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

[cafolini]

Well, the kids are smart and courteous. As they write, your rigth hand is their left. They mean to please the teacher.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Well, the kids are smart and courteous. As they write, your rigth hand is their left. They mean to please the teacher.

Yep, it could be that or...

I've finished the second Frank Chalk book which was just more of the same from the first, but still very good.

I've downloaded a sample of another similar type, about a teacher in a top school who quits his job, lives in a camper van and then goes on supply in rough schools for the 'experience'. Yes that is what I'm thinking.

[stlukesguild]

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.

I can only nod my head in agreement. I've worked with at least 3 teachers over the last few years who I can only describe as having serious mental issues. Beyond these I know of one who had her entire class jump a student and another who had a second grader receive oral sex in her class without ever noticing. One of the most insane took his class to a ball game without any proper parental (or school) release forms. When it was time to go he was so much into the game he told the kids to catch the bus home.

So many who really know and love their subject and have a passion for teaching and seriously want to make a change become burned out and cynical after years of dealing with the same insanity... more from parents, administration, education reform "experts", and politicians than the kids.

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 think that what Neely refers to is the fact that many teachers enter the field with noble ideals of correcting inequalities in society through education of those students most in need. After some time in the system dealing with incompetent coworkers, continual educational reform "experts", gutless and/or vindictive, administrators horrible parents, and politicians who speak continually of "accountability" but never apply this term to parents, administrators, the education experts, the students, or their own incompetent meddling many teachers become rather cynical and start to agree with conservative individuals like Brian.

I find the entire question interesting in light of one of the most enlightening books I have read on education: E.D. Hirsch in his book, The Schools We Need (and why we don't have them). Hirsch' book addressed many of the problems with Progressive/Liberal teaching methods.. Hirsch was a great champion of the truly Liberal idea of public education... the notion that all children should be given an equal access to the quality education needed to succeed in our society... an idea one would hope that everyone... regardless of political leaning, is on board with. Hirsch noticed that a great many of the liberal/progressive educational strategies (such as the "feel-good/no losers" approach, the failure to hold students responsible for their behavior, the extremes of Inclusion, and the avoidance of memorization of objective "facts") actually had the exact opposite effect... especially in the poor schools which needed education the most. Hirsch discovered that the Italian politician and theorist, Antonio Gramsci (imprisoned by Mussolini) had recognized the problem of progressive education as early as the 1930s:

"The new concept of Schooling is in its Romatic phase (ala Rousseau) in which the replacement of "mechanical" by "natural" methods has become unhealthily exaggerated... Previously pupils at least acquired a certain baggage of concrete facts. Now there will no longer be any baggage to put in order... The most paradoxical aspect of it all is that this new aspect of school is being advocated as being democratic, while in fact it is destined not merely to perpetuate social differences, but crystallize them in Chinese complexities."

The "Romantic"/progressive/liberal concepts of schooling avoid the learning of "facts" because it is feared these will perpetuate stereotypes... the notion that one writer, one artist, one historical personage is more important than another. This was seen as unacceptable to educational progressives as "Multiculturalism" and "Egalitarianism" became the catch-phrases of the day. Egalitarianism is behind the push for the extremes of Inclusion as well as the refusal to hold students responsible for their actions. This, in the US, is then combined with the lack of any real federal or national standards resulting in a system in which almost every school has its own curriculum... makes its own choices about what books to read and what facts to present. When this is further combined with No Child Left Behind which has resulted in schools focusing more upon teaching strategies for taking tests as a means of grabbing the needed scores as opposed to actually teaching a curriculum that is aligned with what the student will be tested upon, the result is an absolute mess in which we cannot be certain that a child in this school at this age will be expected to have mastered the same knowledge and skills as a student in another school just around the block... let alone across the country. Such an approach to teaching is surely not conducive to developing critical thinking, either. Indeed, if anything, one can imagine it would lead to a deal of frustration, cynicism... and even the increased occurrences of cheating. After all... if schools spend more time trying to cheat the system than teach facts and skills, these facts and skills surely must not be something of the greatest importance.

