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?

Yes. But what this thread was about was comprehensive teaching, and what is best for the vast majority of kids in this country. And everyone got heated about modern newfangled and therefore obviously crap teaching methods, because these don't impart 'proper' knowledge, but hey it doesn't matter anyhow because the unwashed masses are too thick to get it... Who cares, really, if they aren't going to be Leonardo? Or Chomsky? Or Hawking? They still have to be taught, somehow...

Yes,children do still have to be taught. I think the major thing on this thread is how standards have dropped over the years, and how children nowadays still could be taught to the highest common denominator rather than the lowest.

However, I still don't believe that anyone can do anything just with a bit of willpower,to the highest standard. I expect they could to the average standard,but so what?

They might be able to achieve the average standard but I still maintain I, for instance, could not be a brain surgeon or international standard athleter, however hard I tried.,

Ok, can't sleep tonight so doing some more thinking.

'it may well be 20% talent, 80% hard work, but you've got to have the 20% talent in the first place ...'

I think thoughts like this can be limiting. I know I used to think like this, why try? I am not in the top set etc. I wasn't grammar stream and I've done pretty well, if I'd really believed the above my whole life, even on a subconcious level I'd never have tried.

Fantastic that the school are Dweck converts! Really pleased to hear that, no not the teacher, just an insomniac mum of 3.

In response to this:

However, I still don't believe that anyone can do anything just with a bit of willpower,to the highest standard. I expect they could to the average standard,but so what?

They might be able to achieve the average standard but I still maintain I, for instance, could not be a brain surgeon or international standard athleter, however hard I tried.,

I see where you are coming from. This is what I thought, and a mindset many have. (Sorry to mention mindsets again) The prize isn't perfection. You have to be careful that thinking like this prevents you taking on anything too challenging, I know I did.

Your other comment:

'They might be able to achieve the average standard but I still maintain I, for instance, could not be a brain surgeon or international standard athleter, however hard I tried.'

See my comments on the tortoise and hare story. As you see it you don't have the natural endowment and there's no glory in being a steady plodder so why bother really? The danger is you may not really stretch yourself and really see what you are capable of and I'll bet like me it might be a lot more than you think. I now believe that I could have been a GP for example, may not sound a huge thing but I'd ruled it out as I wasn't good at science, I'd never be a brain surgeon so why bother?

They did an experiment on infant school children (reception age). Some of them already had a closed mindset, they weren't the 'cleverest' so why bother too much?

They offered them a choice, they could do an easy jigsaw puzzle or choose a harder one. Those that believed in fixed traits, that only the very cleverest could succeed perhaps, stuck with the safe choice.

Those that believed you could get smarter, just didn't get why you wouldn't pick the harder one? Why would anyone pick the easy one??? 'I am dying to figure it out' one girl said.

Most kids at this age were reluctant to ask questions in class others said 'just by asking I am increasing my intelligence'.

I believe you can substantially change your intelligence and saying that you are average is a cop out, but maybe that's just me.

the thing is though mimsum, with the kind of training regime that an olympic swimmer has, just about anyone could be a really, really good county level swimmer at least and so arguably 'succeed' at or master swimming. But only those who show early talent tend to get the opportunity. There are probably many potential olympic swimmers out there who have simply not had the opportunity (even your birthdate in swimming can cause a massive advantage/disadvantage to your chances of selection for national training programs). I agree that to get right to the top you need the right physiology as well though, but more important is the drive to succeed - so many kids drop out as teenagers as they get bored with it (and maybe their drive was coming more from their parents than themselves).

But what this thread was about was comprehensive teaching, and what is best for the vast majority of kids in this country. And everyone got heated about modern newfangled and therefore obviously crap teaching methods, because these don't impart 'proper' knowledge, but hey it doesn't matter anyhow because the unwashed masses are too thick to get it... Who cares, really, if they aren't going to be Leonardo? Or Chomsky? Or Hawking? They still have to be taught, somehow...

I think the first step is to make all comp teachers, and all teachers for that matter to read Carol Dweck .

Teachers should be asking the questions 'how can I teach them' not 'can I teach them' and 'how will they learn best' not 'can they learn'. Also teachers should believe all children can develop their skills. It seems that a surprising amount (from reading I've done) believe 'as a teacher I have no influence on my students intellectual ability' and 'if I know my students intelligence I can predict their school careers quite well'.

Lowering standards isn't the answer I believe. Many seem to think it is, it will give success experiences, boost self-esteem and raise achievement.

