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"

Nit: I think I have answered your question - I am as intrigued as you, and I wish teachers were intrigued by it too. The ones I know about have been more traditional and more rigorous at a younger age but not with my children - this is what I'm getting second hand. Expectations are higher: there doesn't seem the same reluctance to correct for fear of stifling a child. Competition is encouraged. These are the sorts of elements that could make a difference. It's nice that you're interested, but I fear your interest here is more of a point-scoring interest than a genuine interest to be honest, in that you seem to be trying to wrongfoot me. But however interested we as parents are, it will make no difference unless teachers, headteachers and local authorities are interested.

And the problem with the national curriculum?..........

...is that where bad teachers used to have no excuse for teaching badly, they can now blame it on the national curriculum?...

Oh do keep up Seeker.

Can I throw a question at the teachers out there please - wrong thread but I'm interested in your opinions.

All this kerfuffle about Gove's new qualification - I was thinking about this today - wouldn't it be better if we just made everyone do what's now the IGCSE? Ready made exam, boards in place, level the playing field with independents and all that. What do you think?

Now ironing but thanks if you do reply, I know it's in the wrong place.

at the comments about how a prep school teacher will struggle to handle a state school class. I thought it is only snobby MC parents that think state schools are full of undisciplined children. Apparently so do a number of the pro Comp crowd.

I'm afraid I still don't quite get how a normal primary teacher is supposed to learn from a prep school teacher, no.

No,
I just know (from DH having been to a fair few prep schools) that the teachers who have been out of the state system for a while would not cope with mixed ability.
And non coping teachers lead to poor class discipline

Brycie
the changes ALREADY underway with the GCSE have basically done that
there is no need for a new, untested, qualification

SERIOUSLY. What ia wrong with the national curriculum p?

Brycie- why don't YOU explain how you think state schools differ from prep school, and what you think state teachers could learn from prep teachers. As far as I can see, you deny or attempt to discredit anything you disagree with, but have put no arguments to support your point of view forward. Enough of what it isn't (not the intake, apparently, though I disagree there), what IS it that's different, in your opinion?

seeker
It has become too prescriptive and simplistic.
I have a copy of the original 2002 Science one here. Compared with the 2011 version it is MUCH more rigorous and broad.
And it got caught in the desire to 'improve' results.

The idea was sound, and it will still exist for years to come, but hopefully there will be less of it.

Brycie,

Quite genuinely - please could you tell me how I can improve the teaching and learning of my class (26 7-9 year olds, currently working at levels between those typical of an 18 month old and those typical of a 10 year old) using techniques currently only used in prep schools?

My cohort, and class size, are a given. Outstanding behaviour is also a given.

Other things which are already in place:

• Regular testing of spellings, maths facts, and maths calculations.
• Stretching individual targets for every child in reading, maths and writing.
• Fortnightly extended writing.
• Rigorous marking of every piece of work against defined success criteria and against targets.
• 3 PE lessons a week, including competitive sports with outside coaches.
• 1 to 1 or small group work for anyone falling behind.
• Academic subject teaching under recognisable headings even though these are grouped under 'topics' each term for reasons of coherence.

I have observed prep school lessons. The ones I have seen have been mainly 'taught from the front', with relatively little differentiation - and unfortunately my cohort means that differentiation (challenge for all, but acknowledging that starting points are different) is necessary.

Sorry Brycie, I see that you have already said:
"The ones I know about have been more traditional and more rigorous at a younger age but not with my children - this is what I'm getting second hand. Expectations are higher: there doesn't seem the same reluctance to correct for fear of stifling a child. Competition is encouraged."

Could you define these a little more? 'Traditional and rigorous' - well, I would say that we are extremely rigorous, traidtional in some things but absolutely modern where we see that as allowing children to make more progress in every lesson. Expectations - well, as I said, every child is set muich higher targets than would be expected given their starting points, and we move heaven and earth to achieve those. 'Reluctance to correct'....hmmm. Can't say I've noticed that. If something is wrong, I say so, and show what a child has to do to improve.

Could you be a little more specific about what your generalities mean?

