Theresa May to end ban on grammar schools part 2

[noblegiraffe]

Continuation of the first thread from here www.mumsnet.com/Talk/education/2702565-Theresa-May-to-end-ban-on-grammar-schools

Do you actually want "whizzy" open days? Surely that gives a pretty false idea of what most science study and work is like?

But I agree- the ability of school to make science boring is extraordinary.......

But I agree- the ability of school to make science boring is extraordinary.......

Fully agree, and with tech subjects too! As I said earlier, some schools are still proudly showing off wooden fish and metal trowels - we did that at school 40 years ago - how things change (not!). It's as if they don't really want to teach it.

At our grammar, they really push tech subjects and heavily encourage the modern processes, such as CAD/CAM, laser cutter, 3d printer, robotics, etc. In fact 44% of pupils take resistant materials to GCSE level, which is higher than any of the local comps.

I think to really improve the uptake of sciences it has to start with the primary schools. What is the position now with the 'harder' primary sciences i.e. physics and chemistry, not just the concentration on biology?

I think you need to show a range. And certainly for many, any kind of application would be better than nothing.

There are teens and adults round here who genuinely think doing a maths degree would be for a career in a bank or accountancy, or that chemistry is for designing new explosives. Marine biology to swim with dolphins. And that if you want to mend helicopters then you just need to be able to mend a bike and sign up. And those aren't opinions from hugely deprived people from backgrounds with huge social problems. Just simple lack of information.

Journalists who report from Science festivals and start their speech with
"I did not like science at school but lets see if these boffins are any good"
should be sacked.

Sadly government cuts have massively restricted the funding for festivals, widening participation, outreach and aimhigher.

Thanks Michael Gove.

here are teens and adults round here who genuinely think doing a maths degree would be for a career in a bank or accountancy

And there are teachers who think the same sadly! In reality, for an accountancy career, a GCSE in Maths is fine as it's all very basic stuff, mainly just percentages and other general/simple basic numeracy skills. Lots of different skills needed in accountancy, which you learn going through the dozen or more professional exams (such as law, tax, IT etc) and obviously you do need good basic numeracy skills, but anything more than GCSE maths is a waste!

peregrina
Read and weep
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/425618/PRIMARY_national_curriculum_-_Science.pdf
Remember than significant numbers of primary teachers do not have any STEM A Levels

Remember than significant numbers of primary teachers do not have any STEM A Levels

That's why I was asking, because I knew that it used to be the case, but I am very much out of touch with primary schools these days. Still the requirement to have a GCSE in science is an improvement on the situation of about 20 years (?) ago, when you only needed maths and English GCSEs to get into teaching.

Sadly government cuts have massively restricted the funding for festivals, widening participation, outreach.

This is not correct in my experience. There was virtually no money for outreach and festivals anyhow - academics do this for free on top of their other duties.

The widening participation budgets at universities have not been reduced by government cuts because universities have to use proportions of their fees to help disadvantaged students i.e. they are being judged (and will be judged more) on the number of disadvantaged students they bring in.

There is if anything more money available for public engagement from Research Councils than there used to be, and more support for it within universities because of TEF and REF.

On the other hand, there is virtually no careers advice available in schools and this has been badly affected by reductions in budgets.

anything more than GCSE maths is a waste for accountancy

I have family members who work for top accountancy firms. They say that not having A level maths makes it harder to get a training contact.

Indeed Bad. I was getting better interviews for accountancy firms (top London ones - turned them down) with my degree in English than the Maths students from same university. Even within the same institution not all courses are considered equally.

At our grammar, they really push tech subjects and heavily encourage the modern processes, such as CAD/CAM, laser cutter, 3d printer

Where did they get the money? That sort of kit isn't cheap. I think Dyson donated a load of equipment to some schools to try to encourage technology teaching.

*anything more than GCSE maths is a waste for accountancy

I have family members who work for top accountancy firms. They say that not having A level maths makes it harder to get a training contact.*

I was talking in terms of actual "need" in terms of the things you study and your mathematical ability compared to the job itself. As you rightly say, a higher qualification is often used as a selection tool but, that's all it is in most cases - it's not that A level Maths is needed, it's just that an A level will put you further up the list when they are selecting who to interview etc.

A bit like a degree these days being the "entry requirement" to lots of fairly basic office jobs whereas 30/40 years ago, it was just 5 O levels. You don't actually "need" a degree, again it's just a form of selection that employers may choose to use to whittle down the huge numbers of applicants.

Where did they get the money? That sort of kit isn't cheap. I think Dyson donated a load of equipment to some schools to try to encourage technology teaching.