Dweck says this just leads to easy work and lavish praise.

She also says raising standards without giving students the chance of reaching them is a recipe for disaster.

Marva Collins was an inspirational teacher in Chicago. She taught children who as Dweck puts it had been 'shunned and discarded'.

On the first day of school she forged a contract with her pupils, she promised them they would learn.

'I know most of you can't spell your name. You don't know the alphabet, you don't know the alphabet or homonyms or how to syllabicate. I promise you that you will. None of you has ever failed. School may have failed you. Goodbye to failure and welcome to success. You will read hard books in here and understand what you read. You will write ever day...But you must help me to help you. If you don't give anything don't expect anything. Success is not going to come to you, you must come to it'.

Ok a bit cheesy maybe, but I'd sit up if a teacher said that to me. I'd feel that I could do it. Not just the trite 'no such thing as can't' that my primary school teacher used to say and I never understood? There was such a word, surely?

So, we can start, IMO, by teachers creating a caring, nurturing atmosphere in the classroom. They should care for every student, they don't need to love them all but they do need to care. (I've met some teachers who have privately told me their class are stupid and likely to fail their exams)!

You have to take responsibility for the ones that aren't as quick to learn. You have to maintain a strict and disciplined atmosphere as a well as a loving one. (I can only guess at how tricky that might be but not impossible I believe).

Collins, who I mentioned earlier, had VERY high standards in her classroom. She had all her 4 year olds who started in September reading by Christmas (ok, a controversial thing to do but she was aiming high) .

This requires a huge commitment by teachers, who IMO deserve to get paid a great deal more for doing one of the most important and challenging jobs on the planet.

There was a famous teacher in the US, Esquith. He spent hours planning what chapters his class would read in Macbeth in class. 'I know which child will handle the challenge of the difficult paragraphs and carefully plan a passage for a shy youngster who will begin his journey as a good reader. Nothing is left to chance, it takes enormous energy, but to be in a room with young minds who hang on every word of a classic book and beg for more if I stop, it makes all the planning worthwhile.'

He met his class before school and after school to plug the gaps in the fundamentals of English and Maths. He said 'there are no shortcuts. There is no magic here, I don not part the sea or walk on water. I just love children and work harder than a lot of people, and so will you'.

Good teachers don't reassure children they are fine as they are they give them the tools to close the gap in their knowledge.

Dweck argues that no one should teach unless they believe all children can learn and have a deep desire to reach in and ignite the mind of every child. That would be a start. I know schools where teachers don't get the job unless the head completely believes this.

ds2 on the other hand loves swimming, really enjoys being in the water, but is dyspraxic and will never in a million years be anything like as good as ds1 - it doesn't affect his enjoyment of it, but no matter how much work he puts in, he won't master it as easily as ds1

This might be true, I don't know about dyspraxic children. But I do know is that I would have thought like this in the past and the danger is that my child would 'hear' and get the message that he'll 'never in a million years be anything like as good as ds1'. Maybe he can't be as 'good' but whose to say if you really honestly 'believe' he couldn't smash all expectations like the dyspraxic footballer earlier in the thread.

As an aside I loved the example about the child where art was encouraged. This rings very true. It's how I got to University, or it sowed the seed.

WilfSell - I was not talking about Russians (though there are of course Russians among all the other nationalities competing for global jobs and global power and global desirable lifestyles). You need to get out a bit! All your theories about inherited status and self-perpetuating élites are wildly out of date you know!

And the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale is used worldwide . If you don't know that, I really wonder how you can participate in this debate.

I can't say too much re: secondary although I know a little about the secondary comprehensive that our kids' school feeds into.
I know they stream all the way in all subjects and they are given so many opportunities in sports, the arts, they even have a music academy as well as extended hours type stuff with everything to experience from drums to hairdressing. With regards to the teaching methods, I am not sure, but I know that at primary there is a lot of emphasis on extending cultural horizon. My daughter at reception is being introduced to the works of Van Gogh and Mondrian, they have various theatres visiting the school and do a lot of music. I know of other schools where none of this is available/happens. They also do public speaking from 7 all the way til 13 at the comp. I really don't think you can generalise on schools; we visited 10 primary schools before choosing the one we preferred for our DD1, a mix of private and state - and we couldn't believe how different they all were. We went for the one we preferred overall, which happened to be state, but really I am so delighted with the commitment, hard work and ethos of the school & teachers. Yes there are things that sometimes annoy me, but hey I think no school is perfect. So the gist was, I really don't think you can generalise this much - the article is fair game as it is one person's limited experience, but you really cannot apply it across the board.

