It's Your Time You're Wasting by Frank Chalk

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Your-Time-Yo...pr_product_top

I'm not usually one for reading accurate and depressing material in regards to the state of the lower end of the British schooling system (as I want escape from that, not to be reminded of it) however, I started reading this today and it is unbelievably spot on.

In this book "Frank Chalk" writes of his own personal experiences in a low end state school which is completely representative of many failing schools across the country (of which there are many). He writes of his intention:

Quote:

---

I started out as a nice liberal bloke who thought the best of everyone. I changed, over time. This book is dedicated to the good kids - there are plenty of them, but they're being slowly crushed by the bad - and several hundred thousand hard-working teachers, who do their best against the impossible odds created by our mad, politically-correct nightmare of an education system. It's a funny book - I hope - with a serious message; the time for talking is over. We need to sort our schools out now, before it really is too late.

---

It is a funny book there's no getting away from that. I passed this over to Mrs Neely to read a small section (the part where it takes a class of Y7s 40 minutes to stick a name tag in their books) and she was as cracked up as I was reading it. There are some highly amusing moments like this scattered throughout. Let's see, here's a small part of that episode:

Quote:

---

"What? Yes, both names."
Several groans.
"OK, OK, your surname is fine. Just put your initial...WHAT THE...What are you doing?"
Dale had just ripped up his label.
"Look," I say in an icy voice, "it doesn't matter if you've put your initial first, your surname first, your first name first or even somebody else's name first. Whatever you have written is fine."
I am approaching the end of my tether and the pile of remaining labels is getting very low now.
We manage to get past "Teacher" with only two putting their form teacher by mistake, Chesney copying the word "Teacher" and Dale writing in the name of his favourite teacher. (That wasn't my name I can assure you.)
Now the final hurdle: "OK, Only one more to do now."
Glance at the watch again.
Christ, there's only ten minutes of the lesson left!

---

Previous to this Frank had fallen into the rookie error of writing "YOUR NAME" on the board of which several students had of course done just that, and proceeded to write "YOUR NAME" on the front of their labels, complete rookie error, but always amusing. So there is plenty of humour in this book. (Also his depiction of the unholy grey land of the staffroom, with its heaps of dirty cups, out of date notices and piles of books is just so scarily descriptive).

It is also of course deeply depressing and somewhat tragic that vast sways of children are being crushed by the modern educational system, as Frank pulls no punches in expressing, with his non-politically correct diatribes which have no doubt upset many of the 1 star reviewers on Amazon. It is however, in my opinion, a very accurate and honest depiction of the troubles currently inherent within lower end state schools. He is a obvious annoyance that I highlighted earlier:

Quote:

---

Teachers (against their will and better judgment, in the majority of cases) spend half their lessons dealing with kids with Special Needs and the kids who can't behave, while having to ignore the pleasant, well-behaved ones, who actually want to learn but who sit there quietly being ignored, with their hands up, as their life-chances slowly ebb away.

---

(My bold)

OK, so this sort of thing is "nothing new" this idea has been done before and well, but it is nevertheless, in my view, essential reading for those who dare take a peep into what honestly goes off in the lower end of British, and perhaps even American, school system.

It's Your Time You're Wasting: A Teacher's Tales of Classroom Hell by Frank Chalk.

5 gold stars and a peer assessed green tick.

Sounds familiar - and I was a Primary school teacher.

Interestingly, my daughter has just come back from Japan after a school trip there. We consder our education system to be inferior to theirs, but the Head - who accompanied them on the trip - was surprised at just how much lesson time is wasted there with the kids learning little in each lesson, but making up for it by staying a school - compulsorily at clubs - till 7pm!!

She said it was chalk and talk for virtually the whole lesson, and sounds like the stuff we were forced to sit through 30 years ago and more.

Good review by the way, although I'm not entirely sure which side of the fence you're on....:biggrinjester:

Ha yes, I try to keep a biased opinion at all times...

It's really a great book. It has you laughing at sighing at the same time, I could share reams and reams of good stuff, if I had the time (I might post some tomorrow or the next day).

That's an interesting thought about Japan and 7pm has me shaking with fear. I would like to put some money down that our inferior schools are more inferior than there's though...

'I started out as a nice liberal bloke who thought the best of everyone.'


With that attitude he was on a hiding to nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emil Miller

'I started out as a nice liberal bloke who thought the best of everyone.'


With that attitude he was on a hiding to nothing.

---

He was, but he sure makes up for it believe me, the boot is well on the other foot now. Something tells me that you would very much agree with Mr Chalk.

Children in school until 7 PM? That's insane. What for? Obviously they are learning the insanity over and over. They might turn out to be good kamikaze.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

He was, but he sure makes up for it believe me, the boot is well on the other foot now. Something tells me that you would very much agree with Mr Chalk.

