General Chat

Ann, I'm the youngest of 4 and the only one to pass the 11+, which I did in Cornwall. During the summer holidays, (between primary and secondary schools) we moved to Hampshire.
Mum thought the level of education in Cornwall was lower than Hampshire, and the 11+ must have been easier, so she decided I should go to the local Secondary Modern.
They wouldn't have me, so I went to the Grammar :-D

John, when does an anomaly become the norm?
When I was at Uni, the education lecturers had no idea of the alleged and false correlation between free school meals and statemented children.

I'd also like to point out that, schools regard 'Services' children (those whose parents defend the country) as a problem, because they change schools so often, and caravan dwellers as 'travellers', and (nowadays) an 'ethnic minority' - and a problem.

So, being 'Services' children my siblings and I would leave the caravan where we lived to go to a new school, only to find we were doubly 'labelled' as problem children before we arrived :-|

This meant we were immediately 'put in our place' In Scotland, my 9 year old sister was told to 'stop putting on that stupid voice'. What stupid voice? Her English received pronunciation voice that we'd picked up in Malta! I started school (aged 5) a few weeks after her, and, by then had picked up quite a good NE Scottish accent. Far from being problem children, we picked up things quickly - it was called survival!

We never had any books (apart from an Enid Blyton book - and I've never liked her books), but I could read before I started school. I used to read my brothers Beano and Dandy. By the time I was 6, I could read, understand, and enjoy 'The Broons' and Oor Wullie',

That's a wonderful story, Annx. It is easy to be cross with your dad, but his attitude was not atypical in those days. Daughters only had jobs to keep them out of the house and give them pocket money.

In my first job, I was paid £7 a week as a bank clerk on my first day. All of the women (5 of them) were quite experienced yet on a totally different pay scale to men and their only career move was to be a Welfare Officer in London Head Office.

In Wolverhampton, only the top 100 or so girls every year escaped this. They went to the Girls High School and it was expected they would go to University and the Professions (teaching, nursing , lawyer). Not the Dark Ages - this was 1960'ish.

Absolutely true JJ, the Asian folk I used to work with had an expectation that their children should not waste the education they were so lucky to have and took a great interest in how they were doing at school. That is why so many are now dentists, doctors, opticians and going into law.

My parents didn't have much money when I was little, there were very few books at home and I was an only child until I was about 9 so no older siblings to learn from. I had little encouragement but was taught to count to 20, the colours and alphabet, to write my name and to tie a shoelace before I started school. Dad did test me on spelling and my times tables when I asked him to, but his encouragement was to ridicule you if you didn't get things right! He didn't believe in educating girls, thought it was a waste of money, so disapproved of and made me do my homework where the telly was on so electric wouldn't be wasted. Despite his disapproval and insistence I was 'thick' I was determined to prove him wrong. I took and failed my 11 plus at the age of 7, but passed it at the usual time, aged 11. I went to the grammar school then, but my mother wasn't allowed to attend parents evenings in case I became big headed. I used to walk up the lane and sit on a stile to revise for my GCE 'O' levels as he disapproved of that as well, thought it shouldn't be necessary if you were 'up to it'. I still passed 9 GCE O Levels all at the first sitting and got between 1 and 3 in five subjects, but all he did was grunt without looking up from his paper when he heard. Then, of course, I was told I should be working and paying board and that I could forget University, so I had to leave school. He told me the only reason I had gone to grammar school was nothing to do with being intelligent, it was only because he had 'ALLOWED' it!!

I think every child and their circumstance is different, you don't know what goes on in a child's home, however things may appear and shouldn't just concentrate on whether a child is from a poor home. Some of those still have loving, encouraging, supportive parents. Some from better off homes do not and suffer unseen mental impoverishment.

Maggie. No idea how they got their facts. But you will always get stories that break the trend, and you have to develop policies according to generalisations and make sure anomolies are catered for. There will only be 4 out of 10 children from a poor background who will be offerered extra tiuition into the evening, for example. But 72% of boys from a white British background. That;s the way I read it.

