Discussion
SpeedMattersNot said:
turbobloke said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
I disagree, I think it's quite an obvious factor in helping kids get better at achieving higher grades.
No, you don't disagree, as I said it was a factor It's either a factor or it isn't!
My point stands
SpeedMattersNot said:
When was the last time you worked out the area of a circle?
Not perhaps the best example. I used tensor analysis and calculus not too long ago in a training contract with some international post-graduate science students. Presumably that counts as maths, since it's maths. In terms of school maths, I did some linear programming recently.To avoid any accusation of dodging the question, the last time I had to work out the area of a circle was when evaluating the value for money of some circular mats which needed to fit within a rectangular floor space, last year iirc.
SpeedMattersNot said:
But we definitely have different opinions when it comes to education.
I'm not so sure the difference between our positions is as wide as it seems.turbobloke said:
Mr Snap said:
It's social engineering if the end point is to advantage one section of society to the disadvantage of another.
Which it isn't, so your claim vanishes. It's about correcting an existimg disadvantage. Or at least attempting to, as there's no certainty that pupils let down by the current unfit-for-purpose exam will get something more suitable.
Mr Snap said:
"Horses for courses" is a diversion. Education isn't, or shouldn't be, a race.
That either accidentally or deliberately distorts what is being said. The key element isn't education being a race. It's matching participants with what they are participating in.It's the steady drip, drip, of allusion upon allusion, insinuation upon insinuation, that I object to. You never own up to your underlying political agenda because, if you did, it would give the game away. Your style of argument depends on never admitting to an agenda because, if you did, you couldn't present your opinions as incontrovertible truths. However, in politics and economics there are very few incontrovertible truths, only opinions - facts are always interpreted in the light of those opinions.
Mr Snap said:
turbobloke said:
Mr Snap said:
It's social engineering if the end point is to advantage one section of society to the disadvantage of another.
Which it isn't, so your claim vanishes. It's about correcting an existimg disadvantage. Or at least attempting to, as there's no certainty that pupils let down by the current unfit-for-purpose exam will get something more suitable.
Mr Snap said:
"Horses for courses" is a diversion. Education isn't, or shouldn't be, a race.
That either accidentally or deliberately distorts what is being said. The key element isn't education being a race. It's matching participants with what they are participating in.Mr Snap said:
It's the steady drip, drip, of allusion upon allusion, insinuation upon insinuation, that I object to. You never own up to your underlying political agenda because, if you did, it would give the game away.
What you object to is neither here nor there except as a matter for you. The self-impotance you reveal in that statement is...revealing.Mr Snap said:
Your style of argument depends on never admitting to an agenda because, if you did, you couldn't present your opinions as incontrovertible truths.
I knew it wouldn't be too long before strawman/straw man number five came along. I have never made such a claim, so you're dismissing something that doesn't exist (again) until you make it up.My position on education is, as already indicated, not party political. That doesn't prevent me from indicating the failings of what has already been done by others i.e. politicians which has had deleterious effects.
The basis for my position has been made clear, and is not what you claim. If you disagree, fine, if you can't handle the debate without inventing strawmen/straw men and blues under the bed, fine, and if you object to something which is not what you perceive it to be in order to continue personalising the issues, then the problem is all yours.
I went to a fee paying skool in the 70s, on a scholarship as we were potless.
My kids have always been in the state system, currently yr 12 and 10 in the local comp in W London.
They are far better educated that I was, far more motivated, have a far wider range of interests, partake in more activities and in general more driven and ambitious. In short, far more rounded human beings than I was/am.
My eldest got far better grades at GSCE than I did at O level. But he was motivated by the school to work harder.
And, when their mates come round, they appear to be all the same.
But apart from that, all kids are mindless hoodies who can bearly string a sentence together.
My kids have always been in the state system, currently yr 12 and 10 in the local comp in W London.
They are far better educated that I was, far more motivated, have a far wider range of interests, partake in more activities and in general more driven and ambitious. In short, far more rounded human beings than I was/am.
My eldest got far better grades at GSCE than I did at O level. But he was motivated by the school to work harder.
And, when their mates come round, they appear to be all the same.
But apart from that, all kids are mindless hoodies who can bearly string a sentence together.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
My eldest got far better grades at GSCE than I did at O level.
