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?

Never take more than a passing interest in Ofsted and league tables-visit on a normal working day-the same with private-DCs from wealthy backgrounds can be just as unruly!

I taught in a PRU and nobody texted in my lessons

Actually, in a bizarre way, I think Xenia raises an excellent point. Expectations for children with behavioural difficulties (particularly girls) are ridiculously low in much of the education system (hair and beauty anyone?). I think a national programme of mentoring involving city companies, law firms and other high-earning professions would work wonders. Most kids I taught at the PRU had no idea that these professions even existed, let alone what they needed to do to get there.

I think challenging children works- intellectually and academically. I would also like to see the curriculum changed to include subjects such as philosophy, debating and politics. One of the most interesting lessons I ever taught was putting children into small groups and telling them that they had won £20m on the lottery; they had to decide how to spend it.

Excellent idea tethers, I can think of so many mouthy underachievers who would excel at debating.

tethersend

Schemes like that exist. My firm participates in one. I volunteered, filled in the form and was told that there was "no suitable match": I suspect that even on paper I'm an old battleaxe with an insufficient knowledge of popular music.

Those who were "matched" found quite often that their mentees didn't bother turning up, that they texted throughout and that sessions on preparing a cv etc. needed to begin with some remedial help with spelling, sentence construction etc. (and these are supposed to be the "promising" children). Suggestions that university or job interviews would require something a little more formal than a microskirt were met with outrage that anyone should be telling them what to do.

These schemes are worth doing because they may give help and inspiration to a few; but generally the lack of discipline, lack of focus, lack of aspiration, willingness to accept authority, ability to use basic English need to be dealt with earlier and more rigorously than a mentoring scheme can.

We also do a literacy scheme with a local primary school (38 first languages), which seems to be much more productive

These kids have been picked to make good viewing: they would hardly do that by choosing your ordinary polite, compliant child, would they? The kind of child who is thinking about which GCSE choices will get them into university or which college will set them on their way to running a successful carpentering firm. And yet my own experience is that there are plenty of those in state schools. Also remember that it takes a certain type of parent to consent to their child taking part in this kind of show.

Sorry, haven't read the whole thread, so I'm sure this has already been said.

OP: no, I work in a city state comp, with more than our fair share of 'disadvantaged' children, and also a large cohort of disabled children. We are classed as an 'inclusive' school (as in, we take anyone who the others refuse). Even our worst classes are better than the group on Dream School. That's not to say the kids are any better, the classes are just better managed! (Because we are trained teachers!)

Don't be put off, state schools are brill!

Exactly cory-and most of them are only there because they want to be on TV! I expect they wouldn't turn up without cameras and I bet their truanting figures would be interesting from their normal schools!

xenia How many times. Sorry to disappoint you but my cousin is a useful example. She is retiring at the age of 41 as a Director of a major world motor firm because she has had enough of travelling and has earned enough money to do so. State comp all the way. Her brother the fund manager in London has chosen to send his kids to state schools after he did so well at the comp. It is not who you know or what school you went to but how good you are. So much anecdotal evidence that I am aware of that really fits in. It would appear that my whole family do not fit in with your expectations.

No, they have chosen 20 disruptive children to make good TV. A whole class listening attentively and hanging on David Starkey's every word would not make for riveting viewing. If some of these celeb teachers were to come to my daughters school it would be standing room only. My 15 year old watched the program with me and was shocked by the teens language and lack of focus.

No ..anyone who believes the crap on these sort of programmes is an idiot

bisty, lots of people do well from state schools. I never said otherwise although good private schools do seem to churn out the majority of successful people at the top in most things, even Olympic sport is crammed with private schoolers.

pointiss post is sad. This point about some of the childre nnot being able to be told something... I certainly think a lot of teenagers from all classes think they know everything. I know mine post 20 have said, some of them, how they can't believe how they were as teenagers. They think they know it iall at that age but the children on the programme and perhaps in the pointiss... groups did seem very much not to take in what they were told, not to think they might be getting good advice, not prepared to take on board you have to do XYZ to get to ABC.

Even so it's worth persisting as the occasional one might get the message and most successful people will probably point to one inspirational teacher or good parent or adult in their youth which saw them on their way.

Just as well that lots of people do well in state schools as about 95% go to one!

