The CBB :: View topic - School: Subject Teaching

I think this is quite typical of GO generally - that the heroines of GO novels are never good at maths, although their best friends might be allowed the skill.

I wonder if the CS was teaching human biology by the end of the series, rather than just botany... After all, Margot can't have been completely ignorant of, say, the circulatory system, before going to university, can she?

‘Some people are good at maths but poor at languages,’ she said. ‘Others reverse this. Some again work well at scientific subjects; others are best in what are known as litterae humanores – the subjects dealing with people, like history, literature and so on.... ‘Now where the exact sciences and languages are concerned I have always felt that it was unfair to expect girls of roughly the same age to work together for that very reason. I like the idea of sets as used in the big public schools and mean to have it here. Girls who are good at maths will work together. Those who find it difficult, will have their own set or sets. This will mean that clever people are not held back by slower ones and the slower ones will be helped to understand exactly what they are doing before they go on to something fresh. The same will apply to languages and science.’

Is a trilingual system really the best way of being immersed in a foreign language?

This is a bit OT as it's something that comes up in some of EBD's non-CS books -- in The School at Skelton Hall and I think in The School by the River. It's called teaching in sets and I was wondering if anyone has any experience of this either as a pupil or teacher and if it is or was used in the UK at certain times

That said, I am starting to pick up Nigerian pidgin because the majority of my class are Nigerian and it's just being surrounded with it. It's fairly similar to English in most ways but quite different in others (in terms of vocab, syntax and inflections). So there is something to be said for immersion even at this late stage!

Kate wrote:

I can swear in Polish now!

I'm a little confused by the term "sets" - can anyone tell me if this is the same as what I know as "streaming"?

The school excursions always read to me like they try to blend a lot of the subjects together - we get information about the history of the place, or the geography of a glacier forming, and IIRC someone metioned writing poetry about the scenery once.

Oh, and the references to Biddy's "picturesque language" always make me smile!

I'm a historian, so the one that always interested me was "reasoning from cause to effect"

isn't there an implication in the 'reasoning from cause to effect' method that there's necessarily some kind of straightforward/rational causal link between two historical events?

someone is writing an essay on the success or length of Elizabeth I's reign.... EBD steps in as narrator and tells us that the correct answer to the question ... was that Elizabeth 'was a Tudor of Tudors and reigned right royally' .... what EBD says sounds to me like old-fashioned romantic cult of personality stuff...?

But EBD's 'reasoning from cause to effect' always sounded to me kind of artificially 'ordered' and singular

'Shakespeare was a timeless genius woffle woffle because I haven't bothered reading the actual plays'!

Surely girls at grammar or high schools in the UK during the timespan of the CS wouldn't have been rattling off lists of dates learned by rote or learning funny little stories about Canute and the Waves, or learning pages from a textbook,

I get a bit lost with how big the CS was at various points in its existence, but how big a school would you need in order to have many sets in one yeargroup? I just wonder if that's why the CS never really did it that way, because there weren't enough e.g. 14-15 year old girls to warrant calling them a year group as a whole and then splitting them into different sets within that. I find it hard to judge though as my senior school was very big (360 in my year group) so a lot of schools seem fairly small to me as a result. In my year there were twelve classes for each subject, we were loosely streamed in the first year and then put in sets for pretty much everything (the year was split in half though, so we had two lots of top set, second set etc. I think they thought saying someone was in set 12 for maths would be too demoralising!)

Interesting MaryR - It would be great to hear from other CBB-ers who were at school in the 50's and 60's (or earlier) to get a feel for what the teaching norms were.

I always got the impression (mostly from the fuss made every year around A level and GCSE results about dumbing down) that the emphasis on reasoning vs learning by rote was a recent thing. Otherwise, why all the fuss about 'in my day... etc' and mass-hysteria about an entire generation of children not being able to reel of the Kings and Queens of England... (of which I am one, of the generation of ignorance, I mean :oops:

)

when Len is considering in prep an essay title set by Miss Annersley on 'An imaginary voyage to the Mountains of the Moon'. Len remembers Miss A having mentioned them in the context of a travel book she recommended in class,

Sunglass wrote:

But this is EXACTLY how my history lessons were in the late fifties/early sixties at my grammar school. All I remember is learning dates of battles etc. Is it any wonder I was bored to tears? :banghead:

I've always rather liked the CS system of forms, allowing the girls to be with others of the same ability rather than age. The only problem seemed to be what happened to students who were pushed years ahead of their peers, like the Maynard triplets.

Sadly, I think Len was right in her interpretation. Hilda set an esaay question not a piece of creative wrtiting. Do they ever write a narrative in the CS? It also occurs in 'Lorna', where during a teacher's absence, they pick their own topics such as 'Shopping' etc. When I did GCE English there was a choIce of creative type questions and the more formal essay questions.

It also seemed to be your form rather than your age that decided all privilages etc so you have the potential for a bright 12 year old having a later bed time than a new-comer 16 year old which must have caused problems.

