Thread: Taking Kids Out-Of-School Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020139
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on
:
Is it ever acceptable to take a Child out of School for any reason ? And by so doing cause them to miss some Education and cause disruption to the School ? Family Holidays to visit dying relatives, Funerals, Arranged Marriages, or just to get a very much Cheaper Holiday ?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
My child's (state) school took a class of kids to a Disney attraction during term time as a "treat". Which makes rather a nonsense of the idea that it is illegal when a parent does it.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
Is it ever acceptable to take a Child out of School for any reason?
Illness is the first thing that comes to mind. In fact, most schools encourage taking your sick kids out of school.
Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on
:
It used to be legal in the UK to take a child out of school for up to 10 days a year for family holidays. I regularly missed 2 weeks in September because I was on holiday. Any more than 10 days needed permission. Education involves far more than what is taught in schools. Children who miss school through illness don't necessarily fall behind with learning.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
The previous rule was best imo. Headteacher had the discretion to allow two weeks off during term time.
That way parents who made sure their children had a good attendance record and whose children wouldn't suffer benefited.
Now it's out of headteachers hands and it's too blunt an instrument.
But it really would have been a nightmare for schools, teachers and children if this ruling were overturned as it would be seen as permission to take children out of school any time.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I suspect the truth is that several weeks could be lost at the end of the Summer term, at least a week could be lost before Christmas, and probably some time in September and at Easter with no noticeable effect on the education of anyone.
Private schools often have shorter terms, I've never heard anyone suggest that the education is deformed simply because the kids are in the classroom for less weeks a year.
Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on
:
In the US, or at least in the school districts I attended taking a religious holiday was considered an excused absence - such as Lunar New Year. Oddly enough I had a friend be given an unexcused absence when she took the day off to take her citizenship exam. Both seem reasonable reasons to keep a child out of school to me.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
This "rule" is just another example of bone-headed target setting. Friends of ours couldn't even get the headteacher's permission for a family holiday so that their father could accompany their children, and he's in the Royal Navy and gets no choice in when he gets his leave. Even a letter from the captain could swing it. It is no surprise that they attend a different school.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
Is it ever acceptable to take a Child out of School for any reason ? And by so doing cause them to miss some Education and cause disruption to the School ? Family Holidays to visit dying relatives, Funerals, Arranged Marriages, or just to get a very much Cheaper Holiday ?
The school is there to serve the family, and not vice versa.
A day or two for a funeral, wedding, or whatever is a non-issue: children get sick from time to time, and should be kept home then; this is no more disruptive to anyone.
Taking children out of school for an extended period is more of an issue, but shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. I tend to look at it this way: If your child is present in school, the school has the primary responsibility for ensuring that he or she learns whatever is on the syllabus. If you remove your child from school for a period (for a cheap holiday, because Dad's in the Navy and is off on the high seas during the school holidays, or whatever else) then it becomes your responsibility to ensure that your children study the portion of the syllabus that they will miss, so that they don't cause undue disruption to the class when they return.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Of course families should be able to take children out of school, and I would add "at their own discretion" too. The exception would be when things get to the point that abuse/neglect comes into play--for example, when a teacher learns that the kid is being forced to work or to babysit other kids for the good of the rest of family, and his/her own needs are ignored.
Yes, it sucks when a kid is gone for a week or two (or even a month, as some of ours are when they travel to Vietnam to see grandparents). And the family should do what they can to minimize the impact on the school. But just blanket saying "no, you can't go"--whose kid is it? Was the child made for education, or education for the child?
If grandma is dying in Vietnam (or California, or wherever), I am bloody going to take my kid out of school for as long as necessary to let them have a last meeting together. Such opportunities aren't repeatable or postponable. If the illness turns out not to be fatal after all, so much the better (though more embarrassing to explain).
Similarly, if my kid has the opportunity to travel to Antarctica but only during school season (when it's possible), I guess he'll be getting his education in Antarctica. We'll take the books with us. But I'm not going to impoverish his childhood because it makes too much paperwork for the school. If it means taking unexcused absences or having to cope with the truant officer calling, I'll suck it up and deal.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
The freedom to take children from school for virtually any reason exists here, with the understanding that missing too much for any reason may result in being set behind enough that not passing the term (if semestered) or year could occur.
There are only provincial schools run by local school boards (there are so few private schools that these don't really matter). They are required to provide education, such that they must facilitate education if in hospital, and must cooperate to provide material for education if children are on a trip somewhere. Though with both, there is still the chance that failure of the term could occur (or of individual classes).
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I agree with what Lamb Chopped, Learned Cniht, Sioni Sais, Mr Cheesy and others have said. Children do not go to school for the benefit or convenience of teachers, the LEA, the Department of Education or the state. With very, very few exceptions, parents care a great deal more for their children and their welfare than anybody else. They can and should be trusted to decide what they think is best, not have this usurped by bureaucrats or the bureaucratic urge to control, interfere or assume they know best.
Those who think they know best even when they are convinced that they are right, should be obliged to accept that even where they disagree with a parent's interpretation of this, they must defer to the parent.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
If you take a pupil out of school, the teacher has to spend one to one time with them to help them catch up. That is time stolen from other pupils.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by mr cheesy quote:
Private schools often have shorter terms, I've never heard anyone suggest that the education is deformed simply because the kids are in the classroom for less weeks a year.
Yes, public and private schools may have shorter terms but that is because they have much longer days. My sons' prep school had lessons for 27 hours a week, the state primary they had been at had lessons for 21; at secondary level state schools around here get 22 hours of teaching per week, non-boarding private average 30. If you take out the PE/ Sport lesson periods then the time difference isn't quite so marked but even so it adds up to a huge amount of extra 'contact time'. In effect, it means that private primary pupils get an extra 6 weeks of teaching time per year, secondary pupils 9 weeks. And that is being generous, because in state schools you lose 5 teaching days (in other words, a whole week) for INSET, where in the private sector professional development and training takes place at half-term or when pupils are on holiday.
As for your idea of pupils getting one-to-one to help catch up if they are absent Leo, dream on: one of the sons' friends spent 4 weeks in hospital and the school did sweet FA to help him catch-up when he returned.
The other thing is the wild variation in what is allowed: we have one local primary school which caused a furore by refusing a child permission to have 2 days to get to a family funeral in Ireland, while the older siblings' secondary gave the time without comment.
The sad thing about this case is that it seems to show that a child being present in school is the vital thing: no one questions whether or not that time is being put to good use.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If you take a pupil out of school, the teacher has to spend one to one time with them to help them catch up. That is time stolen from other pupils.
Oh please.
As L'Organist pointed out, the chance of a teacher actually doing this is ... well, in my experience, remote. What actually happens is, they tell you it's your own damned fault, and suggest you pay for a tutor. Which they are not obligated to help you find.
And since when did teachers spend loads of one-on-one time with elementary/high school kids anyway? We live in a very good school district, but in-class time is almost always used for whole-class or small-group work, with very little one-on-one time to be stolen or otherwise taken from anybody else. Students are allowed to ask for extra help (brief) before school starts in the morning, or maybe (underline maybe) during a study session (if one exists at all). Otherwise, it's back to "get yourself a tutor."
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If you take a pupil out of school, the teacher has to spend one to one time with them to help them catch up. That is time stolen from other pupils.
I must have taken five days of such holiday for about as many years and I don't recall anything like that. Maybe it is necessary now, but only to attain another damnfool target, namely SAT scores. And they were only dreamt up by politicians as a stick to beat teachers with.
Just let teachers get on and teach children without bureaucratising the profession: too many qood, qualified and experienced people are getting out as things are.
[ 06. April 2017, 22:01: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If you take a pupil out of school, the teacher has to spend one to one time with them to help them catch up. That is time stolen from other pupils.
This is nonsense, in so many different ways.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Well, I'm a bad parent. I used to intentionally, deliberately take my kids out of school once a year-- just once-- to go to Disneyland (until they raised admission to more than the month's rent, that is...) I would tell them they were going to school, then suddenly turn onto the freeway and away we'd go. They fell for it every time. And it was wonderful-- and the lines/heat were half what they'd be on a weekend or in summer. I told them it was their birthright as Californians.
I know, I'm a terrible parent. Worse, I'm completely unrepentant. It is one of my kids' most cherished memories.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by Sioni Sais quote:
I must have taken five days of such holiday for about as many years and I don't recall anything like that. Maybe it is necessary now, but only to attain another damnfool target, namely SAT scores. And they were only dreamt up by politicians as a stick to beat teachers with. Just let teachers get on and teach children without bureaucratising the profession: too many qood, qualified and experienced people are getting out as things are.
I agree with you about SAT scores being a damnfool target, and that they were drawn up by politicians, but as a stick with which to beat teachers? No. IMV the intention behind the introduction of SATs was good but no one thought to tackle (a) why they might be necessary, and (b) whether or not there might be a better way - for pupils and schools - of achieving what the aim was said to be.
In the "bad" good old days most primary schools followed each other in one important regard: at Junior level (equivalent to Years 3-6) most Friday mornings were taken up with simple tests: times-tables, mental arithmetic, basic "sums" and problem-solving maths; spelling and comprehension in English. This meant that teachers could see very easily who was taking on board what had been taught that week and who might need extra help. Since it was part of the weekly routine pupils didn't get stressed out by it and any problems could be seen and sorted PDQ.
Similarly, school inspections were much more sensible: HMIs dropped in without warning and so got a snapshot of a school day. True, it might have been an extraordinary day for the school through unexpected event, but broadly the impression gained was accurate, teachers and pupils didn't waste time (and stress) getting ready to give a good, and sometimes pretty false, impression.
There are two broad types of education at primary level in the UK, state and private. One has suffered constant tinkering and micro-management, the other far less; private primaries tend to follow the pattern that was common across the board during the 1950s and 60s but a state primary tends not to do this partly, I suspect, because an OFSTED inspection would frown on it. But which system seems to produce children who can cope with exam stress and who consistently achieve.
The private sector follows the National Curriculum but only sees it as a base-line or jumping-off point and within a broad curriculum teachers are free to teach as they wish. In private schools staff expertise is acknowledged and staff teach 'their' subject across the school, rather than being forced to cover everything from PE to Art and Science - and a bonus is that pupil-teacher clashes are less likely to happen and pupils don't get bored with the same voice teaching them 5 days a week. There are fewer teaching assistants in the private sector but subject specialist staff means that teachers get free periods during the week to do marking, and record-keeping tends to be done by a dedicated administrator.
With my older siblings I went to the local primary school (late 1950s - mid-60s) and got a first-class education: to get the same for our sons we had to go down the private route. Rather than bad-mouthing the private school perhaps the state system might learn from it?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Yes, public and private schools may have shorter terms but that is because they have much longer days. My sons' prep school had lessons for 27 hours a week, the state primary they had been at had lessons for 21; at secondary level state schools around here get 22 hours of teaching per week, non-boarding private average 30. If you take out the PE/ Sport lesson periods then the time difference isn't quite so marked but even so it adds up to a huge amount of extra 'contact time'.
As you say, the "contact time" mostly consists of playing sport every afternoon. I think sport is a good thing, it'd be great if every school could offer various sporting activities to children until 5 o'clock.
But to suggest that this is somehow a reason why they have shorter terms is laughable. There is no sense in which prep school children have more time in the classroom than those in state schools.
A much bigger factor IMO is that parents are motivated to ensure that their children apply themselves to the work (mostly because they're paying).
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
When I was at school, all those decades ago, there were 3 categories of schools - the public system, the Catholic systemic system (perhaps similar to the Canadian - very low fees, lots of the teaching done by religious) and the independent schools (much higher fees, some religious taught in the Jesuit schools). I went to one of the latter where we did regular lessons during the period 9 am to 3.30 pm. Then sport practice a couple of afternoons after that, cadets and honours classes other afternoons, and inter-school sport competition on Saturdays. This more than made up for the longer holidays, as in the other systems these "additional" items were in the normal school hours.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
The thing with cheap holidays is that it's laws like this that make it possible for holiday companies to charge extortionate amounts out of term time. And while one might say that's just market forces and supply and demand, it's a market that's been artificially distorted by government intervention, and, as such, the government ought to take responsibility for it.
Posted by Ambivalence (# 16165) on
:
I work in a school. One of the major issues with parents taking kids out of school during term-time affects some subjects more than others: if a child misses a single lesson or a few lessons in, say, geography, the next lessons will usually be independent of the things learned in the missed ones, but if a child misses lessons in, say, maths, there's a good chance that they will miss learning things which they need to use in subsequent lessons.
(This is not intended to imply that geography is "easier" than maths! just that different subjects are differently organised and some suffer much more than others from knock-on effects of missing lessons.)
Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on
:
If the parents are not taking responsibility for a kid getting a good education, then I think the state should step in. Including ensuring the kid attends school.
But if the parents _are_ taking responsibility, are engaged and involved in the child's education, and the child is performing at the best of their ability, then the state should back off.
The question is, how do we tell the difference? If we just let the teachers decide, that'll lead to parents putting pressure on teachers. We can't just base it on results, because that penalises kids who are diligent but not clever.
Posted by anne (# 73) on
:
A significant issue for English schools is that the OFSTED (school inspectorate) requirement is for 95% attendance across the school. Once illness and unavoidable absences are taken out, it's a tough target for any school. Add in a good heap of term time holidays and it is an impossible target to meet.
It can be argued that this requirement already disproportionately affects schools in more deprived areas (the cost of holidays may be more of a factor for families, deprivation may be associated with more complicated living situations for children that may make attending school more difficult) and in areas with high levels of immigration (going to a family funeral or to visit a sick grandparent may mean travelling to another country and take much more time) none of which is allowed for by OFSTED.
While the 95% target remains in place (and the evidence that it makes a significant difference to outcomes for children seems to have convinced government, so there doesn't seem much sign of movement) schools have a strong incentive to deny any inessential term time absences. Of course parental choice remains - the choice is leave them in school or take them out and pay your fine.
anne
Posted by M. (# 3291) on
:
I'm fairly amazed that so many people on here think it's acceptable to take a child out of school for something as essentially trivial as a holiday. The case was about a holiday, not illness, a family funeral etc.
If you want to be able to decide at what exactly times and dates your child is studying, then you can always home-school.
M.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
A significant issue for English schools is that the OFSTED (school inspectorate) requirement is for 95% attendance across the school. Once illness and unavoidable absences are taken out, it's a tough target for any school. Add in a good heap of term time holidays and it is an impossible target to meet.
