Probably done before but private v's state primary ?

[HelloDolly]

I know we'll choose private secoundary but will our daughter be behind if we try the local state school first ?

The teacher who mentored me in school used to phone me every evening (when she'd very clearly been drinking) to talk drivel. I found the stuff about how children learn and educational theories really interesting and there was some good general advice about lesson planning and schemes of work during the PGCE but very little practical advice. Bizarrely almost nothing about types of schools, the National Curriculum, different specs, assessment, behavioural management, SEN. I almost see this as neglect and certainly no preparation for the realities of teaching in a state school. Your NQT year is where you do all your learning and loads of teachers must be put off by the fact that tehy're just not prepared. I was.

I think it depends where you are located (in response to the OP)

Can you find out how many applicants sit the secondary school entrance exam and how many places there are?

Some schools market themselves as being academically selective and go to the trouble of setting an entrance exam - and then only reject 3 children.

Also, find out if the private school makes allowances for the overall grade from children who have been in a state primary rather than their private junior school.

Re single-sex, ds1 is at a boys school. It took him a couple of months before he commented on the fact that there were no girls. Pros:- activities are aimed at what would interest boys, eg selecton of reading books etc. Lots of sport to use up energy. Lots of male role models - whilst the preprep class teachers are all female, most of the prep school staff are male, and even from reception they have PE/games taught by male staff. The private and grammar schools around here tend to be single-sex (or at least the higher achieving ones are). Cons - it was a bit weird turning up to one boys birthday party to realise that he had a twin sister!

Personally I would look for the right school for your child and wouldn't sweat over private/state or single-sex/co-ed. We struggled with the decision between this one (single-sex private) and one other (co-ed, state). I have to say that whilst I am very happy with our choice, I can't hand on heart saying that we are getting an extra £7ks worth over what the state school would have offered. But we put other attributes ahead of value for money on this decision. Most parents will have their own set of values/wishes on this one and there isn't a one size fits all.

I find it fascinating that you defend the relevance of the PGCE, twinset, but then go on to say that 'Perhaps I was lucky in getting a good PGCE placememnt where I could practice my craft and an excellent tutor.' Aren't you really saying that the best thing was your practical experience and the advice of other great teachers?

What I meant was that at college I was given excellent tutoring in the theory behind the teaching of my subject, the purpose of it and why it is taught. Becuase I was lucky to be in a school which for London had relatively few discipline problems so could concentrate on developing a teaching style and focussing on the theory behind teaching. AS my subject was religious studies this theory was especially important as you need to be secure in yur own mind what you are teaching, how you are teaching it and why as you will be challenged.

So the practical experience was useful but coupled with my theoretical background from college. AS I went on to get a job the theory went out of the window a bit as I faced challenging pupils but now even though I am in the toughest school I have ever taught in those theoretical questions that I faced in my PGCE are at the forefront.

To be hoest th least relevant part of my PGCE was the main teaching block as it was a school so alien from any kind of school I have ever taught in or probably will. I learnt far more in my two week block at an inner city school that was was relevant to my later teaching career. Bu the theory that I learnt in college will be relevant no matter where I teach.

But martianbishop surely you learnt and discussed more than children need a positive environment.

I know RE is ab it different than other subjects but did you not spend time reading about and discussing why your subject is important, what kind of knoweldge you want your pupils to have, the purpose of eduication gernerally. For example in the case of my subject am I teaching to reaffirm children in their own faith, help them explore new avenues, reject supersition, bring about social cohesion or develop philisophical minds. My answer to this question will affect the way I structure every lesson and therefore i need to know what I am doing before I enter any classroom. Am I teaching kids to help them get a job, give them a list of qualifications or for the joy of gathering knowledge? ow on earth am I going to get a fourteen year old from Lancashire who has never been abraod and never stepped inside a p[lace of worship other than for a wedding about a pilgramage to Mecca? How can I get kids bought up on a diet of soaps and computer games to be interested in a book written thousands of years ago. Do I want them to collect facts about a religion, attempt to understand how it feels to be religious or simpoly ask the fundamental questions about human existance. Do I want to play safe and present faiths as all nice and fuzzy with lots in common and all meeting each other in heaven or do I want to say that that are all at odds with each other and think the other lot are all going to die a terrible death. All of these questions have to be answered before I can start planning my lesson and that is where your PGCE comes in, OK your answers may change as you mature

Most of the bad teachers that I have met from my own discipline have done on the job trainig or did not apply themselves to their PGCE theoretical background. I know that when I teach a lesson badly it is usually because I have neglected the theory behind my teaching. There is also nothing more lilely to undermine yourself and your credibility if you can't answer the question " Miss why are we having to learn this?"

yes.

However I found most of the useful stuff things that were largly common sense. And TBH, most of them things I had already worked out by having children of my own first! One of the delights of going into teaching as an older entrant.

The learning theory etc wasn't new to me, since I had done reaserch on this in a previous job. i had also taught at threaa different universities, and works as a trainer in the pharmaceutical industry teaching adults physiology and pharmacology. So quite a bit of the things I studied in the PGCE were fairly obvious, if I am honest.

