|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Feb 11, 2017 0:47:20 GMT
In light of the hub bub over DeVos, now would be a good time talk about education systems, schools, college, the whole shebang, and ask what does actually need to be changed or improved?
Especially curious for thoughts from the teachers among our members. Imagine you have something say concerning exams, unions and averages.
|
|
shutupbanks
Castellan
There’s a horror movie called Alien? That’s really offensive. No wonder everyone keeps invading you.
Likes: 5,677 
|
Post by shutupbanks on Feb 11, 2017 1:52:21 GMT
Teacher here - Australian but with 20 years experience. I also have three kids who have all been through the education system here and who all went to different secondary schools (we have some great specialist programmes for kids who qualify #humblebrag) so I think I'm reasonably informed on what makes a decent school or education system.
I'm a big fan of a standardised, national curriculum. Australia has only got about 25 million people but up until a few years ago every state had its own curriculum. Which is ridiculous given the amount of mobility between the states these days. I'm also a person who has taught in two states and had a little confusion transitioning between the systems. I think that a lot of what we're going through here is applicable to the US experience - we certainly take a lot of our cues from you, so I've been following recent developments with interest.
Pros for a nation-wide education system:
- Everyone is marked against the same criteria which means that flaws in a region can be highlighted (as can successes, obviously). In Australia students sit four tests in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9. The data from these tests is then used to drive our ENTIRE CURRICULUM because they are the only tests that every child sits. There's a lot of passion about these tests (for and against) but they are the only thing that kids across the country have in common with each other.
- Bureaucracy becomes the same everywhere: if a kid transfers from a different state their records can be far more easily accessed, interpreted and adjusted for local standards and procedures if everyone is using the same methods.
- Textbooks and other resources can be universalised. At the moment my understanding is that in the US, states that support "intelligent design" have a stranglehold over the production of some science textbooks because publishers will mass-produce a single text to be sold nationally and produce it for the market that has the most to say about what they want. I don't want to sidetrack the discussion into other issues, but the same is true of other subject areas and particular points of view about subjects: I chose the science example because it is an area of interest of mine.
- Teacher training and qualifications can be universalised and more effective checks and balances can be put into place. I graduated from the University of Tasmania. My degree (at that time) qualified me to teach from K-12, depending on my major area of study (Primary, if you're interested) and was recognised by many international standards of education. The same was not true for teachers who graduated from other universities around the country. I currently live in Western Australia and until the last few years we had different screening methods than other states. Nationally we've recently introduced a "Working With Children" card that people in education, entertainment, sport and several other areas need to get if they want to be able to work around children and get paid for it.
Cons for a nation-wide education system
- The construction of an Australian Curriculum has been slow (rightly so, INMSHO) but a lot of time has been wasted on determining whether or not some subjects (history, literature, science) have been overtaken by "hostile" (from whatever point of view) ideologies - as an example, our history curriculum, which was devised by hundreds of people with knowledge in the field over several years has recently been hamstrung by a tiny committee appointed by our education minister who felt that acknowledging in a couple of areas that European settlement was entirely a good thing for our indigenous population was promoting a "black armband" view of history. It was also felt that English and the Arts didn't focus enough on our Judeo-Christian heritage. It is possible for a lot of time and money to be wasted on the educational version of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
- A centralised bureaucracy doesn't understand a region's needs or dis/ advantages. Life in one part of a country can be different to life in another part of a country and people worry - not without foundation - that some regions will miss out or be penalised for their distance or situation. For instance, I taught fora few years in Northern Western Australia where teaching about the seasons has to be adjusted because the weather in Summer there is different to the Weather in Summer in the south of the state.
- Some states are doing great work and might be forced to dial that back because they need to conform to a "norm." Some teachers also get great work out of students because their teaching style is a little "eccentric" and they'll be forced to become a "drone." Following from this,
- A centralised bureacracy doesn't care about students, just about numbers. A lot of statistics refer to the performance of the "middle 50/ 60%" of students and focus on improving those performances and there are fears that the students outside of that range will be left behind. There's also funding fears based around those sorts of numbers too: although I've seen underperforming schools have funds thrown at them to improve their performance (although the "conferencing" with teaching staff that goes along with that isn't pleasant).
