Ship of Fools: Michael Gove

Thread: Michael Gove Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=022815

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

This might be a sympton of the silly season, like the latest plan for Civil Service reform announced yesterday, but here is a proposal for another bloody change to education!

Why doesn't this oxygen thief bring back fagging, caps and straw boaters and compulsory cold showers to complete the picture. Gove (a former News International hack, so there are his credentials) is only there to make Lansley and Osborne look adequate. It's another fine example of harking back to the Golden Years rather than actually sorting out the real problems. No wonder it was leaked through the Daily Wail rather than presented to parliament or published as a White/Green paper.

I really can understand why my son doesn't want anything to do with the education system, although he loves to teach kids.

I wonder what pile of poo we will read about tomorrow?

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Disgraceful! How dare Mr Gove want to raise academic standards! He should resign immediately.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I keep hoping Leveson will completely discredit him.

Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on :

At least he's better than Balls was, since he is at least marginally more honest. Look on the bright side. It appears a competent/intelligent education plan is something beyond the abilities of any of the major parties in the UK.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Gove doesn't want to raise academic standards, he wants to impose his own inflexible ideas of education onto the education system. Eg phonics are a wonderful tool in learning to read, it's just that they aren't the only one.

The problems are that vocational qualifications are totally devalued. He's just trashed a lot of the good qualifications that were available instead of academic GCSEs - like the Engineering course the local school ran which required at least Functional Skills Level 1 English, Maths and ICT as part of the qualification. And this Government has shaken up the funding so that schools have stopped offering the other college based qualifications which were providing employable skills and kept some of the kids in school - courses like NVQs in construction (general building skills: basic bricklaying, carpentry, electrical works, plumbing), hair & beauty, motor vehicle maintenance and catering.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Is this happening (again) because school teachers bankrupted the country? Wild speculation on pencil futures? Spread betting on little Jeremy's SATs results?

No, it's because Gove needs to be seen to Do Something. Even if in six months time, when he's replaced by someone who wasn't a Murdoch hack, the next minister will also feel the irresistible urge to Do Something.

The very best way of improving educational standards in the country, in every subject, without pissing about with the curriculum is this: reduce class sizes to 15.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Ricardus:

quote:
Disgraceful! How dare Mr Gove want to raise academic standards!

If he sincerely wants to raise academic standards then reintroducing a two-tier examination system that throws the majority of pupils onto the educational scrapheap at the age of 14 is a funny way of going about it. GCSEs were introduced (BY THE TORIES, lest we forget) to make it easier for late developers to realise their potential.

What he actually seems to be doing - judging by the evidence so far - is trying to turn the clock back to the late 70s/early 80s when he was at school himself. Because that was a Golden Age in British education, right? Right?

Teachers, pupils and examination boards are in a no-win situation regarding GCSEs and A-levels. It happens every year:

If the number of A and A* grades goes up - There is a great howl of indignation from the media that exams must be getting easier. The Department for Education issues a statement that the government is committed to raising standards. Teachers' unions say that students are working harder than ever, but nobody listens to them.

If the number of A and A* grades goes down - There is a great howl of indignation from the media that educational standards are falling. The Department for Education issues a statement that the government is committed to raising standards. OFSTED says that all 'Good' schools will now be described as 'Barely Holding Their Own' and threatened with Special Measures. Teachers' unions point out that this is hardly fair when the exams have just been made harder, but nobody listens to them.

The only people who win are the media, because they can run stories about The Decline In Educational Standards from the moment when results are published until halfway through the autumn term, whatever the results are.

Oh, and what Curiosity Killed... said.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Michael Gove wouldn't have sat "O" levels himself, because he was educated in Scotland, which has a different system. So he can't be trying to turn the clock back to the system he remembers from his own schooldays.

Also, the Scottish system he grew up with - "O" Grades and Highers - was overhauled to produce a new system of Standard Grades, Intermediates 1 and 2, and Highers, and is now being overhauled again in the new Curriculum for Excellence.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Strange that the 'English Bac' sounds just like the range of 'options' that I had to choose from when selecting my O levels, then...

I do know the Scottish system is different - I have Scottish relatives - but wasn't aware that Gove was Scottish <checks Wikipedia> I see he went to Robert Gordon's in Aberdeen.

Odd that he would want to make the English system more restrictive - the Scottish system doesn't encourage you to specialise at such an early age...

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Sorry for the double post, my system is playing up and I missed the edit window. Or something. Could a Hellhost delete the first of those two messages, please?

[It's gone. Not because I like you, but because I like using the "delete post" button [Devil]

]

[ 21. June 2012, 09:47: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Gove went to a state primary school in Aberdeen, then won a full scholarship to Robert Gordon's School, which was then a fee-paying boys-only school. It's still fee-paying, but now mixed-sex. Very high reputation academically.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

D'uh! Didn't read your second post, Jane R! You already knew where he went to school. Robert Gordon's is very traditional; it still teaches Latin, which has almost vanished from the state schools hereabouts. It has the full shirt/tie/blazer uniform, whereas the state schools tend to go for polo-shirt and school sweatshirt. Great range of sporting opportunities, too, though I gather Gove wasn't sporty. There's a lot of competition for the scholarships, unsurprisingly.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
...reintroducing a two-tier examination system that throws the majority of pupils onto the educational scrapheap at the age of 14 is a funny way of going about it.

Trouble is, a system that results in virtually every student who can hold a pencil getting a fistful of good qualifications throws all of them on the scrapheap, because it means universities and employers stop taking those qualifications seriously.

What is needed is a system that allows "late bloomers" a fair chance, but where getting an "A" (or even "B"/"C") grade actually means something.

Ofsted, of course, need to be taken out behind the chemical tanks and shot.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

In the interests of fairness it should also be noted that Scottish private schools are nowhere near as exclusive as English public schools. My Other Half went to a fee-paying school in Edinburgh when he was a child. But NEQ knows far more about the Scottish system than I do, so I'll shut up about it now...

The English education system is very good at educating the academic elite. It's not so good at enabling average pupils to reach their full potential and it's not good at engaging non-academic pupils and equipping them with the skills they need to survive in the modern workforce. Raising (academic) standards is all very well, but we don't just need a highly educated elite to govern the barely literate masses; nowadays everybody needs to be literate and numerate. Maybe in the future everyone will also need to know a foreign language (Chinese? Arabic? Hindi?) and everyone should have the opportunity to develop an interest in music, or art, or bike maintenance, or gardening... something to while away the leisure hours, because most jobs do not consume every waking minute and you can only watch TV for so long before your brain turns to mush.

Mr Gove's latest flight of fancy seems to be playing to the English education system's existing strengths whilst doing nothing to fix the real problems - as others have already said.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Marvin:

quote:
What is needed is a system that allows "late bloomers" a fair chance, but where getting an "A" (or even "B"/"C") grade actually means something.

I agree with this. I just don't think reintroducing O levels is the right way to achieve that aim.

[I know you don't delete posts because you like us - that's why I didn't ask for a kind Hellhost [Devil]

]

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Scotland currently has three curriculums (curriculi?) for every subject at Standard Grade (equivalent to GCSE) - Credit, General and Foundation. Pupils follow whichever curriculum they are deemed capable of. Then they sit one or two exams at the end - e.g. if they've followed the credit curriculum then they sit both the credit and the general exams, so that if they fail credit, the chances are they'll pass general. Only the best result appears on the final results sheet. Universities are only interested in Credit results, but for apprenticeships, college courses, etc, a General certificate is required. And for basic non-skilled jobs, foundation results show a minimal level of education.

The slight downside is the sheer number of exams; my daughter has just sat 18 (nine subjects at general and credit) but they seem to regard the general exam as a "warm-up" which works quite well.

From the timetabling point of view, three separate curriculi must be a nightmare.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Ricardus:
quote:
Disgraceful! How dare Mr Gove want to raise academic standards!
If he sincerely wants to raise academic standards then reintroducing a two-tier examination system that throws the majority of pupils onto the educational scrapheap at the age of 14 is a funny way of going about it.

GCSEs already have a two-tier system. Foundation Tier and Higher Tier.

quote:
If the number of A and A* grades goes up - There is a great howl of indignation from the media that exams must be getting easier. The Department for Education issues a statement that the government is committed to raising standards. Teachers' unions say that students are working harder than ever, but nobody listens to them.

I would ignore both the politicians and the unions and look at the international rankings, which show a fairly unambiguous decline in standards.

In any case it is an irrelevant argument. If students are getting cleverer then there is room to stretch them by making exams harder. If exams have got easier then they need to be made harder. Either way we should be improving standards.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Ricardus, the article you've quoted doesn't say that UK standards have declined but that:

quote:
The results for the UK's teenagers have not declined significantly across these years, says the OECD - it is more the case that they have failed to keep up with the improvements of pupils in other countries.

And I would say that the continual tinkering with the education system is not helping anything, because schools are permanently playing catch up with new syllabuses and qualifications. If all your energy is spent trying to get your head and materials around the new stuff that's just been thrown at you, you have no time and energy left for improving standards

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Ricardus, the article you've quoted doesn't say that UK standards have declined but that:

quote:
The results for the UK's teenagers have not declined significantly across these years, says the OECD - it is more the case that they have failed to keep up with the improvements of pupils in other countries.

Ah - good point, clearly my own reading standards are in decline. Even so, that still feeds into my last paragraph above.

quote:
And I would say that the continual tinkering with the education system is not helping anything, because schools are permanently playing catch up with new syllabuses and qualifications. If all your energy is spent trying to get your head and materials around the new stuff that's just been thrown at you, you have no time and energy left for improving standards

This is also true but doing nothing isn't going to raise standards either.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Tories are continually bleating the mantra (or they used to, anyway) 'you've got to live in the real world.' The trouble is, most of them have no idea what that is.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

OK - in the past 4 years, just looking at the Maths I've taught to year 10-11 students (age 14-16) who've fallen out of the school system for whatever reason - so last chance saloon.

Entry Level has changed substantially - I'm currently procrastinating from rewriting the materials to teach the current new syllabus - it's taught as a way of checking they've got the basics before taking them on to ...
Basic Skills in literacy and numeracy, which I taught for two years, are no more and have been replaced by Functional Skills - for now, until the next lot of tinkering happens.
The GCSE syllabus has changed twice - once to deal with the Labour Government changes and again to deal with the most recent Coalition Government changes.

That's before we look at English/literacy, ICT, PSE or anything else we've taught

It is damn difficult finding practice exams as stuff comes in and experience tells me that the specimen materials change as the real exams kick in. There were huge changes on the ICT functional skills exam, for example ...

