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?

Me too

This thread has been a bit of a wringer for me (plus I feel paranoid about the quality of my writing on a thread like this, so I apologise for beginning with a cliche). I was a bright, highly compliant girl, and I have a bright, highly compliant son. I hated breaking rules and loathed conflict in the classroom; also true of my son. My parents ensured I went to a single-sex state grammar school with quite a traditional approach (Latin, Greek, houses, uniform knickers, all that malarkey) and I was bored shitless for large amounts of it - about 30% of the work was paced too fast for me, about 40% too slow and 30% was fantastic. There was a lot of copying notes from teachers' dictation for reproduction into exam essays. There was so much faffing about, as in all schools - the sheer logistics of getting 900 teenagers taught in that many subjects. I am feeling, with this thread, as if I just cannot bear to put my son through the boredom of secondary school. Even if it is in some bits less boring than the education I got, clearly in other bits it is likely to be even more boring and less demanding. There is likely to be more conflict and disruption in the classroom than I experienced.

Equally dh cannot bear to see ds go to a top level private school like he did, with hours and hours of homework and being driven so hard - I personally feel he would have had a mental breakdown in his early 20s anyway, but all he remembers is that he wasn't really happy after the age of 6.

I want to home educate my son. But he's an only child and I just don't know if that's likely to make him unhappy.

Right, I will stop agonising on this thread and start one in home education. Thanks for posting everyone, I've found it helpful in a way!

That's interesting choosyfloosey.

I completely respect the work many teachers do in comprehensive schools.

But the simple fact is there is a two tier education system going on these days and those 'average' children in the private sector are out performing those in the state sector, which is outrageous.

They are not more clever, but their 'results' show otherwise. I find it SO depressing.

Feenie / selective. I posted a link back to this thread on the Guardian comments board where I first came across the link to the Gobsmack's article. She might have found her way via that, although Mumsnet itself is pretty popular!!!!

Choosy your son sounds like mine and he is absolutely thriving in a state comp. It is not boring, he loves school (but wouldn't admit it ) The only problem they have had with behaviour in the class room is with one young and inexperienced teacher who couldn't control the class, and in that case the children themselves complained to the HOY!
DCs' school do no mixed ability lessons except PSHE, they are streamed seperately for maths and english and MFL,science and humanities are mixed together for another set, although there is room for movement with them.
I would give it a chance before you admit defeat and HE.

Also I do agree there is some dumming down since I went to school in 70s I think somethings that are taught are just different.

Tonight I was doing a crossword with a clue
"a short japanese poem" I read it aloud and both dcs (12 and 14) piped up simultanously "haiku" I asked where they learnt that and they said Yr6 primary! That is something I would never have been taught in primary nor even secondary, although I did have a good grasp of sonnets by the time I left.

bruffin, thanks for your post, it is reassuring in a way, except that... well, I learned about haiku from reading Miss Happiness and Miss Flower aged about 7. I know it's only an example. I am increasingly feeling that much of the most valuable education I had was stuff I found for myself, through reading. Why waste time moving from room to room at school and staring into space while the teacher says 'I'm not going to start the lesson until EVERYBODY IS QUIET. Sarah S, stop talking to Sarah B. Sarah K, hand out the worksheet. Sarah J, leave Sarah A alone'... (that was the 70s/80s for you)?

I am influenced by my current degree, which feels rather like a school classroom. We had a really bad lesson lecture the other day and it brought back the agony of poor teaching all over again.

Sorry I think the worst thing you can do is project your feelings about school onto your son, give him a chance to enjoy a secondary school before you right it off completely.

DS is very bright (they are already saying he is oxbridge material) mature,well behaved, quiet, although I can gather he can get quite chatty in humanites when it comes to discussion and has been known to drive one or two teachers slightly mad with his constant questions

DD is in her first term in secondary and is almost having too much of a good time.

Their school is a good comp with a lovely atomosphere. It's results are improving year on year because of a fantastic headmaster who stands no nonsense.

agingoth I am SO glad you have posted.

I think there is a BIG problem with what would have been classed as non academic children being forced encouraged to go to university these days.

I have no problem whatsoever with absolutely every child being given the opportunity to go to university. That is completely right and just, and should be so.

No child should be denied the opportunity of going to university if they are bright enough, regardless of how they are schooled, whether in the private or state sector.

There are two problems, however, 'average' children at non selective private schools are getting better results than their contemporaries at non selective state schools(i.e bog standard comprehensives).

Why is that? Certainly not because they are less 'bright to start with?? and other students are going on to university when they quite patently shouldn't be mainly due to the dumbing down of exams so they feel they should be pursuing an academic education because their exam results push them in that direction.

I am sorry to be blunt but an A nowadays at GCSE really does not compare to an A twenty five or so years ago, let alone before the advent of the A - E marking scheme. That isn't to say that some students now would get the highest grade, but many wouldn't.

The state sector needs to get its act together and start teaching academic subjects properly before the universities are full of private school pupils who are NOT brighter but just better at passing exams and jumping through the necessary hoops.

I simply won't have it that children in the private sector are more intelligent to start with, but unfortunately the exam results will, and do, show otherwise.

