Is the NUT self important.

[rest have risen above me]

LINK

Why do teachers think that they can avoid a quantative measure of their ability? The NUT apart from having at least 12 weeks a year off and finishing at 3:30pm have decided to boycott SATs tests for 11 year olds. To me the final product is how educated the children are and the way to do this is by tests. Not according to the teaching unions its not, they want a system where their performance is measured by teacher assessment which effectively means that they can just pat themselves on the back all the time. I think we’ve seen where self governing goes, just think MPs.

 

[Shugster]

I think it should be a mix of both tests and assessments, however the teachers themselves should be independently assessed, (How to make it truly independent would be a problem).

There was a russian education minister who saw all these tests in UK and said, "You don't make a pig fat by weighing it"

A reset to 1980 and the old O level system would be a good start.

 

[tag_lincoln]

Don't forget that the NUT is an old style 70's union that is more interested in protecting its crap members than giving your kids a decent education; that’s not to say testing is the be all and end all especially when you read of schools encouraging students to drop harder subjects and do soft subjects with a higher chance of passing. If there are going to be league tables make them entirely based on Maths, English and a Science, everything else can be of the league table microscope so the schools can do as it wants rather than compulsory state indoctrination.

Yes the NUT is self important.

 

[Digzster]

LINK

Why do teachers think that they can avoid a quantative measure of their ability? The NUT apart from having at least 12 weeks a year off and finishing at 3:30pm have decided to boycott SATs tests for 11 year olds. To me the final product is how educated the children are and the way to do this is by tests. Not according to the teaching unions its not, they want a system where their performance is measured by teacher assessment which effectively means that they can just pat themselves on the back all the time. I think we’ve seen where self governing goes, just think MPs.

Rest, you have obviously never been married to a teacher (and a good one at that). I had to marry Mrs Digzster to remove her from teaching. That was the only way I got to spend some time with her.

Typical working day when I met her: Marking / prep 06:00 - school start - supervise lunches (not eating herself) - 15:50 - 18:00 Marking & lesson prep - 18:01 eat - 18:20 - 23:30 marking & prep. That was just a weekday! In reality in the summer break, she had two whole weeks of no school tasks.

When you add to that snotty kids acting as barrack room lawers, beligerant parents, now she is their social worker etc etc etc you can keep that job!

I'm just glad I can afford for her NOT to work in that job. 24.5 years was long enough. By the way, she is now regaining her sanity.

 

[rest have risen above me]

Rest, you have obviously never been married to a teacher (and a good one at that). I had to marry Mrs Digzster to remove her from teaching. That was the only way I got to spend some time with her.

Typical working day when I met her: Marking / prep 06:00 - school start - supervise lunches (not eating herself) - 15:50 - 18:00 Marking & lesson prep - 18:01 eat - 18:20 - 23:30 marking & prep. That was just a weekday! In reality in the summer break, she had two whole weeks of no school tasks.

When you add to that snotty kids acting as barrack room lawers, beligerant parents, now she is their social worker etc etc etc you can keep that job!

I'm just glad I can afford for her NOT to work in that job. 24.5 years was long enough. By the way, she is now regaining her sanity.

My heart is bleeding... No really it is....
I admit that my blasé statement of times and holidays may have been a little harsh (And your holiday bills must have been awful as although you can take kids out of school you can't take the teacher out...don't get me started on travel companies and their holiday pricing policies..lol). I accept that some teachers do work over and above the times (and so they should I mean 8:30 to 15:30 c'mon) but teaching is a calling and you must be mad to look after kids voluntarily.

My point is why should a profession monitor itself in a way that is self preserving? Your car is tested once a year to a standard and your driving is tested to a standard. I test my mechanics to a standard every 6 months. By setting a standard you put in place a quantifiable level that is set by a higher authority. The NUT seem to think that it is their right to boycott something that affects lives in a way that may disadvantage children taught by NUT teachers against ones that aren't.
If teachers are allowed to assess then the temptation is to over assess to make the school sound better and provide a distorted view, whereas if there are set tests with quantifiable standards set by a central body then you can illuminate problems and fix them where the fixes are needed.

 

[needsabiggerfuse]

The SATs test produces a broad brush 'snapshot' of one day. The exam cannot possibly cover the whole syllabus in two papers, (1 x non-calculator and 1 x calculators allowed). The kids get stressed almost to the point of mass hysteria; you have to see it to believe it. All they do during the Spring term is past papers; "Here's how to pass the exam ...". What kind of teaching is that? And for what ... just so some faceless bureaucrat can tick a box.

The NUT's anti-SATs position is that there is a better way. Much better to 'Teach a little - test a little' against agreed tests and levels as and when students are ready (the syllabus has 18 modules per year). My department gives parents a students level for any of the National Curriculum areas - Number, Algebra, Data Handling, Shape down to a third of a level, e.g. 4H - 5L - 5M - 5H - 6L - 6M, etc. As opposed to the SATS style 'Student X is Level 6 in maths'. Parents understand it, kids know where they stand and what they need to do to improve.