---

I have checked out several quotes from the book on the Google books site and he certainly lays it on the line. In saying that, there is nothing to surprise me about what he has to say, you've read my book and may recall the character of the teacher who tried the liberal path and learned the hard way.
{edit}
You’ve let them in boys – you’ve allowed them to exploit democracy in the area where it is most vulnerable – its tolerance.

That's really well said, Emil.

{edit}

I was told somewhat sarcastically a couple of weeks ago, something like, "You know, you're the youngest senior citizen I've ever seen."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vonny

That's really well said, Emil.

{edit}

I was told somewhat sarcastically a couple of weeks ago, something like, "You know, you're the youngest senior citizen I've ever seen."

---

That could mean you have a wise head on young shoulders.

This book really just gets better and better, I have even found where my own somewhat pessimistic (realistic?) attitude comes from (though I didn't need a book to tell me that).

Quote:

---

Teachers only work in schools like ours for two reasons:

1 They can't get a job anywhere else.

2 They believe that they can improve the chances of the kids.

I always think the latter kind of teachers are very noble. After a bit, though, they usually go mad, or quit with stress, or become deeply cynical about everything.

---

Hmmm, that does sound familiar.

I just can't recommend this enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

This book really just gets better and better, I have even found where my own somewhat pessimistic (realistic?) attitude comes from (though I didn't need a book to tell me that).



Hmmm, that does sound familiar.

I just can't recommend this enough.

---

This particular quote from the book might surprise some readers but it's no less than I would have expected:

It’s a red letter day, too: the new set of science textbooks has
finally arrived.
This may not seem much to you but I feel like bringing in
champagne to celebrate or asking the Head for a half day’s holiday.
In the past, we have shared one dirty, dog-eared textbook between
two or even three children and it’s a book which doesn’t even cover
the right topics for our syllabus.
These new ones are written by the people who set the exam, so
they must cover the relevant stuff.
The Head of Department arrives carrying the books and hands
them out to the kids, handling them with great reverence.
‘These books are brand new,’ he intones solemnly, placing one
neatly on my desk. ‘They must be treated with great respect and care
so that others may use them in the future.”
As he drones on, I examine one of the books. It has that pleasant
smell of newly-printed paper and, like all modern textbooks, is a
masterpiece of political correctness. It is chock-full of bright
pictures of children from ethnic minority backgrounds doing science
experiments and photographs of every kind of phenomena. Even the
teachers are in wheelchairs. Any wrongdoing is illustrated by a white
boy; here is one, foolishly sticking his fork into an electrical socket
and being electrocuted. Here’s another, drinking from a test tube.
What I cannot find, to my mounting horror as I flip through the
book, are any questions.
Oh, bloody hell!Why are all modern textbooks in every subject full of
photographs but devoid of questions?
I also notice that, actually, it doesn’t quite seem to cover the
syllabus to which we have recently changed after the head of
department assured us that it was ‘the easiest one yet’.”

Sounds like an interesting book! It actually sounds a great deal like the school I teach at, which is an inner city school.

I'm not sure I understand the references to his supposed liberality, though. I work with teachers, some of whom are conservative and some of whom are liberal. I have always considered myself somewhat liberal. What am I supposed to be learning about myself or my environment that would change my viewpoint?

I usually encounter principals who like their teachers to have a certain personality profile, like that of a general on the field of battle. I set boundaries, but I strive to help my students become actual readers and writers. It works, but there is not really a lot of support for that outlook, even when they think they do support it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qimissung

Sounds like an interesting book! It actually sounds a great deal like the school I teach at, which is an inner city school.

I'm not sure I understand the references to his supposed liberality, though. I work with teachers, some of whom are conservative and some of whom are liberal. I have always considered myself somewhat liberal. What am I supposed to be learning about myself or my environment that would change my viewpoint?

---

Perhaps you should read the book.

Qimi, I think the confusion is that what you and I call Liberal and Conservative is different from what they call liberal and conservative. All the time I fall into this, where I am conservative, however I'm not Conservative. I'm also not Liberal.

In our country everything is so controlled by the C & L that many aren't able to think outside the box anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qimissung

I usually encounter principals who like their teachers to have a certain personality profile, like that of a general on the field of battle. I set boundaries, but I strive to help my students become actual readers and writers. It works, but there is not really a lot of support for that outlook, even when they think they do support it.

---

I think I know what you're talking about but it's hard to describe. Everyone has to stay within certain social norms. The norms aren't what they used to be, the boot is on the other foot now, but they are just as strong as they used to be. We're supposed to be so free to be individuals, but we must conform. For instance, it's good to say that women should become doctors, but try saying that motherhood is a really good calling. I don't want to be a mother myself, in this world, but I wonder why if a woman wants to be more traditional, she's almost ridiculed in this world. There's many other examples, I don't know why I've just been rather focused on this one lately.

It's also admirable for kids to chew gum in school and blow a big bubble in your face and stick the gum everywhere, but try saying that perhaps kids shouldn't be allowed to chew gum in school and you're ostracized.