But there is an element of 'entitilemen't in the private sector and a wronged sense of inverted snobbery (ie Oxbridge isnt for the likes of us etc) in the state sector that needs to be addressed.

The kid's parents are academics, selectivememory: the point is he needed to be given enough to do...

You go ahead, Xenia, and buy status. I'm more confident than you, I suspect, about my kid's intelligence, learning skills, social abilities and capacity to make his life a happy one. And, of course, my own ability to help him learn. Not everyone has that latter luxury I realise.

Another post in response to questions.

I really am a teacher, but in the US, not in the UK.

I mention one off-hand comment by a teacher. Everything else I write about, my supervisors said and did in their official capacity: teaching their students, lecturing to the assembled trainee teachers, or discussing lessons with me.

To those who dismiss what I say because I was a trainee teacher, not an NQT: there are advantages to being a trainee teacher. For months I observed lessons of all the English teachers in two of my placement schools, and the lessons of more than a few teachers in two other schools I visited; as an NQT I probably would have witnessed few lessons other than my own. In our post-observation discussions my supervisors told me ? in an official capacity ? what they thought their role was, and what they thought the students were capable of achieving ("a C at GCSE, which is all they need to do what they want to do in life").

I'm very surprised some people think I wrote this article to "increase my public profile." If anything, I would hesitate to let a prospective employer know about the article. I had no idea, when I gave out a reading list, or offered to teach note-taking skills, that I was doing something controversial. But almost everything I did and suggested met with disapproval, and so I come across as someone who "keeps protesting" throughout my training course, in the words of the editors of The Reader. I'm afraid employers shy away from those people.

Some people have pointed out that mixed-ability classes, rather than comprehensive schools, are the problem. They probably can make a strong case, but I didn't get into a policy discussion in my essay because I wanted to stick to my own experience; people can draw their own conclusions. Because of the mixed ability classes, there was a heavy emphasis on "differentiation," which in effect meant dumbing down. (When students find out from one another that you are assigning different tasks to different students, and have widely varying expectations for them, you have a problem.) In the Department of Education at my university, one could not openly question mixed ability classes.

I apologize apologise for misspelling "practise." "Practice" is the American spelling, and at some point in the editing process I noticed the mistake and mentioned it, but I guess the correction never got through to the webmaster.

jackstarbright is right; I came to this page through the link he posted on the Guardian Education.

thank you, I'm glad someone answered that!

only one of the 3 comps i went do did mixed ability - and i think it is highly questionable as a method. Unfortunately it tends to fall along political lines: lefties like mixed ability, setting for conserrvatives.

ooh, there was awhole bunch of discussion on this on alphamummy

I am interested in what salary Xenia's children's teachers recieve for eductaing her children to such a high standard.

I imagine it would not allow those teachers the financial flexibility to pay the fees at their own school (though bursaries prob available for teaching staff). Thus, the people facilitating her children's brilliance and well-roundedness etc are themselves denied it - because they chose professions which are, in Xenia's eyes, low-paid.

As an English teacher myself, we cannot afford to privately educate both our children (despite my Dh earning a moderately good salary) so have chosen to live in an area with good-ish state schools. I could have chosen a career path which would have allowed us a more lavish lifestyle. BUT I chose a vocation where I add a great deal to society, despite being bright enough to make a good deal more money doing something more self-interested.

As for the article, I find that it has some resonances and a great many inaccuracies. Like others on the thread I would be far more inclined to give weight to the author's opinions if she had actually done some teaching - the PGCE year is not about real teaching any more than driving lessons are about real driving.(i.e. you are taught the mechanics and given a taste of how it is done but the real stuff starts once you have passed)

discounts or free tuition for teachers kids @ private schools are the norm..

I really don't buy mixed ability classes from personal experience. At my state primary, in my final 2 years, our new head decided to introduce mixed ability classes (previously streamed). The result was teachers found it difficult to teach us all, the lower ability kids did'nt get a lot of it and were bored the, higher ability kids were insufficiently challenged and were bored. Eventually the teacher would concentrate on the middle ability kids and get the higher ability kids to help the lower ability kids with the work! All I remember of that time was doing exercises from the same maths workbook for 2 years. Thank god I went into the top stream for all subjects in my state comp and had teachers who taught at a challenging pace and peers who I could compete with.

"I am interested in what salary Xenia's children's teachers recieve for eductaing her children to such a high standard."

My understanding was that private schools have more teachers with a degree in their subject and obviously class and accent and other advantages so they have things in common with the children. Also my ex husband taught in both sectors and his experience was there were more posts with higher pay in the private sector. Also you work in a lovely school with free use of incredible gyms and grounds (our children had full use of that because of their father at weekends) and we even for abrief period free accommodation. We paid 15% of fees only of our son for 8 years. If you add in all those perks you can see why the best teachers (but of course not th eleft wing communist type ones who we wouldn't want teaching our children anyway) tend to gravitate towards the private sector. It's common sensse that they would. If you want to teach rather than be a policeman middle class very clever children are probably easier to handle and if the parents are paying a lot of money they tend to ensure the children take it seriously. And where people pay at source for things there is accountability and things work best - that's how capitalism work . It's a great model.

