Thread: Purgatory: School closures Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000923
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
There is a lot of discussion in the media today about school closures.
If teachers are not in work everybody notices. I wish this would lead them to appreciate us more.
I want to note that we are not employed as childminders. Would that we were paid childminders rates!
Schools are closed when not enough teachers can get in to school for there to be a safe ratio of adults to children. (Due to traffic chaos, road closures etc) Some of our teachers travel for an hour to school on normal non-snowy days.
I know it inconveniences parents but surely they prefer that to their children being packed in the hall with a couple of TAs as used to happen in the past?
What do you think Shipmates?
[ 10. April 2013, 05:55: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Difficult one. From my own selfish perspective, two points:
1. I had to go into work yesterday and Friday. Two reasons: (a) I had completions to do and clients were relying on me being there to be able to move house and (b)if we didn't turn up, we wouldn't have earned any money. The other private sector people with whom I had dealings on those two days (estate agents, fello solicitors, mortgage advisers, bank staff, etc) all managed to turn up too, so I'm not quite sure why we were able to do it and the local teachers apparently weren't...?
2. Teachers, whether they like it or not, are effectively being increasingly relied upon for childcare in an age where you have single-parent households or where both parents work. One of my fellow-parents was bemoaning the fact that she had to take the day off work on Friday not because she couldn't get into work but because the school was closed and she couldn't arrange child care, There is therefore a big 'on-cost' to families and the wider economy when schools are closed.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Thing is, Matt, I doubt if your office is located in a village 2 miles from the nearest A road
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Schools are closed when not enough teachers can get in to school for there to be a safe ratio of adults to children. (Due to traffic chaos, road closures etc) Some of our teachers travel for an hour to school on normal non-snowy days.
This could easily be solved if "snow days" were declared across a borough and every teacher had to go into the school closest to them.
I imagine that more schools would stay open if teachers didn't get paid for snow days like people in the private sector.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
My wife is a teacher and has got cross by this media attention, which she regards as yet another "knock-the-teachers" story. After all, they (teachers) are clearly responsible for all the ills which afflict or society today.
I think - certainly for Primary Schools in rural areas - the change from small local village schools to larger more centralised ones has had its effect. In the past teachers lived in the School House and children walked to school (except from outlying farms) - now nearly everyone has to drive or must rely on school bus services, and it is often these rural roads which do not get cleared in snow. It's notable that most of the schools which closed here in Suffolk were rural ones, not the ones in town (although one teacher in my wife's school, who lives in a small village, did not get in to school yesterday).
However there is another side to this which leaves a nasty taste in the mouth! My wife went to school as normal yesterday (by bus as I am unable to drive at present). She got to school on time and noted that not only the roads but also the pavements near the school had been gritted. But only half the children turned up, even though this is a town and the vast majority come on foot. On her journey home (she only works part-time) she saw four children from three families out and about rather than in school. So the parents thought nothing in keeping their children "off" - yet they may be the very same ones who complain if school is shut.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Parents keeping their kids off when teachers can get in is likewise unnacceptable.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Thing is, Matt, I doubt if your office is located in a village 2 miles from the nearest A road
Neither is our kids' school ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
[ 22. January 2013, 09:13: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
This could easily be solved if "snow days" were declared across a borough and every teacher had to go into the school closest to them.
Possibly, but don't forget the complexities of the (English) education system nowadays with the existence of LEA schools (all 'locally managed'), Academies, Free Schools and the like ... teachers can't just swap from one to the other and issues such as the eligibility of CRB forms, contractual employment and budgetting would inevitably arise.
What you are suggesting might have worked in the past (although even then it would have led to lots of telephoning and organisation); today I think it would be unworkable.
[ 22. January 2013, 09:16: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
Keyboard jockeys need to read about incidents like this
Abercarn School Bus - South Wales Argus
before rushing to conclusions.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
My school made the call to open late (8.30am), and it was the wrong decision. I live 15 mins walk away, but some teachers live an hour's travel away on a good day. We called in supply teachers to cover the gaps, and closed at 1.30pm, because the weather was exactly as forecast.
I genuinely appreciate the disruption to parents that it causes (because I am one). But there are statutory adult-to-children ratios to consider along with duty of care obligations not just to the staff, but to the pupils as well.
The weather yesterday was filthy. The snow was exactly the wrong temperature, and there was an awful lot of it. Sometimes everyone has to accept that moving many thousands of children around an area where visibility is low and the probability of accidents high isn't the smartest thing to do.
Also, Leprechaun: sure, because teachers are completely interchangeable.
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on
:
My eldest's school was closed yesterday as it is a village college with a large rural catchment area and the school buses were cancelled, so quite reasonable. I can also see why they would be cautious if the school buses were still running; a heavy snowfall later might mean children and teachers stranded for several hours. I do not drive and the school is 4 miles away so we are rather reliant on buses.
My youngest's primary school was open but most of the staff and pupils are local. They seldom close.
I am quite certain schools do not close so that everyone can have a fun day off. As an ex-nurse who has walked across fields through all sorts of weather to get to work I can honestly say that, despite what the media says, not all public servants are skivers.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Also, Leprechaun: sure, because teachers are completely interchangeable.
Who says they are? But the issue raised was that its unsafe because the ratios aren't good enough - which could be solved by teachers going to their nearest school. Undoubtedly this wouldn't be a great educational experience, but needs must and all that.
Mind you, I do accept Baptist Trainfan's points about rural schools and decentralisation means my solution is probably not workable.
I live in a major city and nearly all the schools were closed on Friday when there was less than 2cm of snow. I can't think of a single other job where the snow would have been regarded as a legitimate reason not to be in work. Parents were in the impossible situation of having to be in work, but their kids teachers not being. I think there must be a better solution to this somewhere.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Lep - your interpretation appears to be "teachers are nesh and it's all their fault they could get in if they wanted to or were forced to by facing losing a day's pay?"
That's a bit of an accusation that requires some pretty good evidence beyond "the snow didn't seem that bad to me."
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
No one wants to spend millions on ploughs and gritters that get used for a week a year (if that) when there are other things like schools, libraries, sport facilities, social care etc to pay for.
Alternatively, we do, and it'll cost us more.
On another note, my kids' secondary school opened late yesterday to give extra travel time for teachers - but only between a half and two-thirds of the kids could be bothered to walk in. My school (a primary) had pretty much everyone turn up. (/tangent What is it that happens between primary and secondary that makes some (a reasonably sized minority, at least) children just go 'meh'? /tangent)
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
No one wants to spend millions on ploughs and gritters that get used for a week a year (if that) when there are other things like schools, libraries, sport facilities, social care etc to pay for.
Alternatively, we do, and it'll cost us more.
On another note, my kids' secondary school opened late yesterday to give extra travel time for teachers - but only between a half and two-thirds of the kids could be bothered to walk in. My school (a primary) had pretty much everyone turn up. (/tangent What is it that happens between primary and secondary that makes some (a reasonably sized minority, at least) children just go 'meh'? /tangent)
[tangent]Son #1 is 8 and very meh. He does well at school, and enjoys a lot of what he does there, but his various digits were so crossed on Sunday night that Monday'd be a snow day that I worried he'd give himself arthritis. His view is that it's not that school is awful, but he's got a lot of other things he'd rather be doing. I take a similar view towards work.[/tangent]
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
(/tangent What is it that happens between primary and secondary that makes some (a reasonably sized minority, at least) children just go 'meh'? /tangent)
Hormones.
To add to the discussion on going into your nearest school. I have rung up the school closest to me in past situations like this and been informed that it would be impossible as it would create all sorts of problems for the school... mainly because they were different LEAs...
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Lep - your interpretation appears to be "teachers are nesh and it's all their fault they could get in if they wanted to or were forced to by facing losing a day's pay?"
My interpretation is
1) teachers were not in work when the vast majority of parents of pupils were (or at least, were planning to be until they had to stay at home)
2) Where I live (and I can't speak for anywhere else) there was not a single other employer of any one of my friends and acquaintances that closed.
3) Plenty of people don't get paid if they don't go in to work. Of course, it may be that all the teachers were busy working away at home doing marking etc.
4) I don't know what nesh means.
I actually have loads of respect for teaching as a profession. I reckon they are largely underpaid for the job that they do, which I certainly couldn't do. But I also think that lots of teachers feel that too, and so any chance for some extra time off is jumped at, almost as a right because the rest of pay and conditions are so rubbish.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Businesses didn't close, but you can bet that a significant portion of people didn't make it in - certainly the case here. When that happens at most businesses, they carry on with lots of staff not there. When that happens at a school, it has to close because of staff ratios etc.
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
We don't live in a rural backwater, and most primary children live close to their school and yet most of the schools were closed.
Our priamry wasn't,and it was one of very few who were open and some of the staff do travel a long way but the school worked around it.
Fair enough if you are rural or there are heating problems etc, but the weather was truly not that bad here and I really can't see why so many had to close
Posted by claret10 (# 16341) on
:
The two schools I have taught in only ever closed when absolutely necessary. The safety of the teaching staff getting there was never one of the reasons. The majority of time the schools closed was for the safety of the children getting there. Over 50% of the children attended by bus, both schools were rural-ish and one at the top of a hill. There had once been an incident of a bus sliding down the hill on the ice, which was both a risk for the children on the bus and those walking beside it. The other time the school closed was the innability to provide lunch for the pupils. As pupils on free school meals are entitled to lunch, if it can not be provided the school has to close. (I'm not sure on why that is but it happened in both schools)
Another reason I know for some of the local schools in our town closing is stupid health and safety rules that I don't understand and don't seem to apply universally. Apparently they are not allowed to grit paths as if a child or adult then slips they are libel and at risk of being sued.
When I was teaching I hated snow days as usually i managed to get into work, only to spend the morning babysitting groups of kids before sending them home early, there were never enough kids or teachers to carry on 'normally', which meant disruption to the already crowded curriculum and the task i hated, of impromtu management and entertainment of kids who thought it was unfair they had to be there when the buses hadn't made it.
I do agree it is a difficult situation and some parents are inconvenienced. Would like to add however that most teachers do not really get a day off, as any spare time i had was spent marking, planning and completing pointless paperwork.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
Another factor to consider in the staying open stakes - my Dad (now retired) was a teacher in a very deprived part of Birmingham. Considerable numbers of the children were on free school meals. Every effort was made to keep the school open at least until lunchtime, even if the children were just told to play and not taught anything, because it ensured that they would be fed.
I wonder if another reason for the closures is the increasingly litigious culture. Back in the day, if a child had fallen down and broken their arm in the snow, it would have been viewed as one of those unfortunate things that happens. These days I think (some) parents would be much quicker to sue the school.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
The gritted path--->litigation is something of an Urban Myth, IIRC.
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
(/tangent What is it that happens between primary and secondary that makes some (a reasonably sized minority, at least) children just go 'meh'? /tangent)
Hormones.
I would also suggest it is a supervision thing, with secondary kids more likely to be left at home to look after themselves. Parents would have to look after the primary school ones at home so are more likely to take them in. There's also more likely to be distance and transport issues with secondary schools. I'm guessing older ones find it easier to bunk off too, as their parents don't walk them to school.
Saying that, my eleven year old was keen to get back to school today, he likes the structure of a school day.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by claret10:
Apparently they are not allowed to grit paths as if a child or adult then slips they are libel and at risk of being sued.
Are you absolutely sure of this- i.e. have you actually seen directives which say it? I'm afraid it does sound like one of those "Health and Safety" urban myths that everyone believes but which have no substance in law.
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The gritted path--->litigation is something of an Urban Myth, IIRC.
I agree, our school always grits the paths, though they do shut the playground if it is icy (the kids play in a field of snow at break instead
)
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
I strongly suspect our local authority closes schools so that it can put its gritting efforts into keeping the main commuter routes open (which it generally does).
My daughter is off today. I'm sitting here with a mug of hot chocolate and a plate of freshly baked cookies as a result, so I'm feeling entirely benevolent about the situation!
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Tangent - our primary school was built and is maintained through PPI; all the paths are gritted and cleared whether or not the school is open, as apparently the PPI contract means the maintenance company can charge for work done regardless.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Point of order - local authorities do not close schools. It's the headteacher's call.
Posted by claret10 (# 16341) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by claret10:
Apparently they are not allowed to grit paths as if a child or adult then slips they are libel and at risk of being sued.
Are you absolutely sure of this- i.e. have you actually seen directives which say it? I'm afraid it does sound like one of those "Health and Safety" urban myths that everyone believes but which have no substance in law.
Well personally I was told this by someone who works at that particular school and was shocked. I'd never come across it before as all the schools I taught in happily gritted the paths. So i'm not sure if the school has it in writing. The person who told me was a cleaner and doesn't get paid unless she works and was irritated by the answers she had been given. It may be one of those grapevine rumours that covers why someone was too lazy to grit. However I will see this person later and I guess conversation will come to this topic, so I will investigate, cos it does seem ludicrous to me.
Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on
:
quote:
posted by KarlLB:
Point of order - local authorities do not close schools. It's the headteacher's call.
Not sure if that's the case in Scotland. I seem to recall some discussion a couple of years back about the schools being closed if authorities couldn't guarantee that they could get the kids in and back home again as the majority were on School buses. NEQ? You'd have a better idea on that one.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Leprechaun: quote:
...teachers were not in work when the vast majority of parents of pupils were (or at least, were planning to be until they had to stay at home)...
I am sure all the teachers of the schools that closed were also planning to be at work until they had to stay at home. Most of them are probably also concerned about how their classes will make up the lost time, especially any whose pupils are due to take exams or SATS next term.
I think the suggestion that large numbers of teachers take any excuse they can to get out of going to work is outrageous, although I see the Chinless Wonder who is currently Minister for Education is busy maligning them all. No doubt he will be among the first to put the boot in if any children are injured or killed as a result of this tough line on keeping schools open that he is advocating.
My daughter's school is open (though we haven't had that much snow here - a couple of inches, maybe). Even in The Big Snow the winter before last, when we had about a foot of it, they only closed for one day. However, our village is right next to a main road (always kept well-gritted), most of the teachers live less than half an hour's journey away (some are within walking distance if all else fails) and nearly all the children walk to school. I can quite understand why headteachers in rural areas have to close their schools; and secondary schools have bigger catchment areas, so they are more likely to have difficulties than primaries. Of course, if the head knew in advance how many pupils were going to skive off it might be possible to reach a suitable staff/student ratio even if half the staff can't get in... but in the absence of any other information they have to assume every pupil will be there.
As several people have already pointed out, most teachers live further away from the school than the pupils. It's no fun living in your school's catchment area; every time you poke your head outside your front door you're liable to be accosted by a pupil or parent, so it's like being at work all the time.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by kingsfold:
quote:
posted by KarlLB:
Point of order - local authorities do not close schools. It's the headteacher's call.
Not sure if that's the case in Scotland. I seem to recall some discussion a couple of years back about the schools being closed if authorities couldn't guarantee that they could get the kids in and back home again as the majority were on School buses. NEQ? You'd have a better idea on that one.
Not sure. Mine's off today because school transport isn't running, and that definitely isn't the headteacher's call.
I'm not allowed to drive my child to school if the bus isn't running. The school have a responsibility for any child delivered to school by school transport; they don't want to get landed with children who have been driven to school in case the parents can't pick them up again. ( I assume this would be waived if the parent actually worked in the school.)
I think the local authority has certain triggers which mean that schools can't open (if a certain pupil / teacher ratio can't be met, if frozen pipes are affecting the water supply, if there's a problem with supplying school meals etc) and it's the head teacher's call in borderline cases.
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by claret10:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by claret10:
Apparently they are not allowed to grit paths as if a child or adult then slips they are libel and at risk of being sued.
Are you absolutely sure of this- i.e. have you actually seen directives which say it? I'm afraid it does sound like one of those "Health and Safety" urban myths that everyone believes but which have no substance in law.
Well personally I was told this by someone who works at that particular school and was shocked. I'd never come across it before as all the schools I taught in happily gritted the paths. So i'm not sure if the school has it in writing. The person who told me was a cleaner and doesn't get paid unless she works and was irritated by the answers she had been given. It may be one of those grapevine rumours that covers why someone was too lazy to grit. However I will see this person later and I guess conversation will come to this topic, so I will investigate, cos it does seem ludicrous to me.
This is firmly in Health and Safety mythology:
Government guidance says quote:
Don’t be put off clearing paths because you’re afraid someone will get injured. Remember, people walking on snow and ice have a responsibility to be careful themselves.
Follow the advice below to make sure you clear the pathway safely and effectively.
And don’t believe the myths - it's unlikely you'll be sued or held legally responsible for any injuries if you have cleared the path carefully.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
4) I don't know what nesh means.
Someone who is nesh wears thermal underwear and a scarf in May.
The opposite of nesh is the archetypical Geordie clubber in sleeveless dress or T-shirt in a Northumbrian snowstorm.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I imagine that more schools would stay open if teachers didn't get paid for snow days like people in the private sector.
In every US state that I have lived in, the schools are required to be open a certain number of days, which means the teachers are required to work. If there are a lot of snow days, the school lets out later in the spring.
Moo
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
This could easily be solved if "snow days" were declared across a borough and every teacher had to go into the school closest to them.
That is actually in our contracts.
The nearest school to me is a major public school - it would be very interesting to teach in one.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I imagine that more schools would stay open if teachers didn't get paid for snow days like people in the private sector.
In every US state that I have lived in, the schools are required to be open a certain number of days, which means the teachers are required to work. If there are a lot of snow days, the school lets out later in the spring.
Moo
So teachers who have booked holidays would have to cancel them?
Actually, a school closure results in a heck of a lot of work - rearranging lessons, rebooking resources etc.
Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
quote:
And don’t believe the myths - it's unlikely you'll be sued or held legally responsible for any injuries if you have cleared the path carefully.
So it is true. If you clear a path carelessly, you can be held responsible for injuries caused by your carelessness. And who will be the judge of whether you were careless? The ambulance chasers will. Stay safe and leave the path untreated. Nothing they've said has put my mind at rest.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I imagine that more schools would stay open if teachers didn't get paid for snow days like people in the private sector.
In every US state that I have lived in, the schools are required to be open a certain number of days, which means the teachers are required to work. If there are a lot of snow days, the school lets out later in the spring.
Moo
So teachers who have booked holidays would have to cancel them?
Actually, a school closure results in a heck of a lot of work - rearranging lessons, rebooking resources etc.
If there is the possibility of the school year needing to run longer due to closure days, a smart system would have the staff contracted to work during the week after the end of the year on things like training, reporting or preparation for the next school year. If the school year needs to run longer, those days would be converted to normal school days. If it's not, then the staff could do those other duties or take that time off with pay to compensate them for the huge amounts of unpaid overtime that all teachers work during the school year.
If it's possible to satisfy the requirements based on hours open instead of days open, it could work to extend the school day by one extra period, or by all periods being five minutes longer than is needed. Enough 'bonus' time could easily be accumulated this way to account for a fair few unplanned closure days. Once the part of the year prone to weather closures is over, if the school is still 'ahead' it could switch to working in reverse by having a shorter day or finishing the school year a few days early.
[ 22. January 2013, 15:46: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
quote:
And don’t believe the myths - it's unlikely you'll be sued or held legally responsible for any injuries if you have cleared the path carefully.
So it is true. If you clear a path carelessly, you can be held responsible for injuries caused by your carelessness. And who will be the judge of whether you were careless? The ambulance chasers will.
Nope. The judge, not the lawyers.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
In every US state that I have lived in, the schools are required to be open a certain number of days, which means the teachers are required to work. If there are a lot of snow days, the school lets out later in the spring.
So teachers who have booked holidays would have to cancel them?
Yes, of course. If they booked a holiday starting the day after the last scheduled day of the school year, they would have to cancel or reschedule. But most districts plan the make-up days when they plan their annual calendar. If there are no days to make up, then the day marked as the last day of school is the last day of school. If there are make-up days, then the school year runs through however many make-up days are necessary.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
In every US state that I have lived in, the schools are required to be open a certain number of days, which means the teachers are required to work. If there are a lot of snow days, the school lets out later in the spring.
I think this is an excellent idea - and would endorse its introduction.
But it wouldn't stop those who think of schools as childminding centres from complaining.
The insinuation that teachers don't want to be in school is plain insulting. Teachers work incredibly hard and very long hours. When I taught full time I was in school at 7:30, left at 6:00 and did at least an hours marking every evening. Sunday was written planning day. I now get paid for teaching two days but work four when you include the marking and preparation. Add to that the fact that we need to be as vigilant as air traffic controllers all day long.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Let me start by saying that my daughter's teachers are amazing people, who are very probably underpaid and certainly don't get as many holidays as they deserve. I know that since I know the school calendar.
Having said that, although schools are clearly not primarily child minding centers, they are among other things clearly that. If all parents are working, then they will have plans for what to do about their children. School-age children will clearly be planned to be in school. Yes, ideally everyone would have a backup plan that would cover not just sick children but also inclement weather days, but as noted in the thread about the teacher who tok her sick kid to class, that's a lot easier said than done for many people. Of course unplanned school holidays, as scheduled by the weather are really frustrating to parents. While I promise not to blame the teachers, I think it unfair to suggest parents should not be able to expect their children will be at school on a schoolday. One Has to expect life to be normal or one would go crazy!
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Perhaps Michael Gove and his hordes of 'experts' would step in and cover for teachers unable to get to work. Since he appears to believe that class sizes do not matter, he and his friends should each be able to keep around 100 children constructively occupied and edified for the one or two days in the British winter when the weather causes problems.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by kingsfold:
quote:
posted by KarlLB:
Point of order - local authorities do not close schools. It's the headteacher's call.
Not sure if that's the case in Scotland. I seem to recall some discussion a couple of years back about the schools being closed if authorities couldn't guarantee that they could get the kids in and back home again as the majority were on School buses. NEQ? You'd have a better idea on that one.
I've checked - it is the headteacher's decision. However, that decision has to be made within a set of guidelines, so its not clear to me how much discretion the headteacher has to remain open in bad conditions.
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Perhaps Michael Gove and his hordes of 'experts' would step in and cover for teachers unable to get to work. Since he appears to believe that class sizes do not matter, he and his friends should each be able to keep around 100 children constructively occupied and edified for the one or two days in the British winter when the weather causes problems.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Perhaps Michael Gove and his hordes of 'experts' would step in and cover for teachers unable to get to work. Since he appears to believe that class sizes do not matter, he and his friends should each be able to keep around 100 children constructively occupied and edified for the one or two days in the British winter when the weather causes problems.
Yes - great idea - then send in OFSTED
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
In every US state that I have lived in, the schools are required to be open a certain number of days, which means the teachers are required to work. If there are a lot of snow days, the school lets out later in the spring.
So teachers who have booked holidays would have to cancel them?
Yes, of course. If they booked a holiday starting the day after the last scheduled day of the school year, they would have to cancel or reschedule.
Or their weddings? Reschedule?
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
My employer recently shut down for part of a day for snow, but the decision was made at 11 am, when public transit service to that location was shut down. Of course, this meant that anyone who *did* make it to work on transit had to find some other way to get home. So the problem isn't just getting to work or school, it's also getting back later in the day, when there may be more snow and it's getting darker and colder. If it's tough to get child care in the day, imagine trying to arrange for it at night if you end up stuck at your office.
Posted by Sleepwalker (# 15343) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I imagine that more schools would stay open if teachers didn't get paid for snow days like people in the private sector.
In every US state that I have lived in, the schools are required to be open a certain number of days, which means the teachers are required to work. If there are a lot of snow days, the school lets out later in the spring.
Moo
In theory, that is the case in England as well. Or rather, children are entitled to a certain number of hours of education each year and teachers are required to teach a certain number of hours each year. However, at the school where I was based for a teaching practice, they were in negotiations to adapt the rules to facilitate a week's school closure when the snow overwhelmed the country in 2010.
On the point about 'snow days' and teachers filling in at their local schools, this was tentatively suggested to the profession recently but the unions and teachers protested. I think it's a very sensible. While not ideal over a long period, such an arrangement would facilitate children learning, parents working and schools functioning until the weather returned to normal.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
On the Canadian prairies, the schools are always open, even on days when the school buses do not run. Whether rural or urban. My children were sent home one day in the 17 years (their 12 years of education overlapped) in the afternoon. I drove myself, part way home that day, and then had to park in a snow drift and walk about 3 km (2 miles). The drifts were over the roof when I got home. It was about -35 and very windy. I did have some frostbite on one cheek. But at a no never mind level. I skied to the car in the morning and got it going, and off to work again. We supposed to get 10 cm today and tonight, and had about each of the same the past 3 days.
The recommended travel by car on the highway: always have a large candle, some food, additional warm clothes, a sleeping bag. A candle will raise the inside temp in a car to near freezing even in -30s weather. Also having a neck tube, extra toque, some mittens (not finger gloves), some ski pants (you wear them over your pants, they are insulated and generally nylon), proper winter boots and a scarf.
One thing that interests me is your use of the word "gritter". What is it? Here a grader is a plowing contraption and sand trucks are like 3 or 5 ton dump truck with a sand spreader that twirls and distributes a mix of sand and salt as the truck drives around dumping its load. They vary the mix of salt added with the temp. It doesn't melt anything below a certain temp. I have thought perhaps "gritter" refers to a sand truck. We also see sand trucks with plows on the front of them which clear highways. They generally go about 80 km/hr (50 mph).
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
In every US state that I have lived in, the schools are required to be open a certain number of days, which means the teachers are required to work. If there are a lot of snow days, the school lets out later in the spring.
So teachers who have booked holidays would have to cancel them?
