Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

Should teachers have to take tougher tests before they qualify?

543 replies

Solopower1 · 26/10/2012 11:53

What do you think? Smile

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-20083249

OP posts:
TheOriginalSteamingNit · 28/10/2012 09:26

Mind you janoldo must be relieved the basic literacy tests won't apply to old teachers in private schools!

Ronaldo · 28/10/2012 09:35

But what did happen to children in the past who were booted out of their state schools but still of compulsory school age?...

I am not really sure. I know they just "disappeared" often. The ones with real problems ( SEN) went to special schools. The ones with serious behavioural issues went to schools for the maladapted ( thats what they were called - its a PRU now) . The other quietly left a 14 quite often. School and LEA turned a blind eye - and often out at work was the best place for them. They did go to work not the dole aswe had jobs back then. The criminal element ended up in Borstal.

I suppose what I am saying is wedidnt have any policy of "inclusion". We had schools to suit all sorts ( which also went along with the policy of selective education.

But what all of that did mean is that even in a rough SM ( like that I attended) you had some chance of learning something without being constantly disrupted.

And anyway, I was under the impression that not all children were booted out of school in the past and that caning a child in front of all the other children in assembly was considered an acceptable way of dealing with the problem

Certainly the cane was available but I have never seen or heard of this public display you speak of. It may have been sometime before but not in my educational lifetime (from 1960 - 1973). The only place I saw that wason TV in the "Billy Bunter" programme orsome comedy show with Jimmy Edwards in it (when I was very small) and it always related to public schools like Eton , not my state school. I can only recall a few boys coming back and saying they had receieved the cane - usually for something very big , like throwing chairs around a classroom or being in a fight in the playground. The threat I guess was enough I think. It was common in my promary school for teachers to hit pupils across the had with a ruler - short sharp slap style. But even that only had to be demonstrated once on one child often.

In short , you didnt get the level of poor behaviour we have now at all. Disruptive bahaviour was most often dealt with by kicking pupils out of the class and making them stand outside the door for the lesson. That seemed to work better than "sin bin" and isolation!

But as I said, therewere fewer such kids in a class. It never seemed to cross out minds to misbehave even when bored silly. Swearing was not acceptable either. Maybe because we didnt see the behaviour in others. Bad behaviour is like a cold, it spreads like wildfire through a school

If someone was sent home or reported to parents ( nophones in most homes so no quick call there!) then often parents would give you a whack when you got in and you were told not to go being cheeky at school and causing trouble for you mum/dad. It was shameful and embarrasing to them to be seen as the one with a naughty boy or girl.

And sorry, but as a parent, I do not consider that particularly acceptable behaviour on the part of the teachers, either.

Well as I said , mostly it didnt happen. But we had the threat. Now there is no threat and there is no shame. The shameless society has arrived and is embraced.

There were other things that affected this too. Like teachers could target lessons to suit. They taught what they wanted and what they thought pupils needed to learn - not the NC. We had extensive streaming. Wer had more sports lessons in SM. There were more practical classes too - metalwork, woodowrk and cookery and needlework took up whole mornings or afternoons. Maths and English took up most of the rest of the time in an SM
(for what that is worth to you knowing). It was very much a "practical education" as the 1944 education act dictated. I cant say about grammar schools, I didnt go to one.

It seems to me the NC, RoSLA Comprehensive schools ( much as I dont like selective schools) bigger schools (size) , and inclusion have caused much of the demise. I dont think its any cheaper either and it certainly has not raised standards ofnumeracy and literacy any (probably the opposite)

Ronaldo · 28/10/2012 09:38

Mind you janoldo must be relieved the basic literacy tests won't apply to old teachers in private schools!

It doesnt bother me to be honest. But it wont solve the problem.

Arisbottle · 28/10/2012 09:42

I can remember weekly public canings when I was at school, I was often the person getting hit. It can't have made much difference because I was getting it so often.

