I care about a lot of things
but then I'm probably slightly further to the right than most people on this site, seeing as I'm a Conservative.

I probably care about education the most though
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Mon 23 Aug 2010, 15:12, 3 replies, latest was 16 years ago)

What do you want to see happen!
Come on, tell em something, saying 'Education is important' is meaningless.
( WormuIus, Mon 23 Aug 2010, 15:18, Reply)

I've got lots of plans
/lurks and waits.

More and more I'm thinking the answer is in the early years on how to solve the problems that are currently cropping up in secondary school. Pruning down the curriculum to the essentials- maths, english, sport, art/music with a little bit of history/science, and introducing civics. Not in a wishy-washy way, more in a sense of teaching children what they need to know and often don't know at home. It could come down to as simple a basic as right/wrong or how to wash properly in deprived areas.

However all that needs massive changes in the power-relationship between the school and the parents. I think Cameron is making some good steps in that direction though

/serious post is srs biz
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Mon 23 Aug 2010, 15:22, Reply)

would you agree with the statement that creativity is being stifled in schools
with the focus being on judging ability entirely on maths and english, and shoving people into universities?
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Mon 23 Aug 2010, 15:24, Reply)

do you mean currently?
or in my plans?
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Mon 23 Aug 2010, 15:25, Reply)

currently.
I'm of the opinion that rote learning and exam technique plays too large a part in education here. It certainly did throughout my uni course. People would frequently score the highest marks, but didn't have an understanding of the material and I have heard are utterly shit when working in industry.

The old "are exams too easy" question annoys me too. They might not be getting easier, but if many many more people are scoring top marks then the exams should be harder, or the way they are assessed should be changed.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Mon 23 Aug 2010, 15:30, Reply)

the pass rates get higher
because teaching methods change over time; sometimes for better learning, sometimes just because they get better at getting students to pass. Loads of humanities/arts stuff (the only things I know about) are assessed via essays/portfolios rather than rote learning stuff
( Citizen Cavy Admires your passion for conformity, Mon 23 Aug 2010, 15:33, Reply)

do you think that children these days are more intelligent or are leaving school better informed and equipped to deal with the world
than in the past?

if not, then a larger percentage of higher grades is just making it harder to determine difference in ability.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Mon 23 Aug 2010, 15:40, Reply)

that's another thing
raising achievement, and making it acceptable to be gifted and talented, without having to field accusations of elitism
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Mon 23 Aug 2010, 15:42, Reply)

the issues with that are more to do with attitude of peers though
I think so, anyway
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Mon 23 Aug 2010, 15:45, Reply)

it's a class issue
in my own experience, private school, and well off primary schools (leafy green Surrey) value achievement and reward it. Everywhere else people are too busy trying to control the uncontrollable kids, teach the unteachable to care a) about raising achievement in the top 20% or b) protecting them from other kids
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Mon 23 Aug 2010, 15:46, Reply)

I think the term 'uncontrollable kids'
is questionable. I wouldn't have said that a month ago, but I've just been teaching some that were effectively described as such. With support they achieved some pretty good stuff and more importantly, it helped with confidence, which was a huge issue with most of them (bad behaviour was the way it manifested).

I was pretty shocked at how bright they were when they applied themselves
( Citizen Cavy Admires your passion for conformity, Mon 23 Aug 2010, 15:50, Reply)

How many children were you teaching?
In what environment, what was the ethnic division?

Nobody thinks uncontrollable means stupid. Often it is the bright kids in particular. All you need though especially in primary education is one or two seriously impossible children and you have a classroom control situation on your hands. One or two students who if you dedicate all your time will improve. Leaving the crowded classroom of 30 other children with no teaching or support.
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Mon 23 Aug 2010, 15:55, Reply)

9, FE college, all white (and all between 17 and 19)
I think a range of subjects means greater engagement which reduces the chances of behaviour problems. There are some tricky ones, but what exactly would you do with them?
( Citizen Cavy Admires your passion for conformity, Mon 23 Aug 2010, 15:58, Reply)

You see there
you already have a reason why these kids are different. 17-19 means they've chosen to stay in education, and attempt to get more. Already they're different from the 16 year old who has left with no qualifications and who is functionally illiterate. FE courses generally demand a minimum however small that is of exam grades- you're nowhere near the bottom of the barrel yet.

Buying into the idea of a huge range of subjects is merely building on an idea that somehow the human race has changed and ADHD has become the standard, a short attention span is natural and should be catered to.