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
...reintroducing a two-tier examination system that throws the majority of pupils onto the educational scrapheap at the age of 14 is a funny way of going about it.
Trouble is, a system that results in virtually every student who can hold a pencil getting a fistful of good qualifications throws all of them on the scrapheap, because it means universities and employers stop taking those qualifications seriously.

What is needed is a system that allows "late bloomers" a fair chance, but where getting an "A" (or even "B"/"C") grade actually means something.

Ofsted, of course, need to be taken out behind the chemical tanks and shot.

Grades are now allocated in a radically different way to that used before about the late 1980's.

In those days there was no fixed mark to determine each grade. The assumption was made that while the exam difficulty might change from year to year the ability of each year's cohort would not. I'm not certain of the precise numbers but I believe it worked out that a statistical distribution was used and the top 20% got A's, the bottom 20% ALWAYS failed, and the rest of the passes were carved up between the remaining pass grades.

The scheme then changed to an absolute marking scheme and while again I'm not sure about the numbers it is the markthe student gets on the exam, against a fixed marking scheme that dtermines their grade. Above 40% is a pass, over 70% an A grade and so on. Grades are not allocated by a quota now, so the proliferation of higher grade passes is more likely as more students are taught to a far more tightly defined syllabus and schools put under far more pressure to get students through, for the school's sake not that of the students.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I just wish Michael Gove and the rest of the government would learn the meaning of the word 'Average'.

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Grades are now allocated in a radically different way to that used before about the late 1980's.

In those days there was no fixed mark to determine each grade. The assumption was made that while the exam difficulty might change from year to year the ability of each year's cohort would not. I'm not certain of the precise numbers but I believe it worked out that a statistical distribution was used and the top 20% got A's, the bottom 20% ALWAYS failed, and the rest of the passes were carved up between the remaining pass grades.

That's more-or-less how it worked at my University (early 70s). What happened there is that the exam results were tweaked so that the average mark always lay in a fairly tight band. If the average was low, the presumption was that the paper was difficult, so the marks were raised; and vice-versa.

Then grades were applied to the "revised" marks - I think 70 or 75% got you a "First", the next band down got an Upper Second, and so on. But there were no absolute allocations of numbers, so 5 Firsts might be awarded one year but none the next.

It seemed fair to us, and worked to my advantage in one particularly difficult Thermodynamics paper. For I worked out that I could not have got more than about 40% as I hadn't completed enough questions But I was actually given over 60%! Everyone had been complaining about its difficulty.

[ 21. June 2012, 13:32: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
In those days there was no fixed mark to determine each grade. The assumption was made that while the exam difficulty might change from year to year the ability of each year's cohort would not. I'm not certain of the precise numbers but I believe it worked out that a statistical distribution was used and the top 20% got A's, the bottom 20% ALWAYS failed, and the rest of the passes were carved up between the remaining pass grades.

That sounds like a very good system indeed. After all, isn't the whole point of grading students to establish where they lie on the ability spectrum for the subject in hand?

Universities and employers don't want exam grades to tell them how good someone is in an absolute sense - they want to know how good that person is compared to everyone else. And for that you need to be able to make a reasonable comparison. If they're told "all students in this year group are of "A" grade ability" then they'll just ignore the qualifications and use something else to establish which ones they actually want to recruit, which makes earning those qualifications in the first place a colossal waste of time.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
In those days there was no fixed mark to determine each grade. The assumption was made that while the exam difficulty might change from year to year the ability of each year's cohort would not. I'm not certain of the precise numbers but I believe it worked out that a statistical distribution was used and the top 20% got A's, the bottom 20% ALWAYS failed, and the rest of the passes were carved up between the remaining pass grades.
That sounds like a very good system indeed. After all, isn't the whole point of grading students to establish where they lie on the ability spectrum for the subject in hand?

Universities and employers don't want exam grades to tell them how good someone is in an absolute sense - they want to know how good that person is compared to everyone else. And for that you need to be able to make a reasonable comparison. If they're told "all students in this year group are of "A" grade ability" then they'll just ignore the qualifications and use something else to establish which ones they actually want to recruit, which makes earning those qualifications in the first place a colossal waste of time.

Exams should not exist to give employers and universities an easy out. They should assess would-be staff and employers for themselves.

Then again you could have something. Maybe driving tests and criminal trials could be assessed in this way. 'Sorry pal' says Justice Cocklecarrott, 'The evidence against you is shite, but it's better than that against your co-defendents, so down you go'.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Exams should not exist to give employers and universities an easy out. They should assess would-be staff and employers for themselves.

OK, then why not have a system where the only official grades given out are "pass" and "fail"?

If grades aren't meant to indicate which graduates are better or worse than the others, why give out grades at all?

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Exams should not exist to give employers and universities an easy out. They should assess would-be staff and employers for themselves.
OK, then why not have a system where the only official grades given out are "pass" and "fail"?

Because different jobs require different levels of academic aptitude?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

Sioni appears to differ.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Exams should not exist to give employers and universities an easy out. They should assess would-be staff and employers for themselves.
OK, then why not have a system where the only official grades given out are "pass" and "fail"?
Because different jobs require different levels of academic aptitude?

Very few jobs require academic aptitude. A lot require a particular skill or talent but even a degree doesn't indicate much in the way of skill or talent. NVQs and the old City and Guilds qualifications do that far better. It's a crude weeding exercise. No wonder Britain underachieves.

[ 21. June 2012, 14:41: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

Posted by Tom Day (# 3630) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
In those days there was no fixed mark to determine each grade. The assumption was made that while the exam difficulty might change from year to year the ability of each year's cohort would not. I'm not certain of the precise numbers but I believe it worked out that a statistical distribution was used and the top 20% got A's, the bottom 20% ALWAYS failed, and the rest of the passes were carved up between the remaining pass grades.
That sounds like a very good system indeed. After all, isn't the whole point of grading students to establish where they lie on the ability spectrum for the subject in hand?

Universities and employers don't want exam grades to tell them how good someone is in an absolute sense - they want to know how good that person is compared to everyone else. And for that you need to be able to make a reasonable comparison. If they're told "all students in this year group are of "A" grade ability" then they'll just ignore the qualifications and use something else to establish which ones they actually want to recruit, which makes earning those qualifications in the first place a colossal waste of time.

But then how do you compare year to year? With the current system (which, I do admit probably needs some changes in terms of exam boards) A student who gets an A this year is the same as a student who got an A the year before, and the year before. If you only give 10% of students A's, one year will be different from others.

On to the topic of Michael Gove, He has made my job of union rep so much easier - I have got more members joining us and willing to become involved since he started! This recent idea of condemning people when they are 13 is just appalling. At least with GCSE's they give every student the chance to get a decent grade. I have taught at least 2 students this year who would have probably been graded a CSE student when aged 13, but managed to get good grade B's when they took their GCSE as they matured and developed a lot in their final year.

I do agree that we should have one exam board which offers all kinds of qualifications. But to pigeon hole 13 year olds is almost criminal in my opinion.

Gove is a nightmare in education, I am assuming that his next announcement will be that all teachers need to wear Motar Boards and wear gowns...

Tom

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tom Day:
I am assuming that his next announcement will be that all teachers need to wear Motar Boards and wear gowns...

If only he would. It'd be an improvement on what a lot of teachers where these days.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Tom Day:
I am assuming that his next announcement will be that all teachers need to wear Motar Boards and wear gowns...
If only he would. It'd be an improvement on what a lot of teachers where these days.

Oooh, can we bring back 100 lines, pretty please?
Write out now 100 times:
Where are the teachers and what should the teachers wear?

eta to add a word

[ 21. June 2012, 20:24: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

Did lines ever go away as a form of punishment? (Not sure how effective they were, though.)

Posted by Tom Day (# 3630) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Did lines ever go away as a form of punishment? (Not sure how effective they were, though.)

Where I teach they are out of fashion. My usual punishment for that kind of thing is to get the student to write a letter of apology. Or make sure that their homework is complete...

Posted by Tom Day (# 3630) on :

And the best thing about Gove's idea??

He has got the unions (this quote from the NASUWT Website) praising Margaret Thatcher!

"Michael Gove's arrogance is breathtaking. Not only is he upsetting thousands of young people, parents and teachers but he is also consigning Margaret Thatcher's historic education reforms to the dustbin of history."

That is something Gove should be proud of!

Tom

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

Did lines ever go away as a form of punishment? (Not sure how effective they were, though.)

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Did lines ever go away as a form of punishment? (Not sure how effective they were, though.)

You've already asked that. Are you looking for a second opinion?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
You've already asked that. Are you looking for a second opinion?

Have I? When?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

Sorry - just realised I somehow double posted without realising. Completely unintentional.

Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :

These proposed exams are for 75% of the population. Whatever else they might be, they're not O-levels, which were aimed only at the elite.

I wonder who leaked all this, and why?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
These proposed exams are for 75% of the population. Whatever else they might be, they're not O-levels, which were aimed only at the elite.

I wonder who leaked all this, and why?

If it was to annoy the LibDems and the entire educational establishment, and therefore placate the Conservatives, it's been successful. I reckon it was an 'official leak', which if the Civil Sevice reforms announced by Francis Maude come to fruition we will see more of, as more of their cronies get into minister's offices.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

There have been a couple of instances recently when Clegg has apparently put his foot down and I suspect it may be part of one vast super-plot [Paranoid]

to make the LibDems feel better about their place in the coalition. Either that or Gove's just a fuckwit.

Or, of course, both of the above.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Seems like he's done a u turn on CSEs. He says he doesn’t want a two-tier system so all kids will sit the supposedly tougher exam – even though most will fail.

Why not bring back the 11+ while he is about it – let the kids discover a feeling of failure earlier – and get used to it?

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Oh they're already well aware - from SATs ('I'm level 4 and you're only level 2') and have been doing the same boasting all the way through primary school ('You're only on blue books and I'm on silver') etc. etc. Kids aren't daft, they work out which is the clever table or the highest level of the scheme very quickly.

Posted by Pulsator Organorum Ineptus (# 2515) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Gove doesn't want to raise academic standards, he wants to impose his own inflexible ideas of education onto the education system.

Yes, that will be why he is talking about scrapping the national curriculum.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Things must be desperate. We 'liberals' opposed the National Curriculum' for being a straightjacket which stifles creativity.

Now we are defending it against a despot.

Posted by caty (# 85) on :

Gove seems to have no idea just how long it takes to design and implement these Bright Ideas of his... What's SO frustrating is that the last lot of changes haven't even been fully worked through.

