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

Cory - that's interesting. Despite being in the top set, I also got B in English Langauge Olevel and found the transition to A'level English very tough. At my 6th form college the kids from the private schools and better state schools were prepared for A level in a way that was broader and deeper than the o'level syllabus achieved by itself. But in those days most kids left school at 16 and, certainly at my school - O'levels were an end of the educational road rather than a stepping stone to A' level and Uni.

Language - blame that on my 1970's liberal progressive teachers .

You're right jsb - at my grammar school, only about half the sixth form left to go to university. So it was selection on selection entering university! Secondary modern schools didn't have sixth forms, so no-one would have gone from there. It was only the most motivated who failed the 11+ and went to university (through FE college). How many late developers slipped through the net?

Yeah... 1970s teachers.... did they ever teach - mine only d-i-c-t-a-t-e-d.... - except my chemistry A level teacher who used to leave us to our titrations and chemical shenanigans (Nuffield course, so she was OBLIGED to let us get on with it) while she worked her way through her Benson and Hedges in an abortive attempt to blow up the prep-room!

This conversation has reminded me of that programme that used to be on a Sunday night? On the Move -- anyone remember? Removing the shame from adult illiteracy. It certainly comes to mind when you talk of the numbers who were wholly illiterate thirty to forty years ago. I don't believe there are no comparative figures on adult illiteracy, I haven't checked but I am sure a comparison can be made.

I absolutely see the historical perspective and sadly that's partly because I'm so OLD. I did take O levels 30 years ago, at a comprehensive. We did have highly creative teachers who were old school but demanding. The oldest, strictest, English teacher, who got me an A at A level, spent most of one term constructing a Chaucerian tea party and trying to get us to dress up and make milk chicken. He waved his arms about and declaimed and was anything but liberal and progressive but he was passionate and creative and insistent. My history teacher would have us gripped with debate and my economics teacher god he was old fashioned but fervent -- would have us raging with ideas.

It is simply not true that teachers from more than 30 years ago only dictated, were boring, were unimaginative. What they did have was the highest expectations of their pupils -- in our case a comprehensive motley crew. They made us work and didn't pretend it was easy.

Not all learning can be fun, it's utterly ludicrous to suggest that all learning can be fun. Sorry Bunny, but where is the challenge of overcoming something difficult? If all learning has to be fun, are we teaching our children to abandon something as soon as we stop enjoying it?

Children with no outside support need tools. They need number tools and language tools. If they don't enjoy acquiring these tools shall we not bother? If they don't understand these tools shall we not bother? If it upsets them to learn from mistakes shall we not bother?

How can anyone be proud of what is being achieved now simply because "we don't know what it was like then and it might have been worse"? It's all very well to say that non-college teenagers disappeared off to apprenticeships but it seems many teenagers now are fit for nothing, nothing at all. Have they imbibed the idea that they don't need to do something if they don't like it? They don't know their times tables, they can't spell -- cannot add up the price of two ice creams without a calculator or till. It's an embarrassment. Look how wealthy we are. Look at how much money has been poured in. And this is the kind of gift we give the children who need it most.

How can we be proud of producing children who are not fit for a useful life, just because "years ago they wouldn't have gone to university anyway"?

Children with chaotic lives need school to be a place of commitment, fairness, order, routine, acquirement, expectation and kindness. Learning through play does not mean no learning without play. It is a pathetic underestimation of children to imagine that they cannot learn unless they are having fun.

I would also like to say that I am profoundly unimpressed by teachers who decry the value of one on one reading, but expect the parent to do it at home: and decry the value of chanting times tables, but expect the parent to do it at home. Where does that leave children without good family support?

peacocks, I am afraid the way I increasingly see the problem is that some children are not fitted for academic work. Not to do with class or background, but with brains. In the seventies there were non-academic jobs for them to do, which meant that teachers were not saddled with the responsibility of turning them into university material. Now they are. Is it fair to blame the teachers for that?

Interestingly enough, the Swedish educational system (which has been for the last 20 years completely concentrated on getting everybody educated to the same standard) is now to be reformed: the call is for more training suited to the non-academic students. The experiment of turning everybody into a highly literate, highly educated person who can go on to university, has been a failure- not everybody could do it and not everybody wanted to do it.

My experience of teachers is that some were good and stimulating and strict 30 years ago, whilst others were disorganised and slack or alternatively dictatorial. My impression is that exactly the same kind of teachers are around today (though possibly fewer of the purely dictatorial). The firm no-nonsense teacher with a passion for his or her subject is not an extinct species. And my dcs (fairly ordinary state school) know their times tables far better than their father who was educated at Latymer's. But then they get detentions if they haven't done their homework.

note: the rote-learning I mentioned I was subjected to as a child was in another country

dh who was educated at a state primary and Latymer's, 30 years ago, has never had to learn anything by rote and cannot spell; yet he went to Latymer's on a scholarship so presumably was considered a bright boy (he is in fact perfectly intelligent)

That makes me pretty sick, actually. If they can't learn under this methodology there's something wrong with them?