It can be argued that this requirement already disproportionately affects schools in more deprived areas (the cost of holidays may be more of a factor for families, deprivation may be associated with more complicated living situations for children that may make attending school more difficult) and in areas with high levels of immigration (going to a family funeral or to visit a sick grandparent may mean travelling to another country and take much more time) none of which is allowed for by OFSTED.
While the 95% target remains in place (and the evidence that it makes a significant difference to outcomes for children seems to have convinced government, so there doesn't seem much sign of movement) schools have a strong incentive to deny any inessential term time absences. Of course parental choice remains - the choice is leave them in school or take them out and pay your fine.
But children don't go to school so as to enable the school to get a good score from OFSTED. Nor is that why parents bring them into the world, nor why they care for them and love them.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If you take a pupil out of school, the teacher has to spend one to one time with them to help them catch up.
It's almost as if schools are there for the benefit of pupils not teachers.
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
I'm fairly amazed that so many people on here think it's acceptable to take a child out of school for something as essentially trivial as a holiday. The case was about a holiday, not illness, a family funeral etc.
I wouldn't describe holidays as trivial, but I'm also struggling with the idea that doing this should be seen as OK - and I say that as a parent of two children who wrestles with the same issues about the cost of holidays as other parents. It's a tricky one, I agree, but I don't think taking your children out of school is the answer. Especially as the curriculum, even at primary ages, seems so packed with so much to cover in a short space of time that missing even a day or so, much less a week or a fortnight, could set you back quite a long way.
Surely the better solution is to find a way to stop the holiday companies' practice inflating their prices during the school holidays, rather than taking out children of school.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
But children don't go to school so as to enable the school to get a good score from OFSTED. Nor is that why parents bring them into the world, nor why they care for them and love them.
While that's true, a good OFSTED report is utterly, utterly vital for schools and a bad (or even average) one can be hugely detrimental. They're the most visible statement of how well or badly a school is doing; there's even now an advert for an online property website where they boast how their website will show where the good schools are in the area (or something similar). The pressures created by OFSTED inspections are immense and it's little wonder schools put so much store on doing everything they can to get the best possible reports.
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist
Rather than bad-mouthing the private school perhaps the state system might learn from it?
This isn't a dig at you, but I can't help thinking what would serve the state system best would be politicians stopping micro-managing and changing everything every few years, trusting teachers and allowing them to get on with what they're trained to do.
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If you take a pupil out of school, the teacher has to spend one to one time with them to help them catch up.
It's almost as if schools are there for the benefit of pupils not teachers.
Yes - but for the benefit of all the pupils, not just the ones who need catch-up time because their parents have decided to take them off on holiday.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Well, again, it also depends when exactly this holiday is being taken. Of course there are critical times - but I'd highly doubt that a child before age 11 is going to be losing anything of significance if a week it taken at the end of the summer term or before Christmas.
Most of the time nothing will be missed in these periods from age 11-16 - we know this because throughout my child's education at least a week was spent during these periods with no work done and teaching replaced with videos, planning nativity plays or other non-essential stuff.
If it actually turns out that the school is taking children to a Disney resort during this time with almost zero educational content (supposedly this included some lessons but in practice apparently it was less than a couple of hours during the whole time) then it is bloody hard to complain when a parent wants to do the same thing.
FWIW, my child went to every single day of school, less a few for illness. I'm not quite sure why I bothered given the very lax attitude of the school to my child's education and the general feeling that Headmaster Knows Best.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
It's almost as if schools are there for the benefit of pupils not teachers.
It's almost as if teachers are already massively overworked without parents making it more difficult than it already is.
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist Yes, public and private schools may have shorter terms but that is because they have much longer days. My sons' prep school had lessons for 27 hours a week, the state primary they had been at had lessons for 21; at secondary level state schools around here get 22 hours of teaching per week, non-boarding private average 30. If you take out the PE/ Sport lesson periods then the time difference isn't quite so marked but even so it adds up to a huge amount of extra 'contact time'. In effect, it means that private primary pupils get an extra 6 weeks of teaching time per year, secondary pupils 9 weeks. And that is being generous, because in state schools you lose 5 teaching days (in other words, a whole week) for INSET, where in the private sector professional development and training takes place at half-term or when pupils are on holiday.
The state (secondary) schools I have taught in have between 25 and 27.5 hours of lessons a week, so I don't know where you're getting your information. Primary is less but here it's only by 30 minutes a day (and that is similar in the minimum recommended in primary schools in England at 21 hours in KS1 and 22.5 in KS2). I find it hard to believe that any secondary is offering as little as 22 hours a week. Once you take into account the extra sport (which plenty of state secondaries offer as after school activities) there is pretty much no difference.
Your claim about INSET is utter nonsense too by the way - the placement of the day is spaced differently in different schools but they're all in addition to the school year of 190 days. Look at the history - they were added to teachers' working year by Kenneth Baker in the 1980s, not taken from pupils' lesson time.
And for those who are curious, yes teachers do end up either having to prepare work that can be completed independently (which is hard in itself because there is a reason we're employed to teach this stuff) or find ways to squeeze in teaching the students the things they've missed, often after school or in the holidays (as I spent this morning doing).
Taking your kids out of school to go on holiday requires you to take a serious amount of responsibility in terms of getting them caught up and keeping disruption to a minimum. It also requires you to make up for the message you send about the importance of school attendance, because it's noticeable that most children whose parents regularly take them out for holidays have a poor attitude to learning. I can think of one case where I didn't mind students being taken out, because I knew that the students' parents would make sure they requested work in good time, completed it diligently, and took responsibility for anything they didn't learn. The vast majority of parents don't do these things, and so shouldn't be taking their children out in term time.
As for whether there should be fines: I can see both sides, but I'm inclined to the view that fines should be the norm just as they are for speeding - I'm sure there are a minority of drivers who can drive safely at 60mph in a 40mph zone but it's best if no-one does it for the benefit of all. I would, however, want there to be discretion at local authority level to authorise absence in exceptional circumstances, perhaps on the same basis as it is given for staff (weddings, funerals, significant religious or cultural events, family member seriously ill). The problem with not having any enforcement system (we don't have one here) is that parents take the piss, and you end up with half the class missing at the start and end of every term.
[ 07. April 2017, 13:23: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
It's almost as if schools are there for the benefit of pupils not teachers.
It's almost as if teachers are already massively overworked without parents making it more difficult than it already is.
I'm sure the school would be easier to run altogether without the pesky pupils and their needs getting in the way.
I'm surprised, given all that we hear about youth mental health that there's such a strong attainment driven line from the government and teachers. Given the huge rates of self harm, teen suicide attempts and all the problems that kids often have because of being in school, I think it's the system's job to trust parents about when their kids shouldn't be there. Even for a holiday.
ETA: My child is at school every day. I'm not advocating for a laissez faire attitude to school, just that there is room for parents to decide what's best for their child, rather than a system that revolves around the needs of teachers to hit targets.
[ 07. April 2017, 13:36: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Rather than bad-mouthing the private school perhaps the state system might learn from it?
Agreed 100%
Make sure children are in classes of 15 - 24 pupils.
Stop micro managing.
Let teachers set sensible tests.
Use specialist teachers more in some subjects.
Give teachers quality marking time and cut 90% of the crazy bureaucracy.
It's very simple.
I taught (primary) for 40 years and just teach art one afternoon a week now - I'm seeing good young teachers leave after 5 years or less - and this is an excellent school with a very good headteacher. The paperwork burden on each teacher is more than most managers have without a class to teach.
Trust the teachers.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
ETA: My child is at school every day. I'm not advocating for a laissez faire attitude to school, just that there is room for parents to decide what's best for their child, rather than a system that revolves around the needs of teachers to hit targets.
It seems like you're going too far the other way. In fact it seems to me that the only parents who should ever be allowed to take children out for a holiday are those who never do it.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I'm sure the school would be easier to run altogether without the pesky pupils and their needs getting in the way.
This isn't about needs though, is it? This is about parents wanting to have their week skiing in the Alps when it's cheaper in late January and their two weeks in Spain when it's cheaper in June or September. I think you'll find that teachers bend over backwards to cater for genuine needs, and the parents who pull their kids out of school on a whim take time and resources from helping those with genuine needs. If we were talking about parents who only get time off in term time, or who can genuinely only afford to take a week in a caravan in Skegness out of season then we'd be talking about need. But, barring a few cases who I would consider per my previous post to have exceptional circumstances, we're actually talking about middle class parents grabbing themselves a bargain and foisting the consequences onto others. If a fine makes them think twice then great.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Education is COMPULSORY. Comply or face the consequences. Like a grown up.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Originally posted by L'organist:
quote:
at secondary level state schools around here get 22 hours of teaching per week,
Secondary schools in Aberdeenshire have 8 forty minute periods a day, five days a week, so 26 hours, 40 mins of teaching a week, with registration / assembly first thing in addition to that.
Headteachers here have discretion, but I think that taking children out of school for holidays is wrong. Scottish parents tend to have a short window of opportunity for cheaper early summer holidays as schools break up for summer a couple of weeks before the English schools and hence before the price increases are at their steepest. Classrooms here start emptying a couple of days before the official summer break-up as people try to fit holidays in then. I doubt a small fine would prove any deterrent, given the saving in cost of the holiday.
Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Education is COMPULSORY. Comply or face the consequences. Like a grown up.
That's why I was trying to make a distinction between parents who are invested in their kids' education, and those that aren't.
Education is compulsory. School is not. Regarding taking kids out of school in term time, sometimes the alternative may be way more educational than school (a foreign holiday where you're learning about the local culture, practicing your languages etc). Sometimes, like Disneyland, it might not be — but for a child who's not lagging academically, it might still be a good thing for their life overall.
But then, if you have a kid who is only just keeping up in Maths and English, and the parents take them for a holiday, don't help them catch up on work, and expect the school to pick up the slack… that's not good for the kid, because they'll have a stressful time getting back into things.
(I know I'm ignoring the issue of whether temporarily removing a kid makes the teacher's life harder… but everyone always phrases these debates about what's best for the kid, so that's how I'm considering it.)
Amy
Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on
:
I agree that those of us who are adults and responsible for the well being and upbringing of children should take our responsibilities (including legal obligations) seriously.
Life is also compulsory. Education is a subset of life, therefore it is subservient. Choose life.
And, as a postscript, it's always worth remembering that 'education' comes in many forms, and that 'formal institutional education' is a small component of the category, and too frequently a poor alternative to the education which can be gained in other ways.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
A few years ago, my brother was taken to task by the village school for removing his son and daughter a few weeks before the end of the summer term.
The reason for the removal was a once-in-a-lifetime holiday, travelling by the Trans-Siberian Railway to Ulan Bator (change at somewhere ending in -sk, I think), and spending a month or so on the Mongolian plains, living with the horse-breeding locals in their yurts.
Slightly more mind-broadening, I suspect, than a couple of weeks in a village school (extremely well-thought-of though it may be) in deepest Shropshire.
IJ
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Posted by mr cheesy quote:
As you say, the "contact time" mostly consists of playing sport every afternoon. I think sport is a good thing, it'd be great if every school could offer various sporting activities to children until 5 o'clock.
But I didn't say that the extra 'contact time' was sport every afternoon. What it meant was that they went from one-and-a-half hours of sport/PE per week in the state sector to three-and-a-half timetabled at private: that still leaves an extra 4 hours per week of academic lessons at a prep, which is nearly 7 weeks of time per year, more than half a term.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If you take a pupil out of school, the teacher has to spend one to one time with them to help them catch up. That is time stolen from other pupils.
This is nonsense, in so many different ways.
In what ways? It reflects my experience of 40 years teaching. How is your experience different?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If you take a pupil out of school, the teacher has to spend one to one time with them to help them catch up. That is time stolen from other pupils.
Oh please.
As L'Organist pointed out, the chance of a teacher actually doing this is ... well, in my experience, remote. What actually happens is, they tell you it's your own damned fault, and suggest you pay for a tutor. Which they are not obligated to help you find.
And since when did teachers spend loads of one-on-one time with elementary/high school kids anyway? We live in a very good school district, but in-class time is almost always used for whole-class or small-group work, with very little one-on-one time to be stolen or otherwise taken from anybody else. Students are allowed to ask for extra help (brief) before school starts in the morning, or maybe (underline maybe) during a study session (if one exists at all). Otherwise, it's back to "get yourself a tutor."
It was demanded where I taught. And not to meet SAT targets but to cover content.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Secondary schools in Aberdeenshire have 8 forty minute periods a day, five days a week, so 26 hours, 40 mins of teaching a week, with registration / assembly first thing in addition to that.
What about sport? As I said above, in the private/independent school system here, sport practice and competition is in addition to the 8 by 40 minute school day in lessons, as are all other extra-curricular activities In the public school system, they all form part of the school day times you mention.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If you take a pupil out of school, the teacher has to spend one to one time with them to help them catch up. That is time stolen from other pupils.
Oh please.
As L'Organist pointed out, the chance of a teacher actually doing this is ... well, in my experience, remote. What actually happens is, they tell you it's your own damned fault, and suggest you pay for a tutor. Which they are not obligated to help you find.
And since when did teachers spend loads of one-on-one time with elementary/high school kids anyway? We live in a very good school district, but in-class time is almost always used for whole-class or small-group work, with very little one-on-one time to be stolen or otherwise taken from anybody else. Students are allowed to ask for extra help (brief) before school starts in the morning, or maybe (underline maybe) during a study session (if one exists at all). Otherwise, it's back to "get yourself a tutor."
It was demanded where I taught. And not to meet SAT targets but to cover content.
Okay, fine. You taught in a rare school. Now explain to me how one-on-one catchup time is "stealing from other pupils." Did you shut down your classroom in order to attend to the needs of one person? Why is this a zero sum game?
If you can't tell, I'm seriousl pissed off by your word "stealing."
[ 08. April 2017, 00:54: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If you take a pupil out of school, the teacher has to spend one to one time with them to help them catch up. That is time stolen from other pupils.
Oh please.
As L'Organist pointed out, the chance of a teacher actually doing this is ... well, in my experience, remote. What actually happens is, they tell you it's your own damned fault, and suggest you pay for a tutor. Which they are not obligated to help you find.
