Purpletigron

I think that the problem is that so many of these "low-achievers" leave school illiterate and innumerate. Promotion prospects for those who can't read are not good.

From:

Interesting contrast in the numbers of responses to this and my previous journal entry.

Hmm. You seem to be stating the obvious from your perspective, and not addressing the perspective of the 'low achievers'. Teachers do repeatedly point out that good GCSEs mean better pay prospects. But 'jam in a distant tomorrow' generally doesn't provide any motivation those who are already struggling with school.

From:

I think that the adverts I've seen on TV involving the gremlin-of-illiteracy might work quite well.

Maybe a harsher tone than my previous comment is needed. For example:

"If you cannot read and write then society will not treat you as a full human. You will be dependent on other people for many day-to-day things and you will be at constant risk of humiliation if your secret is discovered. If you want to be treated as a person then it would be a really good idea if you learnt to read and write."

[This may not be suitable for schools, though.]

It's not just promotion prospects, it's almost *any* prospects at all.

From:

People do 'get by' whilst functionally illiterate. It's possible that some kids are influenced by older family member who 'cope'. However, the 'clue-by-four' isn't really that effective - do you respond well to being harangued by someone who disagrees with you?

From:

It's not the best way to get through to someone, agreed. But at some point one just has to say "well, get on with it". Motivation is good, but you can't spend all your time motivating people and no time actually teaching them.

I've heard it said that with five (or so) "Why?" questions in a row one can get to an unanswerable question (or one that can only be answered with something like "Because $deity-of-choice said so"). Having a Socratic dialogue with students may sap your energies to no purpose.

And, yes, one can indeed get by without being able to read, but it's hard and it's tragic. We live in one of the world's greatest civilizations, with poetry, art, literature and science available freely to all, and the fact that some of our fellow citizens are excluded from that is not a thing that I am proud of.

One could take my harangue and reframe it in a rather more positive way:

"Many people would say that you are all worthless; that it's a waste of time trying to educate you. But I don't. I am here to help you become all that you can become. One of the first steps in this is to help you read, write and understand some basic mathematics. With this, you will be able to do all sorts of things, from the trivial to the profound. You will learn which bank accounts and mobile phone contracts are good value and which not, read government literature, Harry Potter, and newspapers, understand how paintings and photographs work and how their creators make you feel, and much more ..."

One could have a list of these in the classroom, and as the background knowledge for each target is achieved ("Today we learnt how to calculate compound interest, so we understand why this personal loan is not good value") then the useful real-world application can be discussed.

From:

I am put in mind of Charlie Brown's teacher: "Wah, wah, wah". Teaching isn't something that I can do to other people. The unmotivated are not just unexcited - they aren't listening (even to "WAH WAH WAH").

People are not objective: belief depends upon the source of evidence, not just the content. How do I get the students to take my word for it, before they have suffered?

From:

That's a very good question. I can think of lots of different answers, some of which aren't legal any more.

So you need to convince them that you're an authority figure to make them take you seriously.

Brute force (corporal punishment) isn't legal any more, but I think that throughout human history it has been a popular choice. Children learn because otherwise they suffer pain. (Although even in Ancient Rome there were dissenters).

Habit, if you can form it or if it's already formed for you, works quite well too. They regard you as an authority figure because they've always seen teachers (or indeed any adult) as authority figures.

Reasoned argument might work (see my comments above).

Bribery also has a long and noble history. Ancient Roman teachers sometimes gave gifts to those of their students who learned well (I think the gift in the extract I read was biscuits).

More emotional arguments might work too - the religious could be browbeaten with arguments from the Bible, the Torah or the Koran telling people to respect their elders and be diligent, the political could be exhorted to succeed because that would support/oppose The Man, etc.

Trying to treat them with respect might also work. Actually *listening* to what people say often helps (in my experience). Academics like being asked about their research and will happily talk for hours on it.

I think habit might be stronger than one might think. They've had a long time - approaching a decade - to get used to the idea of coming to class and doing stuff. Maybe they don't do it very well, but they're there.

This is somewhat of a grab-bag of random ideas.

From:

Brute force (corporal punishment) isn't legal any more, but I think that throughout human history it has been a popular choice. Children learn because otherwise they suffer pain. (Although even in Ancient Rome there were dissenters).

I'm old enough to have experienced corporal punishment both as a witness and first hand (pardon the pun) putting any moral concerns it simply doesn't work on the hardcore minority it's often promoted to deal with. As a middle ability reasonably well behaved child I was horrified when I was given the belt (actually a razor strop - both my English & Technical Drawing teachers favoured these). For me the humiliation was worse than the punishment, For those who really didn't want to be in school the punishment was seen as more of a badge of honour.

