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

Mr_Toad

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!)

What about all those children out the now being taught by highly qualified failed teachers?

You seem to assume that everyone who has a teaching qualification is a great teacher and anyone without that qualification couldn't possibly make a great teacher.

You fail to answer the questions people have asked and address points points other people have made and trot out the same tired phrases.

Haven't you worked out yet that a lot of the people don't agree with you and whatever your agenda is?

For years this country has had to put up with poor schools as well as the good ones.

All parents are interested in is getting a good education for their children and so far all those children that have been let down by our education system have been taught in what you like to refer to as proper schools staffed by qualified teachers.

suki1001

ViolaLass wrote: »

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.

I honestly think in terms of the basics, the baby boomers had the highest standard of education and therefore any one of them would beat you hands down, even if you think your standards are very high. Most 60 year olds are very good at mental arithmetic - are most newly qualified degree level teachers?

The argument is whether teachers who have experience, but not degrees are going to make a school rubbish and fail our children. I'm afraid I have very little faith in our degree system and can recognise that a degree shouldn't just mean that you are automatically a good teacher. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to lump you all together, however not all teachers are good as you are aware, the op seems to think that the degree should be our yardstick and I'm afraid I don't agree - it doesn't necessarily mean they are getting a good education.

Janepig

suki1001 wrote: »

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.

It's my understanding that, certainly in this area, there are far more qualified primary teachers than there are vacancies, so you've got alot of LSA's now who are actually qualified teachers who can't get work as teachers. The teacher who will be taking DD in year six started in the school as a TA afew years ago because he couldn't get work as a qualified teacher, then one of the other teachers left to become a headmaster elsewhere and the TA got his job.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, it's much the same where I work (not in teaching), where jobs that were previously secretarial in nature, have now become more administrative, and whilst the qualified staff now have to type up their own work and do the things that their "secretaries" used to do, the admin staff, including our receptionist, have mostly got degrees. With little or no work available locally for graduates in their chosen field, they get taken on for that sort of work because employers think better qualified equals better at the job, when imo it doesn't.

Jx

suki1001

Janepig wrote: »

It's my understanding that, certainly in this area, there are far more qualified primary teachers than there are vacancies, so you've got alot of LSA's now who are actually qualified teachers who can't get work as teachers. The teacher who will be taking DD in year six started in the school as a TA afew years ago because he couldn't get work as a qualified teacher, then one of the other teachers left to become a headmaster elsewhere and the TA got his job.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, it's much the same where I work (not in teaching), where jobs that were previously secretarial in nature, have now become more administrative, and whilst the qualified staff now have to type up their own work and do the things that their "secretaries" used to do, the admin staff, including our receptionist, have mostly got degrees. With little or no work available locally for graduates in their chosen field, they get taken on for that sort of work because employers think better qualified equals better at the job, when imo it doesn't.

Jx

I know, that's the thing - anyone who doesn't have a degree is going to be hard pressed with the competition. In my friend's situation, she'd had enough of journalism and really just wanted something simple that she would enjoy and it seemed that was the same situation with many of the applicants, she could have walked the editors job at the local rag if she'd have wanted it - the school was spoilt for choice and I think it will be to our children's benefit rather than their detriment in this instance.

Janepig

suki1001 wrote: »

The argument is whether teachers who have experience, but not degrees are going to make a school rubbish and fail our children. I'm afraid I have very little faith in our degree system and can recognise that a degree shouldn't just mean that you are automatically a good teacher. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to lump you all together, however not all teachers are good as you are aware, the op seems to think that the degree should be our yardstick and I'm afraid I don't agree - it doesn't necessarily mean they are getting a good education.

I always prefer to see my children with the older teachers. The teacher DS had in the nursery class is nearing retirement and she was fantastic. I didn't have quite so much love for the teacher he had in Reception, but she was also older, and was soon able to suss DS out and how to "handle" him if you will. Same again with the teacher he's had this year, who has been amazing with him after working him out quite quickly and how to get him to knuckle down.

He's got a much younger teacher this September, who I didn't particularly like when DD had her, DD wasn't keen either, although some of the other parents speak quite highly of her, as does DH . I didn't find her particularly approachable and I am a bit worried about how she'll handle DS. Not that he needs particularly special treatment or anything, and it's drummed into him by us how to behave, it's just that he's very easily distracted and needs to be kept on a very short leash. He has tended to "push" his teachers in the first week or so of the new term to test the boundaries, but once he knows the limit he's been fine. I'm not sure if this teacher is going to like that approach .