MaryR wrote:

Sunglass wrote:

Same era, but our history teacher "dictated" the whole lesson and we ended up with exercise books full of notes - he had a very "one note" voice as well. We then were expected to learn all this for our "O" level. There was never any discussion, he expected and received complete silence.

I took History O level in 1965

I wonder why, given that EBD seems to have been fairly enthusiastic about the method (according to her other school stories) she didn't introduce it to the CS? I can see it might not have worked well in the early Tirol days when the school was so small, but by the time of the Swiss years -- which is when we get the oddly age-assorted Inter V -- it seems as if it would have made a lot of sense.

I've always rather liked the CS system of forms, allowing the girls to be with others of the same ability rather than age.

for the first two years History, Modern Studies and Geography worked in a rotation,

Aquabird wrote:

for the first two years History, Modern Studies and Geography worked in a rotation,

What is Modern Studies? I've never heard of it

Which I always find a bit shocking myself, raised in a very exam focused school system, where, if you had stayed on in school after the age at which you could have legally left, you sat the school-leaving exam, whether or not you passed it. Whereas there seems no question of Emerence even taking public exams...?

I suppose I also think that a real-life 2009 Mr Hope who sends his daughter to an expensive, academically-respectable school would expect that school to 'produce' a certain amount of academic results for her, rather than saying, 'Sorry, she's not Sixth-form material!'

I remember we covered the Third World countries and international aid, and American politics, and when I did the Higher in sixth year we did UK politics over the last 25 years, which I absolutely loved.

Selena wrote:Aquabird wrote:for the first two years History, Modern Studies and Geography worked in a rotation,

What is Modern Studies? I've never heard of it

I think it's called Social Studies elsewhere - the study of issues and politics in the world today. I remember we covered the Third World countries and international aid, and American politics, and when I did the Higher in sixth year we did UK politics over the last 25 years, which I absolutely loved. I wrote a peach of an essay about Margaret Thatcher that I got full marks for. Unfortunately we had a really biased teacher whom I disagreed with on almost everything. I think I was the bane of his life - every time I put my hand up it was to disagree with him.

maths was a compulsory subject. Or was it only compulsory if one wanted a "matric"?

'As music is to be your main subject, you will take no science or art or algebra and geometry. Arithmetic, we can't spare. You must be able to manage your own money affairs and you can't do that without arithmetic. So that stays in; but as you won't want any of the public exams, it shouldn't worry you unduly. Miss Wilmot understands and she'll see you understand all you do need."

Though it does occur to cautious me again that the CS is taking Nina at her word - that she is going to make it as a professional musician - and won't need public exams that require her to sit maths. But supposing the Hilda Jukes accident had permanently damaged Nina's hand, and she had needed to look to a career other than musicianship...?

Also, am I right in thinking that there are some indications that different components of maths are taught separately at the CS - that someone like Nina Rutherford would be able to take arithmetic lessons, but not, say, geometry?

Does that mean that the different components of maths are timetabled separately, or, if not, how else might Nina take arithmetic, but not other maths? Just do her prep at the back in calculus classes?

'I have your test papers here,' she said, picking up some sheets. 'In English subjects, arithmetic and French, you should be able to work with Lower Fifth B. Your Latin grammar is good; but you construe badly. Still, that is largely a matter of vocabulary and practice. Have you done no algebra and geometry?'

'A little algebra, but no geometry,' Carola explained in subdued tones.

'I see. It would mean coaching in those subjects, then. What about science?' ...

Miss Wilson replied. 'They are all Fifth Form girls. If she can work with them, I expect she'll soon pick up as much chemistry as they have...'

[Miss Annersley said]... 'As you have had a year's botany, and seem to have done practically no maths, we had better concentrate on the botany and cut the maths out. No need for you to do both.'

sorry for spreeing etc, but just what exactly would one get taught in arithmetic????

sorry for spreeing etc, but just what exactly would one get taught in arithmetic???? Once the basics are mastered, it must just be practice practice practice as far as I can see, or learning ever increasing amounts of times tables. Otherwise one is very rapidly into the realms of algebra.

Or, perhaps did they do a sort of applied accounting course?

And I don't think you'd be able to manage chemistry without some algebra, at least.

Looking at some of the textbooks circa 1950 makes the mind boggle - the amount of tedious arithmetic necessary to calculate areas and costs of floorings, not to mention loan repayments when the measurements were in feet and inches and the money in £sd is terrifying! God bless decimalisation!

God bless decimalisation!

Calculus... oh how I struggled with A level Physics because I wasn't doing A level Maths.
yourself - please correct me anyone who did chemistry during that period.

I don't think that outside an academic setting some maths has much use - I've never, for example, had to try and do 3-D trigonometry or work out the surface area of a frustrum

maths was a compulsory subject. Or was it only compulsory if one wanted a "matric"?

My aunt (she was at school in the 50s/60s) said that it depended on what sort of school you went to whether you actually took any exams at all - I presume she means grammar/secondary modern schools?

