# Holding pupils back a year?



## Gmart (Aug 1, 2013)

A YouGov poll asked about this, pointing out that several other European nations do this, such as US, France, Spain and Germany.




> Holding back a year: general public compared to parents





> 67% of the British public support introducing a system of holding back children a year if they don’t make enough progress​21% oppose holding children back a year in schools​Parents of school-age children are slightly less likely to support holding children back, however, and just over a quarter oppose the idea.​​61% of parents of school-age children support holding children back a year if necessary​27% oppose the suggestion​​


​ 
Of course there should be teaching resources allocated to make sure that 'No Child is Left Behind' - but let us imagine that this somehow didn't happen/work (for whatever reason) and that the pupil is now looking at a poor result in the yearly exams? Is it a reasonable to expect the pupil to be able to catch up on the previous year's work while learning new topics?


----------



## Belushi (Aug 1, 2013)

I'm sure they used to hold pupils back when I was at school in the eighties


----------



## equationgirl (Aug 1, 2013)

The US isn't in Europe, Gmart.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Aug 1, 2013)

dunno really.

the social implications /stigma of being 'demoted' a year are such that it's likely to demotivate further in a lot of cases.

and the idea that often gets floated of promoting 'bright' kids a year can often be counter productive as well.

and what if kid who's already been kept back a year 'fails' the year again?  would we end up with 16 year olds who are still at primary school?

i really don't know the answer, and don't think there is a simple answer.  Schooling (not to be confused with education) seems still to be more about conformity than anything else, and a lot of the time, schools can't cope with anyone who's not pretty average, either those who need more help or those who are at any time way ahead of the average in one or more areas.

kids start school at 5 with a huge range of ability depending a fair bit on their background and home environment - some kids start life in an environment where their chances of being able to read and write English by the time they are 5 are negligible - much of the education system is pretty eager (and more so when the grammar school enthusiasts get involved) to label those kids 'thick' or 'failures' for life.


----------



## nagapie (Aug 1, 2013)

Absolutely not. They hold back in SA where I'm from and you end up with huge men sitting in little classes until they just give up and leave. Being strong academically does not equate to intelligence or even correspond to most developmental milestones.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 1, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> The US isn't in Europe, Gmart.


 
Sorry, the UK version was 'Every Child Matters', big difference, not...


----------



## Gmart (Aug 1, 2013)

If we push them forward whatever their achievement, how would they deal with the new work no doubt based on understanding of the previous work?


----------



## equationgirl (Aug 1, 2013)

Gmart said:


> A YouGov poll asked about this, pointing out that several other European nations do this, such as US, France, Spain and Germany.


 

You said the US was a European country. It's not. I wasn't making a point about the strapline they've decided to use.

Sadly, education is becoming drastically underfunded and teachers barely have enough time to do everything that is needed because there aren't enough of them, or teaching assistants to help. It is inevitable that children will start to suffer if teachers aren't properly supported, no matter how good the teachers are.

Should kids have to repeat a year? Absolutely not, but is putting them up a year going to help if they aren't doing well?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 1, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> You said the US was a European country. It's not. I wasn't making a point about the strapline they've decided to use.


 
Good point, sorry about that, my mistake 



equationgirl said:


> Sadly, education is becoming drastically underfunded and teachers barely have enough time to do everything that is needed because there aren't enough of them, or teaching assistants to help. It is inevitable that children will start to suffer if teachers aren't properly supported, no matter how good the teachers are.
> 
> Should kids have to repeat a year? Absolutely not, but is putting them up a year going to help if they aren't doing well?


 
Caught between a rock and a hard place again. If we put them up then some will fall further behind. If we keep them down then some will be demotivated into a spiral of failure.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 1, 2013)

If we keep them back though, then the level of the classes remain stable, the variance of knowledge stays small, enabling the teacher to plan a reasonable lesson. If we push them forward then we create classes where the level of knowledge becomes more difficult to predict, and with this larger variance comes further problems. Why should the class wait for those pupils who don't know last year's work? They have more than enough work to do with this year's work, and should the teacher's limited time be spent working with these children pushed forward anyway?

Surely the learning environment in the classroom has to be the priority? If they are repeating the year then this might be a chance to get it right this time?


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Aug 1, 2013)

Gmart said:


> Surely the learning environment in the classroom has to be the priority? If they are repeating the year then this might be a chance to get it right this time?


 
And how will the learning environment in the classroom be affected by having a small bunch of pissed-off kids who are bigger than most of their class?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 1, 2013)

Puddy_Tat said:


> And how will the learning environment in the classroom be affected by having a small bunch of pissed-off kids who are bigger than most of their class?


 
At least they will have covered the same amount of work, to the same level...

I am not blind to the difficulty you describe, but I would argue that most of the age differences would be small, and that larger ones might indicate other issues. However the class learning becomes much more difficult if you push pupils, who do not have an adequate understanding of the previous year's work, forward one year anyway. They will have double the work and will be more likely to drop out than if they were held back.


----------



## nagapie (Aug 1, 2013)

If kids are failing to keep up, it already indicates that something about the system or curriculum is not working for them and merely repeating it in the same way is not going to help. Besides we have a system called differentiation in this country, which means you pitch at a number of levels and in a number of ways to make the work accessible to all. Also school work is assessed in a very narrow way. For example all the dyslexics would be held back because they can't read and write well regardless of their intelligence. 

It sounds like sending education backwards a hundred years.


----------



## geminisnake (Aug 1, 2013)

Belushi said:


> I'm sure they used to hold pupils back when I was at school in the eighties


They did. I got held back a year at school, must have been 1980 or 81. I got fed up of nothing I did being good enough so I did nothing for a year  Didn't do any good, I left school pregnant anyway. First pupil at that school to do so afaik.


----------



## pogofish (Aug 1, 2013)

Holding a kid back a year was pretty-much writing them off educationally in the most public way - at least for kids who didn't offer the school a discipline-based solution.  

I don't think I ever saw a child actually benefit from it and most suffered an irrevocable loss of interest in education as a result.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Aug 1, 2013)

To the child, it would probably feel like a punishment for not jumping through the right hoops at the right time. The reality is that there are very very few children who 'fail' to meet the minimum standards of education (in the narrowest sense) set out in the national curriculum and those children would be better served by identifying and addressing the barriers and difficulties they face and perhaps supporting them, giving them extra lessons after school, during school hours or set up school holiday programmes. That would require funding and a real commitment to the process of learning, not just the educational attainment, of each child.
Not to mention, of course, that the education system is supposed to be demonstrating the value of vocational studies and not just academic achievement; keeping children behind may prevent them from achieving their future potential since you would already install in them a sense of failure and inadequacy.
It's a narrow minded and unkind idea.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Aug 1, 2013)

pogofish said:


> Holding a kid back a year was pretty-much writing them off educationally in the most public way - at least for kids who didn't offer the school a discipline-based solution.
> 
> I don't think I ever saw a child actually benefit from it and most suffered an irrevocable loss of interest in education as a result.


Yep. Kids were held back when I was at school in Ireland and when they were they started using off, being disruptive and giving up. They often left school early and the threat of being held back out massive pressure on pupils every year.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 2, 2013)

Given the choice of holding them back, but remaining at a level which is commensurate with their knowledge and the idea of pushing them through anyway and expecting them both to catch up the work that they don't understand whilst somehow keeping up with the new work being covered in that new year seems an obvious choice for the former even if there is some embarrassment to endure. Pushing them forward would be forcing them to work at twice the usual speed and should be recognised as even more unfair than having to endure some teasing.

The idea that we can just get the teacher to differentiate for more and more pupils as the variance of knowledge in his/her class gets bigger and bigger is a waste of his/her time, and will probably impact on the learning itself. There is a limit to how much differentiating even the best teacher can do.

That said the criteria for each year should be quite basic - mostly Maths and English as without those any learning becomes pretty much impossible. Maybe a few computer skills, but without the 'three Rs' the education system has failed outright, and thus that should be the priority.


----------



## Sweet FA (Aug 2, 2013)

Gmart said:


> That said the criteria for each year should be quite basic - mostly Maths and English as without those any learning becomes pretty much impossible. Maybe a few computer skills, but without the 'three Rs' the education system has failed outright, and thus that should be the priority.


Narrower curriculum; just what we need.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 2, 2013)

Sweet FA said:


> Narrower curriculum; just what we need.


 
The world has enough pictures of that idiot.

I do not see the advantage to just ushering through everyone no questions asked just because you posted a picture of Gove....

Is achievement important in schools? Or should we move towards schools as a holding institution while the parents are at work?


