Selfsufficientish.com

Sarahcook wrote: The worst thing about teaching isn't the children, they're great, it's the parents and the famillies.

It's worth remembering that the legal obligation to provide an education falls on the parents not the schools (contrary to popular belief), and therefore, as I see it, the parents and families have every right to have an opinion on how that education takes place.

Sarahcook wrote:I do require parents to read with their children... I do require parents to practice spellings with their child...

And there's part of the problem. Like many teachers and schools, you require parents to do as you direct.

Parents do not have to do as teachers require - even if they are completely wrong and the teacher is completely right. Parents are not students, support staff or helpers subordinate to the teacher.

By all means, ask parents to help or co-operate in the learning process; explain why things are done in a certain way and why you'd like parental involvement. But remember that parents do not have to do as you direct and especially not when they're at home with their children.

Unlike many of my peers in the profession, I've worked a 12 hour factory day for naff all money (although admittedly only for months and not for years at a time) and the last thing I would want to do is hear a child read. But .... I get the Adorable Child ready for bed and we read together. We talk about his books and his favourites and his day and his toys and we sing and we play for a precious half an hour before he really ought to be asleep.

Good for you, but who says we don't do that?

What we're objecting to is getting the same Biff and Kipper books home for the third time in 14 months, getting the same maths worksheets home two or three times, having him "required" to write the same words in isolation over and over on unlined paper and being criticised for getting something wrong instead of praised for trying and shown how to get it right next time.

The worst thing about teaching isn't the children, they're great, it's the parents and the famillies.

Ever thought about how that attitude goes down? We get that quite openly from some teachers and then they wonder why they're losing respect.

I don't care what socio-economic band my famillies fall into, nor what job my kids parents have, or if they have a job...

Perhaps you should. Who's going to do better? A white girl from an affluent middle-class background with two parents who are both university educated and who all speak English as their first language? Or a black boy from a broken home, whose mum doesn't have English as a first language, and who is struggling to keep a roof over their head by holding down two or three jobs on the minimum wage? The first parents may not be that involved while the mum on her own may be really determined to help her son, but at the end of the day it's extremely likely the middle-class girl will do best at school.

And if common sense doesn't tell you that, then there's plenty of genuine research that will.

I care if the child has cared enough about what they are doing in school to do extra work at hme. I care if the parents care enough about their child and it's future and it's education to show the child how important it is to get things done on time and to the best of your ability, and to help them achieve that.

Yes, the good old Protestant work ethic. If you care about what you're doing, then you will do more of it and do it better.

Actually, it's not always important to get things done on time - that's something that arose out of the industrial revolution and has been further reinforced by modern capitalism. But I'd agree that doing something to the best of your abilility and trying to go beyond your current level is a good thing - and I certainly encourage my boys to try without being too pushy either.

Teachers aren't all slaves to the government, but neither are we there to be bullied by smug and sanctimonious parents who have such a strong belief in what they see is right that they feel they can impose their will on the rest of our classes without even knowing who they are.

But nor should smug, arrogant and sanctimonous teachers feel they can direct and control what happens in people's homes. Nor should they be critical of families that can't afford new clothes, new shoes, packaged food from the supermarket, school trips, and so on. We've had all that and more.

And before you get too worried, our boys are properly dressed for the weather, their footwear fits, they get home-made packed lunches, and they get to go on outings with us.

You have the time and the effort and the inclination and the resources and the interesting life and all those things that make your son one of the luckiest children on earth, IMHO. Not every parent has that. Not every parent can do that.

Therefore, if you're setting homework it should not be fundamental to what you're teaching at school or some of the children will be disadvantaged because their parents are not in a position to support or encourage - or do not want to do so. And if the homework is not fundamental to what you're teaching, then why set it at all?

I think about the homework I set carefully. I have been known to give out worksheets when I wanted to see who had understood and who hadn't, or when the practice needed doing, or when the children asked for more of the same because they liked doing them because they were a challenge for them.