Quote:

God bless decimalisation!

heavens to betsy, I hadn't even thought about that!

I did maths GCSE.

I even got an A for it (no idea how - standards must have been very low that year!).

I cannot for the life of me remember how to do long division :oops:

Author:	Róisín [ Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:16 pm ]
Post subject:	School: Subject Teaching
From JayB There are lots of teachers on the CBB and even more students! What do you think of EBD’s idea of teaching methods, particularly in specific subject areas? Is a trilingual system really the best way of being immersed in a foreign language? What about the lists of ten words of new vocab every day? And large picture charts illustrating cause and effect? Has anyone used synthetic maps and are they all they’re cracked up to be?

Author:	trig [ Wed Apr 22, 2009 5:04 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: School: Subject Teaching
I'm a maths teacher so loathed by most girls and mistresses at the CS!! (I remember in New Mistress Kathie trying hard to be imaginative in Geography because it wasn't possible with geometry and algebra. How depressing!!) I feel certain EBD had some defining and terrible experience with Maths when she was young as I can't remember her ever saying anything complimentary about the subject. I do think the immersion (spelling?) technique for languages works as I went on a French exchange when I was 14 and have never looked back. Whether it would be as effective among mostly native English speakers is questionable...

Author:	Emma A [ Wed Apr 22, 2009 5:42 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: School: Subject Teaching
I remember someone writing a very in-depth and detailed critique of the trilingual system (possibly for a Girlsown discussion), which concluded that it was a nice idea but unworkable! It might have been easier if all the girls were immersed in their language from the age of eleven or so, but trying to teach teenagers German when they know none would be an uphill struggle, I'd have thought. Then of course there's the problem with textbooks - would Rosalie ensure that, say, all Inter V's geography lessons were on French days? Or would geography be taught using three different textbooks? Or would they use one textbook and be taught verbally in whatever language of the day it was? I'd have thought that either of those options would have been very difficult to organise - particularly if you'd learned about winds, say, on German day, and then had to write about them later on English day. It all sounds good, but I don't think EBD can have thought it through properly. The immersion method works when everyone around speaks a different language, and there is no opportunity to speak your own. At the Chalet School - unless you were Norwegian - many other girls would speak your language, and there wasn't the same incentive to learn. After all, how many times does EBD have even her Senior characters drop into their own language because it's easier for them to express themselves in their native idiom? (Rather side-tracking - an English friend of mine said recently that, although she speaks Italian fluently, she isn't culturally Italian because her personality is best expressed in English - she has words in English that express how she feels and sees the world, whereas those aren't available in Italian.) I'm not too sure that learning vocabulary really is useful - it's the constructions that are most difficult, I think, because one shouldn't say things in French or German that are merely word-for-word translations of English idioms. We used to have vocabulary tests in Latin, and I can't say it ever helped (not that we spoke it, of course) - we were always having to look up words. Many of the teachers (and prefects) seem to be more concerned with accent, and learning something by rote - having your chosen phrase re-cast into the language of the day and having to repeat it ad nauseam - isn't the best way to learn. After all, why do you say it that way? What does the verb form mean? Are you using a complicated construction whose proper use you haven't learned yet? With regards to subject teaching aside from doing it the language of the day, I too feel rather sorry for the maths teachers! I was never particularly good at maths myself, but I should like to have been. The only maths genius, IIRC, is the rather unpleasant Phil Craven. I think this is quite typical of GO generally - that the heroines of GO novels are never good at maths, although their best friends might be allowed the skill. I find interesting a throwaway comment in one of the Swiss books that Con has "flashes of genius" in maths (can't remember which book), though she works conscientiously most of the time. It's never followed up and Con reverts to being a maths-hating Maynard just like Joey. I wonder if the CS was teaching human biology by the end of the series, rather than just botany... After all, Margot can't have been completely ignorant of, say, the circulatory system, before going to university, can she?

Author:	JayB [ Wed Apr 22, 2009 5:53 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: School: Subject Teaching
Quote: I think this is quite typical of GO generally - that the heroines of GO novels are never good at maths, although their best friends might be allowed the skill. I suspect it's possibly because most GO writers, being, obviously, more inclined to literary subjects, weren't very good at maths themselves, and didn't know how to write about maths in detail either from a teaching or learning perspective. It's easier, as a writer, to make your heroines good at the subjects you like and are good at yourself. Although it's interesting that the two mistresses who feature most prominently towards the end of the series, Nancy and Kathie, are maths teachers.

Author:	Tor [ Wed Apr 22, 2009 6:02 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: School: Subject Teaching
Quote: I wonder if the CS was teaching human biology by the end of the series, rather than just botany... After all, Margot can't have been completely ignorant of, say, the circulatory system, before going to university, can she? I always wonder this. Science lessons rather drop out of the storylines once the school leaves Tirol, it seems. But there are plenty of doctors on hand to give visiting lectures to seniors, so it would seem to be such a waste not to tap that expertise. I like to think there was a more rounded science education! Does anyone know what the A level curriculum (such that it was) for science would have covered at the time? Presumably they did dissection of some kind? I always wonder at the true pervasiveness of the tri-lingual policy - even aside from the practicalities. Did you also have to maintain, say, three sets of library books - or were you allowed to read books in any language on any day? did teachers mark/give comments back in the language the work was written in, or the language in use that day? What did you do once you were a senior and planned your Prep schedule a bit more - did you write an essay in the language of the day it was set on, or the language of the day you did it on...

The CBB http://www.the-cbb.co.uk/

School: Subject Teaching http://www.the-cbb.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=5968

Author:	Mel [ Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:30 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: School: Subject Teaching
EBD is always a bit vague about prep and never explores the language problem. Mentions of prep usually seem to be repetition which would always be in English, maths problems, a map to draw etc. I can't remember any essay writing. Don't they have thirty minutes for each subject? Not much time for essay writing. As an English teacher, I always find the English lessons disappointing. There is a lot of poetry to learn but never discuss, little mention of texts except when reading Shakespeare when you can keep the same part throughout ( great if you get a good part!)

Author:	Maeve [ Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:13 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: School: Subject Teaching
This is a bit OT as it's something that comes up in some of EBD's non-CS books -- in The School at Skelton Hall and I think in The School by the River. It's called teaching in sets and I was wondering if anyone has any experience of this either as a pupil or teacher and if it is or was used in the UK at certain times? The head of Skelton Hall describes it thus: Quote: ‘Some people are good at maths but poor at languages,’ she said. ‘Others reverse this. Some again work well at scientific subjects; others are best in what are known as litterae humanores – the subjects dealing with people, like history, literature and so on.... ‘Now where the exact sciences and languages are concerned I have always felt that it was unfair to expect girls of roughly the same age to work together for that very reason. I like the idea of sets as used in the big public schools and mean to have it here. Girls who are good at maths will work together. Those who find it difficult, will have their own set or sets. This will mean that clever people are not held back by slower ones and the slower ones will be helped to understand exactly what they are doing before they go on to something fresh. The same will apply to languages and science.’

Author:	Amanda M [ Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:18 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: School: Subject Teaching
I know when I was at school we had sets for Maths, English and Science. For Maths there were six sets which did help as there seemed to be a bigger difference in people's grasp of Maths, compared to English or Science (which if I remember rightly had three sets for them).

Author:	Elle [ Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:19 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: School: Subject Teaching
Róisín wrote: Is a trilingual system really the best way of being immersed in a foreign language? As someone who has three non-english speakers in their GCSE History class, three in one year 9 set, four in a year 8, and 12 in a year 7 I can honestly say that this system does not work. They can all swear and call people's mothers a 'ho', but apart from that they do not have a clue what is going on. They don't even all speak the same language, I have pashto speakers, shona, lithuanian, portugese, slav, polish and Russian to name but a few. It is mad! There is no support because the money we get for taking EAL students is going to pay off our massive deficit budget. It is fine to give someone 10 words a day to learn when you speak their language, and the language you are trying to teach them, but when you cannot speak pashto and all they have is a generic arabic/english dictionary then it is very difficult... Rant over! Sorry!

Author:	Kate [ Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:29 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: School: Subject Teaching
It's a LOT easier when they're younger though, I think. In my class I have 9 children who are non-English speakers and a further 15 who technically speak English as their first language but whose parents who are non-native speakers or speak a pidgin English. They're all basically fluent now - since September. About half the 8 are pretty much word perfect apart from syntax at times. They're mostly 5 and 6. The older classes don't seem to have much problem either and their demographics would be similar - we go up to 13 in our school. It'd be a lot harder for CS girls who started after that age, I imagine. That said, I am starting to pick up Nigerian pidgin because the majority of my class are Nigerian and it's just being surrounded with it. It's fairly similar to English in most ways but quite different in others (in terms of vocab, syntax and inflections). So there is something to be said for immersion even at this late stage!

Author:	Fi [ Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:33 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: School: Subject Teaching
Maeve wrote: This is a bit OT as it's something that comes up in some of EBD's non-CS books -- in The School at Skelton Hall and I think in The School by the River. It's called teaching in sets and I was wondering if anyone has any experience of this either as a pupil or teacher and if it is or was used in the UK at certain times I was taught English, Science and Maths in sets from last year of primary right through to the end of my GCSEs I was also set for Modern languages during Years 9, 10 and 11. Like Amanda, there were 6 levels for Maths and Science and 3 for English and Languages. The children in my local secondary school are still set for these 4 subjects. I personally found it helpful as a high achieving child. I would have been bored stiff (and therefore probably highly disruptive) had I been learning at the pace of the least able students.

Author:	Elle [ Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:43 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: School: Subject Teaching
Kate wrote: That said, I am starting to pick up Nigerian pidgin because the majority of my class are Nigerian and it's just being surrounded with it. It's fairly similar to English in most ways but quite different in others (in terms of vocab, syntax and inflections). So there is something to be said for immersion even at this late stage! I can swear in Polish now!

