It’s often difficult to convince people how low the
expectations are for working class kids can be in schools. I have a lot of
anecdotes from a lot of schools. So many times I have been told that I cannot
expect much from “kids like these”. I have been told that I haven’t understood
that a school being slightly above average for the number of students on Free
School Meals means I cannot expect students to spend a whole lesson learning. I
have been told that kids from a particular area “don’t have parents like yours”
and so will not care about how they do in school. More than anything, low
standards of behaviour are excused on the basis that being disobedient and
disruptive is normal for the working class. They simply don’t know any better.
The ability of middle class teachers to paint anywhere with council housing as the ghetto,never
ceases to amaze me. The worst possible home environment is assumed, again and
again, even in schools where the parents evenings indicate that most parents
are actually interested, aspirational and articulate.
Probably the most dangerous version of this caricature,
is the idea that this difference between
the classes requires a difference in the curriculum. It is accepted
that academic subjects are fine for our children, and, incredibly, so is
didactic teaching and the expectation that children can control themselves. But
working class kids won’t be interested in any of that. If they are going to
cooperate they must be given a curriculum that isn’t too full of content; that
would just demotivate them. What working class kids is something to motivate
them; something which does not assume they are capable of being interested in anything
more than what they are already used to. The middle classes can have knowledge
of all that is worthwhile; working class kids just need to be motivated by
being told about matters that are relevant to their lives. Middle class kids
can study poetry and nineteenth century novels; working class kids can study
text messaging and reality TV.
The worst examples of this sort of snobbery were probably
those during the early days of the free school movement. Activists who were
desperate to prove free schools were selective struggled to find anything to
indicate this in their admissions policies. So, instead, they looked at the
curriculum. The claim was that an academic curriculum would deter working class
parents from sending their kids to a school.
So we saw arguments like these:
it is not uncommon for free schools to market themselves
in various ways as appropriate mainly for abler and more middle class families
… eg compulsory Latin, lack of vocational provision,
focus exclusively on Russell Group as a destination, expensive
uniform, religious tests and so on. [my emphasis]
Education for Everyone blog
Numerous studies have shown that languages are a class
and gender thing. Children from lower socio-economic backgrounds are less
likely to be encouraged to learn them by their parents, less likely to see the
point of them and less likely to have parents at home who can help with their
homework. It is a particular problem for boys, whose parents are more likely to
encourage them in science than in languages.
…When [founder of the West London Free School, Toby]
Young says that all children will have to learn Latin at Key Stage 3 (and
either Latin or a modern language after that), he excludes the kids of parents
for whom Latin is a frightening prospect. So much for comprehensive entry.
From The New Statesman
What we have is a bun fight for the middle-class
aspirational children: we have lots of glossy prospectuses and PR in order to
recruit the children that are most likely to do well.
“And I don’t buy this idea that admission is open to all.
The minute you put Latin on the curriculum for the first few years or put
pupils in stripey blazers, you will only recruit one kind of child, regardless
of how many times you say your school is for everybody.”
Headteacher quoted in the Guardian
I had hoped that people were a bit more circumspect about
their low expectations for working class kids these days. But just this week I
was amazed to see the following gem on the ASCL website,
reacting to the discrepancies in access to academic subjects across the
country:
it seems to me that there’s a big assumption behind the
gloomy tone of his comments and indeed of the BBC coverage; that the
government’s prescription for improving social mobility was right after all. As
far as I can see, the ‘MorGovian’ way to get more pupils from disadvantaged
backgrounds into Russell Group universities is to ensure that all such pupils
study ‘academic’ subjects – an EBacc compatible Key Stage 4 curriculum, for
example – and that they aren’t incentivised to study ‘vocational’ subjects, as
was the case under Labour.
I would have thought a better way of improving social
mobility would be to ensure pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds get the best
possible results from a curriculum that motivates and inspires them, whether that
be ‘academic’ or ‘vocational’. The trick is to get the curriculum right for
each individual. After all, success breeds success; youngsters are surely far
more likely to want to keep on with this education thing if they’re doing well
at it. Staying on in education (taking respected, high-value qualifications, I
should add) is surely the best bet for ensuring long-term success in the labour
market.
In fact, I can’t help wondering if the whole question of
advantage and disadvantage is a big red herring here. Doesn’t aptitude matter
more than social background? Shouldn’t we be more interested in guiding
youngsters into the various curricular paths according to where their interests
and prior attainment suggest they are most likely to succeed? Okay, a disproportionate
number of disadvantaged pupils may have fallen behind by Year 9, but surely
such students need intervention and support rather than a curriculum pathway
which risks even further demotivation.
This was written by a headteacher on the blog of an organisation
representing headteachers across the country. If headteachers are willing to
argue in
publicthat students from deprived backgrounds need a
curriculum based around motivation rather than academic achievement, what
chance do they have? The education establishment still firmly believe that what
is appropriate for their children is far too demotivating for other people’s
children.
https://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/2015/03/01/how-the-education-establishment-supports-inequality/
Introduction to Turbo Charged Reading
YouTube
A practical
overview of
Turbo Charged Reading YouTube
How to choose a book. A Turbo Charged
Reading YouTube
Emotions when Turbo Charged Reading YouTube
Advanced Reading Skills Perhaps you’d like
to join my FaceBook group ?
Perhaps you’d like to check out my sister blog:
www.innermindworking.blogspot.com
gives many ways for you to work with the stresses of
life
To quote the Dr Seuss himself, “The more that you read,
the more things you will know.
The more that you learn; the more places you'll go.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your opinions, experience and questions are welcome. M'reen