Once the food is sorted let's.....

[happymerryberries]

.....keep the pressure on the government to sort out schools.

Let's have an end to kids who's behaviour is out of control, wrecking their chance of education and that of everyone in the classroom along with them.

Let's have an end to the pretence that inclusion can work for every child and stop the closure of special schools.

Let's have an end to education for SN on a shoe string budget, a policy that leave the most vulnerable out in the cold and adds to their problems.

Let's have a return to the realisation that rights come with responsibilites.

Let's have real funding for schools so that they can afford little luxuries like books.

Let's have specialist teachers in every school that can work with kids with EBD so that we can help them, and in doing so help all the other kids that suffer their behaviour.

Let's stop pretending that all kids will get 5 A* to C grades and get them literate and numerate and able to interact with other people in a reasonable way....then teach them French and Science.

Once Jamie has sorted out the food, lets sort out the rest!

well...

going back to the original point of the thread, and in direct opposition to freckle's suggestion:

Let's stop mucking about with "specialist" schools and selection, and create good all round local schools for everyone.

Let's also really try to get over the prejudice against vocational courses that makes students who take them think they are failures. Vocational A levels were a good idea - what happened to those? For God's sake let's not have vocational-academic school apartheid again.

We do vocational GNVQs in our school. They are promoted but are still viewed by many as a second best option. Which is insane. There is a national shortage of trained crafts men (people whatever). In edinburgh some plumbers are asking for a £100 call out fee, there is such a shortage. (Dhs unvle has just leftthe industry).

Why not encourage the skills of all our kids and not pretend that the only valid ones are the academic ones? If by boiler breaks down I want a plumber, not a linguist or a mathematician

Ameriscot, I posted as you had asked me to post my reasons for my thinking, which I already have, in quite some detail. But you , as yet, have not. You asked for more debate.

But that's what I mean, HMB. GNVQ = "generally not very qualified" and vocational Qs need to be promoted outside as well as inside schools. Calling them A levels would be implicitly saying they were equal, and would help a lot IMO.

Yes, the leveling would be much better.

My mate had this discussion with the then minister for Education, Charles Clarke. Friend in a social worker and asked why education was failing those chilren who were not conventionaly 'academic'. The answer from the miniter 'All children can suceed. I hear what you say but I disagree with you' Friend wanted to tear his own hair out at this point.

And the modern aprentisip scheme seems to be dying on its feet

...& whilst we're at it - can I not be asked to teach George Orwell, Great War poetry, & Arthur Miller's 'Death of a Salesman' to a child whose Mock GCSE paper consisted of an unsuccessful attempt to spell his own name, followed by the words 'Mrs G$$$$$$ fuck off', scrawled in huge letters?

Actually, I'm quite impressed he spelt my name correctly. It's more than the office can do...

So that's another vote for 'let's teach 'em to read & add up, before we expect sensitive literary criticism & extensive Science knowledge from them.'

From what you have written, HMB, I conclude that your reasons for not teaching science to difficult kids is because it is too hard on the teacher. I don't think you like when I summarise it like this - but I don't know what else to think.

I don't particularly want to unpack the examples you have given as I sense that you would not respond positively to this.

Oh Carrie, did he? How awful! Mind yuo impressive that he could spell it.

My mate once had 'Mrs X sucks cock' written on the wall and she was surprised that the boy had spelled it all correctly

I can just see him getting down to Orwell!

Ameriscot - please stop it. HMB isn't talking about not wanting to teach difficult kids (as far as I can see), but about getting the basics in first.

I'm curious as to the beliefs of those of you who think children should have a minimum literacy standard before being allowed access to the full curriculum (phew!):

What kind of material are the SN kids to be exposed to in their 100% exclusive literacy-and-numeracy 5-hour days? Surely not all Dick & Dora, or Peter & Jane stories. Can't we have a little bit of science/history/geography/RE pitched at their level?

Also, given they've had 6 or 7 years of primary school L&N and failed to achieve, what makes you think they are going to make leaps and bounds in secondary, especially when coupled with an adolescent attitude?

In the interests of fair play Ameriscot I think that HMB has made it abundantly clear that she doesn't think science should be taught to these children because it isn;t in teh childrens interests to do so.

That it is a waste of her and the children's time when there are more relevant skills like reading and writing that they could and should be acquiring!

Can't speak for hmb, Ameriscot, but personally I find it's not hard on the teacher to teach badly failing students. It's a lot harder to teach middle set & be endlessly pressurised to achieve level 5s/grade Cs - generally, 'difficult' kids are left to fester by the school's management team & any idiot can 'teach' them, simply by getting them to copy out chunks of textbook & ignoring all but the most psychotic outbursts of 'challenging behaviour'.

