Angry, upset and annoyed or over reacting rant

gregg1

Counting_Pennies wrote: »

I think we will have to agree to disagree.

I have never said over achievers should not be taught more complicated subjects. The opposite, they are streamed so the high achievers are in different classes. I object that they are given additional teaching resources outside of the school hours at additional expense to the school, when others are not given the additional help.

Why can't the middle achievers who are also streamed into a class of their own get additional teaching hours to get them up to the next SATS level.

It has to be fair.

I have worked in the teaching profession and my OH teaches secondary and I have to agree with you on this one. My OH works at one of the top ten state schools in the country and they quite blatantly hone in on the high achievers and push them ferociously. Then you have the kids who misbehave, are taken out of the lesson and given one to one tuition so as not to disrupt the high achievers. What is left are what we used to call the invisible children. The ones who are in the middle. The ones who quite possibly have the ability to do well but, because time and attention are focussed on the two extremes, very often lose out on achieving their potential because they did not receive the same level of attention and help.

It is very wrong and extremely frustrating if your child falls into that void (as one of mine did).

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

gregg1 wrote: »

I have worked in the teaching profession and my OH teaches secondary and I have to agree with you on this one. My OH works at one of the top ten state schools in the country and they quite blatantly hone in on the high achievers and push them ferociously. Then you have the kids who misbehave, are taken out of the lesson and given one to one tuition so as not to disrupt the high achievers. What is left are what we used to call the invisible children. The ones who are in the middle. The ones who quite possibly have the ability to do well but, because time and attention are focussed on the two extremes, very often lose out on achieving their potential because they did not receive the same level of attention and help.

If more time and attention was genuinely and routinely given to the kids needing it, I wouldn't be working with adults struggling at Entry Level 1 who don't have language issues, who don't have behavioural issues, learning disabilities or anything other than the legacy of teachers focusing on the middle kids.

Dunroamin

Jojo_the_Tightfisted wrote: »

I would have hated grammar school.

My interests and motivation were (and still are) music and art. With a side order of mechanical/technical subjects.

Now, had they kept techs (but let girls in) and art schools, then I would have been happier. Especially as I would have gone to the one in my town, that spewed out a lot of musicians and artists in the seventies.

Grammar schools offered Music and Art up to A level (at least mine did) but, as a female, no school would've offered mechanical/technical subjects to girls in my
time. There were certainly technical schools for girls, although not offering subjects that would interest you and art schools have always been part of tertiary education rather than secondary.

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

Dunroamin wrote: »

Grammar schools offered Music and Art up to A level (at least mine did) but, as a female, no school would've offered mechanical/technical subjects to girls in my
time. There were certainly technical schools for girls, although not offering subjects that would interest you and art schools have always been part of tertiary education rather than secondary.

Formal musical education isn't really what I had in mind, though - and I know the age for entering Art School - where I live, they got rid of everything at the same time. In the name of treating everybody the same, as I remember - my sister went to grammar school and hated it because it was so relentlessly academic, my brothers went to the nearest high school and enjoyed it for the first three years, then moved on to the grammar school once it was changed to a comprehensive. They were average kids and did fine, because everything was planned with them in mind. My sister complained that, after years of being pressured, once the school changed, her year and above were largely ignored on the grounds that they were clever, would pass their exams anyway, and it wouldn't be fair to the majority.


The only lessons I enjoyed and put any real effort into at secondary school were Art, Graphics, Woodwork, Metalwork, Technology - that kind of thing. Strangely enough, all taught by older staff who were used to working in Secondary Moderns and Techs. And none had a problem with teaching girls or kids that needed 'different' levels of input - they were familiar with meeting the needs of the less academic kids due to their previous intakes, so found it natural to adapt their teaching styles. And they didn't see it as unfair.



I don't have a problem with sitting with a couple of adult learners who had the lowest skills in their initial assessment. The entire class has been let down as children by nobody stopping to ensure they understood their work - but some still need more help than others. Nobody in the class is upset, resentful or threatened by somebody needing more help than they do. Odds are that many wish they'd been able to get that extra help twentyfive years ago, when it wasn't deemed fair to give it.

mandragora_2

Seanymph wrote: »

the school are marked on C's and above. So they only need your son to get a C.

They are marked on 5 C's per child - so they need all kids to get 5 C's.

.