From:

But did the pain help people to learn?

From:

This question had me stumped, the answer is probably yes but I'm not entirely sure that the leson learned was in any way related to the classes. I learned that some people really shouldn't be trusted to look after let alone educate children.

From:

Indeed, I should have specified 'learn from the curriculum'.

From:

The problems I see amoung some friends and the recruits to our apprentice program at work suggest the root problem isn't achievement it's interest. Most of our apprentices are as interested in their apprenticeship as they probably were in academic work in school. They don't achieve because they would really rather be doing something else or possibly nothing else as those we lose seem to drift for a period. I'm not sure what causes this lack of engagement (anomie?) when I've asked the responses suggest a total lack of thought. They don't like where they but aren't sure where they want to be.

I had a year or so drifting after school and my first attempt at higher education, you are right, I had to find my "flash-point". In my case it was discovering that I loved to figure out how to make stuff. Once I started doing the job I used that as the focus for my education.

Despite the fact that I have to recruit in this country I think business should have no particular influence in the area. Every employers needs are different and groups like the CBI aren't particularly good at representing this variation. The company I work at now employs a mix of typical factory fodder (read, count and follow simple instructions), and skilled craftsmen (numerate, literate, with the ability to plan and organise their own work and use the skills of others). Ideally we would only employ the latter, but we can't get enough of them and cant keep them when they are given boring repetitive work to do. They are also harder work to manage, most days its like herding cats, this is not something that large businesses are usually good at dealing with.

From:

I definitely agree (although of course a new achievement can sometimes promote future interest).

they would really rather be doing something else or possibly nothing else

Quite. I wonder whether it is the still wrong time, or another wrong approach, or complete apathy?

Thanks for the food for thought on the CBI.

... can't keep them when they are given boring repetitive work to do.

I'm not surprised about that. I don't think that anyone should be exclusively given such work - perhaps 2 hours per day maximum.

They are also harder work to manage, most days its like herding cats, this is not something that large businesses are usually good at dealing with.

Is this an argument for keeping businesses small ('on a human scale')?

From:

Quite. I wonder whether it is the still wrong time, or another wrong approach, or complete apathy?

I'm pretty sure with some of them it's not the right time, others seem to be looking for a job which will entertain and engage them without actually having to put any effort in at the front end. They expect to pickup the interesting skilled parts of the job without taking the time to develop and hone their skills.

I wish we could set a regime to break up the boring work more fairly, the problem being we are at the bottom of the pile (subcontract manufacturing) and pretty much have to take what's going. At the moment it's good the majority of our fabricators are working on work that interests them (variable message signs for motorways and conveyor access bridges) and the atmosphere is great. Two weeks from now we'll be back to electrical enclosures, dull for us all but it pays the wages.

I've worked in small, medium and very large manufacturing operations, I would say small is better, you tend to see your colleagues as human, you put up with someones lack of ability in one area because you know that in other circumstances he's just the man for the job. In larger operations, you measure, you judge and those who fall outwith acceptable performance are moved around or moved out.

From:

looking for a job which will entertain and engage them without actually having to put any effort in

To be fair, I think that most mammals have similar goals in life :-)

I wish we could set a regime to break up the boring work more fairly

That you can't illustrates a fundamental weakness of capitalism, in my opinion.

I would say small is better, you tend to see your colleagues as human

Again, an inescapable aspect of capitalism, I feel. No pure 'ideology' can balance human need with human desire, which blows both Marx and the WTO out of the water...

From:

I'm tempted to be contrarian and say that big can be better. Big companies often adhere much more strongly to (at least the letter of) the law, especially when it comes to having a contract, getting pay rises, obeying health & safety, equal opportunities etc. Small companies often are exempted from these things.

Also, it's easier for a large company to deal with things like maternity leave; they can shuffle people around, whereas a small company might not have anyone spare to cover. Holding someone's job for 18 months is much easier if you have 1015 people than if you have 15.

From:

If there were no big companies, presumably there would be no exemptions for small companies: all the legislation would be written for the small business context. Likewise, methods for dealing with staff on leave from small businesses would be developed.

From:

gaspodog.livejournal.com

One of the greatest barriers to motivating pupils is the National Curriculum.

It is the anathema of interest, and interest is a key factor in motivation. A prescriptive system of dry science is an excellent way to demotivate both teachers and pupils and this is unfortunately what we have.

From: