Does Your Child Go To A Proper School Or An Academy?

DecentLivingWage

Good points all.... sooo... what is the least qualification you would accept for your Academy school new-style 'teachers?' - for example English Language? Would you accept a 'teaching helper' taking a class who had, say a GCSE in English? Or would it need to be an English A level? let's remember we might be talking about that most sacred of all skills - learning to actually read! Maybe some would think a 'good standard' of spoken English would be enough for that!

Sorry, not me! Expert teachers can only teach accurately if they have studied Child Psychology and Educational Psychology - so they can understand and treat learning blocks. I do not want a second-rate school for my child.

thegirlintheattic

Welshwoofs wrote: »

You have to be joking! The only jobs where spelling is not important are those which are solely manual labour and those are getting fewer and fewer. Any other job that involves written communication requires good standards of English.

I'm sorry, but this is exactly why employers get so frustrated with the levels of English that they see from many school leavers and graduates! And just to scare you here, I'm know I'm not the only person in a recruiting position that tosses an application straight into the bin if it has errors in it, because my thinking is very simple - if they can't be bothered to pick up a dictionary, I can't be bothered to interview them.

I'll also add that spellcheckers are a total waste of time if one doesn't even know the difference between words like 'their' and 'there' or 'weather' and 'whether' and that Latin derived words with unstressed endings such as 'our' are American if they don't have a 'u' and that verb endings with 'ize' are also.

If you read my reply I clarify that I meant being able to spell from your head without the use of dictionaries and spellcheckers. We teach our students to find spellings that they don't know by using dictionaries or spellcheckers, and to then proof read their work. General class notes in books are not policed for spelling. My students generally know how to put the words into context, so rarely get words like their and there confused.

Our students are explicitly taught how to write CVs and the like, and understand that their application may not be read if it has errors. Students use the skills they have acquired in the subjects to check their spelling.

Spellcheckers are useful if someone has common sense and uses one that is set to British English.

suki1001

thegirlintheattic wrote: »

Can I prefix this by saying I am talking about secondary, I do feel that spelling itself should be addressed at primary.

I appreciate there should be more effort from the primary schools

I should clarify that I don't think spelling from your head is important in many jobs, as long as you can spot mistakes and use a strategy to correct them. I'm not for one minute suggesting it's acceptable for people to misspell invoices and the like. The majority of my students go onto be lorry drivers or labourers; no spelling isn't the be all and end all in those jobs. I also teach a lot of students with SEN who will always struggle with their spelling, and so are taught how to proof read, use dictionaries and spellcheckers in order to present accurate work, rather than being constantly put down for not being able to spell from their head - something many cannot learn to do.

But most children aren't SEN. How can you know whether you're proof reading it correctly if you don't know how to spell a word? It used to make me laugh when people said predicting text on mobile phones was lazy - you actually have to know how to spell to use it!

There is also a lot of difference between different types of documents, students are generally aware of this. Students have their spelling checked when doing coursework or preparing CVs and personal statements. It is explained to them how important accuracy is in these documents. That is different to their math book in class where they are writing down instructions for themselves very quickly. There is a difference between knowing spelling is important and constantly marking the spelling regardless of context.

But doesn't it emphasise that it doesn't really matter and writing correctly is only important in a formal setting, like wearing work clothes.

As for not teaching students that it's okay to make mistakes, the reality is completely the opposite. Our classrooms are filled with posters saying "Good you're stuck, now you can learn" and similar phrases.

So why not just highlight, so they're at least aware?

The only other way of correcting students (aside from marking) would be spending many hours in class with them focused solely on spelling. This time would IMHO be better spent teaching subject knowledge and skills. For example, I teach a Year 7 who is gifted in my subject, his spelling is really poor but always readable. He is taken out of my lessons for literacy work (which is great), however this means he falls behind in the subject which has upset him. He has the potential to take this subject very far and can self correct spelling when he has access to a dictionary or spellcheck. Where do you draw the line? Does everyone have to be able to spell perfectly from memory (in which case most of the adult population is below par)?

No, but to ignore it in my eyes is wrong. How are they going to ever know it's wrong? You don't have to spend hours going over and over and memorising , just be vaguely aware that it's wrong.

I can appreciate that this is not the most popular view, and in a perfect world I'd love nothing more to spend thousands of hours producing perfect spellers but time is finite, as are resources. There are also students who, no matter how much time is spend, will not be able to learn the skill but will need to find ways of compensating. The way we mark spelling is common throughout secondary schools nowadays.

I should also make clear that I think teachers need good levels of spelling, punctuation and grammar, which was the original point of this discussion. I completely agree with dizzi that worksheets, letters, displays need to be thoroughly checked. My personal notebook - no I don't worry about the odd mistake. It's all about context - which is what, at my school, we teach the students. That is what it is like in the real world as well, you don't send work documents that are not proof-read but a personal e-mail is not as important.

But how are the future teachers going to be able to pass on their knowledge if they haven't been taught it? You have to know something is wrong in order to correct it. How are they going to know when using the spellchecker that color is not how we spell it over here?

You don't want to be spending hours and hours going over spellings, but I don't see why it has to be all or nothing, because it doesn't.

I have to know how to spell, however as a precaution I always use the spell checker just in case, half the time it is wrong, because it either doesn't recognise the word, or it's the American version.

GobbledyGook

DecentLivingWage wrote: »

Good points all.... sooo... what is the least qualification you would accept for your Academy school new-style 'teachers?' - for example English Language? Would you accept a 'teaching helper' taking a class who had, say a GCSE in English? Or would it need to be an English A level? let's remember we might be talking about that most sacred of all skills - learning to actually read! Maybe some would think a 'good standard' of spoken English would be enough for that!

Sorry, not me! Expert teachers can only teach accurately if they have studied Child Psychology and Educational Psychology - so they can understand and treat learning blocks. I do not want a second-rate school for my child.

I'd rather have someone who was educated to GCSE or A Level than a graduate with rubbish class control and an inability to put things in a way children could understand.

GobbledyGook

If primary schools focused more on spelling, grammar and punctuation then there wouldn't be constant corrections at secondary school, except for those who have problems and constant mistakes would highlight that.

suki1001

DecentLivingWage wrote: »

Good points all.... sooo... what is the least qualification you would accept for your Academy school new-style 'teachers?' - for example English Language? Would you accept a 'teaching helper' taking a class who had, say a GCSE in English? Or would it need to be an English A level? let's remember we might be talking about that most sacred of all skills - learning to actually read! Maybe some would think a 'good standard' of spoken English would be enough for that!

Sorry, not me! Expert teachers can only teach accurately if they have studied Child Psychology and Educational Psychology - so they can understand and treat learning blocks. I do not want a second-rate school for my child.

A few decades back when teaching with degree wasn't necessary, standards of English and grammar were higher. A degree doesn't mean someone can teach well. Each person goes by their own merit and skills rather than qualification.

My mother in law was a dinner lady, but I bet she can spell better than many teachers.

suki1001

GobbledyGook wrote: »

If primary schools focused more on spelling, grammar and punctuation then there wouldn't be constant corrections at secondary school, except for those who have problems and constant mistakes would highlight that.

Unfortunately, they take the same attitude as the secondary school teachers. Everyone's passing the buck.

ViolaLass

suki1001 wrote: »

A few decades back when teaching with degree wasn't necessary, standards of English and grammar were higher. A degree doesn't mean someone can teach well. Each person goes by their own merit and skills rather than qualification.

My mother in law was a dinner lady, but I bet she can spell better than many teachers.

Can we please watch the generalisations and the equating of ability to spell with ability to teach?

Not saying correct spelling isn't important, it most certainly is, but so is keeping things in perspective.

GobbledyGook

suki1001 wrote: »

Unfortunately, they take the same attitude as the secondary school teachers. Everyone's passing the buck.

It's not just about buck passing. Personally I think they are trying to cram way too much in to the curriculum.

Part of it is also to do with the amount of time that is spent teaching children to do things that parents should be teaching them. The closure of so many specialist schools was also handled incredibly poorly. Schools now have more pupils with additional learning needs and disabilities, but haven't been given comparable extra resources to deal with it.

There are lots of factors, but I strongly believe they've lost sight of the importance of the basics. Not having those basic building blocks instillied at primary school will impact throughout their entire education - if their English is poor then they'll struggle with French or German, if their basic Maths is poor then sciences like Physics will be more difficult etc. Getting in people like me to work with them for 15 minutes a week is never going to make up for all of the missing bits.

suki1001

GobbledyGook wrote: »

It's not just about buck passing. Personally I think they are trying to cram way too much in to the curriculum.

Part of it is also to do with the amount of time that is spent teaching children to do things that parents should be teaching them.

Like what, because at my children's school, they have spelling, reading, English and maths homework, when I went to primary school my only homework was a bit of spelling, the times tables when I was learning them and some reading. I spend more time supervising my children's home learning than my parents ever did.

What exactly are we as parents not teaching them?