We started a new syllabus this year in Science, and we know already that there will be a huge drop in A/A* next year. The new assessments are significantly more challenging, and the exam boards have been told that they can't keep parity with the old syllabus - ie they must keep the grade boundaries high and award fewer A grades. (Only affects Science; Maths and English get to keep the same number of A grades I believe.)

Following year, we're moving to terminal assessment - ie all exams at the end of the course. Surely this already achieves the objectives Gove is aiming for in reintroducing O levels?

We're still writing the schemes of work for these changes and trying to get our heads round the horribly complicated practical assessment - and now being told there's another syllabus coming in a couple of years! I also feel so sorry for the kids in the next couple of years who'll be told their qualifications are "too easy" when they're already significantly harder than those sat by their slightly older brothers and sisters.

Still, as our beloved head of OFSTED says, we all need to just "man up" and get on with it... Because teaching isn't a stressful job at all, is it?

(sigh [Frown]

)
caty

Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :

As someone tweeted last week:

quote:
There is no I in team, and there should be no Gove in Government.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

quote:
Kids aren't daft, they work out which is the clever table or the highest level of the scheme very quickly.

Yes, but the point is that if you divide them into sheep and goats (or O-level and CSE) for KS4 you make it unnecessarily hard for them to transfer upwards into the higher stream if they suddenly manifest unprecedented academic ability at the age of fourteen and a half.

I see he's done a U-turn on CSEs already.

[ 30. June 2012, 09:07: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:

quote:
Kids aren't daft, they work out which is the clever table or the highest level of the scheme very quickly.
Yes, but the point is that if you divide them into sheep and goats (or O-level and CSE) for KS4 you make it unnecessarily hard for them to transfer upwards into the higher stream if they suddenly manifest unprecedented academic ability at the age of fourteen and a half.

Exactly. A lot of dyslexic children are incredibly intelligent, but this doesn't show up in exams. Why should dull children with good memories always reach the top when bright, innovative creative thinkers get the heave-ho?

Gove wants to take us backwards [Frown]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

As I understand it, O-level exam still papers exist and are prepared every year but British schools are forbidden from sitting them (they are used in places like Singapore). If Gove really wanted to be radical, he could overturn the ban and we could have O-levels back tomorrow (rather than O-level-type exams in two years time). Sadly, I don't think he is.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
As I understand it, O-level exam still papers exist and are prepared every year but British schools are forbidden from sitting them (they are used in places like Singapore). If Gove really wanted to be radical, he could overturn the ban and we could have O-levels back tomorrow (rather than O-level-type exams in two years time). Sadly, I don't think he is.

Gove is all for being radical to cut spending and have a cheap dig at the public sector and those who work in it. Had he half the desire to improve the state education system, which I doubt, his radicalism would be a million miles removed from this latest premature, um, outburst.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by caty:
Still, as our beloved head of OFSTED says, we all need to just "man up" and get on with it... Because teaching isn't a stressful job at all, is it?

(sigh )
caty

Wouldn't it be good if all OFSTED inspectors and all secretaries of state for ed. took a turn at the whiteboard-face for a week to show us how to implement these changes?

Good, old-fashioned HMIs often took a turn at teaching when observing lessons in a department.

Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by caty:
Still, as our beloved head of OFSTED says, we all need to just "man up" and get on with it... Because teaching isn't a stressful job at all, is it?

(sigh )
caty
Wouldn't it be good if all OFSTED inspectors and all secretaries of state for ed. took a turn at the whiteboard-face for a week to show us how to implement these changes?

Good, old-fashioned HMIs often took a turn at teaching when observing lessons in a department.

Possibly not such a good idea. Apparently some inspectors have never taught

It's not the failing inspectors I care about. The kids shouldn't have to put up with the inevitable rubbish.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
This might be a sympton of the silly season, like the latest plan for Civil Service reform announced yesterday, but here is a proposal for another bloody change to education!

Why doesn't this oxygen thief bring back fagging, caps and straw boaters and compulsory cold showers to complete the picture. Gove (a former News International hack, so there are his credentials) is only there to make Lansley and Osborne look adequate. It's another fine example of harking back to the Golden Years rather than actually sorting out the real problems. No wonder it was leaked through the Daily Wail rather than presented to parliament or published as a White/Green paper.

I really can understand why my son doesn't want anything to do with the education system, although he loves to teach kids.

I wonder what pile of poo we will read about tomorrow?

I have only just read this, and agree with all the proposals - but without the sarcasm.

The return of gowns, a classical curriculum, male teachers being referred to as 'masters' and female as 'mistresses' and 'Sir' or 'Miss or Ma'am' would be just a start.

Most inportantly in the reform would be abolition of children, boys or girls, or even students being referred to by ignorant goat language like 'kids', an expression which boils my piss.

Interestingly recruits to the Infantry Training Centre at Catterick, often from some of the most deprived areas of Britain, have no problem with the use of 'Sir', 'Ma'am' and sitting still. I believe twelve weeks makes for a complete turnaround from smashing bus shelters to highly competent professionals.

And sadly, it is not their numbers that need reducing, but a hook-line-and-sinker rooting out of sterile senior civil servants.

Posted by John D. Ward (# 1378) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:

Interestingly recruits to the Infantry Training Centre at Catterick, often from some of the most deprived areas of Britain, have no problem with the use of 'Sir', 'Ma'am' and sitting still. I believe twelve weeks makes for a complete turnaround from smashing bus shelters to highly competent professionals.

I agree with a great deal of what you say, but the important distinction here is that since the abolition of National Service, recruits to the armed services are all volunteers. Also, those who volunteer for the armed forces aren't the ones who were smashing bus shelters.

Now we come to one of my pet ideas, arising from memories of my own schooldays. What would be the exact effect of making secondary education voluntary? Let those who don't want to learn go elsewhere, and leave learning to those who want it.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John D. Ward:

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:

Interestingly recruits to the Infantry Training Centre at Catterick, often from some of the most deprived areas of Britain, have no problem with the use of 'Sir', 'Ma'am' and sitting still. I believe twelve weeks makes for a complete turnaround from smashing bus shelters to highly competent professionals.

I agree with a great deal of what you say, but the important distinction here is that since the abolition of National Service, recruits to the armed services are all volunteers. Also, those who volunteer for the armed forces aren't the ones who were smashing bus shelters.

You reckon? Army recruits aren't goody two-shoes by a long way. Some of our best soldiers have had a few scrapes.

quote:

Now we come to one of my pet ideas, arising from memories of my own schooldays. What would be the exact effect of making secondary education voluntary? Let those who don't want to learn go elsewhere, and leave learning to those who want it.

Gove's proposals alone would make thing much worse for those who have no academic desires. Unless there is a multi-track approach, with vocational education, exam based and coursework based assessments given equal consideration then you're right, secondary education is wasted on c 75% of young people. It will only be effective for Tory Boys (& Girls) like Gove and his pals, which is after all what the stupid boy wants. So long as the proles can add up, write their names and most importantly do as they are told, what more do they need to be able to do?

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

I do know that. I have been a soldier.

And yes, often people who have smashed bus shelters (and far, far worse) have volunteered as recruits (or it has been suggested to them by a judge).

I remember as recently as 2009 it being remarked about some Toxteth recruits, then newly passed out soldiers: 'How strange. They would probably even now stick a finger up to the police, but would cower in a doorway on camp rather than bump into the RSM (Regimental Sergeant Major)'

So true. And not just fear, as it was 2009, but also respect.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:

Most inportantly in the reform would be abolition of children

But, failing that, we've got to educate them. Bringing back public school customs and curriculum will be OK for the future members of the Bullingdon Club and the Tory cabinet. It won't work for the majority who as Ken said (on this or another thread) must not be given ideas above their station in life. Tories thrive on division and on keeping a permanent underclass. If everybody is educated there might be a revolution.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Bringing back public school customs and curriculum will be OK for the future members of the Bullingdon Club and the Tory cabinet. It won't work for the majority who as Ken said (on this or another thread) must not be given ideas above their station in life.

To put it another way, it most assuredly would work for them. It just wouldn't work for those who seek to maintain a rigid, unchanging class system.

quote:
Tories thrive on division and on keeping a permanent underclass.

Not all of us, Angloid. Not all of us.

quote:
If everybody is educated there might be a revolution.

Or there might be more social mobility between classes. I've never had a problem with that. Let meritocracy rule!

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Axing Sure Start centres is really going to help with establishing your meritocracy, isn't it? (Not that I'm opposed to a meritocracy - it would be nice...)

Be that as it may, it seems the Chinless Wonder's latest target is school governors, who according to him don't do any work and only become governors because it looks good on their CV. So much for the government's warm words about the 'Big Society'.

Is he trying to piss off everyone connected with education for a bet, or is it just that every time he opens his mouth his brains fall out?

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

If you wish for a classless society, then elocution lessons should be compulsory part of any national curriculum.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

to train us all to talk Estuary English as exampled by so many of the great and good?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
If you wish for a classless society

I don't.

I believe in the movement (or at the very least, the ability to move) of individuals between the classes, not the total absence of classes.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
If you wish for a classless society, then elocution lessons should be compulsory part of any national curriculum.

Why not try your act on the stage? You might get paid for it.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

That would undermine one's notion of the importance of the dedicated amateur. We suffer too much from professionalism.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I have just read an article about the king James Bible he has given to schools. Apparently it weighs a lot and it is printed in ye olde script with ye olde spellings e.g. 's' is printed as 'f'.

So when the little darlings read that phrase in the psalms: 'thereout suck they no small advantage'.....

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

They'll try and pronounce it "fmall"?

Thurible

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I have just read an article about the king James Bible he has given to schools. Apparently it weighs a lot and it is printed in ye olde script with ye olde spellings e.g. 's' is printed as 'f'.

So when the little darlings read that phrase in the psalms: 'thereout suck they no small advantage'.....

The 'Vicar of Dibley' did that fifteen years ago, but it's a fine example of life imitating art.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I believe in the movement (or at the very least, the ability to move) of individuals between the classes, not the total absence of classes.

I don't know whether to ask you in a snide and condescending manner if you believe in fairies and aliens too, or simply to allow my heart to be warmed by the continued existence of starry-eyed idealism that flies in the face of facts.

In the end, all I can say is, I wish.

[ 12. July 2012, 19:26: Message edited by: Wood ]

Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on :

Wait a minute! Are you telling me the conservative philosophy isn't based in real-world hard-nosed pragmatism?