Students no longer sit SATS in Year 9. Did we miss it? Short answer - No! It was irrelevant because of the fact that our own data was far more accurate.

This afternoon I did Perimeter & Area with Year 7 Set 3. They drew shapes and letters on cm-squared paper. Counted squares and how many spaces around the outside. The final task was to think of a way of remembering the difference between perimeter and area. One little girl came up with a mad monkey called Ape O. "It's quite simple" she said "A.I.P.O - area in - perimeter out". I guarantee none of the class will muddle up the two and I challenge anyone to come up with a better way of learning than that.

In case you're worried about 'over assessment', all our records are maintained on the schools database which has to be ready at 48-hours notice from our friends at Ofsted. Do they cross refer evidence that is presented to them? You bet your sweet life they do.

 

[rest have risen above me]

nabf cheers for that although I'm not convinced. Isn't there a possibility of learn and dump or does that just apply to us RAF blokes. Who sets the small tests?

 

[NotAnIDOYet]

nabf cheers for that although I'm not convinced. Isn't there a possibility of learn and dump or does that just apply to us RAF blokes. Who sets the small tests?

Off TopicI am an avid believer that learn and dump does not exist, look up transferal from short to long term memory and neural pathways!stfu

Mrs NAIDOY is a primary teacher who has openly admitted that teachers now teach to SATS, levels and "value added" throughout a school can affect funding and in a previous school where there were some "problem" children, parents were almost actually encouraged to take their kids out at SATS time to avoid dragging the average down.

SATS time is a nightmare, everything in a school stops for "preparation" or "teaching the kids to pass the test" I feel the "Ape O" approach to teaching is much better and tests understanding.

 

[madpiglet]

Don't know enough to say whether I reckon the NUT is self-important over and above what you'd regularly notice in any other trade union or professional organisation, but this business of only teaching to the test and somehow not addressing what I would consider to be the real underneath learning - understanding and then being able to transfer that and apply it to other subjects and situations and all that.

I know my youngest gave up at school - having a mild dyslexia which they never bothered to take into consideration even though he was Statemented meant he didn't get enough time and he got so stressed he couldn't learn, and the teachers were so focussed on getting everyone through The Test that they ignored his need to be taught in a way that he could follow.

I don't blame the teachers - I hold the System to account for that and the extreme stress placed on all, teachers and students, to learn to The Test. Short-term goals and all that, at the detriment of longer term education? In this respect, maybe organisations like the NUT are needed to put the awkward questions to the System?

 

[woollymouse]

Having been a student teacher who saw the light before qualifying. I agree wholeheartedly that the NUT is stuck in the early seventies when the unions ruled. It was in the 80's and has never changed. However, they shouldn't be pushing to get rid of the SATs by what is effectively boycotting them but by pointing out the problems with them. For far to long the 'Do Gooder' groups have dominated. Teachers aren't able to teach or even discipline for fear of some little yob claiming his/her human rights are being infringed or they are be discriminated against.

Get that sorted and standards should improve and maybe society will improve.

 

[rest have risen above me]

Off TopicI am an avid believer that learn and dump does not exist, look up transferal from short to long term memory and neural pathways!stfu

Mrs NAIDOY is a primary teacher who has openly admitted that teachers now teach to SATS, levels and "value added" throughout a school can affect funding and in a previous school where there were some "problem" children, parents were almost actually encouraged to take their kids out at SATS time to avoid dragging the average down.

SATS time is a nightmare, everything in a school stops for "preparation" or "teaching the kids to pass the test" I feel the "Ape O" approach to teaching is much better and tests understanding.

I'm working on the RAF system of training with the learn and dump. We know it exists and although this may seem to go against my test idea I am sure that if you have to learn something over a year then it will stay. If you learn then don't practise then it's a gonner. (I know logarithms exist and at one point could run you round a set of log tables like a waiter can run round a set of Gordon Ramsay's restaurant tables)

Can you explain the "value added" bit please as I did not understand. As for teaching kids to pass the test . If the test has all the required points then teaching to pass the test isn't a problem. I'm sure that teaching to pass the driving test fulfills the required levels and works as the base to create a safe driver. (Not always successful admittedly but it's an impossibility to have a system for everyone just most people)

 

[Joe_90]

When you talk about learn and dump you are talking about adults trying to get through a course to earn more money. They aren't interested in becoming the best tradesman just an adequate one so they reckon they don't need the knowledge being imparted. Kids on the other hand are at school to learn and one of the skills of teaching is to lead on from one thing to the next withut them realising that they are still using those skills. When you go from learning how to multiply onto algebra some years later you are building on skills already learned for instance. I personally think of the RAF method of teaching as being very close to SATs, teach to an exam, pass exam, move onto next subject and you've already hinted you reckon that's a poor way teach.