----------



## Red Cat (Aug 2, 2013)

It's not _embarrassing_ for the child, it's humiliating and shaming, and an act of cruelty and abuse of power by the adult.


----------



## Glitter (Aug 2, 2013)

How long do you hold them back for. What if they continue to 'underperform'?

Once they're past a certain age then you can't keep them in school anymore and it's more than possible that they could have progressed no further than, say, Year 8. 

Ridiculous idea. 

I also think putting children forward is wrong too.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 2, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> It's not _embarrassing_ for the child, it's humiliating and shaming, and an act of cruelty and abuse of power by the adult.


 
Isn't it worse to force him or her into a year that they are not fully prepared for? That sounds much more humiliating and shaming, with the other children rolling their eyes when he/she does know the work from the previous year? As adults we are supposed to do what is right for the child, and given a choice between two 'evils' I would choose the lesser of the two.... To do anything else would be cruel and an abuse of power...


----------



## Gmart (Aug 2, 2013)

Glitter said:


> How long do you hold them back for. What if they continue to 'underperform'?
> 
> Once they're past a certain age then you can't keep them in school anymore and it's more than possible that they could have progressed no further than, say, Year 8.
> 
> ...


 
That is a bit extreme isn't it? If it fails after a year to remedy the situation then I suspect there will be other reasons for the lack of progress which must be looked at as a matter of priority. If the pupil is working hard and getting the correct support then there must be another reason.


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 2, 2013)

Gmart said:


> The world has enough pictures of that idiot.
> 
> I do not see the advantage to just ushering through everyone no questions asked just because you posted a picture of Gove....
> 
> Is achievement important in schools? Or should we move towards schools as a holding institution while the parents are at work?


 
Achievement is important, but if you think kids who 'fail' a year have achieved nothing then I think you might need to look at what you understand education to be about. It's not about passing exams, even though that's what we're conditioned to think.

At college, I had to resit a year because my final project wasn't good enough. But I'd attended every class and done every homework in the previous year, so a literally wasted a year of my life listening to teachers tell me what I already knew. It was difficult for me because my friends left to go to university while I ended up becoming like an unpaid teaching assistant, helping the class with their work when the teacher was overwhelmed.

So because I failed the final project, would you say i achieved nothing in that year? Because I'd say I achieved 99% of what I was meant to do, but they placed an unfair importance on the othedr 1% and that held me back.

This would be even worse in schools as the stigma of moving down a year is worse in school, and the consequences of pupil disengagement are much worse. My sister didn't get good grades in her GCSEs and now she is unable to do a hairdressing course because she doesn't have a C in maths and English. There will be many more people like her if we start holding people back a year.


----------



## Glitter (Aug 2, 2013)

Gmart said:


> That is a bit extreme isn't it? If it fails after a year to remedy the situation then I suspect there will be other reasons for the lack of progress which must be looked at as a matter of priority. If the pupil is working hard and getting the correct support then there must be another reason.



Your argument is that if a child is unable to 'achieve' they ought to be kept back. Therefore, you need to either do this or you don't.

If you keep them back a year and THEN examine the reasons they might be failing before moving them on anyway you make a mockery of the whole premise that holding them back is supportive and prove that it is all about shaming. Otherwise they would stay until they 'get it'.

If a child isn't managing with the work of their year that should be looked at as a matter of priority before leaving a child humiliated and left behind from their peer group and friends.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 2, 2013)

Glitter said:


> Your argument is that if a child is unable to 'achieve' they ought to be kept back. Therefore, you need to either do this or you don't.
> 
> If you keep them back a year and THEN examine the reasons they might be failing before moving them on anyway you make a mockery of the whole premise that holding them back is supportive and prove that it is all about shaming. Otherwise they would stay until they 'get it'.
> 
> If a child isn't managing with the work of their year that should be looked at as a matter of priority before leaving a child humiliated and left behind from their peer group and friends.


 
I was very clear that in the hypothetical case there would have already been support given to the pupil, after a teacher had noticed that the work was not being done, and yet the basic requirements for that year had still not been 'got', and thus we are in a situation where either we allow them to repeat the year, thus taking the pressure off them, and allowing them to go slowly in the hope that they might 'get it this time', or we [cruelly and heartlessly] push them into the next year, thus doubling up their workload just when they are falling behind. 

I am arguing for the kinder approach (the latter sounds inhumane).


----------



## Santino (Aug 2, 2013)

Another piece of gold standard reasoning.


----------



## Santino (Aug 2, 2013)

What happened to your love for the Finnish school system?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 2, 2013)

Santino said:


> What happened to your love for the Finnish school system?


 
Feel free to make a point of any sort, or are you one of those posters who prefer to watch from the safety of the sidelines?

I have never been to Finland, but the reports sound good, but the UK system is distinctly different from it, and so comparisons have to be made with care. They do, by the way, hold back pupils there on occasion, although I am informed that it is rare.


----------



## Glitter (Aug 2, 2013)

Gmart said:


> I was very clear that in the hypothetical case there would have already been support given to the pupil, after a teacher had noticed that the work was not being done, and yet the basic requirements for that year had still not been 'got', and thus we are in a situation where either we allow them to repeat the year, thus taking the pressure off them, and allowing them to go slowly in the hope that they might 'get it this time', or we [cruelly and heartlessly] push them into the next year, thus doubling up their workload just when they are falling behind.
> 
> I am arguing for the kinder approach (the latter sounds inhumane).



No you're not. You're arguing for very public shaming of a child. It's hideous.

And what if they still don't 'get' the year after being left back? How long do you leave it?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 2, 2013)

Glitter said:


> No you're not. You're arguing for very public shaming of a child. It's hideous.
> 
> And what if they still don't 'get' the year after being left back? How long do you leave it?


 
No option is an easy one here. I feel I am arguing for the lesser of two 'evils', while you are also 'hideously' arguing for the shaming of the pupil by pushing him/her forward a year while doubling up his/her workload.


----------



## Glitter (Aug 2, 2013)

Gmart said:


> No option is an easy one here. I feel I am arguing for the lesser of two 'evils', while you are also 'hideously' arguing for the shaming of the pupil by pushing him/her forward a year while doubling up his/her workload.



No I'm not. 

And you haven't answered my question.


----------



## Sweet FA (Aug 2, 2013)

Gmart said:


> just ushering through everyone no questions asked


Yes, that's exactly what happens


----------



## spanglechick (Aug 2, 2013)

btw - although they can do this in the american school system, as every fan of 'the wire' knows - they generally don't. Say a school has 180 kids in year 8. 10 of them need to repeat the year. But in year seven there are 180 kids and only 2 need to repeat the year.  Where do those other 8 places in next year's year 8 classes come from?  

then what do you do with kids who are gifted and talented in some subjects, and in need of learning support in others? The maths grade A year 10 student who reads at the age of a 7 year old? Cos there's a whole heap of that.

what do you do when they get to sixteen without even having had the chance to get any GCSEs or vocational qualifications cos you haven't entered them for any because they're in the wrong year group? Or they want to stay on but they get to 19 and they have to leave because they're no longer funded?

In a typical UK secondary, average size of 180 kids per year, there will be a big variation in ability, in every year, and the less able students will be taught together (at least in core subjects) allowing them to be supported in those subjects where they need support.  the range of ability in any one class isn't as great as you think it will be.

You're also falling into the same sort of thinking as gove and ofsted because you're thinking about education in terms of 'stuff to know and learn'.  It really isn't.  in some subjects there's almost no factaul knowledge, just skills to be developed.  In others it starts with knowledge and then progresses through analysis to synthesis and...  ahh, just google 'bloom's taxonomy'.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 2, 2013)

Glitter said:


> No I'm not.


 
Yes you are.


Glitter said:


> And you haven't answered my question.


I answered that question earlier - if they do not manage to get back on the education horse after having already tried additional teaching resources and of course involving the parents then there has to be a different reason as to why this child is not making progress in the basic three R's which are considered the basis of any education. I would guess that the answers will be complex, and maybe specialised help would be required, however in general the vast majority of students will at least be able to gain the basics.


----------



## Glitter (Aug 2, 2013)

Gmart said:


> Yes you are.
> 
> I answered that question earlier - if they do not manage to get back on the education horse after having already tried additional teaching resources and of course involving the parents then there has to be a different reason as to why this child is not making progress in the basic three R's which are considered the basis of any education. I would guess that the answers will be complex, and maybe specialised help would be required, however in general the vast majority of students will at least be able to gain the basics.



I'm not advocating any such thing. 

