secondary school question please

Oldernotwiser

milliebear00001 wrote: »

I could say the same...

All the years I was in and around education my views were usually different from received opinion at the time; it's called independent thought.

Lunar_Eclipse

milliebear00001 wrote: »

The 11+ says nothing about the pure academic ability of children.

It says plenty about what support the child has from their parents, peer group etc. Plenty of children have (and do) fail the 11+ who could do very well academically.

Why do you believe that? Why can it not be the case that most children do actually pass or fail on their own merit? I just don't understand the complete scepticism surrounding one test.

Also, what do people mean when they say talk about supportive parents? I think I'm a supportive parent, who is available to her children. But I don't (have time to) read with my children every day nor to any additional academic work with them whatsoever. They are left to be children; playing outside daily on bikes, in trees, making clubs with their friends etc. They eat reasonably healthy, have a happy home environment, are loved and have a proper bedtime!

milliebear00001

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

All the years I was in and around education my views were usually different from received opinion at the time; it's called independent thought.

Oh is that what it is I thought it was called reading the Daily Mail from cover to cover...

milliebear00001

Lunar_Eclipse wrote: »

Why do you believe that? Why can it not be the case that most children do actually pass or fail on their own merit? I just don't understand the complete scepticism surrounding one test.

Also, what do people mean when they say talk about supportive parents? I think I'm a supportive parent, who is available to her children. But I don't (have time to) read with my children every day nor to any additional academic work with them whatsoever. They are left to be children; playing outside daily on bikes, in trees, making clubs with their friends etc. They eat reasonably healthy, have a happy home environment, are loved and have a proper bedtime!

I am sceptical of any test which purports to 'assign' children to boxes marked 'academic' or 'non academic' at the age of 11. Quite simply, I feel that all schools should be able to cater for all children. Some schools are doing just that so obviously it can be done...I agree though, that it's hard on parents if their schools are not doing a good job (in that situation myself when mine hit secondary age).

As a teacher, I think that supportive parents take the time to read with their kids, sit and do homework with their kids, expose their kids to a variety of experiences, talks with their kids, play with their kids etc etc. Believe me, I have seen plenty of parents who see school as childcare, and teachers as 'interfering establishment' to be avoided at all costs. Parents whose experience of education was so negative that they got out of education as soon as they could and fully expect their kids to do the same. What sums it up perfectly for me, is the time a colleague of mine advised a parent of a reception child that it would be a big help if they read their child's reading book with them each night, only to overhear that parent later saying 'cheeky *****, it's her f*cking job to teach my kid to read'. Similarly, the kids who hit reception not knowing their colours, any numbers or letters, or even how to string a sentence togther. These would be good examples of an 'unsupportive home environment'! In some areas, these issues are very much the norm.

Oldernotwiser

milliebear00001 wrote: »

Oh is that what it is I thought it was called reading the Daily Mail from cover to cover...

I've never read the Daily Mail in my life and I think that's the rudest thing anyone's ever said to me! I read the Guardian for over 20 years, until one dimensional people like you drove me away.

Perhaps if you'd had any actual experience of teaching in a comprehensive, you might not have such a rosy view but that might have involved you in taking off your rose coloured glasses. Most of my clients have chosen primary over secondary because they knew they couldn't stand the horrors of everyday life in this environment; at least they were both honest and realistic.

milliebear00001

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I've never read the Daily Mail in my life and I think that's the rudest thing anyone's ever said to me! I read the Guardian for over 20 years, until one dimensional people like you drove me away.

Perhaps if you'd had any actual experience of teaching in a comprehensive, you might not have such a rosy view but that might have involved you in taking off your rose coloured glasses. Most of my clients have chosen primary over secondary because they knew they couldn't stand the horrors of everyday life in this environment; at least they were both honest and realistic.

I certainly don't plan to become embroiled in a slanging match with you over who knows more about secondary education (I don't know why you think my view of comprehensives in rosy!) nor about the relative difficulties of primary and secondary teaching. Some of your responses have been aimed at me as a person, rather than the situation in schools, hence my comment about your reading habits! Isn't it rather traditional for people of a 'certain age' to move from the Guardian to the Mail? Perhaps you should try it, many of the views you've posted here would fit in extremely well.

Lunar_Eclipse

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I've never read the Daily Mail in my life and I think that's the rudest thing anyone's ever said to me!

As soon as I read the Daily Mail comment, I knew that wouldn't go down well, although interestingly I was a little surprised because I suspected it might not be your paper of choice.

Don't forget the free Starbucks coffee voucher this Friday! But I'm now thinking you're a tea drinker ......

Lunar_Eclipse

milliebear00001 wrote: »

Isn't it rather traditional for people of a 'certain age' to move from the Guardian to the Mail?

Is it? I thought they were somewhat opposite in their viewpoint. Not that I'd know really, but have known of Telegraph-Mail as opposed to Guardian-Mail. Totally off topic now.

milliebear00001

It was a little tongue in cheek! Oldernotwiser reminds me of my father in law!

Lunar_Eclipse

milliebear00001 wrote: »

Quite simply, I feel that all schools should be able to cater for all children.

They should yes, but I think it's unrealistic and wonder if the schools you believe are doing it well are actually succeeding because they don't actually have the full ability spectrum in the school, but a segment of it. Not that there's any way of knowing!

I think I'm not as sceptical about the 11+ because I don't see it as labelling children as 'academic' or 'non-academic'; plus have no experience of it myself so can view it pragmatically for what I see it as. Namely part of the streaming process, of which I am in favour. But my children are unlikely to sit it (I think!)