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?

I agree, Xenia, that high expectations are key to educational achievement.

Janeite,

In my school we have to observe a random lesson and be observed approx every two weeks. It's all peer-to-peer and the written feedback is always positive.

I barely notice it any more. It would only bother me if I had out-of-control pupils, and fortunately do not. The very worst thing they do in class is chat about their social lives, and I can usually nip that in the bud very quickly, although I am torn as I like to know what is going on with them!

Also, since I teach science, and have equipment stored in my teaching room, my technician is always popping in and out.

I face low level disruption, everyone does whatever their school unless they are teaching robots. But I don't tolerate it and I don't let it prevent other pupils from learning. Kids know that they come to my room to learn, if they want to prevent other kids from learning through disruption I have them removed from the room and they do the lesson again with me after school in as dull a manner as I can muster.

My school recognised some time ago that low level disruption was a problem we faced and as a school we have put in measures to deal with it.

If I was in a national challenge school I would be paranoid. It is IMO awful pressure to be under and I am glad I left my old school before it became a national challenge school.

I had a wobble last week when OFSTED were in as it was made very clear to us that anything under outstanding would be frowned upon. I started to worry that I may be the one that would let the school down. But it went quickly and I taught as I always did.

Low level disruption does interfere with learning.

Until we accept that, we will keep sweeping it under the carpet.

I know as a teacher that it is hard to admit that it goes on in my classes - it makes me look ineffective - but it is vital to speak up and report all incidents. Only then will disruptive behaviour cease to be relevent.

I can reduce disruptive behaviour by making my lessons stimulating, blah de blah, but I can't control every feral child I come across. Fortunately these are rare in my school, but I have taught in two 'outstanding' schools where they were ignored by managements and were the scourge of their classes.

Anyone who says they don't have problems with low level disruption, I struggle to believe anything they say. Please, please be honest.

But that is the point we did not sweep it under the carpet, and still do not.

So, what do you do?

Well I was telling you the truth but if it makes you happier to disbelive me, then fine. We have a draconian behaviour system so mostly the pupils are very well behaved.

'Feral' is a particularly noxious word, isn't it?

I also can't bear the word feral.

I am probably what Janeite would call draconian.

I have a stepped discipline policy in terms of LLD. So if I have to ask you to be quiet or give me 100% attention the following happens
1 warning
2 note in planner with lines
3 lunch time detention
4 removed from the room by a senior member of staff followed by a school detention with their head of house and a subject detention to catch up with the work.

I plan lessons that make the kids want to listen.

I set a lot of work, books collected in at the end, if you have not done my work you will go straight into detention. I will also contact home. They have to stay on task to keep up.

We have a member of senior management and a head of house in our block at all times. I teach with my door open.

They are also scared of me as I am northern and working class.

Our house system means that if a child is playing up across a number of subjects this will be dealt with.

Yes, my local comp and the school my daughter goes are not comparable as one is academically selective and the other isn't but as a parent obviously I pick the best. But I have seen that school, the bad one. They don't have high standards. It is covered in graffiti for example. Whilst I accept some of the chidlren will live with drug dealers and get no love and care I don't see why it should be harder in a state school to stop graffiti than a private school. If necessary frisk them for aerosols.

And one reason at 11+ those children starting there are so much behind my daughter's school is not just because of lack of academic selection but because the state primaries don't stretch the children in the main either.

There was a TV programme about which featured two local schools recently. They were very close geographically (about a choir). I don't see why in state schools you have very very easy awful modern happy clappy music for example which any idiot can sing and in private schools you get music that will feed their soul and last them a lifetime.There's nothing to stop a private primary exposing children to good music or producing children who recoil at "You and me" as a song title or whatever else was offending my son the other day.

Anyway doesn't have to bother me as I can pay as I earn a lot and I can also ensure if we need literate workers we just hire people from abroad.

cory you have got the wrong end of the stick entirely with your comment

"But then we don't have grammar schools in our neck of the woods- so perhaps by definition we don't have comprehensives either; all state schools have a mixed intake and imo are all the better for it."

Comprehensives came in in place of grammar schools and the selective system and are supposed to be able to teach a broad range of ability. IME they don't.

Giving a warning in class and writing in the planner does detract from the learning of the rest of the class.

