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

martinthebandit

masonn wrote: »

You have addressed the comments in two posts? How convenient to ignore the rest then.

Your comment "Effective teachers need to prove they they have passed the QTS" is surely contradictory. If they are an effective teacher then that's all that matters, whether they have passed their QTS is not relevant as it's effective teachers we need.

There's also a whiff of the pious Victorian know it all in your reference to "the poor" and your assertion that they need to be told what to do and say. It seems to infer that you have a black and white view that links poverty to stupidity.

I suspect that many well educated "poor" would resent your views.

The 'poor' comment did remind me of a particularly patronising teacher I used to know.

DecentLivingWage

I have addressed those points above.

As to 'the poor' I can be as fancy as you like - try 'disadvantaged, exploited,under-privileged,hard-working-families,challenged' It doesn't matter - I am thanked many many times and I will keep fighting for them and help them with the right questions to ask about why some pupils will be 'streamed off' into routes for the 'less able, or 'challenged' and how to make sure their child is not one of them!

Don't believe me? Just type in 'what are studio schools' into google. These are schools which NOT offer the chance for challenged children to go to university (used to be called 'Secondary Moderns.') The Neets and Young Jobless will be hidden in these.

peachyprice

DecentLivingWage wrote: »

I

Don't believe me? Just type in 'what are studio schools' into google. These are schools which NOT offer the chance for challenged children to go to university (used to be called 'Secondary Moderns.') The Neets and Young Jobless will be hidden in these.

Studio schools are entirely different from Academies. This thread isn't about Studio schools is it, it's about your assumption that poor people are thick, too trusting and cannot decide for themselves who is capable of delivering a good eduction.

tea_lover

DecentLivingWage wrote: »

As to 'the poor' I can be as fancy as you like - try 'disadvantaged, exploited,under-privileged,hard-working-families,challenged' It doesn't matter - I am thanked many many times and I will keep fighting for them and help them with the right questions to ask about why some pupils will be 'streamed off' into routes for the 'less able, or 'challenged' and how to make sure their child is not one of them!

So only poor families are hard working? Or all poor families are exploited? Or only poor families need you to speak on their behalf? This is some incredibly patronising stuff.

Not sure what you mean about being thanked many many times either - certainly not on here!

Mr_Toad

DecentLivingWage wrote: »

I have addressed those points above.

I don't recall you addressing the point about why, if a teacher is effective they need to have QTS status. Perhaps you'd indulge us and remind us what you said?

Oh wait, you didn't address that point at all.:(

There are many other points that people have made that you haven't addressed.

Don't tell me, the dog ate your homework.

thegirlintheattic

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-19076852

Interesting article on this theme.

This is the blog it refers to:
http://ioelondonblog.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/the-government-was-right-as-the-2010-white-paper-said-the-best-systems-train-their-teachers-rigorously/

Mr_Toad

thegirlintheattic wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-19076852

Interesting article on this theme.

This is the blog it refers to:
http://ioelondonblog.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/the-government-was-right-as-the-2010-white-paper-said-the-best-systems-train-their-teachers-rigorously/

An interesting article, I haven't read the blog yet but I will.

What we have in that article is one academic in his ivory tower defending other academics, which is only to be expected. He also seems hung up on qualifications rather than ability.

As has already been pointed out, and ignored by the OP and the good Prof., our education system is awash with qualified teachers who are absolutely useless and shouldn't be allowed near a classroom.

Allowing people with real world expertise to teach can only be a good thing. I agree that not all experts would make suitable teachers but not all teachers make suitable teachers.

What I'm starting to detect here is a qualified teacher who can perhaps feel that our education system is finally starting to weed out the teachers who are unsuitable or perform badly and has no answer to those snapping at their heels other than to hold up their qualifications and bleat "You can't get rid of us, we're qualified".

Am I the only one who is starting to think this has more to do with protecting her job, pay and conditions than ensuring the children in our education system get the education they deserve?

I would point out that I don't have a downer on academics or higher education. I myself have a decent education behind me and intend to spend my retirement on more academic pursuits. However, having spent my life so far outside the academic world I know first hand that qualifications are no indication of suitability for any job or profession.

peachyprice

masonn wrote: »

Am I the only one who is starting to think this has more to do with protecting her job, pay and conditions than ensuring the children in our education system get the education they deserve?

I think this little sentence from the BBC article says is all

But the decision angered teaching unions, who said pupils should be taught by qualified teachers.

I can imagine the unions whipping teachers up into quite a frenzy over this.

Mr_Toad

peachyprice wrote: »

I think this little sentence from the BBC article says is all



I can imagine the unions whipping teachers up into quite a frenzy over this.

Yes and they probably think the nation will rise up in righteous indignation behind them. They obviously haven't taken into account that parents want what's best for their children and not teachers.

Given the choice between sacrifice your child's education for the sake of the teachers, or, sacrifice teachers for the sake of your child's education which way do we think parents would go?

DecentLivingWage

thegirlintheattic wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-19076852

Interesting article on this theme.

This is the blog it refers to:
http://ioelondonblog.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/the-government-was-right-as-the-2010-white-paper-said-the-best-systems-train-their-teachers-rigorously/

Thank you very much - knew I read it somewhere!

I think we all realise these 'twee-named' studio schools aren't calling themselves academies - the point was in the general watering down of provision across the board.

Teachers need to have Qualified Teacher Status because it proves they have already shown themselves to be proficient, competent and effective deliverers of educational results in real schools. Anything less is taking a chance on it - do any of you want to do that with your child's future? Thanks, but no thanks, I won't be playing 'maybe' with my son's future career - he only gets one childhood !