Yes, of course. If they booked a holiday starting the day after the last scheduled day of the school year, they would have to cancel or reschedule.
Or their weddings? Reschedule?
Any school staff member who scheduled their wedding (or travel) immediately after the term finishes when they know that's the way it works probably shouldn't be a teacher. For something as important as teaching children it would good to have people with more street smarts than that.
[ 22. January 2013, 19:06: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]
Posted by Sleepwalker (# 15343) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I've checked - it is the headteacher's decision. However, that decision has to be made within a set of guidelines, so its not clear to me how much discretion the headteacher has to remain open in bad conditions.
A headteacher was interviewed on national radio this week and suggested that a lot of headteachers opt to close schools for fear of being sued by parents as a result of slips and trips. While I know the present government has tried hard to get the message across not to worry about that side of things - and not just in the case of schools (during 2010, for example, local councils would not grit pavements, only roads, for fear of litigation) - I am quite sure there will be a lingering caution towards opening against local authority guidance (and all local authorities have snow policies). Another interview with the principal of an academy revealed a very different attitude: determined to stay open they simply cleared the entrance areas and told parents to bring in their children, which they duly did.
Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on
:
wow, this seems so strange to me! here, as someone else already mentioned, school closures are determined county by county, with "make up days" worked into the calendar. In years when there was a truly unusual number of closings, our county came up with other ways of making up the time (and also a waiver from the State is possible, allowing fewer hours in class). it's not (at least in my state) a number of days that schools have to be in session, but a number of HOURS.. so time can be made up by adding a few minutes to every school day (this was done a few years ago when we really did have a particularly, unusually, snowy year).
Yes, some parents see schools as a sort of daycare, but, well... too bad. I mean, everyone just KNOWS that sometimes in winter schools close due to snow, and parents generally have alternative arrangements in place.
It's not only a matter of teachers being able to get to the schools, but also a liability issue. in my county a number of years ago a school was opened on time when perhaps it should have been opened late on an icy day. a group of teenagers in a car slipped on ice, crashed and died. After that, the school system has been VERY diligent about closing, or opening late, whenever there is any chance of ice (whether the school really should be responsible for decisions made by teens is a separate issue). While this was a private car, the real fear is that a school bus will slide and crash, or will simply not be able to reach certain more rural streets that don't get plowed as quickly as the main drags.
One of the joys of childhood was going to sleep knowing that snow was forecast, wearing your jammies inside out (a well known snow-summoning tactic), and then listening to the radio or TV in the morning for the list of counties which are "closed". Although these days I generally find out via a text message. But as a kid, the favorite words of any kid were "XX County schools are closed today".
This of course only applies to public (government run) schools. private schools make their own decisions, however most opt to go with whatever the county there are in decides, for the sake of convenience.
This doesn't only apply to schools.. I work for the government. in my case, federal. I am as anxious as any kid when those announcements come on the radio.. I want to hear "the Federal Government will be closed today".. there is more about essential personnel still having to come in, but for most of us this is just an extra day off!! Alternatively we hear that "liberal leave policy" is in effect (means we can use our own leave time without advanced approval). and more recently, we also have days when "unscheduled telecommuting" is allowed.
of course, our friends from more northern states laugh about our closings, which sometimes happen at the sight of the first snowflake.. up there schools only close under severe blizzard conditions! but we southern folks are snow-chickens and freak out at the first mention of the S word.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
One thing that interests me is your use of the word "gritter". What is it?
This is what happens regarding gritting the roads where I live.
Aberdeenshire has 3370 miles of roads, and in snowy conditions the council prioritises 1000 miles of that. My children's route to school isn't included in that 1,000 miles.
In my opinion, the roads it does treat are treated to a high standard.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
One thing that interests me is your use of the word "gritter". What is it?
This is what happens regarding gritting the roads where I live.
Aberdeenshire has 3370 miles of roads, and in snowy conditions the council prioritises 1000 miles of that. My children's route to school isn't included in that 1,000 miles.
In my opinion, the roads it does treat are treated to a high standard.
Interesting. By Canadian standards, that's not very much highway or roads. Gritting means sanding/salting over there, and is just called sanding.
My city has about the population of Aberdeenshire, and doing a rough calculation of Ł to Cdn $, we've already spent 4 times the money of your annual budget just within the city this winter, and we've got 3˝ months to go. They start by piling the snow into windrows (long narrow piles) at the roadside, and then on major roads, move them into the middle and truck it away. The general rule is when the windrows are more than about 1.5 m tall, they move them, but not from residential streets which seldom see plows or sand trucks at all. The sidewalk (what I think you'd call the pavement) in front of our house is about 15" lower than the street if we cleared it completely. The streets just get packed down, with a plow only if people are getting actually stuck.
There's no telling with different climates and conditions. People were remarking that it was a warm day today when it got to -15°C.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
You probably have a lot more regular snowfall than Aberdeenshire though, so that 4x your city has spent so far would go a hell of a lot further and be useful on a larger number of days.
Secondly, Aberdeenshire doesn't actually contain the city of Aberdeen, so it's not an outlandishly low amount of road mileage for a large rural area with lots of small towns. You're in a densely populated city, which would allow the road clearing resources to be concentrated in a smaller area where they could work more regularly, so the equipment cost is offset by the benefit of having increased usage.
Snow causing disruption in Britain is more of an anomaly, rather than the norm. The small number of days affected make it a complicated balancing act - do governments shell out more funds on more road-clearing equipment that will be used just a few times a year, or should they spend significantly less on equipment and just accept a few days of severe inconvenience? The decision would be much more clear cut in most Canadian cities where the larger number of days that equipment would make it a more economical purchase for the authorities.
Posted by HenryT (# 3722) on
:
The climate change hypothesis implies that the occurrence of extreme weather will increase. Lots of places are going to have to invest in expensive equipment.
In my Canadian school experience, my school was closed one day in eight years. I recall being quite annoyed because I had reached the school and now had to slog back. But I was prepared, dressed, and shod for snow.
Here, school buses get canceled, but schools stay open.I think we have had three snow days plus a one day strike. There will be at least one catch up day.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Is it fair to ask how parents using school, at least in part, as a child care facility are able to get to work, while teachers and perhaps pupils cannot?
Unless UK law has diverged very considerably from here, a school authority or a person clearing a pavement/footpath/sidewalk would only be liable for failing to take reasonable care. It's very hard to see how person clearing a footpath from snow could be liable, and nearly as hard in the case of a school authority. Fear of a successful action is just a furphy.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
[QUOTE] It's no fun living in your school's catchment area; every time you poke your head outside your front door you're liable to be accosted by a pupil or parent, so it's like being at work all the time.
Some jobs have an occupational requirement for this - clergy for example - and learn to live with it. Why are teachers to be treated so differently and what's changed from the days when they did live (if not in the same village as the school), then just a few miles away?
It not only affects the school day. Our Governors meeting on Monday evening was cancelled on Saturday for "weather" reasons and Monday evening was perfectly clear, roads passable and no problems.
In a previous life, I HAD to live within walking distance of my office of a major Building Society. No ifs or buts just a couple of miles max. I saw customers whatever I did -- even at church. I couldn't escape, but you soon get used to it and it does have benefits not least that when it snows you can walk to work and talk to lots more people in the process.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
How does that fit with the message that in this difficult job market everyone should be flexible and prepared to commute or go wherever the work is - and the issue of negative equity, high rents and the inability to get new mortgages ?
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
How does that fit with the message that in this difficult job market everyone should be flexible and prepared to commute or go wherever the work is - and the issue of negative equity, high rents and the inability to get new mortgages ?
I accept that moving isn't always easy but the keys are (in your own words) "or go wherever the work is...." and "flexibility."
I've never known mortgage approvals to be an issue for teachers unless they were looking for something way beyond the norm. It was always considered good business owing to the job security, guaranteed pay rises on increments and excellent prospects for promotion.
Anyway, how does living miles away and sitting for an hour in a car fit with the Green Agenda?
It's not a very bright idea to have people commuting long distances from a stress and productivity POV.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I am lucky - my home is near the hospital and the gritters turn round on our crescent. My school is on a main bus route to Manchester and it has not had to close at all in its history for snow, as far as I know.
But there are many schools in the UK now where roads are closed.
There is no way teachers could get in. Setting out in such weather is not only dangerous for yourself, but also for the emergency services who would have to come and rescue you if you got into difficulties. Staying at home in such weather is sound advice imo.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
People usually look at photos to see the depth of snow, see 2cm and say 'That's nothing, what's all the fuss about?' But looking at this photo, there's hardly any snow at all, it's not the snow but the ice that caused the danger. Sending your child to school in these conditions puts them at risk from skidding drivers whether they are in a vehicle or pedestrians by the roadside.
I can see why, when headteachers are responsible for the safe arrival and departure of hundreds of children, plus staff, that they play safe and say 'School closed' until conditions improve.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I can see why, when headteachers are responsible for the safe arrival and departure of hundreds of children, plus staff, that they play safe and say 'School closed' until conditions improve.
As a Governor and parent I was always told and understood that the Head's responsibility began and ended on the boundary of school premises. If it doe sextend to travel (presumably on leaving hom), then that has implications for schools dealing with behaviour on the way to school. can't see many schools picking that one up tbh.
In one sense, the journey of staff and pupils and even the arrival doesn't come into play. The Head's sole responsibility is the condition of the school. What's a caretaker for?
It's a bit of joke that pretty minimal conditions in a big city like where I am lead to closures whereas in the North Devon you and I both know, children and teachers alike would be (and are) at school.
I'm pretty pragmatic and, I suppose dogmatic about this whole issue. It's not just school in my eyes but the whole "provided" public sector which we persist in believing is free. It isn't - we pay. And because we pay, I have the same expectations as with any other transaction where money is involved: I am looking for value and service and performance.
Can I get to work? Yes - then school should open. Do I get paid if I can't get to work? Nope - nor should you. Schools in the market economy - you wanted it, now live with the downside of that: delivery. I've paid my taxes for my children's education, now to be blunt, I want you to deliver what you presum to promise. Part of that is attendance and if the school is closed, make the days up.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
People usually look at photos to see the depth of snow, see 2cm and say 'That's nothing, what's all the fuss about?' But looking at this photo, there's hardly any snow at all, it's not the snow but the ice that caused the danger.
Point taken but the A38 has been long known as a problem and the council seem reluctant to do anything to solve it.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Unless UK law has diverged very considerably from here, a school authority or a person clearing a pavement/footpath/sidewalk would only be liable for failing to take reasonable care. It's very hard to see how person clearing a footpath from snow could be liable, and nearly as hard in the case of a school authority. Fear of a successful action is just a furphy.
The only clear circumstances I can envisage where liability would be imputed would be where the 'clearer' is being an absolute berk by making the situation more dangerous than it was before eg: clearing a snow-covered path by pouring boiling water onto it which subsequently freezes and turns the path into an ice rink.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I've paid my taxes for my children's education, now to be blunt, I want you to deliver what you presum to promise. Part of that is attendance and if the school is closed, make the days up.
Absolutely - I would be more than happy to do that. But treating schools like businesses is a mistake. Many things are lost, including creativity. If you treat us as a production line - then if standards of output are not good enough, we should be able to ask for better raw materials. Your kids!
Many children arrive at school without basic language skills and we are expected to churn out level fives at the end of the process. Any decent production line would look first at the raw materials, and change them.
The market economy in schools does not work and I most certainly didn't ask for it. I fought hard against it.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
As this relevant article from today's local paper says, no local school has ever been sued for someone falling on ice. My wife's school is in an identical situation and experienced similar absenteeism, by the way.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
As this relevant article from today's local paper says, no local school has ever been sued for someone falling on ice. My wife's school is in an identical situation and experienced similar absenteeism, by the way.
The safety issue is not about falling on ice - it's about adult to pupil ratio.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Hence we're back to the point: if I and many others could make it into work on Friday, why couldn't my kids' teachers?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Hence we're back to the point: if I and many others could make it into work on Friday, why couldn't my kids' teachers?
They live in villages where the roads were closed? Why don't you ask them?
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
As a Governor and parent I was always told and understood that the Head's responsibility began and ended on the boundary of school premises. If it doe sextend to travel (presumably on leaving hom), then that has implications for schools dealing with behaviour on the way to school. can't see many schools picking that one up tbh.
I understood that for pupils travelling to / from school by school bus (more than half the pupils at my kids' school) the school / education authority becomes responsible from the point they get on the bus to the point they get off.
Bad behaviour on the buses is dealt with by the headteacher. When someone tried (unsuccessfully!) to set fire to my son on one bus, I got a message from a prefect on the bus to contact the headteacher ASAP, and when I did, the headteacher already had the matter well in hand.
What do other people's children do on snow days? Ours are expected to log onto a page of the school website where teachers will have provided work. In my experience, this has tended to be something like "write a poem about the snow" - certainly not a full days work. My daughter had some excellent work once involving measuring depth of snow, recording wind direction, etc which I thought was more educational than spending the day in school!
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
Neither of the Schools my children attend have been closed in recent days. The primary school - an academy - is highly unlikely to close under any but the most extreme circumstances though the advice correctly issued to parents and teachers is to put safety first. I think there is probably a disparity between the lengths independent schools and academies will go to to keep schools open and the risk averse culture of LA-controlled schools.
My children's secondary school is in an invidious position if it were to close down for snow. Children lost several days to strikes last year. The headteacher is rather heavy-handedly refusing all holiday requests from parents and issuing warnings about fines. Under these circumstances It is reasonable for parents to expect every measure to be taken to ensure the school remains open.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Hence we're back to the point: if I and many others could make it into work on Friday, why couldn't my kids' teachers?
Perhaps they could. But perhaps sufficient of their colleagues couldn't that the school couldn't ensure sufficient ratios of staff to students.
There's a nasty undercurrent of "teachers wanted a skive; fine the lazy bastards a day's pay if they don't turn up and they'd somehow manage it" going on here.
[ 23. January 2013, 09:57: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
There's a nasty undercurrent of "teachers wanted a skive; fine the lazy bastards a day's pay if they don't turn up and they'd somehow manage it" going on here.
Yes
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
ExclamationMark: quote:
Can I get to work? Yes - then school should open. Do I get paid if I can't get to work? Nope - nor should you.
Just for the record, I am self-employed and don't get paid at all unless I am actually sitting at my desk working; unlike most employed people, who get paid for being In The Building even if they are merely converting oxygen into carbon dioxide. They also get paid leave (30 days a year plus public holidays in my last job) and most employers will allow them a certain number of days off sick at full pay. However I do not envy other people who have different working conditions and I certainly do not envy teachers. Carping at other people who have better contracts with their employers than you and demanding that all working conditions should be equally bad will only encourage a race to the bottom, and things are bad enough already.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Hence we're back to the point: if I and many others could make it into work on Friday, why couldn't my kids' teachers?
They live in villages where the roads were closed? Why don't you ask them?
We - and they - live in suburbia.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
There's a nasty undercurrent of "teachers wanted a skive; fine the lazy bastards a day's pay if they don't turn up and they'd somehow manage it" going on here.
It's not about skiving, it's about equal treatment. If everyone else in a given area is still expected to get in to work, there's a legitimate question as to why teachers shouldn't be.
Conversely, if travelling conditions in a given area are considered so bad that teachers shouldn't be expected to be able to get to work, then everybody else in that area shouldn't be expected to either.
Both ways work fine for me, it's just the implication that some people are important enough to not be allowed to risk travelling while everyone else still has to risk their necks on (apparently) unsafe roads that grates.
[ 23. January 2013, 11:03: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
There's a nasty undercurrent of "teachers wanted a skive; fine the lazy bastards a day's pay if they don't turn up and they'd somehow manage it" going on here.
It's not about skiving, it's about equal treatment. If everyone else in a given area is still expected to get in to work, there's a legitimate question as to why teachers shouldn't be.
Conversely, if travelling conditions in a given area are considered so bad that teachers shouldn't be expected to be able to get to work, then everybody else in that area shouldn't be expected to either.
Both ways work fine for me, it's just the implication that some people are important enough to not be allowed to risk travelling while everyone else still has to risk their necks on (apparently) unsafe roads that grates.
I don't think anyone's implying any such thing.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Hence we're back to the point: if I and many others could make it into work on Friday, why couldn't my kids' teachers?
Perhaps they could. But perhaps sufficient of their colleagues couldn't that the school couldn't ensure sufficient ratios of staff to students.
There's a nasty undercurrent of "teachers wanted a skive; fine the lazy bastards a day's pay if they don't turn up and they'd somehow manage it" going on here.
What are the legal ratios of staff to children in secondary schools? I'd be surprised if it is that restrictive. If some teachers can't get into school, doubtless some children can't. It might not be possible to have a normal day's teaching but possible to do some useful stuff.
As for the 'undercurrent' of skiving teachers. My wife's a teacher and would be very happy indeed with a snow day to catch up with paperwork. As a self employed person my priorities are rather different. Teachers are certainly not lazy but like all of us they don't necessarily have the bigger picture in mind - that's the job of head teachers.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't think anyone's implying any such thing.
Any local authority that decides it's far too dangerous for teachers to try to get to work but that doesn't also close the roads is doing exactly that.
Surely if the roads are too dangerous for some, then they're too dangerous for all?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's not about skiving, it's about equal treatment. If everyone else in a given area is still expected to get in to work, there's a legitimate question as to why teachers shouldn't be.
Conversely, if travelling conditions in a given area are considered so bad that teachers shouldn't be expected to be able to get to work, then everybody else in that area shouldn't be expected to either.
Both ways work fine for me, it's just the implication that some people are important enough to not be allowed to risk travelling while everyone else still has to risk their necks on (apparently) unsafe roads that grates.
I'm not sure about this. I'm not saying that schools are in a unique position, but their role and nature are unusual.
Firstly, I'm kind of assuming that the average workplace doesn't have up to a thousand children descending on it, all at exactly the same time as a hundred or so adults, and where the adults are responsible not just for the delivery of information, but for everything else that the children do that day, including the child's journey to and from the building.
Secondly, while the expectation of working is important, it has to be borne in mind that a school will find it difficult to function if even a majority of staff make it in. My own primary school was, whilst not in chaos, certainly stretched, and that was with hastily arranged supply teachers and TAs filling in. If you want to remember back to your own secondary school days, perhaps you'll recall how unsupervised teenagers can act.
Thirdly, you're right. If the schools are closing, it might be a signal to other employers that running a reduced service might be the best they can do. The other alternative is to spend a metric shit-tonne of cash on ploughs and gritters that only get used one week a year.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't think anyone's implying any such thing.
Any local authority that decides it's far too dangerous for teachers to try to get to work but that doesn't also close the roads is doing exactly that.
Surely if the roads are too dangerous for some, then they're too dangerous for all?
It's solely down to head teachers not Local Authorities. On the other hand, I'd like to see LAs give higher priority to gritting around schools.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't think anyone's implying any such thing.
Any local authority that decides it's far too dangerous for teachers to try to get to work but that doesn't also close the roads is doing exactly that.
Surely if the roads are too dangerous for some, then they're too dangerous for all?
I think you're unnecessarily focussing on the teachers, and not on the children. A good employer will certainly consider the safety of their employees, but as I've said above, you'll have thousands of children criss-crossing any given LA, generating possibly thousands of extra car journeys in treacherous conditions. It might even be that you only get to work because the schools are closed.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't think anyone's implying any such thing.
Any local authority that decides it's far too dangerous for teachers to try to get to work but that doesn't also close the roads is doing exactly that.
Surely if the roads are too dangerous for some, then they're too dangerous for all?
Firstly, as has been pointed out, it's the head teacher's call, not the local authority's. Secondly, heads do not make the call on whether it's safe for their teachers to get to school; they do it on the basis of whether they can provide a safe environment for the children - how many of their teachers they expect will be able to get in comes into that, but it's not the primary driver.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
There's a nasty undercurrent of "teachers wanted a skive; fine the lazy bastards a day's pay if they don't turn up and they'd somehow manage it" going on here.
It's not about skiving, it's about equal treatment. If everyone else in a given area is still expected to get in to work, there's a legitimate question as to why teachers shouldn't be.
Conversely, if travelling conditions in a given area are considered so bad that teachers shouldn't be expected to be able to get to work, then everybody else in that area shouldn't be expected to either.
Both ways work fine for me, it's just the implication that some people are important enough to not be allowed to risk travelling while everyone else still has to risk their necks on (apparently) unsafe roads that grates.
I don't think anyone's implying any such thing.
What other reason though is being given?
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't think anyone's implying any such thing.
Any local authority that decides it's far too dangerous for teachers to try to get to work but that doesn't also close the roads is doing exactly that.
Surely if the roads are too dangerous for some, then they're too dangerous for all?
I think you're unnecessarily focussing on the teachers, and not on the children. A good employer will certainly consider the safety of their employees, but as I've said above, you'll have thousands of children criss-crossing any given LA, generating possibly thousands of extra car journeys in treacherous conditions. It might even be that you only get to work because the schools are closed.
A common sense approach is to say to parents that they must be the judge of how safe they and their children will be as far as getting into school when there are adverse weather conditions. The government's relaxed the rules - such snow days are not automatically marked down as unauthorised absences. The head teachers job is to make sure conditions are safe on site.
Much of the problem lies with the bus companies paid to get children to school. They are far more likely to be at fault in cancelling services when there's only a sniff of snow than schools are. Several times I've had to drive my children to school after the merest rumour of road flooding.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Read the thread Matt; it's got bugger all to do with anyone judging whether it's safe for teachers to drive or not.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
You probably have a lot more regular snowfall than Aberdeenshire though, so that 4x your city has spent so far would go a hell of a lot further and be useful on a larger number of days.
Secondly, Aberdeenshire doesn't actually contain the city of Aberdeen, so it's not an outlandishly low amount of road mileage for a large rural area with lots of small towns. You're in a densely populated city, which would allow the road clearing resources to be concentrated in a smaller area where they could work more regularly, so the equipment cost is offset by the benefit of having increased usage.
Snow causing disruption in Britain is more of an anomaly, rather than the norm. The small number of days affected make it a complicated balancing act - do governments shell out more funds on more road-clearing equipment that will be used just a few times a year, or should they spend significantly less on equipment and just accept a few days of severe inconvenience? The decision would be much more clear cut in most Canadian cities where the larger number of days that equipment would make it a more economical purchase for the authorities.
The same holds true rurally in Canada. It's hard to argue a dense population when we have less than 2 people per square km. Road clearing is a priority. I suspect that because we drive in winter conditions for somewhere about 6 or 7 months of the year, it is a matter of expectation, experience, how to drive on snow, in ruts, with ice, winter tires and other things.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I think you're unnecessarily focussing on the teachers, and not on the children.
The chief explanation being given for school closures is that teachers can't get in, so I'm responding to that.
quote:
It might even be that you only get to work because the schools are closed.
If that's the case, then I'd be happy to swap and make it so that businesses close in order for schools to stay open
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Firstly, as has been pointed out, it's the head teacher's call, not the local authority's.
Officially yes, but they follow the LA guidance.
quote:
Secondly, heads do not make the call on whether it's safe for their teachers to get to school; they do it on the basis of whether they can provide a safe environment for the children - how many of their teachers they expect will be able to get in comes into that, but it's not the primary driver.
What other drivers are there though, given that the "being sued for slippery paths" thing has been debunked several times on this thread?
And if the teacher/student ratio is the prime indicator of a safe environment, then we're right back to the question of why it's perfectly fine to say that businesses should expect their staff to get in regardless of the weather, but somehow offensive to apply the same standard to teachers.
Posted by Huts (# 13017) on
:
Having read quite a lot of the posts - it seems people just blame the teachers but there are other aspects going on.
All the schools in our town closed Friday lunchtime.
One of the local secondary schools was told by the coach company that they would be sending the coaches at 12. If the school had not closed the pupils would not have been allowed on the coaches as they would have to be in school. There would then have been no coaches at 3pm. I am sure quite a lot of the teenagers could have got home other ways - only six miles across town so slow 2 hour walk, or parents could have come and picked up but what could the head do.
Often heads are under pressure from parents who don't want to pick up there children in the snow, and from coach companies who won't work either.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
[QUOTE]Absolutely - I would be more than happy to do that. But treating schools like businesses is a mistake. Many things are lost, including creativity. If you treat us as a production line - then if standards of output are not good enough, we should be able to ask for better raw materials. Your kids!
Many children arrive at school without basic language skills and we are expected to churn out level fives at the end of the process. Any decent production line would look first at the raw materials, and change them.
The market economy in schools does not work and I most certainly didn't ask for it. I fought hard against it.
Many LEAVE school without basic language, reading or numeracy skills too.
Schools want to be treated like businesses - they have been campaigning for the freedom to source their own services for ages, hence the whole academy scam now in place. From a financial POV it's crackers not to go to Academy status but suddenly everyone's waking up to the realisation that with the extra cash comes additional responsibility and accountability.
The NHS has seen complaints rocket since the market system came in, schools will do so too. It's the next consumer issue in waiting.
Part of that is changing some of the school culture. Yes teachers do work in the holidays and after school - but that isn't unique. Now we have a different system coming in for pay and advancement - it will reward the good instead of the mediocre. It's now possible to discipline a teacher under conduct and capability - something you only attempted at your peril until recently. Bad teachers just got moved on. You only heard rarely of anyone being disciplined or dismissed - I can only recall a handful in 20 odd years of Governship.
It's the real world and its pretty tough: if you ask for something you can be sure that a payoff is expected in return. Part of that is attendance: don't go firing off about parents taking children out of school when the staff absenteeism is off the roof. Understand the parents POV when, on a supposed training day, and you've sweated for childcare, haven't found it and have to take a day off - the staff are seen in a pub for a few hours in the afternoon. Imagine you've got into work yourself, only to have to return home to look after your kids cos the teacher next door claims he or she can't get in.