Do you really give lines?

i found that article fascinating and not all that surprising, even 15 years ago at my very mixed-intake comprehensive as an A-grade student i was never ever pushed or challenged or even particularly encouraged. i was just left to get on with stuff so long as i stayed quiet and kept doing the work (i was bored out of my mind and far behind my contemporaries in terms of academic thought when i got to a good university).

i think that the situation is specific to the author and the way her tutors related to her will be specific to her - she had a postgraduate degree and i would guess she was well-spoken. i don't know that this is the case but i think her tutors were scared she'd come over as too academic and elitist to her students and parents and so they encoraged her to go far too far the other way. if she's had a strong working class accent and had come from a UK comp herself perhaps they'd have listened to her? i suspect some inverse snobbery here.

Hey Xenia: what you need to do is move out of London - you'd find it a lot cheaper. My local comp has around 86% A-C GCSEs, and the Able cohort are stretched with fast track exams, additional classes (such as Further Maths and Latin) taught at the local independent schools. Last year one kid left for sixth form with 14 A and A*s...

You have to strip out all the courses that are worth 4 or 5 GCSEs each, willself.

Everyone knows that ICT is not worth 5 GCSEs = it is just a way of manipulating the league tables.

But I don't care about that. It is a comprehensive school after all, it has to offer a comprehensive range of types of qualifications.

A large percentage go on to study A levels at local colleges and sixth forms. As long as my kids are in that group I don't mind

I went to visit the nearest independent and grammar schools. They had impressive results. But we still chose the comp, because all round, it felt better.

Yes I really do give lines, well not really lines I make them copy out the behavior section of the school policy.

My school is full of staff who are academic and well spoken, I very much stand out with my northern accent.

I am wondering if I am seeing evidence of the school approach noted here in my university students:

-very, very poor grammar in the main. emails sent to staff with almost every word misspelt often titled 'hey', etc

-quite incredible amount of gearing to the assignment/exam. Every question asked except by the most able students is about the exam- usually 'what do we not need to know? Do we have to revise/remember this/this/this?' etc ad nauseam.

-students are regularly told that we can only comment on essay plans etc but I regularly receive requests to tell them how to answer the question etc. The 'scaffolding' of essays mentioned above is really ringing bells for me- it seems a lot of my students are really lost without it.

These are law students from an 'average' UK university whose average entrance grades at A level are about ABC. And believe me, a lot of them cannot actually write English.

Why does anyone need to do 14 GCSEs? It's madness. Quality v quantity.

Who takes notice of 14 GCSEs in reality? This is exactly what drives me mad. Children and parents are being fooled into thinking lots of GCSEs = academic. Universities couldn't give a shit about 14 GCSEs I am afraid, and parents and students are being fooled into thinking 14 GCSEs are worth more than 10 GCSEs in proper academic subjects.

Take 14 GCSEs if you want, fine, but don't think for a minute think that a top university is going to be impressed by that. This is what is SO wrong with the present education system. There are huge double standard issues going on here. I am afraid top universities are going to take children with 10 GCSEs in 'proper' subjects over those with lots in other subjects every time.

And it is SO unfair on those who are not 'in the know'. Disgraceful.

Good evening. First time poster. Interesting article. I am not swayed by Gobsmacked insisting that she is not an academic though. Yale? Oxford? PhD? How would she describe herself then?
I thought the lessons described sounded imaginative. I also think talking over the kids' heads/lecturing as opposed to teaching/ having a 'discussion' in class does not constitute effective teaching.
I would have more respect for Gobsmacked if she had at least taught as an NQT for a year and put her money where her mouth is.
Am sure there are plenty of state secondaries out there crying out for teachers who wish to pass on their passion for the English language.
From what I can gather unless she corrects me otherwise she bailed.

Most private schools would tend to suggest you take 8 or 9 GCSEs and spend the rest of yiour time being educated, pursuing your hobbies and doing the stuff you enjoy and which might look good on a rounded CV. I only made this a state / private thread because if you pay and go to a top 20 private school then you tend to ensure your child leaves with reasonable grammar and the traditional education many parents want and we mustn't forget 6% of children go to private schools and 50% of children at good universities went to private schools which really says it all. If you don't pay then you're not giving the children the chance they might have. If you picked a low paid career as a parent / mother then your child suffers. Such is life in a competitive world but don't mislead yourself into thinking the child will emerge the same from the comp as the top 20 private school.

And I don't need it to be "cheaper" because I'd rather spend my money buying selective education, class, accent, confidence, pleasant environment and have my children educated with parents who are committed to education with chidlren of similar IQ in a single sex environment where 99% of the class will go to the better universities.

jumps up and down<

hello! this article is downing mixed-ability lessons !

Not all comps do mixed ability teaching!!!

bounces, hoping someone will notice

marking this to read it later

I am very suspicious that the author just happened to stumble on this thread.....