Education

Here is the link to Debra's letter - this time with the square brackets around it to make a hyperlink. Lesson learned - always read instructions properly first!
debrakidd.wordpress.com/2013/04/17/calling-all-parents/

I agree with everything she says - I thought Gradgrind was fictional.

I deprecate strongly Michael Gove's belief that education occurs only in school.

I reckon that when I and my children were young we learnt as much during the holidays as we did in school term. We read omnivorously, mainly about subjects that interested us. We made things, usually from materials lying around and we went out into the countryside, when we lived in the country and walked around town and visited museums etc (they were all free then) when we lived in towns.

DS made his decision to become an archaeologist at the age of 4 after finding broken bits of tile and glazed in the garden at home and cultivated this interest over his childhood by his holiday activities as the subject was not on the school curriculum. He is now a university lecturer in the subject.

My DGC are having a similar childhood. DS and family have just been to stay for a week. DGC are nearly 3 and 6, accepted both their parents work in the past, DDiL is a museum exhibition designer, we visited 6 , mainly small local, museums, which the children love. Went on three nature adventures, and a long walk to see the white horse on the Berkshire Downs at Uffington.

It was fun. We had a lovely time together, we played games indoors that included counting and had cuddles and lots of reading. The children were completely unaware how educational all this was, so were we, we were just enjoying ourselves.

This increasingly reactionary and regressive approach to education distresses me; after 35 years in teaching and teacher training, I have watched and worked with each change that each self promoting Minister for Education thought up, watched the wheel turn full circle and turn again.

Gove doesn't actually talk about education, he talks about drilling - as Greatnan remarks, it's the Gradgrind approach. Children are not little pitchers waiting to be filled up with facts (I'm not denying the utility of facts!) and anyway, pitchers have a strong tendency to leak when they are over filled.

Education is about life in every shape and form, and the best learning often takes place when the learners have no idea that they are learning. You are so right, Flickety!

Why does Gove think it is important for teachers in early years to be well qualified (with which I agree) but OK for teachers in secondary school to be unqualified? The Department has taken Kathy Nutbrown's recommendation that teachers in early years should be better qualified and better paid and said the costs can be met by employing fewer. Which as she has said is nonsense. Some dork on Today this morning said a good teacher can manage a class of 60 while a poor teacher has problems with a group of 10. Where does one start with such rubbish? How many under-5s can a 'good teacher' manage? Do they realise there are babies in nursery provision? And of course, the inspection criteria previously graded 'satisfactory' will now be graded 'in need of improvement'. Gradgrind, meet Big Brother.

I am so delighted with your responses to this. Thank you so much for taking the time to read Debra's letter. I hope you signed too. So many signatures have been received that they have started collating them here:
www.thinking-about-education.co.uk/parents-petition/
It is fine for a grandparent to sign as a parent.

Re the 'unqualified' staff bit - my husband is a teacher and has no PGCE qualification. He does have degrees, but not in education, so I think that is what is meant. This means that for many years he has been able to teach in the private sector, but not in the public. As his school regularly comes fairly near the top of the league tables for maths (he is head of the department), I think the government would perhaps like to be able to import people like him into the public sector.

Other people that used to be used for teaching in secondary schools were businessmen, to teach business studies, and solicitors, to teach Law. People who have actual practical experience of the subject, but who would not be able to spend thousands of pounds, and years of their lives, to retrain.

janerowena Post-graduate teacher training does not concentrate on subject/s being taught but on how to teach effectively, looking at every aspect of the teacher/learner relationship. This includes examining issues like: What are the the purposes of education? How do people learn? Are there differences in the way individual people learn? How can different "learning styles" be catered for within the classroom? what "barriers" to learning can affect a person's ability to learn effectively and how can they be overcome? What "techniques" can be employed to reinforce helpful behaviour and reduce disruptive behaviour? etc., etc. Someone may well have an in-depth knowledge of, and passion for, a subject but no idea how to engage and motivate other people. A good example of this was David Starkie in the TV "school experiment", who is obviously very knowledgeable about his subject but who managed to alienate just about everybody.

I think a teacher should have a passion for the subject she/he is teaching and no doubt your husband has this and is a good teacher. However, I still think it's important for teachers to have the sort of training that the PGCE offers. I think this is especially the case for those teaching in the state system, which faces many more challenges than the private system, especially with regard to resources.

I think "unqualified teachers" may also mean people who may or may not have a degree and who may or may not have done training to be classroom assistants. If classroom assistant training/experience (with or without a degree) is all that is required to teach a class, then why have teacher training at all? That, to my mind, is a bit of a "slippery slope".

I believe for people who have a subject-specific degree, they can obtain a PGCE through work-based training, which means they are paid during the training period of 1 to 2 years. (If I'm wrong, gransnetters with recent experience of teaching please correct me)

Eloethan I agree, though I am not a teacher. I will repeat what I have said before in relation to my own profession: a qualification is essential but not sufficient in itself. There may be unqualified teachers who are very good at their jobs, but in my opinion they would be even better with a teaching qualification for all the reasons you give.

I have known incredibly highly qualified teachers who have actually been awful at dealing with children. By the same token, i have worked with some teachers with 'Certificate in Education' (I am one myself) who have been inspirational and amazing teachers.
I think the issues go way beyond this point as every day there seems to be another proclamation - each one becoming increasingly more absurd than the last one. Our children need skills to survive in a difficult world. I totally agree with Ariadne. They are not pitchers to be filled with knowledge. They are individuals with different needs and we simply cannot attempt to 'drill' them into learning.
I would hope that in the future we support those who want to be plumbers, builders, electricians and engineers as well as those who want to be brain surgeons and astrophysicists. University-type education is not for everyone and we shouldn't be trying to squeeze all children through those hoops, but try to help them be the best that each of them can be.

I agree with all the above and would fight to the death for Child Centred Education which has had a bad press and some past bad exponents, it must be said.

With regard to the teaching of SEN children . When I visited mainstream schools to meet children coming to our special school. They were often taught by a teaching assistant rather than the qualified teacher. S/he would advise the TA but it was no substitute for face to face teaching from the professional. [perhaps not all schools do this!]

We all thought long and hard before sending our grandson with special needs to a mainstream school but were so glad we did as he has come on so well despite having a TA for much of the day. His problem is autism so he finds it difficult to conform to a group. His TA is an ordinary "granny" though I do wonder if she is trained as she has been known to take the class on the odd occasion. She really likes him and he likes her and their delight at seeing one another at the beginning of the day is a joy to behold. They have a communication book in which she can write down what he has done in the day and my DD can write if he has had a bad night etc. The main thing is that he has learnt to read and write and is apparently above average in reading. He does struggle with Maths though.

His main problem is some of the other children who can be quite nasty to him because of his differences. If there is bullying it is dealt swiftly by the school but he is often excluded from friendship groups and called "crazy" but I think this worries my DD rather than him. What the future holds for him is unsure but I am convinced that mainstream is better for him. Otherwise how is going to be able to cope with "normal" people in the future?

There is a good article here:
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/18/michael-gove-disdain-experts-typical-ideologues

If anyone is a fan of Gove's reforms, perhaps they would like to explain to the rest of us how to teach "Anglo-Saxon heptarchy" to seven year olds, as required by the new history curriculum. Any takers?

He's so pig-headed, and how original to describe anyone who disagrees with you as being a "marxist".

I don't know what "Anglo-Saxon heptarchy" is myself, so good luck to the teachers with that one.

Nothing wrong with teaching seven year olds about Anglo- Saxon Britain. Hierarchy is how the country used to be divided up into little "kingdoms". Very exciting for kids. (Kings and knights!)

Kindle fire said hierarchy, not me. Heptarchy

Ahah! Fire has a mind of its own like an iPad then!

My sister was off school on the day they 'did' long division, by rote. Nobody ever explained to her the point of place value and she has never been able to understand arithmetic. If you show a child how a solution is reached, it doesn't matter if he forgets the exact forumula, he will be able to work it out.

I agree that all teachers need some training in child psychology and classroom skills, etc. Again, I have known some brilliant people who loved their subject and were quite unable to relate to children.
I chose to specialise in remedial teaching, and was asked by one young teacher if I did it because I couldn't get a better job. As I was much more highly qualified than she was, I was able to say that I actually liked teaching children with special needs, but many in the staffroom were contemptuous of 'my' children.

I think that history should be broadly chronological though. I have met many children who had done 'projects' with probationary teachers on The Romans, The Saxons, and The Tudors, but they had no idea of the time scale involved or even the order. Making models of Roman towns is fine, but they need to be able to see the broad sweep of British history, with invasion, integration, etc. and see how one period influenced the next.

Most people don't think that because they have had a tooth out, they could be a dentist, but I know a lot of people who have never been inside a classroom since they left school, but are bar-room experts on teaching.

Teaching history chronologically does not mean, though, that young children will understand time just because they have done history in order. You need to revisit, developing concepts and understanding every time. I think young children are easily captivated by Romans, Ancient Greeks, Egyptians, but trudging through chronologically from the Stone Age will not automatically mean that they understand the timespan involved. That comes slowly with age and maturity. I think seven year olds can enjoy some bits of Anglo-Saxon history, but abstract concepts about how the country was ruled? Seriously?
You are right though Greatnan, everyone is an expert on teaching, secondary school teachers think they understand primary and people think they know all about it because they went to school. I have been to the doctors, but I wouldn't care to prescribe!

Yes Mamie. Seriously. Nothing abstract about how Britain was divided up and the kingdoms fought over.

I think it's best to teach it chronologically. It's the history of Britain you're teaching. Not little fun projects from here and there.

Anyone see the last episode of The Village, where the kids were learning the kings and queens of England by rote? Bring it on I say!

I think understanding the pressures on the monarchy, and the politics behind it, would be more use than just learning by rote. I used to know the dates and names, but now I just google them!

Would be interested in an exposition of the pedagogy of teaching that to Year 2, JO8. How did you deal with differentiation in your classroom?

It used to be the thing to teach by rote , so i am led to believe , What better for small children ?

Believe it is now coming back.

Don"t you just love Fridays , start of the weekend , even though we do what Mr & Myself [companions in arms ] whatever we feel like in the week anyways .

Just feels different , Great !

Enjoy your weekend , whatever you may be doing .

[Moon]