These are just general points and are by no means definitive.
|
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 11, 2017 1:54:55 GMT
In light of the hub bub over DeVos, now would be a good time talk about education systems, schools, college, the whole shebang, and ask what does actually need to be changed or improved? Especially curious for thoughts from the teachers among our members. Imagine you have something say concerning exams, unions and averages. "no child left behind." A great idea, but not really effective. Every child learns at different speeds, and now we know so much more about learning disabilities, and such. It's a huge plus to slower developing children, but I think it hurts some of our brighter kids, by limiting their education. I would like to see some changes to that, and listen to folks who know more than I do about it, for their ideas. I would like to see Drivers education reinstated in my area. I have heard some school systems still have it. But, it's a money thing, at least around here. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2017 4:25:10 GMT
Australian student here. I'm kind of cheating, but the issue to mind feels like an important thing to address. It may have changed in the five years since I went to primary and secondary public school, but there desperately needs to be a conscientious expansion to the mental health and awareness side of the education system, particularly in providing an appropriate support system for students suffering from stress-induced depression and anxiety. Just knowing where to go and building an atmosphere of trust, so that people aren't ashamed to admit that they're in pain would go a long way into making the whole experience less of a hell than it normally is. Year Twelve is a macabre endurance test and there isn't as much for people to lean on as there should be.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorkernow on Feb 11, 2017 10:31:30 GMT
Hello again.
You're right about the need for better mental health support, Wolfie53.
There has been an increase in referrals to Child Mental Health Services in the UK. The service is swamped and schools are presently ill-equipped to deal with students who have anxiety, depression and are self-harming.
In the UK, secondary education needs a thorough overhaul. At the moment to a large extent,secondary schools are holding pens for teenagers who have been switched off learning and go to school to mess around with their friends. We need to give serious thought to our our secondary school education.
What is the point of secondary education?
What should be the successful outcomes of good secondary education?
How is secondary education meeting the needs of the UK workplace?
How can secondary schools help to form positive UK citizens?
Governments need to stop tinkering around while young lives are being ruined due to poor secondary education, too much emphasis on an outdated academic curriculum and lack of support for teachers from parents, government and society.
Young people are despite appearances(!), a precious resource. Surely secondary education must help young people make achievable learning goals and plan how they are going to achieve them.
To end on a positive note. There are teachers, students, parents, local businesses and councils that are making a huge difference to the secondary education of our young people. The trouble is schools are facing a budget freeze. MPs need to be given examples of good practice and reasons why cutting education funding is short-sighted.
We are not stupid. We know the pot of money is small. We need government and Parliament to have an honest conversation with us and to take positive action to get the most out of the money available.
I shall be writing to the Education Secretary as my local MP is useless. If no one tells them anything, there will continue to be a disconnect between government and people. More importantly, after five years, even more young people will be leaving education with nothing worthwhile.
|
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Feb 11, 2017 23:09:50 GMT
The issue of secondary being practically minded is an ongoing one. Some have argued that they should teach things like accounting, banking, basic mechanics, property etc. and yet, secondary is also where one sets up what sort of career they'd like to go in, so you can't exactly cast things like art or history aside.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Wearer of Hats on Feb 11, 2017 23:37:16 GMT
Teacher here, Also Australian, 13 years experience across the spectrum from state run school in low sociology-economic area to private school in capital city to Indpendent schools....
EVERYTHING we do should be to cater as best as possible to the learning styles and needs and desires of our students. Therefore:
We need to change class sizes. It's as simple as that, and not just "make them smaller" but rather "make them as large or as small as the teacher can cope with". This is because some kinds like to be in the crowd and learn better with lots of other kids around them and some kids prefer small classes. Happy teacher, happy class.
We need to change behsviour management from one size fits all to whichever the teacher is comfortable using (within certain obvious parameters). Take an imaginary year six cohort, there are three possible teachers for them, one is very organised, very structured, desks all in rows, no talking etc. Another is very free form, very "chat the problem out" and let's the kids sir wherever they want as long as no disruption to learning is going on. Now, a kid who needs structure would struggle in his class, but would do excellently in her class. A kid who needs to wiggle and butterfly jump from one activity to another would struggle in her class but would be fine in the other class where as long as everything planned for the day is done the teacher is happy.
Schools need to have a character, a feel to them. A uniqueness, and there needs to be no stigma to saying "I don't feel part of the school community" and changing schools. Also, schools need to be able to say "please find another school" easier, if you know what I mean.
We need to stop using NAPLAN or any other standardised test as a gauge of school success or measure for funding. All you get is teaching to the test. It never measures the daily successes (such as Johnny not running out of the room, or Peter not punching himself for getting a questionwrong, or Ron not wetting themselves etc).
|
|
shutupbanks
Castellan
There’s a horror movie called Alien? That’s really offensive. No wonder everyone keeps invading you.