Author:	Carys [ Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:56 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: School: Subject Teaching
The trilingual system always confused me as to how lessons would work and I don't think it would have been effective even if everyone could speak English, German, and French as they would feel more comfortable learning in their "native" language. When my Gran was small she had to go and live with her Grandmother for a short time after her Grandfather had died, the lessons in the local school were all conducted in Welsh and even though my Gran could speak the language she really struggled learning in Welsh-if that makes sense. If you take someone like one of the two Sams who from memory could only speak two of the languages and had to learn one then I'd have no idea how they'd be able to write essays in that language. Surely learning to write essays in German would take a lot more than learning ten new words a day.

Author:	Kate [ Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:58 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: School: Subject Teaching
Elle wrote: Kate wrote: That said, I am starting to pick up Nigerian pidgin because the majority of my class are Nigerian and it's just being surrounded with it. It's fairly similar to English in most ways but quite different in others (in terms of vocab, syntax and inflections). So there is something to be said for immersion even at this late stage! I can swear in Polish now! I can say "if you don't stop that I'll smack you" in Yoruba. lol Not that I've ever said that to a child but when I asked them to teach me some, that's what they taught me!

Author:	JB [ Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:47 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: School: Subject Teaching
We spent the first year of secondary school doing all lessons in form, which, as someone else said, was dull as we had to work at a fairly slow pace and i'd already covered a lot of work at primary school. After end of year exams, we were divided into sets for all academic subjects and stayed that way through to O-levels, apart from those subjects where there were only enough pupils for one class after we'd chosen our "options" eg German. So, after my first year, there were some pupils in my form that I only met at registration.

Author:	Nightwing [ Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:55 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: School: Subject Teaching
I'm a little confused by the term "sets" - can anyone tell me if this is the same as what I know as "streaming"?

Author:	ChubbyMonkey [ Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:09 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: School: Subject Teaching
I don't quite understand the sets idea, but I think we had something similar in my school for GCSEs We were placed into sets according to ability for English, Maths and Science - so Maths, for example, you could be moved down a set, and in the lower sets I think some people were moved up. But it completely determined your grade, because they only taught you what you needed to know for exams that gave up to a certain grade - being in the top class (despite having no mathematical ability whatsoever and essentially just memorising enough to get the percentage required to pass) I could get up to an A*, but people in the lower sets would know from the beginning of the two years that they could only get say a C or so, depending on what group you were in. It was the same for English and Science - though for some reason in English the 'lower' classes were taught English and Media while the 'higher' classes were Language and Literature. And now I'm doing a Language A-Level we keep referencing media ideas. A levels aren't done by ability sets but timetabling, and I definetely see the differences in class! Today I spent half an hour of the lesson reading a fiction book because I'd finished the test before the rest of the class. Oh, and talking of foreign languages, I'm trying to learn basic German - I can do all of the basic stuff like 'Do you speak English' and also a surpising number of expletives. Oh, and in Russian I can say 'comrade, comrade, comrade cheese' (don't ask).

Author:	abbeybufo [ Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:17 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: School: Subject Teaching
Nightwing wrote: I'm a little confused by the term "sets" - can anyone tell me if this is the same as what I know as "streaming"? Not exactly, Nightwing. In my school [1960s] we weren't 'streamed' - ie put into different forms according to academic ability - until Lower V [about 14 rising 15 years old, the year before O levels] For certain subjects before that we were put into 'divisions' which to me, seem to work like sets as described here. You stay in the same form, for 'administrative purposes' but you do lessons in the 'setted' or 'divisioned' subjects with people of the same level in that subject as you - thus I was in Div 1 for both Maths and French, but Div 2 for Latin - there were usually 3 divisions for the subjects so arranged [76 pupils in the year, in 3 parallel forms] but in French there were Div 1, Div 2a and Div 2b - the two Divs 2 meant to be at the same level as each other.

Author:	Kate [ Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:19 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: School: Subject Teaching
Nightwing wrote: I'm a little confused by the term "sets" - can anyone tell me if this is the same as what I know as "streaming"? Streaming to me would mean that a year group is split into different classes, but the same class for every subject - if one student was in the top English class, they'd also be in the top Maths class. Sets would be if the year group was split into different classes for different subjects - one student might be in the top English class but a lower Maths class. We had a mix in the secondary school I went to - until third year, we were streamed for most subjects but had sets for Maths and Irish. After third year, everything was sets (I guess because everything was optional except for English, Maths and Irish.) Irish exams have two separate papers for each exam, Higher and Ordinary Level, so there would be a Higher and Ordinary class (colloquially known as Honours and Pass) or two Higher and one Ordinary or whatever was needed. There is a Foundation Level in Maths and Irish too. But depending on numbers doing a subject, there might be a mix of Higher and Ordinary in the class, which was often very confusing depending on the subject as the teacher was trying to teach two curricula.

