What do we think.....would this improve grades at secondary level?

[Verbena37]

I was thinking whilst chatting to two teacher friends today......what if, rather than continuing the primary (mainly KS 1 and 2 rather than reception), primary schools employed specialist teachers in ALL subjects?

I honestly think this could dramatically improve teaching and outcomes. So instead of a teacher, for example doing a degree in education or a degree in history and then doing a PGCE), they do their specialist primary subject (maths/English/science/French/PE/Humanities and music and then do a PCGE.

After that, they teach from year 1-6 only in their specialist subject.
Obviously many primaries already employ specialist language, PE and music specialist teachers but surely this proposal would be cheaper and more effective (for continuity) way of teaching.

Wouldn't specialist teachers from year 1 ensure a better quality of teaching ....especially in core subjects? I'm really NOT trying to annoy current primary teachers but just looking at an easy way to update and improve our state education system.

The two teacher friends both agreed that it was a possible idea that could work,

I think the new curriculum gives schools a lot of freedom in how they cover the statutory requirements.
Yes they've moved some expectations to earlier years but they've also removed others totally ... If anything it's slimmed down.

especially when she insisted to DD that 40 was not quarant !!

Your DD's teacher was right, OP.

It's quarante

Heehee, that was a typo suburban

I think the maths curriculum is, and always has been, too much. And I'm no fan of the new History curriculum, a missed opportunity I think.

I think DS would have benefitted from separate and more formal subject experts for years 5&6, he's about to start yr 8 and has just enjoyed the separate subjects so much in yr 7 , and as a result, performance improved. But DD is about to start yr 5 and she is different, extremely quiet and shy, still very attached to her class teacher and ta, learns loads only if she is happy and settled and it still takes a long time each year for her to settle. The 2 years when she had a series of teachers ( for a variety of reasons ) were awful, she was unhappy and went backwards in her learning. I only have 2 kids and can't answer the OPs question, not sure what percentage of kids would benefit from having specialist subject teachers earlier.

I don't think platooning would be necessary or practical for the younger kids, but I think it can work well for kids over 8 or so. Some schools (esp. some private and prep schools) already do this to an extent.

I am a bit puzzled by the idea that even older primary children couldn't cope with having different teachers. Come on, 8+ aged children are not toddlers--they need teachers, not mummy figures.

I think more specialist teachers for the older primary kids would result in more rigorous and academic teaching. How exciting to think of kids being taught history, maths etc. by specialists in those subjects.

Some secondary schools are moving to the primary model

no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no

This idea is a complete non starter.

1. Young children perform far better when they have consistent, long term relationships in school, so the fewer the number of teachers the better. I'd even argue against having so many in early senior school, and have long felt the dip in attainment is due to the disruption of relationships.

2. There are no specialist teachers. There is a 60% shortfall in some subjects. The idea that you could populate primary schools with specialist teachers is totally mad. We can't populate secondary schools with them.

Personally, I would like to see an overlap between primary and secondary, with class teachers from primary becoming the tutor in secondary, while continuing to teach some subjects. Unfltunatly this would only work when the whole class moves to the same secondary school.

I agree with thenewstatesman in that children from KS1 could quite easily cope with multiple teaching staff for different subjects. And I'd much rather that then (like in my children's school) them be moved and split up from friends every year or two years.....to teach them it's good to make new friends.....WTF? My poor children have just, after each year, gotten used to the children in their class and then they get new class lists and they have only one friend in the class where they spend most of their time.

I'm pretty sure it's the friends they make and get on with that ensures consistency in progress.....rather than staff.

holberg

What about the DCs who don't have big kitchens or gardens or live in rented flats? Shouldn't they get to learn about cooking, gardening & DIY at school?

For secondary I went to a private school where lots of the pupils had come through the private primary where they had specialist teachers increasingly through the years. Those DCs were at a huge and obvious advantage compared to the ones like me from state primaries with 1 teacher.

" Young children perform far better when they have consistent, long term relationships in school,"

They would actually have longer-term relationships with platooning of specialized teachers than with the one-year-one-teacher model. You would get to "grow up" with the same maths teacher for several years.

Exactly statesman and yep, still feeling that cooking, gardening,DIY isn't as stupid suggestion as Holberg suggests. They are no different than a school choosing to teach mortgage and banking stuff to kids so they can manage their own money as adults.....which is something some schools have said would really help make kids more self reliant.

I am fine with schools covering cooking to a certain extent, provided it is done in a knowledge-rich way (not just goofing around with food, but learning the names of different ingredients, how they work, how they are used, where they come from and how they are produced) etc. Ditto with growing plants in the classroom, to reinforce learning about plant biology in the early grades. The teacher should be using this as an opportunity to teach the names of plants, the different parts of the plant and how they provide food, photosynthesis, how plants were originally domesticated and so on.