Sadly as you've pointed out, the real problems are the uncontrollable ones- for whatever reason. Occasionally genuine behaviour problems, far more often a need for attention and validation. There are several programs being pioneered on these lines, and there are short term measures that can be taken against them, often focusing on attacking prestige/validation of others but the main problem is yet again money
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Mon 23 Aug 2010, 16:05, Reply)

No, none of these kids were in school
they were on various control orders, most had no GCSEs, often they'd been kicked out of school and just never gone back and would have been considered as uncontrollable.
( Citizen Cavy Admires your passion for conformity, Mon 23 Aug 2010, 16:09, Reply)

I think the point still stands
9 (far smaller than any class I've ever attended, private or not) of non-racially mixed teenagers who to some extent have chosen to attend
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Mon 23 Aug 2010, 16:14, Reply)

so what would you do with the problem kids in a class?
kick them out? that just makes for more social problems. Put them in a special class (which is effectively what we had)? - it's bloody expensive and very very difficult to run. At least in a mixed class you have exemplars.

I have to say, being a kid who was bright at school and well behaved I used to have similar opinions, having worked in the field, though, there is so much potential if you can convince the problem kids that education is worth it
( Citizen Cavy Admires your passion for conformity, Mon 23 Aug 2010, 16:18, Reply)

Perform the mandatory weeding
first of all. Kids with genuine severe educational and mental problems shouldn't be in mainstream education. It's harsh but until we've solved the other problems, it helps neither them nor anyone else.
Second a more sophisticated way of determining the factors that cause bad behaviour. Abuse for example.
Third when you've taken out the above factors you're left with a small core of children who not only actively do not learn, but impede everyone around them. And in those cases I think you have to do what's best for the majority. Isolate the others, pay an extra teacher to deal with them and attempt to reintroduce them at regular intervels.

I'm not speaking from the vantage point of a bright kid at school who thinks the bad kids should be punished, though if you ask me that hypothetical bright kid has a point. I'm speaking from the viewpoint of someone who is fed up that we continually sacrifice the many for the few
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Mon 23 Aug 2010, 16:25, Reply)

I have to respectfully disagree
I'd form more arguments, but my typing hand hurts and this damn edge of screen thing is annoying.

We should have another thread and talk about cake or something. But only in small sentences
( Citizen Cavy Admires your passion for conformity, Mon 23 Aug 2010, 16:28, Reply)

mmm cake
lemon drizzle cake?

You should make althegeordie join the discussion. He'd call me a facist cunt who doesn't care about the needy.
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Mon 23 Aug 2010, 16:34, Reply)

my mrs makes the best lemon drizzle cake in the world
I hope you get to try it someday
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Mon 23 Aug 2010, 16:43, Reply)

this makes my mouth water :(

( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Mon 23 Aug 2010, 16:47, Reply)

I like the idea of
a more detailed result, i.e. by module or element, etc. For example I teach photography, you might have two with a B for example but one is losing the marks in research and the other in creative stuff. There is no way to distinguish at the moment.
( Citizen Cavy Admires your passion for conformity, Mon 23 Aug 2010, 15:47, Reply)

that's the issue I think
they are having the problem at unis trying to distinguish between candidates for places.

I heard on the radio the other day that people were being turned down from courses because they missed their requirements by one grade. My first instinct was "tough shit, you didn't get what you needed" but if the differentiation between levels of achievement, or in different areas like you say, was better then that issue would go away, or at least wouldn't seem unfair.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Mon 23 Aug 2010, 15:53, Reply)

Nowadays there is a lot of
emphasis on their application letter to UCAS in which they can write about extra curricular things and why they want to do a course. This seems a pretty good start to me. The letters have meaning, but not loads. I didn't do all that well in my degree, but I am one of the few people who carried on in the subject despite it being a bastard to do
( Citizen Cavy Admires your passion for conformity, Mon 23 Aug 2010, 15:56, Reply)

haha I'm glad
that they obviously ignored mine. I was far too lazy to do extra-curricular, and besides was told the better universities care very little about it
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Mon 23 Aug 2010, 16:00, Reply)

there is too much emphasis on exam technique
but then I disagree with coursework to some extent as well. Ideally what I'd like is a strong skill set to be learnt in primary school, and not unlike the current system, a range of subjects up to the age of sixteen, but no nation-wide tests before that point, though regular internal testing would obviously still be needed.
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Mon 23 Aug 2010, 15:33, Reply)

trimming the curriculum down like that is just wrong
in my opinion. A range of subjects means greater engagement with a greater number of students. As I said below, sometimes that is more important than whether the direct subject is used in 'real life'

but yes, civic education would be pretty good. Parents having more control of schools, though? I'm pretty skeptical
( Citizen Cavy Admires your passion for conformity, Mon 23 Aug 2010, 15:26, Reply)

