Middle class access to grammars via tutorproof 11+ part 2

[boschy]

May I do this? only there were some contrasting views at the end of the last thread which I found interesting.

One was mine (sorry!): "I think fear actually drives a lot of those parents who are desperate to get their child into GS, so they can be 'protected' from these gangs of feral teenagers who apparently run rampage through every non-selective school in the country.

Because clearly if you are not 11+ material you are a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal who likes nothing better than beating up a geek before breakfast and then going to score behind the bike shed before chucking a chair at the maths teacher and making the lives of the nice but dim kids a misery."

And one was from gazzalw: "If you had the choice would you opt for a grammar school or a comprehensive that has gangs?"

Soooo, do people really think that all comprehensives have vicious gangs, and all GS children are angels? Or that only those of academic ability adequate enough to get them through the 11+ should not have to face behavioural disruption of any kind? If you are borderline, or struggling but still work hard, should you just have to put up with disruption because let's face it you're not academic?

PS, re the knuckle dragging Neanderthals I mention above, should have said - "and that's only the girls"

I shouldn't think they do teach in the same way, no. Take a prep school Latin master who's used to teaching some wealthy boys whose parents are behind him, and give him year six in a normal state primary and ask him to get thirty children of varying abilities through SATS at the best level of which they are capable, and I imagine he'd struggle.

Here is the view of one Guardian journalist: "strong discipline, high standards and a healthy sense of competition ? qualities many would argue are also features of successful state schools."

Nit, I don't think you could be more patronising and prejudiced if you tried!

Really? Why?

Academies do not have to follow the National curriculum : that is more than half of state secondary schools and around 10% of state primary schools
Free schools do not have to follow the NC.

The NC is now a red herring....

back to the original thread

Primary schools can prep their kids in much the same way as prep school do. Ok, they can't doe it to the same intensity as the prep school but a lunch time session here, an after school session there can make a great difference. They can also provide support services to the parents so that they are involved as well.

Here is Chris Woodhead, ex head of Ofsted, who you probably all hate:

"State primary schools have to find time for pseudo subjects such as Citizenship, Personal Wellbeing and Economic Wellbeing and Financial Capability. They have to ensure that attention is paid to what are called cross-curricular dimensions such as Cultural Diversity, Healthy Lifestyles, Community Participation, Enterprise, and the Global Dimension and Sustainable Development. A number of ?key skills?, including ?functional skills? in English, Maths and ICT and ?personal, learning and thinking skills?, such as teamwork, creative thinking, reflective learning and self management, have also been given a new importance. All this is set within a statement of aims which asserts, somewhat ambitiously, that the curriculum should ?enable all young people to become successful learners who enjoy learning, make progress and achieve; confident individuals who are able to live safe, healthy and fulfilling lives; and responsible citizens who make a positive contribution to society?.

The children in the prep school I visited were being taught traditional academic subjects: History, Science, Music, English, and so on. They were learning, of course, to think, but the whole point of their study was to ensure that they were inspired by the different kinds of knowledge the world has to offer. The more time state schools have to spend on vague aspirations which, frankly, are beyond the capacity of any school to guarantee, the less time they have to dedicate to the pursuit of the traditional knowledge that should be at the heart of education."

I like him anyway

What proportion of private schools do not broadly follow the national curriculum??? And was there a time when these schools ceased to follow it or did they never follow it????? I know that some private schools have followed the national curriculum. So am confused as to how much you can blame the national curriculum for anything? Could someone please enlighten me?

TalkinPeace: yes, you're right, and to my mind that's a good thing. I heard some Academy R4 programme today and it was very interesting on this very subject.

Nit: do you think all prep school teachers are old Latin masters accustomed to teaching wealthy boys with supportive parents? Or do you think they aren't?

You're right, Brycie, that I'm no fan of Chris Woodhead. But neither of my daughters when they were in state primary did anything called Cultural Diversity, Healthy Lifestyles, Community Participation, Enterprise, and the Global Dimension and Sustainable Development

It will be very interesting to see what happens in the fullness of time when primary academies which have limited their resort to the National Curriculum start turning out their eleven-year-olds. The ones they've had since four or five.

No, Brycie, I don't think that. But neither do I think you can just say the prep school model is the right one, and that it has nothing to do with intake, parents, environment or ethos of the school as a going concern.

I do not hate Chris Woodhead.
I pity him for the fact that he rants on in the Murdoch Press to support his private academy chain.

All his crap about the "subjects" state primary schools teach is just that. They are issues that schools take into account - like dealing with bullying and racism - they are not on the timetable.

And find me the prep school that is truly open to all - ie has NO FEES.

And ok, I think they teach wealthy children with parents who are at least supportive enough to stump up a lot of fees.

Are you sure? Mine certainly covered healthy lifestyles, at tedious length, cultural diversity, worthy but dull, and global dimension and sustainable development, in integrated work and whole lessons and project work. Maybe be they are the names of the targets, but not the lessons on the timetable.

Do most of us even know what the national curriculum does cover, or do we just have a vague idea from Chris Woodhead?

I can't help thinking that more people might benefit from lessons on financial capability... And Home Economics. And personal hygiene....

Yes, but Woodhead makes it sound as though they exactly are lessons on the timetable!

Why do you pity him? Apart from his terminal disease. I don't call that ranting - it's rather a considered piece. Why would you use that word when it's plainly not a rant? Trying to create prejudice where there is none?

Nit - this from TP might answer your question:

All his crap about the "subjects" state primary schools teach is just that. They are issues that schools take into account - like dealing with bullying and racism - they are not on the timetable.

Although in my experience they were not just issues taken into account - they involved an enormous amount of classwork homework project work and holiday work.

www.education.gov.uk/schools/teachingandlearning/curriculum/primary
note that PSHE and citizenship are non statutory

I think I only read the Sunday times to get annoyed by Cw's letters page in news review.

Dear MR Woodhead, my granddaughters state school haven't taught her to spell yet, what shall I do? You are right that state schools are all universally woefully inadequate in this regard and all others, I would suggest you investigate local independent options as soon as possible. Rpt ad infinitum.

Nit: I don't say it has nothing to do with "intake, parents, environment " - I say it's not everything to do with that. I don't know what you mean by "the ethos of the school as a going concern".

Nit: I read his account meaning they have to spend teaching time on these things: which they certainly have done in my children's education.

I do not read the Sunday Times - because I will not give money to Murdoch.

Surely you can't have a lesson in community participation? Don't you just have to do something which involves participating in the community? Which private schools are quite keen on, aren't they, to prove they care????? As for healthy lifestyles, surely a bit of time can be spent teaching children about food groups, what proportion of each type of food might be healthy, cooking healthy food, doing PE, talking about why it is important to exercise and getting children to think about what they already do, learning a bit about it in science lessons etc? Sounds like fun to me.

I mean that an independent school is a business. And it has to have an ethos and a brand image which appeals to its target customer.

Yes, I think they do spend time on things like healthy lifestyles.

And aren't the Global Dimension and Sustainable Development also part of history, geography and science subjects?