Likes: 5,677
|
Post by shutupbanks on Feb 12, 2017 3:19:25 GMT
Teacher here, Also Australian, 13 years experience across the spectrum from state run school in low sociology-economic area to private school in capital city to Indpendent schools.... EVERYTHING we do should be to cater as best as possible to the learning styles and needs and desires of our students. Therefore: We need to change class sizes. It's as simple as that, and not just "make them smaller" but rather "make them as large or as small as the teacher can cope with". This is because some kinds like to be in the crowd and learn better with lots of other kids around them and some kids prefer small classes. Happy teacher, happy class. We need to change behsviour management from one size fits all to whichever the teacher is comfortable using (within certain obvious parameters). Take an imaginary year six cohort, there are three possible teachers for them, one is very organised, very structured, desks all in rows, no talking etc. Another is very free form, very "chat the problem out" and let's the kids sir wherever they want as long as no disruption to learning is going on. Now, a kid who needs structure would struggle in his class, but would do excellently in her class. A kid who needs to wiggle and butterfly jump from one activity to another would struggle in her class but would be fine in the other class where as long as everything planned for the day is done the teacher is happy. Schools need to have a character, a feel to them. A uniqueness, and there needs to be no stigma to saying "I don't feel part of the school community" and changing schools. Also, schools need to be able to say "please find another school" easier, if you know what I mean. We need to stop using NAPLAN or any other standardised test as a gauge of school success or measure for funding. All you get is teaching to the test. It never measures the daily successes (such as Johnny not running out of the room, or Peter not punching himself for getting a questionwrong, or Ron not wetting themselves etc). Some nice ideas but your solutions all seem to be very teacher-centred. I know that if I was given a class of 30 year 6s while a colleague was given 18 because "we know you can cope with it while XXXX is more comfortable with that size" I'd be a bit annoyed. So would a large chunk of the parent body. Teaching is one of those jobs where your environment changes every year. You have to be able to adapt to that. The smallest class I've taught had 17 kids in it. The largest had 32. Which was I most comfortable with? All of them. I've enjoyed teaching some classes more than others (because every class is full of individuals and I'm a human) but - and this is a bloke saying this - the size didn't matter (But I would love for class sizes - especially in the older grades - to be capped a few students lower). If you have students who can't cope with groups or being alone you cater to that by teaching to a variety of learning styles. I use a mix of group work, individual work, whole class activities, hands-on activities, written work, discussion, multimedia and oral presentation in order to help my students learn in a variety of ways and to teach them to work and problem-solve in a variety of ways and give them strategies so that they can cope with change. I'm not comfortable with some of those teaching styles but I have students who love them and get a lot out of them. Guess how I'm going to teach for them some of the time? Also, my school has a "house style" of teaching that we use - with amendments as kids get older - across all classes. We have a lot of students with language difficulties (immigrant families, refugees, visas, asylum seekers and so forth) so we have a solid routine in place that they become familiar with and which makes their learning as consistent as possible so they can benefit the most from their schooling. It's hard work to begin with and does require some suppression of your "individual style" but it works. And if it works I'm prepared to change how I do things. But school isn't just about learning how many beans make five, it's also a place where you learn about getting along with other people and how to cope with different situations and how to be responsible for yourself and those around you. It's also a place where kids should feel as though they have some kind of place. If a child doesn't some way to fit in then the school hasn't done its job. That said, you can't force children to be friends, just find avenues for friendships and community to build which can be really hard work and not always successful. Behaviour management needs to be a "one size fits all" with the rider that, occasionally, people need some "extra fitting". Kids don't care that Johnny has trouble at home or hates the world: all they see is a kid who gets away with things. Kids work best in a safe environment where there is consistency applied to what they do. I've found that schools with a consistently applied behaviour management plan have less trouble with kids acting up than schools where it's left to individual teachers to sort stuff out, or where one teacher gives you a detention for "A" while another teacher will hand out a warning. I'm all for individual behaviour management plans but there needs to be a consequence if a student doesn't follow rules that the other students can see and not be resentful of. As for getting rid of kids, it shouldn't be easy to do so because that's a system that will lead to kids not being welcome anywhere and while I've worked with a lot of kids who I've "found really challenging to teach" there have nearly always been strategies that a school has had to help that child make better choices. It hasn't always worked but we can't just pass them off to another school and wipe our hands of them. Finally, I agree that test results shouldn't be used as a single measure of success: the idea of "league tables" based on test results is horrible. That said, a school that doesn't prepare students for standardised testing is setting them up for failure. Want a driver's licence? Standardised test. Want to join the army? Standardised test. Filling out forms is a part of life and has been for longer than anyone cares to admit. I've been very lucky and never taught at a school that said "we're only teaching things that have been covered on tests." However, every school I've taught at since NAPLAN was instituted has said, "Look at these results - they show that we're weak in A, B and C. What can we do to fix that?" Tests are a tool but you'd be an idiot to only rely on one tool for everything (sonic screwdrivers excepted, obviously). If a school only teaches to tests then you have to ask why. If they aren't celebrating other achievements, you also have to ask why. (Oops, I said in my earlier post that I wouldn't get sidetracked. Sorry.) |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Wearer of Hats on Feb 12, 2017 4:44:46 GMT
I disagree, behaviour management needs to be a situational response designed to scaffold future behaviours.