The less bright NEED learning by rote, learning that doesn't rely on understanding. A certain proportion might never understand but so what, they know. They'll be able to use it. They'll have some decent and appropriate level of achievement. But it doesn't suit our middle class approach that "learning should be FUN!" so fuck em -- chuck them on the rubbish heap.

I really hate that. If their parents won't help, if they're from an unlucky background, they are lost -- the schools won't change because it means learning won't be FUN! It actually makes my stomach churn.

What makes you sick, peacocks?

What I was saying was not that rote learning is wrong, in fact I think it's a very good thing. It's just that as far as I can see, it was not very prevalent in the UK 30 years ago. My dcs and their friends actually seem to be doing more of it than their parents were. I am perfectly happy with that. It is a disadvantage to their father not to be confident about mental maths. It is not happening to his children, though on the face of it he was the one with all the educational advantages. Of course, I wish they did more: I would be happy for them to learn poems and irregular verbs from an earlier age. But it's still an improvement. The students I see on my postgrad courses are the ones who were educated 20 years ago. They have done far less rote learning than the children who are currently in primary.

Where have you got this obsession with thinking children in state schools do everything for fun?

My 9yo does his homework because he gets detention otherwise. His school isn't some kind of superstrict hothouse- it's the norm. Not that he is suffering; he understands perfectly well that it has to be done. But this constant pandering that you go on about in your posts doesn't seem to be happening; it's not actually what I see on the ground.

You seem to be describing a constantly downward trend. I see a trend that is slowly climbing. Not as fast as I'd like perhaps, but anything has to be better than having to explain to intelligent undergraduates that a verb is a doing word. And I don't think I will be required to do that again.

I'm glad you agree about rote learning and I'm glad the obsession that it must never be used is fading. Perhaps it's not you my argument is with: there has certainly been the insistence on this thread that learning should be "fun!", that marking wrong is too upsetting for the children, that one on one reading has limited value and so on. My last child is just leaving primary and all three of mine were educated along these principles. (Only my first was lucky enough to have two years at quite an old fashioned school with an old fashioned parents' rota where every child read three or four times a week one to one.)

It seemed and seems utterly contrary to me to expect parents to do what the teachers were unwilling to do. I felt so sorry for the children whose parents never read with their children or worked numbers. They were being left behind at such an early age and it was NOTHING to do with their brains, and everything to do with the way their education was run. Any improvement is very recent.

Btw your son: I would abandon all homework for primary school children until Y6. Homework at that age is too dependent on a good home situation. Six and a half hours of school is plenty of time. If it's not then something is wrong in the classroom.

Somewhere, back on this murky thread, when I was having an extended debate with you peacocks, I said that we chant times tables at school (everyday in fact)

I also said that we pick up on averyone who isn't reading at home and have them read everyday 1:1 at school.

You say that parents do what teachers are unwilling to do. I think that's an insult. I have banged on and on about extra things we do with the less fortunate children, and you really aren't taking it in. You seem to be so blinkered, you cannot accept that we are trying very hard to 'improve' the vulnerable children. Ofsted now focus on the 'vulnerable', so it would not be in any state school's interest to ignore them.

As for not making learning fun. These are young children we are talking about.... they learn by having fun. I am very interested to know how you think young children should be taught peacocks, as you are so obviously against 'fun'.

Bunny, I've said over and over again that I think you are a great teacher. I'm not blinkered to that. But this debate isn't just about you, and what you do. If you think every school is like yours and every teacher is like you then that's blinkered in itself. I've met a teacher who had to "whisper chant" the times tables as it was against educational philosphy (at the time) and she was banned from doing it. I've been told I'm not allowed to hear children read because "I'm not trained" -- when there was no classroom one to one. Well who the hell is teaching my child to read then? It was me, in the evening, despite my lack of "training". I've been told that it's normal for a teacher to hear a child read once every half term. I've been told to ban my child from using an arithmetical method he could use with efficiency and reliability because it didn't fit the current fashion. I've listened to children read who would not have been heard at all if it hadn't been for the rota I set up. Every school is not your school, every teacher is not like you.

I am absolutely not against fun. I am certainly against the obsession with fun. Fun should not be the kind of priority. Learning through play is age limited and children beyond reception can enjoy non play activities, that are not overtly "fun" at all, and get an enormous sense of achievement out of overcoming difficulty.