And since when did teachers spend loads of one-on-one time with elementary/high school kids anyway? We live in a very good school district, but in-class time is almost always used for whole-class or small-group work, with very little one-on-one time to be stolen or otherwise taken from anybody else. Students are allowed to ask for extra help (brief) before school starts in the morning, or maybe (underline maybe) during a study session (if one exists at all). Otherwise, it's back to "get yourself a tutor."
It was demanded where I taught. And not to meet SAT targets but to cover content.
Oh, for God's sake.... Canadian situation (a patch work of 13 educational standards), so YMMV. When I was 10 or 11, I was taken out for two weeks to visit grandparents whom I rarely saw. My mother, a rather forceful woman, said to the school that I'd take my texts and lesson plans for math and English with me, and I'd catch up the rest on my own by end of term. And I did. (Forceful mother made certain that I was at work after breakfast.) Aside from five or ten minutes with my teacher each of a few days on my return, I consumed little of his extra time. As mentioned above: Trans-Siberian or Shropshire? If you have to think about the question, perhaps a geography course might be in order. Tea, watching the taiga pass, or a dreary classroom? Explain to the kid that here passed the Mongols, or show them on a blackboard map?
On a side note, I think that my experience argues in favour of narrowing the curriculum until the secondary level: English, math, a second language (choice depending on locale), science, music, something physical (anything physical for those able), history (easily integrated into English or the second language if you want to reduce the number further).
Classroom time is overrated, as is homework time. Japan has been dropping in the PISA ratings, and is notorious for the psychological stress of the students, whereas Finland, since its educational overhaul, has risen to be consistently to the top five or so. The Finns start school later, learn to read at their own rate (no one gets stressed out if the child isn't reading until eight or so), and, by international standards, do shockingly little homework. And, they're happy.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I doubt a small fine would prove any deterrent, given the saving in cost of the holiday.
£60 per child is not a small fine.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
It is if you're saving £300 on the holiday!
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
My oldest brother G (learning disabled) and I were taken out of school when our younger brother was born. We went to stay with our aunty, taking some school work with us. Aunty took her responsibilities seriously and in the 10 or so days we were there taught my brother the 5 times table. When he got back to school the teacher was amazed because they didn't think he would ever learn it. Even now, at 65 and slipping into dementia caused by Parkinson's, it's something he is very proud of.
In my time teaching I didn't begrudge spending a bit of extra time with a child if they missed school, any more than I would begrudge spending time with one having difficulties in a particular area - that (as I see it) was part of the job. Most parents didn't withdraw children for frivolous reasons and had the best interests of their child at heart.
Huia
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on
:
The best example I have is from American friends who live in NZ. They decided when their son was 14 that he should see the States and meet some of his older relatives, a trip that would take 3 months.
They (and their son) presented the school with learning objectives, an outline of the work he would complete in English, Geography and Social Studies. He was also to keep a budget. All to be uploaded to the school's online learning environment 3 times a week.
They stuck to it religiously, and what was great was that his Geography and Social Studies classes used his blog posts as jumping off points for class learning.
His parents would not have done it any later in his school career, as exams started the next year.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Secondary schools in Aberdeenshire have 8 forty minute periods a day, five days a week, so 26 hours, 40 mins of teaching a week, with registration / assembly first thing in addition to that.
What about sport? As I said above, in the private/independent school system here, sport practice and competition is in addition to the 8 by 40 minute school day in lessons, as are all other extra-curricular activities In the public school system, they all form part of the school day times you mention.
Gym / P.E. is included in the school day; team practice for sports teams is an after-school activity. Competitions/ sports leagues would usually be on a Saturday. I'm not sure about music tuition, but orchestra practice is after-school. Other extra-curricular activities, such as chess club, would be a lunchtime activity. My son, with school backing, started and ran a creative writing club as a lunchtime activity.
Cadets are completely separate from schools, and the Duke of Edinburgh scheme is run through Scouts / Guides etc, rather than schools, at least locally.
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on
:
My three grandchildren, 10, 8, and 6, from BC Canada, were here for a month in October on their biennial visit.
Their teachers were happy to set work for them, though it was not always easy to get them to knuckle down. 10-year-old hadn't brought his journal but happily wrote it every day on my MacBook, with some discussion of grammar and punctuation (I was an English teacher) and illustrations by his mother (a photographer). He had a work sheet for his class's set book, 'The Cricket in Times Square'; he didn't have a copy but I contacted local on-line book sellers and we had a copy next day for $5. He's a voracious reader anyway.
They also had educational visits to places like the Len Lye art gallery in New Plymouth and the Kiwihouse (with many other exhibits) in Otorohanga. They also spent a day at a local primary school, for which they had made videos of life back home (I gather that the bear wandering across the yard made a great impression) and returned for another day, with videos to take back.
The all got excellent half-year reports, and I gather that they are not the only family who are given leave from school for travel.
It seems like common sense to me. Their mother and her brother were given five months' leave from high school for the family's 'world trip' and were promoted at the end of the year. Again as an English teacher I took them to plays, Shakespearean and otherwise, marked written work, and related experiences to literary examples; we were lent an answer book for my son's accounting, and so on.
I feel sad for friends whose English grandchildren can only visit in their summer holidays, when it's winter here and they can't enjoy bush walks and the seaside.
GG
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
In my time teaching I didn't begrudge spending a bit of extra time with a child if they missed school, any more than I would begrudge spending time with one having difficulties in a particular area - that (as I see it) was part of the job. Most parents didn't withdraw children for frivolous reasons and had the best interests of their child at heart.
I agree. But I have a feeling that the high profile of this case would have changed perceptions. If he had won I think plenty of parents would have taken it as permission to take their kids out of school on holiday at any time.
All the enriching holidays posted above are not necessarily the norm. Mauling round the pool while Mum and Dad drink beer and sunbathe is not educational imo.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
All the enriching holidays posted above are not necessarily the norm. Mauling round the pool while Mum and Dad drink beer and sunbathe is not educational imo.
This is key. No teacher I know would begrudge an actually educational experience (though standard form letters might go out saying that attendance was below xx% and that this was not good), but these are vanishingly rare. Most often it's a skiing or beach holiday.
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on
:
I presume no-one regards a trip to Disneyland as an 'enriching experience'?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
I presume no-one regards a trip to Disneyland as an 'enriching experience'?
Who knows?
It wouldn't enrich me! We went to Florida when the kids were eight and ten, we went canoeing in the Everglades and many other things including a week on the beach. None of us were even slightly tempted by Disney.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
I presume no-one regards a trip to Disneyland as an 'enriching experience'?
I suppose it depends. It wouldn't be an enriching experience for a child who had regular family holidays, and had been abroad before. I can think of one young teen for whom any trip which involved travelling outwith mainland Britain, hearing a language other than English spoken, using a foreign currency and being in a bus which was driving on the "wrong" side would be enriching and educational.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
Back in the seventies, when I was 12, I spent five months, with my older brother, and mum, at sea on the 35,000 tonnes cargo ship, where my dad was an engineer. It included the two statutory summer-leave months; so the time I had off school included the end of first year and the beginning of second year; cumulatively about three months.
We began in Antwerp, travelled across the Atlantic, through the Panama Canal, visiting ports up the Western US seaboard (including a day trip to Disneyland); up to Vancouver and a few other Canadian ports. Then - taking an unscheduled detour - across the Pacific to ports in Japan. Then back the way we came, down the North American seaboard, through the Panama, stopping off in Dublin, France and then flying home via London. Our cargo was variously coke and timber. Our weather variously tropically oppressive, or hurricane force 8 mid-ocean.
To say it was an education for us kids would be an understatement. The school set me a load of work to do across various subjects. Not one iota of this was checked on my return to school. I was a little annoyed! However, my form teacher had told me to keep a journal to share with classmates when I returned. As it happened nobody asked after the diary. But I still have it - now I'm in my fifties, recording all those incredible experiences.
I wouldn't use this as a blanket argument for taking kids out of school, though! Surely the sensible thing is to take each case on its own merits.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
I presume no-one regards a trip to Disneyland as an 'enriching experience'?
I suppose it depends. It wouldn't be an enriching experience for a child who had regular family holidays, and had been abroad before. I can think of one young teen for whom any trip which involved travelling outwith mainland Britain, hearing a language other than English spoken, using a foreign currency and being in a bus which was driving on the "wrong" side would be enriching and educational.
Could be ours. They're 8, 10 and 12 and we've never been abroad. Always had holidays in the UK. Part of the problem is the equating of 'holiday' with 'abroad'
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Enrichment is in your attitude and openness when you experience things at least as much as where you go to experience them.
Yes, going to Disneyland can be enriching. There will less there in regards to education, of course, but it is only barren if you are.
But this is true of any travel, the mindset one has will determine the enrichment of the experience.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Enrichment is in your attitude and openness when you experience things at least as much as where you go to experience them.
Yes, going to Disneyland can be enriching. There will less there in regards to education, of course, but it is only barren if you are.
But this is true of any travel, the mindset one has will determine the enrichment of the experience.
Well then that's equally true of staying put and attending school. The point is that certain experiences are more conducive to extracting educational value than others.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
But I have a feeling that the high profile of this case would have changed perceptions. If he had won I think plenty of parents would have taken it as permission to take their kids out of school on holiday at any time.
You're probably right about the perception, and I've very little sympathy for the bloke who brought the case, but it's worth pointing out that he wasn't advocating a free-for-all, but rather that the definition of 'regular attendance' should be based on common sense - his daughter 'regularly' attended school as most people would understand 'regularly', therefore he had no case to answer.
The Supreme Court AIUI has ruled that 'regularly' means in accordance with the school's attendance policy, and I am slightly uncomfortable with this - it seems to suppose schools get it right all the time, which is as unlikely as parents getting it right all the time.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Enrichment is in your attitude and openness when you experience things at least as much as where you go to experience them.
Yes, going to Disneyland can be enriching. There will less there in regards to education, of course, but it is only barren if you are.
But this is true of any travel, the mindset one has will determine the enrichment of the experience.
Well then that's equally true of staying put and attending school.
Well, no. Most days in school are indistinguishable from each other. Do you remember every day of your schooling? Did each one bring a sense of joy and wonder?
quote:
The point is that certain experiences are more conducive to extracting educational value than others.
That is true, but in itself sort of useless. You will never know when you are doing something the value it might have later in life and which experiences will make a better future you/your child. There is great value in doing something special, especially with children. This can include deliberately educational experiences, of course. Adding fun into something greatly improves the chance that a child will appreciate and learn.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
- it seems to suppose schools get it right all the time, which is as unlikely as parents getting it right all the time.
Schools, like most institutions, develop rules based on what might fit the average student and what is easiest to administrate.
Parents often think that simply because they are parents that they know best for the children.
It is a wonder more of us are not screwed up.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Well, no. Most days in school are indistinguishable from each other. Do you remember every day of your schooling? Did each one bring a sense of joy and wonder?
Adding fun into something greatly improves the chance that a child will appreciate and learn.
Memory of an experience is hardly the same as learning from it, but I don't remember everything about the many wonderful holidays I went on either (all in the school holidays I should add). Whether something is fun or not is largely orthogonal to educational effectiveness.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Whether something is fun or not is largely orthogonal to educational effectiveness.
Funny, not only is this opposite to my own experience, but that of the majority of educational and psychological studies I've read.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Whether something is fun or not is largely orthogonal to educational effectiveness.
Funny, not only is this opposite to my own experience, but that of the majority of educational and psychological studies I've read.
Fun can lead to engagement, but often as not attempts to make learning fun lead to the focus being on the entertainment rather than the learning, and you can generate interest and engagement in a topic with making things "fun". All other things being equal, by all means make learning enjoyable, but if it comes at the cost of reducing the quantity or complexity of material learned then it's a false economy. It's the classic "let's make a poster about the nitrogen cycle" approach to learning.
[ 09. April 2017, 14:35: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on
:
Depending on one's definition of 'fun', fun and engagement may be seen to be synonymous. When I am seriously 'engaged' in something there is a good chance that in my miserable eeyorish way I am indeed having 'fun'. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I'd suggest that one of the most important thing kid's can learn is to be constructively bored. The "constant entertainment" refrain of modern life is not a good thing, IMO, and must be incredibly difficult to keep up with as a teacher.
One clearly doesn't want a child to be constantly bored, but the fact is that some things which are worth learning are just dull.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
What cheesy said.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Apologies for the loose apostrophe in my last post.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Fun can lead to engagement, but often as not attempts to make learning fun lead to the focus being on the entertainment rather than the learning,
This is called incompetence. Happens with the boring teachers as well.
quote:
and you can generate interest and engagement in a topic with making things "fun". All other things being equal, by all means make learning enjoyable, but if it comes at the cost of reducing the quantity or complexity of material learned then it's a false economy. It's the classic "let's make a poster about the nitrogen cycle" approach to learning.
School should engage, yes. The idea of sit and grind through the lessons is ridiculous. However, even at its best, school is still a chore and a few days respite in the midst of term can be a good thing.
And, if that few days out harms the child's education, s/he is being failed by both system and parent.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I still have a gap in my education where I missed a chemistry lesson in (the equivalent of) 8th grade, for some reason no amount of catch-up seemed to fill it.
Missing time when nothing much is happening in school (eg end of the summer term) is one thing. Going missing in the middle of a term is plain stupid.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'd suggest that one of the most important thing kid's can learn is to be constructively bored. The "constant entertainment" refrain of modern life is not a good thing, IMO, and must be incredibly difficult to keep up with as a teacher.
One clearly doesn't want a child to be constantly bored, but the fact is that some things which are worth learning are just dull.
I do not think anyone is saying that a child should be constantly entertained.
As a feature, boredom is bad. Every student will face boredom regardless of the quality of the education, you do not need to plan its inclusion.
And they will need to carry on regardless.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
Depending on one's definition of 'fun', fun and engagement may be seen to be synonymous. When I am seriously 'engaged' in something there is a good chance that in my miserable eeyorish way I am indeed having 'fun'.
Exactly.
Teachers are most definitely not there to entertain children. But they need to keep them engaged and interested as much as possible.
They need to know what to do when bored - not how to
be bored but how to deal with it. (engage mind and imagination, do some joined up thinking ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
Depending on one's definition of 'fun', fun and engagement may be seen to be synonymous. When I am seriously 'engaged' in something there is a good chance that in my miserable eeyorish way I am indeed having 'fun'.
The vast majority of my students claim (according to a recent survey) to enjoy my subject. I doubt any of them would include studying it on their list of ideas for a fun day.
Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on
:
Your students---depending on age, maturity, and wont---are, of course, entitled to their opinion of what constitutes 'fun'.
I often seem to be having fun when my life is on the line, but equally so when I am immersed in a good book, or writing a sermon. As the saying goes, 'There's nowt so queer as folk'.
As for removing children from school for 'other purposes' (including the having of 'fun'), well there is the matter of the law, spirit, and serving.
Choose life, I say, there's no knowing when that opportunity may ever come again.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
I presume no-one regards a trip to Disneyland as an 'enriching experience'?
No I don't!
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If you take a pupil out of school, the teacher has to spend one to one time with them to help them catch up. That is time stolen from other pupils.
Oh please.
As L'Organist pointed out, the chance of a teacher actually doing this is ... well, in my experience, remote. What actually happens is, they tell you it's your own damned fault, and suggest you pay for a tutor. Which they are not obligated to help you find.
And since when did teachers spend loads of one-on-one time with elementary/high school kids anyway? We live in a very good school district, but in-class time is almost always used for whole-class or small-group work, with very little one-on-one time to be stolen or otherwise taken from anybody else. Students are allowed to ask for extra help (brief) before school starts in the morning, or maybe (underline maybe) during a study session (if one exists at all). Otherwise, it's back to "get yourself a tutor."
It was demanded where I taught. And not to meet SAT targets but to cover content.
Okay, fine. You taught in a rare school. Now explain to me how one-on-one catchup time is "stealing from other pupils." Did you shut down your classroom in order to attend to the needs of one person? Why is this a zero sum game?
If you can't tell, I'm seriousl pissed off by your word "stealing."
Not rare at all. Current OFSTED expectation is that classes shoulod not move on to any newe toipic until every single person in a class has mastered 'secure'.
As for stealing - I taught about 360 different students per week in groups of apperox. 30. Each leeon would have somone catching up - while I spend time with him/her I cannot be helping the other 29 in the class. So that is one child stealing time from 29 others.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If you take a pupil out of school, the teacher has to spend one to one time with them to help them catch up. That is time stolen from other pupils.
This is nonsense, in so many different ways.
I'm still waiting for you to justify this assertion.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If you take a pupil out of school, the teacher has to spend one to one time with them to help them catch up. That is time stolen from other pupils.
This is nonsense, in so many different ways.
I'm still waiting for you to justify this assertion.
leo, you really should pay some attention to those who have told you that they took holidays in term and received no one-to-one tuition on their return. It isn't data, but when enough people tell you so, it's time to take notice.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
leo, you really should pay some attention to those who have told you that they took holidays in term and received no one-to-one tuition on their return. It isn't data, but when enough people tell you so, it's time to take notice.
That clearly cuts both ways, and those of us who have teaching experience are going to have encountered the situation far more often than those who have merely attended school.
[ 09. April 2017, 20:33: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posted by anne (# 73) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If you take a pupil out of school, the teacher has to spend one to one time with them to help them catch up. That is time stolen from other pupils.
This is nonsense, in so many different ways.
I'm still waiting for you to justify this assertion.
leo, you really should pay some attention to those who have told you that they took holidays in term and received no one-to-one tuition on their return. It isn't data, but when enough people tell you so, it's time to take notice.
But some catching up will be necessary, and if any of that happens in school, whether one to one during class time, small group work, after-school work with teacher or simply the whole class going over the same work again until Freddie catches up with everyone else, then that child is taking away* resources from the other children in their class.
anne
*if stealing seems harsh.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
As for stealing - I taught about 360 different students per week in groups of apperox. 30. Each leeon would have somone catching up - while I spend time with him/her I cannot be helping the other 29 in the class. So that is one child stealing time from 29 others.
Rubbish. Students have illness and accident and still manage to complete courses without slowing down the rest of the class every single year in every single school. If your curriculum does not allow for slack in it, then it is poorly designed.
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
and those of us who have teaching experience are going to have encountered the situation far more often than those who have merely attended school.
You will have a different POV. It is one that should be more comprehensive, but there are many instructors who demonstrate that it is not.
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
But some catching up will be necessary, and if any of that happens in school, whether one to one during class time, small group work, after-school work with teacher or simply the whole class going over the same work again until Freddie catches up with everyone else, then that child is taking away* resources from the other children in their class.
People are writing as if every moment of school is precious and unique when most moments are neither. There are times when removing a student is not in the benefit of the student, but this is not true of every day or even every week.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
In English/Language Arts, you might miss the section on one novel, and come back in time to start the section on the next novel, and still do just fine through the end of the course.
In Math(s), if you miss the section on one procedure, you will likely need to know that procedure for the rest of your math career, and you will have to be playing catch-up learning that procedure while simultaneously learning things that presuppose that you are able to use it fluidly. It can be very hard for students, especially the ones who are not quick-picker-uppers, to do this.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Not rare at all. Current OFSTED expectation is that classes shoulod not move on to any newe toipic until every single person in a class has mastered 'secure'.
As for stealing - I taught about 360 different students per week in groups of apperox. 30. Each leeon would have somone catching up - while I spend time with him/her I cannot be helping the other 29 in the class. So that is one child stealing time from 29 others. [/QB]
I'll have to leave the OFSTED thing to others, as I'm in America. But it seems absurd to hold an entire class back until one out of 30 gets over a difficulty. What do you do with someone who is recovering from a head injury, or going through cancer treatments? Just wait around?
As for the way you handle your in-class time, I find this very odd. Do the other 29 just sit there with hands folded, then? As a teacher myself I can say that sounds like a recipe for disaster at any age. in fact, I'd go so far as to say that it is the bad judgment of the teacher that is causing the problem, begging your pardon. It is the teacher who is making the decision to have everyone wait around idly while he/she has one-on-one time with a pupil. (And if they're not waiting idly, then there's no problem, is there?)
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
In 1976 our parents took me and my brothers to Washington, DC for two weeks in April. They chose April in order to avoid the summer heat and crowds of the nation's bicentennial year. I was in 8th grade and my brothers in 5th and 2nd grades. I remember my parents talking about people at the schools being unhappy about this; my parents' attitude was basically just "hey, too bad, we're not going in July."
It was a great trip, and I know I got a lot more out of seeing the monuments, museums, and historic places in DC than I would have in two weeks in class. None of my teachers spent a minute helping me catch up on what I missed; that was all on me. The only trouble I had was in home ec, as we were supposed to do all the sewing on our projects there in class, and I was obviously two weeks behind on my project. I somehow finished on time, though I don't remember how -- I may have simply brought the project home and finished it over a weekend. I do remember arguing with the teacher that she should let me do that, since I already knew how to sew and didn't need her help.
[ 10. April 2017, 02:01: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If you take a pupil out of school, the teacher has to spend one to one time with them to help them catch up. That is time stolen from other pupils.
This is nonsense, in so many different ways.
I'm still waiting for you to justify this assertion.
Well, the idea that time spent going over something one-on-one with a pupil is "stealing" from other pupils is absurd. It presupposes that every pupil has an absolute duty to manage his life for the maximum convenience of his coaevals, which is something you made up.
(And if OFSTED really requires you to wait until every member of your class is "secure" on a topic before moving on, then OFSTED is requiring you to "steal" very much more time from your pupils than anyone's holiday ever could.)
I also claim as nonsense the idea that it is reasonable for a pupil to be away from school for a holiday, and return two weeks later having made no effort to cover any important work missed, and to expect the school to take responsibility.
I'm all in favour of people making the judgement that they have something better to do than go to school this week, but they have to own that choice, and its consequences. Which means that catching up is on the child and his family, and shouldn't be a significant burden on the teacher.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
What some people in the UK are trying not to say is that for some parents to take their offspring out of school for a holiday can be an enriching experience that will add to/enhance their education; but if it is just to be getting on a 'plane to go to Florida, stay at the Disney resort and over-dose on fairground rides then it won't.
Fact is, we're all happy to go on a beach holiday but while some of us will take the time to go to museums, castles, local conservation projects, etc, there are parents who will go from home to all-inclusive resort, sit around the pool from dawn to dusk and then fly home. Yes, it may be possible for the child staying in the specially-for-foreigners all-inclusive place to find out something about the local culture its not likely and a single evening with 'local dancers', etc, laid on as entertainment really isn't enough.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
What some people in the UK are trying not to say is that for some parents to take their offspring out of school for a holiday can be an enriching experience that will add to/enhance their education; but if it is just to be getting on a 'plane to go to Florida, stay at the Disney resort and over-dose on fairground rides then it won't.
I disagree that it will not be an enriching experience. Life, learning and enrichment are broader than what typically fits in a schoolbook.
The best approach, IMO and E, is a mixed one. Some of my best childhood memories are museums and walking the walls of fortifications. In large part because my parents didn't treat education and enjoyment as separate activities. This works in both directions.
BTW, I loathe the "resort" part of any destination, be it Disney, the Bahamas or wherever. If that is part of what you do, whatever. If that is all you do, then you failing yourself as well as your children.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
This seems like one of those irregular bits of grammar:
I'm taking my child out of school for understandable reasons and they'll not suffer educationally
You're taking your child out of school to take them to Disneyland and they'll obviously suffer because you're bad parents
They're lazy bastards who are ruining school education for everyone.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You're taking your child out of school to take them to Disneyland and they'll obviously suffer because you're bad parents
I not only missed a week of school, but actually missed one of my exams because we were on a family holiday to Disneyworld in Florida at the time. Other than the date of that exam, there was no impact on my education whatsoever.
In other anecdata, a friend of mine missed about six months of school due to a serious illness when we were in year 8. It didn't seem to affect him too badly, given that he's now a nuclear engineer. And yet we're supposed to believe that a single week taken out in order to go on holiday will permanently set back a child's education? Give me a break.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
What some people in the UK are trying not to say is that for some parents to take their offspring out of school for a holiday can be an enriching experience that will add to/enhance their education; but if it is just to be getting on a 'plane to go to Florida, stay at the Disney resort and over-dose on fairground rides then it won't.
Fact is, we're all happy to go on a beach holiday but while some of us will take the time to go to museums, castles, local conservation projects, etc, there are parents who will go from home to all-inclusive resort, sit around the pool from dawn to dusk and then fly home. Yes, it may be possible for the child staying in the specially-for-foreigners all-inclusive place to find out something about the local culture its not likely and a single evening with 'local dancers', etc, laid on as entertainment really isn't enough.
Definitely an isolated resort experience isn't a good way to learn anything about local culture.
But learning local culture is not the ONLY educational benefit of a vacation (altho it can be a valuable one if that is the goal). There are all sorts of benefits educationally simply from unwinding from the academic treadmill, spending time with parents, talking in a relaxed way, being able to explore and recapture the childlike sense of wonder & inquiry-- even if your wonder and inquiry is simply exploring the hermit crabs burrowing in the sand or wondering aloud what "Mississippi mud cake" might be. The above mentioned examples of reconnecting with distant relatives similarly provide benefits that may not fit into a defined curricula but will nonetheless yield great results. If planned well, students may return to the academic routine better able to focus and retain material than if they'd had no such break.
I would agree that having a flippant attitude toward schooling, conveying the expectation that absences are no big deal, sends an unfortunate message that will undermine academic success. But for the same reason, infrequent, targeted, intentional breaks teach a healthy life-work rhythm that will serve children well both as students and later as workers in whatever field they enter.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
What some people in the UK are trying not to say is that for some parents to take their offspring out of school for a holiday can be an enriching experience that will add to/enhance their education; but if it is just to be getting on a 'plane to go to Florida, stay at the Disney resort and over-dose on fairground rides then it won't.
Fact is, we're all happy to go on a beach holiday but while some of us will take the time to go to museums, castles, local conservation projects, etc, there are parents who will go from home to all-inclusive resort, sit around the pool from dawn to dusk and then fly home. Yes, it may be possible for the child staying in the specially-for-foreigners all-inclusive place to find out something about the local culture its not likely and a single evening with 'local dancers', etc, laid on as entertainment really isn't enough.
Definitely an isolated resort experience isn't a good way to learn anything about local culture.
But learning local culture is not the ONLY educational benefit of a vacation (altho it can be a valuable one if that is the goal). There are all sorts of benefits educationally simply from unwinding from the academic treadmill, spending time with parents, talking in a relaxed way, being able to explore and recapture the childlike sense of wonder & inquiry-- even if your wonder and inquiry is simply exploring the hermit crabs burrowing in the sand or wondering aloud what "Mississippi mud cake" might be. The above mentioned examples of reconnecting with distant relatives similarly provide benefits that may not fit into a defined curricula but will nonetheless yield great results. If planned well, students may return to the academic routine better able to focus and retain material than if they'd had no such break.
I would agree that having a flippant attitude toward schooling, conveying the expectation that absences are no big deal, sends an unfortunate message that will undermine academic success. But for the same reason, infrequent, targeted, intentional breaks teach a healthy life-work rhythm that will serve children well both as students and later as workers in whatever field they enter.
It's not like children are trapped in some sort of inescapable gradgrindian dystopia unless their devoted parents save them. They already get around 13 weeks a year when they're not at school, to do the things being suggested. In England the longest time they might go without a week off is around 7 weeks.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Do the other 29 just sit there with hands folded, then?
No - they do 'work' which does not require a teacher - so it is a filler and something that could be done at home (assuming that any filler is necessary).
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
if OFSTED really requires you to wait until every member of your class is "secure" on a topic before moving on, then OFSTED is requiring you to "steal" very much more time from your pupils than anyone's holiday ever could.
Not so much OFSTED as Michael Gove - this developing/secure/exceeding assessment is still in its infancy as a poor successor to levels.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
eo, you really should pay some attention to those who have told you that they took holidays in term and received no one-to-one tuition on their return. It isn't data, but when enough people tell you so, it's time to take notice. [/QB]
But they're adults writing about schooling 20 or more years ago. Lots has changed since then.
Lots of people think they're experts on education by virtue of their having attended schhol.
Mercifully, they don't claim expertise in bnrain surgery by virtue of having had a spell in hospital.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
You might consider that some of us former children have actual children of our own at this time. In our case I can say nothing has changed.
As for your "filler"--I think you're trying to have it both ways. Either the material they are doing while you tutor the undeserving is actually worthwhile, in which case nobody has done them any harm (not the student, for needing one-on-one tutoring; not you, for acceding to their request); or else the material is worthless, in which case you've got bigger problems than a single child "stealing" your attention from the others.