The discussion here is in one sense a symptom of a bigger picture.
I take your point on raw materials but the converse is also true: soemtimes a market driven system means you make the most (and add the greatest value possible) to the raw materials you have, not those you'd really want. [In that case, everyone who be chasing the Hugo's, Jemimah's and Poppy's of this world the nice middle class kids --- oh dear, it's already happening].
To answer your point, added value is a better measure but as the funder of the whole "School Scheme", I want to see something out of it. I'm in favour of Schools being Governed by communties with no teacher, parent or LA input whatsoever, just community representatives.
[Tangent] It's a bigger issue, I know, but public services (esp local councillors and officers) have forgotten that it's all supposed to be a partnership - so it's time to take the power back! Let communities make the decisions about community facilities.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And if the teacher/student ratio is the prime indicator of a safe environment, then we're right back to the question of why it's perfectly fine to say that businesses should expect their staff to get in regardless of the weather, but somehow offensive to apply the same standard to teachers.
It's not unreasonable.
But if workers in a business are an hour late because they walked, that's ok. If the only staff who can get in to school are the caretakers and a couple of TAs, that's not ok. Hundreds of children would not have proper or safe supervision for an hour.
ETA - with the closure of special schools there will also be several children with pretty severe behavioural/physical/emotional difficulties around - not a good recipe for safety with staff numbers down.
[ 23. January 2013, 13:23: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Read the thread Matt; it's got bugger all to do with anyone judging whether it's safe for teachers to drive or not.
Er...having read the thread, I'm not sure you're right: it does seem to boil down largely to this pupil:teacher ratio thing ie: the numbers of teachers who make it in or not. Please advise what other reasons there are
Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on
:
Finding this discussion so strange compared to here. Snowstorms often cause school closures but the only consideration is the safety of the children travelling on the roads.
Unless it is a particularly severe occasion, teachers all go to work even when schools are closed. So, on storm days, the schools are all staffed with teachers (blissfully) catching up on work in their classrooms.
I've never heard of teachers not able to get to school when children/buses could.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Read the thread Matt; it's got bugger all to do with anyone judging whether it's safe for teachers to drive or not.
Er...having read the thread, I'm not sure you're right: it does seem to boil down largely to this pupil:teacher ratio thing ie: the numbers of teachers who make it in or not. Please advise what other reasons there are
Point is that if only a fairly small proportion of teachers can't make it in then the school will not be a safe environment. Your office is not like that.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Firstly, as has been pointed out, it's the head teacher's call, not the local authority's.
Officially yes, but they follow the LA guidance.
quote:
Secondly, heads do not make the call on whether it's safe for their teachers to get to school; they do it on the basis of whether they can provide a safe environment for the children - how many of their teachers they expect will be able to get in comes into that, but it's not the primary driver.
What other drivers are there though, given that the "being sued for slippery paths" thing has been debunked several times on this thread?
And if the teacher/student ratio is the prime indicator of a safe environment, then we're right back to the question of why it's perfectly fine to say that businesses should expect their staff to get in regardless of the weather, but somehow offensive to apply the same standard to teachers.
Do businesses expect staff to get in whatever the weather? It's almost as if you imagine that only a teacher is able to cite the weather as a reason one cannot get to work; this is bollocks - in November 2010 I spent almost a week working from home because of snow.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Read the thread Matt; it's got bugger all to do with anyone judging whether it's safe for teachers to drive or not.
Er...having read the thread, I'm not sure you're right: it does seem to boil down largely to this pupil:teacher ratio thing ie: the numbers of teachers who make it in or not. Please advise what other reasons there are
Point is that if only a fairly small proportion of teachers can't make it in then the school will not be a safe environment. Your office is not like that.
But we all made it in. So did everyone else in town and the environs with whom I did business on Friday.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Well why not ask the headteacher why he closed the school? If his reasons aren't good enough, tell him so. I know the headteacher of our primary; he's a Tory councillor of an ilk that considers itself to accept no nonsense and I can't imagine him closing the school unless he absolutely felt he had to. I can ask him why his teachers are all skivers who couldn't be arsed to try to get here on Monday if you like.
Seriously, for a moment - could you have guaranteed that everyone could get in? The headteacher has to be able to guarantee - not hope - that he will have enough staff to maintain a safe environment. He can't easily turn round at 10am and close the school because not enough staff made it. He has to err on the side of caution.
[ 23. January 2013, 14:24: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Many schools did close late-morning round here presumably for that reason. I think it should be reasonably foreseeable though as to whether someone would make it in or not based on where they live compared to where the school is and what roads are likely to be prioritised for gritting. I know of one local firm whose staff all live within 5 miles and who on Thursday night made it clear that they expected everyone to be in on Friday and - guess what! - they were.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
whose staff all live within 5 miles
Unlikely to be the case for many schools. 30 miles is more likely.
I can quite see why a head would prefer to not open than have to ring around to find people to take 400 children home at 10.30.
I do not know all the answers but I know teachers, and I know heads, and I do not accept the "can't be arsed to get in through the snow and should be forced to, the lazy bastards" explanation, because it doesn't match the people I know.
[ 23. January 2013, 14:32: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Matt, everyone else in your office did, but if I remember correctly, your office isn't very large, so it's probably not an ideal sample size. You know everyone you did business with was around, but unless you actually went to visit them, you don't actually know they made it in to work. You know they worked. I would be very unsurprised if some of them worked from home. I know we were allowed to do so in December when a storm was predicted. It turned out to be nothing, but some people got to work in comfort at home.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Point is that if only a fairly small proportion of teachers can't make it in then the school will not be a safe environment.
It won't surprise you to know that I consider the whole "if there are even slightly more kids per teacher than the rules require then it's an unsafe environment" thing to be absolute bollocks as well.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
But you have to draw the line somewhere. Some amount of children per teacher is definitely unsafe, and of course some (much smaller) amount of children per teacher guarantees that no one will learn anything that day. Is there a point spending a school day when no one will learn anything instead of making up that time? Surely if the point is education of our children, it would be better to cancel school and make up the time rather than have them all shoved 40 to a classroom goofing off and watching movies?
Posted by Sighthound (# 15185) on
:
Part of the problem is that the world has changed. When I was at primary school all the pupils lived within walking distance and so did the teachers, more or less. Only the Head had a car. Now teachers and pupils are drawn from a wide area, and often the car is the only way they can get to the school.
In addition, parents are much more demanding than they used to be, and general concerns with health and safety and legal liabilities are pitched at a much, much higher level. Much of this is actually good stuff, but we pay a price for it.
I don't envy the headteachers and chairs of governors making these decisions, as it's almost certain they will be criticised whatever they do. Is it wrong to err on the side of safety where children are concerned? The public would come down like a ton of bricks if there was a tragedy.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Originally posted by lily-pad:
quote:
I've never heard of teachers not able to get to school when children/buses could.
The difference is that the children will all live locally to the school; especially in the case of primary schools. My children's secondary would have 30% of pupils living within a mile of the school, perhaps 70% living within four miles and 100% living within 8 miles. However, many, if not most of the teachers will live outwith that 8 mile radius, and some will be much further.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
This is very much the issue. The head might think "OK, it's 90% likely that nearly all the staff'll make it in, but if that 10% chance happens, then I'll have to ring around 400 parents telling them to leave work and come and get their kids (if I can even contact them at all) - no, it's not worth the risk."
And it's hard to blame him. He's bound to err on the side of caution.
Posted by Smudgie (# 2716) on
:
I think a good part of the problem is the unpredictability of later in the day, and the very problem that makes snow days inconvenient for working parents precisely the same one that makes it more difficult for the schools if they open and then have to change their minds.
If school is closed at the start of the day, then childcare arrangements are difficult. But if the parent has already gone to work and is called mid morning to say that the snow has suddenly worsened and the child needs to be collected promptly and taken home while it is still possible to do so, the parents is possibly some miles away and in a position where they cannot just walk out and collect their child.
In the past there would most likely have been one parents at home - I can remember my primary school ringing my mum to say they were sending me home and then me walking home alone through the snow. Now many of the schools aren't allowed just to send children off into the snow to walk home and the likelihood is that the parents won't be there to meet them or to walk up to collect them.
I can also remember as a teacher, one of the few teachers who lived near enough to the school to do so, staying for four hours with just one child and one colleague and the Head, in a freezing cold school in the midst of a blizzard, waiting until the Head was finally able to get hold of someone who would come and collect that child.
It is a case of "damned if you do" and "damned if you don't". And yes, lots of other professions expect you to go in to work despite the snow. However, if I struggle through the snow to the dentist, for example, and the dentist hasn't been able to make it but the hygienist and receptionist have, I don't expect them to sit me down in the waiting room and put a video on for me for the length of time of my appointment...... Schools do childmind in some respects in addition to educating, but I prefer the suggestion of days to make the time up later in the year. A day watching DVDs is utterly wasted - the kids should be out playing in the snow (as we get it rarely enough) ... but it needs twenty pages of risk assessment and definitely good ratios if they do it at school
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It won't surprise you to know that I consider the whole "if there are even slightly more kids per teacher than the rules require then it's an unsafe environment" thing to be absolute bollocks as well.
Absolute bollocks it might be. But you undermine your argument by the use of "than the rules require".
Head Teachers are not in a position to change those rules. Whether they should be is a different question entirely. If the HT knows or suspects that they can't get enough teachers in, they have no choice but to close.
(and this is exactly the reason I went in on Monday when I didn't have to - to let a teacher who lives a long way from school go home, while keeping the pupil-adult ratio below the statutory minimum.)
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Hence we're back to the point: if I and many others could make it into work on Friday, why couldn't my kids' teachers?
Because they are bad people.*
When your kids ask "How come my friend gets ice cream for breakfast and I don't?", what do you tell them?
*Yes, of course I'm being sarcastic. Perhaps they tried their best and couldn't make it. Assuming the best in people - there's a novel concept. If these teachers are so selfish and lazy, why would parents leave their kids in their care on days when it's not snowing?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
When your kids ask "How come my friend gets ice cream for breakfast and I don't?", what do you tell them?
Yeah, you know what - most of my unhappiness about this is rooted in envy. I wanted to have a couple of days off at the start of this week as well, but I had to slog my guts out on icy paths and freeze my tits off waiting for shitty public transport (my car having packed in thanks to the cold) to get to work while the teachers got to stay at home with a nice mug of hot chocolate and a few DVDs. Dammit, I want to stay home with a nice mug of hot chocolate and a few DVDs! Why should they get all the fucking breaks?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Thanks for that witty contribution
. I still haven't heard a convincing reason for no-shows other than living in villages/ rural areas, both of which are pretty thin on the ground round here.
[cp with Marvin]
[ 23. January 2013, 15:59: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Well, I'm sure you know where to apply for a PGCE, Marv.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Thanks for that witty contribution
. I still haven't heard a convincing reason for no-shows other than living in villages/ rural areas, both of which are pretty thin on the ground round here.
[cp with Marvin]
Headteachers don't close the school because of no-shows. They close because they cannot guarantee shows. It's not the same thing at all. The head looks out at 6am, looks at the weather forecast, and asks not "is it reasonable to expect the teachers to make it in?", but rather "can I guarantee that they all will, and that I can maintain a safe environment for the children all through the school day?" If the answer is "no, I really can't guarantee it.", then he closes the school.
He may, of course, get that call wrong.
C'mon, Matt, you're a lawyer. You're good at spotting subtle differences.
[ 23. January 2013, 16:03: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
People usually look at photos to see the depth of snow, see 2cm and say 'That's nothing, what's all the fuss about?' But looking at this photo, there's hardly any snow at all, it's not the snow but the ice that caused the danger. Sending your child to school in these conditions puts them at risk from skidding drivers whether they are in a vehicle or pedestrians by the roadside.
I can see why, when headteachers are responsible for the safe arrival and departure of hundreds of children, plus staff, that they play safe and say 'School closed' until conditions improve.
I can see the point about the ice - but then why were the local school closedin the snow but reopened again when the snow had gone leaving ice behind?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Dammit, I want to stay home with a nice mug of hot chocolate and a few DVDs! Why should they get all the fucking breaks?
The mug of hot chocolate might happen. Along with lesson prep, marking, pupil grading and all the other admin that usually happens at 10pm.
I don't think you quite realise what the job entails.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Thanks for that witty contribution
. I still haven't heard a convincing reason for no-shows other than living in villages/ rural areas, both of which are pretty thin on the ground round here.
[cp with Marvin]
It's not unusual for teachers to live a considerable distance from the school at which they work. Some do it deliberately so there is no chance of their children attending the school at which they teach. This affects urban schools as well as rural ones, so insufficient teachers = no school. It's a serious problem in South Wales, with teachers who live in the valley towns unable to get to Cardiff and Newport.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
When your kids ask "How come my friend gets ice cream for breakfast and I don't?", what do you tell them?
Yeah, you know what - most of my unhappiness about this is rooted in envy. I wanted to have a couple of days off at the start of this week as well, but I had to slog my guts out on icy paths and freeze my tits off waiting for shitty public transport (my car having packed in thanks to the cold) to get to work while the teachers got to stay at home with a nice mug of hot chocolate and a few DVDs. Dammit, I want to stay home with a nice mug of hot chocolate and a few DVDs! Why should they get all the fucking breaks?
Teachers don;'t - we have to word harder, replanning all our lessons, rebooking resources. Much less work to go in and teach what's already prepared.
AND it is likely that all the nuisance kids won't have turned up so teaching would be easier.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Schools want to be treated like businesses - they have been campaigning for the freedom to source their own services for ages, hence the whole academy scam now in place.
Rubbish. Most teachers want to continue as a vocation, a service - all the unions/professional associations oppose academies.
We went into teaching to cooperate and compete, not to 'win' and stamp over others so that their kids fail whilst ours succeed.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
In every US state that I have lived in, the schools are required to be open a certain number of days, which means the teachers are required to work. If there are a lot of snow days, the school lets out later in the spring.
So teachers who have booked holidays would have to cancel them?
Yes, of course. If they booked a holiday starting the day after the last scheduled day of the school year, they would have to cancel or reschedule.
Or their weddings? Reschedule?
Any school staff member who scheduled their wedding (or travel) immediately after the term finishes when they know that's the way it works probably shouldn't be a teacher. For something as important as teaching children it would good to have people with more street smarts than that.
Thin that through.
How long is the average honeymoon.
If it is 2 weeks, then you have to marry the day after term breaking up. Then you return to work immediately after coming home.
Or are teachers only allowed to marry during the summer?
Think, too, of all the other stuff - I cannot get a plumber, electrician, delivery etc. except in holiday time. Or else hire them in term time, lose a day's pay AND pay the school Ł170 per day to get a supply teacher.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I can see why, when headteachers are responsible for the safe arrival and departure of hundreds of children, plus staff, that they play safe and say 'School closed' until conditions improve.
As a Governor and parent I was always told and understood that the Head's responsibility began and ended on the boundary of school premises.
Not true. Any pupil in uniform on buses to and from school is his/her responsibility. Plus insurance covers teachers on the journey to and from school - head is responsible and can be sued.
If you are a governor, you should know this.
[ 23. January 2013, 19:08: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
whose staff all live within 5 miles
Unlikely to be the case for many schools. 30 miles is more likely.
Indeed - At 7 miles away, I was the closest teacher to my last school and i often walked all the way there and back in snow.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Peripatetic teachers have it worst of all - the school closes AND they lose a day's pay.
I was very fortunate, this never happened to me the whole time I was teaching. Although the school did once close because the business next door caught fire.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Not true. Any pupil in uniform on buses to and from school is his/her responsibility. Plus insurance covers teachers on the journey to and from school - head is responsible and can be sued.
If you are a governor, you should know this.
This is true only in parts. The bus companies take out their own insurance for transporting the children. They make the decisions on running a service in adverse weather conditions presumably in consultation with LA.
I am also a governor as well as the husband of a teacher. As far as I'm aware head teachers are not responsible for teachers' journeys to and from school. This is certainly not covered by school insurance.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
We went into teaching to cooperate and compete, not to 'win' and stamp over others so that their kids fail whilst ours succeed.
What do you mean? The implication seems to be that excellence in education is at the expense of other schools.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Or their weddings? Reschedule?
Any school staff member who scheduled their wedding (or travel) immediately after the term finishes when they know that's the way it works probably shouldn't be a teacher. For something as important as teaching children it would good to have people with more street smarts than that.
Thin that through.
How long is the average honeymoon.
If it is 2 weeks, then you have to marry the day after term breaking up. Then you return to work immediately after coming home.
Or are teachers only allowed to marry during the summer?
Strawman.
I'm talking only about US schools where the systems works that "make up" days are added to the end of the school year, at the start of the long summer break. The mid-term holidays should still be fine.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]Not true. Any pupil in uniform on buses to and from school is his/her responsibility. Plus insurance covers teachers on the journey to and from school - head is responsible and can be sued.
If you are a governor, you should know this.
I really don't know where you get this from. Firstly, teachers like all employees cannot be insured/covered for journeys to and from work. If they were, such journeys would make up part of the working day - and they don't. If it did, then I'd make sure that teachers did come out to work and gtake the risk on being sued. Can you provie me with example sof heads being sued for this? No, I didn't think you can.
Secondly, it might - just - be the case that the school is responsible if pupils are transported using a bus dedicated solely to them and hired by the school, not the LEA. It cannot work if they use transport whoich is available to other members of public which is pretty common. Even in the former example (children only), I have had Head Teachers specifically claim that they are not responsible as the buses are not supervised by school staff and that teachers cannot be accountable for the means of discipline applied by others.
It won't work if the bus is hired by the LEA.
Leo, until you provide written proof, you're blowing the wind - unless of course Bristol is any different from the rest of the area around it, where I happen to live. If that evidence isn't forthcoming then it's to a warmer place with this one.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Not true. Any pupil in uniform on buses to and from school is his/her responsibility. Plus insurance covers teachers on the journey to and from school - head is responsible and can be sued.
If you are a governor, you should know this.
This is true only in parts. The bus companies take out their own insurance for transporting the children. They make the decisions on running a service in adverse weather conditions presumably in consultation with LA.
I am also a governor as well as the husband of a teacher. As far as I'm aware head teachers are not responsible for teachers' journeys to and from school. This is certainly not covered by school insurance.
Surely if the teacher was driving it would be covered by the motor insurer? Mrs B's car insurance covers 'social and domestic use including travel to and from place of work'; I think that's fairly standard wording.
[ 24. January 2013, 08:26: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Thanks for that witty contribution
. I still haven't heard a convincing reason for no-shows other than living in villages/ rural areas, both of which are pretty thin on the ground round here.
[cp with Marvin]
Headteachers don't close the school because of no-shows. They close because they cannot guarantee shows. It's not the same thing at all. The head looks out at 6am, looks at the weather forecast, and asks not "is it reasonable to expect the teachers to make it in?", but rather "can I guarantee that they all will, and that I can maintain a safe environment for the children all through the school day?" If the answer is "no, I really can't guarantee it.", then he closes the school.
He may, of course, get that call wrong.
C'mon, Matt, you're a lawyer. You're good at spotting subtle differences.
Yes, but...that would still seem to indicate that there are lower expectations on teachers than the personnel of the firms with which I deal. I'm querying why that should be the case.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Thanks for that witty contribution
. I still haven't heard a convincing reason for no-shows other than living in villages/ rural areas, both of which are pretty thin on the ground round here.
[cp with Marvin]
It's not unusual for teachers to live a considerable distance from the school at which they work. Some do it deliberately so there is no chance of their children attending the school at which they teach. This affects urban schools as well as rural ones, so insufficient teachers = no school. It's a serious problem in South Wales, with teachers who live in the valley towns unable to get to Cardiff and Newport.
I understand why it would be a problem in rural areas but not urban/ suburban ones. Here in the 'Solent City/ M27 Corridor' conurbation, my staff were able to get in from Waterlooville, Gosport and Southampton on Friday; the firms I had dealings with were in locations as diverse as Portsmouth, Gosport, Havant, Southampton, Winchester and Bishops Waltham and in no case did I fail to talk to the receptionist initially, and then the person concerned and/or his/her assistant, nor did anyone say "we're short-staffed today because of the weather" or words to that effect. The only problems I could envisage in getting to any of our closed local schools would have been if some of the teachers live in some of the remoter Meon Valley villages but, TBH, I can't imagine being able to afford to live there on a teacher's salary! Maybe some fat cat lawyers (yeah right!) could afford it but, funnily enough, the lawyers all made it in anyway...
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
We went into teaching to cooperate and compete, not to 'win' and stamp over others so that their kids fail whilst ours succeed.
What do you mean? The implication seems to be that excellence in education is at the expense of other schools.
Yes - that is what is happening with competition between schools.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Not true. Any pupil in uniform on buses to and from school is his/her responsibility. Plus insurance covers teachers on the journey to and from school - head is responsible and can be sued.
If you are a governor, you should know this.
This is true only in parts. The bus companies take out their own insurance for transporting the children. They make the decisions on running a service in adverse weather conditions presumably in consultation with LA.
I am also a governor as well as the husband of a teacher. As far as I'm aware head teachers are not responsible for teachers' journeys to and from school. This is certainly not covered by school insurance.
Surely if the teacher was driving it would be covered by the motor insurer? Mrs B's car insurance covers 'social and domestic use including travel to and from place of work'; I think that's fairly standard wording.
Cover is included in professional association membership - as is absence from work if it occurred whilst on the way to or from school.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Leo, until you provide written proof, you're blowing the wind - unless of course Bristol is any different from the rest of the area around it, where I happen to live. If that evidence isn't forthcoming then it's to a warmer place with this one.
I have never worked for Bristol. quote:
Education Secretary Michael Gove recently pledged to give schools the right to punish pupils for out-of-school behaviour, but that right already exists. Some would argue it has existed in common law since Victorian times when children could be caned for not wearing a cap on the way to school. In any case, the 2006 Education Act states that schools can "regulate the behaviour of pupils when off school premises". …. guidance also implies that schools should primarily concern themselves with off-site behaviour that has a clear link to school rules or an impact on school life. Examples given include bullying another pupil, problems on school transport or incidents that occur when pupils are in uniform
TES Magazine on 12 November, 2010
quote:
Discipline outside the school
School rules can be made to regulate, as far as is reasonable, pupil behaviour outside of school when the pupil is not in the control of a member of staff. There is, however, no definition of 'reasonable' - this must be a judgement made by the governors and the head, who must be clear about the factors that they take into account. Any sanctions imposed must happen while the pupil is actually on school grounds
ATL Guidance
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
I'm talking only about US schools where the systems works that "make up" days are added to the end of the school year, at the start of the long summer break. The mid-term holidays should still be fine.
So there are only 2 Saturdays in the year, apart from the summer, when teachers can get married and have a fortnight's honeymoon and an additional 2 where the honeymoon can only be a week.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Cover is included in professional association membership - as is absence from work if it occurred whilst on the way to or from school.
Just admit that you made an erroneous claim.
Schools/headteachers are not liable when teachers travel to and from school. Any claims for accidents on such journeys would be covered by private car insurance, and in terms of absence from work may or may not be covered by union insurance. Schools insure against long term teacher absence so this may be what you are thinking about.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
I'm talking only about US schools where the systems works that "make up" days are added to the end of the school year, at the start of the long summer break. The mid-term holidays should still be fine.
So there are only 2 Saturdays in the year, apart from the summer, when teachers can get married and have a fortnight's honeymoon and an additional 2 where the honeymoon can only be a week.
Most shipmates know I've got plenty of time to teachers but aren't those just about the options typical working couples have? Moreover, I'm sure workers in the US have less paid vacation leave than is usual in the UK and Europe (not sure about Oz & NZ).
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]Cover is included in professional association membership - as is absence from work if it occurred whilst on the way to or from school.
Leo, nothing to do with the head nor the school then.
[ 24. January 2013, 12:11: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]So there are only 2 Saturdays in the year, apart from the summer, when teachers can get married and have a fortnight's honeymoon and an additional 2 where the honeymoon can only be a week.
Possibly yes, but a teacher is quite aware of that fact before applying for the job as is pretty much everyone else in the UK. Consider the possibility of better working conditions, more holidays and secure employment as compensation.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]1. I have never worked for Bristol.
2. Education Secretary Michael Gove recently pledged to give schools the right to punish pupils for out-of-school behaviour, but that right already exists. Some would argue it has existed in common law since Victorian times when children could be caned for not wearing a cap on the way to school. In any case, the 2006 Education Act states that schools can "regulate the behaviour of pupils when off school premises". …. guidance also implies that schools should primarily concern themselves with off-site behaviour that has a clear link to school rules or an impact on school life. Examples given include bullying another pupil, problems on school transport or incidents that occur when pupils are in uniform
3. Discipline outside the school
School rules can be made to regulate, as far as is reasonable, pupil behaviour outside of school when the pupil is not in the control of a member of staff. There is, however, no definition of 'reasonable' - this must be a judgement made by the governors and the head, who must be clear about the factors that they take into account. Any sanctions imposed must happen while the pupil is actually on school grounds
1. Apologies for the geographical error.
2. "pledged to give ......can regulate .... a clear link to school rules." Not statutory then - have you ever heard of it being done? Not that long ago I had reason to challenge this personally on an issue of bullying, amounting technically to assault. I was told by all concerned (school, social services and police)that the school could no nothing. The police weren't interested either. Even in uniform it's off school premises and it wasn't repeated on the premises.