It's fine to say that women are better communicators than men, etc., etc., etc., but try saying that there's anything a man can do better than a woman.

Try saying that maybe the adults know more than the kids and see how far you get in your career! Try teaching kids not to be smart alecs!

Sounds interesting! My mum would like that as well - that could well be a Christmas present this year.

It reminds me a bit of the Teacher's Diary that was published in Private Eye. It's a very controversial issue, and you'll have strident views on both sides of the fence...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lokasenna

Sounds interesting! My mum would like that as well - that could well be a Christmas present this year.

It reminds me a bit of the Teacher's Diary that was published in Private Eye. It's a very controversial issue, and you'll have strident views on both sides of the fence...

---

Yes it is very much like that one, but a lot longer of course and more extreme and outspoken in places.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qimissung

Sounds like an interesting book! It actually sounds a great deal like the school I teach at, which is an inner city school.

I'm not sure I understand the references to his supposed liberality, though. I work with teachers, some of whom are conservative and some of whom are liberal. I have always considered myself somewhat liberal. What am I supposed to be learning about myself or my environment that would change my viewpoint?

I usually encounter principals who like their teachers to have a certain personality profile, like that of a general on the field of battle. I set boundaries, but I strive to help my students become actual readers and writers. It works, but there is not really a lot of support for that outlook, even when they think they do support it.

---

Hi, I think this is the sort of liberal approach that Emil is referring to, as expressed wonderfully and very accurately below. (Please forgive the odd typo as I have touched typed this out and only had a short time to check it.)

Quote:

---

Outside in the corridor, I can hear Wesley, a Year 11 pupil, arguing with Mr Jones bout his coursework. He has missed the deadline for handing it in and, for no obvious reason that I can discern, was given another week to complete it. Needless to say, he has still not finished the work and Mr Jones is telling him that tomorrow is absolutely his final chance.
There’s an indignant screech from Wesley.

“Well, OK, then,” says Mr Jones. “Wednesday, since you've got football after school today.”

This charade simply reinforces the idea that they can ignore all deadlines while we bend over backwards to accommodate them. As preparation for the world of work it is absurd.

---

This sort of thing is so typical, completely an everyday thing. I am currently working with some students who have not yet finished coursework started a year ago. It should have taken two weeks. Max.

Or take the approach when dealing with difficult behaviour:

Quote:

---

In common with many schools, we have a policy of “Inclusion”. This essentially means that not only will we take anyone, regardless of their impact on the rest of the kids, but also that we send a clear message to our persistent offenders: “Do that again, and you won’t be thrown out!”
Well that certainly teaches them a lesson.

As most children on the planet would give their right arm for the lifestyle and privileges our kids turn their noses up at, I refuse to fall into the apologies’ camp.

So many of our students (I find it so difficult to use that word without giggling) must be perplexed when, in later life, they are sacked from work for persistent lateness, petty theft, disobeying instructions and so on. After all, for the previous twelve years at school, this behaviour has been perfectly acceptable.

When Heads and SMT finally get round to chucking some brat our, usually after years of persistently appalling behaviour, culminating in something beyond the pale – they've murdered someone, say, or are using the maths classroom as the base for a drugs-and-prostitution racket – they have to get the support of the school governors.

The governors are a shady bunch, whose job seems to be to hinder our best efforts to teach by preventing the exclusion of such children.
Even if they do back us up, the pupil’s parents can still appeal.
What a joke.

Let’s consider the case of one of our ex-pupils, Shane.

For those of you who have no idea of what goes on in schools nowadays (maybe you have a position on the SMT) the exclusion procedure goes something like this.

Shane joins in Y7 and is a pain in the neck from the word go. We expect this: we've heard that he was a nightmare at his Primary School. He is rude to teachers, disrupts lessons, gets endless reports, detentions and whatever. He does not turn up to most of his detentions, with the backing of his mother, who claims that the school picks on her Shane; she phones up endlessly and threatens school staff with violence or persecution, or both. (She is familiar with court; that is where she met Shane’s father.)

By Y10, Shane is a serious problem child. He causes constant, low-level disruption, though the term ‘low level disruption’ is misleading: we use it to describe swearing and shouting out in lessons, fighting, refusing to carry out simple instructions and arguing with teachers. All of those would once have been considered serious incidents and dealt with accordingly. Occasionally, Shane is involved in what we still call ‘serious incidents’ he might have threatened someone with a knife or been caught with drugs on the school premises. These result in a few one or two-day exclusions, but are more often simply brushed under the carpet by SMT [Senior Management Team].
By this stage in his school life, there is more effort, time and resources being spent on Shane than on 20 better-behaved students. The Behaviour Psychologist comes to see him once a week for a nice cosy chat; she refers to him as a ‘Casualty of the System.’ She doesn't seem to notice the real casualties: the other children in Shane’s class, who have lost literally hundreds of hours of their education by now.