Xenia you talk quite a bit of sense but I wish you wouldn't lump all 93% of parents whose children go to state schools together and say that "maybe if parents pay they are of course more committed to education". What sort of statement is that?

I went to a comprehensive. There were some badly behaved children, there were some very motivated children. You can guess which category I belonged to . My DH went to a private school which appears at a very high rating in the Times recent list. He has told me tales of very disruptive behaviour including boys climbing out of windows and coming back into the classroom etc. Didn't have that at my school (although maybe the girls provided a civilising influence?).

Maths and sciences were dominated by girls in my year. Think the boys felt lucky to get a look in :)

And both my GCSE and A Level results were much higher than DH's. I am not saying there isn't a place for private education but I hardly see it as the be all and end all of aspiration.

Haven't watched the Jamie Oliver programme but it is television and therefore going to be (a) edited (b) use the children who produce "interesting" television and (c) never going to be true to life.

Our DC are at the local primary school. Both doing very well from what I can see (and as I do have an interest in the education of my children, part of that does include volunteering in school). And listening to them read. And helping with homework. And just generally being interested in them :)

No, of course not.
These are very disaffected children and - crucially - they are being taught by amateurs....
Teachers are experienced in controlling and disciplining groups of children.

The powerful and affluent are able to afford to send their children to private schools.
Which has a great deal to do with the success of their children.
It's not very complex.

After seeing that programme and the children it showed, every penny for the private fees seems worth while!

A bit silly then Readingman-you can go to any number of state comprehensives and see excellent teaching and motivated DCs and save your money!

If you want to believe that every state school and DC who goes to one is like that I think you will easily find one that will be happy to part you from your money!

I teach/advise in several schools in inner cities and thought that the pupils seems reasonably typical although the situation wasn't ie they have already taken their GCSEs - this is supposedly to 'reengage them' with education so no real clear outcome in the kids' minds perhaps apart from being on TV? But, of course, the 'teachers' fell in to all their traps and baiting - ie you don't start engaging in daft conversation with girls that are trying to divert the lesson - it doesn't take much to end up in chaos. Lots of weaker teachers will also fall into this trap though so I think there will be lessons that end up in this chaos because we have lots of excellent teachers and lots of weak ones too. And btw am still in a total quandry about where to send my own kids after primary school. My local leafy comp is 'good' but lots is taught mixed ability. I've observed lots of lessons there myself and it feels too depressing to have them sitting in lessons where they are waiting for disruption to be sorted out. I can imagine it must be very boring and frustrating if you are at the brighter end, and I'm not sure that there is a culture in the community that encourages boys achievement...

I would bet that Henry on the programme has been expelled from at least one private school-I expect that his parents tried everything.

Of course not, they've deliberately chosen kids who are disruptive. A nice bunch of obedient and enthusiastic kids wouldn't make very gripping telly. Don't panic!

Also, as other people have said, the 'teachers' on the programme have no clue how to control a class.

If a disruptive child is expelled from a private school, you don't hear anyone holding up that child as an example of how private schools fail to teach good behaviour. But if the same child has been through the state system and quite possibly expelled there, it will all be due to the lack of discipline in state schools.

Yes, but on the whole the private schools as you would expect as they have more resources etc don't have quite so many disruptive pupils. It's not about private and state. It's about schools where disruptive pupils ruin things for others which is the case in some particularly inner city comps and not the case in leafy suburb high house price area non selective state schools.

The programme will probably make those parents who have chidlren in good schools feel happy that they do and make parents thinking about secondary education think hard about where their children may end up.

When I said parents who pay school feels care about education I wasn't implying other parents don't. Hoever more will in private schools because the mothers and fathers aer working so hard to pay those fees of £10k a year + per child. So it's not surprising you tend to get slightly better behaved children in private schools but they certainly don't all behave well.

I'm perfectly happy paying school fees. It's not a massive burden for me and tehre are all kinds of things I and the children get out of it beyond avoidance of disruption of classes and most parents want to pick good schools for their chidlren, good being something they might have different views on - it might mean orthodox jewish or single sex for religious reasons or no need to attend lessons freedom of the child school or back to the Caribbean for a strict education you cannot get any more in inner London or whatever.

did anyone see this not totally unrelated