Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

Gove kills the mockingbird with ban on US classic novels ...what do you think?

953 replies

mrz · 25/05/2014 09:34

www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/article1414764.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2014_05_24

OP posts:
unrealhousewife · 06/06/2014 10:21

Rabbit, children don't all need one to one to learn practical skills, those with sen get help anyway. I agree with everything else you say, spot on. The hierarchy of subjects is the problem, and the lack of thorough learning in earlier years.

The key stage 1 and 2 curriculum seem inclusive and comprehensive, then at 3 it seems to fail.

But making changes in a panicky reactive way like Gove is is not helpful. Labour copped out of big changes to reduce academic hierarchy and that could have made a real difference. They need longer term changes and stick to them.

Slipshodsibyl · 06/06/2014 10:27

In the days when 25% of leavers left with no certificates at all we had labouring and factory work to offer. We don't now. Children need some evidence of skill levels they have reached.

Splitting children into O level and CSE was done too early and wasted a lot of ability. One common exam attempts to address this problem. Gove's reforms are reminiscent of the old days. His problem is that the needs of society have changed. His reforms will, I'm afraid, exclude lower set children again, or turn them off.

There is an unavoidable conflict between stretching the best and keeping avenues open to all ( unless education becomes very personalised and thus unaffordable). There is no real answer because our views on what should be done depend on our politics/views about society. If we see GCSE pragmatically, as a basic qualification to show basic levels of skills rather than as a selection tool, and assume selection of the most able comes at 18, it is a bit easier to see their point. I am not saying this is the right thing to do but I do believe there there is currently no common agreement on what they are actually for.

Lazysummerdays · 06/06/2014 10:41

Slipshod

What do you mean that putting students into either O level or CSE was done 'too early'?

As a teacher, I can spot ability levels in children from a very young age; by the age of 14/15 it's quite obvious who has ability and who is less able. At least with CSE there was always the option of a Grade 1 being equal to a GCSE and in my own grammar school we had several students who had obtained a good clutch of CSE Grade 1, and who were accepted at the grammar for their A levels. I can think of at least 1 who went on to become a teacher.
There will always be the argument around 'late development' and it has its place; but there has to be a line in the sand somewhere.

I think some people are also forgetting that less able students mainly took drama as a GCSE option and that the Lit exam was reserved for the more able at English.

I don't know why you think it was so terrible that 25% of children left with no qualifications - actually, many still do! But do you think the answer is to make exams so easy ( as they'd become) so that the qualifications were worth next to nothing? Or that a handful of grade Ds and Es was a real achievement?

Personally,I'd like to see an educational system where more value is placed on vocational skills - we are moving in the direction-and where students who were not high-flyers left school with competency in basic maths and English which employers say is lacking.

unrealhousewife · 06/06/2014 10:52

But Lazy how do so many children lack basic maths skills? Is it because they are less able as you use that term, or because they don't get taught it well enough?

Anyone can learn basic maths, they fail to because they are ignored while the focus goes on the easier pupils. It's not good enough and has very little to do with ability.

rabbitstew · 06/06/2014 11:01

unrealhousewife - exactly the same applies to children who are not good at sport, art or design technology, though... you may say that these children with "sen" get extra help, but they don't - they are just told it's OK not to be good at these things. If you get extra help, it's generally because you have problems with basic literacy or maths. And even then, you might not unless your problems are so severe that you count as having "sen."

rabbitstew · 06/06/2014 11:02

Tonnes of children are being let down in sport, art and DT... because nobody really cares...

unrealhousewife · 06/06/2014 11:06

Well it is ok not to be good at everything, the point is that should never be used as a reason for schools to not try and teach children things.

My dd has sen, she is doing fine in ms school. We deliberately chose one with mixed intake knowing it would be naturally more inclusive and able to differentiate. The academic children also excel there.

rabbitstew · 06/06/2014 11:10

unrealhousewife - it depends on the sen, though, doesn't it? What schools are interested in is maths and basic literacy, because it is NOT OK not to be good at that. So you are interested in the hierarchy, too - people want their children to be able to read, write and do basic maths, because that helps them access academic skills (and think more analytically about the practical things they do...), even if they can't throw, catch, kick, draw or sing - even if those latter skills actually help them join in with their peers and boost their self esteem.

Lazysummerdays · 06/06/2014 11:12

unreal

I'm sorry but I don't agree.

Are you a teacher?

You see there are more children who, because of inclusive learning, are in mainstream schools who previously would have been catered for in special schools. As part of my long career in education I also taught adults basic skills where the teaching was superb!! :) but many were still unable to grasp the basics.

Are you saying that you don't believe in the distribution of intelligence and that any child can learn anything to any level if only it's taught 'well'?

unrealhousewife · 06/06/2014 11:33

Lazy stop being so defensive. There is very little difference in the iq of children at birth. Your god like ability to see which children are more able is patronising, smug and disablist.

