Is it just me that feels this way?

[Melaniefhappy]

Hi Everyone,

Am I the only one to feel utterly disappointed, if not despairing, about the standard of education at my state primary school (in Hampshire)?

We recently changed schools (moved home) and whilst I totally accept that all schools are different, this new one offers little to inspire the children to do well; for example ..they do no spelling tests, do not ever correct spellings on written work, send home work that is appalling to be 'celebrated' by parents. Dare I go on as I don't wish to bore you ..however... they only read once a week with the children at any age (our old school read everyday - I know, as I went in twice a week with another army of mums to help this happen). Our new school refuses to consider this option despite friendly discussions with the teacher, offers of help, letters and meetings with the head.

Hence I feel I am home schooling first and foremost (in a fun way at home) with school doing the rest- harsh but true. In fact, if my children suceed in their primary education it will be despite the school's involvement, not as a result of it. They are very ready to book fun things - school trips, teachers dressing up for fun reward days, in classroom picnics, and lots of watching videos..but the academics seem to be second place at all times unless you are in the gifted and talented group - you lucky people you!!!

Just before you ask ...other parents in our class range from not really bothered about their children's reading and spelling standards through to worried but have been (like me) totally ground down by the 'no no no' attitude of the school. Despite gentle friendly approaches of concern, nothing happens- and I am the class rep!!! Trouble is, I do not wish to have to quite literally argue/fight with the school and force the issues through Governor levels and on to the Department of Education (or whatever it is called now). Am I a coward?

Yes I am on the PTA, and yes I go in to read, and help as much as I can in the school, and funnily enough there was lots of competition to be a Governor so I didn't take this route - rather wish I had now- might have had a real voice!!!.

Hence I am currently playing the lottery to afford to send my two children to private school - both my husband and I went, and without this, neither one of us would have done so well. Not well enough however to afford the fees today!

Sorry ...rant over!!! I just wondered if I was alone in this or if I am mad, unreasonable and expecting too much.
All the best, really sorry again to moan- it is either this or cry!
Melanie
x

smee
Of course I think spelling is important!! I'm not sure people are getting the message that in KS1 and YR (for three years of the children's lives) we teach phonics every day for 20 minutes. That adds up to one hell of a lot of time learning how to spell!

That's okay peacocks. Am a bit amused as I'm not saying GR is better, but am saying there's a lot of value in it. Would you like them not to do guided reading at all? Do you not value comprehension then as that's a lot of what it's about..? You mention English as a second language reading and not understanding. Great they can read, but if they were reading with guided reading methods, they'd read, enjoy and comprehend. Surely that's better..?!

That's okay EasterBunny, just couldn't let the rot set in whilst you were missing..

But guided reading is being done INSTEAD of one to one. Do it in addition to, but not instead of.

Who said you don't "do" comprehension in one on one reading? Of course you do! You just don't ask six children how the "hero" was feeling, getting several different answers, silly jokes and five minutes blithering -- you talk to one child and can identify misperceptions and crack on with the reading.

Are you trying to subtly instil in us all the conviction that one to one equals rote reading while guided reading is the only true path to understanding?

I rather think you are.

I'll give you an example about guided reading. I was with a 'slow' group on Tuesday. The children were reading a book about pets. They all read the sentence 'It keeps her fit' (so in a reading AGE test, they would have got a tick), but not one of them knew what 'fit' meant . They explained by clothes 'fitting', completely out of context. This kind of miscomprehension is very easy to pick up in guided reading sessions.

And by the way peacocks - I said that we read 1:1 with children who don't read at home. We pick this up from home reading diaries.

OMG peacocks!!!! I have said that I think it is very important that children read at least 4-5 times a week 1:1 in the evening with an adult or older sibling.

That is not a benefit of guided reading, can be done just as easily with one to one.

Yes -- you do read one to one when parents are not involved (r4-5 times a wee kbtw?) I saw that earlier but I was making a general observation. It's now accepted in the UK that children only need to be heard by a teacher once every half term.

Across the country schools now rely on parents to teach children to read, with no safety net. There is official approval. And the stance that one to one is not necessary and now, it seems, even desirable has pervaded the system.

Across the country children are NOT being taught by their parents or their teachers. And while "the system" approves, it will not get any better. Lucky children if there is a school that can afford the right number of teaching assistants and few enough poorly educated parents that the slack can be picked up. Otherwise, it's just tough luck.

I keep leaving out words in my posts.

Who said it's 'now accepted in the UK that children only need to be heard by a teacher once every half term' ?
Every child should do guided reading every week.

But as for parents teaching reading - what do you think the children are doing in their phonics lessons? Children have the phonics lessons to teach them to read the sounds and to write them. This is a basis for reading, which is then extended to reading-for- meaning in guided reading sessions, with 1:1 reading with parents being the icing on the cake.

To reiterate: the children are learning how to read AND spell in their daily phonics lessons.

The head teacher of my infant school said it.

But they aren't though, are they? Or do they just forget it all to become illiterate 16 year olds?

Peacock am not trying to subtly instil anything. Am only banging on about GR because you're so dismissive of it. As I've said (3 times at least I think) I think one to one's great too, but imo guided reading's good too. And yes of course you can do comprehension in one-to-one which is brilliant when it happens, but there's a lot to be said in learning in small groups, listening to others, being inspired by your peers, having fun with a book together. Also have you thought that maybe a fair few kids find it quite stressful to read one-to-one as it's more of a test with the teacher. I remember those days well and I was a good reader with relatively nice teachers most of the time. One to one's brilliant and I'd like more of it too, but it's not the only way is all.