"Why is Tim allowed to do X, but if I do it, I get into trouble?"
"Because he's Tim and you're you. We have rules. And we have consequences. And we have an agreement about what the consequences will be. You and me, our agreement is this. Me and Tim, our agreement is different, because that is what Tim needs it to be in order for it to work. It's called a contract.". (more on this later)
A one size fits all, even with caveats will result in children who desperately need additional help being punished for things they cannot control. The way forward is creating an environment where everyone uunderstands the rules but that the consequences for breaking the rules will be their consequences. Consequences they accept result in meaningful punishments.
Let's say the consequence for not doing your homework is to stay in at lunch. Punishment for Tim, but becauae George doesn't like playtime, it's a reward. It won't change George's behaviour. Let's say Billy punches Pihillip to make him go away, the consequence is them being told to stay apart from each other. Billy got exactly what he wanted.
It's not easy, far from it, it's especially requires a deal of self-awareness from the children to understand that the consequence fits the person rather than is solely a proforma of "you did X, therefore Y will happen to you".
What we do at my school is sit all involved parties down and negotiate a consequence. This is done in the knowledge, explicitly stated by the teacher, of what the desired behsviour is. Children then create consequences, both immediate (as a response to what just happened) and future (should it happen again) and all parties agree to them. Negotiations continue until a fair outcome for all (including the teacher) is reached. Does it take time? ohhh yes. Does it work? Ohh yes.
It's not going to be equal, but it aims to be fair.
That's what our BM system should be fair.
To go back to my first example - "This isn't about Tim, it's about you, I will always treat you fairly. If you think Im not say so. But I cannot treat you all equally, because you are all individuals.".
You can't bring "but in the adult world" in the equation of childhood education. It's our job to give them tools in order to develop and cope, not to mould them into a shape to fit. We can scaffold and prepare, hence The Rules. The Expectations. But not The Consequences. Not yet. Because they're not little adults. They're children. They're not cognitively developed that way yet. They're story developing their sense of self, let alone understanding how to slot that self into the machinery of the adult world. It is our job to prepare them to do so, but we do that by arming them with abilities and knowledge, we do that by creating an environment of shared expectations (the rules) but we pad them a little so when they fall short, they get what they, as individuals, need to be able to be part of that environment of shared expectations. Because every single time something happens, it happens for a new reason. The same response might not accomodate that reason to the point of preventing it from happening again.
You might say We're training wheels for adulthood.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Wearer of Hats on Feb 12, 2017 5:17:30 GMT
As for classroom management, I agree we need a blanket "this is what you expect from Saint John Baptiste de la Salle school" approach, as a blanket.
But blankets can be decorated.
Blankets should be decorated.
Going back to the "three year six teachers" example - both classes in question obey the school rules. The differences come in how the teacher structures their teaching to accomodate their students, and no matter how much we like to consider ourselves flexible, there's still only so far we can bend. So why shouldn't that be embraced? Why should the teacher who likes a productive riot be allowed, in fact be "sold" if you will, as the productive riot teacher. Let the quiet and stern teacher sell themselves that way? We know our students.
Parents know their children.
Why shouldn't parents be able to say and see that their children are in a class, learning the same material remember, that suits their needs?
I don't like noisy classrooms, but I can't stand rows of silent scribes. So my classroom is set up in such a way that we can have class chats and discuss things, but also so when it's time to work, everyone does so in a way they're happy with. I had one student who likes to lie down on the floor to do their work. Our rule is "if you can work, and not be distracted or distract others (including the teacher) you can work your own way".
Why shouldn't all the kids who like quiet and order be in the class with the teacher who likes quiet and order?
Why shouldnt the chatty kids be in the class with the chatty teacher?
Who suffers when students and teachers are in personality accord? No one. So why shouldn't schools work like that?
We both know that the Hardest damn thing for any teacher is the "time to find another school" conversation. And you're right, it stigmatise.
Well, let's get rid of that stigma.
That's where the class of like minded works as well - if the right class for you isnt at school X, then it might be at School A. You're not being expelled, your finding your place.
After all, were ALL teaching from the same books these days. A year six class at X school is doing the same things as a year 6 class at school A.
Our job is alwayscwhats best for the students. What's best for them is an environment where they are unstressed, they are physically and emotiomally comfortable and where they feel safe. Where they can learn best. Where they can grow.
We do all we can in our power to do that, but sometimes it's beyond our control. Been there, sure as hell don't want to be there again. So why shouldn't we gave a system where if they fall and we can't catch them, one of our colleagues can?
Back to the training wheels for adulthood, what do you do if you don't like your job?
You kvetch and you find a new one that suits you. Why shouldn't school be exactly the same?
|
|
shutupbanks
Castellan
There’s a horror movie called Alien? That’s really offensive. No wonder everyone keeps invading you.