3. "School rules can be made to regulate..." It falls down because it isn't implicit - it has to be accepted - what head/school in their right mind would do that? What is "reasonable" anyway. It means nothing as there are so many get outs.
None of this says that the head has the kind of responsibility you have claimed for them. Santions may be available for behaviour and that's about it. Does anyone know of any school that applies this?
it's a question Leo of accepting you're wrong, even to the point of providing eveidence in your favour - which harms rather than helps your argument.
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Consider the possibility of better working conditions, more holidays and secure employment as compensation.
How very retro...
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
quote:
The implication seems to be that excellence in education is at the expense of other schools.
In effect it is - as Boogie points out, the end product is dependent on the quality of the raw materials. Schools in some areas are competing for the most desirable pupils; oversubscribed schools can cherry-pick applications to ensure they get a high proportion of middle-class children from families that place a high value on education. Meanwhile the 'sink' school down the road is stuck with everyone else's leftovers (because they have to be educated somewhere) and has to work three times as hard to achieve similar results.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
I'm talking only about US schools where the systems works that "make up" days are added to the end of the school year, at the start of the long summer break. The mid-term holidays should still be fine.
So there are only 2 Saturdays in the year, apart from the summer, when teachers can get married and have a fortnight's honeymoon and an additional 2 where the honeymoon can only be a week.
Most shipmates know I've got plenty of time to teachers but aren't those just about the options typical working couples have? Moreover, I'm sure workers in the US have less paid vacation leave than is usual in the UK and Europe (not sure about Oz & NZ).
Australia - annual leave is generally four weeks per year for a full-time employee. Depending on the position and/or the industry, it may need to be booked many months in advance though.
Full-time teachers are salaried on the basis that they have four weeks' worth of annual leave, and that they work the other 48 weeks of the year. How that works in practice is that they put in lots more time than a full 37.5 hour week during term time (evenings, weekends etc) and get more than four weeks off during the 12-13 weeks of school holidays. I don't know a single secondary teacher for whom this salaried arrangement actually works out better than if they tracked their overtime and had it credited as time off in lieu and/or overtime pay.
Secondary teachers get an easier end to the year than primary teachers do, with senior students in year 11-12 ending in early November before exams, with teachers of year 11-12 subjects then free to use the non-teaching time for marking and preparation. The flip side which balances this is that taking a year 12 subject for 32 weeks is a much more intense effort than taking a year 8 subject for 38 weeks.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Cover is included in professional association membership - as is absence from work if it occurred whilst on the way to or from school.
Just admit that you made an erroneous claim.
Schools/headteachers are not liable when teachers travel to and from school. Any claims for accidents on such journeys would be covered by private car insurance, and in terms of absence from work may or may not be covered by union insurance. Schools insure against long term teacher absence so this may be what you are thinking about.
I passed on my union rep. file to my successor so i cannot say any more than what i remember.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Consider the possibility of better working conditions, more holidays and secure employment as compensation.
Working conditions? When was the last time you looked at the state of some of our school buildings?
'More holidays'? I used to take one week off in the summer and a couple of days over Xmas. The rest got used for preparation and work-related reading.
'Secure employment?' not since local management where redundancies happen according to pupil numbers and there is no longer early retirement except on actuarily reduced pensions
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Think, too, of all the other stuff - I cannot get a plumber, electrician, delivery etc. except in holiday time. Or else hire them in term time, lose a day's pay AND pay the school Ł170 per day to get a supply teacher.
Really? Assuming school finishes at 4.00pm (probably on the late side) and allowing 30 minutes for your seven mile drive home, is it really impossible to arrange your work so that on one occasion you leave work immediately after the end of the school day and schedule an electrician, plumber, etc. for late afternoon? (Assuming you can't find an electrician, etc. who works evenings, which you should be able to.)
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yes, but...that would still seem to indicate that there are lower expectations on teachers than the personnel of the firms with which I deal. I'm querying why that should be the case.
How many times do I have to say it? Because everyone knows teachers are lazy and irresponsible and lawyers are selfless and dedicated. Teachers skive off when lawyers have to work, boo hoo.
If you really want to know, rather than repeating the same childish rhetorical question on the Ship, ask your SCHOOL.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
And the same surely applies to most other working people who would tend to have far less in terms of holiday time. If I want to have a workman in, go to the quack or the tooth-puller etc, I have to take time out of work with the resultant loss of productivity and therefore pay unless I manage to make the time up elsewhere.
[reply to Leo. Reply to Soror Magna: I have, and was told that an insufficient number of teachers were able to make it in. Which doesn't answer the question at all, hence it isn't childish, thanks very much!]
[ 24. January 2013, 15:10: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
... Reply to Soror Magna: I have, and was told that an insufficient number of teachers were able to make it in. Which doesn't answer the question at all, hence it isn't childish, thanks very much!]
Well, you're the expert in questioning people.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
If truth be told, I'm scared of the Head
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
And the same surely applies to most other working people who would tend to have far less in terms of holiday time. If I want to have a workman in, go to the quack or the tooth-puller etc, I have to take time out of work with the resultant loss of productivity and therefore pay unless I manage to make the time up elsewhere.
Actually that's not really comparing like with like. Most people are able to book a day off - either out of their holiday allocation, or losing a day's pay for it - more or less any time during the year. Teachers can only do so, as Leo says, in holiday time... while a parent's funeral or something equally serious might be a reason for time off, I doubt if most head teachers would look favourably at a request even to attend to a burst pipe, let alone an IKEA delivery. And I can only imagine the response you would get from a builder or electrician asked if he would start work at teatime!
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Think, too, of all the other stuff - I cannot get a plumber, electrician, delivery etc. except in holiday time. Or else hire them in term time, lose a day's pay AND pay the school Ł170 per day to get a supply teacher.
Really? Assuming school finishes at 4.00pm (probably on the late side) and allowing 30 minutes for your seven mile drive home, is it really impossible to arrange your work so that on one occasion you leave work immediately after the end of the school day and schedule an electrician, plumber, etc. for late afternoon? (Assuming you can't find an electrician, etc. who works evenings, which you should be able to.)
Usually in meetings until 5pm.
Don't drive - 75 mins bus journey home.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
And the same surely applies to most other working people who would tend to have far less in terms of holiday time. If I want to have a workman in, go to the quack or the tooth-puller etc, I have to take time out of work with the resultant loss of productivity and therefore pay unless I manage to make the time up elsewhere.
Actually that's not really comparing like with like. Most people are able to book a day off - either out of their holiday allocation, or losing a day's pay for it - more or less any time during the year. Teachers can only do so, as Leo says, in holiday time... while a parent's funeral or something equally serious might be a reason for time off,
Indeed - wasn't able to go to any funeral for anyone other than immediate family. Not even close friend.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Cover is included in professional association membership - as is absence from work if it occurred whilst on the way to or from school.
Just admit that you made an erroneous claim.
Schools/headteachers are not liable when teachers travel to and from school. Any claims for accidents on such journeys would be covered by private car insurance, and in terms of absence from work may or may not be covered by union insurance. Schools insure against long term teacher absence so this may be what you are thinking about.
I passed on my union rep. file to my successor so i cannot say any more than what i remember.
You, as a governor,have access to the Burgundy Book - then again, free schools and academies tend to TUPE staff over then tear up its rules.
Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on
:
FYI... schools in my county (in Virginia) are closed today due to 2 inches of snow. my office (and most offices) were open. it happens all the time. we deal with it.
not that I'm complaining.. my (federal) job allows me to work from home on days like this.
many very happy teens around here.. it was supposed to be an exam day! an extra day to study.. or procrastinate studying as the case may be. I think someone was praying extra hard last night.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Getting to school/work should never be the priority imo - safety should.
Here is a terrible and sad example of what can happen in this weather.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]
1. Working conditions? When was the last time you looked at the state of some of our school buildings?
2. 'More holidays'? I used to take one week off in the summer and a couple of days over Xmas. The rest got used for preparation and work-related reading.
'Secure employment?' not since local management where redundancies happen according to pupil numbers and there is no longer early retirement except on actuarily reduced pensions
1. For a long time I worked outside whatever the weather, snow and ice included. Anyway elf and safety mean the buildings and working conditions will always be ok, or they'd be closed. Actaully I was looking wider than that: pensions, training course, tiem out of classrooms.
2. Well, you're alone in my experience of the teaching profession on that score. You also seem unable to do the work in the same time frame as your colleagues. Martyr to the cause or inefficient?
3. Well, schools did want the market economy and what you refer to is part of supply and demand. So you'd want teachers sitting round doing nothing or not working to capacity, wasting money and resources?
Pensions? Well, welcome to the world of the private sector worker. Why on earth should anyone get a full poension if they haven't paid in for it? It's not an injustice that it's been removed, it's an injustice that it was ever allowed to happen.
4. What on earth is the Burgundy book anyway? Why do I need to know about wine when we are talking about schools?
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE] ndeed - wasn't able to go to any funeral for anyone other than immediate family. Not even close friend.
Must be a rule your school applied on an individual basis then. No school I've been Governor of has applied such a rule.
As for the holiday stuff (Angloid), I can only reiterate that it is known upfront by pretty much 100% of the UK's population.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE] ndeed - wasn't able to go to any funeral for anyone other than immediate family. Not even close friend.
Must be a rule your school applied on an individual basis then. No school I've been Governor of has applied such a rule.
Not individual - it is in the Burgundy Book that governs conditions of service.
Maybe your schools are the sort who opt out of LA control and tear up these conditions.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Well, you're alone in my experience of the teaching profession on that score. .... Well, schools did want the market economy .....What on earth is the Burgundy book anyway? Why do I need to know about wine when we are talking about schools?
So you must know some fairly uncommitted teachers.
We didn't want LMS - all the unions opposed it back in 1988 when Baker imposed it.
A school governor who doesn't know what the Burgundy Book is must be either:
a) a fairly clueless governor who doesn't know what s/he is talking out
or
b) a governor who wants to exploit staff by ignoring pay and conditions of service
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Well, you're alone in my experience of the teaching profession on that score. You also seem unable to do the work in the same time frame as your colleagues. Martyr to the cause or inefficient?
Also, my professional association once did a survey on working hours - the average was 50 hours per week in term time and 40 in holiday time
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]1. I have never worked for Bristol.
2. Education Secretary Michael Gove recently pledged to give schools the right to punish pupils for out-of-school behaviour, but that right already exists. Some would argue it has existed in common law since Victorian times when children could be caned for not wearing a cap on the way to school. In any case, the 2006 Education Act states that schools can "regulate the behaviour of pupils when off school premises". …. guidance also implies that schools should primarily concern themselves with off-site behaviour that has a clear link to school rules or an impact on school life. Examples given include bullying another pupil, problems on school transport or incidents that occur when pupils are in uniform
3. Discipline outside the school
School rules can be made to regulate, as far as is reasonable, pupil behaviour outside of school when the pupil is not in the control of a member of staff. There is, however, no definition of 'reasonable' - this must be a judgement made by the governors and the head, who must be clear about the factors that they take into account. Any sanctions imposed must happen while the pupil is actually on school grounds
1. Apologies for the geographical error.
2. "pledged to give ......can regulate .... a clear link to school rules." Not statutory then - have you ever heard of it being done? Not that long ago I had reason to challenge this personally on an issue of bullying, amounting technically to assault. I was told by all concerned (school, social services and police)that the school could no nothing. The police weren't interested either. Even in uniform it's off school premises and it wasn't repeated on the premises.
3. "School rules can be made to regulate..." It falls down because it isn't implicit - it has to be accepted - what head/school in their right mind would do that? What is "reasonable" anyway. It means nothing as there are so many get outs.
None of this says that the head has the kind of responsibility you have claimed for them. Santions may be available for behaviour and that's about it. Does anyone know of any school that applies this?
My kids' school (Scottish state comprehensive) deals with behaviour problems on school transport. The bus driver, or any pupil on board, can report to the school and have a matter dealt with. I have known this to happen on more than one occasion.
Similarly, school pupils who leave the school premises at lunchtime, to buy sweets, or generally hang out, would be dealt with by the school if they misbehaved.
Are you really suggesting, Exclamation Mark, that you would expect pupils to be able to misbehave with impunity, provided they're not on school premises? Seriously?
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Perhaps we just have unruly kids. If the headteacher couldn't deal with miscreants, the school buses here would be like "Lord of the Flies" Kids would be sharpening sticks at both ends while waiting at the bus stop!
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
3. Well, schools did want the market economy
Which schools? Or rather, by schools maybe you mean power-crazed head teachers (there are a few) or Tory governors. There are many instances of schools being forced into academy status despite the overwhelming opposition of staff and parents... and even, now Gove has his evil way, overriding heads and governors.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]Also, my professional association once did a survey on working hours - the average was 50 hours per week in term time and 40 in holiday time
Leo, you are just so removed from ordinary people's lives aren't you?
There are plenty of people who have worked 50 hour weeks for 48 weeks each year for 40 years. When I was a labourer it was never less than a 10 hour day, 6 days a week. Any holiday was unpaid, so people rarely took them as they had to earn a living wage and there wasn't enough to pay for a holiday left over. Bank holidays were a pain because you weren't working and no work meant no pay.
In the city, the worst week ever was 8 hours sleeo in 7 days. The rest of the time was work.
Most ministers average 65 + for 47 weeks a year. On bad weeks it can be 75+.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
When I was a labourer it was never less than a 10 hour day, 6 days a week. Any holiday was unpaid, so people rarely took them as they had to earn a living wage and there wasn't enough to pay for a holiday left over. .
How old are you Exclamation Mark? It must be a long time since ordinary workers didn't have the whole of Saturday off, or at least the afternoons. And the Holiday Pay Act came in in 1938.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Perhaps Exclamation Mark was a casual labourer, hired by the day or the week. If so, he would not have been paid sick or holiday leave.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
My kids' school (Scottish state comprehensive) deals with behaviour problems on school transport. The bus driver, or any pupil on board, can report to the school and have a matter dealt with. I have known this to happen on more than one occasion.
Similarly, school pupils who leave the school premises at lunchtime, to buy sweets, or generally hang out, would be dealt with by the school if they misbehaved.
I think that's a good balance. The school-provided (or at least school-contracted) transport is clearly within the bounds of the school's responsibility, no question there. The behaviour of senior students who are allowed to leave the grounds during breaks is an issue of whether students are abusing privileges which could be withdrawn.
It would, however, be extremely unfair for a school to sanction a student who behaved badly in some other context that has nothing to do with the school. If the school wants power over all aspects of a student's life, they should first be prepared to be responsible on that level.
That's not to say it would be out of line for a school to tip off the police or assist a transport authority in identifying a uniformed student. That's a responsible attitude to that power, using it to assist the organisations who are the appropriate authorities rather than assuming that authority.
A school that has the power to discipline students but wields it fairly and is seen to wield it fairly will have a lot more respect from students and families.
The best example I can think of with this is a dispute over the use of a public car parking area outside the school boundary next to a pitch used by a local youth soccer club when I was in year 11. Some staff at the school particularly liked those spots because they were more convenient to their area of the campus than the staff parking areas, so they would tell students to shift their cars under threat of internal sanctions. The students responded by buying up a bucketload of non-playing memberships in the soccer club (the club loved the extra income, and that some did actually then take up playing membership!) and then repeatedly complained to the local council about not being to access 'their' parking facility once they had their shiny new club bumper stickers. Council then put up a sign restricting the car park to soccer club members only (on the basis that it's a legislated requirement for public schools to have sufficient parking for all staff so they shouldn't need to park elsewhere) and started enforcing it against those teachers who thought it was a student prank and that they could still throw their weight around on a whim.
All of that nastiness could have been avoided if the school staff had simply chosen not to unilaterally abuse their power to hand out internal sanctions for external issues, especially while being in the wrong. The soccer pitch car park is still technically reserved for club members' use over ten years on, and turnover has gotten those bullying teachers out of the school. I'm told it's used far more reasonably by a smaller number of staff now, and that the number of complaints to the council parking hotline (and subsequent parking fines) by soccer club members has dropped off.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Well, you're alone in my experience of the teaching profession on that score. You also seem unable to do the work in the same time frame as your colleagues. Martyr to the cause or inefficient?
Also, my professional association once did a survey on working hours - the average was 50 hours per week in term time and 40 in holiday time
Interested groups are interested.
[ 25. January 2013, 03:25: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Eight hours a day, plus at least an hour in the evening, often two - plus at least four hours at weekends.
This is true for every member of our teaching staff. Not me any more, praise the Lord.
Teaching is a young person's game these days.
[ 25. January 2013, 05:43: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
[QUOTE]How old are you Exclamation Mark? It must be a long time since ordinary workers didn't have the whole of Saturday off, or at least the afternoons. And the Holiday Pay Act came in in 1938.
I'm 55. And, yes, I was self employed at the time (and after), in the absence of paid work. Some people did that for many years.
The less you are paid, the more you have to work to get even the basic necessities.
Farm Labourers worked Saturday mornings as part of their contracted time, until the mid 1970's.
[ 25. January 2013, 07:22: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Well, you're alone in my experience of the teaching profession on that score. You also seem unable to do the work in the same time frame as your colleagues. Martyr to the cause or inefficient?
Also, my professional association once did a survey on working hours - the average was 50 hours per week in term time and 40 in holiday time
When I was in training and newly qualified, I typically worked a 70 hour week.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
I'm not sure that it is any use flinging around statistics and anecdotes about comparative working hours. Why not just admit that teachers do work long hours? And more than that, like clergy, besides the time they are actually doing something observable, like teaching or marking or attending meetings, they need a lot of time for reflection and study. A good teacher, like a good priest, is never off duty.
I'm sure many of today's super-rich executives put in insane hours of activity, but their financial return is even more insanely high compared to a teacher or even a humble lawyer like Matt Black.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Less of the humble, thank you; I have my pride, you know!
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Less of the humble, thank you; I have my pride, you know!
OK! But I didn't think you were particularly rich.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
No, unfortunately
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Well, you're alone in my experience of the teaching profession on that score. You also seem unable to do the work in the same time frame as your colleagues. Martyr to the cause or inefficient?
Also, my professional association once did a survey on working hours - the average was 50 hours per week in term time and 40 in holiday time
When I was in training and newly qualified, I typically worked a 70 hour week.
I did about 70 hours each week for 32 years. RE teachers' workload much higher than those from other subjects.
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
RE teachers' workload much higher than those from other subjects.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Try telling THAT to the Head of Music! Or Sport! A large proportion of their activities takes place outside the school day.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
RE staff get higher number of pupils with Gove's silly EBac, we are going back to the one lesson per week scenario. On the old 40 period week, allowing for 5 frees, s/he might get 35 lessons x 30 pupils each = 1,050 kids - i.e. the lone specialist teaching the entire school.
When i started teaching, the only 'textbooks' found in most stock cupboards were bibles. Nothing on world religions - so i had to write all my own materials and banda them.
For anyone who is ahead of the game, standard textbooks never keep up with what one wants to do.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
RE staff get higher number of pupils with Gove's silly EBac, we are going back to the one lesson per week scenario. On the old 40 period week, allowing for 5 frees, s/he might get 35 lessons x 30 pupils each = 1,050 kids - i.e. the lone specialist teaching the entire school.
When i started teaching, the only 'textbooks' found in most stock cupboards were bibles. Nothing on world religions - so i had to write all my own materials and banda them.
For anyone who is ahead of the game, standard textbooks never keep up with what one wants to do.
You are the perfect argument as to why Gove is right.
My yr9 daughter has just started Humanities (which she has been told includes RE) after the RE teacher retired. My only encounter with the RE teacher was when, at a parents' evening I saw her shoving Jewsh prayer caps onto children's heads to entertain prospective parents. My yr7 son has RE but it doesn't seemed to have grabbed his attention. So what.
I thought for one moment about complaining that RE was no longer taught at Yr9 then visualised you teaching my children and decided to leave well alone. Sorry, but I can't regard Re as an important subject when one of its professed luminaries posts like you do.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
Please be tolerant if the following is misinformed. My children are growing up in a country whose education system is, I am told, very good. Because moving back to England remains an option for my family I am curious about how its schools are faring - and the same measures that say NZ schools are good also say that UK schools (including English ones) are poor.
An example here.
There are certain aspects to the system and the bureaucracy it entails which strike me as really quite baffling: SEN, for example, which seems to encourage the pathologisation of children's individual quirks and issues and to straightjacket schools' ability to handle them into a specified set of responses.
So while I can understand why Gove's attacks on teachers' pay and working conditions make him unpopular and while I can understand gimmicks like putting an Authorised Version in every school offend the sensibilities of some, I cannot understand why he is so universally reviled.
Take the EBAC for example; which I understand as a method of measuring pupils' and schools' performance in core subjects, and a safeguard against schools putting their pupils into easy subjects. If one must have such measures, this seems entirely sensible.
Take his promotion of school autonomy. From where I sit it seems to me that teachers in England have little discretion as to what to teach and how to teach it. Hence, they cannot do their job as professionals. If Gove wants to grant schools greater autonomy, shouldn't that be a welcome change?
Or the policy of moving away from modules and towards end-of-course exams: once again, this allows greater flexibility in how to teach - one is not restricted to bite-sized modules.
Foreign languages: in the years to come, speaking a second language is going to be far more important than it has been hitherto. Surely Gove is right to make them mandatory once again.
There are other things such as phonics which seem to have become something of a fetish (NZ teaches something called synthetic phonics, which appears to work better) and I wonder if some of his reforms are wrapped up with some shrewd "back-to-basics" marketing, but the above strike me as very good things.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I did about 70 hours each week for 32 years. RE teachers' workload much higher than those from other subjects.
I've long reached the conclusion that if I were to believe everything people say about their jobs then I would have to conclude that a) everyone works every weekend except for me and b) everyone is doing really, really well except for me.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
RE staff get higher number of pupils with Gove's silly EBac, we are going back to the one lesson per week scenario. On the old 40 period week, allowing for 5 frees, s/he might get 35 lessons x 30 pupils each = 1,050 kids - i.e. the lone specialist teaching the entire school.
When i started teaching, the only 'textbooks' found in most stock cupboards were bibles. Nothing on world religions - so i had to write all my own materials and banda them.
For anyone who is ahead of the game, standard textbooks never keep up with what one wants to do.
You are the perfect argument as to why Gove is right.
My yr9 daughter has just started Humanities (which she has been told includes RE) after the RE teacher retired. My only encounter with the RE teacher was when, at a parents' evening I saw her shoving Jewsh prayer caps onto children's heads to entertain prospective parents. My yr7 son has RE but it doesn't seemed to have grabbed his attention. So what.
I thought for one moment about complaining that RE was no longer taught at Yr9 then visualised you teaching my children and decided to leave well alone. Sorry, but I can't regard Re as an important subject when one of its professed luminaries posts like you do.
Misusing sacred artefacts is highly unprofessional - sounds like the 'RE teacher' was a non-specialist and, therefore, had no training.
As for 'humanities', submerging RE into other subjects is usually a disaster and i have always opposed it.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I did about 70 hours each week for 32 years. RE teachers' workload much higher than those from other subjects.
I've long reached the conclusion that if I were to believe everything people say about their jobs then I would have to conclude that a) everyone works every weekend except for me and b) everyone is doing really, really well except for me.
It is simple arithmetic - if you look at the pupil caseload figures i gave above.
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I did about 70 hours each week for 32 years. RE teachers' workload much higher than those from other subjects.
I've long reached the conclusion that if I were to believe everything people say about their jobs then I would have to conclude that a) everyone works every weekend except for me and b) everyone is doing really, really well except for me.
Sorry but Leo is quite right, to an extent. When I was teaching as an RE specialist (I'm currently on a career break whilst I got over my differences with SM (homophobic bitches!), discern my vocation with the Church, and generally try to keep my sanity) I would see pretty much the entire school in my working week, whilst also monitoring what the few none specialists got upto to ensure everything was hunky-dorey - one of the problems that not having to have a specialist teach the subject, the department gets little attention in terms of staffing in most schools.
Whilst I set my workload to be as manageable as possible (I refused to put in more than a certain number of hours a week outside of teaching time) when it came to report season, parent evenings, DRIPs, resource and schemes of work updating etc. etc. my workload seemed to increase exponentially in comparison to other teachers around me.
However RS teachers are not the only ones in this boat, music and art teachers tend to find themselves somewhere close, but these subjects are not usually overseen by only one specialist in the department - which helps to reduce not only the teaching load, but also the administrative load as well.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I can't regard Re as an important subject
Am I right in thinking that you are a governor?
If so, are you aware that primary trainee teachers get a mere 2 hours devoted to RE in the whole of a 4 year B. Ed. or a one-year PGCE?
As a governor, when did you last press for INSET in RE for your teachers?
I was one of the organisers of such an INSET course yesterday. The primary teachers were lapping it up. One of the most important events I am involved in all year - its being in its 33rd year now - I have been to them all.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
You are the perfect argument as to why Gove is right.
This thread is very strange. This group of 'Christian unrest' has largely been devoted to teacher-bashing. In the outside world, when asked to rank professions in terms of trustworthiness, teachers come out high up.
Journalists, however, come out very low down.
Teachers went into our careers for the love of our subject and 'for the kids.'
I suppose that journalists went into theirs for the love of truth.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I suppose that journalists went into theirs for the love of truth.
The journalists I know went into it because they love to write and they have a love of words.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Pity they didn't write novels instead of photographing members of the royal family in various states of undress then.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Pity they didn't write novels instead of photographing members of the royal family in various states of undress then.
Hmmm - are photographers journalists?
Posted by Sleepwalker (# 15343) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
When I was a labourer it was never less than a 10 hour day, 6 days a week. Any holiday was unpaid, so people rarely took them as they had to earn a living wage and there wasn't enough to pay for a holiday left over. .