And no, you haven't answered the question. You waffled a bit about specialised help, complex answers and the 'vast majority' being able to gain the 'basics' (all of which could be done whilst allowing the child to progress to the next academic year) but you didn't say what would actually _be done_

Where does the child, who has now missed a full academic year so has no chance of catching up actually go? Do they move along with the year group they've been held back into (in which case why not do that in the first place?) Or do you move them back into their original year group (in which case they're now two years behind) or do you leave them until they 'get it'? (Which could be never).

None of which are satisfactory conclusions for the poor child.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 2, 2013)

spanglechick said:


> btw - although they can do this in the american school system, as every fan of 'the wire' knows - they generally don't. Say a school has 180 kids in year 8. 10 of them need to repeat the year. But in year seven there are 180 kids and only 2 need to repeat the year. Where do those other 8 places in next year's year 8 classes come from?
> 
> then what do you do with kids who are gifted and talented in some subjects, and in need of learning support in others? The maths grade A year 10 student who reads at the age of a 7 year old? Cos there's a whole heap of that.
> 
> ...


 
I am not only 'thinking about education in terms of 'stuff to know and learn'.', in fact I am recognising that learning has both a need to learn facts and methods, while at the same time being an opportunity for learning of a more holistic variety from the good example of the adults and children in the locality etc. Both exist, but to argue that either does not exist would be turning a blind eye to reality. 

For example there are a number of skills needed to learn the so-called three R's which have to be learnt - by arguing that there is more to education than learning 'stuff' you are trying to focus attention on the holistic while ignoring such important skills, and if the adults don't step up and state this fact, then it will be the children who suffer for this dereliction of duty on their behalf long after they have long forgotten the face of the poor unfortunate child.

It is no surprise that the children might indulge in wishful thinking, but the adults are supposed to recognise that it is very hard to 'get' on in life without Maths and English and it is our duty to take the steps needed to ensure that the children are not let down by our own wishful thinking. It might be easier to just wave them through to the next year, but the resultant doubling up of work might well spell the moment where that child gave up...


----------



## Gmart (Aug 2, 2013)

Glitter said:


> I'm not advocating any such thing.


So what are you advocating then?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 2, 2013)

What year you in now gmart?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What year you in now gmart?


 
Butchers! I am forty-one, thanks for asking, how are you? Which choice would you choose, or are you going to join those who refuse to engage?


----------



## Glitter (Aug 2, 2013)

Gmart said:


> So what are you advocating then?



I'm advocating allowing children to progress through school and supporting them where necessary. 

Now, for the third time, could you answer the question please?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 2, 2013)

Gmart said:


> Butchers! I am forty-one, thanks for asking, how are you? Which choice would you choose, or are you going to join those who refuse to engage?


 
Are you a teacher? In what country? What do you teach?

I think if you are a teacher _you_ may be _producing_ pupils who look to you like they fit your punitive criteria due to your hideous wrong headed upside down approach to pupils and potential _ability:_



> Given the choice of holding them back, but remaining at a level which is commensurate with their knowledge


 
That is such a shocking and counter-productive way of looking at still developing young people - 'commensurate with their knowledge' - even worse when it's from someone who is supposed to help them with that development - people like you shouldn't be allowed anywhere near designing education - after all, as you yourself argue, that should be left up to the adults.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 2, 2013)

Gmart said:


> Butchers! I am forty-one, thanks for asking, how are you? Which choice would you choose, or are you going to join those who refuse to engage?


 
Zero points for not understanding the question btw.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 2, 2013)

Glitter said:


> I'm advocating allowing children to progress through school and supporting them where necessary.


 
So, as I suspected you would double up the work that they don't understand. And where does it end? What if they fail to grasp the basics of that year as well, will you usher them through again creating a deficit of yet another year? How many years is your limit? two years, three? four? And how is the teacher supposed to plan a lesson for that class? An individual lesson plan for each child maybe?

You see how easy it is to jump into extremes?

It seems to me that you don't seem to care as to whether this child understands the work he or she is being given at school. Is school important to you? Would you be happy if your child were in a class where the poor teacher is unable to teach a topic because he has had his class force filled with students who all have a completely different level of knowledge?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Zero points for not understanding the question btw.


 
Refusal to engage as ever, preceded by the usual personal abuse - I am surprised that you don't bore yourself as much as you bore others.


----------



## Glitter (Aug 2, 2013)

Gmart said:


> So, as I suspected you would double up the work that they don't understand. And where does it end? What if they fail to grasp the basics of that year as well, will you usher them through again creating a deficit of yet another year? How many years is your limit? two years, three? four? And how is the teacher supposed to plan a lesson for that class? An individual lesson plan for each child maybe?
> 
> You see how easy it is to jump into extremes?
> 
> It seems to me that you don't seem to care as to whether this child understands the work he or she is being given at school. Is school important to you? Would you be happy if your child were in a class where the poor teacher is unable to teach a topic because he has had his class force filled with students who all have a completely different level of knowledge?




So not only are you completely unwilling to answer my question you're demonstrating total ignorance of the way our school system works when it comes to teaching children of varying abilities and using emotive language to try and make your point?

Have a read of spanglechick's post above. There is little point attempting to discuss this with you when you're utterly unwilling to engage. So I'm not going to waste any more of my time. 

Are you related to Jazzz'?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 2, 2013)

Glitter said:


> So not only are you completely unwilling to answer my question you're demonstrating total ignorance of the way our school system works when it comes to teaching children of varying abilities and using emotive language to try and make your point?
> 
> Have a read of spanglechick's post above. There is little point attempting to discuss this with you when you're utterly unwilling to engage. So I'm not going to waste any more of my time.
> 
> Are you related to Jazzz'?


 
I have answered your question twice, it is not my concern if you do not feel happy with the answer, and your insistence on pushing children beyond their ability belies a lack of concern for the consequences of your opinions - these are real people these children, and decisions like this which define their success or failure. At the same time I am not putting forward an unusual policy (for once), this policy is actioned everyday in a number of other countries, and to seem to argue that my position is ludicrous is by consequence arguing that all these other countries are also wrong. Some topics are not just a matter of right and wrong, they are a matter of taking difficult decisions for the good of the children.


----------



## nagapie (Aug 2, 2013)

Gmart said:


> but without the 'three Rs' the education system has failed outright, and thus that should be the priority.


 
I have a colleague who would disagree with you. As SENCos we are constantly approached by teachers who want us to teach boys over 11 to write. Well give them a computer! We live in a technologically advanced world, already 10 years ago my American housemate laughed at me for having pencils on my desk, and we are still judging them on secretarial skills like hand-writing and spelling. There's more to education and knowledge than that.


----------



## nagapie (Aug 2, 2013)

Gmart said:


> So, as I suspected you would double up the work that they don't understand. And where does it end? What if they fail to grasp the basics of that year as well, will you usher them through again creating a deficit of yet another year? How many years is your limit? two years, three? four? And how is the teacher supposed to plan a lesson for that class? An individual lesson plan for each child maybe?


 
How will holding them back a year to repeat the same work in the same way in the same class size enable them to progress?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 2, 2013)

nagapie said:


> How will holding them back a year to repeat the same work in the same way in the same class size enable them to progress?


 
Once again: if you hold them back then they will have a chance to re-learn the work which they failed to absorb for whatever reason at a reasonable rate. If you push them into the next year then they will have both the work they missed in the previous year and the work they will have to try and understand in the new year, thus doubling up the workload just at the time when they are evidently having the greatest problem.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 2, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> The US isn't in Europe, Gmart.


Hold him/her back a year.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 2, 2013)

I am struck by how easily many posters on here seem able to ignore how difficult it is to catch up two years work in a year - surely it is not hard to understand that if the pupil is so far behind as to necessitate this rare step, then this pupil will need to have adults (both parents and teachers) who recognise how difficult this might be, and therefore how risky it might be to push them forward, leading to even greater problems.

This step is after support has already been given, no doubt with promises from the pupil and/or the parents that they will catch up, but that they have been unable to do so. It stands to reason that to repeat the year might be the lesser of two 'evils' - not ideal of course, it would have been better if the support had worked - and as some have pointed out here, maybe this will fail to work too, but to blythely push them forward into a position where they have to double up their workload is surely more heartless and cruel than keeping them back. 

Imagine how you would feel if they fall further behind after this push forward? This could seriously blight someone's life!


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 2, 2013)

Gmart said:


> This could seriously blight someone's life!


Your scheme at least quickly identifies the kids who are to be picked on and made the target of bullying etc. doing them a favour really.