Likes: 5,677
|
Post by shutupbanks on Feb 12, 2017 10:23:47 GMT
As for classroom management, I agree we need a blanket "this is what you expect from Saint John Baptiste de la Salle school" approach, as a blanket. But blankets can be decorated. Blankets should be decorated. Going back to the "three year six teachers" example - both classes in question obey the school rules. The differences come in how the teacher structures their teaching to accomodate their students, and no matter how much we like to consider ourselves flexible, there's still only so far we can bend. So why shouldn't that be embraced? Why should the teacher who likes a productive riot be allowed, in fact be "sold" if you will, as the productive riot teacher. Let the quiet and stern teacher sell themselves that way? We know our students. Parents know their children. Why shouldn't parents be able to say and see that their children are in a class, learning the same material remember, that suits their needs? I don't like noisy classrooms, but I can't stand rows of silent scribes. So my classroom is set up in such a way that we can have class chats and discuss things, but also so when it's time to work, everyone does so in a way they're happy with. I had one student who likes to lie down on the floor to do their work. Our rule is "if you can work, and not be distracted or distract others (including the teacher) you can work your own way". Why shouldn't all the kids who like quiet and order be in the class with the teacher who likes quiet and order? Why shouldnt the chatty kids be in the class with the chatty teacher? Who suffers when students and teachers are in personality accord? No one. So why shouldn't schools work like that? We both know that the Hardest damn thing for any teacher is the "time to find another school" conversation. And you're right, it stigmatise. Well, let's get rid of that stigma. That's where the class of like minded works as well - if the right class for you isnt at school X, then it might be at School A. You're not being expelled, your finding your place. After all, were ALL teaching from the same books these days. A year six class at X school is doing the same things as a year 6 class at school A. Our job is alwayscwhats best for the students. What's best for them is an environment where they are unstressed, they are physically and emotiomally comfortable and where they feel safe. Where they can learn best. Where they can grow. We do all we can in our power to do that, but sometimes it's beyond our control. Been there, sure as hell don't want to be there again. So why shouldn't we gave a system where if they fall and we can't catch them, one of our colleagues can? Back to the training wheels for adulthood, what do you do if you don't like your job? You kvetch and you find a new one that suits you. Why shouldn't school be exactly the same? I think we're in agreement on most points, just disagreeing on their delivery: I prefer consistency across a school to provide a support structure for students as well as providing a wide variety of strategies and problem-solving skills for future use; you prefer a more individualistic approach. Each method is valid, providing the wider school community is on board with this happening, and the needs of the school and the students fit it. But while I don't see school as a training ground for adulthood, it is a preparation for that so I'm on board with students being taught that there are consequences - that can be modified if needs be - to their behaviour and that they need to be aware that other people will rely on them and look to them for help as part of the social contract. I can't agree with you on all the points about "finding a school that fits", though: I've seen some students whose parents drag them from school to school making the same mistakes over and over again without stopping to think that they might be a part of the problem and that they need to do something as well as the school to solve it. Schools and students aren't fits sometimes, though, and I think parents have the right to take their children elsewhere as a last resort. But the school shouldn't be a part of that decision unless they are recommending that the child has educational or behavioural needs that can't be dealt with at that school. |
|
|
|
Post by anothermanicmondas on Feb 12, 2017 14:01:59 GMT
My mother used to teach at an infant school (UK) and is happy to have retired before things got too bad.
She was still involved when the early drafts of the National curriculum were requiring schools to teach how to use a sun dial.
key problems include:-
too many teachers forced out of the classroom to do administative work
league tables of which schools have the best pupils pressuring schools to take on the brightest and exclude the less able and more disruptive pupils so they can get their average as high as possible.
This sometimes leaves a single school getting all the worst pupils in the area (because all the other schools have excluded them) and so get closed down as failing schools
|
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 13, 2017 9:47:18 GMT
I still wish we had more local complete schools, back in the early part of the 20th century, a local school defined it's community, everyone was involved, not just parents and teachers, but folks who lived near the school. Now, there are just 3 high schools in this county, and the one our kids went to had students from 7 different primary schools.
One of the worst things about having the ability to choose what school your child goes to, it makes some schools, naturally recruiting. What I mean is, Greeneville, has been a dominant team in football for a decade now, all the best players want to go there, and since one of their parents probably work in Greeneville, it's no problem to take them. My cousin is the head girls basketball coach, and she hates it when I tell her that Greeneville is a natural recruiting school, she agrees but it still burns her up, she was a college coach for years, and knows that South Greene is the lead natural recruiter for girls basketball, 5 state titles I think, over there, so now she gets to try n beat them.
