Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Hail the Tripod

National Curriculum

Recommended Posts

I have two primary school aged kids but am not otherwise involved in the education industry, so am basing this on the BBC article: hthttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-23222068

I really am struggling to see how any of this is objectionable. Some of it sounds just great, 3D printing must be totally engaging for the kids and very forward looking. The maths stuff leaves me wondering what it is that they are teaching the kids in maths. :unsure:

The history curriculum takes primary pupils through British history from the stone age to the Normans. They can also study a later era, such as the Victorians. "Significant individuals" studied include Elizabeth 1st, Neil Armstrong, Rosa Parks and suffragette Emily Davison. Secondary schools will teach British history from 1066 to 1901, followed by Britain, Europe and world events from 1901, including the Holocaust and Winston Churchill. This is a less detailed curriculum than an earlier draft, no longer including Clive of India, Wolfe or a reference to economic changes up to the election of Margaret Thatcher.

Maths will expect more at an earlier age. There will be a requirement for pupils to learn their 12 times table by the age of nine. Basic fractions, such as half or a quarter, will be taught to five year olds.

English will strengthen the importance of Shakespeare, with pupils between the ages of 11 and 14 expected to have studied two of his plays. Word lists for 8 and 9 year olds include "medicine" and "knowledge", by 10 and 11 they should be spelling "accommodate" and "rhythm".

Science will shift towards a stronger sense of hard facts and "scientific knowledge". In primary school, there will be new content on the solar system, speed and evolution. In secondary school, there will be a clearer sense of separate subjects of physics, biology and chemistry. Climate change will also be included.

Design and technology is linked to innovation and digital industries. Pupils will learn about 3D printing and robotics.

Computing will teach pupils how to write code. Pupils aged five to seven will be expected to "understand what algorithms are" and to "create and debug simple programs". By the age of 11, pupils will have to "design, use and evaluate computational abstractions that model the state and behaviour of real-world problems and physical systems".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see the problem either with the summary version of what they're doing, but I've got no skin in the game at all as i've not even got any kids so I can't be bothered to comb through the fine detail.

I think a lot of the teachers are just fed up of the endless changes, but I don't think that they understand that the pace of knowledge has become exponential. Thinking about it that's one thing they should focus on more, the understanding of the exponential function.

I like the bit in

where it says "we are currently preparing students for jobs that don't yet exist, using technologies that haven't been invented, in order to solve problems we don't even know are problems yet"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have two primary school aged kids but am not otherwise involved in the education industry, so am basing this on the BBC article: hthttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-23222068

I really am struggling to see how any of this is objectionable. Some of it sounds just great, 3D printing must be totally engaging for the kids and very forward looking. The maths stuff leaves me wondering what it is that they are teaching the kids in maths. :unsure:

Objectionable to many in the teaching profession as it forces them to actually know the subjects important to be a successful member of society. Show and tell is easy for a slacker teacher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Objectionable to many in the teaching profession as it forces them to actually know the subjects important to be a successful member of society. Show and tell is easy for a slacker teacher.

Those that can, and all that... The problem with trying to make the curriculum vocation and also up-to-the-minute is that with the best will in the world, schoolteachers are not the right people to teach it.

It would be far better to focus on a rigorous traditional curriculum and find another way to introduce the more cutting edge vocational stuff. Ironically teachers probably could teach pupils some very useful work skills when it comes to giving presentations, commanding attention, objection handling and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never understand the fuss about the UK education system.

Many, most even, of our European neighbours produce more literate, numerate children. So just import one of those systems and be done with it.

Teachers and educationalists make it sound like rocket science. Kids can learn from anyone, which is why they hate Free Schools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never understand the fuss about the UK education system.

Many, most even, of our European neighbours produce more literate, numerate children. So just import one of those systems and be done with it.

Teachers and educationalists make it sound like rocket science. Kids can learn from anyone, which is why they hate Free Schools.

+1

What value do most teachers actually add?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never understand the fuss about the UK education system.

So just import one of those systems

Kids can learn from anyone, which is why they hate Free Schools.

A couple of comments - the problem with Gove is he looks at countries that are successful in education and chooses one part of their overall system - one that fits his world view - and decides that that is the answer. In Singapore for example you will find a national culture of educational ambition - in Finland a much slower start to school rather than rushing to teach stuff to very young children. In other countries there is a consistent type of school system rather than our fragmented one of comprehensives, grammars, academies, private schools, free schools, faith schools .