Halfway through Y10, Shane assaults a teacher. The teacher demands his exclusion, but Shane claims that the teacher pushed him out of the door and two of his friends (both known liars) back up his claim. The Head wavers and askes the teacher if he did anything to provoke the incident. The teacher backs down. The Head calls in mum and arranges a ‘Package of Measures’. This is a teaching term which means ‘backs down completely’. Effectively, this means Shane must attend only those lessons that he feels he can cope with. How nice!

A month later, he assaults another teacher. This one is made of sterner stuff and, despite Shane tying a similar argument with the backing of the same two friends, the entire department refuses to have Shane in their lessons (a rare example of teachers sticking together, caused by fear that they will be next and that it might hurt). The Head is faced with the option of having him taught on his own, at huge expense, or permanently excluding Shane. He reluctantly takes the latter course.

You may think it’s all over for Shane at this point. NO, no, gentle reader.

The school Governors decide not to support the Head’s exclusion. They believe the little brat’s claim that the teacher provoked him. This is no ordinary teacher, however; as we have seen, he has persuaded each of Shane’s teacher to refuse to have him in their lessons. The Governors are eventually talked around and Shane is thrown out.

However, he now has the right to appeal to an independent panel and mum intends to exercise this right.

She has persuaded a GP to diagnose Shane as suffering from ADHD or ODD and is claiming that the school is discriminating against him because of his disability.

While this appeal is going through, the school must accommodate Shane on the premises and provide work for him to do. As none of the staff will teach him, he has to have his own Supply Teacher, which costs the school a couple of hundred pounds per day.

If he wins the appeal, we’re back to square one. If he loses, he just moves to another school and he’s no longer our problem.

---

I can vouch that this is in no way exaggerated. This is absolutely typical policy. I wonder why there are problems in schools? Maybe we should invent a few new buzzwords or spent millions on new IT? Yes that'll do the trick...

Yep,that's liberalism alright. Now lets contrast it with what happened to a couple of recalcitrant boys when I was at school.
Every Friday afternoon was a bad time for my class because we had a double maths lesson under Mr Geary, an ex-Irish international rugby player who stood no nonsense. One Friday, Mr Geary called the register and found that two boys, King and Calvally, were missing. The following week the same thing happened and when, after making enquiries, he discovered that they had simply decided that they weren't going to attend his lesson, he had them paraded in front of the class and then caned them.
The following Friday, King and Calvally attended the lesson.

So, should we just separate all students, putting each in their own little homogenous group, all the time? Misbehaving kids . . . all of you in that room. Disabled . . . all of you in that room. Smart kids . . . in that room. That's the answer? Not all students should be in the same classroom. I agree that the idea of inclusion has gotten out of hand, but it can't go to the extreme in the other direction, either, because kids with disabilities deserve a "normal" class if they can handle it. A few outbursts by a kid with autism or Tourette's should not be enough to have that kid put in a "special" class.

Though, I do get what "liberalism" is now, at least in the eyes of someone like Emil. If a poor choice is made, bad teaching practices occur, etc etc, it's liberalism. Letting a student turn in assignment late, constantly letting them get away with bad behavior--it's poor teaching, or poor teaching policy, not being a liberal. By the idea that this laxity and over-inclusion is a product of "liberalism," I guess separating all students, even different races and sexual orientations (after all, having all that heterogeny would be a distraction), or being ultra strict to students, not accepting any excuse for late assignments, would be "conservatism." That's crap too. It's just the opposite end of the same bad-teaching spectrum.

So it's the teachers' fault?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

So it's the teachers' fault?

---

It's both.

The people whose fault it is don't spend their time off the battlefield reading books like this and writing to others, searching for an understanding or solution.

It's poor policy. It's collective values, or something. It's unfair to dump it on the teachers there in the trenches.

But there's some who benefit from having these powerful children and illiterate masses, and everyone contentious so that no one can agree on anything, and that's why it won't get any better. (I think.)

Children need to be raised by their mothers until first grade. The problem is TV and advertising. Some TV is probably okay and necessary, in this world, because if you don't understand TV you are culturally illiterate, there is no culture apart from TV, but parents need to correct the twisted attitudes it presents. But parents aren't able to distinguish what is wrong with the way advertising is molding people, that being obnoxious isn't desirable, so parents can't teach their children. And then the job of mothering isn't really valued anymore. Both parents need to work so they can afford more larger screened TVs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

So it's the teachers' fault?

---

You're going to have to clarify on what the teachers' fault is, because it could apply to multiple things in my post (unless you meant the whole of it). Reading over my post, I don't really see anywhere that is a veiled accusation of something being the teacher's fault, as I think I make it pretty clear what I feel is and isn't the teachers' fault (mostly pertaining to teaching methods and policy [which wouldn't be a single teacher's fault, but that of administration, which is a whole other issue, and also where I think labels like conservatism and liberalism could be better applied]). It's obviously the teacher's fault for being a crappy teacher, whether that crappiness is a product over laxity or over-strictness.

