensives need to 'prove' themselves as a model is weak.

At least there seems to be a measure of success at Oxford on this score year on year. You didn't comment on that either; what do you think?

Wow, so offended by the suggestion that 'softening' regional accents is an 'improvement'.

That is an entirely class based judgement and reveals a deep prejudice.

MrsMipp, no there's not a dictionary of the type you describe. You've made a very Daily Mail-type jump from my comments about the generally acknowledged unacceptability of the term to getting blustery about it being 'offensive' I haven't said that any term is 'offensive'.

I'm sure that the majority of people who use the term mean no harm or offence by it, which is the problem with continuing to use language without thought to the history and politics involved in its evolution.

I'm surprised that the unacceptability of the term is news - it seems quite obvious that people from Africa might not want to be referred to as 'Afro' nor lumped with people from the Caribbean, especially as many are from UK.

As you say, it's still used as a shorthand. In the same way that 'women's lib' was/is used to describe the complex political struggles of feminism, and has fallen from popularity as it somewhat trivialises and generalises the issues involved.

Depends how important you think language is, I guess. I can't bear casual use of terms with no thought to the history and politics of the words, but not everyone feels the same.

Not prejudice at all about class (or race) - just stating a fact that if you speak in a way most people can't understand some employers (if speaking is part of the job which it is in some and not in others) may not hire you. That is totally different from someone saying I think people with difficult accents or who are female or have a disability etc are dreadful. The two points are totally separate.

What we don't want is for schools to pat everyone on the head saying you are so so wonderful, keep up your self esteem, the wide world is going to think you're great (despite bad grammar, difficult accent etc) and then the child has been led up a garden path.

On the word used for blacks or whatver wording does change over the years and I think most of us try reasonably hard to keep up with it. Afro-Carribbean is too generalised perhaps but it's just a word and I certainly have never felt I was racist. One word I hate is chav and I always object if it's used. I do think words matter and can have an impact.

On things working their way through with recruitment we'll see. We've certainly been waiting for over 20 yars for filtering through for women but hgue numbers bail out and become housewives so that been pretty upsetting.

I didn't intend to mislead about the twin thing - just stating my own experience (which I admit is limited) I'm quite interested in the nature/nurture debate in an amateur way. I have my own theory that education is far more influential than position in family.
It is certainly the case in my own family as my brother (eldest) went to sec. mod and I (youngest) went to grammar. That was very divisive and made a huge difference to our life pathways.

Cross that was certainly the problem with the old Grammar school system where investment and status of the secondary moderns was so much lower. the comprehensive system was, of course, a move to get away from that and to allow children who are later developers time to get into their academic stride.
I worked in sutton for ten years and was deeply shocked at the pressures put on 11 year olds to get into the selective schools and that there were a shortage of places due to the influx of children from out of borough.

I think the allowance the comprhensives make for late development and for the wide range of different skills children have is what I like best about them

But I suppose the question is do they do worse. They might be fairer but we have less social mobility since we got rid of the grammars. That may not matter. Happines isn't a big pay packet anyway as we all know.

I have a somewhat different take on the need for private education to benefit children.

I accept that the percentage of privately educated people in top ranking careers is grossly out of proportion to the percentage of children in private schools.
But I fully believe that a bright child will succeed wherever they are. I don't think it is of any great import that your (general your) son or daughter got top exam results from a state school. I myself have 4 As at A Level from a state comp and went to Durham uni - I would have gained the same results had I been privately educated. I just happened to be born academic.

However, for less academic children I support private education to the hilt. I work as a teacher in an independent school and often ask myself why the parents of the bright children bother stretching themselves to the limit to pay fees. But for those that struggle - class sizes of 10-12 (bottom sets), individual lessons twice a week and the careful nurturing of their talents so that all children excel in some area - well, my eyes have been opened. I was very anti independent education before I worked in one but now it's a no brainer for me - if I had a child with learning difficulties I would bust a gut to find the money for a private school.

Just a couple of examples from the school where I work:
Last term's head girl has a full scale IQ of 82 - but the twice termly leadership training skills brought out so much in her that is amazing.
This term's male lead in the school play is severely dyslexic and has needed individual tuition several times a week to learn his lines - but my God, he can act.

At my comprehensive it was always the bright children that got the opportunities. Yes, I could boast about my good results from a state school - but I think it is the weak children that state education so often (not always) fails.

Manic can I ask what sort of GCSE results the 'average' or below average childre get at your independent school? Is it a selective school? What were the head girl's grades for example?

My children's father (who has taught in both sectors) said the same. The weaker children benefit most because the added value is better. My oldest is slightly dyslexic. It is probably so mild she would have done fine in a state school too but I do think it did benefit her to be in a private school.

Can't speak for the other poster, but I can say that at DD's school (not hugely selective) 98% obtained 8 GCSEs including english maths.

Of all GCSEs taken, 79% were A*s.

It is truly wonderful.
Those girls who started from a fairly low basepoint got serious value added.

And yes, I accept, that someone like DD who could probably get good grades anywhere, gets less value added vis a vis grades...but it's still worht the money to me for all sorts of othet reasons.

And would you bust a gut to send your averagely or very able children to independent school too?

Of course it's of little import that so far my kids have all got top grades from the state system but you've come in quite late to the thread and Xenia was at that stage insisting that mothers should go out to work to pay private school fees. She was not discussing independent education from your quite valid perspective about cocooning the more vulnerable youngsters, she was coming at it the other way round.

My passing on the exam results was of some import in that context even if of no import in the
global scheme of things.

With respect, your anecdotal evidence is no more or less valid than mine.

I have nowhere said I'm against independent schooling and I'm not in the least. What I am against is being told that I'm doing my children a disservice by not going out to work to pay school fees - indeed I'm very pro choice. That extends to men and womens' choices about staying at home/ going to work as well as to parental choice in how and where to send their children to school.

