Ending Educational Hypocrisy on Mumsnet

[zanzibarmum]

Do you think we might end educational hypocrisy on these threads by having to declare what type of school our DC go to - you know the sort of thing the mumsnetter who wants to abolish faith schools on the grounds of fairness while sending own DC to private schools or the mum whose children are in high-performing postcode protected state schools and wanting to abolish GS.

Or is the apparent inherent hypocrisy ('do as I say not as I do') so favoured by politicians and some MNs part of the fun.

pugsandseals Fri 06-Nov-09 19:55:32
I would then offer very small, very selective secondary schools in which pupils could specialise using their skills. In these, I would include grammar (for the highly academic), performing arts & sports, specialist language schools & hands on/practical skills.
Then all pupils would get the chance to
a) find out what they are good at/what their learning style prefers
b) spend time perfecting the skills they have natural flair for.

I think on the surface this is a nice idea but very often children are not just very good at just one thing. If I think about my own tutor group - year 11 I have some very very bright academic kids who are Oxbridge material, many of those are also fantastic sports players, one is an amazing dancer, one spends all her spare time designing and making clothes. I have one who is again Oxbridge material, but is an excellent sports woman and cook! I also have one student who is quite academically average but is a complete maths whizz. SO a school with one narrow specialism would not suit, a school like ours with very good faciities across the board, outstanding arts facilities, stunning buildings and grounds that lift the soul, a very good academic record with grammar streaming and excellent pastoral care suits them to the ground.

My students are lucky and I am always telling them this.

Talking of spending our time ferrying children around activities I am off to collect dd from dancing, before taking her to buy a new riding hat and art materials,

This is where my arguement for bigger, broader primaries comes in. And specialist schools would then select by learning style.

It's not perfect, but must be better than a comprehensive school which fails large chunks of the population if you don't live in the right area!

Of ocurse it is better than a failing comp, I have taught in one and as a member of staff it drained me of the will to live quite frankly so I do know where you are coming from. I would argue it is not better than a very good comp though.

I also like small primaries, but as my dd has always been to very good primaries I understand that my view is clouded by that. Her current primary is I think a little larger than her previous one and she is happier there because she has more opportunities there, infact she does some form of after school activity every night and on one night she has to race from ballroom dancing to horseriding. Speaking of which I must go

Morosky,
I hope I didn't come across as criticising you.

I could not imagine any job where you need to know 500 people really well to the point of having to discuss that person with a customer. I'm amazed at those who get close to achieving this.

But it must put stress on you that you'd rather not have?

pugs,

I am all for broader teaching and learning in primary schools. I was horrified when my DD was in Year 6 and spent the whole year doing Sats practice and little else. She didn't need the extra practice and was totally bored for the year.

I am not sure what you mean by selecting for learning style. Do you mean VAK - visual, auditory, kinesthetic?

I agree that children need to be taught some of the time in their preferred learning style, but I also believe that they need to develop in or be sensitive to the other styles.

Recently at work we had a training course where we had to identify our own styles. I came out pretty equally in all three, as did most of my colleagues. If there was any skew, it was towards the visual. I guess we had all succeeded with this style of learning at school in the 70s and then at university, so it is not reflective of the population at large. However, it is true that some kids just don't have a dominant style, so they wouldn't be served well in a school that only taught in one style.

I had a flick through teaching plans ('schemes of work') at my DD's seondary school, and it seems that the teachers have to do what their departments want, and most lessons were very diverse and catered for all learning styles.

My DD will probably go to a Catholic Primary School,even though our little local school (non religious) is amazing and has an outstanding Ofsted report.
FWIW my DH was at boarding school from the age of seven , and I went to Catholic schools.

No you didn't wicked. It is hard work getting to know all the names, I think at the moment I teach about 350 students, that is not only 350 names to learn but also 350 sets of books to be marked once a fortnight at least. If I didnt teach A Level my pupil numbers would be much higher.

I would like smaller classes tbh.

People are very rarely one learning style alone. All lessons are supposed to cater for every leaning style, in reality you know what works generally for a class and use it in the main

I don't think I know anyone who doesn't have a preference for fine or gross motor skills- which leans towards music/arts/craft/engineering or sport. So that is at least one type of skill which is obviously black and white. Others might choose a very visual art such as languages (i.e what we would class as highly literate) or maths. Again I know few people who are good at both, and those that are deserve a proper grammar school education.
Is there any large group I have so far missed?
My idea obviously relies on children having a very good idea as to the type of skills they are good at before entering secondary school which is often missed in our small SATS focussed primaries, which is why I suggest larger ones with many more opportunities!

Again just thinking of my tutor group , 20 very different students I can immediately think of a few students who are stunning linguists and taking GCSEs in a number of languages and also talented mathematicians.

I can only talk about the local grammars as I know students who go there and colleagues who teach there, have taught there or friends who have been. They do tend to provide a quite narrow academic education without the other opportunities we offer. From my tutor group I have at least 3 students who certainly could have got a grammar school place and probably a few more. They chose not to go to the grammar as it did not give them a broad enough education.

Without wanting to sound like Xenia our local grammars are also quite cramped uninspiring buildings, we offer beautiful grounds, and a mixture of old manor house buildings and new modern spacious buildings with state of the art technology. I think that makes a difference, you do feel as if you need to live up to your surroundings.