But not all teachers do - and believe me, I know a lot of teachers. There are some very good ones, some very bad ones, and a lot who just go with the flow, shaping their teaching to fit the school management, the latest educational fad, or even just drifting along focusing on crowd control rather than education.

I'm proud of what I do and I think long and hard abut 95% of it. (The other 5% I'm allowing myself for a bad day, which happens every now and again to all of us.)

Good for you, but remember we don't all get good teachers and schools - or even average teachers and schools who remember that education is about engagement, co-operation and mutual respect between them and parents.

here, here stonehead!

I am afraid to say I have very little respect for teachers because they have rarely shown me any. Single parent, disabled must have trouble with the the kids and can't cope, stands to reason. I also get the 'just a parent and will obviously speak a load off BS' attitude. Just because we don't join the PTA does not mean we are not valued members of our children education.

My current gripe is that the school have been told that J must have a sloping writing desk and us the computer instead of a pen. The schools answer is..oh we are a small school we can cope without J seeing all these experts. In other words don't get professional help as it costs the school money. No sorry taint happening, he is seeing the experts BECAUSE of the educational system and it's failings.

Oh and I am older than most teachers these days!

I should like to add that J was abused physically by a teacher because they failed to understand his problems despite stupid, dumb and obviously arrogant and sanctimonious, parent here telling them time and time again, he was perceived as being difficult and rude. When reported, it got washed under the carpet but had we had stayed in the area I would have taken it to the education dept.

There are very few good teachers left now in my opinion and far to many that believe teaching is a merely a job instead of vocation..you have to like kids to teach is the first thing. Sarah you obviously do like kids, but listen to parents is the key and they may just work along side you instead of apposing you.

I may not often hear my children read but we buy books, school books are boring, and we as a family choose them and discuss them before buying based on what the children read on the the covers. My children wish to read to themselves and that gives the feeling of being grown up, after all I don't read a book and discuss the contents with them. They see it as insulting that they have to explain what is going on it their books. We also go out to places and read information, or rather they do, and discuss that They have no need for me to hear what Janet and John are doing this week and what lesson can be learnt by John eating sweets!

No they would rather learn about the pictish stones and how they managed to carve and lift such large stones.

The kids are 10.

I suspect that your kids only became bright 10 year olds capable of reading to themselves and of having intelligent discussions because you took an interest in them when they were younger though? Didn't you help them to read at bedtime and answer a million "but why" questions and explain to them about people who lived in caves and ask what those people might have eaten?

Agreed some teachers are cr*p but its hard to see how the education system can be all things to all children, in the 'good old days' there was no homework and teachers were more involved with the kids thats true, but they knew the parents and knew the circumstances of the kids, and in any case there was no requirement for people to go into further education, no stigma attached to leaving school and earning a trade without qualifications etc.

surely back then the same problem existed - then the balance was the other way and the brighter children were catered for while the less education driven fell behind and left school early. Now the scales have tipped the other way but I'm not sure it would be acceptable to go back to 50 year old methods? Plus there's an ethnic, religious and social diversity nowadays which makes things even more complicated.

Yes we did a lot when younger and I read, not school books, with them from a very early age. At the age of 5 boy J didn't want to read to me any more, discussed with his teacher and she said his ability surpasses his age and I wouldn't worry he is way above average and beyond. My daughter wanted to stop at 6 again I respected her wish.

Yes I agree 50 years ago (not that I am that old ) those not so bright were not encourage to learn, however they were encourage to go into skilled trades. Something that is very short on the ground these days. However I do feel now that the brighter kids are now panelised because it is basically easier for teachers to teach the children all at the same level instead of their ability. Hence another reason why we don't read school books as boy J is far too advanced for them and would rather read Roald Dahl or Harry Potter. Girl J reads her girlie mags and other books of her choice. She is not so advanced but more advanced than most.

Just a point here my mother is extremely bright however school did not suit her so she left early (13) and self educated herself into good jobs.

I home ed for 6 mths due to severe bullying and self esteem issues. On returning to the education system the head (who was lovely I will say) was told the kids would be thick and as their parents are. She was very surprised that not only they had not lost ground but actually knew more that a lot of the kids. We quickly established a maths problem with girl J, and I was already aware of this and was working on it.


AND I am still not signing the reading log..there is no need I am happy and they are well above average. I am too long in the tooth for bureaucratic systems

den_the_cat wrote:Agreed some teachers are cr*p but its hard to see how the education system can be all things to all children, in the 'good old days' there was no homework and teachers were more involved with the kids thats true, but they knew the parents and knew the circumstances of the kids, and in any case there was no requirement for people to go into further education, no stigma attached to leaving school and earning a trade without qualifications etc.

I'm not harking back to some "golden era". I've experienced four education systems as a student, five as an interested adult and volunteer, and one as a parent. The OH has experience of four education systems.

Almost all have their advantages and all have disadvantages, so we aim to get the most out of the system for our boys without necessarily pushing others out of the way

One thing that does get tedious is the constant re-discovery of the wheel, combined with a fairly recent tendency to decide that there is one solution to any given challenge. Take synthetic phonics - it's the current vogue in teaching reading and many previous methods have been discarded.

But, doing family history research, I turned up an inspector's report on the one-teacher school my grandfather attended. The report dated from 1901 and criticised the teacher's under-use of phonics (yes, exactly the same word) as part of what should be a tool-box of teaching strategies. (And yes, it was almost identical to modern synthetic phonics.)

The main difference between now and then was that in 1901 it was just one of a number of strategies for teaching reading as it was accepted that children learned in different ways and at different speeds. Today, phonics is the way to learn reading - end of story in many schools.

You see the same thing happening in all subjects and at all levels. Find something "new", throw out the "old" and then do it all again in a year or two. After 20 or 30 years (or 100), go back the beginning and do it all again.

So, no harking back to a golden age for me - it's just a cycle that keeps repeating itself.

lets be realistic here - good parents are going to do interesting things with their kids with or without homework - homework merely gets in the way some of the time

not so good parents are not going to do interesting things with their kids and unlikely to help/ encourage with homework either.

Teachers sending homework sheets home do not change the parenting skills, and in primary school age, you do need the assistance of parents to get this stuff done. Personally I think the better parents are the ones that take a look at daft homework and say 'you don't need to do that, lets do something else' , but equally encourage useful set homework. but hey thats what i said, so maybe I am biased.


I'm inclined to think that there is no need for homework sheets for primary age kids. Sure, listening to them read is great, making things for a project is great, putting together projects is great. but worksheets? they are either repetition of work already covered, or something not covered at school, in which case the teacher is using the parent to cover what should be done at school, and see my comment about not so good parents not doing it! And young kids come home from school tired, they need to unwind, and play. and this is the time for everyday parenting skills, such as cooking together, feeding the animals, gardening, shopping, which will provide the lifeskills they need for the future. Use up that time on more schoolwork, and there is nothing left.

Having said all this, I am baised. my son is dancing to a different tune to other kids, and eventually we opted out of 'the system' and haven't looked back.

red

I used to have horrendous battles with my 12 year old son to get him to do his homework.... tricky thing was that half the time the homework hadn't been explained to him... some of the time I didn't know HOW to help him, because some things are taught differently to how I was taught in school. eg multiplication and division... I can show him MY way of long division... and it will get him the right answer (hopefully LOL) but it will be different to the method taught by the school and could confuse matters.

Homework can cause huge difficulties within families - luckily we had a supportive headmaster at the school he was in at the time and he said to me that if it was causing such problems then he shouldn't have to do it. Ahhh Mr J... if ONLY all headmasters were like him the world would be a better place. Any more relaxed and he'd be horizontal but EVERY single one of the children in his school did well... respected him.... I'd go as far as to say they loved him. There wasn't any bullying... if there was any hint of it there was discussion - explanations.. not punishments.

