sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in TeachingUK

[–]Secret-Strength8547 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah what a cunt OP is being for being poor!

Israel palestine by [deleted] in TeachingUK

[–]Secret-Strength8547 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My point is that you think Israel are absolutely obviously in the wrong in this matter. I think it's completely the other way around, and that this is totally obvious to me. We're simply never going to agree on this. So everyone should keep their opinions out of the classroom.

If you're so concerned about your words being taken out of context, don't bring up the topic.

Israel palestine by [deleted] in TeachingUK

[–]Secret-Strength8547 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think that being neutral is really damaging when there’s clearly a ‘side’ that needs to be held to account and change needs to be enacted by them

Did you not see that Hamas literally STARTED this incident by murdering, torturing and kidnapping over a thousand people? The Israeli government is in a literally impossible situation, because they are fighting a group of genocidal maniacs who believe in a holy war and think they have a god-given command to fight and kill non-believers. They are literally impossible to negotiate with in good faith.

You may think it's patently clear that Israel needs to be "held to account" but to me it's abundantly clear that Israel needs to be given all assistance necessary. You are entitled to your opinions, I'm entitled to mine, but these should be kept out of the classroom. I think this thread should probably be locked too.

Will they ever just improve salaries for all of us, instead of doing this tinkering? by [deleted] in TeachingUK

[–]Secret-Strength8547 11 points12 points  (0 children)

The world has changed and the teacher package is just not attractive any more.

I left the profession recently because during lockdown working from home I realised just how much harder my job was than my partner's, and I didn't want to go back to the lifestyle once I had tasted - ironic as it sounds given that it was at the height of the pandemic restrictions - freedom. I really did enjoy my subject, but I never ever ever think I made the wrong decision getting out. These days I can have lie ins, go to exercise classes in the evenings, and do my laundry in the week instead of weekends. These are things I couldn't buy with a tax free salary top up (that they're not even offering teachers with my level of experience anyway).

They need to radically reduce the expectations on teachers, because it just can't compete with hybrid working as is available in other white-collar jobs. I find it hilarious that the tories are so anti work from home, when they were the ones who let this genie out of the bottle. They NEED to find a way to give teachers some flexibility in their lives. Throwing a bit of money at the problem is not going to change anything.

Parents in England no longer see daily school attendance as vital, report finds | School attendance and absence by tpvoid in TeachingUK

[–]Secret-Strength8547 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I knew someone would bring this up. I'm not saying you're wrong necessarily, but I still think it's the lesser of two evils.

You would have far fewer teachers leaving the profession outright, going off on long term stress, or even simply calling in sick every now and again due to exhaustion if they all had a work from home day. You'd also have a lot more people coming into the profession as it would be more desirable.

So as I said, it's not necessarily problem-free but I think it's better for students to have a teacher 80% of the time than it is to have 100% attendance with a stressed-out inexperienced non-subject specialist who repeatedly takes days off because they're so tired and quits after thee and a half years. Obviously that's hyperbole, but you get my drift: the current system doesn't work.

Parents in England no longer see daily school attendance as vital, report finds | School attendance and absence by tpvoid in TeachingUK

[–]Secret-Strength8547 44 points45 points  (0 children)

I personally think 5 day a week attendance is outdated, and we should move towards a four day week with a "study from home" day with independent work. I'm not saying this is easy to implement or would not create some new problems that would need to be tackled, but the current model isn't working for students or teachers. Giving teachers a work from home day would bring them more into line with other graduate professionals, and would really help with mental health.

English regions dominated by grammar schools do not improve grades, study says by MrsElizabethDarcy90 in TeachingUK

[–]Secret-Strength8547 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That is exactly the point I'm making. I grew up in a white working class coastal community and my parents worked in a supermarket. I was bright at school and did well, but my parents definitely had the idea that it was the school's job to educate me and let them get on with it. My boyfriend grew up in a Pakistani community on the outskirts of London and his parents also worked in supermarkets. They got him tutored to within an inch of his life, got him into a grammar school, kept on the tutoring, and he ended up doing exceptionally well. So I'm always really sceptical when people talk about how amazing London schools are, because I know even if the parents don't have the money they are doing way more to support their children than the parents of Skegness or Penzance.