Still, I'm wondering what the inclusion naysayers would like. How extreme do you want it to be? Should all classes be tailor-made for one particular type of student: a class for the smart kids, a class for the dumb kids, a class for all those in between, a class for the mildly mentally disabled, a class for the severely mentally disabled, etc. etc.? Or should there be a middle-ground?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

It's obviously the teacher's fault for being a crappy teacher, whether that crappiness is a product over laxity or over-strictness.

---

Let a teacher try being overly strict, and they'll have parents, everyone coming down on them. There are a lot of pressures and constraints on teachers to perform a certain way.

For one thing class sizes are too large, and if students have very diverse needs, and many are unruly, it becomes more difficult for one teacher to do it all.

When my brother was in second grade he was determined to have a "mental block" and he simply couldn't learn in a regular classroom. When he was moved to "special education" into a small class where he was less stressed, he made rapid progress. The only problem was that he felt ashamed to be in special education. But he wouldn't have learned to read without special education, so I don't know if we're doing kids a favor by trying to make them all equal if they aren't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vonny

Let a teacher try being overly strict, and they'll have parents, everyone coming down on them. There are a lot of pressures and constraints on teachers to perform a certain way.

For one thing class sizes are too large, and if students have very diverse needs, and many are unruly, it becomes more difficult for one teacher to do it all.

When my brother was in second grade he was determined to have a "mental block" and he simply couldn't learn in a regular classroom. When he was moved to "special education" into a small class where he was less stressed, he made rapid progress. The only problem was that he felt ashamed to be in special education. But he wouldn't have learned to read without special education, so I don't know if we're doing kids a favor by trying to make them all equal if they aren't.

---

Generally in special education, they're not separated from the main class for the whole day, but they get pulled to do one-on-one or small group learning for select subjects.

Quote:

---

Still, I'm wondering what the inclusion naysayers would like. How extreme do you want it to be? Should all classes be tailor-made for one particular type of student: a class for the smart kids, a class for the dumb kids, a class for all those in between, a class for the mildly mentally disabled, a class for the severely mentally disabled, etc. etc.? Or should there be a middle-ground?

---

A healthy middle ground on inclusion would seem logical to me and I’m sure some schools achieve this. However, the failing schools, the ones typical in this book, do not. You have to remember that inclusion policy was purely a cost saving exercise and nothing else. With swamped classes full of students, with such a diverse range of issues and problems, the result is that everyone fails together. This is because there is often a massive amount of time being wasted on trying to deal with poor behaviour at the loss of everyone else. The biggest loser ironically, is always the quiet student who causes no problems and always tries his or her best, these are allowed to slip through the net time and time again.

It would seem you are also taking about setting classes according to ability, which is not the same thing as inclusion. The question of do you set according to ability or do you have a range of abilities in the class is a hard choice and not one that I could fully be happy with either way. If you group according to ability what happens is that lower sets tend to get worse as they pull each other down. If you provide a mixed range of abilities is it better for the weaker students as they have better role models, in theory, but very difficult for the teacher to pitch across such a diverse range and difficult to keep the lesson to a fair pace or standard. So neither of them is really ideal to be honest and it is down to individual schools to choose between them or to try to reach some sort of compromise.

Quote:

---

It's both.

---

There are poor teachers, and believe me Frank Chalk does not forget about those, just as there are poor workers in every section of every society. However to lay the blame solely, or even anything more than the slightest part at the hands of the teacher, is ludicrous, just as it would be to lay the problems of crime in society at the hands of the police.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

A healthy middle ground on inclusion would seem logical to me and I’m sure some schools achieve this. However, the failing schools, the ones typical in this book, do not. You have to remember that inclusion policy was purely a cost saving exercise and nothing else. With swamped classes full of students, with such a diverse range of issues and problems, the result is that everyone fails together. This is because there is often a massive amount of time being wasted on trying to deal with poor behaviour at the loss of everyone else. The biggest loser ironically, is always the quiet student who causes no problems and always tries his or her best, these are allowed to slip through the net time and time again.

It would seem you are also taking about setting classes according to ability, which is not the same thing as inclusion. The question of do you set according to ability or do you have a range of abilities in the class is a hard choice and not one that I could fully be happy with either way. If you group according to ability what happens is that lower sets tend to get worse as they pull each other down. If you provide a mixed range of abilities is it better for the weaker students as they have better role models, in theory, but very difficult for the teacher to pitch across such a diverse range and difficult to keep the lesson to a fair pace or standard. So neither of them is really ideal to be honest and it is down to individual schools to choose between them or to try to reach some sort of compromise.



There are poor teachers, and believe me Frank Chalk does not forget about those, just as there are poor workers in every section of every society. However to lay the blame solely, or even anything more than the slightest part at the hands of the teacher, is ludicrous, just as it would be to lay the problems of crime in society at the hands of the police.

