"It's not compulsory, y'know, there's no rule which says you must pass this exam."
In England, of course, that is no longer true. One of the key factors determining 'league table position' is the % of first class degrees, which the university has - almost - complete control over. There exists an external verification system but it lacks teeth. So there is considerable pressure on faculties to increase the number of top degrees.
I can't 100% generalise - someone may be along shortly with the opposite view - but many of my family are lecturers or higher, at a range of universities, so I am speaking from real data.
Fabio, this is an interesting post and I shall come back to it. I teach in a grammar school as you know, but I have taught in one of the tougher comprehensives, in an area designated as 'extreme social need'. Even in such a school, good teachers cope better than others, and I know I made a difference to children that would not otherwise have passed their exams. Whether the exams are what they used to be is another matter: they are what they are (teachers have long been excluded from those decisions!) and passing them gives the children choices they would not otherwise have. I'm 100% with you on the purpose of education - a democracy should raise citizens who can take responsibility, ask hard questions, and help those weaker than themselves.
I will say though, having taught in a range of schools, that when there is a consistent discipline policy, which is supported by every member of the staff, the school is very likely to succeed with almost all of its pupils, regardless of their background, ability, attitude, etc. I've seen it done in the toughest schools, and I've left one of the top state schools in the country because it did not do that and the school was failing its pupils as a result. (Exam results were extremely good. They should have been better. That's failure.) When the discipline is inconsistent, or senior staff don't support staff in the front line, the school is very likely to fail many of its pupils, again regardless of their background etc. At the moment I work at a school with a very successful discipline policy. Sanctions are feared by the pupils, because they know, and we know, that if we give them a detention, in the end they will do a detention. They may wriggle a bit, or apply delaying tactics, but I am able to sit down with a child and predict exactly on what day he will do the detention if he applies every delaying tactic in his power, because our discipline policy works. There is a Deputy Head in charge of the 'final' detention, and if they truant that, all hell breaks loose - a letter goes home the next morning and if the parent doesn't give a satisfactory answer, they come in. If they don't come in, we may ask the to keep the child at home until the issue has been resolved. (They come in very quickly then!)
The 'tough' school I referred to earlier had a good OFSTED, then a new Head came. Within twelve months (!) a third of the staff left, recruitment into the new year 7 nosedived and the inspectors came back. We failed that inpsection. In that year I was threatened with knives and lighters by pupils (in my classroom), threatened with 'If you fill in that form, I'll get you done for hitting me', threatened with a brick through my window, followed home (unsuccessfully - they weren't very clever) and sat through a detention where I was literally under siege as a thirteen-year-old-girl kicked the door, threw things at it, shouted abuse at me, for an hour, all because I had kept her friend in detention. The new Head eventually left and , I presume, went to ruin another school. I don't know - I was one of the third who walked. Six of us took a pay cut and jumped, six left teaching altogether, the NQT got a pay rise and a promotion. What a waste of talent!
And now I'm somewhere where I have control in my class, and I teach.
This is all - necessarily - personal and anecdotal; I just thought you might be interested in it. One other thing - usually behind a 'bad child' there's a 'bad parent'. I think the malaise goes a lot further back than the last ten years and I'd be interested in your thoughts on that.
I am sure you are not. But this is exactly the problem: you have a system that CAN be made to work - by a team of exceptionally good teachers with first-rate leadership. For universal education, we need a system that will work at some level of efficiency, and not break down, with mediocre personnel and leadership. We cannot treat all children as if they were ready and willing to learn, nor all teachers as though they were capable of inspiring and enhancing the lives of whole classes. It is good if it happens, but what we need from universal education is results, not heroic efforts.
In England, of course, that is no longer true. One of the key factors determining 'league table position' is the % of first class degrees, which the university has - almost - complete control over. There exists an external verification system but it lacks teeth. So there is considerable pressure on faculties to increase the number of top degrees.
I can't 100% generalise - someone may be along shortly with the opposite view - but many of my family are lecturers or higher, at a range of universities, so I am speaking from real data.
Fabio, this is an interesting post and I shall come back to it. I teach in a grammar school as you know, but I have taught in one of the tougher comprehensives, in an area designated as 'extreme social need'. Even in such a school, good teachers cope better than others, and I know I made a difference to children that would not otherwise have passed their exams. Whether the exams are what they used to be is another matter: they are what they are (teachers have long been excluded from those decisions!) and passing them gives the children choices they would not otherwise have. I'm 100% with you on the purpose of education - a democracy should raise citizens who can take responsibility, ask hard questions, and help those weaker than themselves.
I will say though, having taught in a range of schools, that when there is a consistent discipline policy, which is supported by every member of the staff, the school is very likely to succeed with almost all of its pupils, regardless of their background, ability, attitude, etc. I've seen it done in the toughest schools, and I've left one of the top state schools in the country because it did not do that and the school was failing its pupils as a result. (Exam results were extremely good. They should have been better. That's failure.) When the discipline is inconsistent, or senior staff don't support staff in the front line, the school is very likely to fail many of its pupils, again regardless of their background etc. At the moment I work at a school with a very successful discipline policy. Sanctions are feared by the pupils, because they know, and we know, that if we give them a detention, in the end they will do a detention. They may wriggle a bit, or apply delaying tactics, but I am able to sit down with a child and predict exactly on what day he will do the detention if he applies every delaying tactic in his power, because our discipline policy works. There is a Deputy Head in charge of the 'final' detention, and if they truant that, all hell breaks loose - a letter goes home the next morning and if the parent doesn't give a satisfactory answer, they come in. If they don't come in, we may ask the to keep the child at home until the issue has been resolved. (They come in very quickly then!)
The 'tough' school I referred to earlier had a good OFSTED, then a new Head came. Within twelve months (!) a third of the staff left, recruitment into the new year 7 nosedived and the inspectors came back. We failed that inpsection. In that year I was threatened with knives and lighters by pupils (in my classroom), threatened with 'If you fill in that form, I'll get you done for hitting me', threatened with a brick through my window, followed home (unsuccessfully - they weren't very clever) and sat through a detention where I was literally under siege as a thirteen-year-old-girl kicked the door, threw things at it, shouted abuse at me, for an hour, all because I had kept her friend in detention. The new Head eventually left and , I presume, went to ruin another school. I don't know - I was one of the third who walked. Six of us took a pay cut and jumped, six left teaching altogether, the NQT got a pay rise and a promotion. What a waste of talent!
And now I'm somewhere where I have control in my class, and I teach.
This is all - necessarily - personal and anecdotal; I just thought you might be interested in it. One other thing - usually behind a 'bad child' there's a 'bad parent'. I think the malaise goes a lot further back than the last ten years and I'd be interested in your thoughts on that.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment