Strong words at the Turner prize last night

[Wilko]

Cultural Literacy - bloody hell. Facts, facts, facts (or what the government wants children to know) with no skills to investigate the reasons behind the facts. Learn a poem by heart, know the dates of all the Kings and Queens, be able to recite your times tables - hey presto - a fully developed and well rounded individual. If the conversation is about comparative lengths of reigns of our monarchs, nobody will be embarrassed.

Except that the skills needed to apply the knowledge, to develop individuality and creativity, are being excised from the curriculum by an idealogue who wants to return us to Victorian values where there is a place for everyone, and everyone knows their place.

A skills based curriculum provides a broad and balanced learning platform that gives children the opportunity to broaden their understanding, develop their talents and crucially, to from their own beliefs, question what is put to them and apply the skills they learn in an imaginative and creative way. Gove seems to think that 'one size fits all', and is suspicious of educational styles that he does not understand, and feels are subversive.

I work as a teacher in a school where we have worked hard to design an exciting, innovative and relevant skills based curriculum. We won't be giving this up without a fight.

As a fellow teacher I was about to type out something very similar but I could not put it as well as you have. Learning facts is pretty pointless unless you want to go on an episode of eggheads.

Most teachers at the moment will tell you that learning facts is not a problem for pupils, getting them to think independently and be creative is the real struggle and I mean MASSIVE. Many pupils are struggling because of the 'learn and churn' culture of exams.

I would get kids thinking about philosophical questions relating to our existence, does God exist, who are we, what is the purpose of life etc. from a very young age. I mentioned this to a Tory politician recently who told me that thinking about those questions is pretty pointless cause there is no right or wrong answer, he felt it would be better to learn facts. I could not disagree more, trying to solve the problem of a question with no answer stimulates the brain and thinking process. The task is not just to get an answer, it is about how you use the mind to get there.

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

As a fellow teacher I was about to type out something very similar but I could not put it as well as you have. Learning facts is pretty pointless unless you want to go on an episode of eggheads.

Most teachers at the moment will tell you that learning facts is not a problem for pupils, getting them to think independently and be creative is the real struggle and I mean MASSIVE. Many pupils are struggling because of the 'learn and churn' culture of exams.

I would get kids thinking about philosophical questions relating to our existence, does God exist, who are we, what is the purpose of life etc. from a very young age. I mentioned this to a Tory politician recently who told me that thinking about those questions is pretty pointless cause there is no right or wrong answer, he felt it would be better to learn facts. I could not disagree more, trying to solve the problem of a question with no answer stimulates the brain and thinking process. The task is not just to get an answer, it is about how you use the mind to get there.

Good point. Even the younguns at work find it hard to, and I hate this expression, "think outside the box"

 

[Wilko]

Good point. Even the younguns at work find it hard to, and I hate this expression, "think outside the box"

Brighton players need to learn to 'shoot (from) outside the box'

 

[beorhthelm]

Jude Law and the winner Elizabeth Price laid into Gove and his utterly ridiculous idea to move away from art, design and creative subjects with his baccalaureate proposal.

is it a ridiculous idea? or is the case for arts just hyped up? i stand to be corrected from our resident teachers, but arent arts subject optional at the moment? i know they were for me in the 90's, i didnt take art and only took drama because it was the lesser evil of PE, history, art or RE. my other subjets where CDT and Business studies. the core compulsory subjects were English, Maths, Science, a foreign langauge and humanity (Geog/Hist). the subjects covered by the EBacc are English, Maths, Science, a foreign langauge and humanity.

so whats the fuss about? whats really changing?

even if there is different allocation of time to the EBacc subjects (is this even the case?), the other subject will still be available so those that want to follow arts subject can and will.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

Cultural Literacy - bloody hell. Facts, facts, facts (or what the government wants children to know) with no skills to investigate the reasons behind the facts. Learn a poem by heart, know the dates of all the Kings and Queens, be able to recite your times tables - hey presto - a fully developed and well rounded individual. If the conversation is about comparative lengths of reigns of our monarchs, nobody will be embarrassed.

Except that the skills needed to apply the knowledge, to develop individuality and creativity, are being excised from the curriculum by an idealogue who wants to return us to Victorian values where there is a place for everyone, and everyone knows their place.

A skills based curriculum provides a broad and balanced learning platform that gives children the opportunity to broaden their understanding, develop their talents and crucially, to from their own beliefs, question what is put to them and apply the skills they learn in an imaginative and creative way. Gove seems to think that 'one size fits all', and is suspicious of educational styles that he does not understand, and feels are subversive.