Teachers like you cause massive damage to students by making the assumptions you do.

I am not a teacher hence my question earlier inviting teachers to offer solutions.

Rabbit, learning maths is crucial, a survival skill, as is English, and physical education. A child without good mental maths will suffer.

I agree about practical and creative skills being just as important as academics. These are catered for in the curriculum but not really pushed. There is a laissez faire attitude at ks3 when these skills can be taught, which is really damaging and being ignored.

Lazysummerdays · 06/06/2014 11:40

Wow! Wow! All I can say , Unreal!

Defensive? Maybe look at your own opinions there I think!

Sorry but I find your post insulting -personal attacks not really necessary here- and if that's the best you can do.....

If you don't accept that children have different levels of ability - and I've taught the whole range including children who are special needs-then you are rather blinkered.

unrealhousewife · 06/06/2014 11:44

No Lazy I am not blinkered I just don't think ability should determine whether children get taught something or not. Children are born slightly different, their learning through life is what gives them ability. That cannot, in 2014 be used as a reason to segregate. Think about it.

and if Wow is all you can come up with...

I give up.

kesstrel · 06/06/2014 11:46

Rabbit, my elder daughter is dyspraxic and can't do any of those things either, so I sympathise with you. The worst thing was the pe teachers in secondary who kept marking her down for "not trying". The trouble is, does anybody actually know how to teach those skills to dyspraxic children, do you think?

Lazysummerdays · 06/06/2014 12:08

Unreal

The ''wow' was at your rudeness and defensiveness- though judging from your post I'm not sure you know what it means!

I think it's insulting that you talk to teachers who have spent ( in my case) my entire working life trying to bring out the best in ALL children regardless of ability.

You are entitled to your opinion that seems to be based on children being empty vessels who will achieve depending on what is poured into them.

I happen to believe that children have different strengths and weaknesses. I believe that the curriculum should be tailored to those and yes that might mean some children not studying something or taking an exam in it.

Just as I had to choose from art, music, RE or domestic science for my own O levels , because there wasn't room in the day to take all, and neither was I any good at some of them.

unrealhousewife · 06/06/2014 12:16

Lazy your belief about children's strengths and weaknesses should not dictate what they are taught. That's patronising and discriminatory at worst. Children pick up on these negative attitudes and it causes a lot of damage.

I haven't insulted anyone at all. You are not contributing to this discussion apart than to say you know best.

unrealhousewife · 06/06/2014 12:19

Lazy you are just not really listening.

Of course specialisation needs to happen but it should not mean that ks3 should be a time to let them coast.

Of course I know what offensive means. Angry

unrealhousewife · 06/06/2014 12:20

And defensive and rude.Grin

Lazysummerdays · 06/06/2014 12:21

Sorry- but children's strengths and weaknesses should play a part in what they are taught. Why would they not?

You can call it what you like - discrimination is a very emotional hook to hang that on- but have it your way.

Your only contribution in this seems to be as a parent of a child with SEN who has a chip on her shoulder.

Is your outburst based on the FACT that some children CHOOSE drama at GCSE instead of English Lit?

I cannot see what your contribution to this is, based on the content of the new GCSEs.

Lazysummerdays · 06/06/2014 12:25

Teachers like you cause massive damage to students by making the assumptions you do.

This is offensive.

I don't know what it is based on.

No one is making assumptions about anyone- except you.

I am of the opinion that different children need a differentiated curriculum at some stage.

This thread was about KS4 and GCSE texts ( not KS3)

I honestly don't know where your posts fit into that and I'm not going to prolong the discussion with you :)

unrealhousewife · 06/06/2014 12:34

If you actually listen to what I am saying it will be perfectly clear to you how my discussion about ks3 fits in to this one.

Judging children's potential based on their ability is fundamentally wrong.

If I am not clever enough for you I can only apologise but you might need to adjust your standards for a moment in order to understand me.

Slipshodsibyl · 06/06/2014 13:00

'I don't know why you think it was so terrible that 25% of children left with no qualifications - actually, many still do! But do you think the answer is to make exams so easy ( as they'd become) so that the qualifications were worth next to nothing? Or that a handful of grade Ds and Es was a real achievement?'

If nothing else, It is politically unacceptable now for 25% of children to leave with no certificates. I also think a handful of d and e grades is an indication of a student's skill level.

I recognise much if what you say, Lazy. I don't teach now but I began during the last couple of years of O Level. The kind of division we had then isn't really appropriate for the society/world we have become. Too many were left behind and that is now economically and politically unacceptable.