How old are you Exclamation Mark? It must be a long time since ordinary workers didn't have the whole of Saturday off, or at least the afternoons. And the Holiday Pay Act came in in 1938.
That Act doesn't apply to agency workers, for example. Theoretically they are available for work seven days a week and although paid annual leave does accrue (a right only applied to agency workers relatively recently), and thanks to the present government it is now a day one right, agencies only ever pay a percentage of the time you work as they claim that since everyone works different hours 'a day' does not actually mean 7.5 hours, for instance, even if your working day actually IS 7.5 hours (as set by the client you are working for). Sick leave continues to be unpaid and if you don't have enough paid annual leave accrued, bank holidays would be unpaid also.
[ 26. January 2013, 19:37: Message edited by: Sleepwalker ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Pity they didn't write novels instead of photographing members of the royal family in various states of undress then.
Hmmm - are photographers journalists?
Paid by their masters/mistresses.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Pity they didn't write novels instead of photographing members of the royal family in various states of undress then.
Hmmm - are photographers journalists?
If you're being pedantic, some journalists are photographers.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
]Sorry but Leo is quite right, to an extent.
I am sure that he is right - to an extent.
In the meantime, does no-one wish to respond to my comments on Gove?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Or the policy of moving away from modules and towards end-of-course exams: once again, this allows greater flexibility in how to teach - one is not restricted to bite-sized modules.
Plenty of very intelligent dyslexic pupils have benefited from modular assessment. The return to end of course exams will simply cut hundreds of bright, creative people out of the loop. This saddens me as we have come a long way in promoting dyslexia friendly schools and assessment systems.
While schools are controlled by politicians systems will swing from one extreme to the other so that those politicians will be seen to be "doing something".
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Cod: quote:
In the meantime, does no-one wish to respond to my comments on Gove?
Well, where do we start...
Let's see. He claims to want to give schools greater autonomy, but actually the 'free' schools programme is another ideologically-motivated attempt to chip away at the power of local education authorities. Free schools and academies are directly accountable to the Department for Education, so they are not free from political control; au contraire, as the French would say. This school in London, for example, has been forced to convert to academy status against the wishes of the majority of parents and teachers. There is obviously more to the story than meets the eye, but it is clear from his behaviour in this instance that when Gove says he wants schools to have more autonomy he doesn't mean they should have freedom to do things he disapproves of.
And the much-vaunted 'EBacc' is simply another straitjacket for the curriculum, designed to force all GCSE students to study subjects that Mr Gove remembers from his own schooldays. Making foreign languages compulsory again was a good move, but leaving computer science off the list of approved subjects was not. Music and art and design are not included in the EBacc, despite considerable evidence that these subjects - especially music - enhance learning in other areas. The previous government's attempts to improve vocational courses have simply been ignored, with the result that students who are not particularly good at academic subjects have nothing to engage their interest. So we're back to an 'all or nothing' round of exams at the end of most courses, which is More Rigorous (that's code for Harder To Pass), regardless of the fact that a three-hour written exam is neither the best way of testing knowledge of most subjects nor a realistic representation of how knowledge is used in (most of) the real world.
Oh, and synthetic phonics (as used in New Zealand) IS the phonics system that is being used in English schools. The problems with it have been mentioned before many times, but let's just go for two at the moment. The first is that the English national curriculum is very restrictive; teachers are supposed to teach synthetic phonics only, in a particular way, ignoring any children in the class who might find another approach easier or who have begun learning to read using a different system. I attribute the fact that my daughter (currently with a reading ability 2 years ahead of her chronological age) had problems with reading when she began school to this - because her nursery used different names for all the letters.
The second problem with using a purely phonetic approach to teaching reading in English is of course that the English spelling system is morphophonemic, not purely phonemic, and the regularities within it are obscured by large numbers of 'exceptions'. Phonics alone will only get you so far, and 'phonemic awareness' is developed as a result of learning to read an alphabetic system, not beforehand. See for example this summary on the Warwick University website.
Gove obviously has very clear ideas about what he wants to do with the education system. Most of them seem to involve turning the clock back thirty years or so. This may be popular with the core Tory vote (many of whom were at school themselves thirty years ago and firmly believe educational standards have been declining steadily since then), but a lot of the things he is doing are likely to make things worse instead of better.
And according to this, the UK's education system is sixth best in the world. We don't fare quite so well in the OECD rankings, but sixth best (second best in Europe) isn't bad at all. You'd never guess it from Michael Gove and the media, though.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
And according to this, the UK's education system is sixth best in the world.
Heh. The key metric in that ranking appears to be how many school leavers go on to university - and given that recent governments have been happy to declare any old shack that accepts school leavers with two "F" grades at A-Level onto its food preparation course a university it's hardly surprising that we're ranking highly on it. It doesn't mean we're actually any good, it just means we did a fair job of fudging the figures.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Or the policy of moving away from modules and towards end-of-course exams: once again, this allows greater flexibility in how to teach - one is not restricted to bite-sized modules.
Plenty of very intelligent dyslexic pupils have benefited from modular assessment. The return to end of course exams will simply cut hundreds of bright, creative people out of the loop. This saddens me as we have come a long way in promoting dyslexia friendly schools and assessment systems.
While schools are controlled by politicians systems will swing from one extreme to the other so that those politicians will be seen to be "doing something".
Not just dyslexic students but any student who find a particular subject a struggle - so most students. I struggled with both maths and science (science because of the maths content) at school, and did much better in science because it was modular.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
That's the point. These are exams that are designed to separate the students into different classes. If you struggled with maths (or any other subject) you are meant to fail it.
Its not about teaching. They don't want to help you learn more than you otherwise might have. That's not what the Tories think secondary schools are for. Or at least, not what exams are for.
[ 29. January 2013, 14:54: Message edited by: ken ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
That's the point. These are exams that are designed to separate the students into different classes. If you struggled with maths (or any other subject) you are meant to fail it.
Isn't that the whole point of grading work in the first place? If you think everybody should pass regardless of whether they're actually any good at the subject then why bother even marking it?
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
That's the point. These are exams that are designed to separate the students into different classes. If you struggled with maths (or any other subject) you are meant to fail it.
Its not about teaching. They don't want to help you learn more than you otherwise might have. That's not what the Tories think secondary schools are for. Or at least, not what exams are for.
I do believe that the GCSE exams that are proposed will have different tiers (just as those that exist now do) and I'm not sure about the AS&A2-level ones yet, but since there should be some form fo entry standard to A levels I don't see the point in having tiered papers - especially since dyslexics etc. are entitled to additional time/help etc.
Whilst there is an argument for a return to a single, end of year test, it would be preferable to have an end of unit test as now, but not to allow retakes.
End of unit testing is something of a misleading means to measure students achievement and ability, but it is the only way to standardise the measurement of achievement of an entire country full of kids.
As I see I have cross posted with Marvin the MArtian, I will echo his sentiments but say it slightly differently - there are calls, what seems constantly, to have all students reaching the average mark: has nobody seen the insanity of this position and it's impossibility unless everyone scores exactly the same mark...
Some people are just sh*t at some subjects, people need to learn to live with that fact, people will fail some subjects for whatever reason...
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Some people are just sh*t at some subjects, people need to learn to live with that fact, people will fail some subjects for whatever reason...
And some people are only shit at things when they don't have the level of support they need to achieve their best. Maths was my worst subject at secondary school. Nevertheless, I was getting 'A's in fourth form under the teacher I had. She went on maternity leave for fifth form, I got a new teacher with a completely different method, and while I passed my CSE maths, completely failed my GCE. I literally could not understand his teaching method, but I thoroughly understood his predecessor's.
However, you're quite right to say that there are some things some students are more likely to fail at than others. It's also right to say that most schools don't have the resources to offer the kind of support each student needs to achieve their best.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Some people are just sh*t at some subjects, people need to learn to live with that fact, people will fail some subjects for whatever reason...
And some people are only shit at things when they don't have the level of support they need to achieve their best. Maths was my worst subject at secondary school. Nevertheless, I was getting 'A's in fourth form under the teacher I had. She went on maternity leave for fifth form, I got a new teacher with a completely different method, and while I passed my CSE maths, completely failed my GCE. I literally could not understand his teaching method, but I thoroughly understood his predecessor's.
However, you're quite right to say that there are some things some students are more likely to fail at than others. It's also right to say that most schools don't have the resources to offer the kind of support each student needs to achieve their best.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Assuming school finishes at 4.00pm (probably on the late side) and allowing 30 minutes for your seven mile drive home, is it really impossible to arrange your work so that on one occasion you leave work immediately after the end of the school day...
If we're talking about primary schools, especially small ones, that might be true. You need to wait until the kids have gone home. Sometimes they don't go. Sometimes no-one comes to pick them up. You can kick a 12-year-old out onto the street to walk home a few miles on their own, but not a 6-year-old. (I have no idea what the legal position on that is, but from the point of view of ordinary decency, you can't) Its not, strictly speaking, a teacher's job to wait with them until they do go, or to phone their parents and find out what's happening, but most will, because that's what teachers do. And someone has to. A larger school might have some staff members doing it on a rota, or some kind of after-school club, but in a typical small primary school teachers will wait with kids who are expecting to be collected.
quote:
... Assuming you can't find an electrician, etc. who works evenings, which you should be able to.
Where do you live? I have trouble finding people who can come at all, or predict their time within any frame less than a day. Like they say they'll be there in the morning, and don't turn up till 6pm. And there was one time someone was meant to come from the phone company and they missed three successive appointments altogether - I took three days off work to see them in different weeks, and they never came at all.
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
3. Well, schools did want the market economy
Which schools? Or rather, by schools maybe you mean power-crazed head teachers (there are a few) or Tory governors. There are many instances of schools being forced into academy status despite the overwhelming opposition of staff and parents... and even, now Gove has his evil way, overriding heads and governors.
What he said. Schools did not want this crap. When they did it to our school there was almost unanimous opposition from teachers, other staff, and parents. We even got onto the national news at one point as some protestors occupied the school roof for a few weeks.
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
How old are you Exclamation Mark? It must be a long time since ordinary workers didn't have the whole of Saturday off, or at least the afternoons. And the Holiday Pay Act came in in 1938.
I know people who don't get those things. Not many of them, and not all entirely legal (though some are) but they exist. Mostly working in trades relating to building. (But also I think some people working in sales or similar almost entirely on commission). Strictly speaking they are not forced to work anti-social hours, but sometimes you need the money
There's a lot of casual work or short contracts in building and decorating and landscaping and so on. Actual building contractors tend not to talk to these people - they have a some sort of ganger or agent who subcontracts to supply labour, and they call up their mates and various people they know the night before or at the begining of the week and they are the blokes you see standing around on street corners at 6am waiting for a white van to come and pick them up. And if you miss too many days then you won't be the first person the contractor or the gang boss or agent calls next time he needs someone, and when work is short you don't want that to happen to you.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
That's the point. These are exams that are designed to separate the students into different classes. If you struggled with maths (or any other subject) you are meant to fail it.
Isn't that the whole point of grading work in the first place? If you think everybody should pass regardless of whether they're actually any good at the subject then why bother even marking it?
It is the difference between mastery and evaluation. And the government keeps confusing the two. We want all students to achieve literacy, i.e. that is a mastery goal, we happy for you to have extra resources, time and teaching to achieve that - because once you have it, it makes life much easier for both you and everyone else (in the same way we want people to be able to cross the road or dress themselves).
Evaluation exams are designed to try and separate people according to what they are likely to be able to learn and do in the future - with the least assistance.
It would help if the government did not confuse these two goals. In the same way it seems to want 'satisfactory' to mean 'not good enough' and 90% to be above average and excellent. Ditto the exam results.
If you want exams to be evaluative, then average needs to be good enough for most things. So 5 Cs at GCSE should equip you for most non-graduate posts. If they don't, then it would appear that average is in fact not good enough 0 and you have a problem with the design of your system.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Related point with dyslexia. Dyslexia just means trouble with reading, it doesn't tell you why. Someone who never develops sufficient intellectual function to develop speech is never going to learn to read - is essentially dyslexic. But it is a pointless distinction and gets subsumed under the category of profound learning disability.
When people are trying to identify dyslexia in educational settings, and provide support to 'make up for it' on evaluative exams, it is because they are treating it like blindness. In other words in these cases, the inability to read (or trouble with reading) is *not* a proxy for lack of comprehension and intellectual ability - as it might usually be.
In taking this approach, we essentially assert, that what we are trying to evaluate is comprehension and intellectual ability. As a society we are happy to give people assistance in overcoming disabilities that impair the expression of such abilities.
The problem is that no exam or course work is a direct assessment of comprehension and intellectual ability. They all involve various other factors - and then we all scrap over how much we care about those other factors.
In everyday life course work is a better match to how most people are obliged to work and live their lives. These skills will involve research, long term time planning etc. They may also privilege good analytical skills, consistency and reliability in one's approach to the production of work, and the ability to synthesise large amounts of disparate information.
Exams privilege a good recall memory, fast and concise writing style, and ability to manage one's anxiety.
I think politicians like exams because they are a good match to some of a politican's high profile tasks that they are required to do regularly. I.e. others do the research, they remember a series of key points and arguments that they can produce under pressure in a very short space of time.
My working life is not like that.
[ 29. January 2013, 16:17: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
That's the point. These are exams that are designed to separate the students into different classes. If you struggled with maths (or any other subject) you are meant to fail it.
Isn't that the whole point of grading work in the first place?
What's with this Americanism of 'grading'.
We 'level' here.
I may sound pedantic bu this American mind-set where seemingly the wheat is separated from the chaff and the chaff is thrown away is not what most UK teachers want.
We want the 'chaff' to get extra help.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I do believe that the GCSE exams that are proposed will have different tiers (just as those that exist now do)
I doubt that. I took part in Gove's risible and insulting consultation that asked closed questions - one of which was 'Do you agree that tiering should be abolished?' or some such.
[ 29. January 2013, 19:15: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Marvin: quote:
The key metric in that ranking appears to be how many school leavers go on to university - and given that recent governments have been happy to declare any old shack that accepts school leavers with two "F" grades at A-Level onto its food preparation course a university it's hardly surprising that we're ranking highly on it.
Thank you for demonstrating how difficult it is to get a Tory to say something positive about the education system. Might I remind you that the first wave of 'old shacks' were magically transformed into 'new universities' in 1992, when the last lot of Tories were in power?
The new universities certainly are underfunded compared to Oxbridge and the Russell Group, but Further Education colleges (which do teach subjects such as food preparation) don't count as universities and would not be included in statistics measuring the number of school leavers who attend university.
And the fact that a course does not appear on Mr Gove's approved list of 'academically rigorous' subjects doesn't mean it is worthless or not intellectually demanding. Reading University, for example, offers BScs in Food Science (for those who want to get a job in the ever-expanding ready meals industry). The minimum entry requirements are 3 A levels at BBB or BBC, at least two core science subjects, one of which must be grade B. If you don't believe me you can check their website - www.reading.ac.uk.
Of course, Reading is a member of the Russell Group so perhaps it's a bad example. I'd be interested to hear which university you were thinking of when you made that comment. If it exists.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Marvin: quote:
The key metric in that ranking appears to be how many school leavers go on to university - and given that recent governments have been happy to declare any old shack that accepts school leavers with two "F" grades at A-Level onto its food preparation course a university it's hardly surprising that we're ranking highly on it.
Thank you for demonstrating how difficult it is to get a Tory to say something positive about the education system. Might I remind you that the first wave of 'old shacks' were magically transformed into 'new universities' in 1992, when the last lot of Tories were in power?
The new universities certainly are underfunded compared to Oxbridge and the Russell Group, but Further Education colleges (which do teach subjects such as food preparation) don't count as universities and would not be included in statistics measuring the number of school leavers who attend university.
And the fact that a course does not appear on Mr Gove's approved list of 'academically rigorous' subjects doesn't mean it is worthless or not intellectually demanding. Reading University, for example, offers BScs in Food Science (for those who want to get a job in the ever-expanding ready meals industry). The minimum entry requirements are 3 A levels at BBB or BBC, at least two core science subjects, one of which must be grade B. If you don't believe me you can check their website - www.reading.ac.uk.
Of course, Reading is a member of the Russell Group so perhaps it's a bad example. I'd be interested to hear which university you were thinking of when you made that comment. If it exists.
Also, Further Education is woefully underfunded and never considered as important as Higher Education - and it is a nightmare to re-enter if you've been out of education because of the funding system. All FE fees must be paid upfront, unlike university. The scrapping of EMA also hurt the many in Further Education who are on a low income and/or support themselves.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Re my struggling with maths, what Anselmina said is right. I actually got a B in my maths GCSE and BB in my double award science GCSE. I found science much easier once it was modular (and it no doubt helped with the disruption when my teacher got cancer) and it wasn't until my GCSE year that I actually got a maths teacher whose method of teaching I understood and who helped me (and I had friends in the 6th form who volunteered to tutor me through the coursework). I actually struggle with coursework and prefer exams, but modular exams every so often.
I don't understand the opposition to modules - it's what students will see at university anyway.
[ 30. January 2013, 07:13: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]
Posted by Emma Louise (# 3571) on
:
We didn't at my uni (I did 8 "finals" in 4 days on which my whole degree was based) but I think that's unusual. Although quite possibly what some of the politicians remember.
My second degree was modular and I scored far higher! It certainly suited me.
As a teacher I do like As levels but I don't like the January sitting. I would prefer end of year exams for each year so they do get to have some time just thinking and not doing exam prep.
When I return to teaching it will have all changed...
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
My son has just qualified as an A320 pilot. His course was very modular. At least half of it was practical = flying real planes, starting with the smallest. This fact won't make him a less good pilot.
Why does cramming all the knowledge and expertise into one exam make it somehow more valuable at A level (in Gove's eyes)?
(He also went to Falinge High school, which is the local comp for the most deprived ward in the country - a school which puts a lie to Gove's view of comprehensive schools, it is a fabulous school - incredibly diverse and inclusive)
[ 30. January 2013, 07:42: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
This thread is very strange. This group of 'Christian unrest' has largely been devoted to teacher-bashing. In the outside world, when asked to rank professions in terms of trustworthiness, teachers come out high up.
Journalists, however, come out very low down.
Teachers went into our careers for the love of our subject and 'for the kids.'
I suppose that journalists went into theirs for the love of truth.
It only appears to be teacher bashing if you elevate this particular group of workers into constantly put-upon saints, who only have children's best interests at heart, working longer hours than anyone else and always doing so efficiently, brilliantly and selflessly.
Now some teachers fit the bill. Others don't. In the same way some journalists are bad others good. Journalists eventually expose malpractice and shoddiness in their own profession. I think the same process might happen sometimes in teaching.
Criticism and complaining is generally a good thing.
My bright year 7 son received a report in December after only one term in his secondary school in which he was told in most of his subjects that he was unlikely to meet his targets. At the same time his attitude to learning and his home work was rated highly.
I complained that this was an entirely unhelpful and dispiriting way to tell a 12-year-old how an impersonal, computerised assessment system operated. The head teacher seemed to agree with me and all year 7s were then reissued their school reports to be told that they needed to make rapid progress to achieve their targets. This was better but even better would have been a few lines from each teacher telling me in personal terms how my son was settling into his new school and new subjects.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Spawn, you say that criticism and complaining is usually a good thing, but the anecdote you relate is actually a counterexample; your son was discouraged by his first term's report.
Constructive criticism is certainly helpful in improving performance. Most teachers use it daily to help their pupils learn. Constant negative criticism and dismissal of real achievements with 'not good enough' or 'could do better' is demoralising and demotivating. Teachers are rightly criticised when they do it to children - it's a pity the same standard is not applied to people who criticise them.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Spawn, you say that criticism and complaining is usually a good thing, but the anecdote you relate is actually a counterexample; your son was discouraged by his first term's report.
I thought it was a good example of the school and its staff being held accountable - the school dropped the ball, it was rightfully complained about and they responded to that complain by coming up with an alternative that was a bit better.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Thank you for demonstrating how difficult it is to get a Tory to say something positive about the education system. Might I remind you that the first wave of 'old shacks' were magically transformed into 'new universities' in 1992, when the last lot of Tories were in power?
It doesn't matter who did it, it's still a terrible idea.
quote:
The new universities certainly are underfunded compared to Oxbridge and the Russell Group, but Further Education colleges (which do teach subjects such as food preparation) don't count as universities and would not be included in statistics measuring the number of school leavers who attend university.
Yes, and it's those FE colleges that are slowly being turned into universities in their own right. We've got five frigging "universities" in Birmingham now, and frankly only two of them are worthy of the name in my opinion.
quote:
I'd be interested to hear which university you were thinking of when you made that comment. If it exists.
This one'll do for a start.
There's nothing wrong with FE courses in Tourism or Salon Management, but are they really worthy of being given equivalent status to a BA/BSc in a proper academic subject? Is someone who scrapes a couple of A Level passes then gets a 'degree' in Food Preparation really equivalent to someone with four "A"s at A Level and a degree in Physics? This is just a ridiculous watering down of the whole concept of what a degree is - it's supposed to be an achievement that singles the bearer out as part of the intellectual elite, not just another routine stepping stone on the path of life. It's supposed to mean something.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Hence Private Eye's long-running gag about the 'University of North-West London (formerly Neasden World of Leather)'. If you print too much of a currency, you devalue it.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
I agree.
There's something to be said for keeping a good system of trade certificates/diplomas operating alongside bachelor degrees. One says you've demonstrated you can think, the other says you've demonstrated you can do.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Is someone who scrapes a couple of A Level passes then gets a 'degree' in Food Preparation really equivalent to someone with four "A"s at A Level and a degree in Physics?
Of course they are - and of just as much (if not more) value if they go on to prepare our restaurant meals!
This constant devaluing of everything except the academic in this country has done us no end of harm.
This doesn't happen in Germany, and their manufacturing base is still healthy and thriving.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Thank you for demonstrating how difficult it is to get a Tory to say something positive about the education system. Might I remind you that the first wave of 'old shacks' were magically transformed into 'new universities' in 1992, when the last lot of Tories were in power?
It doesn't matter who did it, it's still a terrible idea.
quote:
The new universities certainly are underfunded compared to Oxbridge and the Russell Group, but Further Education colleges (which do teach subjects such as food preparation) don't count as universities and would not be included in statistics measuring the number of school leavers who attend university.
Yes, and it's those FE colleges that are slowly being turned into universities in their own right. We've got five frigging "universities" in Birmingham now, and frankly only two of them are worthy of the name in my opinion.
quote:
I'd be interested to hear which university you were thinking of when you made that comment. If it exists.
This one'll do for a start.
There's nothing wrong with FE courses in Tourism or Salon Management, but are they really worthy of being given equivalent status to a BA/BSc in a proper academic subject? Is someone who scrapes a couple of A Level passes then gets a 'degree' in Food Preparation really equivalent to someone with four "A"s at A Level and a degree in Physics? This is just a ridiculous watering down of the whole concept of what a degree is - it's supposed to be an achievement that singles the bearer out as part of the intellectual elite, not just another routine stepping stone on the path of life. It's supposed to mean something.
While I agree with you, personally I think the problem lies with devaluing Further Education. The problem comes when the 'intellectual elite' are considered to be the elite of humanity in general - I know you don't think that, but over-valuing Higher Education and under-valuing Further Education is what went wrong imo. This isn't to dismiss Higher Education, but the idea that 'smart = Higher Ed' is not automatically correct. You can be part of the 'intellectual elite' and still not want to go to uni or have uni not be right for you.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
While I agree with you, personally I think the problem lies with devaluing Further Education. The problem comes when the 'intellectual elite' are considered to be the elite of humanity in general - I know you don't think that, but over-valuing Higher Education and under-valuing Further Education is what went wrong imo. This isn't to dismiss Higher Education, but the idea that 'smart = Higher Ed' is not automatically correct. You can be part of the 'intellectual elite' and still not want to go to uni or have uni not be right for you.
Yep - and you can be incredibly intelligent yet not at all academic. Gove makes the mistake of thinking his path is the only path (God forbid!)
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
This constant devaluing of everything except the academic in this country has done us no end of harm.
That devaluing has happened in no small part because successive governments have tried to make everything academic. And in the process they've not only devalued NVQs and suchlike, they've devalued academia as well.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
This constant devaluing of everything except the academic in this country has done us no end of harm.
That devaluing has happened in no small part because successive governments have tried to make everything academic. And in the process they've not only devalued NVQs and suchlike, they've devalued academia as well.
Agreed.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Academia has in consequence become the equivalent of everyone having to win prized on Sports Day.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jane R:
[qb]Thank you for demonstrating how difficult it is to get a Tory to say something positive about the education system. Might I remind you that the first wave of 'old shacks' were magically transformed into 'new universities' in 1992, when the last lot of Tories were in power?
It doesn't matter who did it, it's still a terrible idea.
I have a bias here, but Robert Gordon University is one of the 1992 new Universities, and the Guardian is currently ranking it 35th in the UK. 97.1% of its graduates are in employment within 6 months of graduating.
It was shortlisted for the Sunday Times University of the Year last year.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Jade: quote:
The problem comes when the 'intellectual elite' are considered to be the elite of humanity in general - I know you don't think that, but over-valuing Higher Education and under-valuing Further Education is what went wrong imo. This isn't to dismiss Higher Education, but the idea that 'smart = Higher Ed' is not automatically correct.
This is true. But I also don't think you can pigeonhole people neatly into 'academic' -> HE and 'vocational' -> FE. One of our neighbours works as a builder, but he is also a member of the local astronomical society. I don't know whether he knows as much as someone with a BSc in astrophysics, but he certainly knows more than I do. Yet I'm an 'academic' type.