Ronaldo · 28/10/2012 09:43

Marriedinwhite Sun 28-Oct-12 09:03:45 , I would agree with everything you say there.

Not sure that is an endorsement worth having given my reputation round here. Sorry :)

Arisbottle · 28/10/2012 09:45

Ronaldo I suspect a lot of MN agree with you , I don't think many teachers would but many others would and do.

Brycie · 28/10/2012 09:46

I've never seen a public caning (1968-1982)

Brycie · 28/10/2012 09:47

Arisbottle that sounds highly ambiguous!

Brycie · 28/10/2012 09:48

The unions object to efforts to improve things, to getting rid of bad teachers, to improved numeracy and literacy tests, I don't even think they represent most teachers any more but I might wrong about that.

Ronaldo · 28/10/2012 09:59

TOSN - My log in became inoperable and I couldnt get a passwordre set even though I sent for one so re registered and I said so at the time. It was a few days ago (maybe a week?).

Arisbottle · 28/10/2012 10:00

What sounds ambiguous?
Our canings stopped when corporal punishment was outlawed. Before then every assembly would begin with a caning

EvilTwins · 28/10/2012 10:01

Thank goodness that Ronaldo is Jabed. I thought there were two of them.

The unions is an interesting point. I used to be very pro-union. Growing up, my parents were both teachers and my dad was high up with one of the unions. I saw how hard he worked to maintain and improve working conditions. I had a lot of respect for those who were standing up to the government and I believe that my working conditions now are vastly improved (compared to how they might have been) as a result. However, I received my monthly union magazine yesterday and it made me Angry. It's so negative. I don't understand why the union wants struggling teachers to remain in post. I don't understand the objection to more stringent tests (though I do get the point about the irony of these tests when one considers Gove's plan to let anyone be a teacher). I certainly no longer think that my union speaks on my behalf.

Ronaldo · 28/10/2012 10:05

The other thing that might be interesting to most is that I was taught in SM in a class of over 40 - about 43 I think there were. That was not unual. Which just shows that you can teach very large classes when you do not have disruptive pupils in them.

Of course it also means there was no room to throw a chair across a room! We were jammed in like sardines in a tin. :) I dont want to see that return.

A few of the other standards wouldnt come amiss though - and I am not convinced by testing and exams and all that either.
I am convinced we need to use expulsion more.

In my last school all the pupils loved coming to school but very few wanted to do lessons. Thats why I have said that isolation - what isolation? - was a reward for most of them. They used to troop off there happlily when they managed to get out of class.

I am glad I am out of that system. I dont want my DS in it either.

mrz · 28/10/2012 10:34

In one of your other threads you described the horror of your state education jabed ...which is true?

Ronaldo · 28/10/2012 10:41

In one of your other threads you described the horror of your state education jabed ...which is true?

Both! From my personal point of view it was horrific mainly because I was in the wrong school for me. It did not meet my academic needs. I foundmyself in classes which were far too basic for me. I found myself in a culture ( w/c) which did not reflect my background. It was bloody awful.

But from the point of view of the school meeting the needs of the majority of pupils in it and providing a basic education in a calm , ordered and disciplined environment - It worked.

rabbitstew · 28/10/2012 10:47

My parents very graphically described to me the public canings that went on in the schools they attended (state and private sector). Part of the point of them appeared to be that all the other children at the very least HEARD the punishment and the crying of the child concerned, and preferably saw it, in addition. I don't want my children going to a school where any form of assault is tolerated - that applies just as much to the behaviour of the other children as it does to the teachers. If many teachers are being assaulted and treated with such a lack of respect these days, then that is indicative of schools where the children are suffering, too.

mrz · 28/10/2012 11:01

I wonder how many other children in the class were also failed jabed

Ronaldo · 28/10/2012 11:22

I wonder how many other children in the class were also failed jabed

At a guesstimate around 10% I would think - so in a class of 43 that would be about another four? Yes, I could probably name them even. They all were similar to me - passed the 11+ but consigned to SM. Maybe not so fish out of water as I was as they did share that w/c culture as I recall. One nice girl passed the 11+ but wassent to my SM because her dad died and she had to leave school at 15. So you see there were social deprivation issues then but no one seemed to use them as a kick off point. Of all of us only I went to university.