Oh, sorry - competition - well everyone sees the results of the tests I mention above, as we celebrate each child's improvement each week or mine the data together to find out where we are having difficulty and what we can do to improve. Equally competitive sport is part of every child's school experience...

Teacherwith2kids: that sounds rather marvellous all round as did your extra efforts with the disadvantaged pupils. "Reluctance to correct" is a problem iterated again and again by parents in real life and on mumsnet, and indeed an inability to correct in many cases. Michael Morprugo came out with it again this week: complaining that Gove's new plan to correct more will stifle creativity: he's one who obviously believes that the status quo does include a reluctance to correct for fear of stifling creativity and he doesn't want that to change.

I like "taught from the front" by the way: I think round tables should be banned for Y5 and 6.

WRT the national curriculum: I've said before (on Part One of this thread I think) that my children have been at eight schools, most of which have used the NC - but they have all had vastly differing intakes, EAL, parental input and so on. Where the NC was used: mediocrity was the outcome: despair often the feeling among parents at the low level of expectation; absolute disbelief at some of massive level of expectation of parental input; and a very low priority given to reading practice and rote learning of for example number bonds and times tables.

However I will say this was up until 2009. But my views have been reinforced since by friends who have children still at state primary - in fact one said to me about ten days ago - she's just not learned anything I'd expect her to know (about her daughter). She's thinking of getting a tutor not even to train for selective school; just to get her education up to scratch.

TP: "there is no need for a new, untested, qualification"

The IGCSE isn't untested and is more rigorous and still respected.

EvilTwins: not interested.

AMPF:. I thought it is only snobby MC parents that think state schools are full of undisciplined children. Apparently so do a number of the pro Comp crowd. "

Actually this is a good point. But an answer might come with 2kids' explanation of how learning has to be differentiated for disadvantage and SEN.

Wrt: IGCSE. My son y9 independent will do IGCSE. He says they have been told they've already completed most of their GCSE work in Maths and will work for the next two years on reinforcement and additional work required for IGCSE. That's in the years that are supposed to be the start of GCSE learning. Last summer he helped a GCSE student study for her exam in one subject. He is about middle to top of his year so not a genius.

Mind you this is entirely anecdotal: a 13-yo relaying to me what his school told him.

Sounds about right.

DS will be taking his IGCSE at 15. Even so, he will have completed the syllabus early so that time is available for ample revision. DP went to GS and apparently this was fairly common back then except no one took the exam early. Instead they focused on revision and exam technique for a whole academic year.

Believe it or not I'm still up:

seeker Sun 09-Dec-12 22:36:36
And the problem with the national curriculum?.........

TalkinPeace2 Sun 09-Dec-12 22:21:43

seeker
lots!
it is now too prescriptive : but has been GREAT at clarifying what goes on in schools.
Sadly with more and more schools no longer bound to it, it becomes an irrelevance

Does this help Seeker? It came fortyfive minutes before your repeated question.

or would that be 15 minutes.. I believe it would

but read when you ask questions seeker, otherwise people might think you don't really want to know the answers and are just saying something for the sake of it

I asked my question again because "Lots!" Isn't a particUlarly helpful answer. The National curriculum is just an outline of the minimum a child should know at particular times in their school career. I was wondering which bits of it people didn't think their children should know!

Perhaps Brycie could list the things in the NC that she finds irrelevant and doesn't want her DC to know.

Brycie- not interested? What a terribly clever answer. Well done!

So you don't actually know then? No ideas at all about what state schools could learn from preps, but you have neither the maturity nor humility to admit it. Why you think your opinion counts more than others I simply don't know. I suspect you're actually not very well educated yourself, hence the obvious chip-on-shoulder attitude and über-evangelical approach to all things independent.

Your "I like teaching from the front" point shows how little you know about what OFSTED expect- believe me, ANY class teacher, primary or secondary, who teaches from the front would be slammed by OFSTED.

I bet you reply "not interested"

Or, "OFSTED" don't know what they are talking about"?...

Seems to me that the biggest problem state school teachers have, then, is that everyone and his dog wants to tell them how to do their job.