I learned far more by studying the teaching styles of other teachers while on TP.

The basics, lesson lanning etc were helpful, but could have been done in a few weeks. And I am still at a loss to undertand how weriting a power point presentation on 'Why we should teach science' makes me a better teacher. If I didn't know , I don't think I should be in the job

I found some of the academic stuff intereting, but not that helpful, With the possible exception of Brunner, who I found near imposible to read.

You clearly started from an exceptionally high base of knowledge and understanding about things like pedagogy, teaching methods, critical thinking about learning and so on, though, martianbishop. I didn't bring anything like that level of sophistication to my PGCE, and I did learn a hell of lot from doing it. I became a lecturer in HE rather than a schoolteacher, and I have always been really glad that I did a PGCE - it's helped me a lot to be a good teacher, rather than a bad lecturer.

but in a way that is the point. I was tecnicaly 'unqualified' becuaseI didn't have that bit of paper. i'm wuite sure that mnetters would have been annoyed at the thought of me teaching their children because I was unqualified, which I was!

The staff that I worled with made yjis a running ( goodnatured joke) calling me the 'unqualified one), when I had a degee from oxford, had worked in reserach in learning and memory, taught in Oxford, St Andews and Edinburgh and worked teaching drug reps in two different commpanies. But I was 'unqualified', And would remain so until I spent a year being patronised by a tutor who didn't know her arse from a hole in the ground, and wouldn't have lasted 30 seconds in a real classroom.

Martianbishop - I see your point very clearly and agree that for you the PGCE 'qualification' probably contributed very little to your school teaching proficiency.

I have seen the opposite in place however - especially where male teachers are concerned. It's a sort of arrogance... "I have a Phd", "I have been training Army personnel for years - of course I can teach a bunch of school kids".

But sadly it's not always true. Some of them aren't able to get their subject across to children, some of them are completely stumped by the antics of teenagers.

I guess there are good and bad teachers in State and Independent schools and the PGCE doesn't necessarily make bad teachers good teachers. But, the practise in Independent schools (which may or may not be dying out ??) to employ the most highly qualified academic staff over those who have a lesser degree but a PGCE and an innate teaching ability is a dubious one which rarely benefits the children in the lower sets of a subject.

I completely agree with every poster that has said, if you can afford it, just choose the best school for your child, irrespective of whether it's state or primary.

We ended up choosing a non-selective private prep school for DD1 and, with some reservations, I think it was the best school on offer for her.

Something that weighed with us is the different teaching styles/expectations/outputs between the private and the state sector. Private prep schools tend to teach towards a transition to a private and selective secondary school. State primary schools, quite rightly, don't. All the private secondary schools around us are selective and I think it can be extremely hard going for a child to make the leap between state and private aged 10/11. We were concerned that if we sent DD1 to a state primary, however good, we would narrow down our options at secondary level, because she simply hadn't been taught in a way that would fit with a selective private school.

One question to ask the local state school (if you dare!) is how many children each year apply to private secondary schools and what proportion are accepted.

Au contraire, beatie.

You say: 'But, the practise in Independent schools (which may or may not be dying out ??) to employ the most highly qualified academic staff over those who have a lesser degree but a PGCE and an innate teaching ability is a dubious one which rarely benefits the children in the lower sets of a subject.'

The practice of independent schools has also been to appoint anyone they think qualified, both in terms of subject knowledge and teaching talent, versus the rigidity of the state system that would ALWAYS take a person with a mediocre degree and a PGCE over a genius teacher without the certificate. Witness the former head of Winchester (only one of the top schools in the country) who was not allowed to teach at his local comprehensive when he retired from the headship. The mentality blows my mind. And then these people have the hubris to criticise the independent sector for low standards??!!

And while I really don't think that educational theory as it stands has much to say for educational practice (yes, yes, I know I'm a philistine - but hell, I only have 4 degrees, including one in Philosophy, so obviously I must be uninterestedin ideas), I think it totally bizarre that the priority in the PGCE is to teach theory over classroom practice. I mean, as a parent, if you had to choose between one or the other, would you rather that your child's teacher had a good grounding in classroom management, and effective ways to introduce the subject matter; or an understanding of principles of social justice in schooling?

Even if the PGCE is useful for acquiring the latter, which I doubt, surely the first step is just to teach the teachers how to teach? It's like trying to become an intensive care specialist when you can't yet put on a bandage properly.

In real life, I have not met a teacher I really respected who thought that their teaching qualification was worthwhile. Typically they say there were a handful of useful moments in the whole thing, but the vast majority is a waste of time and money and utterly irrelevant to their true vocation.

I don't disagree with you Bloss.

My point was that the practise of doing the PGCE (and I probably mean the practical classroom bit) will at weed out those whose expectations of classroom teaching are woefully off the mark.

Of course, not having the PGCE needn't be a problem if schools run a mentoring system to assist new teachers who have come from other backgrounds. Additionally these teachers could be employed for a probationary period so if teaching children doesn't suit them, they can easily be released from the school. But IME those two things have not occurred and the newest Headteacher has spent years trying to offload the deadwood.