But that isnt what this thread is about. This thread is about teachers skills tests although its moved from that. Its about behaviourand standards in classrooms.

Whilst I may not be in favour of the old SM system in some ways, the schools were well ordered and children well behaved in them. That meant that despite all teachers could teach ( even if they were pretty poor teachers with a low skill base) and the most children could learn.

I dont think the SM failed the lower ability pupils as often as now btw. Children with difficulties were identified and removed to special schools which could help them. I can think of a couple of such pupils with me who managedto learn some basic skills and held down jobs after leaving - all because they got the specialist teaching they needed.

Ronaldo · 28/10/2012 11:24

sorry my computer is still rolling words together and mis reading keys despite my trying to edit and change them.

Ronaldo · 28/10/2012 11:47

mrz - if you want an argument for the selective education system I have just gven it you. Overall the 11+ selects quitewell statistically. It selects those most likely to benefit from an academic education.

Most of those "fails" are boarderline. If the sstem had a failing itslef it was that there were never enough places for those who should have been offered the grammar school education and selection was done on an ad hoc basis sometimes. I passed the 11+ buiit moved areas and was not eleible to be considered for a place in the new area as the places had been allocated.

One of the big arguments has always been that people like me can do well anywhere and so it doesnt matter. Personal tragedy is accepatable statistically.

Are you suggesting therefore that we should accept poor behaviour in classes because the most able will be Ok anyway and personal tragedies of those who suffer ( maybe some 50% of all pupils) are acceptable for the equality of all?

Thats assuming there is some connection between your comment /question to me and this issue of behaviour we have been discussing.

mrz · 28/10/2012 11:52

no jabed I don't want an argument about the selective school system ...I'm just pointing out that your perception of how successful classes of 40+ (where you yourself were failed badly) might not be accurate.

mrz · 28/10/2012 11:54

My primary school had a year group of 3 and I couldn't say how effective it was for the other two pupils just that it worked for me. The same with my grammar school class of 30 ...

Ronaldo · 28/10/2012 12:06

no jabed I don't want an argument about the selective school system ...I'm just pointing out that your perception of how successful classes of 40+ (where you yourself were failed badly) might not be accurate

I was not making an argument for their success in any educational sense. I was just suggesting that despite their size those classes displayed an order and discipline which facilitated more learning ( and I think they did allow more teaching than now and overall pupils were better educated than now despite all)

And you note your grammar school class had 30 in it - how many of them were failed themn mez? Statistically given the error rate in the 11+ selection it should be 10% - so 3? Can you identify them to yourself?

Were those grammar school classes chaotic? I bet not somehow. Was thereany real poor behaviour there? I bet not somehow. So why do we feel its OK to have these disruptive elements in school now?

mrz · 28/10/2012 12:10

jabed my point is I don't know how many were failed by my school.

Yes some of the classes were chaotic with poor behaviour ... I clearly recall one boy bouncing a cricket ball off the chalk board (narrowly missing the teacher's head) as the teacher turned his back to write for example

LaVolcan · 28/10/2012 12:21

One thing I don't think people have addressed is the way girls were pushed into teaching as a career, regardless of whether they were suitable or not.

I can't remember when it became an all graduate profession and A levels were required, but it used to be possible to train to teach with 5 O levels. (Not that having A levels necessarily made for better teachers in the way that having a first class degree doesn't necessarily equip one to teach successfully.) The problem was, that it became an easy option for all too many. I don't doubt that in practice such people have long been weeded out of teaching, but I suspect that Gove still thinks that some non too bright ones still drift into teaching - since he seems to be about 30 years behind the times.

Swipe left for the next trending thread