---

Pretty much agree with everything here. And, unless I'm mistaken, I don't think I ever said the blame should solely be laid on teachers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

There are poor teachers, and believe me Frank Chalk does not forget about those, just as there are poor workers in every section of every society. However to lay the blame solely, or even anything more than the slightest part at the hands of the teacher, is ludicrous, just as it would be to lay the problems of crime in society at the hands of the police.

---

Well, a really good teacher can turn around a difficult student's behavior and academic performance. I recognize, too, that teachers often take the bulk of the blame in society, which is often unfair given that there are some real problem students in schools. As an interesting aside to the political dimensions of this discussion, in many of the discussions about "Why our schools are failing" variety that I've seen in newspapers and on politic blogs it's always the conservatives whining about poor teachers and performance. The reason our schools stink and our students aren't learning is because of terrible teachers and the Unions that protect them, tends to be the conservative view. So I think a few of the commenters were right to point out that it doesn't always fall down neatly along political lines.

I'd also point out that inclusion/special education doesn't automatically equate to bad behavior. There are high academic performing students with atrocious behavior; meanwhile there are plenty of special education students who are well behaved students.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

Pretty much agree with everything here. And, unless I'm mistaken, I don't think I ever said the blame should solely be laid on teachers.

---

No, I think I was mistaken with with thing you said about poor teachers previously or I didn't read it right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

Well, a really good teacher can turn around a difficult student's behavior and academic performance. I recognize, too, that teachers often take the bulk of the blame in society, which is often unfair given that there are some real problem students in schools. As an interesting aside to the political dimensions of this discussion, in many of the discussions about "Why our schools are failing" variety that I've seen in newspapers and on politic blogs it's always the conservatives whining about poor teachers and performance. The reason our schools stink and our students aren't learning is because of terrible teachers and the Unions that protect them, tends to be the conservative view. So I think a few of the commenters were right to point out that it doesn't always fall down neatly along political lines.

I'd also point out that inclusion/special education doesn't automatically equate to bad behavior. There are high academic performing students with atrocious behavior; meanwhile there are plenty of special education students who are well behaved students.

---

Yes there are always those amazing teachers that just have an incredible presence in whose classes you can hear a pin drop. (This is also covered in the book). There are one or two of these in every school, real gems. These are well above the norm though. The political aspect is complex and goes beyond any particular ideology yes.

Yes definitely SEN often doesn't equate to bad behaviour. SEN is such a wide and complex issue that behaviour is only one fraction of it and often not related at all. The problem with inclusion in this context is that often the SEN students do not get the attention they need and deserve because the class teacher is too busy trying to deal with poor behaviour. The problem is not with the heavily dyslexic, the partially blind student, the aspergers student, the student with the reading age of 4, the one who speaks no English (all in the same class + 25 others) but that behaviour and the sheer gravity of the situation often prevents the teacher from working effectively. It is just not practical at that point. It is also not fair to expect a teacher to suddenly become an expert in all these different issues with no training. There is some focused SEN help in most schools though, but it is often just not enough.

I take the point that behaviour is not automatically linked to high/low achievement, their are some sods in top sets for sure, but generally it is the disaffected students, the ones in the lower groups who cause the most problems. To be fair, many of these students just aren't benefiting from a one size fits all policy (more money saving perhaps?). I'm not excusing atrocious behaviour mind.

Well it appear that Frank Chalk is back with a second book, which seems to be a mix of more anecdotes and rants, good stuff! The book is called Education, My Part in its Downfall (which obviously plays with the Spike Miligan book, Hitler, My Part in his Downfall).

Anyway, in the early part of the book there is another rant against inclusion policy which I thought I would put up, considering the points raised towards the end of this thread:

Quote:

---

There are a couple of kids in this class who can barely read and Nathan is one of them. Coban, I believe is the other. Sometimes they have a support teacher to help them, but other times they don’t for reasons that are never made clear. However, even when a support teacher is timetabled for them, half the time they don’t turn up and the only explanation given usually involves some mysterious ‘meeting’ with the Educational Welfare Officer (a complete loon) or the child’s parents (ditto). It is a total lottery and unfortunately today we have lost.

“Nathan, work with Lewis and Tyrone”
“I’m working on my own”
“But you can’t read the instructions Nathan!”
“Course I can!”
Before I can puzzle this one out, Coban throws a pen I have given him across the room. Nobody wants to work with him and he is frustrated because he never really knows what is going on. (Imagine sitting in a lesson where all the notes are written in Mandarin Chinese).

Someone outside the teaching profession might suggest that we should remove the likes of Coban and Nathan, put them in a class together and teach them to read, persevering until they can do so. However like most schools we follow the holy doctrine of Inclusion, which insists that these two do the same lessons as everyone else. It is utter madness.