It is not a rigorous approach to try to weld a knowledge/fact based, rigid curriculum with only exams as assessment onto the UK culture.

Oh, and my main objections to Free Schools are that

- they drain money from other kids' education by being given large set up grants in areas where there is no shortage of places

- they are based on Toby Young not liking the nearby school for his kids (he had never visited it)

- there is no transparency of funding, performance etc - Gove refuses to release the information;

- a massively disproportionate part of the DfE departmental effort goes into starting Free Schools and academies compared with the numbers of pupils - this for political reasons.

And finally - if the new curriculum is so desirable, why do academies not have to follow it?

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of comments - the problem with Gove is he looks at countries that are successful in education and chooses one part of their overall system - one that fits his world view - and decides that that is the answer. In Singapore for example you will find a national culture of educational ambition - in Finland a much slower start to school rather than rushing to teach stuff to very young children. In other countries there is a consistent type of school system rather than our fragmented one of comprehensives, grammars, academies, private schools, free schools, faith schools .

A couple we know moved to Singapore with their two children last year. Having felt that education here was far too wishy-washy and unambitious they were very positive about that aspect of Singaporean culture. After 3 months though, the wife had given up work and was homeschooling the kids because they felt that the school system was relentlessly cruel, and completely destructive of their conception of childhood. No unstructured play, every activity must be overtly self-improving and drilled into the kids through endless repetition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...yhey drain money from other kids' education by being given large set up grants in areas where there is no shortage of places...

The problem is that the "no shortage of places" is in schools that no caring parent would ever want to send their children to. And of course the LEAs are always happy to let these c*** schools expand if it's going to stop somebody opening a school outside of their control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If people are agreed that standards have dropped since 1970, say, why not just replicate the system in 1970 as a start?

I can't say I'd agree with that. My son's primary school seems to be far better in almost every respect than the one I attended in the early 1970s (in the same area). Lessons are more varied and interesting, and there is more streaming so that more able pupils are stretched more and the less able ones don't get left behind. There seems to be less bullying, discipline is very good, and the kids seem a lot happier. There is also a much wider range of after-school activities to choose from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't say I'd agree with that. My son's primary school seems to be far better in almost every respect than the one I attended in the early 1970s (in the same area). Lessons are more varied and interesting, and there is more streaming so that more able pupils are stretched more and the less able ones don't get left behind. There seems to be less bullying, discipline is very good, and the kids seem a lot happier. There is also a much wider range of after-school activities to choose from.

Sounds like a good school. My comment was more about the fact that the media discourse surrounding education is often to say that it was better in 19XX.

It's a world I'm yet to appreciate fully, coming soon..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that the "no shortage of places" is in schools that no caring parent would ever want to send their children to. And of course the LEAs are always happy to let these c*** schools expand if it's going to stop somebody opening a school outside of their control.

Any examples?

Toby Young didn't want to send his kids to the local school based on prejudice. He had never visited it - just slagged it off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple we know moved to Singapore with their two children last year. Having felt that education here was far too wishy-washy and unambitious they were very positive about that aspect of Singaporean culture. After 3 months though, the wife had given up work and was homeschooling the kids because they felt that the school system was relentlessly cruel, and completely destructive of their conception of childhood. No unstructured play, every activity must be overtly self-improving and drilled into the kids through endless repetition.

Gove seems to think the Singaporean success in school exams is entirely due to what's written in the curriculum. As you point out - it's the culture, and it has its downsides.

I know some (Aussie) architectural engineers working in Singapore. Their company prefers to employ UK/US/Aussies rather than the locals because of skills of communication, problem solving, project managing etc. Life isn't about cramming for exams.

When Gove wants British kids to learn like Singaporean kids, something else must get sacrificed in their education.

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Einstein should be told!

??

Sorry, i don't get the joke. Did you watch the video where it says "the amount of technical information is doubling every 2 years"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't say I'd agree with that. My son's primary school seems to be far better in almost every respect than the one I attended in the early 1970s (in the same area). Lessons are more varied and interesting, and there is more streaming so that more able pupils are stretched more and the less able ones don't get left behind. There seems to be less bullying, discipline is very good, and the kids seem a lot happier. There is also a much wider range of after-school activities to choose from.

I don't have any kids of my own, but I have nieces, and friends with kids! From what I've seen, schools are better than when I was a kid!

I think Mr Gove reminds me of Wackford Squeers! :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any examples?