It's actually more a feeling of indignation on their behalf that they are being cheated of an education that they could benefit from.

I haven't had a bad day's teaching. I no longer teach!

But Ameriscot has been very rude and insulting todays both myself and HMB. I really don't belive that I have been rude and insulting back, or have done anything directly to offend Ameriscot.

Yet another education thread down the pan then?

But Senora...when are they going to succeed at those basics? It seems that so little progress is made that it could take a lifetime, so they might never reach the standard to be allowed to be exposed to science. I don't get it!

BTW there are some excellent books written for pupils with low reading ages. The story lines are pitched at various age levels, up to adult level whilst the literacy content is still at a more aappropraite level.

The resources do exist to an extent, we just done have the cucciculum time to use them.

Oh dear I have posted

'You seem to be missing the point utterly. There is no point in teaching science in the NC to some children because they simply cannot access it in any way that leads to sucess from their view point. I'm not anti teaching it to the because it is hard work for me but because it is counterproductive to them. All that they learn is that they cannot do it.

They don't need any more of that from the school system. They have already had 7 years before they get to me. And by the time they are in secondary school they fall behind their peers more and more with each passing year. ' and

'But would you like to exlain to me how I am supposed to teach a child of 14 who has a reading age of 6 about photosynthesis? How is he or she supposed to access that? And what will it do to enhance that child's life? For them to sit in the lessons, and fail to even complete the most basic KS2 SEN work sheets? For them to learn, yet again, that school is about failure for them? How do you think that makes them feel? I know what I would feel. I'd feel 'Fuck this I'll be a pain in the arse, a hard kid and that is why I fail, not because I'm thick'

But there you go, You know best. I don't want to teach them because it is too hard. You are being very offensive.

You have no idea how much effort I put into teaching kids like this. What extra support I am trying to get them. that I am working nmy spare time to set up a nurture group for chilren emotional disturbed bt their upbringing. I just don't want to teach them because it is too har. Now it is your turn to be told to get a life

by all means, ameriscot, but currently it seems that illiterate or semi-illiterate children are expected to follow science lessons and Literature lessons with the rest of the class.

Wouldn't practical lessons which didn't require writing be more appropriate? i.e. not science as such, but technology (how machines work etc). It's kind of an argument of semantics, I guess.

But I don't think anyone's saying that low achievers shouldn't do any Science or Literature or whatever.

I'll have a stab at doing 'Of Mice & Men', or 'Romeo & Juliet', with any class, anytime, anywhere!

Just that a 'one size fits all' curriculum is meaningless to many kids, & creating a generation of disaffected teenagers who have, as a previous poster neatly put it, 'learnt to fail'.

I also posted
'I would love to have the time to teach these kids practical stuff, like why they have to wash, or why Sunny D isn't good for their florid gum disease, or the habits of the head louse so that they can get rid of them, even if their parents can't be arsed. All vital stuff. But insead they get to calculate Moments in NM. That is sensible, isn't it? '

But again, I just want an easy life me

We do teach applied science which is more approacable and has far more portfolio work. It also coveres H & S at work etc. But the trouble is you still have to be able to read and write to get into te gist of what is happening. One lad made ua a poster that said, 'This is a table, It is made of wood. Wood comes from trees' With the best will in the world that isn't going to get him a G grade. Wouldn't he be better learning something in school, other than school is soemthing that he can't do which is all that he learns at the moment

Don't worry, Hula, I don't take offense easily. I don't think you have said anything that I could be personally offended at, should I have particularly thin skin. I am as up for debate as the next person and am happy to stay in the kitchen when the heat is on. You have not cussed...

I would certainly identify with what Carrie has said about middle sets. In the school I taught in, we had maybe 32 in the top set, and they were easy to teach and certainly achieved A* - B. The bottom (3rd) set had 8 pupils and a teaching assistant. We could focus on basic skills (accurate measuring, drawing simple conclusions from a set of information or data etc), and still manage their wild experimental techniques. The middle set (30+) had a raw deal in comparison - large class, no extra help, yet high expectations (great for some pupils, but unrealistic and demoralising for others).

yet again avoiding the argument while stiring in the kitchen

From my personal point of view. I would like my six year old son to be able to reply to a simple question such as "How old are you?" I do feel that science and Geography etc are irrelevant to his needs. I feel that he will master reading and basic number work but more than anything he needs help with langauge and he will not get this in a mainstream lesson.

Knowing the capital of France will not help him if he is unable to get any kind of job because he is unable to articulate at an interview.

My son should be capable of getting a job, with the right education.........

HMB - great postings. I agree with you 100%!