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

daisiegg

DecentLivingWage wrote: »

If the academy system is good ... then why are they changing it? Can anyone tell me that? How is allowing 'teaching helpers' without their QTS status going to 'help' (apart from being cheaper?)

as a very helpful poster mentioned earlier, many TA s taking 'Reading Booster Sessions' are sub-literate and harm the children s spelling, doing them more harm than good!

Issues to address (yet again:)

1. Funding - there will always be 'bums on seats' as poor children have nowhere else to go.

2 Why would academies hire cheap staff? - when the thumb-screws are turned up in the Autumn budget, they won't have any choice!

Simple - just ask 'Excuse me, but does my son's 'teacher' Ms S have her QTS certificate to teach? Oh really? Why's that then? How come his little pal Johnny is being taught in Mr J's group who's been teaching 20 years? Oh I seeee..... little Johnny's Clever! '

Goodness me, you really are starting to sound like a broken record! I've been reading this thread and not commenting so far, but I really would like to know what exactly your agenda is?!

It has already been discussed in this thread how having QTS does NOT mean someone is a good teacher. I have a good example - a friend of mine who was on PGCE placement with me. He had a first class chemistry degree from a top 5 university, and was doing his PGCE at Cambridge. An absolutely amazing, inspirational teacher. Nothing but praise from his tutors, mentors, teaching placements.

He ended up failing the PGCE and not gaining QTS. Why? Because he was late in handing in an essay - his mistake, he got the dates mixed up. However, it didn't really bother him too much as he already had a job lined up at a private school - which are also allowed to hire teachers without QTS. He is still at that school and hugely successful. He really is one of the best teachers I know and you couldn't find a more dedicated professional; the school is his life. I can tell you he is MUCH better than lots of qualified teachers I know who roll in at 8.30 and are out the gates right on the tails of the school buses at 4.

Just having QTS does NOT mean you are automatically a good teacher.

GobbledyGook

suki1001 wrote: »

But to be honest, that isn't the parents fault. As far as they're concerned their children are going to school to learn to read, because that's what they did when they were at school. That's what I did. I didn't have to do reading every night when I was young and my reading age was good. there were only occasions when I had homework at primary school. Now suddenly when mine start primary school - it's every night.

Unless you are a parent who is fully aware of the school day works, you can't expect them to understand that they should be teaching their children to read, because as children, that's not what they did.

The reason why I struggle with the notion, is because children spend 6 and a half hours learning in a day - why is that not enough? Children should have time to be children and I feel if they get tasks to do everyday at home, then when do they get a break. As I understood it homework was supposed to be a back up. You cannot expect parents to know this is a problem unless they are made aware. Of course they think their children are going to learn to read at school, because that's what they did. That is why children go to school isn't it?

If somebody had said to me can you please make sure you read with your child because we actually don't have time, then that's a different matter to can you please assist your child to read because it's good to do that as a parent.

As a parent, I really struggled some years to have the time, especially when I was working 12 hour days and nights and getting home and having to make tea. I did always explain to the teacher when it was a struggle and it was fine. You can't always assume parents are lying. Sometimes as a parent it is very difficult to have time to do things everyday, because we have to earn a living and fit life around that.

You cannot blame parents when that was how they were taught. No one has explained to them that the boundaries have changed.

Of course secondary school is fine they are older, but 4 and 5 years old - I find that crazy. Do I think I should assist in my children's learning - you bet. But should we be classed as mandatory extra teachers because the school day now has loads of extra things that teachers can't fit in - no, because that's just silly. If it gets to a stage where teachers can't manage, then the education system is wrong. I just don't get how 6 and a half hours isn't enough. Please don't think I'm a silly lazy parent - I am a parent who thinks that a reception child shouldn't be getting homework every day and that if we managed before and had a better level of literacy and numeracy - then something is seriously wrong.

Parents aren't expected to teach their children to read - they are expected to ensure that their child does the homework that backs up the teaching they've had in school. That has never changed. I had reading or spelling every night when I was at school and I'm only 30 so not exactly a million years ago.


Schools and teachers can't win - they are accused of being rubbish and churning out students who can't read or write well, but at the same time are over working pupils by setting too much homework and expecting too much assistance from parents.

thegirlintheattic

I disagree suki. I could read the basics before I went to school, as could almost all of my classmates. Parents and nurseries taught you the basics. Reading in school, as far as I remember, was working your way up the reading scheme encountering more complex words. Hence you only had your 'for pleasure' reading book to take home over the weekends.

Maybe this is the problem, my generation was taught things like letters, counting and reading at home. It was expected that the parents would make a contribution to their child's development; after all isn't that the point of parenting. In the same way, it was almost unheard of for a child to turn up without being able to use the toilet by themselves or dress themselves. Now some parents seem to do very little at home, even the really basics like teaching a child to dress themselves or feed themselves, and expect schools to do it all. I regularly see 5, 6 and 7 year olds being brought to school in buggies - a symptom of a wider issue?

Schools are not asking parents to teach children to read. They are asking parents to support the learning by going over it for 5 mins at home. Even simple things like asking a young child to try to read a sign or using some flashcards could help. If a child practices something frequently and in a range of contexts they will learn quicker.

ViolaLass

masonn wrote: »

No I'm not being sarcastic which is why my post included the phrase "continuous cycle of evaluation", something you chose to cut out.

Evaluation - Making a judgement about, an assessment of.

Or, to use your own words "standing back occasionally and waiting to see what effect the changes have had."

