Education policy : Tue Jul 23, 2013 12:55 pm  

Interesting critique of UK education policy for the plebs in today's Guardian and especially of Gove's ideas: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/201 ... -potential

Interesting critique of UK education policy for the plebs in today's Guardian and especially of Gove's ideas: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/201 ... -potential

Re: Education policy : Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:15 pm  

The problem with any curriculum is that it teaches children, it doesn't allow them to learn.

Re: Education policy : Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:41 pm  

Scooter Nik wrote:

The problem with any curriculum is that it teaches children, it doesn't allow them to learn.

Couldn't agree more with this.

The problem is that some kids are very easily taught, but don't actually learn anything, get good grades and go on to top universities but if you tell them to actually apply something they have been taught, they are left completely stumped.

Lee Evan's jokes about being taught the times table at school but not actually being able to work any out without regurgitating the whole rhyme.

[DaveO]

Re: Education policy : Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:55 pm  

Dally wrote: Interesting critique of UK education policy for the plebs in today's Guardian and especially of Gove's ideas: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/201 ... -potential Dally quoting the Guardian and not the mail? I nearly fell off my chair! As to the article itself I think it was a very good piece. It essentially heralds a return to two tier education system whereby those deemed of sufficient "quality" (as the article says) get the top education where the rest are assumed to be of insufficient "quality" to be worthy of it. And as the article points out the idea some are bound to be of insufficient quality or there is a limit on the number of sufficient quality is a Victorian inspired myth. The problem is not new though. This bit of the article struck a chord with me: In July 2013 the Department for Education made it clear that the underlying purpose of the new national curriculum had remained unchanged since Michael Gove first announced the detail of his intention in January 2011: "… to allow teachers greater freedom to use their professionalism and expertise to help all children realise their potential". All the so-called consultation since then has added not a word of nuance. The implication: it would be foolish to try to help too many try to achieve more than we think they can manage. Time and again children do better than any early testing suggested their limits would allow. An enlightened education secretary would aim "to help all children do well and learn without being restricted by our expectations". Throughout my sons school education it did my head in that when talking to teachers at parents night they would present him being "on target" as a good thing regardless of what that actually meant. In other words if his target was a C and he was on-target for a C this was good and in fact good enough. My question was always "Well if he is 'on-target' for a C why aren't you making his target a B or an A and helping work towards that"? I never got a satisfactory answer. The idea that education should "...help all children do well and learn without being restricted by our expectations" has been absent from schooling for years in my opinion.

Dally wrote: Interesting critique of UK education policy for the plebs in today's Guardian and especially of Gove's ideas: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/201 ... -potential Dally quoting the Guardian and not the mail? I nearly fell off my chair! As to the article itself I think it was a very good piece. It essentially heralds a return to two tier education system whereby those deemed of sufficient "quality" (as the article says) get the top education where the rest are assumed to be of insufficient "quality" to be worthy of it. And as the article points out the idea some are bound to be of insufficient quality or there is a limit on the number of sufficient quality is a Victorian inspired myth. The problem is not new though. This bit of the article struck a chord with me: In July 2013 the Department for Education made it clear that the underlying purpose of the new national curriculum had remained unchanged since Michael Gove first announced the detail of his intention in January 2011: "… to allow teachers greater freedom to use their professionalism and expertise to help all children realise their potential". All the so-called consultation since then has added not a word of nuance. The implication: it would be foolish to try to help too many try to achieve more than we think they can manage. Time and again children do better than any early testing suggested their limits would allow. An enlightened education secretary would aim "to help all children do well and learn without being restricted by our expectations". Throughout my sons school education it did my head in that when talking to teachers at parents night they would present him being "on target" as a good thing regardless of what that actually meant. In other words if his target was a C and he was on-target for a C this was good and in fact good enough. My question was always "Well if he is 'on-target' for a C why aren't you making his target a B or an A and helping work towards that"? I never got a satisfactory answer. The idea that education should "...help all children do well and learn without being restricted by our expectations" has been absent from schooling for years in my opinion.

Re: Education policy : Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:56 pm  

How many on this board ever picked up a Log Table and used it in a practical way once they'd left school?

I remember being taught to use log tables but not a single maths teacher ever explained why we may need them

Re: Education policy : Tue Jul 23, 2013 3:30 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

How many on this board ever picked up a Log Table and used it in a practical way once they'd left school?

I remember being taught to use log tables but not a single maths teacher ever explained why we may need them

I don't think they are supposed to have a purpose do they, it was certainly never mentioned to me and as far as I could ever see the answers you got out of the book were just random numbers.

Re: Education policy : Tue Jul 23, 2013 3:53 pm  

But are most British kids worthy of a proper education? Had an interesting conversation with a young Polish lady at the weekend. As she put it, she came from the poor part of her town in Poland and all the kids were respectful of the teachers, paid attention, strived to get on and get good marks. Compare that with even good British maintained schools - kids disrepect towards the teachers, don't listen and disrupt lessons, either think its not cool to get good marks or, in recent years, get some form of pass or non-failure come what may.

Our cultural cess-pit was further highlighted when she explained that when she first arrived in the UK her and another Polish girl went to a night club. When they arrived they were too frightened to get up to dance because they thought that they had entered a club where prostitutes hang out - because of the way the girls dressed and behaved. It was only after she had been here a short while that she realised these were "normal" British girls.

Sad the way our country has degenerated.

Re: Education policy : Tue Jul 23, 2013 4:17 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

How many on this board ever picked up a Log Table and used it in a practical way once they'd left school?..

That'll be me, during my Mech Eng Tech apprenticeship.
Can't remember why offhand ... but it was for a practical reason and I ended-up being asked to procure several sets of tables for the blokes in the inspection team.

cod'ead wrote:

I remember being taught to use log tables but not a single maths teacher ever explained why we may need them

Despite my reply above, your point is still valid, without the explanation it's just a learn-by-rote process.
Ditto for algebra.
Which I also used later.

Re: Education policy : Tue Jul 23, 2013 4:19 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

That'll be me, during my Mech Eng Tech apprenticeship.
Can't remember why offhand ... but it was for a practical reason and I ended-up being asked to procure several sets of tables for the blokes in the inspection team.

Despite my reply above, your point is still valid, without the explanation it's just a learn-by-rote process.
Ditto for algebra.
Which I also used later.

So its your fault.

Re: Education policy : Tue Jul 23, 2013 4:28 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

So its your fault.

If you'd been as selective about your time in the Coburg as I was in the Zetland (Huddersfield), you too would have the facility for my little nugget of smartarseness.