I do think, or maybe this is wishful thinking on my part, that primary children are moving away from being very SATs focussed. I notice with my dd that she seems to have a wide education and of course we support that at home. I do see my dd education as much my responsibility as the school's.

But I do agree that a broad primary education is important.

"I really cannot see how a comprehensive system can ever work! No secondary school (unless privately funded) will ever be able to afford specialist quality equipment and teaching in every subject."

Err... why? Isn't that the problem? It's sad that you take under-funding as a given...

All I was saying pugsandseals, it that a truly comprehensive system would be exactly that- not the two/three tiered education system we have at the moment. Whilst private, faith and grammar schools exist, there is no comprehensive system (despite the name).

Parents want a choice because the options vary so wildly in quality- in a truly comprehensive system, this would not be the case. This is my utopia

As far as learning styles go, there was a big thing in secondary education about this a few years ago- Lessons are usually planned taking all styles into account. I think it will be old hat in a couple more years, which is a shame; however, I agree with the poster who wanted more learning styles taught. I think that to have a child's learning style- and indeed, future, set at the age of 11 is wrong. Great if you come from a settled background, but some of the kids I teach (secondary) do not engage with learning until quite late on, due to a number of external factors.

I'm not saying the system we have is great- far from it- but I think going down the road of more selective schools(based on any factor) is plain wrong.

I will have to agree to disagree with you then tethersend!
A truly comprehensive system takes away all choice. No comprehensive system can cater for all children so there will always be some that miss out. I would also prefer to go back to a split system (CSE/O level) so that those who are not academic get the chance to shine in a more practical way.

Teachers can try as they might to teach to all learning styles, but they will never capture the attention/interest of everyone! This is because the academic tend not to be practically minded and vice versa. To try to teach them together will never work IMO.

This is why we have eventually chosen a highly academic private school for DD. DH was highly academic & went to a grammar school which served him well. I was more creative & would have been better suited to a secondary modern but was too late for that so ended up at a comprehensive (and not a bad one!). IMO I would have been better off at home. I needed a school which would use my creative skills.

If we had a local grammar school where we currently live, I would choose it for DD! I am sad that they are so rare now.

Tether, much of the UK now has no state selective schools. There must be hundreds of 'true comps'.

As I tried to point out in my earlier post, pupil mix has only a small part to play in the success of a school. Imo without strong leadership, motivated teachers and suffecient resources, no amount of intelligent, middle class children will turn around a failing school.

"Tether, much of the UK now has no state selective schools. There must be hundreds of 'true comps'. "

Jackstarbright, there is not one single 'true comp' in the country; not while we have a private education system. The Grammars and faith schools- where they exist- form the 'second tier' IMO

Pugsandseals, "A truly comprehensive system takes away all choice"- this is what I am advocating; an education of high value for all.

"This is because the academic tend not to be practically minded and vice versa" An interesting statement, but one I am not convinced by. Is this based on research, or your own experience?

I am glad you have the option of sending your dd to a school where she will flourish- I think that is something we as a nation should afford to all our children.

Parents will always want to choose which school their DC's go to. And rightly so unless we are a dictatorship!

There are many reasons why parents disregard schools. The main ones are a lack of good teachers in the subjects that interest their child. Not all teachers are going to be as good as they could be so comprehensives will naturally always have poor areas of the curriculum. Unless you take away all choice for everybody & send children where they don't want to go (thus failing them) you will never have an equal system.

I don't want to live in an equal world which has no choice- I cherish variety.

I am an atheist whose DCs go to a state Catholic primary! They used to go Private but DH went and lost 75% of his income! My DS1 is doing infinitely better at the State school than the Private and is a happy boy again.

TBH whatever is best for my dcs currently shapes my opinions on schooling,.

"Unless you take away all choice for everybody & send children where they don't want to go (thus failing them) you will never have an equal system."

This is exactly what I would do. Although I do not agree that because a child didn't want to go there, the school would automatically fail them.

This is how the comprehensive system was designed to operate- we just haven't tested it properly yet.

"Parents will always want to choose which school their DC's go to. And rightly so unless we are a dictatorship!"

A limited choice of two failing schools is what some parents currently face- this is not real choice of schools, just the illusion of such.

I agree with tethersend.

At the moment the education system is a two tier system of the 'haves' and 'have nots'.

It isn't good enough to only care about one's own children. What about the children who have NO choice whatsoever and do not have parents able to work the system to their advantage???? Doesn't anyone care about them???

PS My DCs are in the 'haves'.

I agree with tether!

(oh and ds at inner city secondary comp with large proportion of free school meals, english as second language etc) most middle class kids in my area go privately at secondary which frankly I think is misguided and shows a total lack of social responsibility.

Luckily ds has not been stabbed or stabbed anyone yet.

Why do people have such a problem with free choice I wonder? I agree, the choice of 2 failing comps is not good enough! And in an ideal world I would give them free choice of 4 or 5 schools at least. However, these do not need to be comprehensives and schools should have a right to specialise.
Why?
Because I believe specialist teaching to be the best because we will never have 100% of teachers in the outstanding category. Parents can then choose which area is the most important to their child.

"Free choice." That'll be free, like free trade then, as opposed to fair? Very very few people get the choice of which you speak, pugsandseals.
Tether and selective, you are talking so much sense but don't expect it to be listened to.

Choice is only choice if people have the knowledge and power to choose.