:splutter:

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Wait a minute! Are you telling me the conservative philosophy isn't based in real-world hard-nosed pragmatism?

:splutter:

The hard-nosed pragmatism in ensuring that those with their snouts in the trough get to keep them there.

Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on :

Oh of course. That hard-nosed real-world pragmatism. Thanks for clearing that up.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Wait a minute! Are you telling me the conservative philosophy isn't based in real-world hard-nosed pragmatism?

:splutter:
The hard-nosed pragmatism in ensuring that those with their snouts in the trough get to keep them there.

Those with their noses in the trough need to have them pushed in deeper for a bit longer [Mad]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
If everybody is educated there might be a revolution.
Or there might be more social mobility between classes. I've never had a problem with that. Let meritocracy rule!

Old Tories are terrified of educated oiks bringing their egalitarian and meritocratic ideals to bear on their self-perpetuating oligarchies of wealth and privilege. They truly believe their sons and daughters have a divine right to rule (or at least exist in a world where they don't have to mix with comprehensive-educated toughs from the banlieue).

Consequently, if Gove actually believed in a meritocracy and tried to enact policies to bring one about, he'd be sacked in a trice.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
If everybody is educated there might be a revolution.
Or there might be more social mobility between classes. I've never had a problem with that. Let meritocracy rule!
Old Tories are terrified of educated oiks bringing their egalitarian and meritocratic ideals to bear on their self-perpetuating oligarchies of wealth and privilege. They truly believe their sons and daughters have a divine right to rule (or at least exist in a world where they don't have to mix with comprehensive-educated toughs from the banlieue).

Don't have a problem with that.

Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
They'll try and pronounce it "fmall"?

Thurible

*fmile*

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Don't have a problem with that.

Then you need to take a good hard look at yourself as a human being.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

[Killing me]

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

Shit. Got on a high horse there. Humour impairment. Silly me.

As you were.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Tories thrive on division and on keeping a permanent underclass. If everybody is educated there might be a revolution.

Spreading nasty stories about the other side: good way to foster division, that.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Tom Day:
I am assuming that his next announcement will be that all teachers need to wear Motar Boards and wear gowns...
If only he would. It'd be an improvement on what a lot of teachers where these days.

"Wear - Anglican't - wear!!! Are we raising a race of illiterates!"

Just joshing! I am regularly guilty of the most horrendously silly spelling mistakes and typos.

PD

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Tories thrive on division and on keeping a permanent underclass. If everybody is educated there might be a revolution.
Spreading nasty stories about the other side: good way to foster division, that.

Division? Oh no, I love being told what I thrive on by someone who doesn't know me and is making prejudiced assumptions based on which political party I support.

Or not.

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
If everybody is educated there might be a revolution.
Or there might be more social mobility between classes. I've never had a problem with that. Let meritocracy rule!
Old Tories are terrified of educated oiks bringing their egalitarian and meritocratic ideals to bear on their self-perpetuating oligarchies of wealth and privilege. They truly believe their sons and daughters have a divine right to rule (or at least exist in a world where they don't have to mix with comprehensive-educated toughs from the banlieue).

Consequently, if Gove actually believed in a meritocracy and tried to enact policies to bring one about, he'd be sacked in a trice.

Where the above statements are shown to be false is that the most destructive act in the education system which had the greatest negative impact on social mobility was the elimination of state grammar schools by those noted old Tories: Anthony Crossland and Shirley Williams. The greatest period of rapid social mobility was in the period following the creation of the tripartite education system by that noted old socialist Rab Butler.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Gove has just 'ruled' that academies can employ untrained teachers.

I guess the NHS could follow suit with untrained surgeons.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Tories thrive on division and on keeping a permanent underclass. If everybody is educated there might be a revolution.
Spreading nasty stories about the other side: good way to foster division, that.
Division? Oh no, I love being told what I thrive on by someone who doesn't know me and is making prejudiced assumptions based on which political party I support.

Or not.

OK! I know this is Hell but I don't want to malign individual shipmates. Let me rephrase that: "Tory policies..."; or "Tory politicians who show they don't understand how the majority live..." Is that better?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
If everybody is educated there might be a revolution.
Or there might be more social mobility between classes. I've never had a problem with that. Let meritocracy rule!
Old Tories are terrified of educated oiks bringing their egalitarian and meritocratic ideals to bear on their self-perpetuating oligarchies of wealth and privilege. They truly believe their sons and daughters have a divine right to rule (or at least exist in a world where they don't have to mix with comprehensive-educated toughs from the banlieue).

Consequently, if Gove actually believed in a meritocracy and tried to enact policies to bring one about, he'd be sacked in a trice.
Where the above statements are shown to be false is that the most destructive act in the education system which had the greatest negative impact on social mobility was the elimination of state grammar schools by those noted old Tories: Anthony Crossland and Shirley Williams. The greatest period of rapid social mobility was in the period following the creation of the tripartite education system by that noted old socialist Rab Butler.

You've been told before and you don't listen but Thatcher abolished more grammar schools than Crosland or Willliams.

The 'tripartite' notion was bollocks too. I attended a technical school, but it was as selective as the same city's grammar, though biased towards science and engineering, and was the only one for forty miles. What was notable was that class sizes were far smaller in grammer and technical schools, ie the schools attended by those who had passed the 11+, than in secondary moderns. Greater resources were the key to social mobility. Had more children been afforded this, they could have been social mobile too.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Gove has just 'ruled' that academies can employ untrained teachers.

I guess the NHS could follow suit with untrained surgeons.

Far be it from me to be Gove's spokesman, but I imagine he wasn't referring to placing the education of individuals in the hands of those who know nothing about their subject, but was exercising a long held scepticism about the value of a PGCE.

It has been said that teachers are born not made and it is most certainly a wonderful vocation and few are actually gifted for it. I would rather be educated by an original thinker, an expert in his or her subject, even someone who had practised, say, chemistry, or whatever, than someone merely 'qualified' to teach it.

Although more hands on now, what 'qualified' actually meant was someone often with a low class degree and possibly poor GCSEs and even more derived thoughts, who had dragged through a department of education and had been lectured to by those who had been out of a classroom for a very long time.

What was that phrase?: 'Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach, teach teachers how to teach'. I do not agree with the first sentence, but wholeheartedly agree with the second.

In a school I was lucky enough to attend, we had John le Carre and Robert Bolt teaching in the English department, and Count Tolstoy teaching in the history department. None were 'qualified'; all were experts in their field; all good teachers; all inspirational.

Similarly I would prefer to be taught carpentry and roofing by the excellent and highly skilled person who, as I write this, is re-roofing this house. I can only hope that that is what Michael Gove actually had in mind.

Posted by Tom Day (# 3630) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Gove has just 'ruled' that academies can employ untrained teachers.

I guess the NHS could follow suit with untrained surgeons.
Far be it from me to be Gove's spokesman, but I imagine he wasn't referring to placing the education of individuals in the hands of those who know nothing about their subject, but was exercising a long held scepticism about the value of a PGCE.

Similarly I would prefer to be taught carpentry and roofing by the excellent and highly skilled person who, as I write this, is re-roofing this house. I can only hope that that is what Michael Gove actually had in mind.

But a PGCE is not the only way to get QTS. You have 3 and 4 year degrees in Teaching Studies (my way of doing it), GTP (training in schools) and other fast track methods. By getting rid of the idea that you have to be a qualified teacher to teach you are demeaning the profession and those of us who think that our QTS qualification is actually important.

QTS is not about subject specialism, it is about having the professional skills to deal with students, parents and the other bits of school life that your subject knowledge does not help you with. It is about having a set of skills that can be applied to all teachers that allow them to impart their knowledge to students.

I might be very sceptical about Michael Gove (but he has given me enough reasons for this) but in my opinion, this move is another way of making it cheaper for mangers to hire teaching staff and another way of making the education system and schools easier to become privatised - which as far as I can see is what Gove actually wants.

QTS is needed, yes there could be changes to make it better, but this is always the case. I would not want my children to be taught by someone who has not got QTS.

Tom

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

It is an over professionalism that divides us. I have argued for professionalism elsewhere, but on this issue I stand foursquare with the gifted amateur. I have reservations with this notion of 'QTS'. And I believe that teachers are born not made.

Perhaps my views are based on my own experience as I was fortunate in not having to follow a national curriculum, and somewhere where national examinations were taken rather lightly as an impertient interruption to real education. Just about all tutors were respected as brilliant subject experts and most importantly of all for developing minds, original.

My English tutor, often mad, bad and drunk, had his novels published, had many essays of Virginia Woolf published, yet inspired shy dyslexics to write poetry. The person who taught me literature at 15 was the chairman of Dickens House and a national expert on 19th Century literature editing some for Penguin Classics. My French tutor spoke at least 10 languages and had been a code breaker at Bletchley Park in WW2, was in his late seventies and taught Japanese girls to sing Lilly Marlene in German to an accordian in their lunch break.

The headmaster played cricket for England whilst he was headmaster and got a CBE. Topically, the place prodiced 37 Olypiads (I think - they had a dinner in London the other week).

Hardly any of these inspiring women and men had 'QTS' and probably wouldn't have known what it was - or cared.

The headmaster asked a particularly talented 18 girl the week she was to leave whether she would like to go to Athens and join the staff of another school he was founding. He spotted orginality, ability to teach, talent, and an ability to inspire those often difficult to inspire. She was to teach swimming and business studies. She declined, but founded Body Shop instead I believe.

The HM wanted genius, individuality, brilliance, patience, orginality and spontaniety from his teachers. Age, gender, and 'QTS' were immaterial. There were a number of visionaries who turned down university posts to work for him.

Yes, some people paid enormous fees. Others, notably Gareth Edwards and Duncan Goodhew absolutely nothing as they couldn't afford to. Neither could most of those who came from the Rhondda valley. The HM was unprofessional and visionary enough to 'fix it'.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

What Tom Day said.

If you follow the banking model of education, where a teacher knows facts and passes these on to students, then Gove has a point.

However, if education is about drawing out each pupil's potential, then a teacher has to be skilled in child psychology as well as/instead of subject knowledge.

A pertinent example of the danger of subject 'experts' teaching was David Starkey showing no interest whatsoever in his pupils, being only concerned with history and calling one boy 'fat' and expressing absolutely no remorse for it. (On a Jamie Oliver programme - Starkey later said that Oliver was 'an appalling head' - he had no notion that he, himself, was an appalling and arrogant excuse for a teacher).

Headteachers would think twice before employing someone who is going to cause problems like that.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Gove has just 'ruled' that academies can employ untrained teachers.