In fact, I suspect what you have is the same situation teachers have had from time immemorial--a certain amount of absolutely critical material which can be stressed or compressed as needed (within certain limits, obviously) to fill available course time. A certain amount of time padding is built in to the course parameters to handle situations just like the one we are considering--also teacher illness, building problems, and the like.
If this is so, then no child is "stealing" anything from the rest. Rather you are objecting to compressing course material for their sakes, even though the course was planned with extra time built in. In short, you believe that there are some people who deserve to have you do this for them, and other people who do not.
By the way, should you be judging the child for what was almost certainly a parental decision?
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Actually, few courses now have built in slack time, and even if they did unnecessary compression will tend to reduce quality of learning. Ideas take time to develop and embed. And yes, this is a problem when students get ill. To give a practical example, the advice for National 5 courses (think higher tier GCSE for those of you down south, O Level for those of you above a certain age) is that they require 160 hours of contact time. Broadly that means to give them their full allocation in a year (the recommended course length) you can only fit in 5 subjects. Virtually no school does that because narrowing options so early is detrimental, the consequence being trying to squeeze these courses into more like 130 hours, which gives very little slack at all, and means that any absence has a noticeable impact, particularly under present rules that require students to pass unit assessments involving knowledge and understanding of every part of the course.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If you take a pupil out of school, the teacher has to spend one to one time with them to help them catch up. That is time stolen from other pupils.
This is nonsense, in so many different ways.
I'm still waiting for you to justify this assertion.
It certainly wasn't the case with me. I can guarantee nobody spent extra time with me. In a class with 30 plus kids? Dream on! I couldn't get any one-to-one attention when I WAS there and went out of my way to ask for it!
As I said above, nobody even checked all the work I had been set to do by the school, when I returned. Not that that bothered me.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
But they're adults writing about schooling 20 or more years ago. Lots has changed since then.
Yes, and for the worse. This ridiculous culture of targets and bureaucracy is killing education.
And that's all this is - some faceless bureaucrat decides that a certain attendance percentage is the right amount and suddenly everybody has to obey regardless of any other circumstances.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Here's a quote from 1904:-
"Oh, the power of a great teacher! In all the educational talk of our time, never let us forget that the one quality which is essential to, and beyond, any system is the teacher himself or herself. If the development of bereaucracy means the deterioration of the quality, the personal power of the teacher, then I say let the bureaucracy perish"
Prof. Lang, Principal of Aberdeen University.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
There seem to be a number of educational issues which swing back and forth. Phonics / Whole book reading has been going back and forth for well over a hundred years, with occasional sidesteps to weird methods (ITA, anyone?)
Bureaucracy in teaching is another. Many of todays issues were being hashed out in the 1860s and 1870s. Today, alas, modern communications means that bureaucracy is capable of a stranglehold which couldn't be as tight in Victorian times, no matter how much the Victorian bureaucrats themselves might have desired it.
Here's another quote:
"(In 1868) the Government grant to the school was made dependent mainly on the children six years of age and over passing an individual examination. Each child was worth so many shillings, and the shillings ruled. They also formed the test of a teacher's so-called efficiency. How to make a child pass became the predominant business of the school. Everything else was secondary. The Code was a severe blow to real education...generating mechanical methods of work, and therefore barren of good results."
George Duthie, headmaster of Woodside School, and past president of the E.I.S.
Does that quote not ring a bell today?
Posted by Cathscats (# 17827) on
:
ITA! Why I love spellcheck. I can still read ITA, but that is now a completely obsolete skill! Up until the 1980s the signage about the animals in Edinburgh zoo used ITA as a kind of second language. I haven't seen it anywhere since then.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
It rather depends on what is missed. My daughter was off sick for trigonometry during her GCSEs and didn't realise she had a missing piece until she was reading an engineering degree, even though she has Physics and Maths A levels and Further Maths AS. She came home during one summer vacation and we covered trigonometry.
It's the reason I take the students I work with who have fallen out of the education system through Entry Level maths to make sure we pick up any basics that have been missed. I tell them it is just a mopping up operation and they can work fast through anything they know, but it's the fastest way of making sure they have that grounding before going on to Functional Skills and GCSEs. Even the students I work with who were officially in school managed to miss lessons - being sent out or internal truancy. Maths and sciences require a basic understanding of concepts before moving on the next section.
(To be honest most of these kids have underlying difficulties that haven't been picked up and have been masked by the behaviours that have had them excluded. Many of these students have severe speech, language and communication needs.)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If you take a pupil out of school, the teacher has to spend one to one time with them to help them catch up. That is time stolen from other pupils.
This is nonsense, in so many different ways.
I'm still waiting for you to justify this assertion.
It certainly wasn't the case with me. I can guarantee nobody spent extra time with me. In a class with 30 plus kids? Dream on! I couldn't get any one-to-one attention when I WAS there and went out of my way to ask for it!
As I said above, nobody even checked all the work I had been set to do by the school, when I returned. Not that that bothered me.
I realize this conversation is really about young children, not the university students I teach. But as an aside let me say I'd probably bend over backwards to help any student who didn't begin the request with "I was absent last week. Did I miss anything?"
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posted by american piskie (# 593) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
...
In Math(s), if you miss the section on one procedure, you will likely need to know that procedure for the rest of your math career, and you will have to be playing catch-up learning that procedure while simultaneously learning things that presuppose that you are able to use it fluidly. It can be very hard for students, especially the ones who are not quick-picker-uppers, to do this.
Through a fortnight's illness at the age of 10 or thereabouts I "missed" highest common factors and lowest common multiples; I didn't even know they existed until well into an honours maths degree. It didn't matter! Your model of learning is, it seems to me, just too linear: there are many many ways of navigating the great web of mathematics. I think that is true of all "real" subjects; they are stable enough for the odd hole (caused by illness, holidays, inattention or whatever) not to really matter. But I can see, alas, that this may not be the case in syllabuses designed (as they tend to be nowadays) for easy testing.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
realize this conversation is really about young children, not the university students I teach. But as an aside let me say I'd probably bend over backwards to help any student who didn't begin the request with "I was absent last week. Did I miss anything?"
Say "Nah, I rabbited on to a packed room, but - fear not - I still got paid."
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
I "missed" highest common factors and lowest common multiples; I didn't even know they existed until well into an honours maths degree.
I still couldn't confidently say which part of a fraction is the numerator and which the denominator. Guess I must have missed that lesson at some point. And it has never once had more than a trifling effect on my life.
I'm a data analyst, by the way.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
should you be judging the child for what was almost certainly a parental decision?
or 'saving them' from the folly of their parents?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
Your model of learning is, it seems to me, just too linear
Indeed - the whole way in which governments understand and thereby legislate syllabusses and curriculum has been so since 1988 when they stopped teachers from using their expertise to design snd facilitate learning.
The current generation of teachers, apart from a very few dinosaurs, did not start work until after 1988 and are deskilled.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
should you be judging the child for what was almost certainly a parental decision?
or 'saving them' from the folly of their parents?
You make my point for me. We can do better than using nasty language about students stealing, parental folly, or [fill in the blank] teachers.
Posted by american piskie (# 593) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The current generation of teachers, apart from a very few dinosaurs, did not start work until after 1988 and are deskilled.
No, no: not deskilled, just differently skilled. Although you and I might not specially value the new skills.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
It rather depends on what is missed. My daughter was off sick for trigonometry during her GCSEs and didn't realise she had a missing piece until she was reading an engineering degree,
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
Through a fortnight's illness at the age of 10 or thereabouts I "missed" highest common factors and lowest common multiples; I didn't even know they existed until well into an honours maths degree.
I'm completely confused by this. Did you people not have textbooks?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
or 'saving them' from the folly of their parents?
I think this discussion is another proxy for the discussion about the relative roles of parents and the state in raising children.
You want to force all children to be educated in state-run schools, and be taught the things that the state thinks they should learn in the way that the state thinks it should be taught.
So it's consistent that you want to punish parents for interfering with the state's plans for their children.
I want to give parents the primary responsibility for directing their children's education, leaving it up to them to choose the schooling they find most appropriate (which may or may not be the state's offering). So I find it completely reasonable for parents to make judgements about whether this particular trip is worth missing school for.
But it doesn't make any sense for the parents to make that choice, and then to blame the school for the fact that little Johnny didn't get taught X. If you choose to remove your child from class during the week that X is taught, then you own the primary responsibility for ensuring that your child learns X. The school should support you (by telling you what's on the syllabus for the week your child will miss, by marking the week's homework a couple of days late, and so on) but your child is going to miss the class presentation of X, and it's down to you to make up for it.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Well, we used a GCSE textbook to go back and find the trigonometry for my daughter, but as she sailed through GCSE maths, A level maths and AS further maths plus physics A level without realising she'd missed anything important until she started calculating complicated stressors part way through an engineering degree, it wasn't obvious.
I didn't learn about highest common factors and lowest common multiples until I was teaching. I knew what they were and calculated those numbers automatically, but hadn't picked up this particular jargon. It's like the vocabulary of numerator and denominator in fractions - another piece of jargon to describe something you may well understand and manipulate without being able to use the language.
The sort of knowledge that I deal with the students I work with is lack of ability to multiply or divide, understand fractions or decimals, write money as a decimal.
Posted by american piskie (# 593) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I'm completely confused by this. Did you people not have textbooks?
Of course not. We had teachers. And parents. And friends.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I'm completely confused by this. Did you people not have textbooks?
It might be worth saying that a lot of teachers (at least in my experience) would not follow a textbook straight through; instead they would skip around, conflate two or three different sources, and so on. So it wasn't just a matter of saying "Well, I missed pages 245-273."
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
...
In Math(s), if you miss the section on one procedure, you will likely need to know that procedure for the rest of your math career, and you will have to be playing catch-up learning that procedure while simultaneously learning things that presuppose that you are able to use it fluidly. It can be very hard for students, especially the ones who are not quick-picker-uppers, to do this.
Through a fortnight's illness at the age of 10 or thereabouts I "missed" highest common factors and lowest common multiples; I didn't even know they existed until well into an honours maths degree. It didn't matter! Your model of learning is, it seems to me, just too linear: there are many many ways of navigating the great web of mathematics. I think that is true of all "real" subjects; they are stable enough for the odd hole (caused by illness, holidays, inattention or whatever) not to really matter. But I can see, alas, that this may not be the case in syllabuses designed (as they tend to be nowadays) for easy testing.
This seems a simple bit of confirmation bias.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
...
In Math(s), if you miss the section on one procedure, you will likely need to know that procedure for the rest of your math career, and you will have to be playing catch-up learning that procedure while simultaneously learning things that presuppose that you are able to use it fluidly. It can be very hard for students, especially the ones who are not quick-picker-uppers, to do this.
Through a fortnight's illness at the age of 10 or thereabouts I "missed" highest common factors and lowest common multiples; I didn't even know they existed until well into an honours maths degree. It didn't matter! Your model of learning is, it seems to me, just too linear: there are many many ways of navigating the great web of mathematics. I think that is true of all "real" subjects; they are stable enough for the odd hole (caused by illness, holidays, inattention or whatever) not to really matter. But I can see, alas, that this may not be the case in syllabuses designed (as they tend to be nowadays) for easy testing.
I'd say you were just extremely fortunate to have missed a part of the course which wasn't critical to the rest.
I don't think this is wholly about testing either, although it has to be said that decades ago when I was learning A-level mathematics I got into a (friendly) fight with my teacher about imaginary numbers who was incapable of explaining what the point was and resorted to "they're easy marks in the exam. Just learn the process, you don't have to understand what they're for." I don't think they've been part of the standard A-level curriculum for many years, no great loss.
So the idea that "nowadays they're teaching Maths for the exam" isn't something I have a lot of truck with.
In terms of pre-University mathematics, I'd argue that for the majority of STEM subjects outwith of physics and pure mathematics, students would be best to get a good basic understanding of and familiarity with statistics. And that is clearly something which needs to be learned sequentially and without holes. I think the majority can fairly easily pick up trig if they need to later, but someone with no familiarity with stats is going to struggle.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Complex numbers and imaginary numbers are used extensively in engineering and quantum physics as a way of expressing complex concepts in a way that can be handled more easily - electromagnetic fields being one area that can be expressed in complex numbers
(I used them for the quantum physics bits of my Chemistry degree - how atoms work, my daughter uses them to model friction forces in engineering calculations.)
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
For sure. I'm not saying they have no use, but clearly statistics are far more use in far more STEM situations. I'm betting the vast majority of the A-level students who went on to do science careers never used complex numbers, but almost all will have needed to use statistics.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
I am not sure what you are arguing here. Statistics and data handling are part of the GCSE syllabus. I would agree not to the level I studied at A level, but a lot of that content is now in the GCSE and data handling is in the entry level and Functional Skills qualifications.
I chose the statistics option as against the mechanics option at A level and have used far less of that since. Complex numbers was part of the mathematics compulsory part of the A level course. I still had to learn mechanics to pass the physics A level.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I'm just making the point that the A-level content has changed over the decades and that at various times the content has included material that the majority of students would not have used in most STEM university situations.
I fully appreciate that you benefited from learning about imaginary numbers, I'm simply saying that you'd probably have been able to pick that up as you needed to - whereas statistics needs to be built up and is much more likely to be a necessary basis for the majority of STEM university degrees.
Most STEM students would benefit from more familiarity with statistics before they get to university. Very few would benefit from a familiarity with imaginary numbers or trig.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I don't think, since I left school (over 50 years ago now), that I've needed any maths except addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, percentages, how fractions work and how to average something. I don't think I've even needed to use a square root, yet alone a quadratic equation.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
You will almost certainly have used
- some algebra to work out numbers you don't know when trying to work out something else - simplified versions of quadratic equations,
- some statistics to understand information presented to you in the press, one hopes;
- carried out some complicated calculations to judge whether one deal is a better deal than another,
- used perimeter and area calculations to work out fencing, turfing, painting areas, curtains,
- used ratios to calculate how to adapt a recipe to how much of an ingredient you have, or how much you need for more people;
- depending on how much craft work you do,
used pi to calculate circumferences and areas of circles - that one I do a lot
I could go on.
[ 12. April 2017, 08:03: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
OK, can we just agree that there are certain bits of maths that are indeed sequential and which need to have A B and C learned before moving onto D; and that there are other bits of maths that can be missed and learned later?