• there is a safety net from what I've seen. those children that aren't thriving are given extra help, and as Easter's said that includes one to one reading for those not getting it at home. Am not saying the current system's perfect, but it does seem interesting in its differences to how I was taught and I think better for it. Far more likely to catch all kids no matter what their ability and help them to love reading.

Sorry but I profoundly disagree with your last sentence.

Children are getting left behind and because the "middle classes" can read at home and can afford a better catchment area, they can afford to have fun with it all watch their children thrive while children with badly educated parents, in crappy catchment areas and poor schools without enough teaching assistants for large class sizes are being abandoned to failure.

It most certainly does not benefit all.

I agree smee. Also (in addition to phonics, guided reading and 1:1) we use catch up programmes like precision monitoring, flashcards for home and ELS (Early Literacy Support) for those children who are finding literacy difficult.

A child needs to read and understand fairly well to get a level 4 in Y6. It doesn't mean that they can't read if they don't achieve a level 4. Maybe they can't understand inferential language, or their vocabulary is poor. They did a study of national newspapers and The Sun was judged to be a level 3 text. That means that nearly every child leaving mainstream primary school would be able to read The Sun, whilst being shown as a 'failure' in the national statistics.

Am interested to know how children were taught to read and spell during the late 19th century, presumably before phonics was around.
Also when we learn foreign languages, we generally don't use any phonic type instruction in order to learn how to spell. We do seem to learn foreign languages more by a sort of immersion, osmosis process where we recognize patterns if we are exposed to them enough. We also do not need to understand every word when reading English or a foreign language, we are able to get the gist of things and form meaningful patterns. If we are exposed to the problem word in enough different contexts, we automatically form an impression of what it means, without needing to be taught formally. This is the way that we pick up and understand new slang terms.

One hundred and fifteen thousand children left primary school last year unable to read and write to the "required" standard.

I'm sure very few of them were middle class.

Congratulations. Nearly every child leaving primary school was able to read The Sun.

How ridiculous.

No, it just shows that children aren't leaving school 'unable to read' as reported in many papers. It means that they are able to read, but not at the same inferential level as others (which is the assumed 'required standard'). I was just pointing out that we are not churning out a population of total illiterates.

There will of course be a few children who would always have found reading difficult, and indeed still do. The sad thing is, that reading is needed everywhere now, even to pass a driving test. In days gone by you could get manual jobs without having to be able to read a word, attend an interview, or fill in an application form.

That's 115,00 children "two years" behind Level Four. Level Four is not a high level. It should be "normal" and nothing like what can be achieved. Level 3 involves being able to construct a sentence -- I mean, what on earth have we been reduced to?

The primary years, the years most full of fantastic potential for learning, are being wasted. Maybe not in your class Bunny. But on a huge scale.

Why is it so great that we have achieved "not churning out a population of total illiterates?" How many children is acceptable to you with that level of literacy? 115,000 is not "a few".

This is where it all goes wrong. It becomes acceptable and praiseworthy that we can all read the Sun.

Is there some ghastly feeling that it would be discriminatory to raise the educational expectations of less privileged children? Because it's far more discriminatory to let them rot.

peacocks you saying: '..while children with badly educated parents, in crappy catchment areas and poor schools without enough teaching assistants for large class sizes are being abandoned to failure' Bit of a catch all isn't it? I'm sure there are places that fit that description, but things have moved on in lots too. What Easter talks about in terms of guiding kids through sounds more normal to me. Purely anecdotal, but DS happens to go to a school which I'd guess you'd say fits your description in terms of catchment backgrounds, etc. Yet the school make a huge effort to ensure all the kids have the support they need and the guided reading helps them as part of that as the kids form a unit and learn together and crucially enjoy it so want to read more. They do one-to-one too and yes okay so it's a good school but they do exist. So yes some kids are being failed and it's not good enough that this still happens, but education's never got everyone to read in this country and there's a lot of evidence that things have improved steadily. The old methods weren't statistically any better you know.

peacocks, I agree with Rollmops, it is very possibly a deliberate dumbing down

Why is that a catch all? Do you mean a generalisation? Of course it is Bunny's school supplies enough reading time, there's an exception, and many schools (including faith schools) offer a respite from appalling social conditions of course there are exceptions.

But not enough, by a mile, that's so obvious. The resources have been poured in so where's the failure? The teachers? The methods? I go with the methods. Standards are falling, and an easy acceptance of the "fun" parts of education, without the hard parts coming along for the ride, is going to help none of those being left behind.

Who would do this deliberately? It's dreadful.

Level 3 involves much more than 'being able to construct a sentence'. L1 requires the writer to construct a simple sentence. You can google the level descriptors if you're interested.

We have no comparisons available for how many children could read when they left school in the past. Many jobs did not require people to be able to read. I don't know where you got the figure of 115000 from, or what level they are reading at. FYI 'two years' behind a L4, in national curriculum levels would be L3.

If you can read The Sun, you can read most things that you need to in day-to-day life. It doesn't mean that you can't read if you haven't achieved L4.

Funnily enough, the 'fun' parts of education are literacy, numeracy, guided reading.... what 'hard parts'????? What do you mean?