Author:	Alison H [ Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:54 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: School: Subject Teaching
We were in sets for maths in the 4th and 5th years. It worked OK at a school with about 120 kids in each year, but I'm not sure how practical it would be at the CS which had far fewer. I think it would've been better than ending up with forms with such wide age ranges, though, which is what seemed to happen at the CS due to different levels of ability/previous learning. I can't see that the trilingual system - great though it always sounded! - would have worked. They could hardly have had 3 text books for each subject . I'm a historian, so the one that always interested me was "reasoning from cause to effect" . I've never heard a teacher/lecturer use that expression, but it makes a lot of sense when you think about it. Oh, and the references to Biddy's "picturesque language" always make me smile! There are surprisingly few mentions of science lessons in the books. Given the scope for accidents in the science labs, I'm surprised that there weren't more! Most of the accidents seem to happen in the domestic science room, but I'm sure there was more scope for accidents in the labs . Although there are a lot of excursions, there never seem to be any subject-specific ones, e.g. history trips to places relevant to the period being studied, geography field trips, trips to art galleries/theatres/(unless Nina was playing!) concerts, or even nature walks. I don't suppose there was any particular reason for that, but I wonder about it sometimes.

Author:	KathrynW [ Wed Apr 22, 2009 11:03 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: School: Subject Teaching
At my junior school (24 people in my year) we were divided into two groups from the age of about 8. For most of the academic lessons we were then in our smaller groups which were based on ability. Which seems a bit harsh for 8 year olds but my school was very concerned with 'results' (which translated as what senior schools we went to). My senior school was selective based on ability so I think the general idea was that we would all be at roughly the same standard although we did have sets (except we called them divisions) for maths, science and french after the first year. I think this was partly just to mix up the classes though and was as good a way to do it as any. The science divisions never changed but they would move people in the maths and french divisions quite freely. Apart from when I asked to move down a division in French after an argument with my French teacher but that's another story!

Author:	ChubbyMonkey [ Wed Apr 22, 2009 11:04 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: School: Subject Teaching
The school excursions always read to me like they try to blend a lot of the subjects together - we get information about the history of the place, or the geography of a glacier forming, and IIRC someone metioned writing poetry about the scenery once. I hadn't really thought about the science lab accidents before, but now I've started, I've just realised that actually I can't think of any accidents which result in the girls having scars - IIRC we are told specifically that Josette's scars should heal in time, and the only other accident I could think of off hand which could result in a scar would be when Grizel sets fire to Len, and then if it was promptly put out I don't think it would. I have a thing about scars, though, having collected a fair few of my own, so that could all be complete nonsense. And is completely OT

Author:	Mel [ Wed Apr 22, 2009 11:23 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: School: Subject Teaching
Schools generally have setting these days rather than streaming. For streaming think of Antonia Forest's Autumn Term where the Marlow twins are horrified to be put into the botton stream - Third Remove.The Chalet School does neither; instead they have the odd system of removes and double removes for the brighter pupils.

Author:	Emma A [ Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:38 am ]
Post subject:	Re: School: Subject Teaching
ChubbyMonkey wrote: The school excursions always read to me like they try to blend a lot of the subjects together - we get information about the history of the place, or the geography of a glacier forming, and IIRC someone metioned writing poetry about the scenery once. Yes, they're very much generalised excursions - particularly in the Swiss books, where the "guide book" nature of the descriptions shows. I suppose that in a relatively isolated place they couldn't have easily taken pupils for a visit to an art gallery in Thun or Interlaken (particularly since the weather seems to be such a factor in their lives!). It would have required quite a lot of planning, I'd have thought, and might not have been cost effective unless a lot of motor-coaches were hired at the same time. When it comes to lab accidents, there's the memorable occasion when Evvy blows up the chemistry lab in Exploits - don't her eyebrows and her front hair get singed? But probably EBD didn't know much about chemistry, and that's why she didn't write much about exploding chemicals or people getting burns from hot crucibles thereafter! (BTW, and OT completely, but I can't help thinking as I write this of Abi's drabble wherein Augusta plans to blow up a field to find buried treasure... )

Author:	Tor [ Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:33 am ]
Post subject:	Re: School: Subject Teaching
Quote: Oh, and the references to Biddy's "picturesque language" always make me smile! Yes, I always imagine her swearing like a trooper over Cromwell's behaviour in Ireland, etc!!! Sets - this was the norm for Maths, French and Science at my school. There were approx 120 in the year, split into 4 forms which were arranged alphabetically. You did all lessons bar the setted subjects with them. The sets were ability based, and combined the girls from all four forms of the same ability. But there were only 3 levels, so a top set (1 class), a middle set (1 class) and then the bottom set (2 classes). It didn't affect your exams - as everyone was entered for the GCSE papers that allowed you to achieve top grades. Most people did well, regardless of which set they were in. It must have made timetabling difficult though, as it meant that the entire year had to have Science, French and Maths at the same time, and the rest of the subjects fitted around them. I think setting works quite well, as it fairly flexible (e.g. you can be in bottom set for maths, but top set for french). But it is also quite demoralizing and divisive in its own way. Still, i think it works better than being put in a class with girls several years older or younger than you. I think it could have worked at the CS - if they were willing to break with form/year boundaries a little. It certianly would have solved all of those problems of where to put a new girl who was advanced in Latin, but had never done a sum before. You could have a 'new girls' language set, where they get up to speed or A 'future literary talent' maths set, where they extra coaching....