I guess the NHS could follow suit with untrained surgeons.

I expect this latest ruling is no surprise to academy Heads. What Gove has done is to give formal recognition to what some academies have been doing in recent years. Schools can hire 'intructors' for up to a year for posts where no qualified teacher is available. Some academies seem to have found ways of ensuring that no qualified teacher is able to fulfil the requirements of an advertised post, leaving them free to appoint an instructor at a lower salary. The new ruling means they can appoint them to permanent posts and not go through the advertising and interviewing process every 12 months.

There's no parallel with surgeons. Although QTS is a recognition of certain skills it doesn't follow that all people without QTS don't have those skills.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Sebby,

I think I have tracked down the school you refer to (you mention Gareth Edwards and Duncan Goodhew). Let's say it isn't state sector, but was built on gifts from one of Britain's main shoe companies that even now is mostly family owned. Thanks to that foundation there are probably more attending on scholarships than attend the typical fee-paying school.

I could spell out the facilities at this school but I'm confident that a competent, let alone visionary, brilliant or inspirational headteacher could do as much if not more given the same or similar resources. Hundred if not thousands do, every day, in schols that, would you believe it have a staff who have PGCEs! Gove's cockeyed idea that there is a vast pool of inspirational unqualified teachers is bollocks - it is, like most notions coming from him and the rest of this government, based on a desire to cut public spending at every turn and hang the consequences.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

You are almost right - but it has never been endowed at all. What came in went straight out, and fees were means tested - some paid enormously, others nothing.

It has never been family owned. It grew without endowment from 4 pupils in the 1930s to about 1400 now, 1000 of them boarders and has now greater facilities than most provincial universities, including a helipad for some international students. All on the inspiration of one outstanding educationalist with no money who believed that everyone is good at something.

In the early days the HM had to do around the local town begging tradespeople to give him more time to pay the bills. Staff worked for him for almost nothing as he frequently couldn't afford to pay them. Two beery tents sufficied as examination 'halls'. It was visionary.

The extraordinarily talented eccentric who was the founder head (In his own words 'Head Master please, not Headteacher') once said to the Duke of St Albans who complained that his son was going out with the daughter of a hairdresser:

'Yes Your Grace. It is a worry for me as well. She is extremely talented and your son is a lazy oaf. I really don't want him spoiling her chances. You might also be interested to learn that you are paying her fees.'

But 'Boss' could get away with almost anything.

I am not uncritical, but admire the way in which 'Boss' employed amazing people, really understood the meaning of Independence in education (not the same thing really as 'independent') and was blind to 'QTS' or age or gender on his exceptional staff. And they really were exceptional - eat your heart out David Starkey. I believe one of his historians, as well as Count Tolstoy, was a Fellow of All Souls.

One early feature was the sight of students being issued with an empty timetable. It was up to them to rush around to tutors and fill it. 'Boss' could then see quite quickly amongst his staff who rarely got picked. If they wished for 'double golf' until break on a wednesday that was fine. But the deal was that at the end they should be good enough to represent their country.

Boss was in the postion to hand pick his teachers, admittedly. As well as elderly eccentrics ('you pay for those. If you just want exams then do a postal course') He would hire rooms in a pub in certain university towns most notably Oxford, Cambridge, and Loughborough and then interview final year degree students and offer them a place at his school. At the time he couldn't pay the salary they might receive at a state school, but the pay-off was working in a unique atmosphere with unique colleagues.

Again, no QTS. No national curriculum. Inspiration. Uniqueness. Originality, and independence.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
.. was David Starkey... calling one boy 'fat' and expressing absolutely no remorse for it.

The boy was fat though wasn't he?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
You are almost right - but it has never been endowed at all. What came in went straight out, and fees were means tested - some paid enormously, others nothing.

It has never been family owned. It grew without endowment from 4 pupils in the 1930s to about 1400 now, 1000 of them boarders and has now greater facilities than most provincial universities, including a helipad for some international students. All on the inspiration of one outstanding educationalist with no money who believed that everyone is good at something.

In the early days the HM had to do around the local town begging tradespeople to give him more time to pay the bills. Staff worked for him for almost nothing as he frequently couldn't afford to pay them. Two beery tents sufficied as examination 'halls'. It was visionary.

The extraordinarily talented eccentric who was the founder head (In his own words 'Head Master please, not Headteacher') once said to the Duke of St Albans who complained that his son was going out with the daughter of a hairdresser:

'Yes Your Grace. It is a worry for me as well. She is extremely talented and your son is a lazy oaf. I really don't want him spoiling her chances. You might also be interested to learn that you are paying her fees.'

But 'Boss' could get away with almost anything.

I am not uncritical, but admire the way in which 'Boss' employed amazing people, really understood the meaning of Independence in education (not the same thing really as 'independent') and was blind to 'QTS' or age or gender on his exceptional staff. And they really were exceptional - eat your heart out David Starkey. I believe one of his historians, as well as Count Tolstoy, was a Fellow of All Souls.

One early feature was the sight of students being issued with an empty timetable. It was up to them to rush around to tutors and fill it. 'Boss' could then see quite quickly amongst his staff who rarely got picked. If they wished for 'double golf' until break on a wednesday that was fine. But the deal was that at the end they should be good enough to represent their country.

Boss was in the postion to hand pick his teachers, admittedly. As well as elderly eccentrics ('you pay for those. If you just want exams then do a postal course') He would hire rooms in a pub in certain university towns most notably Oxford, Cambridge, and Loughborough and then interview final year degree students and offer them a place at his school. At the time he couldn't pay the salary they might receive at a state school, but the pay-off was working in a unique atmosphere with unique colleagues.

Again, no QTS. No national curriculum. Inspiration. Uniqueness. Originality, and independence.

You are right and I was wrong about the initial financial set-up, but you're taking a very rose-tinted view of the school we are talking about. While it might be effective as a 'new school' I don't ever see it turning round existing schools. I'd also be interested to see how many similar ventures of that time failed. That it has been so successful might also show that 'Boss' really was an extraordinary man, but it doesn't take anything like as much vision, energy and the rest to run that school now, simply because of the resources available. Sorry to harp on about resources, but Gove wants education on the cheap and if 'new schools' come along giving headteachers more leeway then more of these schools will fail which will harm the children, anger the parents, disappoint the teachers but have no effect on Gove and his pals whatsoever.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
.. was David Starkey... calling one boy 'fat' and expressing absolutely no remorse for it.
The boy was fat though wasn't he?

And to call him thus would result in disciplinary procedures for any 'proper' teacher.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

I am totally opposed to education or schools on the cheap and if that is the motive as you suggest, then I oppose the 'initiative'.

If however there is the motive to get more subject matter experts including the David Starkeys, quirky sorts, inspirational individuals who are not technically 'QTS' then I am supportive.

I believe in independence in education and as much variety as possible - including allowing parents to teach their own children at home if that is their choice; it wouldn't be mine, but I support the option.

I am suspicious of (a) the same thing as you (b) the creeping desire to over professionalise education.

Yes again, teachers are born not made. To the inspired teaching is like sex...and prayer. Stop talking about it and just DO it.

Posted by Tom Day (# 3630) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
If however there is the motive to get more subject matter experts including the David Starkeys, quirky sorts, inspirational individuals who are not technically 'QTS' then I am supportive.

Yes again, teachers are born not made. To the inspired teaching is like sex...and prayer. Stop talking about it and just DO it.

Yes, some teachers are born, but so are doctors, nurses etc. Teaching is a vocation more than a profession, but I still think that their are certain standards that every teacher should have - If David Starkey is such a good teacher then he should find it no problem to get QTS.

Getting subject specialists in is fine, but I know and have seen teach some great subject specialists who cannot teach children. They know their subject inside out but when it comes to talking to, or controlling a bunch of teenagers they can not do it. (as has already been said I think Jamie's School actually proved this as well)

Now teh school you went to might have been great - but it was, I think, an independent one. For state education (which I am a firm believer in) I think their has to be a qualification which every teacher has before being allowed to get a teaching job. If you are called to be a teacher than I see no reason why getting QTS is a problem. It is the same as being a Vicar in the CofE or a Priest in the Catholic church etc. They are also called or born rather than 'taught' but their is still training you have to go through.

By removing that training you are in danger of seriously compromising the education of a lot of young people. Yes, there will be some great people teaching without QTS but I fear their will be a lot more people who have not got the skills to do it.

Tom

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
The boy was fat though wasn't he?
And to call him thus would result in disciplinary procedures for any 'proper' teacher.

Telling the truth is a disciplinary offence?

Posted by Bean Sidhe (# 11823) on :

'Your dad's in jail'
'Your mum's a prostitute'
'Your parents don't care about you'

All these have been true of more than a few students I've worked with. Should I have told them so, publicly, Marvin?

Posted by Bean Sidhe (# 11823) on :

Thinking further, I could add...

'Your dad's on trial for murder'
'You're schizophrenic'
'You could die at any time' (he knew)
'You were doing blow jobs in the bushes for boys' dinner money'

All perfectly true. I leave it to others to say where 'You're fat' comes into that spectrum, but it's in there.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Shaming students is wrong, full stop IMO. Teachers still do it, but far far less than they used to in the past.

Hands up who remembers in painful detail a time when they were shamed by a teacher?

Did it change things for the better?

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

Seems to me one problem is exemplified by Ofsted's desire to say that satisfactory is no longer good enough.

Politicians want everything and everyone to be 'exceptional' and 'above average' without apparently realizing the logical impossibility of this. The problem with wanting a free school with a few brilliant eccentrics, is that there are a *few* brilliant eccentrics - whereas there are around 21,000 schools teaching about 7.5 million children in the UK. And we have a duty to educate not just the elite - but everyone. As Banjerjee & Duflo demonstrate in 'Poor Economics' even in the most dire circumstances, children benefit from every year spent in education - but a strategy where families and/or professionals concentrate only on those they think will go far fucks things up for those who are not amongst the chosen few.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
The boy was fat though wasn't he?
And to call him thus would result in disciplinary procedures for any 'proper' teacher.
Telling the truth is a disciplinary offence?

Like telling a teacher to move away 'cos he's got bad breath? I'm sure a teacher could give detention for that, citing insubordination, or is 'the truth' a one-way street?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
The boy was fat though wasn't he?
And to call him thus would result in disciplinary procedures for any 'proper' teacher.
Telling the truth is a disciplinary offence?