I work as a teacher in a school where we have worked hard to design an exciting, innovative and relevant skills based curriculum. We won't be giving this up without a fight.

I was at school when we did just learn facts without context, history was to be learnt " word for word" from acetates on an overhead projector for example. We would sit in silence copying these vast tracts and would be expected to learn it by rote.

Now...here's the interesting bit. As I grew up I found that this meant I remember most of the salient facts and have been able to join the dots myself. So. There is nothing wrong with facts per se but, and it's a big but, the flexibility to discuss and explore the implications must be encouraged.

I have employed recent graduates and have worked with kids straight from school as well as having a son who is a straight a student at GCSE. If we look at History for example.I have to tell you that something very basic has broken in History education as there is patently a lack of knowledge of facts, dates, players, incidents and examples and a massive emphasis on feelings and role play, how did the Germans " feel" during hyperinflation etc etc. I am always astonished that the relevant FACTS were often absent in favour of an in depth knowledge of the emotional impact of this or that time point. The rise of Naziism was inevitable because people got sick if taking wheelbarrows full of cash to the shops to buy a loaf of bread, Jews were blamed because they owned the pawnbrokers shops, this made Hitler angry...ffs

Somewhere in the middle there has to be a balance.

 

[otk]

I think what is being mooted here is critical analysis, which I reckon would be beyond most 14/15/16 year olds due to their psychological limitations. They get their heads filled with 'facts' for GCSE's, they then have to compare and contrast different theories for humanities type A levels, and then have to apply critical analysis at BA level in written and arts disciplines. Don't pile pressure onto underdeveloped minds too soon

 

[BadFish]

is it a ridiculous idea? or is the case for arts just hyped up? i stand to be corrected from our resident teachers, but arent arts subject optional at the moment? i know they were for me in the 90's, i didnt take art and only took drama because it was the lesser evil of PE, history, art or RE. my other subjets where CDT and Business studies. the core compulsory subjects were English, Maths, Science, a foreign langauge and humanity (Geog/Hist). the subjects covered by the EBacc are English, Maths, Science, a foreign langauge and humanity.

so whats the fuss about? whats really changing?

even if there is different allocation of time to the EBacc subjects (is this even the case?), the other subject will still be available so those that want to follow arts subject can and will.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-20041597

Probably best explained by the link someone posted earlier.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I was at school when we did just learn facts without context, history was to be learnt " word for word" from acetates on an overhead projector for example. We would sit in silence copying these vast tracts and would be expected to learn it by rote.

Now...here's the interesting bit. As I grew up I found that this meant I remember most of the salient facts and have been able to join the dots myself. So. There is nothing wrong with facts per se but, and it's a big but, the flexibility to discuss and explore the implications must be encouraged.

I have employed recent graduates and have worked with kids straight from school as well as having a son who is a straight a student at GCSE. If we look at History for example.I have to tell you that something very basic has broken in History education as there is patently a lack of knowledge of facts, dates, players, incidents and examples and a massive emphasis on feelings and role play, how did the Germans " feel" during hyperinflation etc etc. I am always astonished that the relevant FACTS were often absent in favour of an in depth knowledge of the emotional impact of this or that time point. The rise of Naziism was inevitable because people got sick if taking wheelbarrows full of cash to the shops to buy a loaf of bread, Jews were blamed because they owned the pawnbrokers shops, this made Hitler angry...ffs

Somewhere in the middle there has to be a balance.

I agree, without basic factual knowledge the emotional impact is pretty meaningless, and I'm not arguing for a curriculum bereft of facts - that would be ludicrous to my mind. Like you say, there should be a balance, and I don't know any teachers that wouldn't agree with this.

It's what you do with the factual knowledge, and how you find it out that makes it more interesting than copying out of a book, or from an acetate. Children should be enabled to find things out for themselves, explore consequences themselves, but not at the expense of the vital information to back this up.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I think what is being mooted here is critical analysis, which I reckon would be beyond most 14/15/16 year olds due to their psychological limitations. They get their heads filled with 'facts' for GCSE's, they then have to compare and contrast different theories for humanities type A levels, and then have to apply critical analysis at BA level in written and arts disciplines. Don't pile pressure onto underdeveloped minds too soon

I think you are hugely underestimating the psychological abilities of young people. Facts are meaningless without some sort of critical analysis, and children at Primary age often amaze me with the depth of their thought processes. It's not about piling on pressure, it's about making learning fun.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

it's about making learning fun.