Really bono fide gardening, though (as opposed to just having a few plants growing in the background) takes up a lot of time and is not within the remit of schools IMO. Schools are fundamentally supposed to be about academics, not "life skills."

if you believe school is only about academics perhaps you need to look again. Life skills are vital for later success that's why PSED, Communication and Physical development are prime learning areas in the first years and Maths and English aren't. There is also a reason why children are expected to have a "key person" in their school ...to provide security and stability through continuity ... Continuity ...not someone they see for an hour per day (possibly for more than one year but teachers move on).
My school has its own allotments where children grow food to cook to eat ...(as do many academic independent schools) they learn about working together and responsibility and healthy eating. They learn how plants grow and how their bodies work. They learn how to prepare healthy meals safely. They learn where food comes from and the world they live in and many, many other things that you seem to be dismissing.

I don't think school is entirely about academics of course, but I'm a bit wary about the creeping trend of putting more and more things into the curriculum--from financial literacy to extremism-prevention. If you read my post, you will see that I specifically talked about the importance of children learning where food comes from, which is why a certain amount of time spent on things like plant-growing is important.

I am fine with schools covering cooking to a certain extent, provided it is done in a knowledge-rich way (not just goofing around with food, but learning the names of different ingredients, how they work, how they are used, where they come from and how they are produced) etc. Ditto with growing plants in the classroom, to reinforce learning about plant biology in the early grades. The teacher should be using this as an opportunity to teach the names of plants, the different parts of the plant and how they provide food, photosynthesis, how plants were originally domesticated and so on. I think you'll find that most good primary teachers cover this. I certainly did.

Derxa, I hope that is the case too. I have only limited knowledge of how things are done at the moment in British primary schools, as I am living overseas.

Yes I read exactly what you said about planting some seeds in the classroom being ok but real gardening not being in the remit of schools ???? and schools fundamentally being about academics not life skills ????

If schools cannot teach children life skills alongside academics, I think it's a real shame. So many of the current school generation are leaving school with no knowledge of how to make a cup of tea (seen on another thread), let alone understand understand how to manage their finances, buy a house, plant a garden and harvest veggies.

As an example of how times have changed, my grandfather could knit with birds, my dad learnt proper carpentry and my mum learnt to hand sew so beautifully. Today, kids leave school with a levels in history, maths, English, and geography etc but can't sew a button on, iron a shirt for work, cook scones or plant a row of potatoes. Times have changed I know, yet it's a shame that people can't see how beneficial learning true life skills in school isn't a good idea.....and I don't mean just as an after school club or at lunch times.

iPad typo......knit with biros not birds !!

Of course schools can do both (and do - even making cups of tea and planting rows of potatoes) which is why it's utterly ridiculous to say they shouldn't be.

Ok I'll bite. What's your problem with RE (former middle schook RE HOD)

I have no problem at all about children being taught that some people are religious and I agree that it's important to teach children about morality and compassion for the beliefs of others.

However, I believe that no school should teach a faith. The reason C of E schools exist in the Uk is from when the Church originally introduced schooling... because the church was a body who wanted to keep families coming to church and they could afford to fund schools.

Times have changed though. I believe that if a family wants to be religious and follow a religion, it can be taught by the family at home and the children taken to their church if the family chooses.

I want my children's school to teach them about other religions of course, but this doesn't mean an hour a week (or more) for every year they are at school.

I don't disagree with teaching ethics and philosophy but I don't think there should be a religious aspect to it either.

With the hour away from RE, other enriching subjects, such as cookery could be taught.

Mrz: I was referring to the amount of time that could usefully be spent on activities like gardening.

I think that incorporating activities such as plant-growing into the curriculum to reinforce science and geography content is a great idea; in fact, I think it's essential.

However, if very large amounts of curriculum time were being spent on gardening (or cooking, or handicrafts), to the detriment of academic subjects, then that would be a problem.

I have occasionally come across some rather "alternative" schools which have tended to spend very large amounts of time on gardening and forest school and crafts and so on, while academics in the strict sense get very neglected; back in the 80s I attended an international school in Hong Kong that was rather like that, actually. Lots of puppet-making and outings and wildlife treks, not much in the way of studying. Needless to say, I was seriously behind in subjects like maths when I made it back to the UK.

I would not say that this kind of approach is the norm in primary schools in any country, but where it does occur I have a problem with it. I am also concerned, as I said, that there has been a tendency in recent decades to stuff the school curriculum with more and more things (much of which arguably falls under the category of social work rather than teaching). making it very difficult for even very conscientious teachers to fit it all in.

Could you please try to be a bit more courteous in the way you respond to posters on this thread? I just had a read through your various contributions in this thread, and you come across as quite snarky and defensive. I have not seen anyone on this thread simply slagging off primary school teachers as a group--just offering suggestions.

verypunny

I fail to understand why the county council doesn't employ specialist teachers to cover those three schools, doing a day in each, for example.

Ah, let me help you out with that. The half of primaries that are not academies do not have any money. The half which are academies don't want to spend their money on that.

There are a few around but it's not necessarily a great deal for the teacher to travel from one school to another teaching a couple of lessons then leaving.