What are the 'rules' though re: PGCE? For example is it, as the article might suggest, that debate is not to be encouraged?

Were Gabriella's trainers giving her advice that most PGCE students/trainee teachers would receive? Are there standard examples that must be given when teaching the semi-colon for instance and if you deviate you are breaking the rules?

Are you deviating from the 'rules' if you suggest books students should read to expand their vocab and are reading lists really forbidden?

If this is the case then it's very concerning. I feel there must be universal guidelines in place and some of those Gabriella contravened. If we agree with what she was trying to do, and if it really went against the grain, then perhaps we should be concerned?

You say we can't generalise but we can in that the National Curriculum is rolled out in all (?) state schools.

I don't agree with all of it, I think some of its principles are too rigid, limit learning power and are out of date.

I don't know much about it really though and I think a lot of its shortcomings are being addressed.

Bonsoir, the existence of a tool to test something does not indicate the causal relationship that produces the outcome; it simply shows that people can be differentiated. I have no problem with the idea of a distribution of intelligence that can be tested: what I disagree about it is the notion that this represents 'innate' and unchangeable outcomes.

And you are really talking nonsense about a global meritocracy. Do you really think theories about social class and status fail to account for its global nature? That anyone can rise through the ranks of the global education systems as long as they are talented enough? What rot. I am not talking about only the British class system, nor am I talking about 'inherited' status. If you can demonstrate serious research that shows that the global 'leader' class is somehow economically diverse and not dominated by particular educational experiences, supported by distinct but remarkably similarly structured cultural expectations, I'll eat my hat.

"ds2 on the other hand loves swimming, really enjoys being in the water, but is dyspraxic and will never in a million years be anything like as good as ds1"

Actually (and anecdotally) we have a dyslexic/dyspraxic child at our swimming club who always looked rather ungainly in the water for years and was written off by the coach. However he stuck with it and suddenly a couple of years ago (around age 14 or 15) something clicked, his stroke smoothed out & is now a joy to watch. He currently leads the fastest lane of our top squad and is verging on a national time. We have a new coach who believes in his capabilities too (perhaps not coincidently).

I do think there might be something in this Dweck stuff actually (which I'd never heard of before this thread). I've always been rather sceptical of intelligence tests too by the way - I rather suspect they are innacurate enough (& not just due to coaching, I think there is a rather large inherant error bar on the results) to do more harm than good.

"That anyone can rise through the ranks of the global education systems as long as they are talented enough?"

If they are talented enough and put in the graft, yes of course. I know many, many people who have.

I think people can do well, whatever their background - DH and I both come from very disadvantaged backgrounds...but it is bloody hard.
You have to be prepared to break through all the crap Will mentions - the rules, the clubs, the mores. Many give up.
But eventually, the fact that you are good at what you do is enough.

I with Bonsoir and Litchick. The most successful people I know - in the City and also in my field - are not from privileged backgrounds. The vast majority had normal/modest backgrounds (ranging from restaurant owners, farmers, Indian takeaway owners, builders, engineers and academics) and almost all went to normal schools though worked hard and have excellent qualifications from top universities. For example, the most prestiguous- a tenured professor at an Ivy-League university - is the son of a Bavarian builder.

Incidentally, the only area I have come across where the old-school privileged dominate was in law (and specifically chambers).

I think it's pretty simple. If you have reasonably clever chidlren and put effort into them at home and send them to good top fee paying schools then you make their lives much much easier in terms of getting into well paid jobs etc. If they are very very bright and go to a sink comp they might well come good in the end but their chance is likely tob e 20% rather than 80% (my stats, my guess) and the bright bored clever child at the sink school might well find drug dealing more fun than sitting in lessons where they know everything anyway. Of course children drop out of the top 20 schools too much fewer particularly the day ones if they also have a nice home to come home to.

As for pushing children and mkaing them reach their full potential and expecting hard things of them, I tink you get that more in the private than state sector. I noticed that on the TV Programme showing the local state school singing proper music for once. Of course they can do it but the schools thinks they are just good enough for wheels on a bus rather than panis Angelicus because the former it's much easier and the children are working class and the teachers want to leave at 4 not after 6 every night and don't do clubs because it breaches union rules or whatever.