I would assume, if it is an influential cross party committee, that a lot of knowledgeable people were called to give evidence. It is only their sixth report in four years. And the general trend seems to be to get away from 9-3 M-F schools. I remember one of first City Technology Colleges in Telford (must have been early 1990's) and how they shocked education establishment locally by having 8 hour days and four ten week terms.

Personally, I'd query their findings and how they got them.
There's a lot of dodgy preconceived/stereotyped ideas held by academics and ministers.
Schools get extra funding for the number of free school meals taken at school. It is then assumed it is the children who receive these free meals who are the recipients of the extra help the money funds. Why?

This is my story of the stereotyping of a 'type'.
I'm a (divorced) single parent. When my youngest was 8 she heard a minister on the radio declaring that the children of single parents were the scourge of the education system, with statemented children who could hardly dress themselves and didn't know how to behave. This upset her a lot - she took it personally.
Daughter did her own 'survey' - I was a LSA at the school she attended, but didn't help her in her 'survey'.
She noted down every child who constantly misbehaved, was a pain in the wotsit or who she thought was statemented, then worked out whether they lived with one or two parents.
Of the 10 pupils she named (and she was correct in her guessing), 1 came from a single parent family. She was a bit out - there were 21 statemented children, and 6 children came from 4 single parent families - the other 15 came from 8 two parent families. So, twice as many 'problem' 2 parent families than single parent families.

That 'scourge of the education system' went on to University.
Her elder sister had a daughter out of wedlock. That child was in the 'talented & gifted' group of children at primary school.
Elder daughter went on to get married. She has another 2 children - boys. Both are tongue tied. The elder boy has a lisp. The younger boy has quite bad speech difficulties with certain sounds - but perfect understanding. Not many 3 year olds would tell their mother (in the right context) to 'stop being so obnoxious'!! :-D

So how many would presume the younger boy has speech difficulties because his mother was 'too busy on her mobile', rather than a physical problem?
Not only does his mother talk to him constantly and try to find ways to correct his speech, his siblings do the same, because they realise how frustrating it is for him.
I wasn't happy when the speech therapist said he needed to play more board games with others (he plays them all the time with his siblings) - and that he had a behavioural problem. He's just a bad loser!
I'd be the first to say if he had behavioural problems - he hasn't. He gets bored, has the odd tantrum, but hardly 'behavioural problems'

Sweeping statements denigrating whole swathes of society are naïve, dangerous, and hurtful and usually spouted out by ignorant buffoons who know nothing of the 'real' world.

Oh - and that single parent (obviously, in the eyes of 'Mail' readers some sort of ignorant slapper) went on to get a degree (in Religious Studies, and Education - a double, not together) aged 43, so I sort of know what I'm talking about.

Many thanks for those very interesting posts, DET and Andy's Mum. Hope I haven't missed anyone, because I have really enjoyed all the posts so far.

Have not really looked much at the work of the Education Select Committee before today but, if the Chair (a Tory MP) gives Mr Gove a hard time, they are probably good guys.

Certainly they are offering ways to bring some of these poorer children to attain much higher levels, and - whilst poverty must be significant - there is clear evidence that ethnic children in poverty are achieving at much higher levels than white British children.

Probably a lot more hope within Indian families, for example. That positivity about the future and the value of an education (which is only freely available in one Indian state, I believe) must mean they value education quite highly. Also Indian families spend a lot more time chatting together, and no great evidence of mobile phones or social networking on computers.

Interesting thread.

When I, and my sons, started school it was in the term after the 5th birthday. You then went up to Junior School after 2 years, or 2 years and 1 term, or 2 years and 2 terms. This immediately put some children at a disadvantage as they were all treated as being at the same level.

My grandchildren, in Hampshire, started school the September after the 4th birthday, so some were just 4 and others were nearly 5.

I read somewhere recently that the number of children starting school without proper communication skills has risen dramatically. The reason, apparantly, is mobile phones!

Instead of talking to their children, parents are too busy texting their mates! I can remember pushing my son down to the shops in his pram and talking almost non-stop, pointing out buses, cars, birds, trees etc. These days lots of Mums have the buggy in one hand and the mobile in the other.

Mention has been made of University Technical Colleges with the assumption that they are similar to the old Technical Schools. Here's a link to those that are around

http://www.utcolleges.org/utcs/

They seem all well and good if the student has an interest in the specialities offered, but not if they aren't!

As to the original aspect of low performing students from poor working class backgrounds - one does have to wonder how much is nature versus nurture?
If the parent(s) was/were low achievers, they may not think that their children should be encouraged to apply themselves to their studies. If they did all right (in the period of high employment) with no or poor grade qualifications, then its good enough for their children.

There is also the belief amongst certain segments of society who think that 'they' (in this instance schools) should be totally responsible in educating their children with no input from the parent.

An earlier poster said that they had been into homes where there wasn't a book in sight. A friend whose school had a Housing Association Estate in their catchment area said that many of the homes she visited as part of the Primary admission process had a massive flat screen TV and shelves of DVDs, but no toys to be seen, not even tidied away into a corner.

In the majority of cases, the parent/s weren't working so had ample opportunity to borrow books from the library or encourage crafts (fine motor skills). Even though living on Benefits isn't easy, there are cheap or free ways to help prepare your child for school and to support them when they are there.

This particular school had been identified as being in a deprived area. As such, all year 6 pupils were loaned with personal laptop. Admittedly if their family didn't have access to the internet, the LT wouldn't be much good at home. The Feed back was that a number of parents had sold them; there was at least one instance where the parent tried to sell it back to the teacher!

My grandson attends a Welsh school for half a day every day alternating each week between mornings and afternoons. He has since September when he was 3 yrs 2 mths. He loves it, putting on his uniform and being in a class with all his friends is a definite plus, learning how to socialise and show respect for adults. Also learning that he ISN'T number ONE in the great scheme of things...lolol

So I believe that getting little ones into school as soon as possible is good for them.

Edit: Interesting article, no personal phones allowed in the school. That would be a good start in the UK!

I read about that when I was training, Sirius, there were schools similar to that here in the UK as well. Summerhill is the most famous.

One big problem I see in schools at the moment is the constant testing and the pressure on teachers to drag children through the tests with good results. Some end up teaching for the test rather than educating the children in its proper sense.

My father (an old fashioned schoolmaster) would have said something about silk purses out of cows' ears. Not all children are suited to an academic education but there is no longer any provision for them because Gove wants them to have lots of certificates.

Supercrutch "One size does not fit all and never will. " spot on :-)

Someone might be interested in this article I came across a few days ago

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27813929

"read the contents of a sauce bottle, jar of jam ANYTHING"

That's how some of us were fluent in French, Sue :-D Cette sauce de haute qualitie est un melange des fruits orienteux ac ati.

Had forgotten the 3 streams at 11. That was a bit cruel - as secondary modern was a "fail". And even those that got into grammar school at 13 or 14 were disadvantaged because they were strangers to rest of class. Yoiu could cram for 11 plus and appear in the top 2% rather than top 30%.

Many are mad keen for return of grammar schools. My OH is - reckons
Comps were worst thing ever to happen. I think ( for all their faults and failings) Comprehensives are best system - and independent of faith and politics, as far as possible.

Most schools don't take children until they are rising five, Sirius, I don't know of any that take them any younger. There are nurseries that take them younger.

One of the reasons why some children are still in nappies when they start school is that schools are taking them younger surely? when I started it was age 5 , 4 and a bit if you happened to be born certain months. Now they start part time at 3, which yes is late to be out of nappies, but not that late from my experience of childcare. ( Could this be also in part down to the use of disposables, lol when they had to be washed it was certainly an incentive to get babies out of them asap)

I've been in homes where there are no books, the children don't see the adults read so they come to think of books not with anticipation of something nice but just something to be 'done at school'...and the parents seem to think that too. ( that's a generalisation of course) .