The fact that someone was able to learn Trig later is not an indication that students need to learn the majority of maths in a building block way.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
But you've just argued that statistics should be taught sequentially and through the maths syllabus, and I have just pointed out that this happens.
Science and maths are often cited as examples of the spiral learning model. e.g. In KS2 students will learn shapes and maybe Pythagoras's theorem, in KS3 they will start learning how to calculate lengths and angles in right angle triangles using cos, sin, tan. At KS4 they will be able to apply this understanding to bearings and calculate other angles. At A level the students learn the calculation to compute angles of triangles. If in KS3 they start calculating using cos, sin and tan and don't really understand what a triangle is, that becomes a problem. In science, the same happens for atomic structure for example - starting with the Bohr model to learn about electron layers and how those work, gradually developing that through different stages to when students learn about molecular orbital theories at A level. (The Periodic Table organisation matches orbital theory patterns.)
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But you've just argued that statistics should be taught sequentially and through the maths syllabus, and I have just pointed out that this happens.
Sorry, I happen to know about the current A-level maths syllabus and one has to make a special effort to learn much statistics.
I'm bored of this argument, I am simply pointing out that there were, when I was learning, parts of the A level curriculum which I never used - through two STEM degrees - and also other parts that other university students struggled with because they'd not learned enough statistics.
Like it or leave it, I don't care.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
The lack of emphasis on statistics is part of the Gove changes. I hadn't been paying attention as I'm not teaching A level
Most of the Entry Levels are no longer available now, either. All students will be able to pass Functional Skills (80% pass mark, choice of pass or fail) or the new GCSE maths, which includes even more of the old A level curriculum.
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
You will almost certainly have used
[*]used perimeter and area calculations to work out fencing, turfing, painting areas, curtains,
I could go on.
I ordered some stones to fill a gap between a driveway and a fence. Fortunately I discussed this with my youngest brother in time to cancel the truckloads I had ordered to fill a gap 300mm x 25 metres to a depth of 100mm. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
I was probably away the day they taught that.
Huia
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
or 'saving them' from the folly of their parents?
I think this discussion is another proxy for the discussion about the relative roles of parents and the state in raising children.
You want to force all children to be educated in state-run schools, and be taught the things that the state thinks they should learn in the way that the state thinks it should be taught.
So it's consistent that you want to punish parents for interfering with the state's plans for their children.
I want to give parents the primary responsibility for directing their children's education, leaving it up to them to choose the schooling they find most appropriate (which may or may not be the state's offering). So I find it completely reasonable for parents to make judgements about whether this particular trip is worth missing school for.
But it doesn't make any sense for the parents to make that choice, and then to blame the school for the fact that little Johnny didn't get taught X. If you choose to remove your child from class during the week that X is taught, then you own the primary responsibility for ensuring that your child learns X. The school should support you (by telling you what's on the syllabus for the week your child will miss, by marking the week's homework a couple of days late, and so on) but your child is going to miss the class presentation of X, and it's down to you to make up for it.
This is pretty much what I think, with the exception that I don't think it needs to be framed in such binary terms. Part of the problem with these sorts of disputes is that polarizing thinking-- education is either the State's job, or it's the parent's job. I don't know about cross-pond, but in the US those two camps have solidified into angry, hostile, defensive postures that jealously guard any perceived invasion into those perceived "rights".
Far better IMHO to see it as partnership. It's a sacred responsibility we assume together. The State is better equipped to keep an eye on the big picture and the latest data on skills that will be needed in the future, current findings in the field of learning and cognitive development, etc. Parents are better equipped to keep tabs on the individual diversity-- of the particular needs of this particular child at this particular time. Yet both presumably have the same goal-- equipping and preparing kids with the knowledge and skills they need for the future. Simply believing that it really is possible for us to work together on this will go along way to making that happen.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
I'd like to believe that parents are best at knowing the individual needs of their children better than schools, but I'm far from convinced that it is the case in even that vast majority of cases (in most it's about par, in a small minority parents know better, in a discouragingly large fraction that school knows the child better than the parents).
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I'd like to believe that parents are best at knowing the individual needs of their children better than schools, but I'm far from convinced that it is the case in even that vast majority of cases (in most it's about par, in a small minority parents know better, in a discouragingly large fraction that school knows the child better than the parents).
In that case we have a very serious problem because schools typically have care of children for seven hours of the 200 days of the year, which is about one-sixth of the year.
Whatever the government, the courts or headteachers may say a partnership is needed and in addition to these annoying holidays and unavoidable sick absence schools could do a lot more for those moving from one school to another: I did quite a bit of this with my Dad in the RAF through my schooldays and I can't recall any school making provision for catching up let alone systematic catching up. I'd be interested to know if schools do this nowadays as there are still schools attended by large numbers of "Scaleys" / "Forces Brats".
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
We had one poor lad arrive back in the country the February of his year 11, after some years in Spain. He sat GCSEs that summer with a lot of additional support from everyone - English, Spanish, maths, single science, food technology and ICT. There was a meeting to discuss what he could reasonably be offered and achieve and all the teachers spent breaks and spare periods supporting him to catch up. When he wasn't timetabled he was in learning support to work and get support from everyone there, if he wasn't in food tech (which was upstairs) catching up.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
It rather depends on what is missed. My daughter was off sick for trigonometry during her GCSEs and didn't realise she had a missing piece until she was reading an engineering degree,
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
Through a fortnight's illness at the age of 10 or thereabouts I "missed" highest common factors and lowest common multiples; I didn't even know they existed until well into an honours maths degree.
I'm completely confused by this. Did you people not have textbooks?
never used textbooks in 40 years
Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on
:
Regardless of whether we agree with him in detail, or even in general, Ivan Illich's 'De-schooling Society' remains a telling indictment of 'institutional education'. Whatever it's strengths and efficiencies, and it certainly can have them, the attempt to 'educate' the mass of a society through conformity to an arbitrary set of centrally set 'standards' is always going to be an exercise in catering to the lowest common denominator, while offering opportunities to those who are skilled at gaming the system.
I'm not suggesting there is some magical panacea of an alternative. There isn't. But, given the weaknesses it is always heartening to see people who are not content to simply conform, as though the 'system' offers their children (and society) the best and only possibility for 'education'.
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
You will almost certainly have used
[*]used perimeter and area calculations to work out fencing, turfing, painting areas, curtains,
I could go on.
I ordered some stones to fill a gap between a driveway and a fence. Fortunately I discussed this with my youngest brother in time to cancel the truckloads I had ordered to fill a gap 300mm x 25 metres to a depth of 100mm.
I was probably away the day they taught that.
Huia
I found this very funny !!!
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'd be interested to know if schools do this nowadays as there are still schools attended by large numbers of "Scaleys" / "Forces Brats".
I couldn't say precisely, as it's not an area I deal with, but I do know that forces kids are one of the categories of students who are monitored more closely (others might be those in care, those who themselves are carers) both individually and in terms of outcomes as a group.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
never used textbooks in 40 years
You teach Religious Studies, right? I'm not terribly surprised by that. I'd be surprised to find many maths teachers making the same claim.
(As a sidenote, how do you communicate the syllabus to your pupils? Do you hand out a sheet of paper at the start of the year?)
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
never used textbooks in 40 years
You teach Religious Studies, right? I'm not terribly surprised by that. I'd be surprised to find many maths teachers making the same claim.
(As a sidenote, how do you communicate the syllabus to your pupils? Do you hand out a sheet of paper at the start of the year?)
Every LA has a different syllabus so the market for textbooks would be very limited.
Why would anyone want to communicate the syllabus to students at the start of the year?
[ 13. April 2017, 16:48: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Why not?
My students used to appreciate knowing what was coming down the pike, so to speak. And when I sat through a non-syllabus'd course last year, I found myself floundering mentally because I had no real sense of what goal we were driving for.
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
I echo Lamb Chopped: why on earth do you want to deny students the opportunity to understand the structure of their subject?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
never used textbooks in 40 years
You teach Religious Studies, right? I'm not terribly surprised by that. I'd be surprised to find many maths teachers making the same claim.
(As a sidenote, how do you communicate the syllabus to your pupils? Do you hand out a sheet of paper at the start of the year?)
Every LA has a different syllabus so the market for textbooks would be very limited.
Why would anyone want to communicate the syllabus to students at the start of the year?
Here is the government's outline guidance to schools in England for the GCSE stage of Religious Education/Religious Studies. As you can see it gives schools a good deal of latitude teaching this subject, far more than is allowed in any other subject.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Why not?
My students used to appreciate knowing what was coming down the pike, so to speak. And when I sat through a non-syllabus'd course last year, I found myself floundering mentally because I had no real sense of what goal we were driving for.
Our WASC accreditation requires that syllabi for all courses be posted online months before the start of classes. Like Lamb I find a well written syllabus to be essential to a successful class
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Whatever the government, the courts or headteachers may say a partnership is needed and in addition to these annoying holidays and unavoidable sick absence schools could do a lot more for those moving from one school to another: I did quite a bit of this with my Dad in the RAF through my schooldays and I can't recall any school making provision for catching up let alone systematic catching up. I'd be interested to know if schools do this nowadays as there are still schools attended by large numbers of "Scaleys" / "Forces Brats".
In my Primary School we had loads of them (about 50% of the class). Much of the time was spent playing catch up for those who had just joined us - it made school pretty boring and repetitive for the rest of us. Didn't help that the Head rather enjoyed spending time with the Group Captain.
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
Re syllabuses: what age are we talking about? Because I'd assumed we were talking secondary age (11-16 year olds). I'm sorry to add another anecdote to all the others here, but I can't remember ever receiving a syllabus at the start of a course at secondary school - is this a thing in England now?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
I'm sorry to add another anecdote to all the others here, but I can't remember ever receiving a syllabus at the start of a course at secondary school - is this a thing in England now?
I'll see your anecdote, and raise you mine. It was completely normal for us to understand the syllabus at secondary level. In some cases, the syllabus was implicit (here's the maths or chemistry textbook, which is also the syllabus), in other cases we were told at the start of the term. And certainly once we started studying for public examinations, the syllabus was both explicit and important.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
My A-level teen spends a lot of time looking at the syllabus to ensure that gaps* are filled in before the exam.
During GCSEs this tactic was used to answer a question from a "more interesting" topic which wasn't covered in class.
* inevitable, it seems. Not necessarily a problem due to the teaching, I hasten to add, but it appears that they have to be very on-the-ball to ensure that they (a) have good exam techniques and (b) know what it is that they're supposed to know before the exam.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
never used textbooks in 40 years
You teach Religious Studies, right? I'm not terribly surprised by that. I'd be surprised to find many maths teachers making the same claim.
(As a sidenote, how do you communicate the syllabus to your pupils? Do you hand out a sheet of paper at the start of the year?)
Every LA has a different syllabus so the market for textbooks would be very limited.
Why would anyone want to communicate the syllabus to students at the start of the year?
Here is the government's outline guidance to schools in England for the GCSE stage of Religious Education/Religious Studies. As you can see it gives schools a good deal of latitude teaching this subject, far more than is allowed in any other subject.
All the more reason for pupils to be given at the very least an outline of what the course will cover for the next term/semester/quarter.
What a sad boast from Leo. I wonder what his former pupils would say about that.
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
I'm sorry to add another anecdote to all the others here, but I can't remember ever receiving a syllabus at the start of a course at secondary school - is this a thing in England now?
I'll see your anecdote, and raise you mine. It was completely normal for us to understand the syllabus at secondary level. In some cases, the syllabus was implicit (here's the maths or chemistry textbook, which is also the syllabus), in other cases we were told at the start of the term. And certainly once we started studying for public examinations, the syllabus was both explicit and important.
Fair enough - I just couldn't remember it happening at all when I was at secondary (1990-1995), which is why I asked whether it was a new thing; perhaps it was just my school (though I always understood it was considered a good school).
I can see why it would be a good and important thing to do, I just don't remember happening when I were a lad...
ETA: I do have to say, though, that I don't particularly feel like I missed out because we didn't receive proper syllabuses - I got reasonable GCSEs without them and I'm not sure what the teenage me or those I was at school with would've made of them. Knowing some of those I was at school with, the mind boggles what they'd have made with them - weapons of some kind, most probably ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
[ 15. April 2017, 12:08: Message edited by: Stejjie ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
All the more reason for pupils to be given at the very least an outline of what the course will cover for the next term/semester/quarter.
What a sad boast from Leo. I wonder what his former pupils would say about that.
Why?It's like telling the punchline before starting the joke.
Pupils who keep in touch enjoyed their RE and many went on to read Theoogy.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
never used textbooks in 40 years
You teach Religious Studies, right? I'm not terribly surprised by that. I'd be surprised to find many maths teachers making the same claim.
(As a sidenote, how do you communicate the syllabus to your pupils? Do you hand out a sheet of paper at the start of the year?)
Every LA has a different syllabus so the market for textbooks would be very limited.
Why would anyone want to communicate the syllabus to students at the start of the year?
Here is the government's outline guidance to schools in England for the GCSE stage of Religious Education/Religious Studies. As you can see it gives schools a good deal of latitude teaching this subject, far more than is allowed in any other subject.
That's the response to a legal challenge by Hunmianists and is about GCSE.
I was talking about local authority syllabuses which deal with statutory, non-examined RE
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Why not?
My students used to appreciate knowing what was coming down the pike, so to speak. And when I sat through a non-syllabus'd course last year, I found myself floundering mentally because I had no real sense of what goal we were driving for.
That assumes a single 'goal' - RE is not linear or content based but discussion-driven so may end up in a very different place to that planned.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
This is really bizarre. How do you do RE if it's not content-based but only discussion-based? I thought discussion was a way of processing content. Do you just talk in a vacuum, then, or try to derive stuff from first principles?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
This is really bizarre. How do you do RE if it's not content-based but only discussion-based? I thought discussion was a way of processing content. Do you just talk in a vacuum, then, or try to derive stuff from first principles?
Exactly. Surely the role of a teacher is to lead and guide the discussion around some solid content. Why otherwise would you have a teacher?
As to Leo's comment - how many, what percentage. come back and say that they enjoyed the RE periods? And actually learned something?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
This is really bizarre. How do you do RE if it's not content-based but only discussion-based? I thought discussion was a way of processing content. Do you just talk in a vacuum, then, or try to derive stuff from first principles?