Author:	Sarah_G-G [ Thu Apr 23, 2009 11:40 am ]
Post subject:	Re: School: Subject Teaching
I get a bit lost with how big the CS was at various points in its existence, but how big a school would you need in order to have many sets in one yeargroup? I just wonder if that's why the CS never really did it that way, because there weren't enough e.g. 14-15 year old girls to warrant calling them a year group as a whole and then splitting them into different sets within that. I find it hard to judge though as my senior school was very big (360 in my year group) so a lot of schools seem fairly small to me as a result. In my year there were twelve classes for each subject, we were loosely streamed in the first year and then put in sets for pretty much everything (the year was split in half though, so we had two lots of top set, second set etc. I think they thought saying someone was in set 12 for maths would be too demoralising!) from the second year. The whole system was... complicated so I won't go into it. Suffice to say I agree with the definitions others have given for streaming and setting as I have experienced it. I always got the impression that the CS got around the need for it by only moving pupils up when they could cope with the next level, rather than moving them by age and then having to teach everything over again because half the class still didn't understand. In terms of trilingualism, I suspect the practicalities of it were perfect for a fictional school I can't honestly think of a way it would work without leaving the students at a disadvantage in terms of their other subjects, because so many explanations would be needed along the way. Even if they did have, say, geography only on French days for the course of one year, what would happen the next year? Would they have to re-learn all the terms in English or German? Even if they were fluent in French and could write an essay for geography in that language, I suspect even an English-speaking girl would struggle initially to phrase terms they knew in French in an English manner. That's been my experience at least. Even explaining a topic I've studied in French or German can be difficuly at times because some terms just don't translate that well, and if you've got into the habit of expressing that topic in one language it can be very difficult to change your mindset and put it into another. It would certainly add to the stress level in the exam. "What's the word for that geographical feature? Well, it's that in French... but I can't write that. Ok, so if it's that in French then in English it's... umm... oh no..."

Author:	MJKB [ Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:09 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: School: Subject Teaching
It would have been so much more believable and practicable if the school taught in one language but assigned days for speaking the other two languages outside of school hours. New girls could have, maybe, an hour or two of intensive coaching during their leisure time twice a week. The trilingual aspect of the school would be in tact but it would certainly cut down on the massive amount of frustration and confusion it must have caused. I'd send a child of mine to a school with that type of system.

Author:	Sunglass [ Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:10 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: School: Subject Teaching
Alison H wrote: I'm a historian, so the one that always interested me was "reasoning from cause to effect" Not a historian, but that's always interested me too, I suppose because it got said so often as a kind of set phrase, but I was never entirely sure I grasped its full meaning or why it was so revolutionary that it was part of Miss Annersley's Message to the World when she went on her tour in Challenge. I mean, I can see that it was innovative compared to the 'history as little stories like Alfred and the cakes' approach apparently often taken by the elderly governesses of girls like Polly Heriot who had never been to school and showed up at the CS during the 30s. But I can't see that history wouldn't have been often taught that way in other schools with any kind of decent academic standards. Surely girls at grammar or high schools in the UK during the timespan of the CS wouldn't have been rattling off lists of dates learned by rote or learning funny little stories about Canute and the Waves, or learning pages from a textbook, which at times it seems EBD thinks are the only alternatives to 'reasoning from cause to effect'...? Also - and forgive me if this sounds naive, I am entirely ignorant of history teaching and learning methods - isn't there an implication in the 'reasoning from cause to effect' method that there's necessarily some kind of straightforward/rational causal link between two historical events? But for me the oddest history moment in the CS is in one of the late Swiss books, when someone is writing an essay on the success or length of Elizabeth I's reign. I can't remember what the exact essay title was, but EBD steps in as narrator and tells us that the correct answer to the question (which the girl in question hasn't grasped) was that Elizabeth 'was a Tudor of Tudors and reigned right royally'. Which makes no sense to me in terms of 'reasoning from cause to effect' and sounds very old-fashioned. I could see some kind of argument in Eliz I capitalising on being the daughter of Henry VIII and using various opportunities to remind her subjects of this legitimising link, but what EBD says sounds to me like old-fashioned romantic cult of personality stuff...? Sorry I can't remember who, what or which book, but I have no access to my home computer - but does this sound oddly unanalytical for a senior history essay to people more attuned to history teaching?