Well I am proud of boy J today. Teacher started on him again and he turned round and said 'why do you treat us like outsiders?', he meant incomers. She apparently have no answer for him..obviously hit a nerve!

Maybe now she will get the message

Sarahcook's post rather warmed my heart. If they'd been a few more teachers like that when I was at school, I might have done better. I'm delighted to hear that there are teachers around who take their job seriously enough to require serious commitment and input from their pupils. In my experience, they are the best teachers of the lot.

From my own childhood, the teachers who brought out the best in me were the ones who made me rise to a challenge, who took an interest in my work, and made specific requirements of my attention. It wasn't always an enjoyable process, but ofen these classes were the ones I looked forward to; the teachers were not ogres, or unapproachable, but they did demand a certain commitment from me, which, of course, worked entirely to my advantage. This is how they were able to develop my interest and thinking. They helped me to get reasonable grades in the exams, and the very best of them still have an influence on my thinking.

These teachers were in stark contrast to the ones who would mumble away at the front of the class, seeming to be as bord as the rest of us, dictating the same notes that they'd dictated to 20 years of classes, and often not appearing to properly understand the subject themselves. These were the teachers who made no real demands or requirements, and got nothing in return, entirely to the detriment of the pupil.

Homework was, at best, an opportunity to consolidate what I had been shown in class, and was an invaluable tool in developing my understanding; at worst it was used as a punishment.

And I have also seen a great many families where, in my opinion (for what that's worth), the parents are quite clearly failing their children, and seem content, even pleased, to watch them grow into feckless, hopeless, aimless youths, and embark upon a pointless, empty life. They seem quite incapable of encouraging their children to develop beyond a kind of stunted childishness, at the same time blaming every institution and system that they can, whilst absolving themselves of all responsibility. I would hazard a guess that those parents were themselves failed by their own parents in a similar way.

I've no idea what schools are like these days, but I instinctively applaud teachers who are prepared to take their work seriously, and who understand that in order for them to do their job fully, they are going to make demands of the pupil and, wherever possible, require support from the parents too.

didn't catch it but on the news last night the Scottish executive were criticising the entire Scottish education system and saying it was failing pupils at an alarming rate, living in Scotland with school kids I would have to agree!

that was partly my point though - school has always failed a large proportion of the kids, just we haven't always called it failed, because it wasn't previously seen as a failure not to achieve academically.

In any group of mixed ability kids its not possible, without one on one tuition, to teach each child at their own pace and tailored to their own needs. In primary schools the ability to 'stream' children based on their abilities is neither fair nor desirable (low streaming at that age would almost certainly have an effect for life) so we have to accept that schools will, to a certain extent, always fail some kids.

So surely one way to help balance that is to encourage the brighter children with out of school work? aka homework.

As far as I can see noone here is really arguing against homework, just against some poor types of homework.

So good homework is the setting of projects which allow the child to use their imagination and make the project their own?

Good homework is setting questions designed to access if the child has understood the principals in class? (which might include things they haven't done - after all if you learn in class that 1+1=2 then you can probably answer that at home but whether you understand the principal is better answered byu setting something different, like 1+1+1)

Good homework allows the teacher to understand how the child is learning and tailor their care in the classroom to help those who are obviously not able to keep up with the standard level of teaching and who for whatever reason (and no blame attached) aren't able to get the additional help at home?

I don't think that not being handed the paper back with ticks on it means the teacher hasn't looked at it and won't apply that to what they teach the child, and quite probably many of the standard sheets are being set so that the management can assess the quality of the teaching without making the kids sit even more tests at school.

Think you have miss understood what I was saying on Scottish schools failings. They weren't talking totally education they were talking education, social skills, life skills, discipline and ultimately the ability to any kind of job of work at the end, the kids aren't encouraged to take or look for a job.