Yes, when it is used in the way Gove did, to belittle a pupil.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tom Day:

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
If however there is the motive to get more subject matter experts including the David Starkeys, quirky sorts, inspirational individuals who are not technically 'QTS' then I am supportive.

Yes again, teachers are born not made. To the inspired teaching is like sex...and prayer. Stop talking about it and just DO it.
By removing that training you are in danger of seriously compromising the education of a lot of young people. Yes, there will be some great people teaching without QTS but I fear their will be a lot more people who have not got the skills to do it.

Tom

But why would David Starkey WANT QTS? I admire your sense of vocation as I do in doctors, nurses, priests and others.

I admire ability to teach which I believe to be natural.

I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion of education being 'compromised' as I don't believe it was in the decades before QTS was invented (or its equivalent). Far from it in fact.

Perhaps we are coming to this from different angles. I support variety and independence; I'm suspicious of over legislation (the very idea that someone could be disciplined for calling someone 'fat' depite it being rather nasty - I had IMBECILE written on my Latin prose composition by a university tutor and would stand right behind him should anyone try to OMG 'discipline' him!); most importantly I oppose, and have always opposed the sort of professionalism in education that sees 'education' as a subject in itself; I wish the notion of 'teacher' to be much wider and broadened to include others.

Perhaps I should declare a hand: I was once a tutor in a faculty of education. Although it is repudted to be amongst the country's finest, I might well argue for its reform or abolition.

Posted by Tom Day (# 3630) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:

quote:
Originally posted by Tom Day:

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
If however there is the motive to get more subject matter experts including the David Starkeys, quirky sorts, inspirational individuals who are not technically 'QTS' then I am supportive.

Yes again, teachers are born not made. To the inspired teaching is like sex...and prayer. Stop talking about it and just DO it.
By removing that training you are in danger of seriously compromising the education of a lot of young people. Yes, there will be some great people teaching without QTS but I fear their will be a lot more people who have not got the skills to do it.

Tom
But why would David Starkey WANT QTS? I admire your sense of vocation as I do in doctors, nurses, priests and others.

I don't think Starkey would want QTS, but if he wants to be a full time teacher then he needs it to prove he has the right temperament / ability to teach.

We might be coming at it from different angles. I am a teacher, and love the job, but am also a local rep for my union. I am coming at it from teh point of view that I had to study hard to become a teacher, and pay my way through university etc to get the job. QTS is my reward for that and gives my employers the knowledge that I have had training and have met the required standard for a teacher.

On the discipline issue, if I, as a teacher, seriously called a boy fat (and meant it as an insult) I would expect to be disciplined in some way. It is unprofessional and unrespectful to my pupils. I know we disagree on this but I see teaching as a professional occupation. Therefore we act in professional ways.

As I think I said before, I do believe that there are cases for different / alternative schools, but these are alternative and probably only fit a small number of children. Main school education is a professional job, and therefore demands a professional qualification.

However, we probably both want the best for children, but see it from different angles.

Tom

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

sebby,

If professional teachers aren't good enough how many of these 'gifted amateurs' are there? Will there be enough to teach the c. ten million in schools in the UK, to which we must add the hundreds of thousands in FE colleges and universities.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

That is a distortion of what i am saying, of course. I am not saying they arent good enough, I am arguing for more variety.

Although the nature of universities may be changing, many are not primarily teachng institutions - like some kind of extended sixth form. There one most def looks for subject specialists and, one hopes, some of the finest minds in the world. Some may be good at teaching, others not. The vocation of a university don is something else.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

sebby, how many people teaching in university at the moment do you actually know?

It's really not what you remember from whenever you were there. Not only do the students feel able to criticise the lecturers for not teaching adequately since they've had to pay such huge fees, but teaching loads are going up, and research is getting squeezed - while still being required to show the university is of a good standard.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
Seems to me one problem is exemplified by Ofsted's desire to say that satisfactory is no longer good enough.

Actually, I think getting rid of the "satisfactory" rating is a good start.

Now they just have to get rid of all the other ratings, the inspections, and Ofsted itself.

Posted by Bean Sidhe (# 11823) on :

Marvin [Overused]

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

Well, if I thought it would lead to that ...

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

... to the barricades!

Posted by Tom Day (# 3630) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
Seems to me one problem is exemplified by Ofsted's desire to say that satisfactory is no longer good enough.
Actually, I think getting rid of the "satisfactory" rating is a good start.

Now they just have to get rid of all the other ratings, the inspections, and Ofsted itself.

I don't think getting rid of OFSTED is such a good idea. Yes, it needs a lot of reform, but I do think that schools should be inspected to see what value for money they give - a lot of public money is spent on education and therefore needs to be checked.

Tom

Posted by Bean Sidhe (# 11823) on :

Tom is right, of course. The problem with OFSTED as it is now, is a culture promoted by Gove that is cynical about teachers and sets up schools to fail.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tom Day:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
Seems to me one problem is exemplified by Ofsted's desire to say that satisfactory is no longer good enough.
Actually, I think getting rid of the "satisfactory" rating is a good start.

Now they just have to get rid of all the other ratings, the inspections, and Ofsted itself.
I don't think getting rid of OFSTED is such a good idea. Yes, it needs a lot of reform, but I do think that schools should be inspected to see what value for money they give - a lot of public money is spent on education and therefore needs to be checked.

Tom

OFSTED's problem is that it has to respond to the political PTB and ministers change the direction and emphasis of policy more quickly and more drastically than before. Every year or two there is a substantial 'initiative' and Gove's is just another fad which will distract from the main shortcoming, namely funding that is insufficient but not so bad as to make teachers quit in their tens of thousands. A consequence of these changes is that one can never know whether schools are improving, on academic, financial or value-for-money terms because you don't have a constant baseline.

Then again, if Gove could align the financial year for the education sector to the academic year we might have a better clue. Plenty of stuff falls down that gap around Easter!

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
Seems to me one problem is exemplified by Ofsted's desire to say that satisfactory is no longer good enough.
Actually, I think getting rid of the "satisfactory" rating is a good start.

Now they just have to get rid of all the other ratings, the inspections, and Ofsted itself.

I agree wholeheartedly - strange that MTM and i agree sometimes.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tom Day:
I don't think Starkey would want QTS, but if he wants to be a full time teacher then he needs it to prove he has the right temperament / ability to teach.

Why would Starkey or any other 'expert' from 'the real world' want to earn far less and to work far longer hours?

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
sebby, how many people teaching in university at the moment do you actually know?

It's really not what you remember from whenever you were there. Not only do the students feel able to criticise the lecturers for not teaching adequately since they've had to pay such huge fees, but teaching loads are going up, and research is getting squeezed - while still being required to show the university is of a good standard.

I know quite a few - I am a non resident college Fellow - and your commments unfortunately have a degree of truth about them. This has been the case for sometime and is not a recent trend. One of my old heroes FR Simpson just wouldn't have survived; it would have been a great loss. They wouldn't have understood him keeping his fellowship well into his nineties (perhaps they would now though, with anti-ageist legilation in the margins).

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tom Day:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
Seems to me one problem is exemplified by Ofsted's desire to say that satisfactory is no longer good enough.
Actually, I think getting rid of the "satisfactory" rating is a good start.

Now they just have to get rid of all the other ratings, the inspections, and Ofsted itself.
I don't think getting rid of OFSTED is such a good idea. Yes, it needs a lot of reform, but I do think that schools should be inspected to see what value for money they give - a lot of public money is spent on education and therefore needs to be checked.

Tom

What was wrong with the old system of the HMI coming round and inspecting? It seems that OFSTED creates unnecessary hysteria and pressure and paperwork on an already beleagured profession. it is not so much the inspection itself, one might argue, but the the preparation that is the most damaging (some would say worthwhile, I have no doubt).

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
sebby, how many people teaching in university at the moment do you actually know?

It's really not what you remember from whenever you were there. Not only do the students feel able to criticise the lecturers for not teaching adequately since they've had to pay such huge fees, but teaching loads are going up, and research is getting squeezed - while still being required to show the university is of a good standard.
I know quite a few - I am a non resident college Fellow - and your commments unfortunately have a degree of truth about them. This has been the case for sometime and is not a recent trend. One of my old heroes FR Simpson just wouldn't have survived; it would have been a great loss. They wouldn't have understood him keeping his fellowship well into his nineties (perhaps they would now though, with anti-ageist legilation in the margins).

There is a big mistake to compare dotty college lecturers with school teachers.

Students voluntary attend uni/college so one presumes some interest in their specialist subject. Plus they can be kicked out if they cause trouble.

Schools are compulsory for every child in the land and we can't kick them out (or if we do, another school has to take them.)

I have heard teachers claim to be interested only in those 'who want to learn.' That is the exact opposite of what good teachers do - to motivate those (the majority) who do not want to learn.

Posted by Tom Day (# 3630) on :

Like Sioni Sais said, Ofsted have become to political. They should be a non governmental organisation and the OFSTED schedule should be prepared by them in a non-political way.

I don't think you will ever take the stress out of ofsted. I have said this to many people, being observed at your job is always stressful, even if you know you are a good / outstanding teacher, it is never nice having someone inspect you. the same in any job. However, it is important that their is checking - I never worked under the HMI inspections, Ofsted have always been around when I have been teaching and there have been massive changes. You used to get 10 weeks notice and they were in for a full week. Now it is going to be on the afternoon before the inspection.

Yes Ofsted does add some stress and extra angst, but then if we are doing our job properly (which to be honest most teachers do) then it should be ok. It is more stressful for the leaders as theirs is the reputation at stake.

Tom

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
As I understand it, O-level exam still papers exist and are prepared every year but British schools are forbidden from sitting them (they are used in places like Singapore). If Gove really wanted to be radical, he could overturn the ban and we could have O-levels back tomorrow (rather than O-level-type exams in two years time). Sadly, I don't think he is.

Not sure about O-levels, but a few schools round here use something called the IGCSE. It is considered more academically rigorous than the NZ equivalent, and I am told it is far more rigorous than the GCSEs set in England and Wales. I note only the highest performing schools here use it, and also that international surveys rank the NZ education system at about 5th in the world in core subjects, compared to the UK which is down at 30.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tom Day:
Yes Ofsted does add some stress and extra angst, but then if we are doing our job properly (which to be honest most teachers do) then it should be ok.

That's the problem. They've now decided that "doing the job properly" isn't good enough.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Not sure about O-levels, but a few schools round here use something called the IGCSE. It is considered more academically rigorous than the NZ equivalent, and I am told it is far more rigorous than the GCSEs set in England and Wales. I note only the highest performing schools here use it, and also that international surveys rank the NZ education system at about 5th in the world in core subjects, compared to the UK which is down at 30.

