Comprehensive school teaching - is it really this bad?

[jackstarbright]

I have just found this very disturbing article published in the Reader a few months ago. It's Gabriella Gruder-Poni's essay, 'Scenes from a PGCE'. here.

It provides one woman's view of teaching methods in a comprehensive school. Any comments?

(its not it's and fewer nor less by the way - the bits above making me wince)

Xenia - brave of you to correct another poster! may I return the favour?

It's pretty good isn't it? - you should have a comma after 'good'.

It also ensures the individual child is more likely to go to a good university if most of the chidlren in your class are doing so. - it's 'children', not 'chidlren'.

A friend's child at a state school went to an ex poly recently. - ex poly should be hyphenated.

her father is clever. - 'her' requires a capital letter as it is starting a sentence.

He should be able in 2 second internet searching to know given the career she's picked it hugely matters if you're at an ex poly or not but the school and he have either not told her or peer presssure is so high that she wants to follow her friends to the ex poly - where to start with this sentence? It should be 'seconds' rather than 'second' and you require a comma after 'know' and 'picked' since that phrase is parenthetical. And 'pressure' rather than 'presssure'.

I think if you buy a good privaet school place you can ensure the whole cohort is going to decent places given how much peer pressure matters at teenage stage - 'private', of course, not 'privaet'.

I also notice that more people from private schools seem to speak and write better - did you have a private school education yourself, Xenia?

You are missing the whole point here. The whole point is not that the standards of teaching in state schools is crap. The whole point is that these pitiful teachers did not choose their careers wisely enough to be able to afford to send their own children to academically selective indepependant schools which charge around £15p/a. That is the whole point. Even at 12 years old I realised that the whole point was to chose my future career with a view to my future children and their future fees. Without the whole point I would have not chosen the right career and this the whole point.

Of course the whole point is that the schools are £15k p/a, not £15..now where would stand if these schools were that little. The whole point would have changed completely.

Ah so PEE is more teaching to the test. I feel depressed by the idea that education is prescriptive, with a series of tick boxes for students having attained the average level for their age.

Indeed. we have a duty as adults to do what is best for our children (and there's a big difference between typos and not finding it impossible to say less when you should say fewer not that I've ever said my own grammar is any good. However chidlren ought to know there are adult in interviews who will judge them on whether they say fewer or less and children should be correct in school if they get that kind of thing wrong. If they then choose to use text speak or wrong grammar because they mix with people who do or it doesn't matter a jot if you work on the bins etc that's absolutely fine but it's not fair on them if they aren't at least given the chance to know.

There is nothing to stop clever well educated teachers who can speak and write properly getting jobs in the best private schools. We klnow a good few, husbands and wives, with 3 free school prep school places (or the 15% minimum which tax law demands rather) and then 3 places in an upper school because husband and wife got their jobs right. Huge perks really, school fees worth up to £20k a child each .

I would hope state schools as much as private schools would not recruit teachers who didn't have good English even if they were being recruited to teach science etc too. Didn's someone mis-spell definite above - that's a big indicator of a good or bad education, surely. So many badly educated adults don't know it has the ITE at the end.

Accommodation is another one people seem to get wrong and discrete and discreet they seem to muddle up too.

I think I've missed the whole point that AngryfromManchester was making. Would someone please decode?

Swedington - no, no no - PEE is not teaching to the test. It is teaching the students the skills they need to respond analytically to what they are reading. Yes, it is teaching to the test in terms of showing them what they need to do to gain a good mark but that is not all the skill to read analytically is good for!

You might as well say that we should not teach students any mathematical processes because that is 'teaching to the test.' Or that we should not teach students how to carry out a scientific experiment because that is 'teaching to the test.' Unless I have missed the point and that is what you are saying - that we should not teach students anything at all in case it might inadvertently be something they are tested on!

I think the whole point is to be able to elucidate

This is only page1 and I am driven to rely without reading on so forgive me if I duplicate others points.I was an Engilsh teacher for 30 years and still am a senior examiner for gcse.in this country a PGCE supervisor is not referred to as a 'convenor'.Was the school in England?
American children learn by rote lists of complex vocabulary to prepare them for SATS which in their case are a series of multiple choice tests,the scores from these affect University entrance.In this country we look to build up a child's voabulary through reading and speaking and listening so that words used are understood.No decent school would use a template for coursework nor would a 'good' student require it.More tellingly the exam board wouldnt accept it.There may be a lot wrong in our schools but in my opinion this article is misleading and inflammatory.