Yes, I'm happy to buy the education ebcause I made wise career hcoices. If you earn a lot of money you can also do more good than if you eartn £13k a year. You can give more to charity etc etc . It's win win if you're a highly paid woman plus you're doing your bit for the progression of women in society. It's much harder to make a difference if you earn £20k a year as a nurse. If you run the hospital or are a senior surgeon you can do more good than however many bottoms you've wiped and the like. Anyway that's a different topic.

Do I buy status? I didn't choose "posh" schools with rich other parents so not really. I have bought as it's simpler than the iniquities of state school choice by house price which is morally more pernicious than simply paying fees if you think doing the best for your individual child is ever moralyl pernicious. I have bought the chidlren to be educated with other clever children. One daughter was at North London Collegiate. That is not a posh school but it does pretty well in A levels etc and the girls tend all to be bright. I bought segregation from very poor and very low IQ chilren and indeed segregation from boys.

And my stats above that yes of course some children from state schools do fine (most children go there) but that on average children at good private schools do very very well indeed on all kinds of scores so why not pick a career as a woman that enables you to do the best for yoiur children just as you might perfer not to earn nothing or £13k a year and be struggling to find time to read to the children or hold them and hug them without feeling stressed or being in fuel poverty or not being able to afford good foods. Money is the biggest indicator of child outcome in the UK. Go forth and encourage your daughters to earn... and well paid intellectually challenging careers can be massive fun too.

Litchick - "I can't say if this is typical but what I can say is that in the primary school where I volunter the children's literacy skill are woefully low because the parents do not read with their children at home." (my bolding)

Do you really think that reading at home is the be all and end of all of the acquisition of literacy skills?

I ask because, being in the position of the parent of the minority language (English) in a bilingual family, I am highly aware that I need to work very hard to ensure that my DD acquires a high level of literacy in English. We read a lot at home in English - but IMVHO that does not suffice. I buy her (and have always bought her) lots of DVDs in English and I am censorship incarnated - the level and complexity of the English of the films and shows she watches must meet my very exacting standards. I listen to Radio 4, and read high-quality books and magazines in front of her. She listens to me speak English, and I don't hesitate to introduce new words and concepts and to explain them to her.

I just think there is so much more to high level acquisition of language and literacy than reading (however crucial reading may be).

Do you really think that reading at home is the be all and end of all of the acquisition of literacy skills?

i do. i learned to read at home...

Yes, but when you read at home you also talk to your child about the story, and that kind of conversation is crucial to reading, writing and oracy skills.

Xenia, you never fail to offend!
"If you add in all those perks you can see why the best teachers ... tend to gravitate towards the private sector"
Rubbish. There are some excellent state school teachers who are MNers, myself included.

I learned to read at 4.3 at home but that hardly sufficed - there is so much more to literacy than learning the basics of reading.

And while talking about the story, the words eetc is very important, it is not enough IMO to ensure the foundations of great literacy skills.

I am very sceptical about reading at home being the be-all and end-all, really. I come from a family where there are some severe cases of addiction to literature that have had some sorry outcomes.

It's a whole attitude, Anna - a family who reads with their children will have books constantly around the house, will see parents reading, are more likely to develop a love of books, and will see all this as normal.
It's not the be all and end all, but it is essential.

Ask any Y2 teacher - the children who struggle with reading are inevitably the children who either a) have some kind of specific learning difficulty and/or b)are not supported in their acquistion of reading skills at home. Always.

Well half the children at Oxbridge come from state schools so I'm certainly not saying the only good teaching or indeed clever children are in the private sector but proportionately more are, that's all and if you can afford to pay and you get all the other benefits of private schools you owe it to a child to pick that option just as I think you owe it to a child to pick the best food, home life, state school that you can.

As for language they pick it up from those around them. My children will point out ot me if a teacher doesn't speak very well and other children in their class might be from homes where English isn't very well spoken and children notice those differences.

My youngest won't now have a bed time story but we still have a bed time and their big sisters like to join in with it and it's about talking and cuddling and being together etc.

There are probably certain middle class English values and culture which I suspect you get more of in private schools and which you may want passed to your children and which are harder to find in the state sector.

Feenie - I'm absolutely not arguing against reading in the home as being essential - you don't have to convince me. I just think it is only one aspect of fluency in language and literacy, and often gets touted around as if it were of itself sufficient.

Oh come on, Xenia. I am a very middle class individual (though state educated): I am very bright, articulate and speak with excellent grammar. I am also well-read and have a very broad general knowledge (though no Latin, natch). I choose to teach in the comprehensive sector because:-
I feel that private school pupils already have natural advantages (does this make me a communist?
The pay and opportunities are (largely) better
There are far more opportunities to teach in a more dynamic, child-centred way - comp teachers are FAR better/more interesting than their private sch counterparts because they have to be (if you are dull, your classes are likely to misbehave)

By all means exercise your right to privately educate your offspring. But please don't insult me and people like me by implying that state sch teachers are not good enough for private.