Resulting in making learning, and a quest for knowledge, part of a persons life.

 

[ATFC Seagull]

I was at school when we did just learn facts without context, history was to be learnt " word for word" from acetates on an overhead projector for example. We would sit in silence copying these vast tracts and would be expected to learn it by rote.

Now...here's the interesting bit. As I grew up I found that this meant I remember most of the salient facts and have been able to join the dots myself. So. There is nothing wrong with facts per se but, and it's a big but, the flexibility to discuss and explore the implications must be encouraged.

I have employed recent graduates and have worked with kids straight from school as well as having a son who is a straight a student at GCSE. If we look at History for example.I have to tell you that something very basic has broken in History education as there is patently a lack of knowledge of facts, dates, players, incidents and examples and a massive emphasis on feelings and role play, how did the Germans " feel" during hyperinflation etc etc. I am always astonished that the relevant FACTS were often absent in favour of an in depth knowledge of the emotional impact of this or that time point. The rise of Naziism was inevitable because people got sick if taking wheelbarrows full of cash to the shops to buy a loaf of bread, Jews were blamed because they owned the pawnbrokers shops, this made Hitler angry...ffs

Somewhere in the middle there has to be a balance.

Without meaning to sound disrespectful, I'm not sure you are 100% on what you talking about - you seem to be basing it on a particular case study.

To take your history example, the kids absolutely do have to know the facts - dates, names etc etc. When they take their GCSE they cannot even come close to a pass without specific and accurate supporting developed detail. Check with your son and I expect, whether or not it has come up in the stories about his day, that he can tell you the date of the Locarno Pact, or the precise details of Stresseman's policies and the Dawes Act, or specific examples of the effects of hyperinflation after 1929. The problem is, as you quite rightly allude to, they are going to be asked to explain WHY the Nazis came to power in an exam. Whilst they absolutely 100% need the specific examples (I can bore you with levels if you like and how GCSE's are marked), a list of dates, members of the Weimar Government and stories about the effects of hyperinflation is not in itself an explanation of that.

If your son is a straight A student then he can probably very naturally explain this - "In 1930, the Weimar government printed more money etc etc etc, which highlighted weaknesses of proportional representation and led to huge economic issues, which Hitler promised to solve by etc etc etc". But some students won't. If they are going to actually answer the question, they need to get into the heads of a German person at the time, and think "why did this person vote for the Nazis?". Sounds to me like your son is actually being taught quite well, much more than being given a list of facts to learn. Surely even if you advocate a "knowledge" line rather than a "skills" line in history, you would want kids to be really immersed in a period of history and to understand how it impacted people, rather than just be able to reel of some key bits of information that mean nothing to them?

The biggest problem education has, apart from Michael Gove, is that everyone went to school, therefore everyone thinks they are an expert on it. You wouldn't go and tell builders that they aren't putting up a new structure properly, or tell a doctor he is diagnosing people wrongly, because you don't know. Believe it or not, sitting passively in school for 5 years does not mean you know how to teach. (That last bit not directed at YOU, BH - just written in the second person!).

 

[beorhthelm]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-20041597

Probably best explained by the link someone posted earlier.

thats really another matter, about how you structure what is taught in the given subjects. what people in the arts are claiming is that the EBacc will mean no one will study art and similar subject anymore, when as far as i can see pupils are already able to drop those subjects.

 

[otk]

I think you are hugely underestimating the psychological abilities of young people. Facts are meaningless without some sort of critical analysis, and children at Primary age often amaze me with the depth of their thought processes. It's not about piling on pressure, it's about making learning fun.

I'm all for stimulating education. I was alluding to a hierarchy of knowledge/understanding. If high school pupils are 'taught' a BA standard education, what becomes of MA/PhD level studies? Do they do them in their late teens?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I'm all for stimulating education. I was alluding to a hierarchy of knowledge/understanding. If high school pupils are 'taught' a BA standard education, what becomes of MA/PhD level studies? Do they do them in their late teens?

I haven't suggested that school children should be taught a BA standard of education. Skills of critical analysis obviously develop with maturity. But children enjoy learning through expressing themselves, either artistically, philosophically or physically. These skills start at an early age.

 

[Drebin]

As a fellow teacher I was about to type out something very similar but I could not put it as well as you have. Learning facts is pretty pointless unless you want to go on an episode of eggheads.

Most teachers at the moment will tell you that learning facts is not a problem for pupils, getting them to think independently and be creative is the real struggle and I mean MASSIVE. Many pupils are struggling because of the 'learn and churn' culture of exams.