Then I would say that improvement requires constant evaluation, /not/ constant change. Some of those in power seem to think it requires the latter, rather than the former, which was how I read your post.

Mr_Toad

ViolaLass wrote: »

Then I would say that improvement requires constant evaluation, /not/ constant change. Some of those in power seem to think it requires the latter, rather than the former, which was how I read your post.

If you're not going to change what is the point of evaluation?

Education must change, it would be catastrophic if it didn't and the reason it needs to change are the external influences that force the need to change.

Changes in population, the amount of children in the system, changes in local, country and world circumstances.

Available revenue from a constantly evolving and changing society.

Changing needs of society.

How can education ever stand still when the external forces that drive and feed it are themselves constantly changing?

There will always be people who dislike change or who struggle to cope with change but that doesn't mean things should stagnate.

There have been many disasters caused by refusal to change. Fishermen who took everything they could out of the water and refused to manage the fish stocks. As a result we no longer have a fishing industry and stocks of some fish are so low that they may never recover.

A British motorcycle industry who thought that it didn't need to modernise and change the bikes it was producing. An industry that thought people would still buy motor cycles that hadn't changed much for decades. We all know the outcome of that, most of the world now rides Japanese bikes. If the British motorcycle industry had evolved things might have been so different, the world might still have been riding British bikes.

Darwin's survival of the species doesn't just apply to the natural world. Evolution is necessary for survival.

susancs

thegirlintheattic wrote: »

I disagree suki. I could read the basics before I went to school, as could almost all of my classmates. Parents and nurseries taught you the basics. Reading in school, as far as I remember, was working your way up the reading scheme encountering more complex words. Hence you only had your 'for pleasure' reading book to take home over the weekends.

Maybe this is the problem, my generation was taught things like letters, counting and reading at home. It was expected that the parents would make a contribution to their child's development; after all isn't that the point of parenting. In the same way, it was almost unheard of for a child to turn up without being able to use the toilet by themselves or dress themselves. Now some parents seem to do very little at home, even the really basics like teaching a child to dress themselves or feed themselves, and expect schools to do it all. I regularly see 5, 6 and 7 year olds being brought to school in buggies - a symptom of a wider issue?

Schools are not asking parents to teach children to read. They are asking parents to support the learning by going over it for 5 mins at home. Even simple things like asking a young child to try to read a sign or using some flashcards could help. If a child practices something frequently and in a range of contexts they will learn quicker.

I always took the view and still do that the schools role is to support the Parents who are the primary educator of the child. 70% of a child's waking hours once they start school are spent outside of school (includes weekends and holidays).

I believe that children learn more by fun activities and as a working parent would spend time doing simple things to further their education such as counting utensils required at the dinner table, singing phonic, number and multiplication songs and rhymes. Encourage my children to make letter shapes in the air or in flour in a tray, discuss shapes in the environment and use magnetic letters on the fridge for spellings. All these could be done beside me as I cooked the evening meal. The homework my children were set in infants was usually along these lines also, in that they had to count the number of red, yellow, green cars, front doors on their way home and note the results down for the class to see who had found the most in the morning. We were expected to spend 10 minutes out of our day to read each day with each of our children, but if the child found their reading book boring a comic could be read instead and noted down in the reading record and this could be in the morning before work on occassion.

ViolaLass

masonn wrote: »

If you're not going to change what is the point of evaluation?

To find out whether you need to change. I'm not against change per se, I'm against it being considered the most important aspect.

When you've evaluated a certain teaching style, for example, you might conclude that it works and that you don't, at the moment, need to change it. You should still evaluate it now and in the future though.

Changing for the sake of changing is as pointless as not changing.

thegirlintheattic

susancs wrote: »

I always took the view and still do that the schools role is to support the Parents who are the primary educator of the child. 70% of a child's waking hours once they start school are spent outside of school (includes weekends and holidays).

I believe that children learn more by fun activities and as a working parent would spend time doing simple things to further their education such as counting utensils required at the dinner table, singing phonic, number and multiplication songs and rhymes. Encourage my children to make letter shapes in the air or in flour in a tray, discuss shapes in the environment and use magnetic letters on the fridge for spellings. All these could be done beside me as I cooked the evening meal. The homework my children were set in infants was usually along these lines also, in that they had to count the number of red, yellow, green cars, front doors on their way home and note the results down for the class to see who had found the most in the morning. We were expected to spend 10 minutes out of our day to read each day with each of our children, but if the child found their reading book boring a comic could be read instead and noted down in the reading record and this could be in the morning before work on occassion.

This is very pleasing to hear. It's just unfortunate that some other parents don't take your approach.

Mr_Toad

ViolaLass wrote: »

To find out whether you need to change. I'm not against change per se, I'm against it being considered the most important aspect.

When you've evaluated a certain teaching style, for example, you might conclude that it works and that you don't, at the moment, need to change it. You should still evaluate it now and in the future though.

Changing for the sake of changing is as pointless as not changing.

We seem to be making the argument in different words. I've never once mentioned change for changes sake.

Lunar_Eclipse

When we first read about schools converting to academies in the media, it was in regards to 'failing schools', however it's fair to say that some of the best schools in the country are academies, so I wouldn't worry about what a school is called. Personally, I like the idea of schools having more control which they do as academies.

In answer to your question, an academy. It wasn't an academy when we applied/started, but went through the conversion. It's no 1 on the league tables, for what it's worth. We see no change on a daily basis, though they have brought in higher level curriculum & SATS in our primary (level 6) which the school didn't cover before the change.