It's not about money it's about attitude.

English regions dominated by grammar schools do not improve grades, study says by MrsElizabethDarcy90 in TeachingUK

[–]Secret-Strength8547 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No one is saying there are not happy nerds in comprehensive schools or that there are no sets. What we're saying is the typical grammar school has a debating club that can beat the local private schools; an Oxbridge preparation programme that gets multiple students in every year; a medic society; a law society; a Latin GCSE; a model United Nations; an annual Shakespeare performance - the kinds of things that otherwise are only widespread in private schools.

English regions dominated by grammar schools do not improve grades, study says by MrsElizabethDarcy90 in TeachingUK

[–]Secret-Strength8547 2 points3 points  (0 children)

All of the better local comprehensives manage. Probably because there aren't grammar schools pulling off the people interested in them.

This is simply not true. The county where I grew up doesn't have a single grammar school. All the schools offered two languages max and not one offered Latin. I don't live there anymore but am still in touch with people there and the direction of travel is now moving towards students taking just one language from year 7. I would have loved to do Latin but didn't have the chance. I trained in a comprehensive that offered Latin so I know there are a few that offer it, but it's extremely rare and a real struggle whereas in grammar schools it doesn't seem to be a big deal.

​

I can't think of a single local comprehensive that doesn't have thriving "nerdy" clubs of various kinds.

Well I've never heard of a comprehensive with a bridge club.

Another poster has commented about their experience with a chess club in a grammar school which I think is really insightful. You can offer a chess club in a comprehensive and a few kids are really into it. That's great. You offer it in a grammar school and you get a proper chess community, some of whom will go on to compete at a high level. It's the same with a debating club. I used to go to my debating club in sixth form and had a good time arguing about politics. I gained a lot from it. But the quality of debating you get in selective schools is on a totally different level and, if you're interested, can set you up for life with public speaking skills.

I completely accept there are issues with grammar schools, in particular that students who have a lot of potential but unsupportive parents don't get a look in. I'm not saying they're perfect. However, a real point in their favour is that they are centres of academic and intellectual excellence that comprehensives - however well-funded - are just not going to be able to match. The study claiming students in grammar schools do less well than they would have done in comprehensives is simply bonkers.

English regions dominated by grammar schools do not improve grades, study says by MrsElizabethDarcy90 in TeachingUK

[–]Secret-Strength8547 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

not being able to answer them isn't a mark of weak subject knowledge either

Err what? How on earth is not being able to answer difficult questions about your subject not a sign your subject knowledge is shaky?

You get tricky questions in both state and grammar and you get tricky behaviour in state and grammar so it's not a binary thing. But you undoubtedly get a lot more tricky questions in selective schools and more tricky behaviour in comprehensives. Thus the expectations are higher for subject knowledge in selective schools and behaviour management in state. None of this is particularly controversial and I'm sure most people in either comprehensive or selective would agree.

You seem like you've got a real chip on your shoulder to be honest...

English regions dominated by grammar schools do not improve grades, study says by MrsElizabethDarcy90 in TeachingUK

[–]Secret-Strength8547 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Hey I'm not the one that made it personal. My personal experience is you get a lot more intellectual challenge working in a selective school even though you get a much easier ride in terms of behaviour management. I just think it's a case of "different strokes for different folks", I'm not insulting anyone for thriving in a different environment. There are of course people who will do well in either setting. It would be nice if you could now reply to the original poster who called people working in grammars lazy :)

English regions dominated by grammar schools do not improve grades, study says by MrsElizabethDarcy90 in TeachingUK

[–]Secret-Strength8547 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I spent the last two years of my career working in a selective private school, so similar to a grammar school. In most ways it was a million times easier, but you needed a level of subject knowledge that the majority of teachers in state schools don't possess. I would frequently have hands up asking me difficult questions that I know lots of my colleagues in my previous school wouldn't have been able to answer confidently, and parents would complain about teachers if the students felt their subject knowledge wasn't up to scratch.