As an examiner I can tell you that we hate PEE for the more able students.There seems to be some confusion on here about the nature of the essays required.For a 'Reading' response-probably about a poem[s] which is where PEE is used,then an introduction and conclusion tend to waste time.'I am going to write about xyz..'
'I have written about xyz.....'The time would be better spent addressing the topic not sandwiching it between two lots of waffle.A 'Writing'response on the other hand is likely to be a piece of Creative writing in a specified style eg Descriptive,Informative,Discursive, Explanatory.These essays may well benefit from a relevant introduction and conclusion.I am talking about the examination of course but as far as I know the course work criteria are the same.

You hate it because of the intro and conclusion? And it's only used for poems? Why? I don't follow.

As an examiner myself, pranma, I would far rather read an essay which shows a grasp of being able to make a point, support it and comment analytically on the text in some way than one which simply technique spots or lists examples of the theme under discussion.

Most good examiners, in fact, love to see points supported and developed analytically. Which board do you examine for? since if the examiners you work with do not want to see that, I need to make sure our school does not use your board!

And the examples of introductions and conclusions you give are very poor ones. Good introductions and conclusions do far more than that and are far from a waste of time or waffle. Sadly, I think your comments reflect more what is wrong with the examining system than the teaching in our schools.

And no, PEE is not only used for poems; it is used for all analytical responses to all kinds of texts...

That's what I would have thought, lion. Good, evidence-backed analysis.

"Point Evidence Explanation is a standard teaching tool in English to remind students that the heart of a good or excellent essay in English Literature is one that analyses the effects of the techniques the writer uses rather than simply being able to identify them. So, for an example, a student may be able to recognise alliteration when they see it, and then quote an example of it, but that is well-nigh useless unless they can explain the effect it creates in the poem.

Asking the student to use PEE simply reminds them that if they are aiming for a grade C or above, they need to be able to analyse."

What an interesting technique. There I was thinking that an excellent essay in English was to get to the heart of the text and dissect it.

Now I learn that a TLA is needed, and this TLA will give me a construct to remind me to label certain effects in a text.

You'll excuse me if I think this is a complete and utter fucking waste of time, designed to gain marks from fuckwits who couldn't recognise a sonnet at twenty paces.

don't see your point, quatt.

I got so excited about PEE that I explained it to my (French) DSSs (14 and 12) at tonight's dinner table. From my perspective, any good, easy-to-grasp tool that helps them to acquire analytical writing skills is a good thing.

Of course, by the time they reach their baccalauréat, I would hope that they would have acquired lots of different tools for expressing themselves analytically. A whole toolkit. Though I may have to work on this myself with them, since school doesn't seem to bother...

Who said non one is getting to the heart of a text and dissecting it? What is all this rage?

I wasn't expecting PEE to cause a debate! I think it is a very standard way of writing an essay for many subjects at university.

What I said was not that the idea of presenting a supported argument was unwelcome but that the pracice of writing PEE PEE down the margin with eg[simplified]
'The poem is about a lot of flowers' P
"a host of golden daffodils" E
'This shows that he saw many yellow flowers when he was walking.' E
I dont see how this method could be used for creative writing which doesnt require the sort of input which supports it.
Gosh SL you are rude,the sort of rudeness which makes one think that one would rather not engage in debate with you.
I was merely stating the viewpoint of many of us who find that we are presented with essays full of irrelevant points backed up by contrived evidence poorly explained and studded with a capitalised mnemonic.

Hearing both sides of this PEE debate has been very useful for helping me understand how to help my children with English, as I am not very good at English.

It is one of the great benefits of MN that people will come on and debate something that they have expertise in.

Writing PEE in the margin is obviously a daft way to go about it in an exam and I don't think lion or anyone else suggested this.

It sound slike a basic framework to help construct a critical essay, the sort of critical essay which has been taught and written for many years, at many levels.

I don't see how anyone can hate such a basic framework. People might dislike the way students are then taught to set out an essay - that I could understand.

PEE may constrain the brightest students. However, in KS3, or for the less than 'really able' pupils at GCSE it gives them a very useful framework for analysis - providing that they are taught to use it to analyse and not just to repeat the quotation three times.

It is not (at all) intended to be used in creative writing and has no use there: in fact, it makes no sense at all to even think this. But as a means of shaping pupils' opinions about texts, events, ideas it can be v useful.

Isn't it obvious it wouldn't be used for creative writing? Critical essays only. Who thought it would be? Was it pranma?

Can't remember - I only scanned the thread but it was mentioned somewhere.