----------



## Red Cat (Aug 2, 2013)

Gmart said:


> Once again: if you hold them back then they will have a chance to re-learn the work which they failed to absorb for whatever reason at a reasonable rate. If you push them into the next year then they will have both the work they missed in the previous year and the work they will have to try and understand in the new year, thus doubling up the workload just at the time when they are evidently having the greatest problem.


 
But their workload isn't doubled, the work for the class is differentiated.

_Failed to absorb at a reasonable rate_

Sponge theory


----------



## nagapie (Aug 2, 2013)

Gmart said:


> Once again: if you hold them back then they will have a chance to re-learn the work which they failed to absorb for whatever reason at a reasonable rate. If you push them into the next year then they will have both the work they missed in the previous year and the work they will have to try and understand in the new year, thus doubling up the workload just at the time when they are evidently having the greatest problem.


 

You have no understanding of how people learn, what constitutes barriers to learning, teaching, the UK system, special needs, etc  I could go on and on. You're just talking a load of uninformed shit.


----------



## Quartz (Aug 2, 2013)

Would you consider the very early years differently? Say holding back a child that was really too young to have gone to school in the first place?


----------



## nagapie (Aug 2, 2013)

Quartz said:


> Would you consider the very early years differently? Say holding back a child that was really too young to have gone to school in the first place?


 

That is different as it's not about a very narrow definition of learning and education and that abused word 'progress' but more about the child's ability to cope emotionally with the demands of school. And it's only an issue in this country because children have to start school so young.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 2, 2013)

Glitter said:


> Are you related to Jazzz'?


 
He seems more of a Jonathan Bishop type tbh.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 2, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> But their workload isn't doubled, the work for the class is differentiated.
> 
> _Failed to absorb at a reasonable rate_
> 
> Sponge theory


 
That's it? That's your considered reply? The idea that this whole issue will be fine because we can depend on the teachers to differentiate yet more? Followed by a ridiculous attack on the idea of absorbing knowledge. Pray tell me what phrase for the taking in of teaching do you accept?

Like it or not teaching has an aspect of the teacher having knowledge which is transferred to the students. However you wish to label it, the fact still remains that this student who you have pushed into the next year will have to learn both the knowledge that he/she failed to 'take in' during the first year plus the knowledge he/she will be expected to 'take in' during the second - you, and the rest her have still failed to give me any reason why this pupil should be pushed into this situation. 

Are you arguing that the pupil will in some way not need to cover this work? Then please explain why. If you think that double the workload will improve the lot of an already failing student then please explain, but please spare me your (and others) pretense that you are thinking only of the pupil in question - it seems to me that you are deliberately avoiding these important factors, and if you consider yourself an informed commentator on this then feel free to educate me as to why this action will be overall better for the child, because at the moment it seems to be a recipe for them to fall behind further under your avalanche of extra work.


----------



## Red Cat (Aug 2, 2013)

Errr, no thanks.


----------



## Pingu (Aug 2, 2013)

what they need to do is to have different streams within the year group.

so - for example:

Stream 1 is full of the brighter kids and takes an exam that we shall call the General Certificate of Education (or GCE for short)
stream 2 is for those with a lower level of achievement FOR THAT TOPIC (so kid could be in band 2 for maths but band 1 for English etc) let us call the exam they take the Certificate of secondary Education (or CSE for short) a slightly easier exam than the GCE
Stream 3 is for those who have little or no academic gubbins. these kids will focus on vocational training in areas in which they show aptitude. so say a kid enjoys and is good at sticking bits of metal together with heat then they could so stuff like welding etc. AGAIN SUBJECT SEPCIFIC so if kid who is otherwise denser than a white dwarf star has an aptitude for history then why not let them be in stream 1 for history. we could call these vocational qualifications the National Vocational Qualification or NVQ for short.
 
particularly bright kids (or smart arses) could choose to do further exams if they want to


----------



## Pingu (Aug 2, 2013)

I do remember a kid who was held back a year when I was in school. If memory serves me right then he was treated with the levels of sympathy and understanding you would expect from a group of 14 year old boys who had a tight knit established "community" already in place. see also new kid who joins from a different school because parents moved house.


----------



## spanglechick (Aug 2, 2013)

Pingu said:


> what they need to do is to have different streams within the year group.
> 
> so - for example:
> 
> ...


Every school I've ever worked in does this, or better still, setting- which allows for students to be top set in English but bottom set in Spanish, or whatever.  This is part of what drives me mad about education debate... The world and their lodger thinks they know just what the answer is, without having much idea of what actually happens and what the journey has been to get there.


----------



## discokermit (Aug 2, 2013)

i was kept back for a while, aged 6/7ish, because of my reading. i had no interest in the cat sat on the mat shit and didn't like reading out loud. i hated it.
i can't remember most of it. eventually (not a whole year) i got put back in my own class. i was still behind the class until i got to pick my own books from the library, where i found a book on vikings. after that it was dinosaurs, then i started reading my dad's james herbert books at home and my uncles 'skinhead' books. pretty soon i was way ahead of most of the class.

being held back helped to make me hate school, hate teachers and resolve to do most of my learning by myself.


----------



## spanglechick (Aug 2, 2013)

Anyway, another way in which Gmart is just like Gove:   Has pet idea.  Completely ignores advice and opinion from education professionals and child development. Refuses to engage with reasoned objections.  Dismisses anyone with a differing view with emotive hyperbole.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 2, 2013)

Gmart said:


> So, as I suspected you would double up the work that they don't understand. And where does it end? What if they fail to grasp the basics of that year as well, will you usher them through again creating a deficit of yet another year? How many years is your limit? two years, three? four? And how is the teacher supposed to plan a lesson for that class? An individual lesson plan for each child maybe?


 
Interesting.
You assume that the "failure" must be across the board, a failure to "grasp the basics", and yet most of us are aware from our own schooldays that the most usual issue isn't one of not grasping the basics, but of difficulties in particular subjects that are little to do with not having sufficiently grokked the 3 Rs.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 2, 2013)

Glitter said:


> I'm advocating allowing children to progress through school and supporting them where necessary.


 
That's exactly how things were done at both primary schools I attended, and at my secondary school.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Your scheme at least quickly identifies the kids who are to be picked on and made the target of bullying etc. doing them a favour really.


 
Doesn't GMart teach at a private school? If so, he may not grasp the bullying issue, as it's pretty much the culture in most private schools.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 2, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> But their workload isn't doubled, the work for the class is differentiated.
> 
> _Failed to absorb at a reasonable rate_
> 
> Sponge theory


 
Yup, and a pretty poor theory of learning it was. Access to learning materials without stimulus has only ever worked for a small percentage of learners.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 2, 2013)

What we really need, though, is a written constitution for pupils.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 2, 2013)

Checks and balances


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 2, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Doesn't GMart teach at a private school? If so, he may not grasp the bullying issue, as it's pretty much the culture in most private schools.


 
Not sure he actually teaches anywhere tbh, would hope not with the attitudes to pupils and the system he repeatedly displays. I know he was a tefl teacher abroad and i know he says he's qualified to teach maths - i wonder what that actually means though.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 2, 2013)

spanglechick said:


> Anyway, another way in which Gmart is just like Gove: Has pet idea. Completely ignores advice and opinion from education professionals and child development. Refuses to engage with reasoned objections. Dismisses anyone with a differing view with emotive hyperbole.


 
This is actually a pretty accurate description of Gove's method - state something that no one can disagree with, like raising standards, and then dismiss all calls to look at anything else.

Except that in this case I am not the one closing down the discussion - everyone else here wants me to simply accept that the 'demotivation' factor trumps all. But the 'demotivation' factor, is just one of many other factors which are relevant. The fact that moving forward a year doubles up the workload has been ignored by everyone - as has the increased possibility of dropping out and the negative effect on classrooms of a wide variance of knowledge so ask yourself: who is really engaging in a bit of Gove selective focus? 

A discussion usually has participants who are interested in the bigger picture - if you are just hoping to all agree on a simplistic answer, and then shut down any further discussion, then feel free to confirm that.

How about you imagine yourself in the shoes of the pupil who fell behind. Maybe that might stimulate some empathy: they want a second chance to get it right - maybe there were problems at home, but now they want to work to make something of themselves? Maybe they are scared of moving forward a year when they know that they don't understand the previous year's work? Pushing them into taking on two years work in one may be easy for you to explain away, but again and again I am pointing out that these kids only have one chance at education, and with support maybe they can catch up.