Anyway, local schools have lost their way, and before long, I expect fewer and fewer total public schools everywhere in this country, It's far more cost efficient to build bigger schools and hire fewer administrative personel, just hire more bus drivers instead. It's a shame, really.
|
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Apr 1, 2017 14:33:33 GMT
A stronger bridge between higher education and the jobs market. Not saying a dgree should come with a guaranteed job, but there needs to be something better than just chucking students off an abyss, inadequately prepared.
|
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Apr 6, 2017 1:02:48 GMT
An equality of respect between, to put it very very generally, labour and academia. So we don't have ridiculous nonsense of mistrust of experts in their field just because they've had further education, and we also don't have snobbishness/elitism from those who have towards those who who labour. And labour is indeed a catch-all term that includes service workers.
I realise that that isn't strictly speaking education but concentration on either to the detriment of the other is not a good thing, nor is concentration on only STEM subjects in further education.
|
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Apr 21, 2017 9:31:38 GMT
I can't agree with you on all the points about "finding a school that fits", though: I've seen some students whose parents drag them from school to school making the same mistakes over and over again without stopping to think that they might be a part of the problem and that they need to do something as well as the school to solve it. Schools and students aren't fits sometimes, though, and I think parents have the right to take their children elsewhere as a last resort. But the school shouldn't be a part of that decision unless they are recommending that the child has educational or behavioural needs that can't be dealt with at that school. What are some of these common mistakes? |
|
shutupbanks
Castellan
There’s a horror movie called Alien? That’s really offensive. No wonder everyone keeps invading you.
Likes: 5,677
|
Post by shutupbanks on Apr 21, 2017 12:10:49 GMT
I can't agree with you on all the points about "finding a school that fits", though: I've seen some students whose parents drag them from school to school making the same mistakes over and over again without stopping to think that they might be a part of the problem and that they need to do something as well as the school to solve it. Schools and students aren't fits sometimes, though, and I think parents have the right to take their children elsewhere as a last resort. But the school shouldn't be a part of that decision unless they are recommending that the child has educational or behavioural needs that can't be dealt with at that school. What are some of these common mistakes? I'm putting on my "Judgy McJudgeface" hat here, so apologies in advance, but I've heard at least three parents say in my hearing, "My child is having this problem, just like they did at their last school." In one case they even added, "and at the school before that." These are not academic problems but issues that arise from interacting socially with some other students. These are instances, I believe, of the parent/ child believing that they are doing nothing wrong but that the fault lies with other people. Repeatedly with other people. Continually with other people. It is never something that they can do anything about because they are perfectly harmless and blameless and shouldn't have to modify their behaviour in any way, shape or form when interacting with other people. It's other people who have to change, it seems. </rant> Parenting is a tough job - I've done it myself and having seen three kids through school and into grownuphood I know that it never ends - but some people are more concerned with helicoptering and ensuring that their child is thoroughly wrapped in cotton wool and never encounters any difficulties at all, often at the expense of their child's social wellbeing. 99 times out of 100, though, when a situation is explained parents are totally on board with consequences dealt out to their child, though. (Pro tip: if a parent ever says the words "I know he/ she is no angel..." NEVER EVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES agree with them. It will not end well. Trust me.) I've never worked at a school that says students should be treated unfairly or their problems ignored. They've all at least tried to deal with any bullying or other issues that crop up. I've never seen it swept under the carpet or ignored. Dealt with poorly on occasion, unfortunately, but never ignored. |
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Apr 21, 2017 23:06:04 GMT
From a trending facebook post by a secondary English teacher. This'll be split up: What I am concerned about are the cuts that the Conservative government are making to education - huge, life-changing cuts that are having a detrimental effect on the mental health and well-being of a massive number of children and young people. This is going to be long, but if you have children, please bear with me and read to the end. 1. The new GCSE system Michael Gove started his annihilation of the A*-G GCSE system back in 2010, and this year we see the first string of examinations take place. "More rigour" was the battle cry. However, did you know that the new GCSE English Literature exam - including the poetry exam, requiring study of an anthology of 15 poems - is closed-book? This means that no student will be given a copy of the text in their exam - not even SEND (special educational needs and disabilities) students, many of which have recall and memory problems. The GCSE English Language exam uses extracts from heritage texts that carry a reading age of approximately 17. The average reading age of a GCSE-level student is 14. So why are we asking our students to read and analyse texts that are aimed at someone with a reading age 3 years above their own? Some of my students have a reading age of 9. They cannot in any way access the papers. In addition to this, the papers are up to 2hrs and 15mins long, often with a high number of questions - the Edexcel GCSE English Language paper 2 is equivalent to a mark