Exactly. Surely the role of a teacher is to lead and guide the discussion around some solid content. Why otherwise would you have a teacher?
To enable the discussion.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
This is really bizarre. How do you do RE if it's not content-based but only discussion-based? I thought discussion was a way of processing content. Do you just talk in a vacuum, then, or try to derive stuff from first principles?
Exactly. Surely the role of a teacher is to lead and guide the discussion around some solid content. Why otherwise would you have a teacher?
To enable the discussion.
As Lamb suggests, without some content, what you're facilitating is an exercise in shared ignorance.
In my teaching career, I see the two extremes of this. In the central African seminary where I teach, I'm loathe to impose too much of my own reflection/impressions given my own cultural ignorance-- the context for my ministry is so different from theirs. Yet I struggle to get my students-- all mature, seasoned pastors-- to participate in class discussions-- even though they have decades of mature wisdom to share. Their perspective is that they have sacrificed a lot to come to seminary, they can talk to each other any time, they're there to hear from me.
In the US, I struggle to keep my students engaged in even the most succinct content-based presentation or reading assignment, no matter how many bells and whistles I pull out. But they sure do love group discussion. They'll yak with each other for hours (I do have to give them some sort of worksheet to keep them on topic) even if they know nothing whatsoever about the topic.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
This is really bizarre. How do you do RE if it's not content-based but only discussion-based? I thought discussion was a way of processing content. Do you just talk in a vacuum, then, or try to derive stuff from first principles?
Exactly. Surely the role of a teacher is to lead and guide the discussion around some solid content. Why otherwise would you have a teacher?
To enable the discussion.
As Lamb suggests, without some content, what you're facilitating is an exercise in shared ignorance.
That's why the teacher throws in 'content' relevant to the direction in which he discussion is going.
Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on
:
quote:
That's why the teacher throws in 'content' relevant to the direction in which he discussion is going.
Mathematically this can be described as a 'random walk'. Given enough time it will eventually cover the area, but it is the most inefficient way of achieving that goal.
Most formal educational situations are not blessed with unlimited time, which is presumably why some astute direction is often helpful, sometimes imperative.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
quote:
That's why the teacher throws in 'content' relevant to the direction in which he discussion is going.
Mathematically this can be described as a 'random walk'. Given enough time it will eventually cover the area, but it is the most inefficient way of achieving that goal.
Most formal educational situations are not blessed with unlimited time, which is presumably why some astute direction is often helpful, sometimes imperative.
And in addition to all this, who sets the discussion topic in the first place? Where does that come from? Are pupils given the topic at the preceding lesson with some suggested reading? And how are students assessed, and against what standard, at the end of the term/year/semester?
Posted by anne (# 73) on
:
For many secondary students in England, RE is a compulsory but unexamined subject. Some will be working towards GCSE RE, most will not, but will still have to spend at least one period a week in an RE class. Individual schools may squeeze other subjects like PHSE (Personal, Social and Health Education) into those slots but legally it should be RE.
Seems like a situation when wide ranging discussions of current events and the way that faith might influence people's responses or actions would be more appropriate than a rigid syllabus.
anne
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
Seems like a situation when wide ranging discussions of current events and the way that faith might influence people's responses or actions would be more appropriate than a rigid syllabus.
anne
Or a way to cut down preparation time for the teacher. Explain away a noisy class on the basis that the discussion was not only wide ranging, but full and frank, maybe even vigourous, as well, and there you are.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
quote:
That's why the teacher throws in 'content' relevant to the direction in which he discussion is going.
Mathematically this can be described as a 'random walk'. Given enough time it will eventually cover the area, but it is the most inefficient way of achieving that goal.
Most formal educational situations are not blessed with unlimited time, which is presumably why some astute direction is often helpful, sometimes imperative.
And in addition to all this, who sets the discussion topic in the first place? Where does that come from? Are pupils given the topic at the preceding lesson with some suggested reading? And how are students assessed, and against what standard, at the end of the term/year/semester?
The locally Agreed Syllabus sets 'key questions' e.g. is there a God? Why do people suffer? What happens after death? Why pray?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
Seems like a situation when wide ranging discussions of current events and the way that faith might influence people's responses or actions would be more appropriate than a rigid syllabus.
anne
Or a way to cut down preparation time for the teacher. Explain away a noisy class on the basis that the discussion was not only wide ranging, but full and frank, maybe even vigourous, as well, and there you are.
Discussion needs more preparation because you need more material to introject because you can't predict what ill be needed - so you might need 4 learning outcomes, not 1.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
how are students assessed, and against what standard, at the end of the term/year/semester?
Assessment was by 8 levels, as with all national curriculum subjects until the Tories abolished levels. Now, each school can assess as it likes, or not at all - a very retrograde move.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Explain away a noisy class on the basis that the discussion was not only wide ranging, but full and frank, maybe even vigourous, as well, and there you are.
You can't have discussion in a noisy class - it only works if one person speaks at time and everyone else listens.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Explain away a noisy class on the basis that the discussion was not only wide ranging, but full and frank, maybe even vigourous, as well, and there you are.
You can't have discussion in a noisy class - it only works if one person speaks at time and everyone else listens.
Breaking into small groups for discussion can be quite noisy, but can still be productive-- if you have means in place to ensure that there's some common learning (not just sharing ignorance) and that the groups stay on task. Indeed, when done well, I've found the noisier the room, the more engaged the students (again, if on task) and the more productive.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
To try and cover all of your posts in one, Leo: I know that you can't have a decent discussion in a noisy class, but that does not prevent a teacher claiming that the excessive noise in room 5A with this excuse.
It does seem you have, or had, a syllabus at some stage. Did you let your classes know that so that at least some could have an idea where they were heading?
Discussion may need more preparation if you have a goal. From what your earlier posts said, you did not have one in that sense. In particular, you do not appear to be assessing students.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I think the point is that RE in England is a compulsory non-examined subject, the actual content is only irregularly checked by inspectors if at all. The curriculum such as it exists is so broad as to be pointless for a child to look at.
As I've said before, there was absolutely no provision for RE in my child's school after 14, no effort to meet the "legal" minimum, no tuition, no classes, nothing at all. The school was examined twice by the government inspectors in this time who didn't even mention this lack of provision, indicating that they didn't think it was very important either.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
It does seem you have, or had, a syllabus at some stage. Did you let your classes know that so that at least some could have an idea where they were heading?.
I don't understand this obssessio with giving classes a list in advance.
I do remember, back in the 1970s, giving out a quarto sheet to fit in their books - most of these end up blowing around the playground outside. And that was a grammar school.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The school was examined twice by the government inspectors in this time who didn't even mention this lack of provision, indicating that they didn't think it was very important either.
No - merely that the OFSTED schedule has moved - they target different things every so often
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I don't understand this obssessio with giving classes a list in advance.
Whereas I can't understand your opposition to it. It seems to me as though "what is the purpose of this class?" is a pretty reasonable question for someone to ask. The syllabus encapsulates the purpose of the class.
Although given that you're teaching a non-examined class, were I one of your pupils I probably wouldn't care too much about the absence of a syllabus. I also wouldn't care about missing some of your classes to do something else instead. (I'm not claiming that your classes aren't educational or worthwhile - just that given that they're not examined, I'm entirely happy to trade them in for a different worthwhile educational experience. If I miss out on your class discussion on modern religious views of usury and learn about something else interesting instead, I'm OK with that.)
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
I'd have thought that even with a non-examinable subject, giving pupils an idea of the general direction for the next term is not a bad idea. Otherwise what Leorning Cniht said - in which case, what catching up is a pupil going to need, what time is going to be stolen from other pupils?
[ 19. April 2017, 07:17: Message edited by: Gee D ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
[QBIt does seem you have, or had, a syllabus at some stage. Did you let your classes know that so that at least some could have an idea where they were heading?. [/QB]
ALWAYS a syllabus - as laid down by the LA SACRE (councillors, teachers, C of E and other denominations/faiths.
It is the programmes of study that are optionnal.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I'd have thought that even with a non-examinable subject, giving pupils an idea of the general direction for the next term is not a bad idea. Otherwise what Leorning Cniht said - in which case, what catching up is a pupil going to need, what time is going to be stolen from other pupils?
I never encountered any other subject giving out a scheme of work in advance.
As every class will have negotiated their path differently, each will have differen catching up to do.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I'd have thought that even with a non-examinable subject, giving pupils an idea of the general direction for the next term is not a bad idea. Otherwise what Leorning Cniht said - in which case, what catching up is a pupil going to need, what time is going to be stolen from other pupils?
I never encountered any other subject giving out a scheme of work in advance.
Doesn't the syllabus define the scheme of work? Moreover in a subject that is examined.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
I lectured engineering for quite a while - I've some sympathy with the 'telling the punchline before the joke' argument.
Having said that, I'd have a very clear idea on what I was going to cover (and it would generally be very heavy on complex numbers ). But ideally, I'd like to keep the details to myself, because depending on the group I might need to do a lot of rework on things they should know already, or else push on rather farther than we might otherwise have managed.
In HE, 'taking kids out' equates to 'going on holiday during term time'. I'd refer them to a text book, suggest they photocopy the board-notes of a friend, and suspect that if it was a holiday they'd crash and burn. If a pressing family engagement - much more likely they'd get it back together.
Oh - ETA - that reminds me of a great riposte by an ex-colleague;
Student: "Where are the notes for Wednesday's lecture?"
Lecturer: "Presumably, in the notebooks of those students who attended...".
[ 19. April 2017, 15:30: Message edited by: mark_in_manchester ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
giving pupils an idea of the general direction for the next term is not a bad idea.
As I said earlier, such sheets ended up being dumped.
Adults might find them helpful but we are talking children here.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I'd have thought that even with a non-examinable subject, giving pupils an idea of the general direction for the next term is not a bad idea. Otherwise what Leorning Cniht said - in which case, what catching up is a pupil going to need, what time is going to be stolen from other pupils?
I never encountered any other subject giving out a scheme of work in advance.
Doesn't the syllabus define the scheme of work? Moreover in a subject that is examined.
No - schemes are alternative routes for covering the syllabus.
We are talking RE here, which is not examined but follows the LA Agreed Syllabus..
When it is examined, it is RS - done completely differently and following an exam. board's specifications.
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
I'm beginning to see why I regarded secondary school RE as such a complete waste of time...
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
I'm beginning to see why I regarded secondary school RE as such a complete waste of time...
It sounds like a form of child care, giving teachers a bit of a break.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
It sounds like a form of child care, giving teachers a bit of a break.
I don't think that's at all fair. Exams are not the be all and end all - and in most cases, once you've got a decent collection of them, taking one more GCSE for the sake of having another grade is worthless.
If you're taking the extra GCSE because you want to learn another language, or pick up some useful skill or other, then great. But at that point it's about the education, not the grade.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
I agree with what you say, but what's going on does not sound like much of an education at all - as I said, more like giving teachers of examinable subjects a bit of a break.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
does not sound like much of an education at all
educere = to draw out e.g. by discussion of ultimate questions
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
I'm beginning to see why I regarded secondary school RE as such a complete waste of time...
So Socrates was wrong?: The unexamined life isn't worth living.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So Socrates was wrong?: The unexamined life isn't worth living.
I could be wrong, but I suspect the idea of having professional and paid teachers - particularly when they insist that philosophy can be "taught" and that missed lessons need to be "caught up" - would be something of anathema to Socrates.
I think philosophy is fascinating, but the way you've described teaching it at school sounds like a complete waste of everyone's time.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
does not sound like much of an education at all
educere = to draw out e.g. by discussion of ultimate questions
quote:
'The word "education" comes from the root e from ex, out, and duco, I lead. It means a leading out. To me education is a leading out of what is already there in the pupil's soul. To Miss Mackay it is a putting in of something that is not there, and that is not what I call education, I call it intrusion, from the Latin root prefix meaning in and the stem, trudo, I thrust. Miss Mackay's method is to thrust a lot of information into the pupil's head; mine is a leading out of knowledge, and that is true education as is proved by the root meaning. Now Miss Mackay has accused me of putting ideas into my girls' heads, but in fact that is her practice and mine is quite the opposite. Never let it be said that I put ideas into your heads. What is the meaning of education, Sandy?'
'To lead out,' said Sandy
That paragon of self-awareness Miss Jean Brodie.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
sounds like a complete waste of everyone's time.
so what exactly is the purpose of education? Is it merely to equip economic production and, thus, to reduce children to dehumanised units therein?
[ 20. April 2017, 17:30: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
so what exactly is the purpose of education? Is it merely to equip economic production and, thus, to reduce children to dehumanised units therein?
Nope, but it absolutely isn't forcing children to sit in pointless classes that count for nothing and have no discernible purpose.
Even if RE had been offered at my child's school, from what I'm learning from you, I'd have been as well to withdraw from the utterly pointless lessons and instead spend the time on something more constructive - which, quite frankly, is almost anything.
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on
:
I had the pleasure of visiting Northbrook College in the middle of Shoreham Airport a couple of years ago. There were no table and chairs there, just wipeboards and aircraft and their engines in bits, - and lots of enthusiastic students aged 14 upwards. To me that looked like REAL education. (PS I never knew how many pipes and wires there were under my passenger seat when the floor is up.)
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think the point is that RE in England is a compulsory non-examined subject, the actual content is only irregularly checked by inspectors if at all. The curriculum such as it exists is so broad as to be pointless for a child to look at.
As I've said before, there was absolutely no provision for RE in my child's school after 14, no effort to meet the "legal" minimum, no tuition, no classes, nothing at all. The school was examined twice by the government inspectors in this time who didn't even mention this lack of provision, indicating that they didn't think it was very important either.
The same is true for History etc. OFSTED stopped doing subject inspections several years ago - nothing to do with any value judgement of importance but everything to do with an obssession for exam results.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
so what exactly is the purpose of education? Is it merely to equip economic production and, thus, to reduce children to dehumanised units therein?
Nope, but it absolutely isn't forcing children to sit in pointless classes that count for nothing and have no discernible purpose.
Even if RE had been offered at my child's school, from what I'm learning from you, I'd have been as well to withdraw from the utterly pointless lessons and instead spend the time on something more constructive - which, quite frankly, is almost anything.
So it is 'pointless' to:
learn to listen to different opinions
evaluate truth claims?
No other subject does this.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So it is 'pointless' to:
learn to listen to different opinions
evaluate truth claims?
No other subject does this.