We owe it to them to think of the bigger picture and avoid easy, simplistic, singular answers - in fact that is exactly what I complain about when arguing with right wingers: a one-dimensional world viewpoint, refusing to engage with anyone different to themselves...

In a similar way I would argue that it is the professional duty of the teacher to point this out: that expecting any pupil, let alone one which is having difficulties, to complete such a high workload might well be unreasonable; in the current system there is no flexibility to hold a student back but it might be the lesser of two 'evils' and should be considered as an option even if dismissed in light of other factors.

Once again I remind you that this policy is not some wacky invented policy from my head, it is the law of the land in many other countries, some of whom have better education systems than the UK and so might be worth listening to, or are you also sharing this arrogance with the right wing too?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 2, 2013)

the Law of The Land. Nuff said

other countries wealthier members send their kids to shonky oxford based colleges just so they can boast that their kid had an english education


----------



## Red Cat (Aug 2, 2013)

Gmart said:


> This is actually a pretty accurate description of Gove's method - state something that no one can disagree with, like raising standards, and then dismiss all calls to look at anything else.
> 
> Except that in this case I am not the one closing down the discussion - everyone else here wants me to simply accept that the 'demotivation' factor trumps all. But the 'demotivation' factor, is just one of many other factors which are relevant. The fact that moving forward a year doubles up the workload has been ignored by everyone - as has the increased possibility of dropping out and the negative effect on classrooms of a wide variance of knowledge so ask yourself: who is really engaging in a bit of Gove selective focus?
> 
> ...


 
How bizarre.


----------



## spanglechick (Aug 2, 2013)

Gmart said:


> This is actually a pretty accurate description of Gove's method - state something that no one can disagree with, like raising standards, and then dismiss all calls to look at anything else.
> 
> Except that in this case I am not the one closing down the discussion - everyone else here wants me to simply accept that the 'demotivation' factor trumps all. But the 'demotivation' factor, is just one of many other factors which are relevant. The fact that moving forward a year doubles up the workload has been ignored by everyone - as has the increased possibility of dropping out and the negative effect on classrooms of a wide variance of knowledge so ask yourself: who is really engaging in a bit of Gove selective focus?
> 
> ...



Ok.  I'm a qualified teacher and head of department in an inner London state secondary. In the last 17 years   I've taught in five london schools as a permanent member of staff and in over 100 nationwide as a supply teacher / workshop leader.  I wrote a long post pointing out several logistical and other problems with your idea, not least that in some places where it is "law", it doesn't actually happen.  You ignored all but one of the things I said.  

What is your knowledge and experience of uk state education, Gmart ?  Would you care to address my other concerns?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 2, 2013)

http://www.rathergood.com/holding


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Aug 2, 2013)

I think this whole thread starts from the premise that all kids in a specific year should be taught exactly the same stuff.

I'm not convinced that is entirely the case now (with formal or informal setting / streaming) and far from convinced it should be the case.

The 'daily mail' contingent seem keen to argue that comprehensive schools mean attempting to force equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity.  I am not convinced that is the case.

However, having given it a little thought, I would argue for a schooling system based along the lines of -

basic standard curriculum for all

far more modular approach, allowing kids that have particular abilities and interests (be they 'academic', creative, practical or sporty) to devote more time to those subjects.  i guess this would need to be a decision reached after consideration with parents and teachers rather than just letting kids do what / if they like.

the other issue is finding a way to maximise the opportunities for kids whose parents aren't themselves particularly academic.

forcing some kids to try and memorise the kings and queens from 1066 onwards is as pointless as forcing some kids to chase a rugby ball round a muddy field.

there also needs to be a comprehensive attitude shift from the system of academic = middle class = success = good / non- academic = working class = failure - bad.  In some ways, the old O-level / CSE split enforced this, but on the other hand a CSE grade 1 arguably showed a good level of attainment at a slightly more restricted curriculum - the GCSE can't distinguish this from an indifferent level of achievement on a wider curriculum.

There would no doubt be practical difficulties with this approach, and would probably be more resource heavy which does not meet current government thought.

any system also needs to strike a sensible compromise between allowing a bit of local flexibility with not being so varied around the country that a kid whose parents relocate isn't disadvantaged too much.  Before the national curriculum, a kid moving areas could find that in subject A they are repeating stuff they did last year, and in subject B trying to build on stuff they haven't done yet...


----------



## nagapie (Aug 2, 2013)

Gmart said:


> Except that in this case I am not the one closing down the discussion - everyone else here wants me to simply accept that the 'demotivation' factor trumps all. But the 'demotivation' factor, is just one of many other factors which are relevant. The fact that moving forward a year doubles up the workload has been ignored by everyone - as has the increased possibility of dropping out and the negative effect on classrooms of a wide variance of knowledge so ask yourself: who is really engaging in a bit of Gove selective focus?


 
I have asked you to discuss from a pedagogical point of view how repeating the same work in the same way in the same class size with the same resources will help students to progress and learn that work better. It flies in the face of accepted theory on how people learn to suggest that just more time doing the same thing is going to assist someone who has had such difficulty accessing the work in the first place.

Furthermore, those students with special needs may never conquer some subjects in the same way as other students. You seem to come from a premise that those not making the accepted progress just need more time but they are the minority and usually because of a specific learning difficulty or some issue with their cognitive functioning. Unless you think they should just go to special schools, most of which have been cut and which also ignores the fact that one child with dyscalculia may be a Science genius, then they will just sit forever in the same year under your system. How is that going to make them progress academically, socially or emotionally?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 2, 2013)

Gmart said:


> This is actually a pretty accurate description of Gove's method - state something that no one can disagree with, like raising standards, and then dismiss all calls to look at anything else.
> 
> Except that in this case I am not the one closing down the discussion - everyone else here wants me to simply accept that the 'demotivation' factor trumps all. But the 'demotivation' factor, is just one of many other factors which are relevant. The fact that moving forward a year doubles up the workload has been ignored by everyone - as has the increased possibility of dropping out and the negative effect on classrooms of a wide variance of knowledge so ask yourself: who is really engaging in a bit of Gove selective focus?
> 
> ...



None more Jishop.


----------



## existentialist (Aug 2, 2013)

Frankly (and without reading the thread), I think the problem with so much of our education system is that people who know fuck-all about it are invited to comment authoritatively on it, me included.

There will be kids who'll benefit from being held back; there will be kids who don't. There's no one size fits all solution, any more than there is in every other aspect of education.

End of story.


----------



## kittyP (Aug 2, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> To the child, it would probably feel like a punishment for not jumping through the right hoops at the right time. The reality is that there are very very few children who 'fail' to meet the minimum standards of education (in the narrowest sense) set out in the national curriculum and those children would be better served by identifying and addressing the barriers and difficulties they face and perhaps supporting them, giving them extra lessons after school, during school hours or set up school holiday programmes. That would require funding and a real commitment to the process of learning, not just the educational attainment, of each child.
> Not to mention, of course, that the education system is supposed to be demonstrating the value of vocational studies and not just academic achievement; keeping children behind may prevent them from achieving their future potential since you would already install in them a sense of failure and inadequacy.
> It's a narrow minded and unkind idea.


 

^this

The emotional and behavioural implications of holding children back a year is damaging. 
With the right support there is no reason why they should be. 
Its a lazy and stupid idea.


----------



## kittyP (Aug 2, 2013)

Gmart, it's all well and good playing devils advocate but you are solidly arguing for the case of holding pupils back. 
It has been explained by people who work in education and by people that were held back at school why this is not a good thing. 
Why are you not listening to them? Why do you continue to argue that it is a better way of doing things? 

It seems to be an internet thing that once you have stated a side, no matter how much you are shown from the other side you must not under any circumstances back down. 

You mentioned that it could be humiliating for the kid that is kept in the same year even though they "failed" the year before. 
I question what it means to actually "fail" a year in the first place.
Kids develop at different stages in different ways and that is part of education, to support them through that. 
You will always have kids of differing abilities in the same year. And yes, sometimes kids do feel ashamed or embarrassed that they are not doing so well but to take them away from their friends, put them with students who are socially behind them, stigmatize them....? Really? 
Just think of the terminology "kept behind". It's horrible.