a minute. I am seeing students who want to succeed breaking down as they simply cannot fit it all in - to understand and then interpret a text in such a small amount of time is extremely difficult for some students, and so what we are seeing is an increasing number of students switching off from their education as they simply write themselves off as 'stupid'. You can see the Edexcel GCSE papers for English language here: qualifications.pearson.com/…/GCSE-English-Lang-SAMs…I can only speak for English as it is my subject, but what I know is in existence across the whole curriculum is this: the Conservative government and Ofqual have released a new 9-1 grading system - but have only just, one month before GCSE exams commence, launched any real model of what each grade looks like. For the last two years, teachers have been working to help students achieve grades without knowing what those grades look like. We were told that a 9 was an "A**", reserved for the top 3% of the country, and we were told that a "good pass" would be a 5 and equivalent to a high C/low B, and that a 1 would be equivalent to a G, but that's it. Last month, they even changed that - making the new "good pass" a 4 for students - but to add insult to injury, kept the "good pass" at a 5 for schools when being graded for league tables. Confused yet? Imagine working in it. We still don't know how the new GCSEs are going to be graded. We probably won't know for sure until after the exams. The Conservative government are talking about "rigour" whilst simultaneously asking us to teach a system that has such little "rigour" that nobody even knows what a student needs to do to achieve a 9 grade. Schools are in disarray as they know one thing to be true - if their GCSE results are bad, Ofsted will swoop in, prepared to announce them as "requiring improvement". This will happen despite the fact that even though we have repeatedly asked for clearer guidance and clarification on exactly what we can do to help students achieve the best they can, we have not been given anything. Nothing at all. The goalposts are *still* moving, even now - and some of your children are sitting these exams in less than a month. We are risking entering a time where the Key Stage 4 curriculum consists of teaching to the test and not much else. This goes against everything that most teachers stand for. Teaching to the test is boring. It doesn't help students to love their subjects; it kills any enthusiasm they ever had. Last week, I had a 90-minute discussion with my GCSE English group about whether Hyde (from Stevenson's story) was really a person. It ended with the students asserting that Hyde was never a person; he was not even a personality - Hyde was simply an excuse. These GCSE students - aged 15 - critically evaluated the novel and its interpretations, deciding that Jekyll and Hyde is actually a story about choice, rather than split personalities or hidden evil. It was incredible. I walked away worried that I'd wasted an hour and a half of exam practice. This should not be happening. |
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Apr 21, 2017 23:06:47 GMT
2. Excessive Testing at Ages 7 and 11 I am going to give my professional opinion on this, as someone who works at the chalkface: these exams are completely arbitrary and do not test the skills required for success at GCSE and in adult life. This year, I had a cohort of Year 7 students arrive at my school having not written a proper story for over a year. They knew what a fronted adverbial was, and how to spot an internal clause, and even what a preposition was - but when I set them a task to write a story, they broke down and cried. They cried. I asked them to write a story - something that should be incredibly enjoyable and an adventure, regardless of your level of ability or need - and they couldn't do it. They knew the nuts and bolts, sure - but had no idea how to put them together in any meaningful way. They had ideas, but no confidence. My year 7 cohort had some of the highest SATs scores we could have hoped for - many of them with scaled scores of 115 and higher (scaled scores go from 80-120, with 100 as an 'average'), but their first creative writing piece was a huge failure, and I felt like a failure. We've since done a huge amount of work on story writing and creative motivation to develop their confidence and bring their marks up, but this has taken time from us that could have been used to develop their analytical skills, to develop their use of imagery and tone, to help them become more critical thinkers. I should not be teaching students how to piece a story together at secondary school. I completely agree that students need to leave primary school 'secondary ready'. However, I do not think that testing students' ability to identify grammatical items over their ability to compose a creative piece is the best way to do it. It only increases student anxieties when they arrive at secondary school only to find that they have no idea how to approach their secondary-level subjects. I have a firm belief that testing students does not make them better learners. What should be happening is this: teachers should be being given the freedom to develop their students' motivation, creativity, critical thinking, enthusiasm and, most of all, their passion. Students with passion always, always succeed. This Conservative government seem to think that "rigour" means taking education decisions out of the hands of teachers. Michael Gove - a journalist - started this course of action. He criticised us when we told him it would not work, and pressed ahead regardless. Multiple studies have shown that the mental health of children is suffering under this government. This has been known as far back as 2015: www.independent.co.uk/…/over-focus-on-exams-causing-… with 90% of teachers agreeing that SATs preparation is harming students' mental health: www.tes.com/…/nine-10-teachers-believe-sats-prepara… |
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Apr 21, 2017 23:07:07 GMT