It's a matter of choice as to what the school spends their money on. At the open days, other schools were proudly showing off lots of classrooms full of computers/laptops on every desk (not just IT classrooms either), one school said it provides all pupils with a tablet. One of the schools must have spent tens of thousands on their drama dept for stage lighting and sound equipment.

The grammar appear to have chosen not to do that, there were relatively few classrooms with computers. The school itself was old and shabby with cracked windows and leaky roofs whereas the comps were modern bright and airy buildings. The drama dept did their productions in the school hall with what looked like fairly antiquated lighting and sound equipment.

So perhaps the grammar chose to spend on modernising their tech offerings instead of filling the place with laptops, accepting a poorly maintained building and accepting a lower standard of stage equipment?

It's all a matter of choice as to what they spend their money on isn't it? I'd have thought a laser cutter and 3d printer is similar in cost to a stage lighting or sound system?

In theory primary teachers and stem shouldn't be a problem. You don't need to be highly educated in them as a primary class teacher to inspire interest, and for the most part don't even need to be that good. The problem arises when they can't or won't allow for the fact a child doesn't need to be Einstein to be more able than the teacher in a logic based subject. Or in the broader scheme, can't or won't allow for the fact the world of stem is larger than their narrow view. If you have a range of expertise amongst primary staff, and slt on board, then it can be managed.

The school itself was old and shabby with cracked windows and leaky roofs

I don't think that a school can choose to spend money on 3D printers over a new roof, I think they are different budgets. My school built a new sports hall but the money for that was applied for, some special government fund. You might look at my school and think 'oh they chose to spend money on sports facilities instead of fixing the leaky roof' but in fact the sports money could never have been spent on the leaky roof.

Schools cannot choose what to spend money on.

You don't need to be highly educated in them as a primary class teacher to inspire interest, and for the most part don't even need to be that good.

I can't find out when the requirement to have a science GCSE was introduced, but at a guess a good many of the older teachers won't have a grounding in physics and chemistry and won't know how to inspire the interest, in part because of their own lack of confidence. I think they will be OK on the biological side, going out to observe dragon flies, doing surveys of different types of birds around the bird table and such like.

(And when I left school, you only needed five O levels to go into teaching, of which one had to be English. But at least that generation will now have retired.)

Schools cannot choose what to spend money on.

Under LMS they had a good deal of flexibility to choose how to spend it, but if it isn't enough, then the money goes onto the basics.

Some of the better equipped schools were in this position because of the generosity of parents/governors e.g. one school getting some decent computers because a local firm was doing an upgrade to something 'state of the art' and gave them their older ones, which were still relatively recent.

But a school serving a deprived area is not going to have the parents with the connections to provide such things.

But physics in primary school has in any case virtually no correlation with higher level physics. The whole primary school curriculum (particularly the revised version) seems designed to put children off science. It introduces many concepts at the wrong age group (too early and too late). Primary and early secondary science also leads children to believe that science is all about getting the correct key words to answer questions (many of which are ambiguously phrased).

I don't think that a school can choose to spend money on 3D printers over a new roof, I think they are different budgets.

A leaky roof doesn't mean you need a new roof, just like a cracked window doesn't mean you need to replace them all with modern double glazed units. It's just day-to-day maintenance.

Anyway, my point was that some nearby schools clearly could afford what looked to be very expensive stage equipment, whether that's from some kind of grant or out of reserves or by balancing operating budgets, I don't know. By the same token, the grammar didn't buy stage equipment, but instead bought tech equipment - again, I don't know whether they got a grant for that, or whether it was from surplus from operating budgets. My point was it's all about choices. The grammar, which as far as I know is eligible for same kinds of grant and the same "per pupil" budget bought tech equipment whereas the comp bought stage equipment. Swings and roundabouts and the school leadership making choices as to how to spend their money which presumably includes what kind of grants are available to fund their plans.

Yes, haybott, I think that is what I am trying to get at. If we really want a scientifically educated populace we have to start early and with teachers who know what they are doing.

The problem is that you are implying that the grammar school is "better" for buying science kit and the comprehensive is "worse" for buying stage equipment. When a)you don't know where the money came from and b) you don't know what the thinking behind the purchasing was.

So bad your area has a school with brilliant tech equipment which is only accessible to kids who pass a test, yet bright kids who are interested in drama can choose to go to the comp?

I'm not saying or implying anything. I just responded earlier in this thread to say that the grammar had good tech equipment. Someone asked where the money came from. I said maybe they choose to spend on tech equpt rather than stage equipment. I've no idea as to the decision process behind the comp spending as opposed to that of the grammar spending, nor do I know whether grants for stage equipt are easier/harder to obtain than for tech equipment.