Like I say, it may be something that has died out. I was merely pointing out that most qualified i.e. higher degrees and industry teaching experience did not always equate to better teachers, and IME the private school I know of hasn't been able to distinguish between the good and bad teachers, they've been blinded by who appeared to be the most qualified.

I'd just like to point out that I know of plenty of teachers in the private sector who don't have PGCEs and are excellent teachers. I don't dispute that many teachers gained little value from their PGCE year.

Friends were telling us about their daughter's private primary... boaters, and the girls have to curtsey to the teacher at the door at going-home time

This child is lovely and clearly thriving, but oh my goodness why would you see this horrid ritual (obv staged for parents' benefit) as a plus?

I was going to say much the same as you Honeyflower, martianbishop obviously came into teaching with more skills and maturity than most.

I became a teacher becuase my education was my escape route from a miserable existance, and I wanted to be able to help other kids take the same or similar path to myself. I chose RE becuase my degree was in theology, beyond that I had not thought much more. RE is a strange subject as once you start working you may be te only specialist in the school so your PGCE is a unique time to develop your thinking that may never happen again except for the odd bit of hurried INSET. You are also not bound by a national curriculum ( although there will be a locally agreed one) or SATS which brings great freedom but also great margin for error and feelings of uncertainty. There are fewer right or wrong answers, how do you give someone a mark out of ten for describing their beiefs?

I am lucky in that I teach part time so I have the time to be a reflective practioner, contemplating how I can iprove my puoils learning, considering what it is that I am teaching and the reasons for it. I have time to keep up with my reading into the latest research - but when I taught full time I just did not have the time to do this.

AS for teaching how to teach I don't think you can, I can remember in my PGCE interview the tutor asked me what I hoped to get out of my PGCE. I said I am bringing my subject knowledge and you are going to teach me how to teach. He told me I was wasting my time and he was right, you can teach someone to be an adaquate teacher and you could teach a great teacher to become an even better one. But the best teachers are naturals, it is like acting you either have it or you don't. Great teachers have passion, charisma and presence these things can't be taught.

Becoing a great teacher takes time, and that is part of th4 problem in inner cities, that due to the teacher shortage a good teacher is too quickly promoted out of thir depth rather than being allowed to practice their craft, reflect on their practice and mature.

But while accepting that I am an airy fairy bookish type of person the theory has to uderpin your teaching, yuo need to know why you are teaching a subject, why you are teaching in the way you are and what you hope to achieve.

I don't think that youcan really teach someone to teach either, if I am honest. You can refine,improve, knock of the rough edges, fill the odd gap, but you either have a 'feel' for how kids think and learn or you don't.

We all know the feeling, you have planned the lesson to the minute, differentiated your resources, taken into account vaki, checked the spec so you know the 'should' know, 'must' know and 'might' knows, and the kids come in , high as a kite because it sia windy wednesaday afternoon.

And at this stage you have two choices, go with the plan, and die 100 deaths, or tailor the lesson to the kids and their needs on that day. And you either have the common sense and maturity to do that or you dont. It isn't really anything to do with age or experience, some people can do it at 21, some will never do it well , even if they try for 40 years.

I also work part time Twinset....for the same reasons that you give, plus I do like to live a bit outside of school

FWIW I quite enjoyed the mental stimulus of the PGCE, hated my tutor, and learned very little that made me the sort of teacher that I am.

Yes your tutor does count for a lot, I was lucky that I had two tutors one of whom I had a lot in common with and we shared the same ethos about teaching. She had also only recently left the classroom and had taught in the kind of schools I wanted to teach in. The other tutor I found harder to warm too as we were very different but she was still a part time teacher so had not forgotten what it was like to have one of those wild wednesday afternoons.

AS for a life out os school - I am trying but only started my new post in January so am still doing the slog of setting out your stall to a new set of kids which can be a long process when you are only in school for two days a week. I had been going into school on my afternoons off to get marking and display work done, but was falling behind with my studying. So now I do two twelve hour days plus a bit of planning of an evening. It is hard getting the balance right between family work and me time as teaching is one of those jobs where there is always moer to do. But it is nice to have time to plan my lessons properly and mark books without having to do it at the speed of lightening.

Twinset, I'm surprised you didn't deal with all the theoretical stuff - why do we need to know about RE miss? What's it all for? - in your theology degree. I agree with Bloss, the degree/MA/PhD should be for the theory, the PGCE for the practise (practice?). If your degree doesn't give you the theoretical grounding in your subject and help you consolidate what it's for to pass on to others then what's the point? Likewise, if your PGCE doesn't prepare you for the realities of the classroom then what's the point?

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

During my PGCE I was expected to 'audit' my subject knowledge (idiot tutor wanted to audit me to A level standard in chemistry and physics as well as biology, thus tripling my work load) and any short falls were to be filled by personal study. They rightly assumesd that your subject knowledge was covered by your original degree.

The only useful bits were a study of the topics covered by the NC

bloss, the old ZPD! Do people really need to be told that children learn my moving from the known to the less well known? Damn I had planned to teach A level stuff to my year 7s

Message withdrawn

My degree was theology not religious studies, a completely different subject. Lots of people teac a subject that is different from their degree.