----------



## Sweet FA (Aug 2, 2013)

Gmart said:


> _some weird stuff_


Oh. It wasn't anything serious.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 2, 2013)

I do think it is a bit questionable that we expect all kids to progress through the stages of school according to their age. Not all kids mature at the same rates, some are more ready to sit exams at certain stages than others. As I understand it Gove wants to remove resits so that kids get one chance only, I definitely disagree with this.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Aug 2, 2013)

What teachers need in order to teach well and wht children need in order to learn well and achieve all they are arable of is flexibility. Tethers need the flexibility within the curriculum to be able to offer greater interact support/more literacy lessons to children who are struggle in core areas such as this, perhaps giving more lessons in place of others (though who can say whether history, geography, RE are less important subjects, that's another debate) during school hours or outside of school/term dates. 
Some schools run school wide literacy/numeracy programmes in which children are assessed and placed in the class which meets their understanding irrespective of age. There's a lot to be said for that approach, so long as assessment is good and regularly reviewed, particularly for children learning English as a second language. With more concentrated efforts and a more flexible approach to the core subjects like this one there is no reason why any child should not be able to fulfil their potential.
The rigidity, the ossification, of the notion that children ought to be held in a class as in a holding pen until properly trained for the next holding pern demonstrates a lack of understanding and interest in how children learn.


----------



## toggle (Aug 3, 2013)

Pingu said:


> what they need to do is to have different streams within the year group.
> 
> so - for example:
> 
> ...


 


spanglechick said:


> Every school I've ever worked in does this, or better still, setting- which allows for students to be top set in English but bottom set in Spanish, or whatever. This is part of what drives me mad about education debate... The world and their lodger thinks they know just what the answer is, without having much idea of what actually happens and what the journey has been to get there.


 
Nods, my experience of the setting at my son's school putting him in a mix of top, middle and bottom sets and a vocational course has really, really worked for him. A lot of the kids that people think will be left behind are the kids like him, with more than one additional need (3 named at the last count, we're going for the full bingo card in this family). But if the system that is in place is done the way it should be, with kids having access to the full range of options across the subjects, then those difficult to fit characters that used to be written off, can do OK.


----------



## friedaweed (Aug 3, 2013)

Shit poll

Bit pissed off to find this threads not about Simply Red


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 3, 2013)

friedaweed said:


> Shit poll
> 
> Bit pissed off to find this threads not about Simply Red


 
post 78, slackjaw


----------



## maomao (Aug 3, 2013)

kittyP said:


> Why are you not listening to them? Why do you continue to argue that it is a better way of doing things?


 
Because he's Gmart. Glad to see a whole new generation of Urbanites discovering the pleasure of banging their heads against that particular brick wall.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 3, 2013)

Nevar forget the great phonetic spelling 'debate' of 2009


----------



## maomao (Aug 3, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> Nevar forget the great phonetic spelling 'debate' of 2009


 
Is it that long ago? I still have flashbacks in the middle of the night and think it's still happening.


----------



## equationgirl (Aug 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Not sure he actually teaches anywhere tbh, would hope not with the attitudes to pupils and the system he repeatedly displays. I know he was a tefl teacher abroad and i know he says he's qualified to teach maths - *i wonder what that actually means though*.


 
Has numerate degree (science, maths or engineering) and PGCE or dedicated education & maths degree. I mean, I've taught maths in a variety of settings but I'm not a qualified teacher.


----------



## existentialist (Aug 3, 2013)

existentialist said:


> Frankly (and without reading the thread), I think the problem with so much of our education system is that people who know fuck-all about it are invited to comment authoritatively on it, me included.
> 
> There will be kids who'll benefit from being held back; there will be kids who don't. There's no one size fits all solution, any more than there is in every other aspect of education.
> 
> End of story.


 
Having read the rest of the thread in a bit more detail, and noted Gmart's rather selective approach to responding, I just want to make it clear that my comments weren't intended to endorse his/her position: it was meant to be an even-handed response, but in the context of the discussion, I should make it clear that I think the downside of holding kids back a year almost certainly outweighs the benefits of doing so in the majority of cases. I've encountered a few people who were "held back kids"  during my life, and I can't think of one for whom it was not the most terrible, and outlook-altering stigma. It might have helped academically (which is probably debatable), but the harm it did in terms of self-esteem and self-image was significant.


----------



## Schmetterling (Aug 3, 2013)

Got bored scrolling past the arguments and haven't not looked at page three yet. And so I also don't know whether anyone else here has been held back.

It _is_ shameful - I was held back 'voluntarily' in the last year of primary school. I put that in inverted commas as, as far as I was concerned, I _was_ held back. My parents, however, always liked to stress that my class teacher - an utter bastard - had suggested it would be a better idea as, surely, I would fail at the next year. Never mind anyone looking at why I was not 'doing well' in school. I well remember a paternal uncle's and his family's visit (this uncle had, after leaving school at 14 and going on to work in the coalmines, put himself through evening school onto A-Levels, then through university and - at the time of his death - was the dean of a technical university (I am / was very inspired by him)). Anyway, half-way through the cake eating and coffee drinking the inevitable question fell: "So, which school is Schmetterling going onto?" .... silence .... *throat clearing ... explanations ... cake forks suspended half-way in the air .... Quite funny, now. I also remember the six weeks summer holidays and the dread and the gasps whenever people were told. Long story short; it was the best thing that could have happened to me. I had been schooled a whole year early when I was six and-a-half so my peers for four years were up to 1.5 years older and I never caught up. The first two years were ok but the remaining were utterly soul destroying and lonely. The year I repeated was bliss. My three best friends back home were in that class. And suddenly things went well! Or at least better. 

I am the most academically qualified of four siblings. I deliberately wrote academically as we all did well and we all have achieved things we wanted to achieve but, I figure, society tends to think that people who needed to / have been held back will not go on to do well scholastically so that's why I made the point of academics.

But, yes, it was shameful. 

Has anyone else been held back and do you re-sent it or are you happy you were?


----------



## existentialist (Aug 3, 2013)

Schmetterling - I've often thought it was an awful tyranny to put anyone through primary school a year early. Parents are so proud when it's suggested, but I think they fail to realise that it's not just about ability - the most advanced pupil is almost certainly still developing socially at the same rate as his peers, and a year makes a HUGE difference when you're in single-digit ages.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 4, 2013)

maomao said:


> Is it that long ago? I still have flashbacks in the middle of the night and think it's still happening.


 
Maybe it is guilt because you decided it was appropriate to threaten me physical harm with a 'rusty knife' because I refused to agree with you?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 4, 2013)

spanglechick said:


> Ok. I'm a qualified teacher and head of department in an inner London state secondary. In the last 17 years I've taught in five london schools as a permanent member of staff and in over 100 nationwide as a supply teacher / workshop leader...What is your knowledge and experience of uk state education, Gmart? Would you care to address my other concerns?


 
Not as much experience as yours. Not surprisingly I don't feel that it is necessary to get too distracted by my background as it tends towards ad hominem attacks (which are an unfortunate blight on this website). I prefer to be judged on the words that I write. I am a qualified Mathematics teacher who works in China teaching A levels and IB. Children are the same wherever you teach, and the choice between short term and long term demotivation, humiliation, shame and failure are the same too.



spanglechick said:


> I wrote a long post pointing out several logistical and other problems with your idea, not least that in some places where it is "law", it doesn't actually happen. You ignored all but one of the things I said.


 
You commented on the US, but that does not qualify as being plural, you didn't actually comment on any of the other countries who have this policy, in fact you just ignored these countries (why?). Even if they also use this tool rarely it is still an argument that the school might need it and thus should have it as an option.



spanglechick said:


> what do you do when they get to sixteen without even having had the chance to get any GCSEs or vocational qualifications cos you haven't entered them for any because they're in the wrong year group? Or they want to stay on but they get to 19 and they have to leave because they're no longer funded?


 
To get into the situation where they would not take GCSE's because they are too far behind would mean that the pupils would have had to have been kept back more than one year. In fact children are expected to stay at school until 18 now so there is even more flexibility than you imply, but still, although extreme, this may happen occasionally and I would hope that the school would be able to support the pupil adequately to minimise this, however its rare occurrence should not imply that schools should be prevented from having this option to exercise if they see fit.



spanglechick said:


> then what do you do with kids who are gifted and talented in some subjects, and in need of learning support in others? The maths grade A year 10 student who reads at the age of a 7 year old? Cos there's a whole heap of that.


 
As a teacher of such experience I am sure you know that the idea of an A grade maths student who struggles to read the questions is rare. It is better to avoid such unusual examples, my comments are about the majority of students only and it is up to the school to address individual needs on a case by case basis. that is not to say that these situations never happen, it is just that we have to address the majority of cases, and I am arguing for ensuring that if students have not grasped the basic Maths and English needed to progress to the next year, then it is reasonable to consider the case carefully from both sides, both for and against holding the pupil back. Children develop at different rates and I see no advantage in the 'one size fits all' argument being put forward here - some kids will be renewed by having the opportunity to start the year again.



spanglechick said:


> In a typical UK secondary, average size of 180 kids per year, there will be a big variation in ability, in every year, and the less able students will be taught together (at least in core subjects) allowing them to be supported in those subjects where they need support. the range of ability in any one class isn't as great as you think it will be.