I would get kids thinking about philosophical questions relating to our existence, does God exist, who are we, what is the purpose of life etc. from a very young age. I mentioned this to a Tory politician recently who told me that thinking about those questions is pretty pointless cause there is no right or wrong answer, he felt it would be better to learn facts. I could not disagree more, trying to solve the problem of a question with no answer stimulates the brain and thinking process. The task is not just to get an answer, it is about how you use the mind to get there.

Spot on. It's scary how far from skills-based learning gove's vision for British education is. I'm nearing the end of a four year teaching degree in Norway and have read an awful lot about modern education in western countries. The country that comes out on top of league tables made by the OECD for literacy, maths and science every year is Finland. How do they do it? They pay teachers a very good salary and demand a high education for teachers, thus making teachers well respected and valued members of society. They also teach a skills-based curriculum that gives pupils the learning strategies they need to be able to tackle any challenge they face either in higher education or in employment when they finish school. They also resist changing their national curriculums content and structure giving teachers the chance to master their teaching material and content.

They are no1 in the world in education. Gove is doing the polar opposite to all of this.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I would get kids thinking about philosophical questions relating to our existence, does God exist, who are we, what is the purpose of life etc. from a very young age. I mentioned this to a Tory politician recently who told me that thinking about those questions is pretty pointless cause there is no right or wrong answer, he felt it would be better to learn facts.

This Tory MP needs to get out in the real world, or industry, where there often isn't a right or wrong answer. Philosophical discussions form the basis/start of a lot of the work I'm involved with. And on an everyday level we all come across situations without a right or wrong way forward but which need a discussion to find the most suitable approach. Dangerous and blinkered thinking.

 

[dingodan]

 

[BadFish]

Spot on. It's scary how far from skills-based learning gove's vision for British education is. I'm nearing the end of a four year teaching degree in Norway and have read an awful lot about modern education in western countries. The country that comes out on top of league tables made by the OECD for literacy, maths and science every year is Finland. How do they do it? They pay teachers a very good salary and demand a high education for teachers, thus making teachers well respected and valued members of society. They also teach a skills-based curriculum that gives pupils the learning strategies they need to be able to tackle any challenge they face either in higher education or in employment when they finish school. They also resist changing their national curriculums content and structure giving teachers the chance to master their teaching material and content.

They are no1 in the world in education. Gove is doing the polar opposite to all of this.

Do you have any links or further reading about this model I am very interested as here in Victoria we are in the middle of action for improved wages and budget cuts. I would love to do some further reading on this successful model.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Jude Law and the winner Elizabeth Price laid into Gove and his utterly ridiculous idea to move away from art, design and creative subjects with his baccalaureate proposal. These are three area we do bloody well in the UK, directly and indirectly they create billions of income and it feeds into so many areas we could and should be doing well like manufacturing and engineering as well as tech based industry and the sciences. Seems the Tories won't be happy until all we do is provide crap financial services and have an economy highly dependent on high street sales. f***ing utter madness and so short sighted.

We are happy to waste millions of pounds on protecting people with beards, and waste millions of pounds paying consultants to tell us things that we already know. Imagine how many schools could have been kitted out with metal / woodworking shops enabling the kids to learn some practical skills. Drives me mad that everything we buy now comes from China and other countries, when it's something we could and should be manufacturing ourselves.

All that is left in this country now is service industry jobs. The service industry helps not one out apart from the few people at the top. Manufacturing in my opinion has gone forever in this country, never to return, and so have the skills that came with it too.

I'm afraid whatever government we have in they will never understand how beneficial manufacturing is to this country. Successive governments have ruined it concentrating more on how much money can be made in the city, which as we have seen due to greediness has ruined our economy. The only winners here are the people who have cleared off with the millions of pounds in their briefcases living a life of luxury, while the rest of us are left to pick up the pieces.

It's a crap economy going in completely the wrong direction, focusing on the wrong things. We are paying the wrong people for the wrong things. I can bet you if we had proper manufacturing jobs we would have a lot more of our own people in work. We would be creating a whole new set of skills. All we are creating is low skilled jobs with absolutely no security, and absolutely no chance for young people to learn a skill / trade they can use to pass on to other generations. Fine for people coming to live and work here, its a goldmine for them, but not for us.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

It's a crap economy going in completely the wrong direction, focusing on the wrong things.

I'll overlook your dubious comment about people with beards and concentrate on this comment which I agree with.