Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

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

408 replies

mummynoo · 04/03/2011 09:37

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?

OP posts:
sieglinde · 05/03/2011 14:46

I think I may be the only one who saw the extended Starkey video on youtube. Those kids are great, and plainly bursting with potential; I didn't see any bad behaviour, either, so my bet is that the programme is heavily edited for maximum impact. Don't be fooled; I've seen some dreadful behaviour in the independent sector; one of my children had a friend at a 'top' prep school where every WEEK the computer lab was trashed.

Shirleywhirly · 05/03/2011 15:31

You didn't see any bad behaviour?

Low level, constant inattention and disruption is what slowly but surely destroys lesson after lesson.

Their behaviour was restless, inattentive, arrogant, disinterested and frustrating. It would be nigh on impossible to learn anything of any value in a class like that.

Which is why so many parents have real fears for some schools and many more make enormous sacrifices for their children to go privately to avoid this, as much as possible.

gramercy · 05/03/2011 15:41

mrz - Shock and Angry

Why did she have a flat? GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

I noted that one of the boys in the Jamie Oliver programme lived in his own flat, too, at 17.

The elephant in the room is that if these kids actually had jobs, then their chance of having their own flat would be a big fat zero.

tabulahrasa · 05/03/2011 15:49

"Their behaviour was restless, inattentive, arrogant, disinterested and frustrating. It would be nigh on impossible to learn anything of any value in a class like that."

Yes, but it was caused by Starkey, he threw a load of boring information at them, rather than catching their attention with the interesting bit then slipping in the more boring stuff

he then tried to deal with their boredom by insulting them all, lecturing them about the point of education and picking out one pupil to attack his personal appearance

that's exactly how not to engage a class Hmm and is absolutely not how a real teacher would have handled it, state or private

I'm an adult who's quite interested in history and I was watching him thinking, dear god he's boring - and as for the rest of what he said Shock Why on earth would you think you'd get them on board by calling them failures? They know why they're there and what he's shown them is that he's already judged them for it. He then calls a pupil fat and starts making jokes at his expense, I wouldn't sit and take that, I'm fairly sure no adult would, so why on earth should a teenager have to?

No teacher would ever be allowed to do that to pupils and they would have handled the class better anyway, add that to the fact that these are pupils with massive issues anyway, of course lessons don't happen like that in all schools

Xenia · 05/03/2011 15:57

They did it deliberately like this to have the visual impact on television.

The point above about accommodation (and the other programme on the link) are good. If you starve unless you work or continue to share a one bed flat with your mother and 5 younger siblings you might make a bit more effort to learn and get work.We have set things up for all the right reasons so that everyone has a basic floor of state support but as it includes no compulsory workfare young NEETs are not likely to want to take jobs on the minimum wage even if they could get them.

Shirleywhirly · 05/03/2011 15:58

I'm not defending Starkey, he's a prize twit.

However, to suggest that their behaviour was a direct result of Starkey's teaching is laughable.

Their behaviour has been like that consistently throughout school, otherwise I assume they'd 1) Have at the very least an inkling on how to behave in class and 2) at least one GCSE between them.

You know, we have a pretty damn fantastic FREE education system that can give children a world of opportunities and when I see lazy but otherwise fit and healthy kids like this destroy their own chances and those of the children around them, it just pisses me right off. Almost as much as those who bleat on about how they are all failed by, " The System".

No. they are failed by their own arrogance, attitudes and values.

Shirleywhirly · 05/03/2011 16:01

Xenia, I entirely agree.

Often, a bit of hardship is what pushes people onwards and up and out.
I doubt Lord Sugar would be where he is if he'd had it cushy.
I know my DH wouldn't be.
We have done the workless no favours in this country over the last fifteen or so years.

If you can afford an IPhone, fags and to run a car on benefits there's zero incentive to work.

MillyR · 05/03/2011 16:10

The behaviour was terrible.