 

[rest have risen above me]

J90.. I reckon that teaching small testing small is wrong and final exams are right eg O levels after 2 years. It may be me but unless there are limits/levels/standards then I find it strange. (Abstract art is wasted on me lol). I agree that courses .should build on prior subjects

 

[Digzster]

.......My point is why should a profession monitor itself in a way that is self preserving? Your car is tested once a year to a standard and your driving is tested to a standard. I test my mechanics to a standard every 6 months. By setting a standard you put in place a quantifiable level that is set by a higher authority. The NUT seem to think that it is their right to boycott something that affects lives in a way that may disadvantage children taught by NUT teachers against ones that aren't.
If teachers are allowed to assess then the temptation is to over assess to make the school sound better and provide a distorted view, whereas if there are set tests with quantifiable standards set by a central body then you can illuminate problems and fix them where the fixes are needed.

Rest,

Ok, my apologies for jumping down your throat. The red mist has cleared to an extent where me and Mrs Digster had a good talk last night. She is in total agreement that teachers should have an "MOT" of sorts to ensure that standards are met for teaching although every 3 years was preferred. Cutting down on Govt. interference with league tables and red tape etc was also high on the agenda. As expected, discipline was way at the top of topics...bring back the birch! PS Can I have another one miss?

 

[rest have risen above me]

Digz you're a softy... The birch is much too lenient for some of these little sods.

How do you do the teachers MOT and to what standards? Obviously there are huge gaps in agreement on the best way. What's Mrs D's solution, as an interested party?

 

[Digzster]

Digz you're a softy... The birch is much too lenient for some of these little sods.

How do you do the teachers MOT and to what standards? Obviously there are huge gaps in agreement on the best way. What's Mrs D's solution, as an interested party?

Rest, Yes I suppose I am getting soft in my dotage.

Mrs Digster was looking at when she had to "qualify". e.g. a check on lesson plans / how to deal with unruly kids / actual lesson teaching etc and was checked (in the classroom with kids) by a standards inspector from the local province schoolboard. She would think that every 3 years would be sufficient to identify any drop in standard by the teacher.

Mind you, that was when there was discipline there to back the teacher (which sadly is no more).

 

[needsabiggerfuse]

nabf cheers for that although I'm not convinced. Isn't there a possibility of learn and dump or does that just apply to us RAF blokes. Who sets the small tests?

The 'small tests' are set by the National Curriculum people and are linked to the pre-set NC levels for each topic. Learn and Dump does happen with some kids except the whole shebang is one giant helix and we visit each topic at least twice a year. As each year passes the students are supposed to climb higher up the helix and this is where my style of teaching, i.e. Ape O comes in. I passed a low ability group on to a colleague once who then tried to introduce a 'new' topic to them. "We did that with Mr 'Fuse last year". "Oh yes, and what can you remember (just about all the key stuff as it turned out). What did Mr 'Fuse do?" "Oh he jumped about the room and skidded across the floor". They were doing discrete and continuous data by the way.

When kids arrive at GCSE, it really is down to how much they can remember. At the moment I have the Year 11 Choir singing 'The Quadratic Formula Song', x equals negative b, plus or minus square root ... (just think Jedward and you'll get some idea of what it's like). But, they remember it.

 

[NotAnIDOYet]

I'm working on the RAF system of training with the learn and dump. We know it exists and although this may seem to go against my test idea I am sure that if you have to learn something over a year then it will stay. If you learn then don't practise then it's a gonner. (I know logarithms exist and at one point could run you round a set of log tables like a waiter can run round a set of Gordon Ramsay's restaurant tables)

Can you explain the "value added" bit please as I did not understand. As for teaching kids to pass the test . If the test has all the required points then teaching to pass the test isn't a problem. I'm sure that teaching to pass the driving test fulfills the required levels and works as the base to create a safe driver. (Not always successful admittedly but it's an impossibility to have a system for everyone just most people)

Learn and dump is an expression used in the forces a lot because some of the courses are seen as a necessary evil and the old favourite "memory retention" courses. Now a good instructor/teacher will use their skills to impart pertinent information so that the transferral from short to long term memory is made. Once something exists in long term then it is not forgotten without some form of neural trauma. The key skill for the instructor is to get the information back out, that is the real skill in writing exam questions. As for the log tables, you probably would get the skill back if you were using them regularly.

I did quite a lot of research on learn & dump (including speaking to some university professor types and the psycology people at PMA) so PM me if you are interested in some more info.

"Value Added" is how education tries to measure itself at the moment. For example, child A is baseline assessed in Reception year. This data is compared to Y2 SAT results in order to guage what the school have "added". This is not always possible in the military environment as many of our students/trainees have no previous subject knowledge.

Sorry for dragging off-topic a bit, just a favourite subject of mine and I am married to a teacher so I know all about their work-dodging ways (I instruct full time and would love the luxury of PPA!).