 
It is true that there is already selection for sets based on ability, but if the variance of knowledge is not minimised then running the bottom class becomes more and more difficult, so you are hiding this fact behind the idea that the teacher will just differentiate yet more. This assumption that differentiation by the teacher will cure all ills is as unreasonable as the assumption that teachers have unlimited time. Do you think the learning environment in those bottom classes will be improved by the fact that the pupils know that they will pass the year no matter how much effort they put in?

As I said before, education is both learning facts and methods as well as other more intangible aspects. Neither side should be ignored in any system.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 4, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> But their workload isn't doubled, the work for the class is differentiated.


 
The workload for that pupil does not magically disappear because the teacher can organise different lessons for different pupils - they still need to learn the work missed for whatever reason, or fall further behind. Forcing them into a situation where they have more work and pressure may be convenient for the school/parents/teachers, even the pupil, but at what cost? There is at least the risk that we are faced with a choice between short term demotivation/humiliation/shame and the long term demotivation/humiliation/shame associated with dropping out altogether.

The idea may be difficult in the short term, but if the pupil is able to get back onto the education bike due to this then maybe it is the duty of the teacher/school to do exactly that. With children we sometimes need to say 'No' and they will cry and be unhappy but that is our duty to do so for the long term good. If we always let them have sweets then they will grow up spoilt.

In conclusion I accept that there will be a number of factors involved with this issue and am in favour of giving the school the independence and freedom to deal with each case on its own merits.

Once again I recognise that the demotivation factor is a fair point, some kids might be demotivated, but others might be rejuvenated and regenerated by the opportunity. If it is the latter case then it would be 'mean' and 'cruel' to prevent the school from having this way forward as an option.

There seems to be a tendency to describe my position as getting many more schools to hold back pupils as a general policy. This would be a strawman argument - I am merely arguing for the freedom of schools to use this tool in the rare situations where it might be needed. It is an argument for trusting schools to make the right choice for the long term.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 4, 2013)

> I prefer to be judged on the words that I write.


 
oh you are gmart, you so are.


----------



## maomao (Aug 4, 2013)

Gmart said:


> Maybe it is guilt because you decided it was appropriate to threaten me physical harm with a 'rusty knife' because I refused to agree with you?


 
Nope. Definitely not guilt.


----------



## JimW (Aug 4, 2013)

maomao said:


> Nope. Definitely not guilt.


 
Shame at your poor knife maintenance habits being outed?


----------



## cesare (Aug 4, 2013)

JimW said:


> Shame at your poor knife maintenance habits being outed?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 4, 2013)

Gmart said:


> Not as much experience as yours. Not surprisingly I don't feel that it is necessary to get too distracted by my background as it tends towards ad hominem attacks (which are an unfortunate blight on this website). I prefer to be judged on the words that I write. I am a qualified Mathematics teacher who works in China teaching A levels and IB. Children are the same wherever you teach,_ and the choice between short term and long term demotivation, humiliation, shame and failure are the same too._


 
I bet they are in your classes yeah.


----------



## Schmetterling (Aug 4, 2013)

existentialist said:


> Schmetterling - I've often thought it was an awful tyranny to put anyone through primary school a year early. Parents are so proud when it's suggested, but I think they fail to realise that it's not just about ability - the most advanced pupil is almost certainly still developing socially at the same rate as his peers, and a year makes a HUGE difference when you're in single-digit ages.


  <-   That!


----------



## Cloo (Aug 4, 2013)

Yeah, my other half was sent to primary school a year early but he remembers the intense frustration of just not being able to keep up with the rest of the boys in their football/physical games due to the age gap, and therefore not being able to make friends.


----------



## existentialist (Aug 4, 2013)

Cloo said:


> Yeah, my other half was sent to primary school a year early but he remembers the intense frustration of just not being able to keep up with the rest of the boys in their football/physical games due to the age gap, and therefore not being able to make friends.


 
And kids are a) pretty tuned into difference in size/development, and b) brutally tactless about mentioning/acting on it!


----------



## toggle (Aug 4, 2013)

The only arguments I've heard about keeping kids back that seem to be about the needs of the child socially not just academically tend to be about allowing a small number of them to start late. A friend who had very premature twins feels her kids would have benefited massively from starting school at just after their 5th rather than just after their 4th birthday.


----------



## Cloo (Aug 4, 2013)

existentialist said:


> And kids are a) pretty tuned into difference in size/development, and b) brutally tactless about mentioning/acting on it!


Boys, certainly!


----------



## existentialist (Aug 4, 2013)

Cloo said:


> Boys, certainly!


 
Girls less so, perhaps, but it goes on - they're just a bit more subtle about it!


----------



## equationgirl (Aug 4, 2013)

Gmart why are you ignoring the viewpoints of those posters who actually work within the UK system when you don't? Have you ever taught within a school in the UK?

And GCSEs does not have an apostrophe, incidentally.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 5, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Gmart why are you ignoring the viewpoints of those posters who actually work within the UK system when you don't? Have you ever taught within a school in the UK?
> 
> And GCSEs does not have an apostrophe, incidentally.


 
I thought I had taken great care to reply to all the points made. I apologise if you feel I have ignored an important factor(s). Please could you highlight which ones you are referring to and I shall endeavour to comment?

I have taught in the UK in the past and I look forward to anyone actually commenting on the points I make. Perhaps you would like to pull up other posters up for failing to do so - I wonder if you are as shocked at their ignorance of my points as you claim to be at my (alleged) ignorance? Do you feel that only certain people with specific qualifications are worthy of having their points responded to? As a qualified teacher do I qualify for comment or do you prefer to support the current general ignorance of my points?

Good call on the apostrophe point though, that was remiss of me.


----------



## mentalchik (Aug 5, 2013)

toggle said:


> The only arguments I've heard about keeping kids back that seem to be about the needs of the child socially not just academically tend to be about allowing a small number of them to start late. A friend who had very premature twins feels her kids would have benefited massively from starting school at just after their 5th rather than just after their 4th birthday.


 
They could have started after they were 5.....i held my youngest son back till the september after he was 5 (birthday in august) as there was no way he was ready at just 4.....you are not legally copelled to go to school until 5 years old.


----------



## toggle (Aug 5, 2013)

mentalchik said:


> They could have started after they were 5.....i held my youngest son back till the september after he was 5 (birthday in august) as there was no way he was ready at just 4.....you are not legally copelled to go to school until 5 years old.


schools can be difficult about that though. sometimes there are practical obstacles to that. and if the school is oversubscribed, it can be get a place in the village school now, or there's one that you will need a taxi to get to.


----------



## existentialist (Aug 5, 2013)

Gmart said:


> Good call on the apostrophe point though, that was remiss of me.


 
Are you this patronising to your students?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 5, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Has numerate degree (science, maths or engineering) and PGCE or dedicated education & maths degree. I mean, I've taught maths in a variety of settings but I'm not a qualified teacher.


 
I was really asking if these are the qualifications _that gmart ha_s, given that he has been - over many years and many teaching threads -  remarkably vague about just what his teaching qualifications are _and _that then when questioned on this he often introduces the _oh so you need full teaching qualifications before you can have an opinion do you?_ ( Which is a perfectly fine position to take, but it's also one that could easily be used by bluffers).


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 5, 2013)

> I look forward to anyone actually commenting on the points I make.


 
this is the gmart school of 'debate'. If he doesn't like answers to his questions he will just say that they haven't been given


----------



## maomao (Aug 5, 2013)

I've been libelled. I checked and I never threatened to stab him with a rusty knife.

BA is right. Having an opinion without qualifications is fine unless you have a habit of trying to pull rank on others in a debate on account of your work experience. In which case put up or shut up. Gmart what are your qualifications? I taught in China for 3 years without so much as a TEFL certificate.


----------



## Dandred (Aug 5, 2013)

Wouldn't it hurt your eyes?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 7, 2013)

I have a PGCE and I teach A level and IB mathematics.

Now will you comment on the points I made, or will you try and find some other dubious reason to shut down the debate?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 7, 2013)

There are many on here who complain about children being artificially pushed forward a year by their parents, and an acceptance that children develop at different rates, but there is no response to my argument that therefore some children might need to be held back a year, and might fall further behind if pushed forward, isn't it better to let them repeat the year? Perhaps you think that children don't develop at different rates and that actually they develop linearly with their age?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 7, 2013)

maomao said:


> I've been libelled. I checked and I never threatened to stab him with a rusty knife.


