teaching.mrbelshaw.co.uk » Blog Archive » Horses for courses: how the school system constrains and affects learning relationships

About

This blog was updated regularly between 2005 and 2007 by Doug Belshaw. It now serves as an archive of his thoughts and resources.

Doug now blogs on education, technology and tangential thinking at http://dougbelshaw.com/blog

The latest from dougbelshaw.com/blog

Horses for courses: how the school system constrains and affects learning relationships

It’s a truism that teachers respond differently to the various classes they teach. That’s because teaching and learning is all about relationships. I’m becoming increasingly aware not only of the different way I respond to some classes on a superficial level (e.g. how many times I set homework, etc.) but on a pedagogical level too. That’s something I want to explore in the following, as I think there’s an underlying cause, fashioned by the school system… :o

The amount of time students spend studying History in secondary schools varies from school to school in England. There is a minimum requirement, but it’s fairly lenient: for example I know of schools where History features for a single 1-hour period on a two-week timetable. In my school (which has 50-minute periods) I teach Year 7 twice a week, Years 8 & 9 once per week and Year 10 (GCSE option classes) three times per week. What does this mean in practice? It means that there are still students whose names I am unsure of, 3 months after taking over from the previous teacher. I have no such problems, however, with those I take twice per week, and those whom I take three times per week I know fairly well by now.

I think this causes problems when it comes down to real learning and changing pedagogies for the 21st century. If a teacher knows students in a class only vaguely and sees them in isolation to the rest of their subjects and the rest of their lives for one lesson per week, it’s easy for what goes on in the classroom to become remote. Also, much as short stories and soap operas depend on stereotypes to move along the plot, teachers have to rely on stereotypical and received notions of schools and the roles of teacher and student. I can help move students away from the ‘teacher at the front model’ if I see them three times per week, but if I’m seeing them for 50 minutes (which in reality is more like 35 mins once admin and packing up time, etc. is factored in) there’s very little chance that I can effect a change in approach to learning on the part of individual students.

What makes things even harder is that the whole system is upside-down. We’re spending more time with students the older they get as they take more important exams, when what we should be doing is spending more time with students lower down the school helping them become independent learners. The time at GCSE level, for example, would then be better spent and/or directed to more personalized and individualized learning activities. Instead, what happens in practice is that Year 7 go from having loads of input because they affect primary schools’ Key Stage 2 SATs results in Year 6, to becoming bottom of the pile in terms of teachers’ priorities and efforts when they arrive in secondary school.

So what do I recommend? I think we need to spend more time with students in Year 7, perhaps condensing the timetable a bit, and certainly having them experience less teachers. The fewer teachers there are in charge of guiding their learning, the stronger the relationships become. This means that students can be encouraged to use cross-curricular thinking skills, literacy, numeracy, problem-solving skills, etc. and work towards becoming independent learners. The time when they are older can then be spent really digging into their interests at subject-specific level, rather than desperately trying to claw back time to inculcate revision and study skills which are the fruits of independent learning.

Any thoughts? :p

Published on February 20, 2007 · Filed under: Uncategorized;

5 Comments

5 Responses to “Horses for courses: how the school system constrains and affects learning relationships”

Chris said on February 21st, 2007 at 8:59 am

Couldn't agree more Doug, but I would like to go even further.
First of all in terms of time and energy the entire approach of our society makes absolutely no sense. We spend far more per head as children get older: e.g. most per head on Uni students, less on sixth form/college, then less at KS4, less at KS3, less at Primary school and finally least of all on nursery/preschool provision.
This is despite the fact that everything we know about the development of children brains tells us that by far the most important stage of their development is during the earlier years: specifically the nursery/preschool age group. Nonetheless we are quite happy to dump 2,3 & 4 year olds on untrained minimum wage nursery staff – because we think they just 'play' with the children'. This drives my girlfriend, who is a trained and experienced early years professional, absolutely mad – the techniques and strategies that she employs for enhancing student learning at this early stage are every bit as sophisticated as my own (I teach secondary school students), and are actually far more likely to have a substantial and sustained impact!
However instead of spending a little more on early years training and provision we spend billions more on students further up! Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the state sector is flush with cash by any means, but it does seem sometimes that the priorities are not justified by what the research tell us.
Anyway back to the main focus of your article Doug, I have long believed that the artificial subject divisions that we suddenly impose on students at age 11 need to be seriously diluted. The problem is that the entire Higher education/teacher training sector is, in my opinion, geared towards producing 'Historians, Mathematicians, Scientists' etc rather than 'teachers'. I consider myself first and foremost a 'teacher', not a Historian. Unfortunately (in my view) far too many teachers take the opposite view and would baulk at the idea of teaching anything other than 'their' subject, even at the relatively simplistic level required in year 7.
This results, as you say, in too little time spent developing cross curricular transferable skills – the skills that students are going to really need to give them genuine choices in their future educational and working lives. It reminds me of some inset I attended a while ago where (and I think I recall correctly) we were told that 90% of what an engineer knows today will be obsolete and irrelevant in 10 years time. What the potential engineers of tomorrow need therefore are the skills to effectively update and apply their knowledge throughout their professional lives: I fear schools simply are not doing this at the moment.
Elona said on February 21st, 2007 at 1:09 pm

Doug, I too think the powers-that-be in education aren't getting it. I have often thought that the time, effort and $$$$$ that iare spent on alternative programs at the high school level to try to support at-risk kids would be better spent at the primary level because often the problems are evident there. When I read the files of at-risk kids, I often find that the students' primary teachers have identified a problem in grades 1, 2 or 3 that I am still seeing in grades 9, 10 and 11. Why are we waiting so long to give this intense support to these kids and their families. Don't the-powers-that-be know that a stitch in time saves nine!
Doug Belshaw said on February 21st, 2007 at 1:24 pm

Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Chris and Elona. I think perhaps the reason that we cater more towards the top-end is because they are more reflective and vocal and can take control of their own learning. They are consumers/customers as much as learners. Even at GCSE level we have to persuade young people to take our course, so we 'sell' it to them and then make sure we get the end result (i.e. high value-added).

At a younger age, although testing is happening more and more lower down the age range, there are fewer benchmarks. This, and the fact that the learners cannot articulate their preferences, frustrations, etc. means that they are bottom of the heap when it comes to importance.

As you said, Chris, we need to be less wedded to our subjects and more interested in development of the whole learner. I see what you say about subject specialisms every day, unfortunately.
wvftiatoq said on December 9th, 2009 at 10:04 pm

EGnyzN tarbdzsrzjww, [url=http://bobizurjgvxy.com/]bobizurjgvxy[/url], [link=http://ailrcisyhiyr.com/]ailrcisyhiyr[/link], http://drglamopkhjh.com/
goghjsv said on February 4th, 2010 at 3:14 am

TvKK4n zslbohwkdgtu, [url=http://uytwnqyjholu.com/]uytwnqyjholu[/url], [link=http://pgmsujgkmson.com/]pgmsujgkmson[/link], http://rbzqgsjyfnnx.com/