If homework is soooo important why aren't my kids getting any? Reason it's not important at this stage. In fact despite the moans about the head failing to take on board the extra required for boy J the general teaching is good and they zip through things leaving time, deliberately, to do things like baking and eating yesterday afternoon.......potatoes salad and cheesy potatoes. J moaned as there wasn't enough for seconds

The homework my kids have been set is work that should have been in class and I have had to teach the children the principal of the task. There is too much emphasis on getting things down on paper these days.

I actually think that stream lining primary children into ability is a good thing. Each group is taxed according to their ability and no one child is made to feel stupid because Fred next to them solved the puzzle much quicker..all children have to think about the problem set and they also have a goal to get into the next group.

baldowrie wrote:Think you have miss understood what I was saying on Scottish schools failings. They weren't talking totally education they were talking education, social skills, life skills, discipline and ultimately the ability to any kind of job of work at the end, the kids aren't encouraged to take or look for a job.

aah. You and I differ totally then because I don't think its the schools failure if kids don't develop social skills, life skills, discipline and the ability to take or look for a job

How does one learn to ride a bicycle, play a musical instrument or become a skilled tradesman? Through practice. Homework must in part be set as a means to reinforce knowledge.
Yes, there are bad teachers out there: those who persist with "chalk and talk", mistakenly believe that "a video and worksheet each lesson" is an effective foolproof teaching method and fail to pitch lessons/homework(cognitively or otherwise).
Unfortunately there are also some bad parents out there: the ones who don't take an interest in their child's education, think teachers are there to babysit, believe that they have the right to treat members of the teaching profession like dirt simply because they are public servants, leave essential life skills such as good manners/appropriate behaviour to teachers to instill and basically pass the buck.
Now, teachers are highly skilled (yes, you read that right) individuals who not only excel academically but are trained at great expense to communicate, to impart knowledge, to entice skills and traits from youngsters so that they can go on to lead successful, fulfilling lives.
That's not babysitting. It is a role that entails great responsibility.
However, for a teacher dicharge this effectively he/she must be in a position to know the child (in terms of ability, interests, how the child "ticks"). That's not just one child. That's thirty. That's the expectations of sixty adults.
What we are forgetting is that there are some good teachers out there. The ones that employ a range of teaching strategies, apply educational psychology carefully and accurately. The frustrated thespians who actually like their charges as much as they enjoy the job. Yet, even the best teachers cannot create a perfect playing field.
Education is horses for courses, but in a state-run system, especially one that is treated as a political football, this will always be difficult to implement. It calls for some difficult questions. If we want teachers to be educators then we have no right to expect them to act as social workers, insist that they run extra-curricular activities (really just babysitting if after school hours), and we certainly have no right to treat them like dirt. In return we can expect that our children are subjected to only the best teachers. Yet, if we believe that education is about the whole individual, and expect teachers to bring more than just knowledge to the job (run after school clubs, school trips, etc.), we must accept that some school work will need to be carried out at home.
I agree with Stonehead that worksheets for homework at the Primary Level is probably a hindrance rather than a help. Carefully planned homework is a powerful learning tool for older children. However, reading is a fundamental skill that left unmastered stiffles his/her progress in all subjects which in turn isolates the child from its peers and undermines confidence as well as an enjoyable activity in it's own right.
Finally, I end this rant on the subject of streaming: even in Grammar Schools, within each class there was always one pupil heading for a good university and one that was destined to become a bank clerk. It's wrong to suggest that the old system benefits students by placing them with their academic peers for the purposes of learning; we are all individuals with unique educational needs. Streaming creates a different (not better) monster and still requires the mixed ability approach to teaching that is "differentiation." One of the reasons that the comprehensive system in the UK is such a mess is that it is seen as "levelling the playing field" for children of poorer homes when in fact the system was developed in the US as a compromise to satisfy the needs of diverse ethnic groups.