I've tried IGCSE this year with my students - the trouble for people in mainstream schools is that it doesn't count on the points system in the same way as GCSE - that may change. But they've been saying it may change for the last 12 months and the uncertainty is not helpful. It's rumoured to be more rigorous, so I double-booked my lot into Functional Skills Level 2, which they all passed. It'll be three or more weeks before I know what the IGCSE results are like, but what I can tell you is that the students found it both challenging and engageing - and administratively it's a heck of a lot easier than any GCSE with Controlled Assessment.

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

/slight tangent

There's an interesting blog in the New Statesman today by a shipmate, which isn't unrelated to this discussion.

/end tangent

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by passer:
/

There's an interesting blog in the New Statesman today.

And very true. Though I wouldn't put yesterday's Guardian article by John o'Farrell in any of those categories.

None of us can really speak other than from personal experience. I was fortunate (?) enough to pass the 11-plus and go to a 'good' grammar school. Yet looking back there was very little good teaching: much dictating of notes (or even simply writing them on the blackboard for us to copy) and regurgitating of facts. My wife, in a different part of the country, went to a pioneering comprehensive school in a very impoverished district, and was inspired by some excellent teachers. That was in the 1960s when idealism was strong in the teaching profession and there was much less of the aggressive individualism that came with the Thatcher era.

Our daughters were fortunate in attending state primary and secondary schools with a large middle-class intake. They did much better there, academically and socially, than they would have in a private school (even assuming we could have afforded the fees). But I know that they would have struggled, and maybe not survived, in a 'bog-standard' inner-city school. It's a tough choice, but most people have no option anyway.

What is not going to solve the problem is government ministers who only know a privileged private education system and at best offer the carrot of selective schools for the few. It is hypocrisy to claim that resources are unimportant: for example pretending that large classes are OK while insisting on small classes for their own children

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by passer:
/slight tangent

There's an interesting blog in the New Statesman today by a shipmate, which isn't unrelated to this discussion.

/end tangent

Can [Shipmate] supply any more strawmen for our amusement? He's a clever guy, and not just because he says so. I'd like a more constructive and less bitter approach from him, but then I'd like a more constructive approach from Gove. Fat chance.

[Edited to remove shipmate's screen name. We don't want to "out" people without their permission, do we?]

[ 01. August 2012, 16:08: Message edited by: Spike ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

Hands up who remembers in painful detail a time when they were shamed by a teacher?

They were regular twice-weekly rituals at my school. They were called "games" and "PE".

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

Exactly. We had it twice a week as PE and very single afternoon.

I used to wonder why we never had REAL games: hide and seek; musical chairs; sharades.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Can [Shipmate] supply any more strawmen for our amusement? He's a clever guy, and not just because he says so. I'd like a more constructive and less bitter approach from him, but then I'd like a more constructive approach from Gove. Fat chance.

Neat get-out clause. Any one who can afford to send their kids to private school but doesn't is an "ideologue".

Fuck him and the horse he rode in on.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by passer:
/

There's an interesting blog in the New Statesman today.

And very true. Though I wouldn't put yesterday's Guardian article by John o'Farrell in any of those categories.

None of us can really speak other than from personal experience. I was fortunate (?) enough to pass the 11-plus and go to a 'good' grammar school. Yet looking back there was very little good teaching: much dictating of notes (or even simply writing them on the blackboard for us to copy) and regurgitating of facts. My wife, in a different part of the country, went to a pioneering comprehensive school in a very impoverished district, and was inspired by some excellent teachers. That was in the 1960s when idealism was strong in the teaching profession and there was much less of the aggressive individualism that came with the Thatcher era.

Our daughters were fortunate in attending state primary and secondary schools with a large middle-class intake. They did much better there, academically and socially, than they would have in a private school (even assuming we could have afforded the fees). But I know that they would have struggled, and maybe not survived, in a 'bog-standard' inner-city school. It's a tough choice, but most people have no option anyway.

What is not going to solve the problem is government ministers who only know a privileged private education system and at best offer the carrot of selective schools for the few. It is hypocrisy to claim that resources are unimportant: for example pretending that large classes are OK while insisting on small classes for their own children

Without wishing to over-personalise, I would like your indulgence if I am serious for once.

I came from a 'working class' background. My quite elderly parents wanted me to have what they described as 'the same education as royalty' and to go to what they saw as one of the best schools in the world, and to have chances they never had.

To enable this dream, they went without a holiday for twenty years. We had a one bedroomed flat and my parents slept on a bed settee waking every morning with the taste of anthracite from the fire in their mouths. I can still remember with guilt my father coming home from work having sold his old third hand car to pay what remained of the term's fees. They said that when they died I would have nothing, but I had already had it in my education.

By this they meant the whole experience. They were delighted with good examination results, but that wasn't the real reason for going where I did.

It was the whole 'Hogwarts' thing, to use an anachronism. The amazing architecture - and it was really extraordinary and I believe something does rub off - the gowns, the classical ethos, most importantly the eccentrics who taught me. The value-added (ghastly phrase). It is difficult to describe what an exraordinary experience it was. I enjoyed it, although I am sure some didn't. Sadly, perhaps, I have a picture of it as the screen saver on my phone.

It wasn't about class size (we called them 'Forms' anyway) but about who I would experience and my parents didn't mean this in a social climbing way to mean the other boys. It was learning morse code in the evenings from a 90 year old master who had been Senior Wrangler at Cambridge and a Professor of Mathematics in India, who baked his own bread and showed the deepest kindness to his pupils. We would sit on the floor of his sitting room listening to his tales.

It was seeing the soaring chapel, and the cathedral like choir singing 'Caelos Ascendit Hodie' as the introit on Ascension Day. Hearing weekly visiting preachers such as Cardinal Hume; Michael Ramsey; David Hutt; John Habgood; Robert Runcie and most memorably, Victor Stock. As 13-18 year old boys and men we were priviledged to meet and question them. I learnt a questioning faith there and a liberal acceptance of one's own fallibility.

There really was so much. I am not uncritical. I loathed the religion of sport and it was played to a very high level. The place made one quite dissatisfied with home and inwardly one realised that one's parents would never comprehend half of what one experienced. I never invited anyone to stay as I was embarrassed about the slightly torn (but clean) orange polyester carpet in the 'lounge' and that friends might guess the sleeping arrangements. I need never have worried as I never experienced the slighest snobbery in my five years there.

Despite all that I am deeply grateful. I am not saying extraordinary things don't happen elsewhere. But as Angloid said one can only speak about one's own experience. I would like more to have had this experience. It wouldn't have suited all, but I value the independence and lack of academic legislation that one had there. I like the fact that no two schools like that (to be somewhat contradictory) are the same. I write this to support this independence not to bolster the whole Public School system.

There wasn't a hint of national curriculum (although probably what was taught by these schools formed the basis of most of it) and as far as I am aware there were no inspections - I imagine the inspectors eyes would have goggled, if they could have understood it.

Best of all, I was never, ever patronised by an adult but was treated as a equal.

No one ever called us 'kids'.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by passer:
/slight tangent

There's an interesting blog in the New Statesman today by a shipmate, which isn't unrelated to this discussion.

/end tangent
Can [Shipmate] supply any more strawmen for our amusement? He's a clever guy, and not just because he says so. I'd like a more constructive and less bitter approach from him, but then I'd like a more constructive approach from Gove. Fat chance.

[Edited to remove shipmate's screen name. We don't want to "out" people without their permission, do we?]

Thanks for correcting that. Please accept my apologies, [shipmate] and hosts. [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

This is just getting too polite for Hell. Sebby and I (albeit from different perspectives) close to agreement!

I don't feel at all hellish towards most shipmates who have contributed, but I still do towards Gove and his ideologues. Somehow we need schools which allow the eccentric (teachers and pupils) to flourish, while maintaining overall standards and ensuring opportunities for all.

What the comprehensive school that my wife attended, and where I later taught, and Sebby's private school seem to have had in common, is that they allowed individuals to flourish. It's a myth that 'comprehensive' means 'one size fits all': in a good school it should provide the framework to tailor an appropriate education to particular pupils' needs. This should allow a school to employ quirky teachers (like the character played by Richard Griffiths in History Boys, however much he sailed close to the wind) because they will benefit some, as long as they are balanced by others who appeal to different personalities and needs. That is easier to do (economies of scale) in a large school than in an small one.

By contrast, my grammar school really did try to force everyone into a norm. You couldn't be nonconformist and you certainly could't dislike sport, or life would be hell.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
None of us can really speak other than from personal experience. I was fortunate (?) enough to pass the 11-plus and go to a 'good' grammar school. Yet looking back there was very little good teaching: much dictating of notes (or even simply writing them on the blackboard for us to copy) and regurgitating of facts.

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
By contrast, my grammar school really did try to force everyone into a norm. You couldn't be nonconformist.

Very much my experience.

1 - I think that my school’s ethos excluded individuality – they just didn’t understand it and weren’t going to let trying to cope with it get in the way of sending more boys to Oxbridge than either of their main “competitors”. There was a format that delivered half a dozen or so Oxbridge entrants every year and you fitted that or you were wasting their time.

2 – Many of the teaching staff were (early 1960s) allowed to stand in front of a class because they had a degree in their subject. Many of them couldn’t teach. Consequently their knowledge of their subject was (presumably) brilliant but a lot of them were completely unable to communicate that knowledge.

Good teachers are like good salespeople – they enthuse those the majority don’t reach. You can’t, of course, teach that but you can develop it if the spark is present.

It concerns me that we seem to heading back to a time when knowledge was more important than successful communication and learning is more important than thinking. (I once {1980ish} read a successful degree thesis which consisted of transcripts of telephone calls with eduicational "names". I assume it was successful because the writer appeared to understand the conversations - there was no attempt at a conclusion or original thought advancing the ideas discussed to another stage).

[ 02. August 2012, 00:18: Message edited by: HughWillRidmee ]

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
What the comprehensive school that my wife attended, and where I later taught, and Sebby's private school seem to have had in common, is that they allowed individuals to flourish. It's a myth that 'comprehensive' means 'one size fits all': in a good school it should provide the framework to tailor an appropriate education to particular pupils' needs. This should allow a school to employ quirky teachers (like the character played by Richard Griffiths in History Boys, however much he sailed close to the wind) because they will benefit some, as long as they are balanced by others who appeal to different personalities and needs. That is easier to do (economies of scale) in a large school than in an small one.