And like Mr Gove, I was good at exams (being slightly lazy, I prefer cramming at the last minute and then doing a bunch of exams to having to work steadily throughout the course) and good at academic subjects (I'd have got the EBacc with two additional languages). Unlike him, though, I recognise that the same learning style doesn't suit everyone.
I'm beginning to think Gove is a power-crazed megalomaniac - he's supposed to consult the Welsh and Northern Irish education secretaries before announcing changes that will affect them, and he seems to have done a really good job of putting their backs up. The Welsh have just decided to keep GCSEs.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Marvin: quote:
There's nothing wrong with FE courses in Tourism or Salon Management, but are they really worthy of being given equivalent status to a BA/BSc in a proper academic subject?
OK, so what would you consider a 'proper' academic subject? Would you agree that subjects offered by traditional universities (eg Oxbridge or the Russell Group) count? Because if so, I'd like to point out that they all offer Management Studies and/or Business Studies; why is it OK to study management at university but not Salon Management at an FE college? The University of York (recently ranked the best university under 50 years old in the UK, and 8th best in the world; usually ranked in the top 5 of all UK universities) has a BA in Heritage Studies. You might want to have a look at the course information page before dismissing that, because it's really archaeology for students wanting to work for museums and you won't get a place without some fairly good A level grades.
Drawing the line between academic and vocational is not as easy as you might think. Personally I don't think management studies should be a 'real' academic subject, but the University of Cambridge disagrees with me. And they've been in higher education since about 1209, so presumably they know what they're doing by now.
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Jade: quote:
The problem comes when the 'intellectual elite' are considered to be the elite of humanity in general - I know you don't think that, but over-valuing Higher Education and under-valuing Further Education is what went wrong imo. This isn't to dismiss Higher Education, but the idea that 'smart = Higher Ed' is not automatically correct.
This is true. But I also don't think you can pigeonhole people neatly into 'academic' -> HE and 'vocational' -> FE. One of our neighbours works as a builder, but he is also a member of the local astronomical society. I don't know whether he knows as much as someone with a BSc in astrophysics, but he certainly knows more than I do. Yet I'm an 'academic' type.
[Snip]
The Welsh have just decided to keep GCSEs.
Yo uare quite right that other people have other knowledge, but the example fo the builder you give is different than the decision about academic and vocational. The builder has chosen a vocational career and has a hobby which is academic. He is free, at his leasure to persue his hobby and take an academic degree in it if he so wishes. So yes you are right that you can't just pidgeon hole people, but people make choices which pidgeon-hole them...
As for the Welsh and education, I wouldn't ask L. Andrews to read a book to a group of kids let alone trust him on actually ensuring education is up to scratch. Why C. Jones keeps him in this role I will never understand as educational standards in Wales continue to fall behind, and there is no way to blame anyone but the Welsh Assembly for it now since it has been a devolved matter for so long.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:This doesn't happen in Germany, and their manufacturing base is still healthy and thriving.
But the education system in Germany is very different, they do not have a regimented 'comprehensive' system and to an extent stream students along the lines of the old grammar-secondary modern style, and their different school paths are weighted towards different skills and abilities, with specialist special schools for those with learning and emotional disabilities. We have a problem in this country that has led to the devaluation of all qualifications because we do not respect and appreciate the inherent value and worth of the individual, rather we judge vocational and academic against each other in a push to ensure 'everyone succeeds the same' rather than appreciate that vocational and academic are different and can't really be compared as like-for-like.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
We have a problem in this country that has led to the devaluation of all qualifications because we do not respect and appreciate the inherent value and worth of the individual, rather we judge vocational and academic against each other in a push to ensure 'everyone succeeds the same' rather than appreciate that vocational and academic are different and can't really be compared as like-for-like.
Yes, very true.
What's to be done?
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
We have a problem in this country that has led to the devaluation of all qualifications because we do not respect and appreciate the inherent value and worth of the individual, rather we judge vocational and academic against each other in a push to ensure 'everyone succeeds the same' rather than appreciate that vocational and academic are different and can't really be compared as like-for-like.
Yes, very true.
What's to be done?
Allow for different students to have different timetables (to avoid the argument of seperate schools, which whilst logical to me seesm to go like a lead balloon in UK education circles in the main) that are weighted to different subjects. Even in year 7 it is possible to see where a student's natural aptitude lies - whether academic/creative/etc. - and whilst it is not clear cut it is possible to orientate a student's timetable so that a hands on D&T student who is crap at music would do more D&T and less music, the student who has a natural aptitude for humanities but really does stink at D&T would do less D&T and more humanities.
Having been involved in timetabling I can imagine it would create a really big headache initially and would require extra money for an increased teaching staff - but this investment (to this small government, low tax and spend peep) would be a wise and appropriately placed investment for the future returns that it would reap (both for the individual student and for the country as a whole.)
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Jade: quote:
The problem comes when the 'intellectual elite' are considered to be the elite of humanity in general - I know you don't think that, but over-valuing Higher Education and under-valuing Further Education is what went wrong imo. This isn't to dismiss Higher Education, but the idea that 'smart = Higher Ed' is not automatically correct.
This is true. But I also don't think you can pigeonhole people neatly into 'academic' -> HE and 'vocational' -> FE. One of our neighbours works as a builder, but he is also a member of the local astronomical society. I don't know whether he knows as much as someone with a BSc in astrophysics, but he certainly knows more than I do. Yet I'm an 'academic' type.
And like Mr Gove, I was good at exams (being slightly lazy, I prefer cramming at the last minute and then doing a bunch of exams to having to work steadily throughout the course) and good at academic subjects (I'd have got the EBacc with two additional languages). Unlike him, though, I recognise that the same learning style doesn't suit everyone.
I'm beginning to think Gove is a power-crazed megalomaniac - he's supposed to consult the Welsh and Northern Irish education secretaries before announcing changes that will affect them, and he seems to have done a really good job of putting their backs up. The Welsh have just decided to keep GCSEs.
I don't think 'academic' is the same as 'intelligent'.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
all year 7s were then reissued their school reports to be told that they needed to make rapid progress to achieve their targets. This was better but even better would have been a few lines from each teacher telling me in personal terms how my son was settling into his new school and new subjects.
Absolutely. When I taught in a comprehensive school back in the dark ages, we wrote at least a paragraph of personal report on each pupil in each subject. This highlighted their strengths and pin-pointed targets for improvement. Since the box-ticking 'results'-oriented regimes of the last few governments ("the price of everything and the value of nothing" was a phrase attached to Thatcher but as relevant to Blair's government) this has been reduced to a computer printout in standard gobbledegook, if my wife's more recent experience is any guide.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Allow for different students to have different timetables (to avoid the argument of seperate schools, which whilst logical to me seesm to go like a lead balloon in UK education circles in the main) that are weighted to different subjects. Even in year 7 it is possible to see where a student's natural aptitude lies - whether academic/creative/etc. - and whilst it is not clear cut it is possible to orientate a student's timetable so that a hands on D&T student who is crap at music would do more D&T and less music, the student who has a natural aptitude for humanities but really does stink at D&T would do less D&T and more humanities.
Having been involved in timetabling I can imagine it would create a really big headache initially and would require extra money for an increased teaching staff - but this investment (to this small government, low tax and spend peep) would be a wise and appropriately placed investment for the future returns that it would reap (both for the individual student and for the country as a whole.)
One way of achieving this might be to take the Labour Party's idea of a technical baccalaureate alongside the EBacc. In my view the EBacc is a thoroughly good thing for academic children but not for all. We need skilled workers, non academic engineers and manufacturers as much as we need academic whizz kids.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Jade: quote:
I don't think 'academic' is the same as 'intelligent'.
What did I say that led you to believe that I thought it was? I have been arguing against narrowing the curriculum and for modular courses.
I take your point about people putting themselves into pigeonholes. I just think that Year 7 is too early to make them choose a career path. My youngest sister would have chosen vocational then. She's got a BSc and an MBA now - both gained after leaving school at the age of 16.
Perhaps we need to make it easier for people to hop between pigeonholes, as well as making the vocational pigeonhole look more attractive...
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
97.1% of its graduates are in employment within 6 months of graduating.
Whoever said that getting a job was the primary purpose of a degree?
Employability should be the key metric for vocational courses, not degrees.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Even in year 7 it is possible to see where a student's natural aptitude lies - whether academic/creative/etc. - and whilst it is not clear cut it is possible to orientate a student's timetable so that a hands on D&T student who is crap at music would do more D&T and less music
That would be far better than the current system, which would give that pupil even more music teaching so that they can become average at it, even if that means they never get beyond average in D&T. Better to be average at everything than brilliant in one area and crap in another - that is the mantra of modern educational orthodoxy.
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
One way of achieving this might be to take the Labour Party's idea of a technical baccalaureate alongside the EBacc. In my view the EBacc is a thoroughly good thing for academic children but not for all. We need skilled workers, non academic engineers and manufacturers as much as we need academic whizz kids.
Would this be a suggestion from 'just three words: education, education, education' Labour, who fecked about with the education system last time round to make a complete hash of most of it with it's admin. and overlapping 'initatives' which came out ten a penny... Hmm... look to Labour in Wales and wonder...
However, there is some merit in a TechBacc. but unfortunately it is just a little too late to call for them when there are already the university technical colleges coming out, of course lots of people don't like them because they are not within the 'mainstream' comprehensive system... but I likes them, and a techbacc could be part of that system...
Just as a quick tangent, there is a little bit of criticism about the Ebacc around (and most of it seems to focus on the compulsory 5 subjects detracting from other subjects) I just had to pip in how having to do compulsory English, maths, 1 science, 1 foreign language and either history or geography would not have altered my GCSE subject options greatly, nor stopped me doing any other subjects I might like, in any event it was requirement in my school to conform to what is now being classed the Ebacc anyhow (except for those in the lower streams) so I don't see the fuss - if people could enlighten me to what he actual problems (beyond a lack of coursework) with the Ebacc are I would be grateful.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
And like Mr Gove, I was good at exams (being slightly lazy, I prefer cramming at the last minute and then doing a bunch of exams to having to work steadily throughout the course) and good at academic subjects (I'd have got the EBacc with two additional languages).
Different methods of assessment tend to favour different people. Whichever we use some will be relatively advantaged by it, and others disadvantaged. So the peope who design exams can choose what kind of people they want to pass and what kind they want to fail, and choose accordingly.
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Marvin: quote:
There's nothing wrong with FE courses in Tourism or Salon Management, but are they really worthy of being given equivalent status to a BA/BSc in a proper academic subject?
OK, so what would you consider a 'proper' academic subject? Would you agree that subjects offered by traditional universities (eg Oxbridge or the Russell Group) count? Because if so, I'd like to point out that they all offer Management Studies and/or Business Studies; why is it OK to study management at university but not Salon Management at an FE college?
Dunno about Marvin, but personally I don't think Business Studies and similar vocational degrees are "real academic subjects" for most of the students who take them, however bespired their university is. They can be for some of the academics who teach it, but then you can research pretty much anything. But so what? Academic education doesn't have any particular particular moral superioroty over training in useful skills, but they are different things.
The difference between them is research and scholarship. Which is what universities are fundamentally about. Peopel do research, they find out things or invent things no-one has ever known before, then they teach other people about them. Some of those other people go on to do more research themselves (most don't) but in order to study the subject they have to understand what it is and how it is done and why its important. (and if they don;t they ought not to get good marks) Golf Course Management doesn't have any of that. Business Studies doesn't have much. Economics or Computer Science have quite a lot. Your traditional academic subjects such as anthropology or archaeology or astronomy or biology or chemistry or classics or history or linguistics or literature or philosopy or physics or psychology (the scientific sort anyway) or theology or whatever are almost nothing but scholarship and research, or the immediate products of scholarship and research.
Research-intensive universities teach posh vocational subjects like Management and Finance and Law because they make a hell of a lot of money and we need the cash. Partly to finance other things that don't make so much money. I guess I'd prefer it if we didn't have to do that, but we do. And it also gives a good excuse to employ some interesting reseaarchers who might not otherwise get jobs.
But to be honest I think I'd rather it if we'd let universities be universities, and concetrate on research and scholarship, and perhaps had rather fewer of them, and if there was another group of higher education institutions, sort of sitting between the FE colleges and the traditional universities, perhaps concentrating less on theoretical research, and more on technical subjects and engineering and other useful but less obviously scholarly things such as business studies or teacher-training or art and design. Hey, maybe we could call them "Polytechnics"! Now wouldn't that be a radical idea?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
My son has just qualified as an A320 pilot. His course was very modular. At least half of it was practical = flying real planes, starting with the smallest. This fact won't make him a less good pilot.
Why does cramming all the knowledge and expertise into one exam make it somehow more valuable at A level (in Gove's eyes)?
Because the courses are meant to achieve different things.
The pilot education is meant to teach people how to be pilots. The more of them get through, the better-designed the course is. If everybody passed then the course would have succeeded perfectly. Ideally there will be no failures.
On the other hand, public exams at state schools are not primarily meant to teach people to do anything. They are meant to divide the students into different classes. The course design has to produce a sufficient number of failures. If everybody passed then the course would not have succeeded in its purpose. Its not supposed to pass everyone. The exams are meant to produce failures, that's what they are for. If everyone got four As at A-level how would we know who can go to university and who can't?
This was explicit in the old A-levels which passed the same proportion of students however high or low their marks were. But since they changed the method of assessment that no longer works. Nowadays results have to be dependent on marks actually achieved in exams, not on ranking among the candidates. (Otherwise you get sued) Also, with two-stage or modular exams students can game the system by dropping courses they are doing badly on and sticking to ones they are good at so too many of them pass. So the government is changing it back to a system which can guarantee the desired number of failures.
Its about sorting people into winners and losers, not personal development. At the top a limited number of students get to go to posh universities and in effect get a chance to join the upper middle class (who don't go to state schools themselves). In the middle a much larger group who go to the inferior sort of universities or to FE colleges or to some sort of technical education and get to do most of the work. At the bottom the losers who can compete for the few remaining unskilled jobs, and if they fail to get them can join the Great Unemployed and stand as an Awful Warning to the rest of us to frighten us into working hard and obeying our bosses because look where you end up if you rock the boat.
This is England. Our primary schools teach kids the basic stuff you need to know. The top end of our university system does a pretty good job of research and scholarship. The stuff in the middle is about preserving and reproducing the social relations of capitalism. It keeps kids off the streets until they are old enough to be put to work, teaches them their place in society, and recruits a few bright ones into the upper middle class. Any education that goes on is an added bonus.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
One way of achieving this might be to take the Labour Party's idea of a technical baccalaureate alongside the EBacc. In my view the EBacc is a thoroughly good thing for academic children but not for all. We need skilled workers, non academic engineers and manufacturers as much as we need academic whizz kids.
Would this be a suggestion from 'just three words: education, education, education' Labour, who fecked about with the education system last time round to make a complete hash of most of it with it's admin. and overlapping 'initatives' which came out ten a penny... Hmm... look to Labour in Wales and wonder...
However, there is some merit in a TechBacc. but unfortunately it is just a little too late to call for them when there are already the university technical colleges coming out, of course lots of people don't like them because they are not within the 'mainstream' comprehensive system... but I likes them, and a techbacc could be part of that system...
Just as a quick tangent, there is a little bit of criticism about the Ebacc around (and most of it seems to focus on the compulsory 5 subjects detracting from other subjects) I just had to pip in how having to do compulsory English, maths, 1 science, 1 foreign language and either history or geography would not have altered my GCSE subject options greatly, nor stopped me doing any other subjects I might like, in any event it was requirement in my school to conform to what is now being classed the Ebacc anyhow (except for those in the lower streams) so I don't see the fuss - if people could enlighten me to what he actual problems (beyond a lack of coursework) with the Ebacc are I would be grateful.
I object to the dropping of RE - which I'm assuming you had to do at GCSE, surely? Also a language is no longer compulsory at GCSE (although it was dropped in 2007(?) or thereabouts, so definitely a Labour misstep). I did my GCSEs in 2005 and had to do maths, English language, English literature, RE, a science and a language. I also did geography, history and another language (school was a language specialist school).
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Ken: quote:
But to be honest I think I'd rather it if we'd let universities be universities, and concetrate on research and scholarship, and perhaps had rather fewer of them, and if there was another group of higher education institutions, sort of sitting between the FE colleges and the traditional universities, perhaps concentrating less on theoretical research, and more on technical subjects and engineering and other useful but less obviously scholarly things such as business studies or teacher-training or art and design. Hey, maybe we could call them "Polytechnics"! Now wouldn't that be a radical idea?
This.
I always thought it was a pity that all the polys chose to become universities. Even Oxford Brookes, which IIRC initially toyed with the idea of remaining a polytechnic...
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
I'm not so sure. My daughter studied English at an ex-poly; I could see subjects like that hived off to the 'old' universities and the innovative and creative approaches to the subject that her university pioneered quietly (or not-so-quietly perhaps) being dropped. She had previously done a year at the neighbouring 'trad' uni and was very glad to have moved.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Marvin: quote:
Whoever said that getting a job was the primary purpose of a degree?
The government did, back in 2011. But 'employability' and 'enterprise skills' were being bandied about as buzzwords long before that.
Given that most students end university with thousands of pounds of debt hanging round their neck like the Ancient Mariner's albatross, finding a job as soon as possible afterwards would seem like a good idea. Though personally I agree with you; the purpose of a degree is to teach you to think for yourself, not to get you a well-paid job afterwards (though both would be nice).
[ 30. January 2013, 21:38: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I object to the dropping of RE - which I'm assuming you had to do at GCSE, surely? Also a language is no longer compulsory at GCSE (although it was dropped in 2007(?) or thereabouts, so definitely a Labour misstep). I did my GCSEs in 2005 and had to do maths, English language, English literature, RE, a science and a language. I also did geography, history and another language (school was a language specialist school).
Please, go back and re-read the proposals for the EBacc... your two point reply had two errors!
1. RE has not been 'dropped', the legal requirement from the previous legislation that RS be taught in some fashion is still in force, everyone must still do some 'RS' until the end of compulsory school-leaving age (whether schools approach it as a discreet subject, part of citizenship/general studies/humanities etc. has always been a possibility) in no way has RS been 'dropped'.
2. A foreign language is compulsory (again under these proposals) in the Ebacc... what foreign language is up to the school (and hopefully more will begin teaching mandarin and spanish).
The Ebacc is a small nucleus of subjects, (with three of them already being compulsory,) that are considered basic, in terms of skills and content, in this day and age for all jobs (English, Maths, Science, foreign language and history/geography) it in no way impeeds students option to choose other subjects (as the jack, whose wages I pay, on Breakfast this morning tried to claim), unless the school has a really slimmed down options choice and already timetables excessively for these core subjects (which raises questions about the schools ability to educate its students competantly) nor will it impede people's options at university as most universities run of the post-16 results as opposed to GCSE. The Ebacc will remain a part of ensuring that the basic necessary skills are taught and as a means of ensuring that schools are adequately equipping kids for the world...
[ 31. January 2013, 10:20: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
I didn't take RE at O-Level (the predecessor of the GCSE)
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Certainly, at my school, O level RE was an option - so most people dropped it at age 13. It was daily assembly which was supposed to be compulsory (although most schools found a way around it).
It is therefore a fairly recent development that RE should be taught right up to GCSE (the GCSE short course was particularly popular) - anyone now in their 20s would have had to do this and would therefore assume it has always been so.
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Certainly, at my school, O level RE was an option - so most people dropped it at age 13. It was daily assembly which was supposed to be compulsory (although most schools found a way around it).
It is therefore a fairly recent development that RE should be taught right up to GCSE (the GCSE short course was particularly popular) - anyone now in their 20s would have had to do this and would therefore assume it has always been so.
this link provides a rather basic overview of the situation. Whilst a full course RS GCSE is optional any school which does not provide RS in some form (as listed above in response to Jade) is breaking the 1944 law (so not really a recent development) and OfSTED would be required to intervene and ensure the law was being followed. Many schools do seem to get away with breaking the law somehow (but having seen the lying and deception that goes on at inspection time I'm not surprised that it is not picked up).
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
Sorry, I should have said this before, I realised that I, and others, in using Ebacc have been discussing the wrong thing.
The Ebacc has existed since 2011 as a measure of performance with no attached qualification ( this link from the DoE will provide the tables showing it, it being a measure of success in English, Maths, at least two Sciences, a Foreign Language and Geography or History) whilst what we are actually discussing is the EBC (English BAccalaureate Certificate) which is due to come in in 2017.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Certainly, at my school, O level RE was an option - so most people dropped it at age 13. It was daily assembly which was supposed to be compulsory (although most schools found a way around it).
It is therefore a fairly recent development that RE should be taught right up to GCSE (the GCSE short course was particularly popular) - anyone now in their 20s would have had to do this and would therefore assume it has always been so.
No - daily collective worship and Religious education have been compulsory for all pupils on role, including 6th formers, since 1944 and this was reiterated in the 1988 Education Reform Act and in Circular 1/94.
GCSE, however, was new-ish - to stop kids mucking around in non-exam RE we put them through GCSE short or long course. Until Michael Gove, who listens to nobody, killed it with his EBacc nonsence.
[ 31. January 2013, 15:25: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Please, go back and re-read the proposals for the EBacc... your two point reply had two errors!
1. RE has not been 'dropped', the legal requirement from the previous legislation that RS be taught in some fashion is still in force, everyone must still do some 'RS' until the end of compulsory school-leaving age (whether schools approach it as a discreet subject, part of citizenship/general studies/humanities etc. has always been a possibility) in no way has RS been 'dropped'.
You are technically correct but you are echoing Nick Gibbs's standard reply to all the howls of protest about the demoting of RE.
Because RE doesn't count as a 'humanity', it isn't IN the EBacc. (Now i have always resisted humanities as a notion - I am so old fashioned that I like separate subjects). So RE GCSE has to go into an option column alongside things like art, drama, design tech. etc. So it is competing with lots of (other popular subjects so won't get enough up[take to be viable.
In my last job, i had all pupils, including at Key Stage 4, for 5% of curriculum time, in line with the Agreeed Syllabus. That is 3 x 50 minute periods in a fortnightly 60 period timetable. Post Gove's EBacc I'd probably lose 2/3rds of that and have 1 50 min period per fortnight - 25 mins per week. That is worse, even, that the old fashioned 1 x 40 min. period. Imagine the caseload - I'd be teaching 1650 different pupils with all the reports, parents evening appointments that would involve.
So RE may not have been 'dropped' but it's certainly been kicked into obscurity.
NO GCSE means no A'level means fewer taking Theology degrees means fewer doing RE for PGCE means a cycle of ever-increasing decline.
According to a teachers' union which i normally have an intense dislike, quote:
90.3 per cent indicated there had been a reduction in the provision of education about religion and belief at their school since the EBacc was introduced.
RE teachers are being made redundant, PGCSE and B. Ed. places for RE have been halved.
I don't believe in Hell but i wish it could be invented to house Michael Gove.
[ 31. January 2013, 15:42: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Certainly, at my school, O level RE was an option - so most people dropped it at age 13. It was daily assembly which was supposed to be compulsory (although most schools found a way around it).
It is therefore a fairly recent development that RE should be taught right up to GCSE (the GCSE short course was particularly popular) - anyone now in their 20s would have had to do this and would therefore assume it has always been so.
No - daily collective worship and Religious education have been compulsory for all pupils on role, including 6th formers, since 1944 and this was reiterated in the 1988 Education Reform Act and in Circular 1/94.
GCSE, however, was new-ish - to stop kids mucking around in non-exam RE we put them through GCSE short or long course. Until Michael Gove, who listens to nobody, killed it with his EBacc nonsence.
Sorry leo but I can't agree. The EBC has not killed of any subject - all it is is an overarching qualification to recognise that a certain degree of ability has been accomplished in 5 core subjects (which for the life of me I can't disagree with the 5 chosen). It neither harms any other subject, nor reduces the choices of learners.
RS has always been one of those subjects that kids either like or don't/think is relevant or don't and no amount of money or research is going to change that, neither is this changing the fact that most schools see it as optional, or something to be put in with a general humanities course, life skills or general studies.
As with the 'scare-stories' about university applications being proven false (and that article seems to forget to mention that the largest group increase in applications is from those who are considered poor and disadvantaged) I imagine that this is all hyperbole and will be proven to be false in the end with little impact on the actual subjects chosen, especially with regards to RS where the legal requirements continue to hold.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
It only appears to be teacher bashing if you elevate this particular group of workers into constantly put-upon saints, who only have children's best interests at heart, working longer hours than anyone else and always doing so efficiently, brilliantly and selflessly.
Now some teachers fit the bill. Others don't.
I wonder how many teachers you know? Or how often you have been to a pub, restaurant or whatever and observed different groupings of people from work.
The likelihood is that the teacher group will be talking about work, kids and so on and they will then leave and do some marking when they go home to make up for the time they lost earlier.
I have worked in four large schools, one grammar, 3 comps. and encountered very few 'bad' teachers, if by 'bad' is mean uncommitted/unwilling to put in long hours. In fact, I reckon there were 3 of them.
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
You are technically correct but you are echoing Nick Gibbs's standard reply to all the howls of protest about the demoting of RE.
Because RE doesn't count as a 'humanity', it isn't IN the EBacc. (Now i have always resisted humanities as a notion - I am so old fashioned that I like separate subjects). So RE GCSE has to go into an option column alongside things like art, drama, design tech. etc. So it is competing with lots of (other popular subjects so won't get enough up[take to be viable.