I'm sure someone can dig out the pass rates but getting an A/A* in GCSE this year is as 'easy' as it was to get a C at O-level 30 years ago in most subjects. 'easy' - referring to the % of pupils achieving that grade.fido said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
My eldest got far better grades at GSCE than I did at O level.
I'm sure someone can dig out the pass rates but getting an A/A* in GCSE this year is as 'easy' as it was to get a C at O-level 30 years ago in most subjects. 'easy' - referring to the % of pupils achieving that grade.fido said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
My eldest got far better grades at GSCE than I did at O level.
I'm sure someone can dig out the pass rates but getting an A/A* in GCSE this year is as 'easy' as it was to get a C at O-level 30 years ago in most subjects. 'easy' - referring to the % of pupils achieving that grade.That's certainly the case in maths. I've compared my sons GSCE maths work with my old O level excersize books and it's all the same stuff, simultanious equations, trig, etc.
Still, lets not give the kids of today any credit. Scum, the lot of 'em.
The education system is in a right state at the moment.
I don't think children are given a fair chance at something they could potential excel at and make a viable career choice.
The last decade has been 'degree degree degree!' which has just left us with a bunch of graduates that whilst brilliant on paper are bloody useless.
Having left school eight years ago I know a lot of these people. Funny how the ones who didn't go on to do A-Levels and then a degree are doing far better than the ones who did.
There needs to be a clear line drawn between the academics who excel in education who can then go on to sitting in a room looking at a petri dish and those who excel in other areas such as working with their hands.
The education system should be there to cater for all types, not just the former.
I don't think children are given a fair chance at something they could potential excel at and make a viable career choice.
The last decade has been 'degree degree degree!' which has just left us with a bunch of graduates that whilst brilliant on paper are bloody useless.
Having left school eight years ago I know a lot of these people. Funny how the ones who didn't go on to do A-Levels and then a degree are doing far better than the ones who did.
There needs to be a clear line drawn between the academics who excel in education who can then go on to sitting in a room looking at a petri dish and those who excel in other areas such as working with their hands.
The education system should be there to cater for all types, not just the former.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
fido said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
My eldest got far better grades at GSCE than I did at O level.
I'm sure someone can dig out the pass rates but getting an A/A* in GCSE this year is as 'easy' as it was to get a C at O-level 30 years ago in most subjects. 'easy' - referring to the % of pupils achieving that grade.That's certainly the case in maths. I've compared my sons GSCE maths work with my old O level excersize books and it's all the same stuff, simultanious equations, trig, etc.
Still, lets not give the kids of today any credit. Scum, the lot of 'em.
As to 'the same stuff' in maths GCSE as O-level, not so. The syllabus changed when GCSE was introduced. Science was butchered too.
Just another comment, this one from the DT article below.
Comment said:
Maths on the other hand - no question. Easier to compare than language - GCSE maths about the standard of 14yr olds preparing for O-Level. Don't get me on to science. It's utterly shambolic.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9548083/O-levels-v-GCSEs-how-do-they-compare.htmlAnother comparison is offered here in The Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-w...
Taking away all aspects of difficulty in terms of syllabus and examination questions, we still have the modular nature and coursework that were never a part of O-levels.
Here's a 'modern O-level' specification (pdf) which is said to 'bring together the modern and traditional approaches to ordinary level mathematics'. Presumably the marketplace for this involves international clients and some independent schools not opting for the iGCSE.
http://www.edexcel.com/migrationdocuments/GCE%20O%...
Look in the right-hand column for 'questions will not be set on...' and '...are excluded' as almost all (if not all) of these were set in the past on O-level papers including for example calculation of the angle between two planes or the angle between a straight line and a plane. Linear programming is excluded, so is synthetic division. It's all just a bit too tough.
Even a modern O-level lacks the challenge of previous years, while GCSE specs are no match for the modern O-level.
So, anyway…
My year 8 daughter is moving from middle school to high school next year. Last night we went to a school open evening during which I sampled some food many by some of the pupils. While chatting to the teacher she informed me that last year they had seven GCSE catering classes but this year they only have two.