No, but I don't need the state - or you - to do that, thanks. The subject is shite. The way it is taught it shite.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So Socrates was wrong?: The unexamined life isn't worth living.
I could be wrong, but I suspect the idea of having professional and paid teachers - particularly when they insist that philosophy can be "taught" and that missed lessons need to be "caught up" - would be something of anathema to Socrates.
Teachers, in his day, were servants - paid no more than their board and lodging - don't tell that to the Tories.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I suspect the truth is that several weeks could be lost at the end of the Summer term, at least a week could be lost before Christmas kids are in the classroom for less weeks a year.
Every year, since 1974, we were expected to 'teach up to the last bell'.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Every year, since 1974, we were expected to 'teach up to the last bell'.
My child has 10 A-grade GCSEs and in none of those 11 years was the class taught in the last week of the Summer term. I find it extremely hard to believe that any child anywhere learns anything at all in the last week of the Summer term.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So it is 'pointless' to:
learn to listen to different opinions
evaluate truth claims?
No other subject does this.
When I took History, it quite explicitly did do this. In a rather different context, Science does this. I think your claims of exclusivity may be a little overblown.
(Re "after the exams", we certainly always had lessons up to the end of term, and it was only the last day or so that they were complete nonsense (watching videos, playing games etc.).
In some cases, we started next year's syllabus. In some cases, we did interesting things relevant to the subject but not so directly linked to exams.)
[ 21. April 2017, 13:56: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Even if RE had been offered at my child's school, from what I'm learning from you, I'd have been as well to withdraw from the utterly pointless lessons and instead spend the time on something more constructive - which, quite frankly, is almost anything.
RE is the main conduit for the government's 'Tackling Extremism/British Values'.
Parents have been threatened with visits from the police of they withdraw their kids.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
(As a sidenote, how do you communicate the syllabus to your pupils? Do you hand out a sheet of paper at the start of the year?)
When RE teachers HAVE indicated future conent, there is an avalanche of parents wishing to withdraw their children whenever Islam is mentioned.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
What sort of written homework / essays do your pupils do, leo?
My goddaughter has just finished a topic on the death penalty, and whether religious belief (various religions, not just Christianity) affects attitudes to the death penalty. She's not a particularly academic student, nor is she religious* but found the topic interesting.
*I have failed as a godparent.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Even if RE had been offered at my child's school, from what I'm learning from you, I'd have been as well to withdraw from the utterly pointless lessons and instead spend the time on something more constructive - which, quite frankly, is almost anything.
RE is the main conduit for the government's 'Tackling Extremism/British Values'.
Parents have been threatened with visits from the police of they withdraw their kids.
That's news. I've always understood that parents could withdraw their children from RE, as well as from collective worship.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
It's also not true - PSHCEE and citizenship are also conduits for British Values and they are supposed to be taught across the curriculum.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
RE is the main conduit for the government's 'Tackling Extremism/British Values'.
Parents have been threatened with visits from the police of they withdraw their kids.
What a load of crap. Parents have a statutory right to withdraw from RE and collective worship under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 Section 71.
I have exercised my right to discuss with the headteacher on several occasions what my child was being taught in RE lessons (which existed up to 14 - but apparently were illegally not offered to everyone beyond this point) and was told on every occasion that I had the right of withdraw.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
RE is the main conduit for the government's 'Tackling Extremism/British Values'.
Parents have been threatened with visits from the police of they withdraw their kids.
What a load of crap. Parents have a statutory right to withdraw from RE and collective worship under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 Section 71.
I have exercised my right to discuss with the headteacher on several occasions what my child was being taught in RE lessons (which existed up to 14 - but apparently were illegally not offered to everyone beyond this point) and was told on every occasion that I had the right of withdraw.
How,long ago? Before the extremism legislation? And if not, what alternative home-schooling did you provide to cover it?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I dare say that the school would have told me if there was any danger of missing anything about extremism - but as the school was 99.5% white, I don't think this was even mentioned.
As it happened, I never withdrew my child from anything - although I did make several written comments about mistakes in what was being taught at various levels. But that was a moot point given that the school unilaterally stopped teaching RE altogether at 14.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
It's also not true - PSHCEE and citizenship are also conduits for British Values and they are supposed to be taught across the curriculum.
Tolerance of/understaing different religions?
PSHE is not compulsory so cannot be relied on as a conduit for anything.
(It the 'C' careers?)
Citizenship was a conduit but the Tories abolished it.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
What sort of written homework / essays do your pupils do, leo?
Impossible to list 45 lessons x 5 years worth. Our Agreed Syllabus has over 200 hundred homework suggestions but it's copyright protected (to stop academies getting it for free)
Essays only tend to come in for RS exam work.
For some topice e.g. belief, a survey or interview of people outside school is useful.
Or to sum up a topic, a grid to fill in on the lines of 'Many hindus believe.....whereas Sikhs.... I believe that...because....
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
nor is she religious* but found the topic interesting.
*I have failed as a godparent.
Then you have NOT failed - that she is interested means that she is doing a bit of theology - and all the baptised are thelogians. So the baptism has 'taken'.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
(As a sidenote, how do you communicate the syllabus to your pupils? Do you hand out a sheet of paper at the start of the year?)
When RE teachers HAVE indicated future conent, there is an avalanche of parents wishing to withdraw their children whenever Islam is mentioned.
How many constitutes an avalanche? Did it really happen?
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I suspect the truth is that several weeks could be lost at the end of the Summer term, at least a week could be lost before Christmas kids are in the classroom for less weeks a year.
Every year, since 1974, we were expected to 'teach up to the last bell'.
Clearly expectation and reality aren't/weren't one and the same. My own experience (and that of my children) is that the no school work was done in the last week of Christmas Term and none in the last two weeks of summer.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Even if RE had been offered at my child's school, from what I'm learning from you, I'd have been as well to withdraw from the utterly pointless lessons and instead spend the time on something more constructive - which, quite frankly, is almost anything.
RE is the main conduit for the government's 'Tackling Extremism/British Values'.
Parents have been threatened with visits from the police of they withdraw their kids.
Evidence please. The Police have no right to do this 9see Mr Cheesy's response). If they did - then they are harassing parents, as are the teachers who reported the parents to the police.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
leo, I am not sure where you're getting your information from as the 2013 National Curriculum has Statutory Programmes of Study for Citizenship at KS1 to KS4. Checking the KS3/4 requirements, as that is for students in secondary education, the introduction says:
quote:
Teaching should equip pupils with the skills and knowledge to explore political and social issues critically, to weigh evidence, debate and make reasoned arguments.
and in the KS4 programme of study there is a section requiring that students should be taught about [the]:
quote:
diverse national, regional, religious and ethnic identities in the United Kingdom and the need for mutual respect and understanding
This one I teach and put schemes of work together for teaching. There are accredited qualifications for PSHCEE and citizenship.
PSHCEE - Personal, Sexual, Health, Citizenship and Economic Education
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
(As a sidenote, how do you communicate the syllabus to your pupils? Do you hand out a sheet of paper at the start of the year?)
When RE teachers HAVE indicated future conent, there is an avalanche of parents wishing to withdraw their children whenever Islam is mentioned.
How many constitutes an avalanche? Did it really happen?
Yes - averaging 3 per class
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
leo, I am not sure where you're getting your information from as the 2013 National Curriculum has Statutory Programmes of Study for Citizenship at KS1 to KS4.
Apologies - the Tories removed it in 2010 and reintroduced it in 2013 - hard to keep up with different ministers wanting to make mark.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Even if RE had been offered at my child's school, from what I'm learning from you, I'd have been as well to withdraw from the utterly pointless lessons and instead spend the time on something more constructive - which, quite frankly, is almost anything.
RE is the main conduit for the government's 'Tackling Extremism/British Values'.
Parents have been threatened with visits from the police of they withdraw their kids.
Evidence please. The Police have no right to do this 9see Mr Cheesy's response). If they did - then they are harassing parents, as are the teachers who reported the parents to the police.
Teachers have a duty to so report
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Teachers have a duty to so report
Don't be daft, you don't have a duty to report a parent who exercises their right to take a child out of RE.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
(As a sidenote, how do you communicate the syllabus to your pupils? Do you hand out a sheet of paper at the start of the year?)
When RE teachers HAVE indicated future conent, there is an avalanche of parents wishing to withdraw their children whenever Islam is mentioned.
How many constitutes an avalanche? Did it really happen?
Yes - averaging 3 per class
How large is a class? IOW, what percentage is this?
Moo
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
(As a sidenote, how do you communicate the syllabus to your pupils? Do you hand out a sheet of paper at the start of the year?)
When RE teachers HAVE indicated future conent, there is an avalanche of parents wishing to withdraw their children whenever Islam is mentioned.
How many constitutes an avalanche? Did it really happen?
Yes - averaging 3 per class
How large is a class? IOW, what percentage is this?
Moo
10%
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Teachers have a duty to so report
Don't be daft, you don't have a duty to report a parent who exercises their right to take a child out of RE.
Yes they do - if the reasons they give show extremism, which they nearly always do.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Yes they do - if the reasons they give show extremism, which they nearly always do.
Taking a child out of RE is not a sign of extremism. What planet are you from?
I accept that some people who might have violent extremist views may indeed want to take their children out of RE lessons; that doesn't then follow that everyone who wants to take their child out of RE needs to be reported.
You are adding 2 and 2 and making 5 million.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Yes they do - if the reasons they give show extremism, which they nearly always do.
Taking a child out of RE is not a sign of extremism. What planet are you from?
I accept that some people who might have violent extremist views may indeed want to take their children out of RE lessons; that doesn't then follow that everyone who wants to take their child out of RE needs to be reported.
You are adding 2 and 2 and making 5 million.
Did you read my word 'if'?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Did you read my word 'if'?
You started talking about extremism and informing on parents who withdraw from RE lessons.
For the record, I'm not an extremist. Nobody ever said that I was doing anything wrong when I discussed RE with the headteacher. Because I wasn't doing anything wrong, I was exercising my legal right.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Did you read my word 'if'?
You started talking about extremism and informing on parents who withdraw from RE lessons.
For the record, I'm not an extremist. Nobody ever said that I was doing anything wrong when I discussed RE with the headteacher. Because I wasn't doing anything wrong, I was exercising my legal right.
And I think I asked you WHEN? HOW LONG AGO?
Before the Prevent strategy?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Teachers have a duty to so report
Don't be daft, you don't have a duty to report a parent who exercises their right to take a child out of RE.
Yes they do - if the reasons they give show extremism, which they nearly always do.
Really? That is a very subjective view to take. What about Christians of "fringe" denominations who want their children to attend alternative RE classes.
It would make a whole lot more sense to take the anti-extremism out of RE.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It would make a whole lot more sense to take the anti-extremism out of RE.
Since one of the tenetsd of the Prevent strategy is 'tolerance/understanding of other religions'I fail to see where it would go instead.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
What about Christians of "fringe" denominations who want their children to attend alternative RE classes.
I doubt that these 'classes' would teach Islam, Hiduism, Sikhism etc.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Teachers have a duty to so report
Don't be daft, you don't have a duty to report a parent who exercises their right to take a child out of RE.
Yes they do - if the reasons they give show extremism, which they nearly always do.
Could you give a couple of typical examples of reasons parents have given you that reflect extremism?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
... Impossible to list 45 lessons x 5 years worth. Our Agreed Syllabus has over 200 hundred homework suggestions but it's copyright protected (to stop academies getting it for free) ...
Tangent alert
Leo are you sure that an RE syllabus is something that copyright can exist in, or exactly what, if one attempts to assert copyright in it, any such copyright would cover?
It might well exist in the typescript and typography. I'm rather more doubtful it could exist in the syllabus itself. Even if it could exist at all, I'm fairly sure it would only avail to stop someone photocopying the document, distributing it and adopting that syllabus exactly as it stands. I'm fairly sure it could not exist so as to prevent someone borrowing ideas from it.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Leo are you sure that an RE syllabus is something that copyright can exist in, or exactly what, if one attempts to assert copyright in it, any such copyright would cover?
A syllabus document containing examples of suggested work to meet that syllabus and so on can most certainly be copyrighted. That examples of homework can be subject to copyright is obvious.
Facts, of course, cannot be copyrighted. But a particular assemblage of facts may be copyrighted, and I see no particular reason why an RE syllabus shouldn't fall into that category.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
leo, how many parents have you reported for withdrawing their children from your classes?
Moo
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Hang on - the Prevent Duty means there are reporting duties for everyone - and I have flagged a couple of concerns under the Prevent Duty. It's governed by a mishmash of a law that was aiming to stop extremism in young people after a number of very public cases, including one where 15 year old schoolgirls went overseas to join Daesh / ISIS in Syria as wives. It's badly-drawn and discriminatory legislation because there are other examples of extremism other than Islamic fundamentalism that should have been included in that law and guidelines - like far right or animal rights extremism.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
agree
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
... Impossible to list 45 lessons x 5 years worth. Our Agreed Syllabus has over 200 hundred homework suggestions but it's copyright protected (to stop academies getting it for free) ...
Tangent alert
Leo are you sure that an RE syllabus is something that copyright can exist in, or exactly what, if one attempts to assert copyright in it, any such copyright would cover?
The whole of Hereford, Swindon and South Gloucestershire's locallty agreed syllabuses are copyright.
Since for local authority pays our expenses for devising them, it is only fair that acaemies 'buy into them'- as their funding agreement stipulates.
[ 23. April 2017, 17:16: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I was exercising my legal right.
Tyhe last four comissions of RE have stated that withdrwal is anachronistic - parents had a right to withdraw from RI.
RE is not 'instruction' so you should no more withdraw on grounds of not wanting kids to learn about another religion that you should withraw from MFL because you don't want a kid learning another language.
So it is intended that the wihdrawal clause weill do when there is a chamnge of law.
[ 23. April 2017, 17:21: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The whole of Hereford, Swindon and South Gloucestershire's locallty agreed syllabuses are copyright.
Since for local authority pays our expenses for devising them, it is only fair that acaemies 'buy into them'- as their funding agreement stipulates.
Leo, I wasn't questioning that people might not be trying to assert copyright in them. My queries are whether that assertion is as effective as they think it is, what they think it extends to, what actions they would expect to be a breach of it, and whether if it came to contention, what is actually within the range of what they could enforce.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I don't know. I only know that you cannot access it unless you have a pass word.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0