DS came in when I was watching it. DS asked how Jamie Oliver knew how to teach, as he thought Jamie Oliver was a cook.

What next for Jamie I wonder? A tv show where he explains what is wrong with how the fire brigade puts out fires? Will he be reforming the legal system? Showing motorway workers how to lay tarmac more smoothly?

tabulahrasa · 05/03/2011 16:14

2However, to suggest that their behaviour was a direct result of Starkey's teaching is laughable."

it was though, look at how much more engaged they were in every other lesson for starters

With that group of pupils it's pretty much a given that there's going to be behavioural issues, especially low level noise and disruption, he escalated that massively - he did exactly what you're trained not to do as a teacher

exoticfruits · 05/03/2011 16:15

Starkey wasn't a prize twit-except that he agreed to do it when he obviously had no experience with disaffected youth.
He wasn't a teacher-he fought back and behaved the same way as them. They are not used to it-they make whatever comments they like to teachers and they have to be polite-they were shocked because no teacher would make the comments that he made.

Shirleywhirly · 05/03/2011 16:46

They were appalling in every lesson, Tabulah ,Rolf was quite depressed.

tabulahrasa · 05/03/2011 16:53

oh I'm not saying they were good in the other lesson, but they did them, they were painting with Rolf, they were dissecting the rats - alongside being fairly noisy

they ended up on laptops playing on facebook in Starkey's lesson and in an open slanging match with him - that's what I'm saying was his fault

tethersend · 05/03/2011 16:55

Starkey did not 'behave the same way as them', not one of those kids had insulted him, let alone made comments about his physical appearance.

He behaved worse than they did- there was just more of them.

Xenia · 05/03/2011 16:57

Yes, sw, that's the problem. It's got too easy. The girl on the other unrelated link above has her life supported by her mother who presumably is guilty because she had earlier put her in care.

Starkey got publicity from it so it wasn't necessarily bad for him to do it. He also said you can't run anything without rules and the programme has been set up without them to make better TV. Everyteacher on here would agree they need rules baout things like whether they can play with the laptops each participant was given as part of the programme and their phones in class.

The fat boy and yes he is fat so let's call a spade a spade - started it - he said he had muscles to Starkey first. Starkey is not subject to any employment law rules so can say the boy is fat if he wants and suggest JO might have healthier dinners to offer him to help him with his weight problem.

Work usually sorts people out. That's why Saturday jobs etc are good for our children as mine found and jobs in university holidays etc. Only when you get experience of that do you really know what the real world out there is erally like.

Also if we set up a system where you can never do a stroek and be housed and fed or work very very hard in uncertain minumum wage jobs and be in an identical finacial position then any child with sense who knows they are never likely to earn more than £6 an hour is not likely to work.

quirrelquarrel · 05/03/2011 21:07

My secondary school was meant to be the best school in the city (GCSE results and all round reputation), with a great atmosphere and 'Outstanding' ratings from Ofsted- what a joke! It was a stifling, oppressive environment. Friends want to send their slightly geeky, creative, loner kids there because it's advertised as a very tolerant, Christian place which will mould you into an articulate individual with initiative and good foundations and everything, but it's all a facade. The loner kids don't get beaten up or anything, but the cattiness that goes on is incredible, kids don't want to learn, the 'thriving network of diverse clubs and teams' are put on for two weeks and then the teacher and the pupils lose interest. The teachers are made fun of for everything, the students are completely pandered to. Teachers grin and say "ah, I prefer the naughty kids", ignoring the naughty kid who has the class bookworm backed into a corner. If this is what a 'really good' school is like...I can imagine that the pupils in Jamie's school could very well be quite representative.

I'm being v. v. negative- some teachers were lovely, but it really was stifling, like I said, and the emphasis on the all-important mark scheme doesn't do any good either!

quirrelquarrel · 05/03/2011 21:14

And oh gosh- the Starkey thing!