My suggestion is that you don't drawn attention to your reaction to disagreement on that thread. I checked too and it wasn't rusty, but it was abusive to an extreme which is rare.


----------



## maomao (Aug 7, 2013)

Gmart said:


> My suggestion is that you don't drawn attention to your reaction to disagreement on that thread. I checked too and it wasn't rusty, but it was abusive to an extreme which is rare.


 
I think wanting to hack someone to pieces with a kitchen knife (and it was a statement of my feelings, it was never a threat) is a perfectly natural response to your 'debating' style. You are unable to develop your argument in response to the contributions of others which makes people feel like they've wasted their time talking to you. It's very frustrating and it's why just about everyone you've interacted with on these boards thinks you're a knob.


----------



## existentialist (Aug 7, 2013)

Gmart said:


> I have a PGCE and I teach A level and IB mathematics.
> 
> Now will you comment on the points I made, or will you try and find some other dubious reason to shut down the debate?


Pwoar ickwle martyr.


----------



## existentialist (Aug 7, 2013)

Gmart said:


> There are many on here who complain about children being artificially pushed forward a year by their parents, and an acceptance that children develop at different rates, but there is no response to my argument that therefore some children might need to be held back a year, and might fall further behind if pushed forward, isn't it better to let them repeat the year? Perhaps you think that children don't develop at different rates and that actually they develop linearly with their age?


 
I think you're talking bollocks.

For a start, there has been plenty of informed discussion from various people (including me) about their opinions on the matter. They may not have formally addressed themselves to you, as is apparently what you wish to have happen, but the responses are there. Mostly they say that your view is a load of cobblers, but perhaps they have been too polite about it and you've missed the point.

And what I've said, and stand by, is that there _may_ be situations where children might benefit academically from being held back, but that the social and environmental fallout from that will almost invariably outweigh any benefits.

A lot of teachers (and other types) tend to see school as a purely academic learning environment - maybe you're one of those. The reality is that the academic stuff is (or should be) a mere sideshow to the far more important task of social development, for which there is zero point artificially shoehorning kids into age groups that some or other adult has arbitrarily decided they fit into better.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 9, 2013)

existentialist said:


> Frankly (and without reading the thread), I think the problem with so much of our education system is that people who know fuck-all about it are invited to comment authoritatively on it, me included.
> 
> There will be kids who'll benefit from being held back; there will be kids who don't. There's no one size fits all solution, any more than there is in every other aspect of education.
> 
> End of story.


 
So you agree with me that schools will occasionally need this tool.



existentialist said:


> [...]They may not have formally addressed themselves to you, as is apparently what you wish to have happen, but the responses are there.[...]


 
If you feel that anyone has commented on my points then see if you can find a single poster who has replied to any of these key points:

Pushing a pupil forward would by definition double up his workload.

Pushing pupils forward when they aren't ready (socially OR academically) will increase their risk of eventual failure.

Large numbers of other European countries also have this tool so why should we be different?

The negative impact of having failing students in the learning environment, who thus just disrupt for their own amusement again to the detriment of the learning environment.

Why should the schools be constrained by the one-size-fits-all year groups we have now.

Teachers are there to make these difficult decisions for the good of the pupil in the long run, not just the short run, is it the duty of the school to make this call for the sake of the long term success of the pupil, or for convenience in the short term?

With the other countries who also have this tool as an option it is highly unlikely that I am 'talking bollocks' as you so imprecisely put it - in fact your initial response exactly mirrors my opinion, sometimes it will help, sometimes it won't. Why do you seem so desperately keen to distance yourself from such a reasonable position?

A subsequent question is:

Do you trust the school and teachers not to abuse this tool?

Or do you prefer a centralised solution which tells the schools what they can or cannot do, the one-size-fits all rule that you claim to be against?

I am going for the former, although, as I have stated many times on here, I recognise that it can have negative effects, in the end it is up to the school and teachers to make the decision as to whether it would be better in the long run to hold the pupil back rather than pushing them forward a year. This messes up the classes by making the variance of ability that much wider, thus making it harder for the teachers to teach. I disagree that we can simply depend on the teachers to differentiate yet more - the system has to tend towards a smaller varience of ability, not a larger one.



existentialist said:


> A lot of teachers (and other types) tend to see school as a purely academic learning environment - maybe you're one of those.


 
There needs to be a balance, although in general the family will be involved in the social arena while the school will concentrate on the academia. Neither should be a sideshow, although some countries consider the social side to be very much the arena of the family and that teachers should mind their own business.



existentialist said:


> The reality is that the academic stuff is (or should be) a mere sideshow to the far more important task of social development, for which there is zero point artificially shoehorning kids into age groups that some or other adult has arbitrarily decided they fit into better.


 
This artificial shoehorning into age groups is exactly what I am arguing against. However I disagree that the academic side of school should be a 'sideshow'. That would leave schools as simple child-minding centres, ask yourself what you would do with the pupils if there is no necessity to work towards something?

There have been many stories about how being kept back has negatively affected some people. This is not surprising seeing as we are talking about a choice between short term shame/humiliation and long term shame/humiliation with actual failure. There is no way of knowing if the person would have failed even worse if the decision had not been taken that way. I am sure that it must be a difficult decision for the teachers/school/parents involved, but there is no surprise that there were some negative consequences - this is a choice between two 'evils', and the fact that one side is an 'evil' is no surprise, but these stories are not a substitute for debate; to ignore the large number of factors on the other side is ignorant by definition.


----------



## existentialist (Aug 9, 2013)

Gmart said:


> So you agree with me that schools will occasionally need this tool.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Jesus fucking Christ, it's like being cross-examined by Perry Mason. 

No, yes, no, wtf, no, possibly, fuck off. In no particular order. 

Happy?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 9, 2013)

More like begin cross examined by Perry Groves.


----------



## existentialist (Aug 9, 2013)

I might do him a proper answer some time, but right now he's bringing me out in ink pellets and dumb insolence.


----------



## Red Cat (Aug 9, 2013)

Gmart, you are a tosser.

Thing about learning is it involves taking in, chewing, turning over, seeing how something fits with other stuff, in what way it doesn't fit, making links, connections, relationships. It involves flexibility and movement. It is unpredictable and it isn't linear. It involves changing your mind and not knowing and accepting that sometimes you got something wrong. It creates an expansion of mental space. 

_You_ cannot learn because you can't take in. Your mental space is surrounded by a brick wall that no other thought will enter and thinking your own thoughts over and over without taking in anyone else's can't really be called thinking. You can't think and you don't understand _anything_ about children and young people and their emotional and social needs and you're not interested in being able to do so. You are a twat. 

Now fuck off.


----------



## Schmetterling (Aug 9, 2013)

Gmart said:


> So you agree with me that schools will occasionally need this tool.
> 
> ssssssssnnnnnniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiip!


 
Are you Margaret Thatcher's ghost?


----------



## maomao (Aug 9, 2013)

I've posted this before. Every single thread that twat posts goes something like this:

Gmart: Hey guys, we could solve world poverty by giving all the poor people in the world a million pounds each. Then everyone could afford food and be happy, wouldn't that be great, I don't know why someone didn't think of it before.

Normal people: Well, it would be great if people weren't hungry, but where are we going to get all that money from?

Gmart: Well, of course it took a real free thinker like me to come up with the idea but if you think about it if you gave everyone a million quid each then everyone could eat and be happy. I'm surprised at everyone's resistance to my great idea.

Normal people: Well, of course we don't want people to be hungry but where's all the money going to come from? And what would be the effect on the world's economy?

Gmart: I've already answered that question several times but I really don't understand why you can't agree with me. 'A million pounds for every poor person' - that will be the slogan of my new era.

Normal people: You're fucking mad you are. Please shut up or fuck off.

Gmart: You're all bullies. You're just putting me down because you're not a free thinking genius like me. You must really hate poor people if you don't want them to have a million pounds.

Normal people: No really, fuck off or shut up.

Gmart: No-one understands me.

*Every fucking time.*

It's incorrect to say his arguments are valueless. The boy's never had a _whole_ argument in his life.


----------



## existentialist (Aug 9, 2013)

Multilike. 

You've probably saved me from ever having to read another Gmart thread.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Aug 9, 2013)

with quite a few of the people who describe themselves as 'free thinkers' it's just as well, really, as i can't imagine anyone paying for their thoughts...


----------