I watched PMQ's today and was struck by the statement that new technical colleges were to open (under the guise of Universities).

In the 50s and 60s we had good primary education (I still have my reports so I know what was taught). After sitting the 11 plus there were three options depending upon your results: grammar, technical college (senior school) and secondary modern.

Those three options provided the appropriate education for the vast majority of childrens' academic abilities. Since the, IMO, dumbed down education and the need to provide an equal platform education has gone to the dogs!

Teachers are faced with a class of children, some of them certainly not suited to learning science or math. The effect is disadvantaging all children, those that are capable are held back and those that aren't are being deprived of learning a skill that will serve them well in the job market.

One size does not fit all and never will.

Primary school children should be out of nappies, able to socialise and have a rudimentary knowledge of spelling and counting. No matter how old we are I'll guarantee that we have ALL missed a lesson and have had trouble catching up. Imagine being so far behind your peers at 5 that you will never catch up.

It is the parents' responsibility to at least encourage their children to learn at a very young age. I know some families don't have the money for books and libraries are closing but they can read the contents of a sauce bottle, jar of jam ANYTHING to hand that will engage them.

Also stop them watching the inane programmes aimed at toddlers in which the characters speak in tongues!

Sorry I know I am rambling but I'm angry!

I would also add that I wish Portage would be taken more seriously.

http://www.nhs.uk/CarersDirect/guide/kinds/Pages/portage.aspx

I am sure that children with early learning difficulties are spotted very early on (long before school). And mothers are often desperate to help their child. Portage is just an hour a week of handholding for the mother and child by a qualified Portage teacher. And then daily activities for mum to practise with child.

One of our children had Portage in Shropshire. Was 2 years behind contemporaries aged 3-6, yet obtained a good degree eventually. It is a fantastic and simple scheme, but after we left Shropshire the County Council had made both county teachers redundant in some cost cutting measures back about 1990.

Schooling looking back seemed pretty brown and boring. I do remember 3 exciting developments that seemed a bit left field in those days:

1. Gordonstoun (where Prince Philip and Prince Charles attended)
2. Montessori schools.
3. Summerhill School in Leiston, Suffolk.

Training for the professions (army, teaching, medicine etc) is probably very little different than 50 years ago. But it is the traditional working class jobs that have changed. Where did youngsters work in 1960? Coal mines, steelworks, chemical factories, car makers. Where do they work now? Fast food restaurants, supermarkets, call centres. Very different world for them.

Thankyou Guinevere and Kay for interesting posts there. Just popping out but will read properly when I get back.

They seem more confident John, but I am not sure that they are, there are more teenage suicides than I ever remember. Bad behaviour in class is perhaps a sign of less self confidence rather than more? eg if you don't understand what is being taught or you are bored, then you misbehave? That's how it was when I was at school, but I do remember that the best teachers did not have that problem even with the naughtiest children...you wanted to do well for that teacher because they were inspirational, that went for the least academic as for the most.

It's true I never challenged a teacher's authority, but the cane was not idle so there must have been plenty who did ( though that wasn't in primary school...I can't remember what punishment there was there).

Quite right Sirius,,,,my daughter spend hours going out of her way doing projects that are interesting and enjoyable ,,,all that within the curriculum for her pupils,but the whole teaching system has changed ,,,,,they aim for academic standard right from primary to high........not like years ago,if you could write your name,spell and add up,a job waited round the next corner that you could be well suited for,,,,,,,,

(I often spend time cutting out card or doing other stuff for one of her projects,because she just doesnt have time)

They do have TA to give assistance to those who need that little extra help during lessons,but they are having to up their game with NVQ.

But what also be remembered is not to picture the child that goes home to an ideal organised home after school,,,,,,single mum,3 children two at home under school age, her life is dis-organised topsy turvy and she's had the most terrible day with 2 screaming children,,,,all she wants to do is,,,get them fed and in bed.