He called him fat- it is a FACT. I doubt he was really hurt by the comment, he was just making a fuss (incredulous voice, head shaking, whiny self pity) for the sake of it. He needs to grow a thicker skin and pay attention. I also doubt whether he's always sweetness and light himself- he insulted the teacher too, who cares who did it first? I thought Starkey said some very sensible things. Teachers feel they have to pander to pupils, whatever they want, and pussyfoot around them to nurture their fragile developing self esteems (like he said- not that they're diminiutive by any means). I bet 50 years ago that was the norm and everyone would have shrugged it off. Here was a bloody interesting lesson and okay, there was a gap between the respected historian and a classroom of wary kids, he could have been more restrained, but it's not like he dealt him a massive blow in the way of insults. Iss he a horrible bully for stating the obvious now? It was a silly joke, of course the boy could move, where's his sense of humour! Fat shouldn't be an insult, anyway, it's a state of being, but that's beside the point. The point is that teachers nowadays know that it is normal to come in, fully expecting a barrage of mockey and laziness directed at them, when they've spent ages preparing lesson plans and whatnot, they have to gage the atmosphere and if they say anything in the slightest cutting or controversial or naive, they get a ton of bricks on their head. Teenagers need to be sat on from time to time, it's natural for them to get too big for our boots sometimes, but why do they take themselves so seriously! Being talked down to never hurt anyone, and they get to do it ourselves when they've done something with themselves and earnt their degrees and doctorates.

Teachers are forever trying to make lessons interesting. School shouldn't have to be slack and interesting, trying desperately to get lazy children to knuckle down, do work, and show a modicum of basic respect (and to ward off the old adage: teachers have earnt respect. They show you endless respect by not blowing up at you when you're mercilessly making fun of them or refusing to take part in their lesson. They should stop saying it's a two way street and just be polite!). If it's boring- do your own research at home. If you can't stand it- tough. For five hours a day, 11 years until you're 16, you should be doing hard work as a foundation for whatever you want to do later.

These kids seem a nice enough bunch (in Jamie's school everyone is trying their hardest to please them, which isn't the way it should be, but just to be clear- the above descriptions were not of them, just typical responses to typical classrooms). My only problem is that they're taking themselves too seriously, and that it takes extreme stuff like this (over the top respect from teachers to pupils) to get them to behave and take school seriously instead. As for the thing about his calling them failures, well, they are. It's a starting place. He was trying to make a point and build on it, not make them feel awful, and if they are clever, they should realise that. I bet they did, they were just capitalising on it for more ammo!

I don't think those kids have got low self esteem- how could they they have made such a commotion and fight back so loudly if they're meant to be so intimidated and cowed!

exoticfruits · 05/03/2011 21:28

'Starkey did not 'behave the same way as them', not one of those kids had insulted him, let alone made comments about his physical appearance.

He behaved worse than they did- there was just more of them'

Exactly-they insult teachers all the time and they never get anything back, teachers are professional and they don't kick back which is why they were shocked! Starkey gave them similar and they didn't like it.

bitsyandbetty · 05/03/2011 21:31

What is most interesting for me is that the kids said they wanted to be respected first and then would respect the teacher. That is very 'me me' example and I tend to agree with Starkey although disagree with the way he went about it. When a kid starts a job they need to earn respect. If kids are pandered to in this way it will not help them when they go to work. Let's not forget they will have 40 + years at work and only a quarter of that in education.

Cathpot · 05/03/2011 21:45

I work in the state sector and my timetable currently includes a bottom set of 15 year olds who are on a reduced timetable which they dont even make each week, and a top set of 13 year olds who are constantly having to excuse themselves for a ukele lesson or county rugby finals and the like. I work extremely hard for the bottom set, and think a lot about how to present a dry syllabus in an engaging way BUT at the end of the day I am dragging them through a science GCSE by their hair.

Of the 16 of them I would say maybe 5 have an interest in passing and only one has any chance at all of a C (2 others are bright enough but do no work). The others are completely disinterested and 4 of them actively disruptive. I have a very supportive department/ SMT but it is still an uphill battle every week.