In my last job, i had all pupils, including at Key Stage 4, for 5% of curriculum time, in line with the Agreeed Syllabus. That is 3 x 50 minute periods in a fortnightly 60 period timetable. Post Gove's EBacc I'd probably lose 2/3rds of that and have 1 50 min period per fortnight - 25 mins per week. That is worse, even, that the old fashioned 1 x 40 min. period. Imagine the caseload - I'd be teaching 1650 different pupils with all the reports, parents evening appointments that would involve.
So RE may not have been 'dropped' but it's certainly been kicked into obscurity.
NO GCSE means no A'level means fewer taking Theology degrees means fewer doing RE for PGCE means a cycle of ever-increasing decline.
According to a teachers' union which i normally have an intense dislike, quote:
90.3 per cent indicated there had been a reduction in the provision of education about religion and belief at their school since the EBacc was introduced.
RE teachers are being made redundant, PGCSE and B. Ed. places for RE have been halved.
I don't believe in Hell but i wish it could be invented to house Michael Gove.
For the third paragraph you are preaching to the choir. RS gets less time than any other subject, but that is very much dependent on how the individual schools view it. However, how the EBC affects this nobody knows, and then it is the fault of individual schools if they cut the amount of time given over to the none 5 EBC subjects. Gove can't be blamed for poor timetabling by schools, or a seeming inability for schools to possibly teach kids to an adequate level in the time they already assign to it.
As for it's inclusion in the EBacc and EBC - neither is art, music, drama etc. etc. etc. and until there is demonstratable evidence that these subjects are in decline then you don't have a point there.
In schools I have attended/have family at/taught in they provide RS short course as compulsory to fulfill the legal requirement and have RS full-course as an option, so it is already in competition with other subjects, and as pointed out, I have known schools where they don't do it as a discreet subject at all but lump it in with lifeskills or such.
As for RE teachers, I share your dislike for unions, but the teaching profession has been over trained for for years, there are already too many teachers about who don't have jobs and can't get teaching work. The decision to reduce the number of RS specialists is in part also from the fact that it does not have to be taught by a specialist either. Any old teacher can be put in place to teach RS as long as they agree to it... I could never imagine being told to teach art (it would be stick figures all the way) but with the current requirements as they are I'm not surprised, but again that is not the fault of Gove, it is something that has persisted in the education sector for what seesm like ever. Schools are again at fault if they think that by sidelining RS as a subject they can do better.
I think your anger is misdirected, Gove, is not at fault here (yet in any provable fashion) and any problems which RS faces are to be laid squarely at hte feet of school SM and the fact we have been training too many people for too long.
This seems a bnit rambling and not full, but it's home time and I need to get home.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
It only appears to be teacher bashing if you elevate this particular group of workers into constantly put-upon saints, who only have children's best interests at heart, working longer hours than anyone else and always doing so efficiently, brilliantly and selflessly.
Now some teachers fit the bill. Others don't.
I wonder how many teachers you know? Or how often you have been to a pub, restaurant or whatever and observed different groupings of people from work.
The likelihood is that the teacher group will be talking about work, kids and so on and they will then leave and do some marking when they go home to make up for the time they lost earlier.
I have worked in four large schools, one grammar, 3 comps. and encountered very few 'bad' teachers, if by 'bad' is mean uncommitted/unwilling to put in long hours. In fact, I reckon there were 3 of them.
I'm married to a teacher. She's an excellent teacher, of course as are most of the many teachers I know.
You are an unusual teacher in that you don't seem to bitch about your colleagues. When I was at school there was bad teaching. Now my children are at school there is still bad teaching. It's important to say that the majority of teachers are as you describe but for us parents that minority is enough to cause concern. The fundamental point is that teachers are not above criticism.
Now, I've argued with you before about RE and the EBacc. My view is that RE will survive because it remains a privileged subject in the law with its own particular syllabus arrangements by committee of interest groups. It doesn't belong in the core group of subjects but should remain an option for GCSE and A level.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
As for it's inclusion in the EBacc and EBC - neither is art, music, drama etc. etc. etc. and until there is demonstratable evidence that these subjects are in decline then you don't have a point there.
There have been several surveys demonstrating the decline in all these subjects, even to the extent of pupils being dragged out of them mid course and put in EBacc classes. I can't give you chapter and verse because I only monitor my own subject. A quick google at the various subject associations websites would show you.
Because RE has been taught by non specialists in many schools, there is already a massive shortage of Theology Graduates in front of classes, the cuts make this even worse. I have only ever allowed 3 non-specialists to teach a handful of lessons in my department during 30 years as a HOD. I don't see how any non-specialist, with the best will in the world, can teach 6 world religions plus humanism with enough subject knowledge to handle all the stuff that comes up in discussion.
BTW - I don't dislike ALL unions, only that one.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
My view is that RE will survive because it remains a privileged subject in the law with its own particular syllabus arrangements by committee of interest groups.
Its survival will be as a Cinderella subject - the sort of also-ran, joke subject that it used to be before the advances we made in the 1970s. The hidden curriculum message of a subject that has less time than any other is that religion is unimportant. I would prefer that RE were dropped altogether in this case.
As the the committee, there are, in fact, 4 committees required in each LA for both SACRE and for ASC. It is increasingly difficult to get people to serve on these. In my case, because so many secondaries have become academies and do not, therefore, have to follow any agreed syllabus, we cannot get enough secondary colleagues. Even those who would like to serve cannot 'get out' of school because of the squeeze on supply budgets. Thus, I am still serving in SACRE, which I have now done for 35 years. I enjoy it, find it interesting and rewarding but i would love there to be some 'new blood'.
[ 31. January 2013, 16:45: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
My view is that RE will survive because it remains a privileged subject in the law with its own particular syllabus arrangements by committee of interest groups.
Its survival will be as a Cinderella subject - the sort of also-ran, joke subject that it used to be before the advances we made in the 1970s. The hidden curriculum message of a subject that has less time than any other is that religion is unimportant. I would prefer that RE were dropped altogether in this case.'
I can understand your frustration as a specialist but RE is protected far more than other important subjects like music. Perhaps it needs to reinvent itself again. It certainly has to compete for attention but it was ever thus.
The important thing to remember is that Gove's insistence on these five core subjects is nothing new. I remember at my own comprehensive school in the 1970s an insistence that alongside maths and english we had to choose either history or geography, a language and a science. This has been longstanding practice which has only been abandoned in some schools during the past decade. It's a thoroughly good thing that Gove is bringing these subjects back as the absolute core. My only amendment to his plans would be to have a technical baccalaureate for those children who are clearly not going to make the grade academically - this might be something akin to the old O'level/CSE distinction.
Posted by Emma Louise (# 3571) on
:
Any old teacher can teach RE? We were probably different being a grammar school... but a department of theology and philosophy graduates (mainly Oxford and London)teaching yr 8 and 9 Plato's cave, Utilitarianism, medical ethics and theology amongst other things. Yes many on the ship might well have insight into some of these topics but our students would have got a raw deal if any old teacher had been teaching them instead!
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
The core subjects at my grammar school in the 1960s and 1970s were Maths, French, and English. Only they were taking into account in streaming, and they were the only exams you had to take at O-level. (You weren't allowed to drop RE and sport of course but didn't have to do exams)
Everything else could be given up at age 13, and we were encouraged not to take exams we weren't expected to do well in. More than encouraged, I was made to give up Geography even though I didn't really want to.
After you were 16 you could stop doing Maths, French, and English. It was mostly only A-levels in the sixth form, and you specialised. You either did arts or sciences, it was almost impossible to mix them in the timetable. Maths, I think could be done with both, but as I was nowhere near good enough to do A-level maths I'm not sure. So even if I had wanted to do a foreign language at A-level I probably would not nave been able to because I did science.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
My experience is the same as ken except that I think it was even more restricted even in the O level year. It might have been possible to do a combination of science and arts subjects, but apart from Maths most of us were encouraged into a one-sided selection of one side or the other.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I object to the dropping of RE - which I'm assuming you had to do at GCSE, surely? Also a language is no longer compulsory at GCSE (although it was dropped in 2007(?) or thereabouts, so definitely a Labour misstep). I did my GCSEs in 2005 and had to do maths, English language, English literature, RE, a science and a language. I also did geography, history and another language (school was a language specialist school).
Please, go back and re-read the proposals for the EBacc... your two point reply had two errors!
1. RE has not been 'dropped', the legal requirement from the previous legislation that RS be taught in some fashion is still in force, everyone must still do some 'RS' until the end of compulsory school-leaving age (whether schools approach it as a discreet subject, part of citizenship/general studies/humanities etc. has always been a possibility) in no way has RS been 'dropped'.
2. A foreign language is compulsory (again under these proposals) in the Ebacc... what foreign language is up to the school (and hopefully more will begin teaching mandarin and spanish).
The Ebacc is a small nucleus of subjects, (with three of them already being compulsory,) that are considered basic, in terms of skills and content, in this day and age for all jobs (English, Maths, Science, foreign language and history/geography) it in no way impeeds students option to choose other subjects (as the jack, whose wages I pay, on Breakfast this morning tried to claim), unless the school has a really slimmed down options choice and already timetables excessively for these core subjects (which raises questions about the schools ability to educate its students competantly) nor will it impede people's options at university as most universities run of the post-16 results as opposed to GCSE. The Ebacc will remain a part of ensuring that the basic necessary skills are taught and as a means of ensuring that schools are adequately equipping kids for the world...
Er, I knew that the Ebacc contained a language, I pointed out that a language is not compulsory *at GCSE*, because it was dropped in ~2007.
There had been reports of Gove dropping RE from the compulsory section of the Ebacc so forgive me for thinking that had already happened.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Certainly, at my school, O level RE was an option - so most people dropped it at age 13. It was daily assembly which was supposed to be compulsory (although most schools found a way around it).
It is therefore a fairly recent development that RE should be taught right up to GCSE (the GCSE short course was particularly popular) - anyone now in their 20s would have had to do this and would therefore assume it has always been so.
No - daily collective worship and Religious education have been compulsory for all pupils on role, including 6th formers, since 1944 and this was reiterated in the 1988 Education Reform Act and in Circular 1/94.
GCSE, however, was new-ish - to stop kids mucking around in non-exam RE we put them through GCSE short or long course. Until Michael Gove, who listens to nobody, killed it with his EBacc nonsence.
We never had a single religious Collective Worship at my school. We did it when my tutor didn't have too many notices to get through in registration, but it was just thinking about ~issues and treated as an annoyance by all the form tutors.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Emma Louise:
Any old teacher can teach RE? We were probably different being a grammar school... but a department of theology and philosophy graduates (mainly Oxford and London)teaching yr 8 and 9 Plato's cave, Utilitarianism, medical ethics and theology amongst other things. Yes many on the ship might well have insight into some of these topics but our students would have got a raw deal if any old teacher had been teaching them instead!
The non-specialist teachers in my school's RE department were mostly history graduates. And we definitely didn't get taught all those things! My RE lessons from years 8 and 9 are not very memorable (I remember learning the Islamic story of Ibrahim and Ismail, that's about it). For my GCSE (I did full course and had a brilliant teacher) we studied the Hindu concept of Ahimsa, did a case study of the amazing Hindu temple in Neasden and did a comparative exam on ethical issues in Christianity and Islam.
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Emma Louise:
Any old teacher can teach RE? We were probably different being a grammar school... but a department of theology and philosophy graduates (mainly Oxford and London)teaching yr 8 and 9 Plato's cave, Utilitarianism, medical ethics and theology amongst other things. Yes many on the ship might well have insight into some of these topics but our students would have got a raw deal if any old teacher had been teaching them instead!
The non-specialist teachers in my school's RE department were mostly history graduates. And we definitely didn't get taught all those things! My RE lessons from years 8 and 9 are not very memorable (I remember learning the Islamic story of Ibrahim and Ismail, that's about it). For my GCSE (I did full course and had a brilliant teacher) we studied the Hindu concept of Ahimsa, did a case study of the amazing Hindu temple in Neasden and did a comparative exam on ethical issues in Christianity and Islam.
Sorry about the confusion over the EBC language bit - it seemed as if you were saying that it was being dropped in the EBC proposals, not that you were celebrating the return of languages.
You probably weren't taught any of those things because few exam boards before A-levels include such philosophy, and even then at A-level, depending on the personal prefrence of the teacher, depends on how such Western philosophy is approached and brought in (one training placement had a Hinduism fan as HoD and everything in the department was Hinduism with a brief mention every now and again to Plato etc. to reinforce the Hinduism stuff - it really was just the HoD preferance rather than a local, cultural need for an overteaching of Hinduism.)
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Emma Louise:
Any old teacher can teach RE? We were probably different being a grammar school... but a department of theology and philosophy graduates (mainly Oxford and London)teaching yr 8 and 9 Plato's cave, Utilitarianism, medical ethics and theology amongst other things. [...]
The non-specialist teachers in my school's RE department were mostly history graduates. And we definitely didn't get taught all those things![...]
Same here! I went to a grammar school, but if we had a "department of theology and philosophy" it must have been fully invisible. The RE teacher I remember best was indeed a history teacher. And a very nice person. She was a member of a tiny Pentecostal Church that met in a genuine tin tab that was on the edge of the school grounds. (I went once. Very, very nice people, singing lots of hymns out of books that looked like they were printed in the 1920s and compiled in the 1890s. Lots of Moody and Sankey and Fanny Crosby.)
I can't really remember the lower school RE lessons. I think they were probably a mixture of Bible stories and class discussions about ethics. (I vaguely remember something about striking and Yorkshire Miners when the 1972 miner's strike was on. And I think we were once asked to write an essay about what we thought about life after death. The Comparitive Religion side of RE was just coming in when I left in 1975 so I missed it. We had a rather old-fashioned curriculum, other schools may have done more of that sort of stuff.
The RE O-level I did was a very good course but it was nothgnlike the sort of stuff Leo and Emma were talking about. Quite the opposite. It was really a Biblical Stiudies course. I remember doing Luke and Acts in some detail. There were some OT books as well, but I'm not sure which. And we got that all-time favourite essay question: "It has been said that the Acts of the Apostles could have been called "The Acts of the Holy Spirit". Discuss". I think we were taught it by that History teacher and also an English teacher.
If you had done RE at A-level I think the person who taught it would have been our chemistry teacher. Maybe because he had Greek. He never taught me RE as far as I remember, but did teach chemistrty, and was one of the best teachers, no, probably the best teacher we ever had. Stunningly brilliant. He was British Israelite, and he was widely rumoured to be Living in Sin (as some people still called it as recently as then) with a senior teacher at the nearby girl's school.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
I thought the issue about the EBacc/EBC was its use as a measure of schools' performance. Schools will be graded according to the number of pupils achieving the EBacc/EBC. Therefore, in order to maintain high rankings in the school league tables it will be critical for them to invest primarily in EBacc/EBC subjects.
A student who gets A grades in, say, English, mathematics, history or geography, the sciences and music (or RE) will fail to get an EBacc, and affect the schools rankings accordingly. Thus subjects such as music and RE are likely to suffer the fate currently suffered by history and geography.
It is likely that schools will focus less on and invest less in non-EBacc subjects in order to focus more on EBacc subjects, because it is on the basis of EBacc subjects that schools' performance will be assessed.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
If RE was supposed to be compulsory up to age 18 in the 1970s, then a significant number of schools didn't obey (they were more likely to obey the assembly requirement, but even then daily assemblies didn't often happen - they were replaced on certain days by 'form time' which could be almost anything). Perhaps schools got round it by pleading that they could cover the two requirements at once by holding assemblies with overtly religious content?
Although we could drop RE at 13, we did have to attend assembly and we also had to attend Sports lessons.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
We never had a single religious Collective Worship at my school. We did it when my tutor didn't have too many notices to get through in registration, but it was just thinking about ~issues and treated as an annoyance by all the form tutors.
Depends how you define it. Circular 1/94 insisted that it had to be worship 'of a deity' but it has no legal standing, being only advisory. John Patten issued this circular because a lot of schools interpreted 'worship' as thinking about things of worth - provoking a response, in silence, from pupils is sufficient for it to be such 'worship'.
I had a paper, and later a book, published arguing the theology, pedagogy and legality of this approach and quite a few LAs used my paper as part of their worship guidance. (I don't own the copyright on it so cannot quote in sufficient length to explain in detail.)
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
I guess it is a case of wait and see...
Pleanty of school already ignore the collective worship and compulsary RS requirements - or find ways around them, and so it is those schools who are most likely to neglect it further if necessary.
But in good schools with good SM then I imagine (as I say we'll have to wait and see) RS will continue to get the attention and respect it deserves (certainly from SM if not from the kids themselves).
As I say somewhere else in this thread, if schools don't think that they can successfully impart the skills and knowledge which will be required for the EBC exams already with the staff and resources they have then I think there is a problem in those schools already and you have to wonder why they would not be able to accomplish what needs accomplishing in the time they already alot to it. The inclusion of a compulsory language might reduce the number of option choices from 5 to 4, or require some good option tables, but nothing worse beyond that I don't think.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
RE doesn't belong in the core group of subjects but should remain an option for GCSE and A level.
RE was the ONLY core subject originally. Kenneth Baker ADDED other subjects in 1988.
It is only now that it is no longer core.
I know that you have told me before that RE should not be core but I don't think you have ever given me any reasons. Why is its knowledge base or its skills set inferior to, e.g. history?
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
RE doesn't belong in the core group of subjects but should remain an option for GCSE and A level.
RE was the ONLY core subject originally. Kenneth Baker ADDED other subjects in 1988.
It is only now that it is no longer core.
I know that you have told me before that RE should not be core but I don't think you have ever given me any reasons. Why is its knowledge base or its skills set inferior to, e.g. history?
You are certainly not right that RE, as opposed to Religious instruction or indoctrination, was the original core subject. I've already said that the tradition of regarding the Ebacc subjects as core has a long pedigree.
The merits of learning about our past (history) and our environment (Geography) don't need any defence. It is important to learn about the beliefs people have and I would be on your side if I genuinely believed that RE was being downgraded. In my view, this is merely the status quo. There is still special protection for RE that there isn't for other important subjects.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Partly agree about RE, RI, RK etc. but you haven't said why its subject knowledge and skills-set are inferior to the other subjects.
Nor is your speculation about it not being downgraded supported by any evidence - the evidence, in survey after survey, including that of the House of Commons Select Committee on Education, points to massive downgrading.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
cc subjects as quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
RE doesn't belong in the core group of subjects but should remain an option for GCSE and A level.
RE was the ONLY core subject originally. Kenneth Baker ADDED other subjects in 1988.
It is only now that it is no longer core.
I know that you have told me before that RE should not be core but I don't think you have ever given me any reasons. Why is its knowledge base or its skills set inferior to, e.g. history?
The merits of learning about our past (history) and our environment (Geography) don't need any defence. It is important to learn about the beliefs
Your language shows a very reductionist, materialist view of education - just learning about stuff. It is a banking model, the transmission of facts.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Partly agree about RE, RI, RK etc. but you haven't said why its subject knowledge and skills-set are inferior to the other subjects.
Nor is your speculation about it not being downgraded supported by any evidence - the evidence, in survey after survey, including that of the House of Commons Select Committee on Education, points to massive downgrading.
Do I have to establish that RE is inferior in terms of subject knowledge and skills-set? I think RE is important and should continue to be part of the curriculum - in a statutory way. It should be one of the options but in my opinion it's not quite as foundational as history and geography.
In your other post you set up a dichotomy between skills and facts. They both go together. If you don't transmit facts you can't master skills. I'm uneasy with a doctrinaire approach. As a history graduate I can't see how you can teach skills in a vacuum.
On a tangent, I don't know enough about it but would be interested in knowing whether the history curriculum neglects the study of historical religiosity because that is thought to be covered by RE. Religious education needs to be applied to other subjects. How can you possibly appreciate art, music, literature, history, philosophy and even our environment without an understanding of the beliefs which have shaped us, our culture and our world?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Partly agree about RE, RI, RK etc. but you haven't said why its subject knowledge and skills-set are inferior to the other subjects.
Nor is your speculation about it not being downgraded supported by any evidence - the evidence, in survey after survey, including that of the House of Commons Select Committee on Education, points to massive downgrading.
Do I have to establish that RE is inferior in terms of subject knowledge and skills-set? I think RE is important and should continue to be part of the curriculum - in a statutory way. It should be one of the options but in my opinion it's not quite as foundational as history and geography.
You have repeatably claimed that 'Gove is right' but have not produced any arguments as to why. It amounts to Gove is right - because I agree with him...because RE is not important - because i have seen some bad examples of it - therefore Gove is right - because i agree with him.
Any why are History and Geography more 'foundational' that RE?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
On a tangent, I don't know enough about it but would be interested in knowing whether the history curriculum neglects the study of historical religiosity because that is thought to be covered by RE. Religious education needs to be applied to other subjects. How can you possibly appreciate art, music, literature, history, philosophy and even our environment without an understanding of the beliefs which have shaped us, our culture and our world?
KSS 3 & 4 history covers stuff like the Reformation but there is very little about religious motives beyond caricatures such as 'catholic = bad' and 'protestantism = good because you can think for yourself.
Then again, there is little in most LA RE syllabuses about the Reformation.
RE isn't there to service other subjects because it isn't about the past so much as about the future, equipping young people in their own spiritual quest and giving them the skill to evaluate.
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Your language shows a very reductionist, materialist view of education - just learning about stuff. It is a banking model, the transmission of facts.
This may well be true, but the learning of facts & figures etc. is just as important as learning the skills and theory of knowledge that accompany them.
The question that the SoS, school SM and teachers need to answer is 'how do we achieve the right balance between skill development and knowledge learnt?' - under the last Labour administration there seemed to be too greater a swing towards the skills and a lack of focus on actually learning about events and facts, certainly in the humanities subjects, and maybe this does represent a swing back towards knowledge over skills, but until I see a curriculum I can't really say either way.
However, the subjects looked at by the EBacc as a measure of school performance, and the proposed EBC qualification, are those that have a demonstratable worth in terms of the breadth of skills developed and the knowledge learnt. Nobody would argue that English or Maths is unimportant in either of those two categories, nor is science in the types of analytical skills it develops. Languages are becoming increasingly important, and the skill set, and knowledge, of humanities has always be highly prized, especially in that once bastion of excellence, the Civil Service who would hire more humanities graduates than any other subject because of the skills and knowledge that they develop.
RE is already a core curriculum subject, it will continue to remain a core subject by law, and the only people who are letting down RS are the schools themselves, not Gove, not even the last Labour government. The issues around the position of RS are solely at the feet of schools who do not live up to their legal duty, nor care about it as a subject.
As I say further up thread, and I will continue to repeat, if schools feel that they need to allocate even more time than they allocate already to the 5 EBacc/EBC subjects to ensure that kids are achieving the best they can in those subjects then they are evidently doing something wrong now in terms of pedagogy and teachers abilities.
Gove is right to swing the pendulim back towards knowledge, whether too much I don't know I haven't looked at an EBC curriculum yet, and at least Gove has not produced endless initiatives like the stream of Labour SoS who produced over-lapping initative after initative.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Your language shows a very reductionist, materialist view of education - just learning about stuff. It is a banking model, the transmission of facts.
This may well be true, but the learning of facts & figures etc. is just as important as learning the skills and theory of knowledge that accompany them.
Is it though? When the facts and figures are so close to our finger tips. Maybe we are beginning to 'outsource' a large part of our memory stores to smart phones and computers - leaving more space for creativity and innovation?
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
RE isn't there to service other subjects because it isn't about the past so much as about the future, equipping young people in their own spiritual quest and giving them the skill to evaluate.
See this is the problem... that New Labour skill focus that I mentionin the post above this (sorry for hte double post)...
Whilst a large part of RS should be about allowing kids the opportunity to think about themselves, find their own path, it is also about the dissemination of knowledge (since legally all subjects have a duty to promote the spiritual, emotional, social part fo the child).
RS is about studying religion, that doesn't mean by rote or blackboard exercises, but by actually learning something about religion - 'why do Islamists commit suicide bomb attacks in Israel and around the world' is as valid a topic in RS as 'what choices do you think are ethical in your worldview' they both require knowledge to a certain degree, the former more than the latter and the former is not about personal development as much as about understanding why religions believe what they do, how that knowledge can help us to form a society that understands each other and doesn't want to kill apostates or crusade for Jerusalem. The knowledge is just as important as the skills which are being developed, and the two cannot be divorced.
Education is not about creating a bunch of Einsteins (not everybody has the intellect to be a doctor etc.) it is about helping kids to fulfill their potential, to understand themselves, but also to understand others to create a better society in which to live - unfortunately your view seems more intent on producing kids that think about themselves and know little about the beliefs of others (although the way that RS is censored at times, this is not surprising).
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
You have repeatably claimed that 'Gove is right' but have not produced any arguments as to why. It amounts to Gove is right - because I agree with him...because RE is not important - because i have seen some bad examples of it - therefore Gove is right - because i agree with him.
Any why are History and Geography more 'foundational' that RE?
I have mischievously had a few shots at you which may have given the impression that I don't think RE is important. For that I apologise.
There is a certain amount of subjectivity here. A case can be made for every subject under the sun being important. But you draw the line somewhere. I maintain that it is easier to make a non controversial case for the study of our past and our world/environment being core than it is for the study of beliefs. That is not because I don't think that RE is not important, my faith is the matter of the utmost importance but not everyone agrees with me. The fact is that parents can withdraw their children from RE. I think this says something for the uphill struggle you have to make in persuading everyone that RE is as important in the humanities as history and geography.