My sons passed 11 music exams in the last 12 months (not showing off as today I learned they'd just failed the latest whch is a pity) but I just happened to put some effort into their music for one year and not even that much and mostly I can't be bothered.

The more interesting point because it affects adult mumsnetters not just children is about effort and achievement. Someone last week asked me how I managed to do XYZ. I was explaining how there wa a stage when I saw 5am to 7am on Saturday morning as a working time when the twins were babies. Not everyone puts in that kind of effort or will work all night or whatever, just as plenty are too lazy to read to their children. We tend to reap what we sow.

Obviously you can't be a prima ballerina if you're a 6 foot woman but my sister always reckons she was only good at art at school because she spent hours learning to draw dogs. The music teachers we kniow will say although of course you sometimes get a genius child most of the good ones simply have a parent prepared to sit with them every day for 20 minutes whilst they practise. There's an ex nurse who set up a nursing agency and made millions. I don't expect she is any different from any of the others except she had the idea, put a huge lot of effort into it and then it all came good. I'll be earning £X next week because i'm working until the end of 24th. Many others will be at home stuffing their faces with mince pies arguing with their families.

Parents tend to put effort into the things they enjoy and value themselves and think that they would like to pass on to their children. I put time and effort and money into ensuring my DD ends up bilingual/biliterate; other parents put their resources towards music, or sport, etc.

Litchick - you are one of my favourite posters.

True, B. I don;'t have the same enthusiasm for listening to spellings or French. It's possibly one reason you get so many chidlren going into the career of their parents - my father and brother psychiatrist. My daughter and I doing the same. Father and sons who are actors, Tony Benn and his son in politics etc. Or father a miner, son a miner. Another reason for lack of social mobility issue although in the UK that is not as bad as many places. We don't have untouchable castes and my mother moved classes pretty well.

Hang on. Sons of miners were miners because of the fathers' great enthusiasm for the job?

Xenia, you often come out with arguments along the same lines. I agree with many of the points you make about people putting in the effort and about choosing a path towards the job to make them rich.

I think it is important that women realise they can have more independence and more control over their lives if they have a well paid job.

I just wanted to add that I think in educational terms you are talking about people who are motivated to succeed in education as a result of extrinsic factors - jobs, competition, wealth.

At a good university there will be many of those people, but there will always be those who are motivated to learn as a result of intrinsic factors. I will never earn as much as you, and I would like to have the independence and choices that money brings. But I don't want them so much that I would give up the intellectual freedom that I get from working in an academic environment and getting paid (less than you) to think. That is not about job status but about genuinely believing that there are questions that I want to work out the answers to, and that intellectual process is more valuable to me than money.

It is not just a choice for people between sitting at home eating doughnuts or earning lots of money. There are other desires that motivate people to do something other than earn lots of money.

I wonder (and I do not know the answer) if people who have grown up with wealth are more likely to be motivated by it.

True but I do a lot of intellectual stuff and get paid for it. I accept there are lots of things people enjoy doing and don't pay well but there's a price you pay in terms of houses you can buy, schools you can pay to send children to, etc I just want girls in particular to realise the consequences of their choices.

I feel the point about coal mining running in families has been glossed over.

The coal mining thing depends upon time and location. Pay, conditions, tradition and status of mining have varied over time.

Certainly when my Mother was growing up in a working class town in the North East, if your Father was not a coal miner or a steel worker, you were looked down upon. They were considered high status jobs that men were proud to do and boys aspired to join them.

My great-uncle couldn't wait to go down the mine with his father and 3 half-brothers. His father wanted him to stay on at school and do something else but he refused. I guess there was a certain amount of peer pressure involved and expectations from the community in which he lived but he himself was adamant that he wanted to be a miner. (He did, however, change to other work later in life and regretted his decision not to stay on at school).

Choices have consequences in all different directions. By choosing to be a researching academic on a fairly low pay, I have moved away from the choice of expensive schools and extra tuition; but then again, by choosing this path, I have placed myself in a position where I am well suited to fill that gap in my own person: I can do a lot of the stuff that an expensive school would do. I can coach them in Latin and German and take the part of Romeo against my dd's Juliet. On the 24th we will be singing around the piano, rather than my working to pay a stranger for music clubs. It's not because of any failure of mine to provide for their education.

Getting up at 5 and working all night is going to be partly a question of physical strenght though: I've seen people who were not strong enough develop serious health problems that way- a few have died young, so I don't think it's just a case of willpower; it's also a case of knowing what your body can take.