Toby Young didn't want to send his kids to the local school based on prejudice. He had never visited it - just slagged it off.

Without defending anybody, or knowing the circumstances, is it always necessary (in the era of freely-available Ofsted reports) to visit a school to know its performance level?

Besides, how much can be gleaned by visiting, unless you sit through lessons with a good fraction of the teachers etc. I imagine, to the non-expert eye, that most schools look pretty similar when the pupils are not there, and being able to visit in a manner which would allow you to properly assess its competence might not be very appropriate or practical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any examples?

Logic.

Parents have a choice (of sorts) and the best schools are going to be oversubscribed, the schools that are undersubscribed are going to be so for a reason.

So unless you are saying all schools are brilliant then logically the spare spaces are always going to be in the worst schools.

Toby Young didn't want to send his kids to the local school based on prejudice. He had never visited it - just slagged it off.

You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about Mr Young, do you happen to work for one of the schools in competition with his?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of comments - the problem with Gove is he looks at countries that are successful in education and chooses one part of their overall system - one that fits his world view - and decides that that is the answer. In Singapore for example you will find a national culture of educational ambition - in Finland a much slower start to school rather than rushing to teach stuff to very young children. In other countries there is a consistent type of school system rather than our fragmented one of comprehensives, grammars, academies, private schools, free schools, faith schools .

It is not a rigorous approach to try to weld a knowledge/fact based, rigid curriculum with only exams as assessment onto the UK culture.

Oh, and my main objections to Free Schools are that

- they drain money from other kids' education by being given large set up grants in areas where there is no shortage of places

- they are based on Toby Young not liking the nearby school for his kids (he had never visited it)

- there is no transparency of funding, performance etc - Gove refuses to release the information;

- a massively disproportionate part of the DfE departmental effort goes into starting Free Schools and academies compared with the numbers of pupils - this for political reasons.

And finally - if the new curriculum is so desirable, why do academies not have to follow it?

Y

The elephant in the room is of course private schools. Germany has an 'elite' system but only badly behaved/thick rich kids go to private schools. Everyone has at least a theoretical chance of going to a gymnasium (grammar school).

Free Schools are great within our flawed system because it inserts a tiny bit of choice that's usually only available to fee-payers. Want something a bit like a grammar? Or a progressive montessori? Or a strict school run by ex-army people? A Steiner school? You got it. A huge amount is spent on education to produce nothing but middling literacy and a whole lot of failure. Why not hand out a fat voucher to parents and let all schools be Free Schools? Make it even more radical by nationalising the private schools.

I met some black grandparents that had paid for their grandchild to go to a relatively inexpensive Kumon centre. Their son they said was bright but hadn't passed many exams so so didn't want the same to happen to the grandchild. He ended up in a 'gifted' category at school. He wasn't gifted I'm sure. He'd just learned and practiced in a fairly old school way. Yet drab teachers just bang on about their paperwork and pay and blame everything on the government or social factors. Not our fault, mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Logic.

Parents have a choice (of sorts) and the best schools are going to be oversubscribed, the schools that are undersubscribed are going to be so for a reason.

So unless you are saying all schools are brilliant then logically the spare spaces are always going to be in the worst schools.

You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about Mr Young, do you happen to work for one of the schools in competition with his?

I get it now - thanks

If there are spare places at a school in an area, it must be because the school is a bad school. Therefore there is a need for another (free) school to be built. So Free Schools really should be concentrated in areas of school place oversupply - I hadn't appreciated the logic before.

Re Toby Young. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the free school programme, I think it is inherently wrong to base a large part of a national education strategy on the personal wish of a right wing journalist (and long time friend of right wing journalist Michael Gove) to live in Hammersmith but not send his kids to the good local community school. A kind of gated educational community insulated from the riff-raff outside.

And no, I don't live or work anywhere near there (can't afford to on my meagre teacher's salary) - still, long holidays soon.cool.gif

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And no, I don't live or work anywhere near there (can't afford to on my meagre teacher's salary) - still, long holidays soon.cool.gif

Ah, ok, just a reflexive vested interest against change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never understand the fuss about the UK education system.

Many, most even, of our European neighbours produce more literate, numerate children. So just import one of those systems and be done with it.

Teachers and educationalists make it sound like rocket science. Kids can learn from anyone, which is why they hate Free Schools.

The fuss is only about the English education system. In Scotland and Northern Ireland they've had it sorted out for ages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 242 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.