Jx

DecentLivingWage

Oh No... I can't believe this... you haven't even heard about the new 'Primary Academies' have you... God, they sure kept that one quiet! Yes, lads and lasses - unbelievably i truly meant 'learning to read' as in Reception! HeadsUp everyone...opening soon on a site near you (or just changing your school's name sign!)

GobbledyGook

suki1001 wrote: »

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.

No they don't, but if you can imagine the kind of parental support that goes on up the school from parents who send their child to school unable to do any of the things mentioned.

Even if it only takes the teacher a couple of months to teach all of those things that is a couple of months of other things being missed out. So by the end of reception the whole class (because it does impact on the whole class) are slightly behind where a class would have been when, for example, I was at school (I'm 30).

Add in the extra items on the curriculum and the time taken away from the basics to cover those,the increasing workload in disruptive pupils and unsupportive parents and by the time children are finishing primary school they are considerably behind the levels that would previously be seen as acceptable.

It's all little things starting from very early on in their education that combine together to lower the standard.


Good teachers and bad teachers come in all ages. I personally think the spelling and grammar ability of teachers has got lower, but that may just be the area I worked in or pure luck or partly because they are not as picky because they don't have to be so for their classes under the current formats. Older teachers are a mixed bag for me, some are fantastic (as are some of the younger teachers - the teacher my eldest will have next year is a young teacher and she is brilliant by all accounts), but there are a lot who should have retired years ago. There are some, both young and old, who seem to hate children so much I don't understand their chosen career path!

suki1001

GobbledyGook wrote: »

No they don't, but if you can imagine the kind of parental support that goes on up the school from parents who send their child to school unable to do any of the things mentioned.

Even if it only takes the teacher a couple of months to teach all of those things that is a couple of months of other things being missed out. So by the end of reception the whole class (because it does impact on the whole class) are slightly behind where a class would have been when, for example, I was at school (I'm 30).

Add in the extra items on the curriculum and the time taken away from the basics to cover those,the increasing workload in disruptive pupils and unsupportive parents and by the time children are finishing primary school they are considerably behind the levels that would previously be seen as acceptable.

It's all little things starting from very early on in their education that combine together to lower the standard.


Good teachers and bad teachers come in all ages. I personally think the spelling and grammar ability of teachers has got lower, but that may just be the area I worked in or pure luck or partly because they are not as picky because they don't have to be so for their classes under the current formats. Older teachers are a mixed bag for me, some are fantastic (as are some of the younger teachers - the teacher my eldest will have next year is a young teacher and she is brilliant by all accounts), but there are a lot who should have retired years ago. There are some, both young and old, who seem to hate children so much I don't understand their chosen career path!

As a parent I wish we worked the same way as on the Continent. See this:

"Finnish pupils start formal education at seven and then enjoy 11-week summer holidays - and they end up with the highest educational standards in Europe."

At school I think children are expected to do things too early and before they are ready, some children are ready, my dd was. I was well aware my son had the concept of maths and numbers before he started school. He could do simple sums - he just got it, he knew how many spaces he had left in his tummy according to the availability of the number of puddings. (He couldn't finish his dinner if there were two puddings, because he would only have two spaces left! - to me that's a child who gets it). However being the type of person he was, he wasn't going to be pushed into sharing this information, and if I did he would clam up. We spent a whole year in reception with the teacher's permission, not doing his homework because he just wasn't ready for formal learning - he was busy learning through play. I'm glad i didn't push, because he's now just gone through year three and flown through it and has not only caught up, but overtaken his classmates, because he was ready (has been since year 2, but has been very ready this year - and had a better teacher). I wish children were taught more readily at their own pace in primary rather than the teachers having to try to get them at a set level according to age. I realise this isn't the teachers fault btw!

Perhaps if we didn't push, then teachers wouldn't be trying to cram so all the skills in one go. It's a bit like trying to toilet train before they're ready - you save a whole lot of hassle if you do it when they're ready, rather than when you think they should.

SingleSue

My boys go to an Academy (changed over to one last September) and I can honestly say, there has been no 'dumbing down' in the teaching at all. If anything, they have encouraged the students even more in their strengths and assisted them to improve in their weaknesses.

The staff there are actually the same staff that was employed when it was not an academy with only a few new members....but all very qualified to teach.

DecentLivingWage

That's really good to know - as I said before for the last ten years many academies have been beacons of excellence and i want them to stay like that. The move to allow them to hire cheap unqualified 'teaching helpers' is a worrying slippery slope, Hope you'll keep an eye on what your governors are doing and on all vacancies posted and new 'staff appointed' so your sons' educational experience stays of the highest calibrre - I'm sure they desrve it!