This has happened because, as a result of school’s being judged on the Baccalaureate all the pupils starting Year 10 had to take either history or geography and a language. The result is that pupils starting their GCSEs only have one choice from catering, music, art, drama, textiles, PE, business studies, and media studies and a couple of others that I can’t remember. I also found out that as the school doesn’t have as many art students as last year one of the art teachers has been given a job teaching history – despite never having taught the subject before or having an history qualification.
Is this really a good thing???
My year 8 daughter is moving from middle school to high school next year. Last night we went to a school open evening during which I sampled some food many by some of the pupils. While chatting to the teacher she informed me that last year they had seven GCSE catering classes but this year they only have two.
This has happened because, as a result of school’s being judged on the Baccalaureate all the pupils starting Year 10 had to take either history or geography and a language. The result is that pupils starting their GCSEs only have one choice from catering, music, art, drama, textiles, PE, business studies, and media studies and a couple of others that I can’t remember. I also found out that as the school doesn’t have as many art students as last year one of the art teachers has been given a job teaching history – despite never having taught the subject before or having an history qualification.
Is this really a good thing???
both
I have a degree in Geography (and slightly unusually, I took history as my minor subject) but in all honesty, does the country really need geographers and historians more than it needs people who can cook or make music???
And I am highlighting the law of unintended consequences – I’m sure the gov’t didn’t really intend to have subjects being taught by teachers who not qualified in that particular subject but that is what is happening (the school is also re-configuing some of its classrooms as a result of the changes).
I have a degree in Geography (and slightly unusually, I took history as my minor subject) but in all honesty, does the country really need geographers and historians more than it needs people who can cook or make music???
And I am highlighting the law of unintended consequences – I’m sure the gov’t didn’t really intend to have subjects being taught by teachers who not qualified in that particular subject but that is what is happening (the school is also re-configuing some of its classrooms as a result of the changes).
I don’t think flowering arranging GCSE is or was available at the school in question. My point is that last year GCSE pupils were able to choose, for example, drama and music but now they will have to choose, for example, drama and geography or music and history.
I like both history and geography but I am not convinced that 14-16 year olds should be forced to study those subjects at GCSE level.
I like both history and geography but I am not convinced that 14-16 year olds should be forced to study those subjects at GCSE level.
rover 623gsi said:
I don’t think flowering arranging GCSE is or was available at the school in question. My point is that last year GCSE pupils were able to choose, for example, drama and music but now they will have to choose, for example, drama and geography or music and history.
I like both history and geography but I am not convinced that 14-16 year olds should be forced to study those subjects at GCSE level.
Fair point, but one that is equally applicable to media and flower arranging or flower arranging in the media or...I like both history and geography but I am not convinced that 14-16 year olds should be forced to study those subjects at GCSE level.
The question is out there; what is school for?
Is it to test a nations age group of their intellectual ability?
Is it to educate them on a wide range of subjects and generate rounded individuals?
Is it to help streamline them into decisions at a young age, what job/s they want in the future?
Personally I think offering a wider range of subjects is only a good thing. People are clever enough to decide what they believe to be an academic subject, a useful subject for society or one that will make them more employable in their future career choices..
To narrow it down to just what the government perceives to be "academic" subjects is a huge mistake because it will leave quite a large percentage of children without qualifications that are actually useful to them and more importantly, will narrow down children's future expectations of what they might be able to be!
Is it to test a nations age group of their intellectual ability?
Is it to educate them on a wide range of subjects and generate rounded individuals?
Is it to help streamline them into decisions at a young age, what job/s they want in the future?
Personally I think offering a wider range of subjects is only a good thing. People are clever enough to decide what they believe to be an academic subject, a useful subject for society or one that will make them more employable in their future career choices..
To narrow it down to just what the government perceives to be "academic" subjects is a huge mistake because it will leave quite a large percentage of children without qualifications that are actually useful to them and more importantly, will narrow down children's future expectations of what they might be able to be!
SpeedMattersNot said:
What, with no funding? Jog on!
Presumably the students don't fund either drama or music themselves?rover 623gsi said:
now they will have to choose, for example, drama and geography or music and history.
Even so, a course pretending to be Polly Toynbee in a leotard would save some money. Two GCSEs for the price of one, and clearly equivalent to double science in rigour and utility.Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 6th October 16:58
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff