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?

Xenia' I am interested in your point about that Cambridge comp. Are you referring to the state sixth form college that is populated by private school students?

I was talking to a friend recently who has 2 boys in a private school in Cambridge. Her intention is to move them back into the state system for sixth form. While both her and her husband are academics, her reasons for putting the children back into state education is not to give them an advantage with university entrance.

It is simply that the Cambridge state secondary schools are considered to have serious problems, and so people choose private. As the state sixth form is very good and is already taking many capable children with good standards of behaviour, parents are taking children out of private school as it saves money and they can remain with the same peer group.

Obviously I am basing this on one person's experiences, but I would be interested to know if there really are people taking children out of private schools because of alleged university prejudices.

I am not convinced there is good evidence that universities are discriminating against any particular type of school.

Gonsmacked - have only read your article and page 1 of this thread, but just wanted ot say I entirely agree and have observed the very same things. Terrifying and depressing.

Sevenswans - "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)"

As a teacher in a private school, all I can say is 'Bite me!'

Fortunately I am confident enough in my own teaching to be amused rather than offended by the mind-blowing arrogance, not to mention the sweeping generalisation, but the self-righteousness of those defending state education never fails to amaze and amuse me - as if somehow you have a right to be narrow-minded and offensive because you feel you have the moral high ground.

I am always very aware that where I teach and where I send my DS to school is my personal choice; I do not have an axe to grind about the superiority of private education a la Xenia, it is merely what happens to suit me. And I would never dream of condemning all state school teachers as dull and incompetent: who on earth am I to judge that? But don't let that stop you judging me for all you're worth.

Oh you can be as rude as you like about independent pupils and teachers. Tis in thew MN constitution

I have always said 94% of children are in state schools and many are educated well, it's just that in the better private schools you do get a better education. Most women have chosen work that pays badly so they cannot afford fees or they don't have the ability to earn enough to pay fees so they do the best they can with the state system. But it certainly makes life easier if you can afford fees.

As for getting into university none of my chidlren's schools have particularly felt any difficulties for their pupils or state school preferences meaning lots of private pupils aren't getting in but there will certainly be the odd case of that. Nothing like enough to make it wise to move a child for sixth form into a sink school or even a good state schools but it's fascinating. I thik you now have to declare if your parents went to university so that can be held against you when you apply but most of the time that is not going to be an issue. I suppose it will just come if you've got someone with AAA from a school which never does well (like my old school even though it was private actually which shows how silly it is to do all this social engineering) compared with someone with AAA from North London C and one has parents who went to university, the latter and the other has parenst who are dustmen

I don't think one can make blanket judgements to say education is always better in the private sector. Not all private school teachers are good teachers - I expect the top private schools get good results mainly because they select the brightest children. Some of the teachers are excellent but not all (from my own experience of private education) and it is a bit the luck of the draw as to how well ones child is taught, as in the state sector.

Even if the teaching is good children can be unhappy at private schools - I remember a few cases of anorexia at my all girls school. Whilst there are often good musical and sporting opportunities in the private sector if you are not really sporty or musical you can not always participate in activities.

If your child is really bright confident, sporty and musical they will probably have a great time in a private school. However this type of child would probably do well at any school.

If I end up sending my DCs to private school it will be to go to a smaller school (than a large comp), with a strong christian ethos and smaller class sizes meaning more individual attention. I think the thing that lets most comprehensives down is the poor state of the buildings which doesn't give you a feel good factor when you look round. It is also nice to have enough outdoor space for sport. I don't feel the need for lakes and listed buildings though!

People often say that you can get poor teachers in private schools etc. IME it is much tougher to get a job in the first place in the private school. You are screened/tested in many different ways.

Of course this may happen in state schools too but IME not to the degree it happens in independent schools.

Often the head of the school may test the candidates for real passion for their subject and they will have to show that they have a genuine love for children.

In a recent interview a good friend was asked to stay for lunch at the school. The head sat him at a table with some children and watched him. Did he interact? Was he pleased to chat? Was he happy and outgoing?

He got the job but it's been apparent since that many have been rejected because they haven't spoken to the children even when the job has practically been in the bag.

It's not a guarantee of an excellent teacher but if all heads took such great care over selecting staff in the first place I can't help thinking things would be better.

This school I am talking about has an excellent reputation the passion and enthusiasm of all the teachers that work there hits you whenever you visit.

Certainly in our experience it seems that if teachers seem ok, and have the relevant qualifications they are in (especially if the job is tricky to fill).

Can I put it like this: will DC in state community schools do the following-

read at least one whole Shakespeare play and study it either as part of GCSE or outside;

study/read classic British poetry;

Will they get this from secondary school teaching

I never said all teachers in state schools were bad and teaching always good in all private schools BUT we are left with:-

50% of students at good universities from private schools
7 - 10% of pupils in the sixth form at private schools

That's the difference the private schooling makes. Now if you only want to follow your father to work on the bins or whatever then those stats are completely irrelevant but most of the country has comprehensive schools only and that's that.

I don't know the answer to zz's question above. I would hope most GCSE English students do several Shakespeare plays before they get to GCSE. One would expect the schools to put them on too so those interested in drama have appeared in one.

Anyway it's a pretty pointless discussion as most women earn a pittance and don't have a hope in Hell of affording school fees so like most parents they simply do the best for their child given the position they are in. Some will found businesses and make a fortune. Hopefully all will try to help their children at home. Some will be far too pushy and get it wrong and some far too laid back. Most will pick the school they think is best for their child, feed it well, encourage it etc etc.

I don't have a child at a state school. I've two 11 year olds. I wonder how the work they do at school compares with the state system. I don't even know entirely what they do. I feel I make a good choice of school and then trust the school will teach them their Shakespeare, latin, french and prohibit them from doing rubbish GCSEs when they get beyond prep school stage, in non subjects that only those with a low IQ should be doing.

My DD is in Yr8 and has indeed studied Shakespeare - two so far and another in Yr9 I think you'll find it's part of the NC Zanzi. DD's Drama Club is also doing a scene from Macbeth tomorrow night as part of the School Concert,they are hoping to do a full performance in the Summer this is from what some on here would call a "Bog Standard Comp.

Not everyone is interested in those subjects though. We have told DS he can drop all the humanities/arts type subjects (apart from English, obviously) when he picks his GCSE type stuff, because he loathes them. Not everyone finds meaning in those types of subject.

It is not a question of finding meaning in a subject it is a question of being well educated and having knowledge. I think to be well educated you need to study the following:

English Grammar
Maths
History
Geography
At least one science as a seperate subject
a foreign language

to GCSE

How can one have an understanding of the world without learning history and geography? I think they should be compulsory

By the end of year 11, students at the comprehensive where I teach have done three Shakespeare plays. We also teach mixed ability in English all the way through the school (and we are a true comprehensive with a very wide intake) and get 81% A*-C in English GCSE!

DS has just done a whole term on who won the Battle of Hastings and why. I think that could have been covered in 10 mins.

I cannot understand why anyone would need to know that in any detail, or what possible relevance it has to ordinary people.

How can History be more important for understanding the world then doing triple GCSE Biology, Chemistry and Physics?

Nobody is going to agree on which subjects are the most important; that is why we give children a guided choice.

A term on the battle of hastings sounds OTT. Surely they study Tudors and Stuarts or the first and second world war at some time pre-GCSE?

I agree that sciences are important too...I hadn't said they weren't.

I think children need a grounding in a range of academic areas to GCSE - so dropping all modern lanuages, or history AND geography, or all sciences makes the focus to narrow in my opinion.

should have been TOO narrow above - whoops!

Xenia "I never said all teachers in state schools were bad and teaching always good in all private schools BUT we are left with:-

50% of students at good universities from private schools
7 - 10% of pupils in the sixth form at private schools"

This statistics don't tell me much. You would need to tell me what proportion of the brightest children go to private school from 11. I believe there are more selective private schools than grammar schools so the proportion of very academic children is probably higher in the private sector. Therefore the better university entry results may partly be due to good teaching but may also be due to the academic make up of the private schools.

There also appears to be a large academic gulf between different schools in the state sector. So some state schools may send lots of students to good universities.

You live in an area where you are not happy with your local state secondary. Imagine if you lived in an area where there were good private schools but also very good state schools. I live in the latter and it is harder to work out whether there is a huge amount to be gained by going private.

a term on hastings! not nearly enough...

the long term political implications are felt to this day!

if nothing else, it's a lesson in the importance of never yielding the higher ground...

some people spend a lifetime on it.

MillyR - history and geography are absolutely critical subjects IMO - how can you understand what is written in the newspapers if you have no concept of history or geography? I think they are much more important subjects for accessing the world at large than are the sciences.

Bonsoir - a lot of Geography is taught as a science anyway.

History is important (although probably not a lot of the topics taught in English schools), but no more important than Anthropology, or Economics, which most people never study at school.

I think the system is right as it is - people choose the subjects that they think are important, as we will never have agreement on which subjects are the most important.

Most children in good private schools will all do
English lit
English lang
French or german or latin or 2 or 3 of those
3 separate science GCSEs
history
geography

I did the above except I did French and German and Music too. My children have done similarly perhaps with the odd one different but they have those core ones which when my mother did school certificate which all children who left school at 16 and were up to it did when she did it in around 1947 were much the same too. If you didn't pass every single one you had to do it again. She passed all except RE which was compulsory - she took them a year early at 15 and had to redo that year to get RE and pass the lot.

I think that is probably similar to state grammar schools. DS will do:

Maths
Additional Maths
Biology, Physics, Chemistry
1 modern foreign language (although you can choose a further two as your options)
English language
English literature

He will also have to do 2 options, which are likely to be Latin and Geology.

If he had gone to the Comp, a double GCSE in IT would have been compulsory, as would a technology subject. Technology subjects include things like Food Tech and Childcare. He would not have been able to do Latin, Geology, additional Maths, or triple Science at the Comp.

For pupils to make sensible choices, they actually have to have those choices available to them.

OP correct in terms 'two over riding themes' being pursuit of topicality (celebrities and mobile phones) and fear of words.

I think this stems from teachers keen to get on students level and reach them, rather than allow the students to 'reach up' to the subject level if that makes sense. When I did PGCE is was all about making stuff sound like football and fashion.....

Also. The most inspiring lessons I was ever taught were those that required me to think well out of my everyday world and explore somthing completely 'out of my league' (Shakespear, classical music, poetry) only to find it completely relevant.

I shall take this with me as I continue to teach. Quite inspiring, thanks.

I have to say Milly that does look quite a narrow spread to me. Outside the basics (English, maths & Science) he only has 2 more subjects (latin & mfl, as geology is yet another science & a rather useless GCSE in terms of being required for anything later, though I'd have jumped at the chance to do it too if given the chance). I really would try & encourage a humanity if I were you - clearly he'll be a maths and science man at A level, so best to show some abilities in other areas before then and to keep working at his essay skills beyond the very bare minimum for another two years (all jobs need written skills these days).