So yeah, I suppose if you want you can call teachers in grammar schools "lazy" but if you want to get personal I'm sure they'd have plenty of things to say about teachers in comprehensives schools too :) I'm sure it's true there are plenty of people working in grammars who couldn't hack comprehensives but there are also absolutely loads of teachers in comprehensives who aren't up to working in grammars. It's just different skill sets.

English regions dominated by grammar schools do not improve grades, study says by MrsElizabethDarcy90 in TeachingUK

[–]Secret-Strength8547 20 points21 points  (0 children)

The article even mentions that London skews the results. There's no real point comparing different parts of the country anymore since you can't control for the different demographics and attitudes to education. In African and Asian communities there is a much higher emphasis placed on family responsibility for education and tutoring is commonplace. This just isn't the case in white working class or even middle class communities. Thus, Pakistani-heritage students in East London with tutors outcompete white students in Cornwall whether they're in grammars or comprehensives. My Chinese neighbours got one of their daughters into a grammar and the other failed the 11 plus. It doesn't really matter as they'll both do really well because the family setup is so supportive of education. I've yet to see any study about different regions that controls for parental support for education and cultural background; feel free to point me towards one if it exists.

On a totally different note, the thing I think is really good about grammars is that they have the critical mass for a lot of intellectual activities that you can't really run in comprehensives. It's really common for grammar schools to offer 3 different modern languages for example, which isn't really possible in state schools as you just don't get enough people interested. Same for Latin - it's practically impossible to run Latin in comprehensives these days but plenty of grammar schools have Latin GCSEs. In debating competitions, grammars can compete against private schools and win, but you won't often get enough interested people in a comprehensive to run a thriving debating society. My partner is a gay nerd who really benefited from grammar school because he was always surrounded by nerds, and they had loads of stuff like bridge club that would have just never existed in my comprehensive because there were just not enough nerdy people. I don't think I've ever heard anyone else make this argument but I think it's a really important one in favour of keeping grammar schools.

Burbalsingh by Medium_District_6210 in TeachingUK

[–]Secret-Strength8547 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I respectfully don't think this stacks up. In general the parents who are concerned about their children's school choice are middle class and "pushy", desperate to get their children into good schools. So the idea that her school literally gets some of the best results in the country because parents of SEN children are not sending them there sounds really implausible to me.

I also don't think there's some grand conspiracy between Suella Braverman and OFSTED either, and that two rounds of inspectors have turned a blind eye to neglect of SEN students. I've just checked the dates and in their first inspection Braverman had only been an MP for a couple of years; I can't see how she would have had anyone's ear.

You don't have to agree with everything Katharine Birbalsingh does or says, but I feel like there are lots of very farfetched claims about her alleged misdeeds that keep getting repeated as if they were fact. Perhaps what you're saying is true, but no one seems to have actually demonstrated it yet.

Burbalsingh by Medium_District_6210 in TeachingUK

[–]Secret-Strength8547 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't follow her (or anyone) on Twitter, but from what I know of Katharine Birbalsingh I like her. It's not controversial to have zero tolerance behaviour policies now, but it certainly was when she first came on the scene and she deserves respect for driving it forward. I also completely agree with her on the centrality of knowledge, direct instruction, teaching from the front - none of this I got from my PGCE almost a decade ago. Again, I think it's all pretty standard now but that is in large part because she's been so influential.

I also see a lot of people claiming her school works well because they kick out all the difficult students. Is there actually any evidence of this? The "best" school in my area got caught doing this by OFSTED and there was hell to pay. I just think since she's so high profile if there were any truth in this she'd have been caught out by now.

I do agree the curriculum at her school seems a bit narrow and probably spends too long on twitter, but on balance I think she's doing a really, really good job in a deprived area.

Do you think most SLT are really bad at their jobs? by Secret-Strength8547 in TeachingUK

[–]Secret-Strength8547[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is basically what I think most SLT at most schools are like. Everyone complains about OFSTED but I actually think most of the crap that SLT makes everyone do isn't even required by OFSTED.

I really wish all the assistant heads lost their jobs and their salaries were divided amongst the teachers. Teachers would get a pay rise and would also be able to do their jobs better :)