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

suki1001

ViolaLass wrote: »

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.

But the generalisations are standards of education - of which spelling is just one of them.

So therefore, I would trust my mother-in-law to teach a higher standard of education (that's the basics - the 3 Rs), than I would some teachers who have degrees.

DecentLivingWage

The point is that 'academies' don't have to hire qualified teachers (ie teachers who have passed their induction!!) So some of you could end with 'teaching helpers' who are actually failed teachers, students whose English wasn't good enough, or sulky teen apprentices! Your child will never get these years back (and it costs a lot to redo exams later!)

GobbledyGook

suki1001 wrote: »

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?

I'm talking about things that they should come to school able to do and/or should learn as they go after being taught at home.

So fastening their coat, holding a pencil, putting on their shoes, changing into their PE kit, sitting still for longer than 3 minutes, recognising their name, tying laces (I still can't believe the amount of parents who get their children lace shoes when they can't do them up), wiping their bum and washing their hands.

That's before you get onto the parents who don't bother about homework and those who expect their children's poor behaviour to be sorted out by the school without any input from them.

I was party to a conversation last year where after 3 months of school the teacher and HT called in a child's parents about his behaviour. His mother commented that she herself was going to ask for a meeting with the school because she was unhappy that they hadn't "taught him to behave yet". Just 1 or 2 children/families like that per class and there is a huge chunk of your teachers time taken up on things other than teaching.

GobbledyGook

DecentLivingWage wrote: »

The point is that 'academies' don't have to hire qualified teachers (ie teachers who have passed their induction!!) So some of you could end with 'teaching helpers' who are actually failed teachers, students whose English wasn't good enough, or sulky teen apprentices! Your child will never get these years back (and it costs a lot to redo exams later!)

Are you going to address the point about the funding of academies and their need to have good results or just be determined that academies are going to automatically have rubbish teaching standards?

ViolaLass

suki1001 wrote: »

But the generalisations are standards of education - of which spelling is just one of them.

So therefore, I would trust my mother-in-law to teach a higher standard of education (that's the basics - the 3 Rs), than I would some teachers who have degrees.

I meant the generalisations you were making about all teachers. I'm a young teacher and my standards of spelling and grammar are, I think, as high as any teacher's ever have been. Don't lump us all together as 'bad at spelling' and 'low standards'. There have always been bad teachers and good teachers; what's changed is how we judge the difference.

suki1001

GobbledyGook wrote: »

I'm talking about things that they should come to school able to do and/or should learn as they go after being taught at home.

So fastening their coat, holding a pencil, putting on their shoes, changing into their PE kit, sitting still for longer than 3 minutes, recognising their name, tying laces (I still can't believe the amount of parents who get their children lace shoes when they can't do them up), wiping their bum and washing their hands.

That's before you get onto the parents who don't bother about homework and those who expect their children's poor behaviour to be sorted out by the school without any input from them.

Are we talking reception level here? Children go to primary school for seven years - you can't tell me teachers are spending the whole of those seven years teaching children those skills? Apart from tying shoelaces (they had velcro shoes), my children could do all of those things before they started school. My son was told what exceptional listening skills he had in playgroup and reception, not all children are like this.

thegirlintheattic

I agree that primary schools pack a lot in. In my day (and I'm not that old!) we did English and math everyday, some reading, some art, some topic work, some science and some PE. If you could not do your 3Rs you were pulled out by the TAs when the other subjects were being taught to improve.

Our local primary school spent the two weeks at the end of term on the Olympics. From what I gather from the child across the road this involved colouring pictures, watching videos and lots of PE. Whilst I can't be 100%, he mentioned nothing that involved much math or English. Was this the best use of time?

Primary schools also teach my specialism but we end up having to re-teach it all in Year 7 as students have been taught different things, some of which are not right, others have only been taught some of the things but not others. I do think primaries would be better off spending the time on the three Rs.

balletshoes

DecentLivingWage wrote: »

let's remember we might be talking about that most sacred of all skills - learning to actually read!

learning to read - from scratch - at a secondary school? Forgive me, dunce parent that I am (you know, having chosen to send my child to an Academy), but I was under the impression that children learned to actually read in primary school? My daughter and her classmates certainly have.

suki1001

DecentLivingWage wrote: »

The point is that 'academies' don't have to hire qualified teachers (ie teachers who have passed their induction!!) So some of you could end with 'teaching helpers' who are actually failed teachers, students whose English wasn't good enough, or sulky teen apprentices! Your child will never get these years back (and it costs a lot to redo exams later!)

Stop being such a drama queen - the academy school in our area is one of the best schools. Why do you assume they want to employ people who aren't good at their job? It's not in the child's interest, but it is also not in the school's interest.

An example: My friend applied for a teaching assistant post. She has a music degree, a journalism degree and worked for the broadsheets, after she'd had her children she wanted to work as a TA and applied. When she didn't even get an interview, she called the school, who said they'd had solicitors etc, etc and that the standard was very high. All for a very low paid job. While they weren't James Dyson etc, they were people most parents would have been very happy to have been assisting their children, something a lot of teachers would not have been able to bring to the table.

peachyprice

DecentLivingWage wrote: »

The point is that 'academies' don't have to hire qualified teachers (ie teachers who have passed their induction!!) So some of you could end with 'teaching helpers' who are actually failed teachers, students whose English wasn't good enough, or sulky teen apprentices! Your child will never get these years back (and it costs a lot to redo exams later!)

How many more times.

Just because a school is an academy it doesn't mean it's going to start failing it's pupils by doing as you suggest. Poor schools may but are already failing their pupils, good schools with a reputation to protect are unlikely to. Your so-called 'Proper schools' are doing this already anyway, albeit illegally.

Enough with the scaremongering already.