This is my impression of my kids' comprehensive. I have a dreamy, non-conforming creative teen and a science-and-maths loving, dedicated-to-hard-work teen. Their comprehensive has allowed both to thrive. My dreamer may not have produced excellent on-paper results, but he's engaged and interested in learning.

There are a few kids who have gone straight from no-paper-qualifications into good jobs with prospects, and I think that says a lot for the school; the academically weak haven't ended up disengaged and unemployable. Meanwhile the academically strong are going to do good degrees at good Universities.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Yep - mine both went to a comp and are both doing very well. My friend's four kids could have gone to the same comp but she didn't 'trust' it and sent them all to a private grammar school at huge expense (and a lot of sacrifice). All have left uni and only one has a job.

Children who are going to succeed do so, whatever school you send them to imo.

Folk worry too much.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Children who are going to succeed do so, whatever school you send them to imo.

Yes, and the ones who are going to fail will do so regardless of school as well. But both categories are fairly small - the ends of the bell curve.

It's all the ones in the middle who will succeed or fail based on the education they receive that parents worry about.

Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Children who are going to succeed do so, whatever school you send them to imo.

Actually, in my opinion the truth is closer to: Children who have parents who are committed to being their first and most important life-long teachers succeed. Children who have parents who are committed to their children's education. This doesn't mean they have to be the same level of education of their children, it simply means being involved, reading to them at an early age. There really is a finite limit to what teachers can do. Good teachers *can* inspire children if they have the freedom to do so, but only if children start off in a place where they are even potentially inspirable. If their home lives consists of watching EastEnders, Coronation Street and other stuff, having arrived in reception barely able to string a complete sentence together... there really only is so far you can take them.

I worked for a while in a school in a council estate. At the end of the first day, the teacher asked me 'Guess which four children have parents who have a good work ethic and are consistently employed.' I guessed perfectly. Those four kids are going to succeed in life because their parents have taught them to work and work hard. One boy in the top maths set asked me 'Why should I bother learning this since all I'm gonna do is sit on my arse all day watching TV like my dad does?' By the age of 11 (this was year 6) I didn't really have an answer for him, because in his case it was rhetorical and if you don't care by that point, you'll never care. His parents were the most revolting people I've ever had the misfortune to meet as well... The teachers at that school were absolutely phenomenal. They worked tirelessly to try and find ways to inspire, work creatively, all kinds of things. If you want to talk about adding value to those kids... they arrived barely able to speak, they left able to read and write and do basic maths to a very basic level, some of them to a far more than a basic level. But the kids in that school who are going to succeed are the ones whose parents were committed to their children having a better life than merely subsisting, and realising that education is the key to all that.

And may the parents who have turned kids into slobs and don't care about education and expect teachers to do EVERYTHING for their kids burn in hell for all eternity. It made me incredibly sad or angry, pretty much alternately all the time I worked there and I couldn't stick it for very long. [Mad]

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Originally posted by Marsman TJ:

quote:
if you don't care by that point, you'll never care.

One of the inspirational teachers at my kids' comp gave an impassioned end-of-year speech to a class of 16/17 year olds which finished "And if you don't give a fuck, YOU'RE FUCKED!" Standing ovation from his class. Brilliant teacher.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

TJ Marsman has made the best case that could be made for continuing education. The principle that 'education is wasted on the young' isn't entirely true but many of school age have priorities at odds with learning the contents of the national curriculum in the way OFSTED, Estyn and the equivalents in Scotland and Northern Ireland expect.

Once they are past school leaving age and want to socialise they realise that their contemporaries who have all the fun are those with money and often that means having a job. For those who won't be going to University the impetus seriously arrives at about 17, so it's at that level and stage, traditionally the Cinderella of education we should examine.

Maybe Michael Gove could take that on board, as the requirements for teaching in FE colleges have traditionally been less formal than schoolteaching, those attending are often that bit older and once those who really aren't interested have left (usually in the first term), the students are better self-motivated.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
Children who have parents who are committed to being their first and most important life-long teachers succeed.

It depends. I have seen quite a few crash-and-burn cases in my time following on from over-ambitious parental cramming. On the other hand, dealing with young people whose parents/ friends/ neighbours have actively discouraged them from aiming "too high" is close to heart-breaking.

Posted by Sighthound (# 15185) on :

I would say some time in the 80s, politicians in general, but particularly Conservative ones, decided that 'something wasn't right' with Education and that 'something had to be done.'

This something has been an endless procession of changes, some major, some minor, hardly any of which have been given sufficient time to bed down before being changed again. Now, I will ask a simple question. Does the average person out there think that Education is substantially better conducted than it was in the 60s and 70s? I strongly suspect not, or there wouldn't be the continued appetite for more and more change.

Education is a long-term process. In addition, the resources available to pay for it are limited, and it has to meet the needs of every child. The idea that this can be achieved by trying to go back to a nostalgic world of Mr. Chips - which for most people never existed - is frankly bizarre.

I had the misfortune to attend a state grammar school where most of the teachers were - to put it mildly - eccentric. Not a few of them could have used help from the mental health services, and I do not speak in jest. A minority of these gentlemen did a good job, albeit in a style that would almost certainly not be regarded as 'professional' these days, but the majority should never have been allowed within 100 metres of a classroom. I'm sorry, but that's my honest opinion. I feel the teachers of today, while not perfect, are a step or six above this crowd - and have a much tougher job than the old guys ever did.

My bottom line is that central government should butt the hell out of Education. If I were PM I'd return to the days when the Secretary of State's only power was to authorise the demolition of air raid shelters. I'd scrap OFSTED and the national curriculum and let local communities get on with the job. After all, that's how it was done back in the day - when supposedly everything was wonderful.

[ 02. August 2012, 15:06: Message edited by: Sighthound ]

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Originally posted by Sighthound:

quote:
This something has been an endless procession of changes, some major, some minor, hardly any of which have been given sufficient time to bed down before being changed again.

This process has been going on since about 1840, with the opening of the first teacher training colleges.(Possibly earlier, but I don't know anything about education before 1840.)

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Maybe Michael Gove could take that on board, as the requirements for teaching in FE colleges have traditionally been less formal than schoolteaching....

When my ex was in teacher training (Greater London - late 1960s) they used to recite

Those who can - do

Those who can't - teach

Those who can't teach - teach teachers.

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Children who are going to succeed do so, whatever school you send them to imo.
Actually, in my opinion the truth is closer to: Children who have parents who are committed to being their first and most important life-long teachers succeed. Children who have parents who are committed to their children's education. This doesn't mean they have to be the same level of education of their children, it simply means being involved, reading to them at an early age. There really is a finite limit to what teachers can do. Good teachers *can* inspire children if they have the freedom to do so, but only if children start off in a place where they are even potentially inspirable. If their home lives consists of watching EastEnders, Coronation Street and other stuff, having arrived in reception barely able to string a complete sentence together... there really only is so far you can take them.

I worked for a while in a school in a council estate. At the end of the first day, the teacher asked me 'Guess which four children have parents who have a good work ethic and are consistently employed.' I guessed perfectly. Those four kids are going to succeed in life because their parents have taught them to work and work hard. One boy in the top maths set asked me 'Why should I bother learning this since all I'm gonna do is sit on my arse all day watching TV like my dad does?' By the age of 11 (this was year 6) I didn't really have an answer for him, because in his case it was rhetorical and if you don't care by that point, you'll never care. His parents were the most revolting people I've ever had the misfortune to meet as well... The teachers at that school were absolutely phenomenal. They worked tirelessly to try and find ways to inspire, work creatively, all kinds of things. If you want to talk about adding value to those kids... they arrived barely able to speak, they left able to read and write and do basic maths to a very basic level, some of them to a far more than a basic level. But the kids in that school who are going to succeed are the ones whose parents were committed to their children having a better life than merely subsisting, and realising that education is the key to all that.

And may the parents who have turned kids into slobs and don't care about education and expect teachers to do EVERYTHING for their kids burn in hell for all eternity. It made me incredibly sad or angry, pretty much alternately all the time I worked there and I couldn't stick it for very long.

You might be interested then in the work being done at Durand School in London SW9 which is trying to break the cycle by creating a state boarding school, not so much to separate the kids from their parents (which in some cases may be a good thing) but to keep them away from the perils of the urban environment.

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

Alternatively, you could outsource the process.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sighthound:
I would say some time in the 80s, politicians in general, but particularly Conservative ones, decided that 'something wasn't right' with Education and that 'something had to be done.'

Well before then. I was at school in the 1960s and 1970s. The secondary school system in my home town, Brighton, was radically reorganised about four times in ten years.

Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on :

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
It depends. I have seen quite a few crash-and-burn cases in my time following on from over-ambitious parental cramming. On the other hand, dealing with young people whose parents/ friends/ neighbours have actively discouraged them from aiming "too high" is close to heart-breaking.

I would cautiously suggest that there's a huge difference between being your child's first and most important teacher, and being your child's concentration camp warden. In my experience, many of the over-pushy parents fall into the second camp. 'If you don't produce results you'll be punished' isn't a method that produces good results in any situation, IMO.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
I would cautiously suggest that there's a huge difference between being your child's first and most important teacher, and being your child's concentration camp warden. In my experience, many of the over-pushy parents fall into the second camp. 'If you don't produce results you'll be punished' isn't a method that produces good results in any situation, IMO.

There is a huge difference between those two extremes, yes - but I think there's a sliding scale. I've met quite a few over-ambitious (to my way of thinking) parents, but I don't think I know anybody who would make open threats in that way.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sighthound:
I would say some time in the 80s, politicians in general, but particularly Conservative ones, decided that 'something wasn't right' with Education and that 'something had to be done.'

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Well before then. I was at school in the 1960s and 1970s. The secondary school system in my home town, Brighton, was radically reorganised about four times in ten years.

As the (in)famous quote goes;

quote:
We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganised. Presumably the plans for our employment were being changed. I was to learn later in life that, perhaps because we are so good at organising, we tend as a nation to meet any new situation by reorganising; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization.

Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on :

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
There is a huge difference between those two extremes, yes - but I think there's a sliding scale. I've met quite a few over-ambitious (to my way of thinking) parents, but I don't think I know anybody who would make open threats in that way.

I have, and you're right, there is a sliding scale. There's a big difference between being your child's motivator and your child's driving force. I compare the difference between some of the British Olympic hopeful parents I've seen interviewed this week, where they've talked about the drive of their children to get there and the encouragement they gave, compared to the horrors of what child gymnasts go through in China where they are pushed into pain constantly to perform.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0