And I am completely convinced that what parents do should be "extra", and not "essential".

And wrt fun I'd like to iterate that homework should be completely dropped. Where's the fun in homework? While they've been dressing up at school and having fun, the parents have to ferret around helping with worksheets over steaming pots and pans perhaps with a baby on one arm and two other children's homework. Totally contrary.

Talking about the boringness of teachers in the "olden days" -- that's funny. When I think of the acres of boring worksheets my children brought home. What fun-drainers they were. But hey, so long as they got to throw grapes at each other on Roman day, who cares?

And I've told you that in all KS1 and YR classes, children are meant to receive 20 minutes' phonics lessons EVERYDAY, which teaches tham how to read, write and spell. The name of one of the schemes gives you a clue: 'Read, Write, Inc'.

You were told not to use a different arithmetical method, probably so you wouldn't confuse your child. Why sisn't you just ask the teacher how they were doing at school, and do that at home as well?

It isn't 'normal' for a child to be heard read once every half term.

Most schools have to use similar methods to mine. Mine is not and outstanding school, and I am by no means an outstanding teacher. We are merely following guidelines.

Lessons can be fun - not only play.,

Twenty minutes! Is that all!

Re: the maths. I certainly listened to the teacher. I tried to use the methods at home. There were several methods at school: he was being confused there. Result: inability to function efficiently at arithmetic. Until this week, when I kept him at home and taught him to do it quickly, efficiently, and with absolute certainty. Does he understand it? No. (Neither do I -- have never given it thought although I recently completed OU MST 121 maths.) But he can do algebra, fractions, word problems, using these methods for the arithmetic. He is bright. He was confused. He is no longer.

Don't underestimate yourself. I have come across many teachers I'd describe as outstanding too. All of them are good because of who THEY are and how they operate. Almost in spite of the methodology. In spite of the paperwork. Teachers have the most important job in the world. I hated having to tell my children when the teachers were wrong. I hated it. A change in the methods my children experienced in the last ten years can only be good.

Jeez, twenty minutes.

Twenty minutes concentrated reading spelling , PLUS one hour's literacy lesson (that will involve reading and writing) PLUS the guided reading group PLUS reading/writing in another subject (e.g. creative curriculum, PSHE, RE).

Per day.

Oh my goodness, I seriously thought that meant only twenty minutes a day on language.

my, have just looked in and am amused to see you two going round in the same old circles...? I prescribe a large glass of wine. Go get - I already have mine x

Same here!

My 9yo doesn't need parental input to do his homework (though he is in a lower set and not very bright). It is targetted to his ability, reinforces stuff he has already learnt and he knows what day it has to be handed in on. A 9yo is capable of that much self-discipline. And he has learnt the valuable lesson that if he gets down to it efficiently it won't cut into his playtime very much at all.

Homework that has to be done by parents is of course completely wrong. But I have never done dcs homework and I have never felt the school expected it of me either.

Btw I have never had the slightest problem with telling dcs that a teacher is wrong over a certain issue. Half the extended family are teachers of some sort or another: they know teachers are not infallible. As long as they know you have to respect people even if they get their facts wrong, I see no problem with letting slip that actually, yes I do know more about this than the teacher.

But then I'm an academic: I spend half my time telling my colleagues they are wrong and they do the same to me. I'd hate it if my dcs grew up to believe every word they are told.

I feel the need to tell you girls (all girls?) that I did actually go out last night to a party and drink wine and did not sit here all night on mn

Cory, I still disagree with you about homework, your conscientious son notwithstanding, but I am very interested in what you say about attitude to teachers. I've never heard that before -- the stress has always been on not undermining the teacher. Not to say that the occasional eye roll or "What on earth!" hasn't escaped me ahem but I've really tried hard not to. Perhaps that's why it's come out rather explosively on this thread

Cory - just an O/T question, do you see ability as a pre-determined fixed thing?

Ha peacocks! I so agree. I Remember DCs teacher saying to us once that all children should be taught their times tables at home in prep for year 4. My DC already knew them all because I drilled him daily at home. I asked the teacher why they couldn't spend 5 mins at beginning of class everyday and go over them? Teachers reponse: That time is allocated for other activites. Everything we cover is time tabled in and learning times tables is not the target.

So in other words learning how to perform fractions, percentages etc is the target, but the basic skills that will help them actually master the subject should be left up to the parents. Same with reading. Literacy is the target, constructing sentences etc, but reading fluently and spelling should be left to the parents.

Great if you have good parents or a very self-motivated child. Not great if you don't. Generally speaking those parents who are reasonably well of will do; and those who aren't won't. Where's the equality in that?

2kidz
...'we chant times tables at school (everyday in fact)'

I quote myself... So at some schools, we chant times tables.