This isn't quite right nowadays - though you're right, it was the case in the past. The current drive is for 'three levels of progress', which is basically a measure of how far the child has come since Key Stage 2; the other key measures for schools are what the data looks like for pupils across the board, so their top 5 grades 'including English and Maths', and, coming school to a school near you, the ebacc subjects about to push their way to the 'significant things to measure' list.

There are many sad (and dark) things about what's been happening to education in the recent past, not least of which is the government's astonishment that by exhorting all to greater and greater "progress" and "achievement", and setting up systems that seem to reward as much tactical and strategic thinking using 'league tables' as a measure, that schools have felt pressured to adopt any techniques which will give them an edge over similar schools locally. Turn it into a game, with scores and league tables, you will get teachers planning strategically. That has led to the situation that many schools in England have faced this week of having a change in education policy dropped on them from out of nowhere which is applicable with immediate effect, but not backdated to the 'early entry in June of year 10' candidates. It's all very well for Gove to posture and make grand gestures, but up and down the land this week there have been year 11's going into school expecting to sit an exam in English and/or maths in the next few weeks, and finding out that now they're not going to be doing that.

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

mandragora wrote: »

This isn't quite right nowadays - though you're right, it was the case in the past. The current drive is for 'three levels of progress', which is basically a measure of how far the child has come since Key Stage 2; the other key measures for schools are what the data looks like for pupils across the board, so their top 5 grades 'including English and Maths', and, coming school to a school near you, the ebacc subjects about to push their way to the 'significant things to measure' list.

There are many sad (and dark) things about what's been happening to education in the recent past, not least of which is the government's astonishment that by exhorting all to greater and greater "progress" and "achievement", and setting up systems that seem to reward as much tactical and strategic thinking using 'league tables' as a measure, that schools have felt pressured to adopt any techniques which will give them an edge over similar schools locally. Turn it into a game, with scores and league tables, you will get teachers planning strategically. That has led to the situation that many schools in England have faced this week of having a change in education policy dropped on them from out of nowhere which is applicable with immediate effect, but not backdated to the 'early entry in June of year 10' candidates. It's all very well for Gove to posture and make grand gestures, but up and down the land this week there have been year 11's going into school expecting to sit an exam in English and/or maths in the next few weeks, and finding out that now they're not going to be doing that.

Gove's all about making things harder for anybody to fulfill their potential unless they are just like he was as a kid. It's not based upon raising standards, it's personal ideology masquerading as policy.

squibbs25

Quick update to you all, I've not long received a phone call from the maths leader, the exam is not going ahead in November as due to recent government changes - although the English one is!

daisiegg

mandragora wrote: »

This isn't quite right nowadays - though you're right, it was the case in the past. The current drive is for 'three levels of progress', which is basically a measure of how far the child has come since Key Stage 2; the other key measures for schools are what the data looks like for pupils across the board, so their top 5 grades 'including English and Maths', and, coming school to a school near you, the ebacc subjects about to push their way to the 'significant things to measure' list.
.

Oh, not just 3...5 for lots of students in my school! :cool: Is a nightmare. Makes me want to give it all up.

Lavendyr

Jojo_the_Tightfisted wrote: »

I would have hated grammar school.

My interests and motivation were (and still are) music and art. With a side order of mechanical/technical subjects. .

I went to a grammar school and you could do music and art up to A Level, as well as all ranges of technology - woodwork, electronics, design etc. Think you are generalising a wee bit!

mandragora_2

squibbs25 wrote: »

Quick update to you all, I've not long received a phone call from the maths leader, the exam is not going ahead in November as due to recent government changes - although the English one is!

That's a fib. The exam will go ahead.It's a published timetable from an external body. It's just that your child's school has decided it's not in their interests as a school to enter your child for it (presumably along with a whole slew of other pupils). Your child could still do it, and I'd want to know why, if it was the right thing for your child to do it on the 28th September, why it's not the right thing for them now. The ability to 'bank' good marks and carry successful components forward and retake the elements they want to improve is still there for your child - not a single thing has changed for them. It's just that Gove has done what no other person in his job has ever considered doing before and changed the rules just as the kids are coming up to the exams. Not only is he d*cking about with the profession now, where we get paid to turn up every day, and so it's a choice that we make; the logical consequences of his 'moving the goalposts' two minutes before the final whistle is that he's now affecting the pupils themselves. This to me is what puts him and his cronies beyond the pale. If it was my child, I'd be hopping mad and on the phone to my constituency MP in a heartbeat - and either just before or just after, on the phone to the school, demanding to see the head and the chair of govs.