I'm only talking about primary school
it's a crazy percentage of students who finish primary illiterate and with no maths skills at all. These students from the age of 11 are shut out of the education system. There is no room and no space for them. The two most important skills are maths and english. I've made provision for a creative broadening as well, but with the focus on an interdisciplinary method that can bring in elements of other subjects

Edit: there is no point in teaching a student about photosynthesis in primary school if they can't write down their conclusions in other words
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Mon 23 Aug 2010, 15:29, Reply)

to clarify what I'm saying above
when I was on about maths and english, I didn't mean basic literacy and numeracy
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Mon 23 Aug 2010, 15:31, Reply)

they already try and do that
each subject is meant to include all the others. But really, maths and english happen in other subjects when the kids are engaged in the work. They may hate actually doing maths and english, but learn it as a by-product of a subject they do enjoy
( Citizen Cavy Admires your passion for conformity, Mon 23 Aug 2010, 15:32, Reply)

Not in primary school it doesn't
My ideal curriculum would work like this

Reception year: Numbers and alphabet taught, but general activities focused much more on social interaction, and understanding what happens in the world around them.
Years 1-3: maths and english taught every day. In this time, children with genuine learning difficulties spotted and helped. Sports, music, art, civics (as I defined it)
4-6: Introduce other subjects slowly. English/maths skills continue, but in an applied fashion. Science and history explored more. Instead of reading fiction for example, a decent child's history book and the chance for creative exploration around that. Still with the sports/music

The problem is of course cost, overcrowded classrooms and children with learning difficulties that have been reintegrated into school at the cost of classroom control
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Mon 23 Aug 2010, 15:38, Reply)

Are you sure about that first bit?
I'm fairly sure there is a massive push for basic skills throughout education. I can only really speak for FE, but they are bloody obsessed
( Citizen Cavy Admires your passion for conformity, Mon 23 Aug 2010, 15:45, Reply)

I think most schools have the reception year down fine
it's from there that things start going downhill.

It's not just the curriculum though. It's the attitude. Until you can make parents care about their child's welfare you're on a hiding to nothing. That's why I reckon what I've outlined would work more in deprived primarys, than in those which are already achieving the best
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Mon 23 Aug 2010, 15:49, Reply)

I think the issue is not just to get them to care about it
but to get parents to support them. Just caring about it leads to lots of parents winging about schools but not actually supporting the work the kids do at school
( Citizen Cavy Admires your passion for conformity, Mon 23 Aug 2010, 15:52, Reply)

I can only speak from personal experience..
but there does seem to be a difficulty in properly engaging parents. At my daughter's primary school we used to attend all of the governors' meetings and there would often be more people on the top table than in the audience.
I'm sure that all of the parents, when questioned, would say that they cared about their childrens education and I'm sure that most of them did, but actually getting them to actively do anything about it was a wholly different matter.
(Cave Duck, Mon 23 Aug 2010, 16:24, Reply)

what do you mean you care about education?

( Citizen Cavy Admires your passion for conformity, Mon 23 Aug 2010, 15:19, Reply)

what's your view on the number of uni places?
should they have increased them loads?

too many people going?

do you think I should have become a blacksmith instead of going to uni?
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Mon 23 Aug 2010, 15:21, Reply)

education is way more than about jobs
I say that as a liberal hand wringing lefty.

(also, as someone who just last week saw what 3 weeks education did for a group of NEETS teenagers)
( Citizen Cavy Admires your passion for conformity, Mon 23 Aug 2010, 15:23, Reply)

there are too many university places
I'm an admirer of how they do things in Germany- technical schools that are not viewed as a poor second option, but as a way to source hands on learning in important areas.

I'm aware of a class bias in the way university is viewed, and how people view a decrease in places as reactionary and snobbish, but it is needed. Genuine skills are being lost, and degrees devalued- which is to nobodies benefit. There's a reason BT's training scheme had so many applicants
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Mon 23 Aug 2010, 15:24, Reply)

many of the newer uni places
are for more vocational subjects. It's these that people get snobby about, which is ridiculous
( Citizen Cavy Admires your passion for conformity, Mon 23 Aug 2010, 15:27, Reply)

Good luck with trying to become a blacksmith.
My son decided that was his calling and it took us 2 years to find a good course. Now that he's got a place Govt funding has been pulled and it will cost us about £10,000 to get him through what is basically an A level course. So much for traditional skills being encouraged. English heritage will only assist if you already have a job in the relevant area.
(porkylips looks better as the sun goes down., Mon 23 Aug 2010, 16:02, Reply)