My feeling is, is that they dont see the point. They have no sense of where education will take them, and they dont see the value, understandably, of getting a E or F which is their TARGET grade. They really struggle academically and have done so every day, day in day out since they started school- that is hugely depressing, and I would struggle to stay motivated myself in that situation. They do not generally come from homes where education has led to a good job. Several of them are coping with very difficult and emotional family situations.

On the other hand the top set- the majority of whom come from homes where their parents were sucessful in educational terms, are just the most lovely lovely group to teach. They are actively engaged, fun, polite, enthusiastic - I would teach them for free. They are supported at home, they have a sense of where they are headed.

I have been in audiences of educated adults (teachers on pointless training days are really bad) who muck about if the presentation is dull or if they just dont see the worth in it. I think we need to work harder to find qualifications options that are meaningful to the kids who have to take them.

I also incidentally, worked in a state secondary in east Africa and my god were the kids motivated there. They had to pay- a small amount but often for their families a significant amount- and they hugely valued education as the difference between subsistence and a job. I was watching the Comic relief documentary the other night and it was the same thing- people living in a slum and their priority was making money to get the kids to school.

I am not sure how you could translate that to our state system- I am sure if we had to pay even a token sum for our kids education- rather than pay it all via tax, it would certainly up the interest level of both parents and kids, but I cant see how that would work in our society.

bitsyandbetty · 05/03/2011 21:57

Interestingly my DH's nephew was very much like one of the children in this group. His sister did very well but he lacked any motivation despite a high IQ and early promise. He left school at 16 with nothing but managed to get a really good apprenticeship and has blossomed ever since. Academia is not for everybody no matter what the level of IQ so it seemed pointless to push him. He had gone through a difficult time emotionally when his parents split up and I believe this may have also caused him to rebel at school. It would be interesting to see how he does in 10 years compared to those who struggle through school to achieve mediocre grades.

Xenia · 06/03/2011 09:34

Cath, is it that the bottom set you teach have a low IQ and probably should be doing vocational sunjects or is it that they just don't have the educated motivated parents and had they been born into those motivated homes they woudl be ilke the East Africans and children from the motivated homes in the UK? If only 2 who are failing are bright enough to do it then uit's a bit of a waste of time to have them in there.

JO said on the programme that 50% of british chidlren do not get A - C in 5 GCSEs. If that is because they can't cope with it in terms of inteligence level they were born with then we need to find things they can do and be good at and not waste time on confirming their failure.

As for valuing education it was interesting in my daughter's class at Habs (school) they had part of a homework aged 11 - where were your 4 grandparents from. She was one of only 2 girls in the class with 3 English born grandparents. That is a very selective SE day school for girls but not particularly posh and very mixed in terms of class/race etc and I think that illustrates the fact that if you move countries you want the chidlren do to do well... although that's not happened with some adn some Caribbean parents sned the children back to Jamaica etc to school to get a stricter and better education than you get in some inner city state schools so perhaps it depends. If the family corner shop and 4 working family members can pay one set of £10k school fees for one daughter and perhaps the family were doctors abroad then they children will do well in the UK. If the family left wore torn Somalia and were farmers may be they don't do as well. I don't know. Certainly the Chinese do best and Asians second and whites third I think and girls over all do better than boys up to baby producing stage.

Rosebud05 · 06/03/2011 09:45

What's "wore torn Somalia", Xenia?

Xenia · 06/03/2011 11:05

eeek.... war.. I meant although it's probably rather wearing there too.

Rosebud05 · 06/03/2011 12:50

Probably wearing in a different way to your frantic attempts to discuss 'diversity' in your daughter's school, then refer to 'whites', i would say.

Shirleywhirly · 06/03/2011 12:52

" wore torn ".

Tut, tut, did you have a state educashun, Xenia? Hmm

Swipe left for the next trending thread