New Statesman article on schools

[UnquietDad]

very interesting

Shows how the perception of state schools is skewed in the media, sometimes deliberately, by journalists and writers anxious to reinforce their own "choice".

(Who are all these writers who send their children private? None I know can afford it...)

Boffin - how might one achieve it in practice?

Don't want to answer for BM but how about setting within A levels?
I know I did my A levels with other teens who were never expexting to get above a D and some eventually failed altogether. Some were just kiiling tiome until a job came up.
It must have been soul destroying for the teachers who would finally get a chance of some high level discussion and debate to find half the class weren't up to it.
I recall that my Eng Lit class was full of students who never read the texts and didn't turn up to the plays we went to see...wasting everyone's time energy and money.

I know a lot of independent schools essentially interview their candidates and won't take a student unless they get an A at GCSE AND show interest in the subject.
That's probably too extreme for state schools but I don't see why popular subjects can't be split into two groups.

I think the theory is that if you split a class into two sets (or more) you end up with one class of no-hopers with absolutely no-one able to get the class going in any way, shape or form...

It's an immensely thorny issue. Of course, many parents of very bright children wring their hands at them being held back; and parents of low achievers are desperate for their children to be in classes with higher achievers in order to spur them on...

Senua, have posted something I hope is helpful.

As regards the AL mixed ability problem, I think this will only get worse when the school leaving age is raised to 18. In the meantime, I think that local authorities need to take responsibility to set up some sort of regular centralised Saturday morning enrichment programme for self-selecting sixth formers, even on an occasional basis. So parents and schools need to push hard for this. An alternative is to push your child's school to go for CPD in gifted and talented education at Villiers Park, Cambridgeshire. Here teachers and sixth formers study side by side on subject-based programmes.

Boffinmum, thank you for your intelligent insights.

IME one of the biggest challenges in the state sector is to get the teachers as a group to have as much ambition for their pupils as they would have for their own children. That level ambition is there in more independent schools partly because of the systems you described.

There is a prevailing sense of diminished expectations in the state sector - from heads, from GBs, from the ploliticians and because of the experience overtime from some parents. ED Balls for example and Fiona Millar argue that parents want a good local school; not in my experience: parents want excellence, local or otherwise. Good enough is not good enough.

Until state school teachers start having the ambition for their pupils - instead of finding and making excuses - things won't improve.

But it is hard if the parents don't have ambitions themselves.
As I say I volunteer at my local primary because no parent would.
We had a literacy evening recently and three parents attended.
I bet if we put on X F actor they'd be there in their droves.

zanzibarmum - while I agree with you that teachers in the state sector have (often far) lower expectations for their pupils than do their counterparts in the private sector, surely that is in large part because of the life experiences and standards of education of the teachers themselves in the state sector? If you are a teacher with a 2:2 from a non-Russell group university (and this is a common profile for secondary teachers in UK state schools), do you think that your achievements are not up to much and aspire for more for your pupils? Or are you proud of what you have achieved and believe that your own achievements are a worthwhile ambition for your pupils? We all have internalised benchmarks of what constitutes success, and those benchmarks are deeply tied to our own psychology.

I have only met a few teachers in my time prepared to say, for example "I'm only a maths teacher; I wish my parents/teachers had had more ambition for me as I might have done more with my life."

My DCs state grammar school has an entry criteria for A levels, most have A*/A at subjects they wish to take. The high achieving local comps also have entry procedures too which are becoming more rigorous every year.

If they raise the school leaving age to 18 there won't be a problem in the grammar schools or comprehensives with a higher than average intakes, but where will those children go who can't achieve the level to do A levels, if their school won't let them continue to the Sixth Form because they are not 'academic' enough?

I suppose schools will need to consider what will be most useful to those pupils. Some may need more literacy skills, perhaps soome vocational courses.
TBH it seems a daft idea to me anyway.

2.2 from a non-Russell Group university. Luxury!

In many state primaries teaching assistants are taking classes as trained teachers have time off for marking etc - govt is deskilling the job.

We have seen from posts on this site questions that tell you all you need to know - one that I remember a teaching assitant asking should she report her class teacher who couldn't spell simple words.

So then all the children not very 'academic' who have managed to get to the 'decent' comps in the first place will then not be able to stay on because they aren't 'clever' enough, but also not allowed to leave school either.

They will then all be sent to a different school which will then become well known for the school where they aren't clever enough to do A levels. What a brilliant idea. Doesn't sound like a comprehensive education to me.

But Bags - you send your own children to grammer no? Why is it okay for your school to select academically but not other schools?

Because it advertises itself as a selective school.

But a comprehensive isn't academically selective. So the children there should be allowed to continue there until they are 18, regardless of their academic ability, surely if the government is going to say they have to stay on until 18.

Just popping back. I've been lurking. I'm finding this thread amazing. But I don't post because someone will say what I've been maybe wondering about - but in a worked-out, thoughtful way.

I'm finding it really helpful in giving words and shape to some of the things I think about.

BonsoirAnna - I think that is a really, really interesting point (about the teachers dealing with "aspiration", and their life-experience being called on to help with that).