So, I'd put the shoe on the other foot and ask how you as a specialist persuade Gove that RE is so important that it just has to be a core subject? I don't get the sense that many parents or children are bothered one way or the other for this to be a vote-threatening issue for the conservatives.
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
KSS 3 & 4 history covers stuff like the Reformation but there is very little about religious motives beyond caricatures such as 'catholic = bad' and 'protestantism = good because you can think for yourself.
I am surprised that after all your vigorous and correct defence against caricatures of RE, you so easily fall into a fashionable caricature of another subject. The History Orders both in England in in Wales require proper teaching of the Reformation, including accurate understanding of the motives behind it, both religious and political.
Protestations that this is in your experience not done properly will be met with a blizzard of experiences of crap RE teaching.
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Your language shows a very reductionist, materialist view of education - just learning about stuff. It is a banking model, the transmission of facts.
This may well be true, but the learning of facts & figures etc. is just as important as learning the skills and theory of knowledge that accompany them.
Is it though? When the facts and figures are so close to our finger tips. Maybe we are beginning to 'outsource' a large part of our memory stores to smart phones and computers - leaving more space for creativity and innovation?
But there are so many professions where the facts and figures need to be at the front of your mind - you would be worried, for example, if your surgeon turned around and said they needed to check a website before performing your operation - they need to knwo some facts about anatomy to perform the surgery, i nthe same way the anaesthetist needs that knowledge fo drugs and complications of the top of their head incase anything goes wrong during said surgery.
If kids don't learn how to store and recall specific knowledge when they are young, and that being the best time to do it, then they wont have the skills to do the jobs that require it later on.
Yes, I personally am a great fan of being able to say, oh I know which book to look in for that knowledge, without knowing it all entirely myself, but if I can't recall facts and figures in a discussion then it will be pretty boring as well...
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
KSS 3 & 4 history covers stuff like the Reformation but there is very little about religious motives beyond caricatures such as 'catholic = bad' and 'protestantism = good because you can think for yourself.
I am surprised that after all your vigorous and correct defence against caricatures of RE, you so easily fall into a fashionable caricature of another subject. The History Orders both in England in in Wales require proper teaching of the Reformation, including accurate understanding of the motives behind it, both religious and political.
Protestations that this is in your experience not done properly will be met with a blizzard of experiences of crap RE teaching.
Furthermore when I studied the reformation for my history A 'level over two decades ago the Whig version of the reformation had already been superseded by Scarisbricke et. al.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Your language shows a very reductionist, materialist view of education - just learning about stuff. It is a banking model, the transmission of facts.
This may well be true, but the learning of facts & figures etc. is just as important as learning the skills and theory of knowledge that accompany them.
Is it though? When the facts and figures are so close to our finger tips. Maybe we are beginning to 'outsource' a large part of our memory stores to smart phones and computers - leaving more space for creativity and innovation?
But there are so many professions where the facts and figures need to be at the front of your mind - you would be worried, for example, if your surgeon turned around and said they needed to check a website before performing your operation - they need to knwo some facts about anatomy to perform the surgery, i nthe same way the anaesthetist needs that knowledge fo drugs and complications of the top of their head incase anything goes wrong during said surgery.
If kids don't learn how to store and recall specific knowledge when they are young, and that being the best time to do it, then they wont have the skills to do the jobs that require it later on.
Absolutely they do. It's what us teachers spend a lot of time teaching them.
My son is a pilot and needs to know every wire and sprocket within the plane, not just how to fly it.
But that's not what I am saying. We really don't need to store as much 'stuff' any more in ordinary life. Our ways of working will change as a consequence - and maybe for the better.
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Absolutely they do. It's what us teachers spend a lot of time teaching them.
My son is a pilot and needs to know every wire and sprocket within the plane, not just how to fly it.
But that's not what I am saying. We really don't need to store as much 'stuff' any more in ordinary life. Our ways of working will change as a consequence - and maybe for the better.
You are right, we don't need to know as much stuff straight of (depending on the circles you move in and what careers you choose) but it is an important skill taht needs to be developed, even if it is only for the sake of being able to hold a conversation with somebody which tends to rely, especially in regards to current affairs, holding onto not only the immediate topic but the backstory as well.
I might not be fully understanding your point though, so, if I can ask, can you spell the exact point you are trying to make out for me, because I don't believe that us not storing much stuff is actually a good thing - it is an unfortunate (but totally logical and understandable) development of our modern culture, probably beginning in the industrial revolution and the division of labour inparticularly. ie. 'All I need to know is how to do my little bit rather than how the whole thing is done.'
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I am trying to say that if we put more of our effort into creativity and innovation rather than memorising then maybe we'll become a more balanced society?
We certainly need to learn about RE - but learning from RE is just as crucial imo.
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I am trying to say that if we put more of our effort into creativity and innovation rather than memorising then maybe we'll become a more balanced society?
We certainly need to learn about RE - but learning from RE is just as crucial imo.
(I'm sorry if I get a little frustrated and angry for a while. I've been reading the Kakangelicalism thread and the angery emotions that are wildly flying around in that thread have settled on me atm. - they should pass soon, and then I'll be serene again - in fact it's already happening!
)
And so there is a balance to be sought. My position is that htat balance cannot be found and maintained if you do not learn about to then learn from (in England you can't accomplish AT2 successfully if you have not mastered AT1 as well.)
There is a way to learn about in a creative fashion, allowing for the creativity and innovation to shine through even whilst learning about something, it is no cope-out, nor a cheat, but an emminantely useful lesson to get the kids to actually produce a lesson themselves as if they were to be expected to teach it so that they have to use their creativity and innovation to decide what needs to go in and how to present it and learn during it, but they also must learn the information to actually be competant to do it if ever called to. To encourage creativity and innovation does not mean that learning facts and figures has to go by the way side, the only way, IMO, to be able to learn from a topic, is to understand it.
Even when it comes to self-awareness of their own morality and belief systems there is a great value in learning what others believe, especially when it comes down to the philosophy of religion aspects, a kid has a vague view of thier personal systems, but without a wide knowledge of other systems they cannot adequately express those things they hold, nor understand some of the ramifications of their belief systems in the philosophical sphere, they are just corks bobbing in an ocean with no grounding or points of refrence from which to explore and build.
[ 02. February 2013, 14:02: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Your language shows a very reductionist, materialist view of education - just learning about stuff. It is a banking model, the transmission of facts.
This may well be true, but the learning of facts & figures etc. is just as important as learning the skills and theory of knowledge that accompany them.
Is it though? When the facts and figures are so close to our finger tips. Maybe we are beginning to 'outsource' a large part of our memory stores to smart phones and computers - leaving more space for creativity and innovation?
But there are so many professions where the facts and figures need to be at the front of your mind - you would be worried, for example, if your surgeon turned around and said they needed to check a website before performing your operation - they need to knwo some facts about anatomy to perform the surgery, i nthe same way the anaesthetist needs that knowledge fo drugs and complications of the top of their head incase anything goes wrong during said surgery.
If kids don't learn how to store and recall specific knowledge when they are young, and that being the best time to do it, then they wont have the skills to do the jobs that require it later on.
Yes, I personally am a great fan of being able to say, oh I know which book to look in for that knowledge, without knowing it all entirely myself, but if I can't recall facts and figures in a discussion then it will be pretty boring as well...
Since secondary school teaching has such a focus on exams, facts and figures (and quotes and so on from subjects without facts and figures!) are taught more than transferable skills. This is a problem for employers.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Since secondary school teaching has such a focus on exams, facts and figures (and quotes and so on from subjects without facts and figures!) are taught more than transferable skills. This is a problem for employers.
I hardly think the problem for employers is that too many facts are taught. It's clear that the emphasis has been on skills for a number of years. I just wish such a dichotomy was not set up by ideologues. We need both facts and skills.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
KSS 3 & 4 history covers stuff like the Reformation but there is very little about religious motives beyond caricatures such as 'catholic = bad' and 'protestantism = good because you can think for yourself.
I am surprised that after all your vigorous and correct defence against caricatures of RE, you so easily fall into a fashionable caricature of another subject. The History Orders both in England in in Wales require proper teaching of the Reformation, including accurate understanding of the motives behind it, both religious and political.
Protestations that this is in your experience not done properly will be met with a blizzard of experiences of crap RE teaching.
Fair point. I was basing my 'caricature' on some Yr. 9 history lessons I'd covered (back in the day when teachers did cover).
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
There is a way to learn about in a creative fashion, allowing for the creativity and innovation to shine through even whilst learning about something, it is no cope-out, nor a cheat, but an emminantely useful lesson to get the kids to actually produce a lesson themselves as if they were to be expected to teach it so that they have to use their creativity and innovation to decide what needs to go in and how to present it and learn during it, but they also must learn the information to actually be competant to do it if ever called to.
Agree - I often put the pupils in groups to research and present a topic. For example, in year 9:
Aims to understand how people express their beliefs differently (a) from other members of the same religion and (b) from members of a different religion or life stance (e.g. Humanism)?
Prior learning At KS1 they may have considered ‘IE How do you celebrate events special to you?’, AT KS2 ‘PL How do religions differ and what do they have in common?, ‘PL How do people of faith celebrate and mark significant events in their faith?’ ‘EL How and why do people worship?’ In Yr. 7 they may have studied different expressions of worship in a secular age.
I didn't want to plough through 3 of 4 rites of passage over 6 religions so got 7 groups of 4 kids each to research, e.g. weddings - one religion each (plus humanism). Give them acetates, marker pens etc.
During their presentations, the other groups 'rated' them using OFSTED-like criteria.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
So, I'd put the shoe on the other foot and ask how you as a specialist persuade Gove that RE is so important that it just has to be a core subject? I don't get the sense that many parents or children are bothered one way or the other for this to be a vote-threatening issue for the conservatives.
Gove has refused to meet RE professionals, church reps. etc. His EBacc consultation was risible - he did not ask whether people agreed with it but simply asked how was the best way to go about it.
On the supposed superiority of Geog over history, it's interesting that Ofsted's report concluded that a quote:
focus on factual recall rather than on exploring ideas failed to capture students' interest
TES 4/2/11
I'd also ask why Latin, Greek and Biblical Hebrew are in the EBacc - I found all three of these 'useful' and still use them but I am unusual.
The Arts & Humanities Research Council [2011] GLASGOW UNIVERSITY RESEARCH REPORT: RE
quote:
emphasizes skills of debate, reflection, and creative discussion in contrast to
an increasingly exam-driven curriculum in other subject areas
NASACRE: RE quote:
challenges pupils to question and explore their own and others’ understanding of the world.
raises questions of identity, meaning and value and encourages people to reflect on their experiences, behaviour and opinions.
contributes positively and powerfully to the spiritual, personal, social, moral and cultural development of pupils.
Teaches children and young people about Christian and other religions’ beliefs, practices and responses to Ultimate Questions so that they can understand the world better and develop their own sense of place within it.
RE has a key role to play in enabling pupils to achieve and preparing them for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of life
From various MPs at an early day motion debate: quote:
Fiona Bruce: Religious issues are frequently at the top of any news agenda. Today’s RE helps young people make sense of that and wider world affairs. It also promotes community cohesion, as it allows young people, who are growing up in a diverse society, to discuss and understand the views and opinions of people whose beliefs and values differ from their own, in the safety of the classroom environment.
“In an increasingly confusing world, Religious Studies gives young people perhaps their only opportunity to engage seriously not only with the most profound philosophical questions concerning human existence and the nature of reality, but also with the most fundamental ethical dilemmas of our day”.
Where else will our young people obtain that?
RE lessons also develop transferrable skills such as critical analysis, essay structure and general written and verbal language skills. Those benefit other subjects as pupils learn how to express and articulate their views and, equally importantly, to respect those of others. Questioning, reasoning, empathy, philosophy, values and insight are all highly valuable skills fostered within RE learning. One student told me:
“It focused my thinking on areas of abstract thought, it improved and developed my analytical skills and logical reasoning”—
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab): At this particular time in our history, when there is so much conflict still in the world, many teachers and parents believe a spiritual literacy and understanding of religion is hugely important and must continue in Britain… Mrs Pat Wager, head teacher at Sacred Heart Catholic high school in Fenham, which is my old school. She said:
“RS cannot be excluded from a domain entitled ‘Humanity’—RS is the pre-eminent humanity and yet it has no place.”
Hansard
The Bishop of Oxford: quote:
Commitment to religious education by schools is crucial to interfaith understanding and harmonious relations between people of different religious backgrounds. It is also essential to young people’s personal development, enabling them to work out their beliefs and the values they will take into adult life
Jon Benjamin, chief executive of the Board of Deputies of British Jews: quote:
Religious studies has proven itself to be a valuable contribution to the academic curriculum, teaching students to respect themselves and others and, importantly, build identities which contribute favourably to all areas of society..."The multi-disciplinary nature of the subject, involving textual study, philosophical thinking, ethics, social understanding and the skills of analysis and reasoning, develops critical thinkers,"
Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch: quote:
Religion matters to most human beings in the world today," he added. "To leave religion to the religious extremists, outside a good education system, is to distort it.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
Sorry to have taken several days to respond. None of the quotes you've posted do anything other than promote RE as a worthwhile and important subject.
How do you address the following questions. That the syllabus is set locally by interested groupings? That it isn't a subject with an academic pedigree (ie it's a hotch-potch of perfectly repsectable academic disciplines drawn together somewhat randomly)? And that it's a subject children can be withdrawn from?
[ 05. February 2013, 20:15: Message edited by: Spawn ]
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Well, the brown stuff has just hit the fan - the new, shiny, "knowledge-based" core curriculum is out. See here.
I'd have to look at the detailed proposals to critique the other subjects, but "emphasising the importance of translation" is well out of fashion in language teaching. The aim is to produce people who can speak and write the target language fluently; concentrating on getting your pupils to translate chunks of text is one of the less effective ways to achieve this. And I wasn't aware that the requirement to study the language's literature had been dropped, so trumpeting this as a Big Improvement is disingenuous to say the least.
It would be nice if he'd bothered to ask anyone who researches language learning and/or teaches languages instead of writing down what he remembers of his own schooldays on the back of an envelope.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Sergius-Melli: quote:
...you would be worried, for example, if your surgeon turned around and said they needed to check a website before performing your operation...
<tangent> Actually I'd rather have a surgeon who checked facts that s/he wasn't sure of than one that went ahead regardless, especially if the Dread Disease I was suffering from was rare.
I might be slightly concerned if I got into an aeroplane and discovered the pilot was still reading the flight manual. Perhaps that's the real reason why they lock the door to the flight deck...
</tangent>
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Sorry to have taken several days to respond. None of the quotes you've posted do anything other than promote RE as a worthwhile and important subject.
How do you address the following questions. That the syllabus is set locally by interested groupings? That it isn't a subject with an academic pedigree (ie it's a hotch-potch of perfectly repsectable academic disciplines drawn together somewhat randomly)? And that it's a subject children can be withdrawn from?
What is wrong with local? As for 'interested groupings', it ensures balance between various factions: churches 'other' religions' elected councillors? It makes it democratic, which is more than can be said for other subjects. AND there are national guidelines - true, they are not compulsory but any ASC which doesn't give heed to them will disadvantage students when it comes to exams.
Hotch potch? Theology was the Queen of Sciences for that reason. A well-rounded education. In schools, it is a meta-cognitive subject which illumines all the other subjects. God doesn't live in a box.
No academic pedigree? Theology is older than most of the other university subjects.
The right to withdraw ought to be scrapped since the subject no longer 'instructs' people in a particular faith. The only reason this hasn't happened is because it is a hot potato - the 1988 ERA already attracted religious fruitcakes before it considered changing the 1944 provisions. It would be a rerun of the 'Rome on the rates' outcry in the board schools era.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
And even if you argue, as I would, that RE is not theology so much as religious studies it does have a perfectly reasonable academic pedigree with a number of universities (both pre- and post-1992 institutions) offering undergraduate and masters degrees.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
What is wrong with local? As for 'interested groupings', it ensures balance between various factions: churches 'other' religions' elected councillors? It makes it democratic, which is more than can be said for other subjects. AND there are national guidelines - true, they are not compulsory but any ASC which doesn't give heed to them will disadvantage students when it comes to exams.
Hotch potch? Theology was the Queen of Sciences for that reason. A well-rounded education. In schools, it is a meta-cognitive subject which illumines all the other subjects. God doesn't live in a box.
No academic pedigree? Theology is older than most of the other university subjects.
The right to withdraw ought to be scrapped since the subject no longer 'instructs' people in a particular faith. The only reason this hasn't happened is because it is a hot potato - the 1988 ERA already attracted religious fruitcakes before it considered changing the 1944 provisions. It would be a rerun of the 'Rome on the rates' outcry in the board schools era.
Nothing wrong with local arrangements or self-interest on the part of religious organisations but I think these factors pose some questions. Can we be sure that all authorities have the same rigorous standards or that there is sufficient balance? RE is not identical to theology. The right to withdraw is too well-established.
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
The right to withdraw is too well-established.
Also, to withdraw the right to withdraw would conflict with certain minority religious groups position on these things. Since religion is a matter of personal conscience, it is up for the family to decide what, if any, interaction with other religious beliefs (however presented) is acceptable, adn some minority religious groups have a blanket ban on studying other faiths.
There is also the point that, the low take-up of the right to withdraw probably has less to do with rejection of RS as a subject, or conflict with personal beliefs, and mor to do with the fact that parents eventually realise thath it is their responsibility to design a curriculum and produce work for their little sprog to do in the time that they are not spending in RS. Apathy and sloth are amazingly good at ensuring kids stay in RS lessons.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
What is wrong with local? As for 'interested groupings', it ensures balance between various factions: churches 'other' religions' elected councillors? It makes it democratic, which is more than can be said for other subjects. AND there are national guidelines - true, they are not compulsory but any ASC which doesn't give heed to them will disadvantage students when it comes to exams.
Hotch potch? Theology was the Queen of Sciences for that reason. A well-rounded education. In schools, it is a meta-cognitive subject which illumines all the other subjects. God doesn't live in a box.
No academic pedigree? Theology is older than most of the other university subjects.
The right to withdraw ought to be scrapped since the subject no longer 'instructs' people in a particular faith. The only reason this hasn't happened is because it is a hot potato - the 1988 ERA already attracted religious fruitcakes before it considered changing the 1944 provisions. It would be a rerun of the 'Rome on the rates' outcry in the board schools era.
Nothing wrong with local arrangements or self-interest on the part of religious organisations but I think these factors pose some questions. Can we be sure that all authorities have the same rigorous standards or that there is sufficient balance? RE is not identical to theology. The right to withdraw is too well-established.
Why do you assume 'sel;f interest'? SACRE members work many hours for no pay because of love for the subject and passion for the development of young people. Even the tories, to whom everything usually comes down to gain rather than giving.
OFSTED has done much work monitoring local syllabuses and effective SACRES. The Secretary of State has the right to impose a syllabus where rigour is lacking.
The right to withdraw may have been around for a long time but so it was for sex education. That right no longer exists. Things can change.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
None of the quotes you've posted do anything other than promote RE as a worthwhile and important subject.
Nor will they believe if someone should rise from the dead - S. Luke
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The right to withdraw may have been around for a long time but so it was for sex education. That right no longer exists. Things can change.
As a matter of interest/information, do creationist parents have the right to withdraw their children from science lessons when evolution is taught? Or (and I think I know the answer to this) to vet every possible question and topic that comes up for discussion in English lessons, even those arising directly from set texts?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Exactly - no they don't have that right.
I hate the notion that parents have 'rights' over their children. Their children don't belong to them. They are 'on loan'.
The state sometimes steps in to protect children from their parents e.g. blood transfusion and JW parents.
It should protect children from the narrow views of their parents in the interests of a rounded education that contributes to children's development in the image of God.
[ 06. February 2013, 18:18: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Exactly - no they don't have that right.
I hate the notion that parents have 'rights' over their children. Their children don't belong to them. They are 'on loan'.
The state sometimes steps in to protect children from their parents e.g. blood transfusion and JW parents.
It should protect children from the narrow views of their parents in the interests of a rounded education that contributes to children's development in the image of God.
I think the problem you identify is one of 'rights' and ownership. Of course children are not owned by anyone, least of all the 'state'. But don't take away responsibility from parents. And where does this idea that children are on loan come from? A very questionable idea. Sounds like you want further power grabs by the state into family life. Presumably your basis for doing so is that teachers know best.
It looks like Gove has been forced into a humiliating U-turn. I'm saddened that the certificate has been lost but I wish the government would learn that they are practising the art of the possible. I notice that a new measure for schools will now be around eight subjects including RE. Seems a somewhat random approach but we'll find out more detail later. Thankfully from my perspective it means my children's head teacher will also have to perform a U-turn and employ an RE specialist and provide a GCSE in RE rather than Humanities.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Nothing wrong with local arrangements or self-interest on the part of religious organisations but I think these factors pose some questions. Can we be sure that all authorities have the same rigorous standards or that there is sufficient balance? RE is not identical to theology.
Meant to add earlier: re- 'self interest' - When i was chair of our SACRE and also when on working parties (which has been most of the time in my 35 years of serving on SACREs) the work involved about 8 hours per week - usually on Saturdays - that doesn't feel like 'self interest'.
Agreed Syllabus conferences vote in committees - very similar to Synod's voting by houses but the vote had to be unanimous, not a mere 2/3rds majority. So any self-interested person, whether for church, temple, political party or whatever would scuppered the whole thing and whoever elected him/her would be asked to think again. The best work in education is done by collaboration, not competition - that is why the syllabus is called 'Agreed syllabus.'
In terms of 'rigorous standards', in the context of this discussion, the rights and wrongs of local determination is irrelevant anyway because it is the exam boards that determine and assess what is taught at Key Stage 4 for exam RE. SACREs and ASCs are not even allowed to specify a particular board. That is up to the school.
As for RE and Theology, what is RE akin to, then? The days of RS are long gone and we are back to wanting to help kids to think theologically, just as historians want to help kids to think historically. Asa there aren't enough theology graduates coming into RE teaching, we also encourage philosophers. RE might, therefore, also be akin to Philosophy - philosophy and ethics figure big time in A' level RE and some departments rename themselves 'Philosophy and ethics'.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I notice that a new measure for schools will now be around eight subjects including RE.
Thanks for the info - google turned up a consultation document issued this morning - I have forwarded it to all my colleagues.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Exactly - no they don't have that right.
I hate the notion that parents have 'rights' over their children. Their children don't belong to them. They are 'on loan'.
I assume you mean on loan from God - and remember that we are told we are all one another's keepers.
Parents are responsible for the well-being of their children, and any rights they have (either morally or legally) are premised upon their carrying out that duty. I've not yet met anyone who thinks children are their property.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
Thanks for the reply JaneR. The following replies aren't meant to be provocative.
quote:
Let's see. He claims to want to give schools greater autonomy, but actually the 'free' schools programme is another ideologically-motivated attempt to chip away at the power of local education authorities.
Why does he want to by-pass LEAs? Is it your view that he simply wants to control schools directly from the Ministry? Why does he want to do this? Why is this a bad thing? Were the LEAs doing a particularly good job?
quote:
And the much-vaunted 'EBacc' is simply another straitjacket for the curriculum, designed to force all GCSE students to study subjects that Mr Gove remembers from his own schooldays.
Is your point that the EBacc itself is a bad idea, or is it that the wrong subjects were included in it?
quote:
The previous government's attempts to improve vocational courses have simply been ignored, with the result that students who are not particularly good at academic subjects have nothing to engage their interest.
I'd have thought that secondary level was a bit too soon for the old academic/vocational split (in my view a British fetish, which I will post on separately if I get time) to be relevant. At that stage, all children are studying English, maths, sciences, (one hopes) a language and so on - what is Gove ignoring precisely? CDT? If so, so what?
quote:
So we're back to an 'all or nothing' round of exams at the end of most courses, which is More Rigorous (that's code for Harder To Pass), regardless of the fact that a three-hour written exam is neither the best way of testing knowledge of most subjects nor a realistic representation of how knowledge is used in (most of) the real world.
I think that's a huge question in itself - leaving aside the additional problems posed by what sort of allowances should be made to children with disabilities. But I note your point.
quote:
Oh, and synthetic phonics (as used in New Zealand) IS the phonics system that is being used in English schools.
This is somewhat tangental, but I don't think NZ does use a phonics system like the one I hear described as being used in UK schools. I did read of a comparative study of Scottish pupils (taught using phonics) and NZ pupils (taught using a "book-based" approach) and the NZ pupils were better. Certainly Codlet Major's reading work seems to involve reading book after book on tractors, fishing, taking the dog out, and other staple features of NZ life. It really isn't about rote-learing letter sounds. Either way, she has done extremely well (her maths is unfortunately not so hot).
quote:
And according to this, the UK's education system is sixth best in the world. We don't fare quite so well in the OECD rankings, but sixth best (second best in Europe) isn't bad at all. You'd never guess it from Michael Gove and the media, though.
PISA et al are based on attainment levels. The above survey is based partly on PISA results but also what is taught and what resources are put in. I have heard comments from NZ teachers (who have taught in the UK system) suggesting that children get introduced to various topics a fair bit sooner in the UK than in NZ - in some cases as much as two years sooner. Of course it doesn't follow that the children actually understand what is being taught to them - and if PISA is to be relied upon, it suggests that they quite often don't.
This point does actually support the views expressed on this thread that Gove is heading in the wrong direction - it suggests there is already too much content in the UK schools' curriculum and that it needs to be cut back - although I daresay it suits brighter children better than here.
I don't want to be a Gove apologist - I merely want to understand what is going on.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0