3. Grammar Schools We do not need grammar schools. We don’t. If we increase funding to all state schools to a level reflective of needs, allow teachers to develop a ‘grammar curriculum’ (lots of extra-curricular, increase independence of teachers), give schools ‘grammar resources and invest in better pastoral care (decent behaviour interventions that selective grammars don't need) then we won’t need grammar schools. Don’t let Theresa May fool you. The Conservative government say that working class students need a decent chance to succeed, and so she wants to build grammar schools above investing in local state-run facilities? Riiiiight. It’s a clear fact that house prices in catchment areas are higher. It’s a clear fact that middle-class families usually spend on tutoring and so more middle-class children get into grammar schools. Why do we need to build more schools when we can just give more money to existing ones? It’s easy to improve a school. Stop cutting funding and invest in decent support services. Which leads me to… 4. Cuts to Funding When I entered teaching in 2005, most classes had a learning support assistant (you may know them as a TA). These people were incredibly important - they worked with SEND students, BESD (behavioural, social and emotional difficulties) students, assisted with students who had been absent or were having trouble accessing the curriculum and they did this on minimal pay, with minimal complaint. I once taught a class where two girls, twins, had complex SEND needs, spoke no English, could speak Arabic and German but couldn't read it, and had no social skills. My TA was incredible, and she developed a whole scheme of picture-based activities for them to help them become happy, capable members of society. This government have cut spending on education to the point where these TAs are rare, or simply don’t exist. Now, teachers are asked to develop the progress and achievement of these students alone. If your child is dyslexic, they no longer have the ‘luxury’ of a TAs attention or time – instead, it is their teacher’s job to accommodate them. Believe me, this is something we want to do. If we had the ability, we’d break off a little bit of ourselves and sit with them as much as we could. However, the average class size is 30, and this is impossible. We are told we are failing when our most vulnerable students do not achieve, but when you have 30 students, it’s not always easy to give every vulnerable student the time you wish to give. TAs allowed every student to progress and achieve as they allowed the class teacher time to develop clear schemes of work that could be worked on separately to the class, alongside the main learning. Now, dyslexic students are at the hands of often newly-qualified teachers who are still developing their differentiation skills and do not always have the time or resources to make good things happen. This is a direct result of funding cuts. This isn’t just about SEND students, either. The excessive cuts to education mean that many schools are now in a situation where they are considering making cuts in the curriculum and getting rid of specific subjects, usually the arts: www.independent.co.uk/…/education-schools-struggling…Students today are being denied the opportunity to access the arts – the subjects that make them well-rounded thinkers, evaluative learners and creative, motivated individuals. I find it hard to stomach that due to excessive Conservative cuts, students are going to miss out on drama class, or art class, or music. That they may never know the joy of a school play, or what it feels like to be told to make their own song, or to find their groove when looking at characters in Shakespeare. Why the arts? Well, because they don’t add “rigour” – the new E-Bacc asks schools to focus on students getting English, maths, science, a language and a humanities subject – there is no requirement for arts. When you’re a cash-strapped school and you face a poor Ofsted report if your results are bad, why would you waste time and money on a qualification that, to the government, doesn’t count? These decisions are being made every damn day, because the government have headteachers over a barrel. You must succeed. You must get above average pass rates (which is in itself ridiculous; there will always be half below average). You must push out students with E-Baccs. If you don’t, we will academise you. Are we here to provide exam factories that churn out identikit students? We’ve already seen a cut in vocational qualifications and a rise in mandatory GCSE resits in English and Maths. Therefore, if your daughter has her heart set on becoming a mechanic, she may not have the opportunity to even access a course until she is 18 – in the past, she could have done this at age 14, by choosing a vocational mechanic course as an ‘option’ – but hey-ho, these have been cut. Instead, she will have to do the same GCSEs as everyone else, and if she can’t get that “good pass” in English, well, then she’ll just have to resit. And if she doesn’t get the “good pass” the next time, well, she’ll just have to resit again. Until she is old enough to walk away. Why are we putting our students through this? Why aren’t we nurturing a child’s natural enthusiasm? I taught a GCSE class back in 2009. It was a ‘bottom set’ class; they made my life hell but overall, were decent kids who just hated English, one of only two subjects they did at school as the rest of the time they were out doing vocational courses. They mainly got Ds in English, despite my best efforts. One own his own garage now. One runs her own hairdressing business. One builds motorbikes. One runs his own farm. Nowadays, these students wouldn’t stand a chance. Cuts also affect the level of pastoral support that exists in schools. The best schools invest clearly in the wellbeing of their students by providing them with mentors, non-teaching year leaders, behaviour liaison officers and pastoral teams. Remember ‘Educating Essex’? Those ladies in the office who worked with the kids to get them back into class and enjoying education? Those are the important people. Those are the ones we are losing. To end this massive rant, I want to point you towards the amazing-yet-horrifying website ‘School Cuts’ – www.schoolcuts.org.uk. It allows you to look at any school in the country and see the level of cuts, with a calculation of how many teachers it is equivalent to. I don’t think many people in the UK really understand what we are up against here. |
|