IHeartKingThistle · 06/06/2014 13:16

Unreal I really do get where you're coming from from a moral point if view but the whole damn system is set upto judge potential by ability. When I get a new Year 7 class, before I even meet them I am given a spreadsheet. Next to every child's name is their SATs Level from primary, then a minimum target grade for the end of year 7, year 8 and year 9, then a target GCSE grade. Then those children and I will be beaten around the head with those grades for the next 5 years, regardless of what might happen to them in that time.

I think there may be bigger fish to fry here.

rabbitstew · 06/06/2014 13:18

kesstrel - I do think people could do more research into dyspraxia and find better methods for teaching people with dyspraxic tendencies, but it is difficult. In my ds1's case (who is not diagnosed with dyspraxia, but who has very clear discrepancies in his ability profile), a lot of things have made a colossal difference to his ability to join in and his self esteem, mainly things done outside of school. Ds1 has the advantage that he has a phenomenally good short term, long term and working memory, so rote learning physical skills is not an issue for him - I'm not sure this is the case for most dyspraxics!!

In ds1's case, physiotherapy advice from a paediatric physio who understood hypotonia and hypermobility (common findings in children diagnosed with dyspraxia) was hugely helpful. Ds1 had no idea if he was using his body in all the wrong ways, and unless moving in front of someone who knew how to break down complex movements into their constituent parts, nobody else could work out what on earth he was doing wrong, or why he wasn't doing it, either, it was just obvious that what he was doing was really wrong, if he did anything at all - he didn't seem to know where all the muscles in his body even were, let alone how to use them or in which order. He had to be taught how to roll over, how to get from lying to sitting, how to crawl, how to pull to stand, how to climb stairs, etc, etc... I'd begun to despair, because I couldn't work out why he did such dumb-seeming things with his body (if he did much more than sit and look unhappy), and why he didn't seem to be able to work out how to do pretty simple things, like getting a jumper the right way up (surely it's obvious that the long, thin bits are for the arms?!), or put a hat on, when he could read and write fluently from an unusually early age. Then came the years of swimming lessons, which helped build up strength (eventually, when he could swim well enough), the wind instrument playing, which helped him discover how to use his diaphragm muscles and thus improve his breathing, and therefore helped his swimming, enjoyment of physical activities and general stamina... which meant he was willing to do more of these things and thus was in a position where he could get better at them... and the piano lessons, which helped him develop his sense of rhythm and timing, boost his self esteem because he could read music unlike many other people and had a physical skill others don't have for a change, and which hugely improved the co-ordination and strength of his hands. He turns out to be really quite musical. Then came the tennis coach who made it all fun and not embarrassing to be considerably older and taller than the other children, and the person who managed to show him how to catch a ball successfully (which I hadn't achieved, despite trying), so that he came home and wanted to practice, etc, etc... Lots of people have been involved in helping my ds1, but the time to do that is not available at school.

And then there's the fact that some of the more visual skills in maths that he sometimes has a bit of difficulty with (eg reflection, symmetry, rotation) can be made easier by showing that you can sometimes get to the answer through counting (particularly if done on squared paper, where movements and lines can be seen as distances across and up, which are easier to perceive than looking at them straight away as diagonals... and it's much easier to track where each corner of the shape ends up and then put it all back together and check the look of it than to keep track of the whole movement as one "thing" the entire time), or turning the page around so that you don't have to visualise the position you are supposed to be starting in, but have the page rotated that way already to get you started (like the people who turn maps around to help them!... sometimes it's just the getting started that people find difficult, then they can visualise the rest of the process OK). Teachers don't always seem to have the time to break these things into little stages for the children that need this, or just the time to keep working on those particular things with a child when there are other things to move onto. Ds1 is actually pretty good at many visual skills and never had trouble, eg, telling left from right, but others, generally those involving movement, he needs to have broken down for him, and teachers don't spot the "details" of his needs.

Basically, at the end of the day, I just want my ds1 to have the basic skills he needs to lead an independent, fulfilled and productive life. He has those skills, now, but more of them have been gained outside of school than I would like, to be honest - you really don't want to feel that school is actually getting in the way of your child's development, because they want to break down things for him he already knows and aren't interested in the things he needs help with!

Lazysummerdays · 06/06/2014 13:22

Slip

What I think is wrong is for children to be made to feel that grades D-G are an achievement in the real world - because the reality is that no employer gives a toss about anything below a grade C, and very few further ed courses accept students with grades below a D.

I have always believed that some children are not academic, they have other strengths, and rather than leave with a set of grades that are more or less worthless they should be leaving school with a skills set that makes them employable.

Taking the argument to the next level, if you are a new graduate with anything less than a 2:1, you are going to have problems finding a place on a grad scheme or any type of employment where there is competition for places.

I agree with you- it's not right that children leave school after 13 years of education with no qualifications but you have to ask what those qualifications are there for....are they just a metaphorical 'pat on the back' or are they adding value to society?

IHeartKingThistle · 06/06/2014 13:22

Sorry, point of view!

Swipe left for the next trending thread