Educational experts often recommend putting the less able children next to the brightest so that both groups benefit. I look round to Jessica and she shakes her head mouthing the words “no way!”
I can’t blame her.
Coban also sees me.
“I’m not sitting next to those boffins” he says sulkily.
“Alright go and work with Lewis and Kyle.” Another great educational theory bite the dust. It’s not Nathan or Coban’s fault. It’s the lunatics who dream up these mad polices but never have to carry them out who will ensure they leave school at 16 unable to read. It is one of the most shameful indictments of our state education system that such an outcome is possible in the 21st century.

---

That's really quite true. You should really be asking questions why, after 12 years of education, thousands of students leave barely able to read and spell their own names. You have got to love the never ending polices that try everything but common sense. Brilliant.:thumbs_up

I wonder how much of the behavior is due to parents?

Do you think that the behavioral issues in our schools is directly a result of the fact that parents have abdicated their role in properly disciplining their children, while insisting at the same time upon removing the ability of teachers and school administrator to act appropriately in their place?

And I wonder if... as a result we have a generation of students who do not learn discipline at home, and who know that teachers can't do anything to them at school?


As I ponder it more, I think parents are to blame.

This book is obviously written from the perspective of a teacher working in the UK, and others may have a different experience in their respective countries, but it does highlight a major problem that cannot be covered up by 'statistics ' or the self-deception of those who think that it was always like this. It wasn't.
The main problem is a lack of discipline and this is as a direct result of the post WW11 attitude inculcated by the 'We're the masters now', idiots that took over the UK in 1945. Dismantling the existing system was what they were about in the name of a spurious equality, and the result is what we have now.
Abandoning discipline in schools tends to lead to undisciplined adults with the results that are obvious for anyone to see, and those responsible will keep dreaming up various 'excuses' rather than admit that they were, and still are, wrong.
Until we return to a disciplinary system, there will be no respite from many of the problems afflicting the population as a whole.

An elderly lady I know, in her 80s, told me that when she was a little girl, parents always took the side of the teachers. There was no point in ever trying to convince your parents that the teacher was wrong. And then, one of the worst things about getting into trouble and getting thrashed in school was that when you went home and your parents found out that you'd been in trouble in school, they would thrash you again when you got home.

And what some teachers used to do when kids talked in class - is they would pick up these old-fashioned chalk board erasers and just hurl them at the kids' heads. Some of the old-maid school teachers had really good aim and could hit right in the face. If you didn't want to be clobbered hard in the face you didn't talk in class.

This lady also told me that her mother made her kneed bread every day after school for one hour, and she hated it. She says, though, that she's glad now her mother made her do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vonny

An elderly lady I know, in her 80s, told me that when she was a little girl, parents always took the side of the teachers. There was no point in ever trying to convince your parents that the teacher was wrong. And then, one of the worst things about getting into trouble and getting thrashed in school was that when you went home and your parents found out that you'd been in trouble in school, they would thrash you again when you got home.

And what some teachers used to do when kids talked in class - is they would pick up these old-fashioned chalk board erasers and just hurl them at the kids' heads. Some of the old-maid school teachers had really good aim and could hit right in the face. If you didn't want to be clobbered hard in the face you didn't talk in class.

This lady also told me that her mother made her kneed bread every day after school for one hour, and she hated it. She says, though, that she's glad now her mother made her do it.

---

Get ready for the usual suspects in denial, who weren't even born then, to tell you that the old lady is wrong, before producing the usual statistics and telling you that she was wearing rose-tinted glasses.
Here's an example based on my own experience. When I was about nine-years-old, a Mr Bassnet, who lived close by, complained to my parents that I had been making a noise outside his house and had taunted him when he remonstrated. My parents made me apologise before kicking me indoors and forbidding me to go out for the rest of the day; I never annoyed Mr Basnett again.

In old days, of course teachers were seen as absolute symbols of authority and knowledge: simply because they were so. Teachers were among the lucky few who actually went to school (beyond the elementary stage) and acquired some "knoweldge" and, in most cases, parents felt they had to trust the teachers' judgement.

However, things have - luckily - changed. Now, parents have expectations and are able to ask questions. This is not to say, of course, that there are some who take advantage of this opportunity or even abuse the system but, looking at the bigger picture, I think it is great that teachers are accountable and challenged in this way too.

Generalised statements placing the blame on teachers, parents or students without any fair justification or merely based on examples from half a century ago are nothing but... generalised statements lacking persuasion... Especially if they are coming from those who have no parenting or teaching experiences.

Education of a child (or an adult, for that matter) should not be under sole control of a teacher and all parties involved (student, teacher, institution, parents etc) should have a say in the matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

In old days, of course teachers were seen as absolute symbol of authority and knowledge simply because they were so. Teachers were among those who actually went to school (beyond the elementary stage) and acquired some "knoweldge" and, in most cases, parents felt they had to trust the teachers' judgement.

However, things have - luckily - changed. Now, parents have expectations and are able to ask questions. This is not to say, of course, that there are some who take advantage of it or even abuse the system at times but, looking at the bigger picture, I think it is great that teachers are accountable and challenged in this way too.