Author:	JayB [ Thu Apr 23, 2009 1:50 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: School: Subject Teaching
Quote: isn't there an implication in the 'reasoning from cause to effect' method that there's necessarily some kind of straightforward/rational causal link between two historical events? No, far from it! (History teacher here, though of adults, not schoolchildren.) The causes of particular historical events are hotly debated among historians, and a good A level or BA candidate is (or was, when I was at that stage) expected to show knowledge of all the various theories and argue for or against each of them. The causes of the English Civil War is an ongoing one. Intransigence of Charles I, rise of the middle classes, crisis of the aristocracy, economic problems, blah blah blah. Causes of the First World War is another popular one. I recall once being jumped on by a lecturer to say what I thought were the causes of the Russian Revolution. I'd been daydreaming and had to waffle frantically. But he did address me by the wrong name, which might have been taken to account for my initial blank look! The approach wouldn't have seemed unusual by the 1950s, but EBD was educated before 1914, and didn't do any teaching after 1948, I think, so she possibly was a bit out of date. And the CS is quite modern in that the girls are encouraged to do a lot of the reasoning for themselves, rather than being told by the mistress. Quote: someone is writing an essay on the success or length of Elizabeth I's reign.... EBD steps in as narrator and tells us that the correct answer to the question ... was that Elizabeth 'was a Tudor of Tudors and reigned right royally' .... what EBD says sounds to me like old-fashioned romantic cult of personality stuff...? EBD does go for romantic rather than academic language here - you wouldn't actually write that in an essay, except perhaps as an attention grabbing opening sentence, and then proceed to back it up with solid evidence. But essentially 'cult of personality' was how Elizabeth achieved her popularity among her subjects. It was all about projecting the right kind of image. Elizabeth knew what her people wanted in their sovereign, and made sure she gave it to them. She was a shrewd politician as well, of course, but the man in the Clapham alehouse wouldn't necessarily be aware of that.

Author:	Sunglass [ Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:15 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: School: Subject Teaching
I think I wasn't being clear - I was assuming as normal pedagogical practice the situation you talk of, where the 'causes' of historical events aren't (obviously) considered to be linear or straightforward by historians/history teachers. But EBD's 'reasoning from cause to effect' always sounded to me kind of artificially 'ordered' and singular (as though there was one cause and one effect, unlike the way you rightly keep saying 'causes' in the plural!), rather than any kind of free discussion of different theories. I could be wrong - we never get to see it in action much. There are more glimpses Biddy and Joey being fascinating storytellers, which always suggests to me that those lessons consisted more of them talking than of general discussion, or Joey encouraging Polly Heriot to paste little pictures of monks onto her history chart, which to me seems quite a childish thing to have a fourteen or fifteen year old doing...? Especially when Polly needs to catch up on all of European history, which she hasn't studied. I get the cult of personality stuff with Elizabeth I, but it seemed to me as though EBD was advocating that whichever CS girl it was should actually write 'Elizabeth was a Tudor of Tudors and reigned right royally' in her essay, as the 'right answer', rather than anything more analytical about the purposes and maintenance of that cult. It just sounds to me like the kind of thing I scribble question marks next to in student essays - the historical equivalent of 'Shakespeare was a timeless genius woffle woffle because I haven't bothered reading the actual plays'! But of course you're right that EBD's own teacher training and teaching experience would have been distant by the time of writing of the late Swiss books. It just sounded an oddly old-fashioned note in the context of all that talk about the CS's radical history teaching methods.

Author:	KatS [ Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:22 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: School: Subject Teaching
Would the different sets have been learning the same material? I know in British Columbia, where I went to high school, the Ministry of Ed defined different courses for the same grade level that had totally different syllabi and exams. So for example, there was Essentials of Mathematics, Applications of Mathematics, and Principles of Mathematics. Principles was college stream, and included calculus, and Essentials was very basic indeed. Then there was Writing, English, or Literature. You got put into the courses depending on how well you did on your exams. It happened across the board - it was particularly bizarre in Social Studies, where you were either streamed into Geography, if you were considered really backward, Economics if you were middling, and European History, if you were any good This was all based on an exam on Canadian history taken in 9th grade. But it sounds like the sets you're all talking about did the same material, they just worked with girls their own level. Did they manage to take the same exams? How would students get credit for being in a higher stream?

Author:	JayB [ Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:04 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: School: Subject Teaching
Quote: But EBD's 'reasoning from cause to effect' always sounded to me kind of artificially 'ordered' and singular But EBD didn't invent 'reasoning from cause to effect'. It's a term commonly used to define that approach to the study of history. It's not intended to imply that there is a predetermined sequence of cause and effect. Teaching the student to do the reasoning is, or should be, as important as teaching the causes and effects.

Author:	Mel [ Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:30 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: School: Subject Teaching
To answer your question KatS pupils in different sets in the same year group would follow the same syllabus,covering the same work but at different speeds and with different outcomes. At GCSE at 16 they would possibly take different papers, the lowest allowing grades C - G.

Author:	Cat C [ Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:35 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: School: Subject Teaching
Sunglass wrote: 'Shakespeare was a timeless genius woffle woffle because I haven't bothered reading the actual plays'! Completely OT, really, but you've just reminded me of the story of someone asking for a copy of 'Hamlet' in a bookshop, and the assistant coming back after a while to explain apologetically that they couldn't find the original book, but they did find the adaptation into a playscript...