Hirsch recognized that in order to succeed in education and in our society one must accumulate a certain agreed upon body of knowledge. One cannot master reading... let alone "higher order thinking skills" such as analysis, comparison, synthesis, etc... without a body of concrete facts. Progressive educators argue that a curriculum based upon such facts is inherently bound to be racist, sexist, nationalistic. The problem is that the alternative handicaps those very students it claims to assist. The reality is that public education is not the end-all/be-all. Once a student has mastered certain facts, reading, math, etc... he or she is certainly free... and more important, able to branch out and explore other alternative ideas and voices... and certainly higher education should be expected to offer just that. At present, however, higher education needs to begin at a remedial level... teaching many of the basic skills and body of knowledge that should have been mastered in elementary and secondary school.

Hirsch's own schools have show impressive results... but in many ways they have the same advantages of any other elite private school or charter school in that his schools are able to "cherry pick" students. We are still faced with the reality of dealing with students of vastly differing abilities as well as the problems of discipline and continual interruption of the educational process. Only recently in the US the government as part of the No Child Left Behind initiative has actually polled students with questions about what they likes of disliked about their schools. Invariably the issues of constant disruption, chaos, concerns about their personal safety, anxieties as a result of on-going name-calling and fights are major factors in the Conditions of Learning ratings of a majority of urban schools.

One of the most obvious causes of the problems with schools as they are run today is the manner in which they are still based upon the grossly outdated "Industrial Model" first imposed nearly a century ago (or probably longer in Europe). The industrial model assumes that all students learn (or should learn) in the same way, at the same speed and at the same age. Students are socially promoted in the belief that preserving their fragile egos is more important than placing them at the appropriate learning level. Thus we get 8th graders reading at a 1st grade level. Ability tracking was done away with in the name of Egalitarianism... with the results that resulted when separate schools for Black and White students were done away with: all students are thrown together and allowed to sink as a whole. Ability tracking was wrong when the bright students were given the best education while the slowest students were given a crap education in the assumption that they won't amount to anything anyway. If we do away with the very idea of the industrial model... the notion that all students will learn in the same way (we know some are aural learners, some need to read to learn, some need to see examples, some need hands on) at the same speed and the same age, and instead we treat each as an individual... moving on at their own speed... we would likely see far better results. This system was not unlike that employed in the 19th century in the one-room schoolhouses where older students helped the younger.

Of course such an individualized approach to education would be far more expensive... demanding more individualized attention to each student's goals and needs... and in spite of all the talk of politicians, education remains of minor importance. There is still too much of a stigma attached to education: It's "woman's work"... "It involves kids"... thus it can't be taken seriously... it's just child's play... anyone could do it. We hear these comments all the time. If "If can teach my kids right from wrong..." or "If that private school that get's to cherry pick the best behaved, the brightest, and the most motivated students does so well on the tests why can't you get the same results...? In a room of 40 students... 10 of whom are coded "special education", 5 of whom have serious behavioral disabilities, another 4 or 5 of whom should be coded as having the same disabilities... but the psychologists are a year or two behind on assessments. Why can't you get them motivated about algebra or grammar or art or history when 99% are living below the federal poverty level and will have their only meals of the day as part of the free breakfast and lunch program. Any number of whom will walk to school past gangs-bangers, crack-heads, whores, child-abusers drunkards and boarded up houses.... if they don't live with the same gang-bangers, crack-heads, whores, child-abusers and drunkards.

But of course this is all just exaggeration. The schools are better than they ever have been. Discipline is no longer an issue.

And who was it mocking the ignorant religious "fools" for their adhering to fantasies?

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.

Why do I get the feeling that:

A. Sher has been teaching for less than 5 years... or...

b. Scher teaches at a nice cozy suburban school.


Of course I could be wrong... but from my experience the whole question of "accountability" is about laying the whole blame upon the teachers and avoiding the accountability of the parents, the administrators, the community (who repeatedly reject taxes needed to fund schools while passing levies to fund new sports stadiums), the education "experts", and the politicians.

[mortalterror]

Fatcat teachers and their commie unions spoiling our kids. That's why we all need too homeschool our children.

[stlukesguild]

Are you still stuck working at Taco Bell?

[Vonny]

Are you still stuck working at Taco Bell?

If he is, he has job security, because fast food and liquor store jobs aren't going anywhere.


I don't know why but I keep envisioning Neely like this before he reaches retirement. I can't get it out of my head!

[Emil Miller]

[QUOTE=stlukesguild;1089323I think that what Neely refers to is the fact that many teachers enter the field with noble ideals of correcting inequalities in society through education of those students most in need. After some time in the system dealing with incompetent coworkers, continual educational reform "experts", gutless and/or vindictive, administrators horrible parents, and politicians who speak continually of "accountability" but never apply this term to parents, administrators, the education experts, the students, or their own incompetent meddling many teachers become rather cynical and start to agree with conservative individuals like Brian.[/QUOTE]

If conservative individuals had stood up to the 'progressive tendency', which also included many teachers, and held their ground, the horrendous faults that you and Neely have highlighted would never have come to pass. In a contest where liberalism versus conservatism in schools, or anywhere else for that matter, it's obvious that there really is no contest: if by conservatism we mean commonsense backed by discipline.
I recall an instance when, as a schoolchild, I and the rest of the class were given new exercise books and asked to print our name on the front. Every child in the class printed his name on the front and I'm pretty sure that would have been the response in schools throughout the land.
Educational reform, as with reform in general, is an ongoing thing, but at the point where it produces the opposite result to that intended, it should be rejected for the nonsense that it is.

[Vonny]

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.

I've been debating whether to say this or not.

In the old days, parents worried that their child would miss out on a whipping, not that they would be whipped when they didn't deserve it.

Regarding that last part that I bolded:

Kids didn't used to be coddled and pampered and protected, and all that. That kind of thinking was foreign to folks long ago.

When my mom was a little girl, she once stayed later than she was supposed to at a friend's home. My grandmother went to bring her home and took the switch, and my mom said every time her foot touched the ground my grandmother wrapped the switch around her legs.

But my mom says that at least grandma didn't "cut the blood out" the way my great-grandmother always did when she took the switch to my grandmother.

And there's a very long tradition in my family of children behaving in church.

It's funny that now there has to be daycare in churches because the kids can't be expected to sit in the pews next to their parents. In the old days the kids sat through church. It only took one encounter with the switch and then they sat like little angels right through the service. (Now I'm not necessarily advocating this, I'm just saying that this is how it worked.)

[cafolini]

Yep, it could be that or...

I've finished the second Frank Chalk book which was just more of the same from the first, but still very good.

I've downloaded a sample of another similar type, about a teacher in a top school who quits his job, lives in a camper van and then goes on supply in rough schools for the 'experience'. Yes that is what I'm thinking.

Interesting observation.

[Seasider]

@ Emil Miller
"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."

The man who said "We are the Masters now." was Sir Hartley Shawcross, Attorney General in the post- war Labour Government. It was said in a debate on the subject of Trade Unions. He admitted that it was a mistake to say it. He did not stay in the Labour Party but went to the Lords as a cross-bencher, though his nickname was Sir Shortly Floorcross!

Free Secondary education was not introduced into England & Wales until 1902 administered by Local Education Authorities. Between this and the 1944 Education Act, approximately 75000 children from the age cohort would have a Grammar School place while the other 225000 would go to an Elementary School where the leaving age was not even 14 until 1921.

These children would have no chance at all to take the Matriculation Certificate which was essential for Higher Education.

The goal of Elementary schools was Literacy not Education. And if some schools now, for reasons discussed above, don't manage even that for every child... that is nothing to do with the 1944 Act.

The 1944 Act wasn't perfect but it gave the opportunity for bright working class children to be admitted to a Grammar School and proceed to Matriculation and University...and all free of charge!! Personally I thank my lucky stars for being born at a time to take advantage of it. My mother, born 1910, who was as bright and promising as I was,was forced to leave school at 13 to look after 6 siblings and her father after her mother died.

The equality of opportunity which was established by the Act was in no sense a spurious equality It established an equality, which though limited, replaced a system where there was none at all.

[Emil Miller]

@ Emil Miller
"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."

The man who said "We are the Masters now" who was Sir Hartley Shawcross, Attorney General in the post- war Labour Government. It was said in a debate on the subject of Trade Unions. He admitted that it was a mistake to say it. He did not stay in the Labour Party but went to the Lords as a cross-bencher, though his nickname was Sir Shortly Floorcross!

Free Secondary education was not introduced into England & Wales until 1902 administered by Local Education Authorities. Between this and the 1944 Education Act, approximately 75000 children from the age cohort would have a Grammar School place while the other 225000 would go to an Elementary School where the leaving age was not even 14 until 1921.

These children would have no chance at all to take the Matriculation Certificate which was essential for Higher Education.

The goal of Elementary schools was Literacy not Education. And if some schools now for reasons discussed above don't manage even that for every child that is nothing to do with the 1944 Act.

The 1944 Act wasn't perfect but it gave the opportunity for bright working class children to be admitted to a Grammar School and proceed to Matriculation and University...and all free of charge!! Personally I thank my lucky stars for being born at a time to take advantage of it.

The equality of opportunity which was established by the Act was in no sense a spurious equality It established an equality, which though limited, replaced a system where there was none at all.

I am aware that it was Sir Hartley Shawcross who said it, in fact he features as Britain's Attorney General and chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials in my book Pro Bono Publico. Interestingly, it was reported in Hansard that he was supposed to have said: "We are the masters at the moment and shall be for some considerable time." This was disputed by a member who was actually sitting behind him when he said it.
The 1944 Education Act was introduced by a Conservative Education Minister R.A.Butler with the principal intention of providing increased numbers of grammar school places for children than had previously been the case.
As I have said, it was after 1945 that a Labour government began the process of loosening the constraints that would eventually lead to the abandonment of those very grammar schools that Rab Butler had engendered and replacing them with what we have now; all in the name of a spurious equality.
You were indeed fortunate in going to a grammar school before they were destroyed by Labour politicians. There's not much chance of able children going to them now. Incidentally, education at any level is never 'free', somebody has to pay for it in one form or another.

[Seasider]

As I have said, it was after 1945 that a Labour government began the process of loosening the constraints that would eventually lead to the abandonment of those very grammar schools that Rab Butler had engendered and replacing them with what we have now; all in the name of a spurious equality.
You were indeed fortunate in going to a grammar school before they were destroyed by Labour politicians. There's not much chance of able children going to them now. Incidentally, education at any level is never 'free', somebody has to pay for it in one form or another.

The 1944 Education Act was passed by a Coalition Government, not Rab Butler on his own, and was implemented from '45 by Ellen Wilkinson, the first Labour Minister of Education
There was no Labour Government to change the system between 1951 and 1964.

The Comprehensive School movement was not piloted by a group of doctrinaire Labour MPs, but by parents and teachers of all political stripes who recognised the essential unfairness of the prevailing system. Some LEAs had 10% Grammar School places, others 30+%. There were many more Boys' GSs than Girls'. So your gender and your location. not your intelligence, determined whether you had the privilege of a Grammar School education.

What happens in schools now, pace Frank Chalk and others, is to do with the particular social, economic, cultural and political conditions of the 21st Century in Britain...not the Post-War Government who gave us The National Health Service, Free Education from Infant schools to University and National Insurance.

[LitNetIsGreat]

But even so, at least the old grammar school system allowed some students from poorer backgrounds to get to the top universities. Now there is virtually no chance of even a very bright student who attends one of these types of comprehensives getting there. It is a fact that there were more state school students attending Oxford or Cambridge in the 1970s than there are today. As Frank says for "99% of people nowadays their future is sealed from the moment they are born." So much for social mobity, what a joke.

The problem is that all parties do not support a return to the old system, as Frank highlights:

None of the main parties agree with me - David Willets, the current Universities Minister declard in 2007 that the Conservatives will not support any kind of academic selection. He forgot to mention the fact that he was lucky enough to be able to go to a Grammar school himself (and sent his own chldren to privatre schools).

David Cameron, who was fortunate enough to be educated at Eton, rushed to enthusiastically support him. Nick Clegg (who attended the exclusive Westminster School) [both of which cost around £10,000 per term] has declared that he also opposes selection in schools.

On the other side of the house, Ed Balls says that Grammar Schools are responsible for making pupils feel like failures. I think that crap comprehensive schools wher you can just muck about all day and not learn anything are far more likely to make their pupils feel like failures (a few years after they leave with no qualifications).

Ed forgets to mention that he was sufficiently privileged to have parents who could afford to send him to a nice public school in Nottingham where he recieved an excellent education which enabled him to get to Oxford University.

The bottom line is that these comprehensives are failing. The two tier system was not perfect for sure, but what we have now in the state sector (of bottom schools) is failure for all; students and teachers alike.

[Emil Miller]

The 1944 Education Act was passed by a Coalition Government, not Rab Butler on his own, and was implemented from '45 by Ellen Wilkinson, the first Labour Minister of Education
There was no Labour Government to change the system between 1951 and 1964.

The Comprehensive School movement was not piloted by a group of doctrinaire Labour MPs, but by parents and teachers of all political stripes who recognised the essential unfairness of the prevailing system. Some LEAs had 10% Grammar School places, others 30+%. There were many more Boys' GSs than Girls'. So your gender and your location. not your intelligence, determined whether you had the privilege of a Grammar School education.

What happens in schools now, pace Frank Chalk and others, is to do with the particular social, economic, cultural and political conditions of the 21st Century in Britain...not the Post-War Government who gave us The National Health Service, Free Education from Infant schools to University and National Insurance.

There was a lot of controversy surrounding comprehensive education when it was mooted and it remained controversial until it was implemented and it still does.
Here's what Wikipedia says:
Circular 10/65 is a Government circular issued in 1965 by the Department of Education and Science (DES) requesting Local Education Authorities (LEAs) in England and Wales to begin converting their secondary schools to the Comprehensive System. For most of England and Wales, it marked the abolition of the old grammar schools and secondary moderns, and the Eleven Plus examination. Circular 10/65 was the initiative of recently appointed Education Secretary Anthony Crosland; it is sometimes called the Crosland Circular. It reflected the Labour government's view that the existing Tripartite System of education was flawed, and had to be replaced with comprehensive schools, which had been increasing in number over the previous sixteen years.

That comprehensive education was the product of politicians is beyond doubt, here's what happened in relation to the Crosland Circular.

During the Circular's drafting, there was a debate in Whitehall over how strongly worded the Circular ought to be. Secondary education was not under the direct control of the DES, and all changes had to be implemented by the local authorities. Those firmly in favour of the comprehensive system believed that the Circular should convert all schools into comprehensives. Those preferring to preserve the balance of power between the DES and LEAs thought that the word should be "request".
Upon release in July 1965 [1], the Circular used the word "request". In practice, the DES used its financial muscle to make opposition to the change harder. Local authorities relied on the central government to pay for the large number of new schools made necessary by the post-war baby boom. The DES refused to pay for any new secondary school which was not a comprehensive. As a result, a number of LEAs otherwise supporting the tripartite system, such as Bromley and Surrey, found it necessary to go comprehensive.
Within days of the election of a Conservative government in June 1970, the new education minister Margaret Thatcher withdrew the Circular. The replacement, Circular 10/70, allowed each authority to decide its own policy.

As for doctrinaire politicians here's the well-known infamous quote from Anthony Crosland, then Secretary of State for Education. You may choose to believe Roy Hattersley's denial but I wouldn't.

In her biography published in 1982, Susan Crosland claimed her husband had told her "If it's the last thing I do, I'm going to destroy every ****ing grammar school in England. And Wales and Northern Ireland", although close associates such as Roy Hattersley have doubted that the quotation is genuine. The outcome has been a source of controversy ever since.

Frank Chalk's book highlights problems that have been ongoing well before the 21st century.

[OrphanPip]

I think you exaggerate how bad things are to an extent. I went to a public school that was ranked 26th out of 27 English language schools in Montreal, the only one behind us was the one servicing the Mohawk reserve. I managed to receive a reasonable quality education and attend the top ranked life science university in Canada, and a top 20 internationally.

There is a problem with the idea of getting rid of the "egalitarian" principles, which is can we really trust the ability of the system to accurately predict the ability of students? The difficulty with tailoring education to the needs of individual students is, like stlukes said, the issue of cost. The likely end result is that the system will just reinforce social inequalities and funnel privileges towards children already coming from better environments, because that would be the most cost effective use of funds.

One thing we should probably consider is why Canada (3rd in reading, 5th in math and science) and Australia (5th, 9th, and 15th), which are culturally very similar to the US (14th, 25th, 17th) and UK (20th, 22nd, 11th), rank higher in international performance. We have a comprehensive school system, and teacher's unions, so why do we not have the same systemic education problems? How is the education system in the US and UK differing from that in Canada, or other top performers for public schools like South Korea and Finland.