Generalised statements placing the blame on teachers, parents or students without any fair justification or based on examples from half a century ago are nothing but... generalised statements lacking persuasion... Especially if they are coming from those who who have no parenting or teaching experiences.

Education of a child (or an adult, for that matter) should not be under sole control of a teacher and all parties involved (student, teacher, institution, parents...) should have a say in the matter.

---

A family friend of ours is a supply teacher, and she has some pretty horrific stories about parents involving themselves in the education process. She says, though I don't know whether she is exaggerating, that some teachers are extremely reluctant to hand out (justified) detentions and poor marks, as the parents will often turn up at the school and have a slanging match with them.

It's true that parents should have expectations, but it is also true that they should be reasonable, and the parents should not be undermining the authority of the teacher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lokasenna

A family friend of ours is a supply teacher, and she has some pretty horrific stories about parents involving themselves in the education process. She says, though I don't know whether she is exaggerating, that some teachers are extremely reluctant to hand out (justified) detentions and poor marks, as the parents will often turn up at the school and have a slanging match with them.

It's true that parents should have expectations, but it is also true that they should be reasonable, and the parents should not be undermining the authority of the teacher.

---

This usually happens when there are no clear guidelines for objection processes. Schools should have procedures in place for students and parents to express their grievances; do you want your child to be at the mercy of a teacher without the assurance that you will be able to ask questions and understand why your child has been given detention? That does not necessarily mean that you always think your child does no wrong or that you are against your child receiving such "punishment". Parents need to know what has happened to be able to deal with it.

Having said that, there are of course those who step on the boundaries but we cannot let those few give all the parents a bad name. Just like we do not wish to blacken the teaching profession all together because of some bad apples.

Thankfully I don't have to deal much with parents myself, but in my experience and observation if you have parental support you have half a chance, if you don't, you have none. If a parent has not bothered to installed clear boundaries of right and wrong from an early age then they will not listen to a teacher.

The main problem in schools of this type, the ones that Frank is talking about and representative of thousands across the country, is clearly behaviour and a general lack of common sense as expressed. Work ethic is also a big problem in the bottom half schools, where the hand out culture is all to evident and highly detrimental.

The third major problem (though in a way they are all linked of course) is the entertainment Vs education debate. It is not enough to educate today. (In fact a good teacher who tries to carry out tried and tested methods of learning is likely to get side-lined and will certainly get low OFSTED rating during observation, thus threatening their careers.) This is not helped by the modern instant gratification culture, which is shortening attention spans and modern policy, which simply feeds into this because it is easier than dealing with the issues involved.

I was amazed the other day when I flipped through a typical text book that was ten years old. I couldn't believe the size of the extracts for standard comprehension exercises, some were as long as 5 or 6 pages in length! Flip through a modern text book of similar style and you will find this reduced to 1 page, 2 at the most and often just one paragraph, all of which will include dramatic images and never ever plain text. Even this is too much for today's students, and cries of "I'm not reading all that" are all too common.

Last week at my school Y11s took mock exams in English. I asked about 11 or 12 of them afterwards how they had got on. Now what do you expect they said? Too hard, too easy, OK but struggled on question 4? Ran out of time? This is what I foolishly expected. No. "It was boring" was the response of just about all of them. It was boring? It was an exam what did they expect? One even seriously asked me if they could have music playing next time to make it more interesting. I'm not joking.

I don't really blame them because, teachers following policy, are forced to do everything except dress as bananas in order to entertain and not educate, in order to "engage" students' interests and compete with X-Boxes and other instant gratification devices. Now, I'm all for stimulating and exciting lessons of course, but some things just have to be learned and the real world is not all singing and dancing, some things are "boring" but necessary or involve hard work and dedication. But then schools of this type, just do not aim to prepare children for life in the real world at all. Of this they do a good job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

In old days, of course teachers were seen as absolute symbols of authority and knowledge: simply because they were so. Teachers were among the lucky few who actually went to school (beyond the elementary stage) and acquired some "knoweldge" and, in most cases, parents felt they had to trust the teachers' judgement.

---

Yes, they had gained knowledge of teaching, which was their function , but beyond that, they were also skilled in their individual subjects. All of my teachers were university graduates and knew their respective disciplines thoroughly. That was why parents felt they could trust in their judgement but it isn't true that the parents had no other recourse, because in cases where something needed to be discussed about an individual's conduct, parents were invited by the school's headmaster to discuss the issue.

I think there is a lot of exaggeration as to the lack of instruction at school, as well as the lack of ability of the parents to dialogue with teachers and correct problems. Of course those who are in what I call the paranoid express will disagree with me. But I think the school system is better than ever, more flexible than ever and injecting knowledge more than ever. Discipline is no longer an issue as it should have never been. The most important thing in a person's life is motivation and that cannot be taught one way or the other, least of all imposed. And most likely, under the current programs, that's what flourishes a lot more in the long run.