It's insulting to be told one's choice is a dereliction of duty but amusing (given the arguments of the protagonist on this thread) that my choice has (so far) led in the case of my eldest four children to 44 A*'s at GCSE and the equivalent at AS and A2 and three places at Oxford. That's all. No more and no less.

For my part I also welcome the other benefits that state school can bring.

ManicInsomniac - your post has heartened me - I wish it could be emblazoned in big neon lights on every street corner, and on a banner across all education threads . I had assumed I was the only person on MN to be baffled by people of 'bright' (ugh - hate that word!) kids, agonising that their DC 'should' be entitled to the best education, ie better than that that of presumably 'dim' kids (being the corollary of bright) but they can't get it becasue of/where they live/not enough money.
(Met a hysterical person in a restaurant yesterday - they had managed to get two top local indies to extend their deadlines exceptionally till Tues this week because they are -in a bidding war for scholarships-- could not make up their mind which of two exceptionally good schools, was the 'best' for their clever PFB.)
My take is that the DC we be should be concentrating most resources on are the poor, 'dim' kids, not rich ('bright' or 'dim'), or poor 'bright' (because if they are clever they will succeed anywhere, since it is the PDK who get the worst of everything re chances in life. I would far more enthusiastically support our schol bursary fund-raising if it was a way offering chances to DC who otherwise would have no chances.

ALL children of ALL abilities should get the best possible education. Not any particular group. Why should unfulfilled potential at the top end be less damaging than at the bottom end? That argument doesn't make sense, even if there is a natural sympathy for those naturally less well endowed.

MrsGuy I've just re-read your post having returned from walking with the little one to school.

To be fair to other posters, I'm not sure that there is any groundswell of opinion on MN suggesting that bright children should be entitled to better education than not especially bright children. I think the general thrust is simply that parents want the best education for their child wherever on the spectrum their child happens to be.

But I have noticed that a lot of assumptions are made on MN about what other posters' views are on hitherto undiscussed topics, with little or no justification.

I do believe that your assertion that clever children will succeed anywhere is quite wrong. There are certain to be prima ballerinas, CEO's of multi-national companies, inventors, professors, Prime Ministers who are hidden in a dull spot somewhere in our national life because they were not given the educational opportunities appropriate to their needs.

There's certainly an argument that very bright children have special educational needs in the same measure that the poorest learners do.

Have you put your thoughts about a re-direction of bursary funding to the Governors of your school? It seems an extremely sound idea.

Yellowstone I agree.

To answer the original OP, and as someone who has their children at state school, I would say that these private vs state debates detract from the basic principle that everyone should have the right to the best possible education, no matter what their IQ or families' circumstances.

From where I am sat, I still see a huge emphasis on families to provide most of the educational opportunities, whether this is doing work at home or ferrying around to various sports-music-etc....

This means that the real gap is not so much the private/state one, imo, but the actual parental disposition in contributing heavily to their children's eduacation - whether it is outsourcing it to a private establishment, tutors, or whether investing a lot of time themselves.

This model works for those who are that way inclined, but certainly fails MOST of the children whose parents are not willing to put in that effort. And that I find a travesty and a huge failing of the system as it stands.

I thought the received wisdom was that it was bright children the state system failed?

There are around 25 000 schools and 8 million children in the state system (I think these figures exclude independent but might be corrected).

Isn't it therefore pretty meaningless to assume very much homogeneity within such a vast group? It is not very useful to us or our children when blanket statements are made about the system, unless it is about policy.

The trouble is, one's ideas about what should be included in our curriculum and the methods of implementing it differ depending on the way one thinks society should work and our lives should be lived - our politics. So while people hold different political views, education will remain a political football and consensus is never likely to be reached.

(And I know you are being ironic Joan.)

emy72, I completely agree. Something I moved towards in my recent thread. Years ago parental help/support wasn't an expectation.

wordfactory that is truly wonderful, if it's the A* measure you like. Your DD's school beats Westminster (73%) and most others besides.

This article seems pertinent to some earlier discussion.

www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/mar/10/cherie-blair-widening-access-legal-profession

The average and tne non average child does well in private schools. My older daughter's school "For the fifth year running, over 96% of all results were graded at A or A. 22 students obtained 9 or 10 straight A grades." Of course it's selective as are state grammars and indeed are some comps in a sense because if you can afford a house worth £500k in the catchment then you probably are committed to your children etc. It's not anecdotal that the 6% of children from private schools occupy a massive set of positions of power in the UK. It's worth paying.

As for whether a mother who chooses not to work is morally wrong in doing so because she is choosing not to buy that advantage for her child which was one my points above, obviously that's up to each parent to determine and as I have repeatedly said plenty of children do well in state schools (as the examples above show). however most children don't do that well. 50% of chidlren can't gert A-C in only 5 GCSEs in sensible subjects. I bet a large number of those who might be very bright just get lost in the state system and coudl have done better and there is a tendency to work to help the mean and think the clever ones can coast perhaps but again you can't totally generalise.

There is a lot of other damage housewives do to children too like the bad example that women serve and clean up and only men work and a host of other things but that's for another thread.

Then I must have made a mistake - certainly I'd be shocked if results were better than Westminster. I will check on the Newsletter.

No disrespect to the teachers, but it really isn't very selective. They are very good but not magicians.

However, what it tells me is that children who are not in the highest % of IQ can do very well academically in certain environments.
Not just top set children by any means.

And that heartens me.
My perspective is that most things in life are not rocket science. With the right motivation and application and good teaching, most of us can learn more than we think.

I've done some things in my life that people assume require some amazing talent...but they don't. They require a lot of hard graft though.