Teaching - an elite profession

ILW

Davesnave wrote: »

The teaching in my many and varied primary schools during the 1950s was pretty poor by todays standards. There was little or no no differentiation of work and the teaching style was almost always didactic.

However, that's what people expected then. It's not what anyone would put up with now.

Were levels of illiteracy etc higher or lower then?

I went to a grammar school in the 70s. Much of the teaching methods would be frowned upon now, but they did seem to produce results. Closer to current public school methods with high discipline expected.

Davesnave

ILW wrote: »

Were levels of illiteracy etc higher or lower then?

I went to a grammar school in the 70s. Much of the teaching methods would be frowned upon now, but they did seem to produce results. Closer to current public school methods with high discipline expected.

It's very hard to compare. Reading tests have changed to reflect understanding as well as the skills of decoding. When I started teaching, it was possible for an 11 year old to have a reading age of 13 and yet perform at a 9 year old level in comprehension.

The proportion of those achieving the expected reading level at age 11 rose from 1999 to 2006, but then plateaued, suggesting that gains made by the Literacy Strategy were running out of steam.

Reading is a minefield with strong adherents to a variety of strategies, but phonics is definitely in the ascendant. I don't think most teachers would argue with that, so long as they are not forced to give all kids the same 'medicine' and nothing else. It's not the natural readers we should be worrying about, but making them quack phonics every morning is a bit of a return to the "rod, pole or perch" of old, not that it did me any lasting damage!

I went to a grammar school in the 60s and it bored me to tears. I'm not sure about the discipline. I had a few thrashings, but I certainly didn't live in fear. As I recall, there was a termly competition for who could receive the most strokes of the cane and/or detentions, but I was never in the running.

ILW

Davesnave wrote: »

It's very hard to compare. Reading tests have changed to reflect understanding as well as the skills of decoding. When I started teaching, it was possible for an 11 year old to have a reading age of 13 and yet perform at a 9 year old level in comprehension.

The proportion of those achieving the expected reading level at age 11 rose from 1999 to 2006, but then plateaued, suggesting that gains made by the Literacy Strategy were running out of steam.

Reading is a minefield with strong adherents to a variety of strategies, but phonics is definitely in the ascendant. I don't think most teachers would argue with that, so long as they are not forced to give all kids the same 'medicine' and nothing else. It's not the natural readers we should be worrying about, but making them quack phonics every morning is a bit of a return to the "rod, pole or perch" of old, not that it did me any lasting damage!

I went to a grammar school in the 60s and it bored me to tears. I'm not sure about the discipline. I had a few thrashings, but I certainly didn't live in fear. As I recall, there was a termly competition for who could receive the most strokes of the cane and/or detentions, but I was never in the running.

Possibly that is an element of education that is now missing.
At times life can be boring and unpleasant, but you learn to live with it. Teaching that only involves the fun bits is rather removed from real life.

Andy_L

ILW wrote: »

You get a holiday every two months?

Public sector?

Why is it a public/private sector thing? Teachers can't really book a Monday and/or Friday to have a long weekend during termtime unlike many other workers

Loughton_Monkey

Andy_L wrote: »

Why is it a public/private sector thing? Teachers can't really book a Monday and/or Friday to have a long weekend during termtime unlike many other workers

Shame....

They can, and do, however, book 'sickies' instead. Which do you think is the more dishonest?

ILW

Davesnave wrote: »

It's very hard to compare. Reading tests have changed to reflect understanding as well as the skills of decoding. When I started teaching, it was possible for an 11 year old to have a reading age of 13 and yet perform at a 9 year old level in comprehension.

The proportion of those achieving the expected reading level at age 11 rose from 1999 to 2006, but then plateaued, suggesting that gains made by the Literacy Strategy were running out of steam.

Reading is a minefield with strong adherents to a variety of strategies, but phonics is definitely in the ascendant. I don't think most teachers would argue with that, so long as they are not forced to give all kids the same 'medicine' and nothing else. It's not the natural readers we should be worrying about, but making them quack phonics every morning is a bit of a return to the "rod, pole or perch" of old, not that it did me any lasting damage!

I went to a grammar school in the 60s and it bored me to tears. I'm not sure about the discipline. I had a few thrashings, but I certainly didn't live in fear. As I recall, there was a termly competition for who could receive the most strokes of the cane and/or detentions, but I was never in the running.

Not sure if it is a fair comparison, but when I left school in the 70s, if you had 2 or 3 A levels you could go straight into professional training at 18 (Surveyor, accountant etc) These professions now want a degree. i am sure the professions have not changed much.

LydiaJ

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Shame....

They can, and do, however, book 'sickies' instead. Which do you think is the more dishonest?

I have never met a teacher that called in sick when they weren't actually sick. I know plenty of teachers who do whatever they can to get in and carry on teaching even when not well. It may be different in other schools, but we are not all routinely taking sick days when we want a long weekend.

lostinrates

LydiaJ wrote: »

I have never met a teacher that called in sick when they weren't actually sick. I know plenty of teachers who do whatever they can to get in and carry on teaching even when not well. It may be different in other schools, but we are not all routinely taking sick days when we want a long weekend.

Lydia, I am sorry to disagree with you, but I do know more than one teacher who does this, in both sectors. One is a 'dog' friend....crufts for each group is on a weekend only two years out of four, and if she wants to compete then....

Davesnave

lostinrates wrote: »

Lydia, I am sorry to disagree with you, but I do know more than one teacher who does this, in both sectors. One is a 'dog' friend....crufts for each group is on a weekend only two years out of four, and if she wants to compete then....

While I'm sure there are teachers who do this, just like people in other walks of life, I'm not convinced that it's widespread or more prevalent now than in earlier times. It's possible to take planned, unpaid leave, and that's what should happen in cases like the one you mention.

Certainly, In the primary sector, once funding for short term sick leave was shifted from the council to individual school budgets, the guilt factor was increased tremendously.

I was responsible for finding supply cover at the time things changed. Teachers who should have stayed at home, were then motivated to drag themselves in, either to 'conk out' at lunchtime, leaving us no chance of finding cover for the afternoon, or stagger through and then have the rest of the week off. It was a lose/lose situation.

Looking at our old School Log, I was always amazed by the number of single days off for "bilious attacks," a problem very prevalent from the 50s to the mid 70s.

But hey, maybe there was a Golden Age before that?

LydiaJ

That's OK lostinrates. You're not disagreeing with me. I don't know any teachers who do that. You do know some. But we know different people, so no contradiction there. I wasn't trying to say it never happens, just that it's not routine for all teachers.