I've been thinking that it really seems odd that we leave "aspiration" until it's an issue of 16+ and 18+ leavers' destinations.

And we leave it to the poor old teachers - who have to draw on their own knowledge and life-experience (necessarily limited) and spread themselves really, really thin - to deal with the high-flyers and the not-so-high-flyers and so on.

I was hopeful, in reading BoffinMum's posts earlier, that there are some schemes to open the window a bit - and show a wider view. I love her idea that we should start pressuring for more of this kind of thing. I don't think I knew about this, so that's a really important step on the way to pressuring for more!

Now I'm sure that schools these days must have career's advisors, but I wonder if much of "aspiration" still falls into the hands of individual teachers?

Are there any other ideas on the table about this?

And then, I wonder if, actually, we need to think even more laterally, about "aspiration" - maybe leaving it to the final years of secondary is way too late? And maybe "aspiration" is even more nebulous than just post-school destination, but ways of being that might be addressed in early years programmes and primary.

And these things wouldn't fit all children, rather one kind of approach would be suited to one group, another to another type.

So, that's a weird rambly post.

The reason I post is because I thought a while back that I'd like to think about the sort of education system I'd like to agitate for, but I really had no idea about what was, really, on offer at the moment, and I had no idea about what sort of thinking wa going on on the issue at the moment.

And this thread is just so very, very informative.

I don't see what's wrong with a 2:2 from a non-Russell group university, especially if someone has studied on a good PGCE course and is a talented teacher. What is a problem is exactly what you describe, teaching assistants effectively stepping in as paraprofessionals and effectively replacing teachers. This is not supposed to happen but is widely reported.

BoffinMum - you've missed the point... .

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a 2:2 from a non-Russell group university plus a PGCE for becoming a teacher. But will that same teacher have as a natural aspiration for his/her pupils to go way beyond his/her academic and professional experiences?

Oh my goodness, someone's posted on careers in AIBU! - It must be in the air!

To be clear - I'm not worried about the 2;2 non-Russell either - more pondering really about the weight and responsibility and the stretch required.

I'm sure schools have a whole host of schemes of people coming in, from universities and from firms, to chat to the children and widen horizons. but I was wondering if there were more systematic approaches to that ... .

cherryblossoms blue sky thinking - on-line careers-zoo - where you wander around on your computer and "look" at all the jobs/career/courses and then can press buttons and see career/education-paths to those destinations.

Or out-of-school job/career safari-summer-camps.

Just so that teachers don't have to do it all.

Unpacking it a bit more, I wonder if we are actually presenting teachers with a anti-incentive in terms of pupil achievement.

If helping pupils achieve at the highest possible levels requires extra hours on top of an already demanding teaching week, giving up your lunchtimes, endlessly digging out high level material and possibly even paying your own way on related professional development courses, for no extra pay or reward, are we not asking a bit too much of their altruism?

I had an interesting conversation on a similar topic with colleagues at the university recently, in the light of the credit crunch and banker bonuses debate. I asked them if there was a million pound bonus in it for them, would they think it was possible to drag every single student up to first class degree standard by applying the same aggressive tactics as traders and so on. And after some reflection the consensus was yes. Whether it would be good for the students or society is, of course, a very different question.

BonsoirAnna,

Your post reminded me of my 5th form chat with a careers advisor many years ago at my (very poor) comprehensive.

Her: What would you like to do when you leave school? You're doing O'levels [rather than CSE's] so how about Marks and Spencer or as you're in the top set for maths maybe a bank job?

Me: My dad thinks I could maybe try for a university - can you tell me about them?

Her: Oh...well...here's the application for the six form college - you'll need A'levels I think. Good bye then.

And that was all I got.....

I so hope things have improved a lot. University should be the default option for top set kids in any school.

I went with a friend recently to look at a private school (for her dd not mine) and I was shocked at how few questiones were put to the head by the parents. Feeling a bit mischivious I put a few 'challenging' questions to him and he was soooo uncomfortable. I came to the conclusion that the parents did not want to appear too challenging else they might not get offered a place. I have considered making it a sport.

BonSoir A: I have only met a few teachers in my time prepared to say, for example "I'm only a maths teacher; I wish my parents/teachers had had more ambition for me as I might have done more with my life."
Is that really your opinion of being a teacher?? That if only they'd tried harder they could have done better? Teaching's a fantastic job surely (I'm not one, I promise ). And why on earth shouldn't a teacher not have aspirations for kids to go on a different career/ academic route to them. They'd be extremely narrow minded if they didn't. A good teacher sees each child as an individual, and aims to help them to realise their potential, whatever that is. I'm not denying we could do with many more good teachers, but still...

drosophila - you are naughty and you are right.

I always like to challenge the Head at our kids indpeendent school and he once plaintively said to me "Why do you not believe a word I say?"

I have to say I am pretty ambitious by nature, and teaching has worked for me as a route to all sorts of interesting things, a degree of influence, and a pretty good salary as well, all things considered. I don't know why more people don't get involved with it, really, particularly when they are in their twenties and still have a lot of physical energy and so on.