Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#1
with our education system.
This taken from the Times...
""""......... an online poll asked 1,400 children, aged from 6 to 14, some basic astronomical questions.
Not only did a significant number confuse Neil Armstrong with the statesman (Winston Churchill) who led the Allies to victory, it also revealed that 72 per cent were unable to identify the Moon in a series of pictures.
Saturn also proved a problem, with only 44 per cent noting the giveaway rings. Two in five thought Mars was simply a bar of chocolate. A third of children believed the Earth was not an official planet (35 per cent) and 33 per cent thought the surface of Mars was blue.
Almost two thirds (60 per cent) were unable to say how many planets were in the solar system, while 59 per cent could not name the planets in order. """"""""""""""""
I just find it amazing that in this day and age there is so much ignorance around. Something is missing in our society, has the education system totally given up on imparting some basic knowledge?
Its not as if this is the first time a survey has demonstrated this kind of thing. Another one recently found that most respondants thought that Winston Churchill was a fictional figure and something to do with insurance....
Educationalists should be ashamed of themselves.
#2
I have 4 very bright children all of whom have been or are going through the grammar schools, and yet I find they still don't know some of the basic things we were expected to know when I was at school (about 135 years ago...). I realise the responsibility on parents to inform and teach, and we take this seriously, but the schools are paid, by me and by you, to teach, to stimulate and to enrich. Now, Convents may not be the best places in the world to be educated, but at least I came out able to spell, grammatically literate, curious and with a more than basic grasp of the core subjects. I think I would expect all schools, but even more would I expect grammar schools, to provide the same or better.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#3
i did not know how many planets were in the solar system.
mind you, i still meet people who think that the earth is round.
some people eh!!
Guest 690- Registered: 10 Oct 2009
- Posts: 4,150
15 November 2009
20:4833194#4
Delving back into the archives on here, I`ve found many interesting topics for further possible discussion, including this one. I`ve been saying about this for years, even adults being asked on quiz shows, basic general knowledge questions that we knew at school, they can`t answer. Ask them who`s who in Eastenders and they`ll know. I do get bored sometimes with some modern day conversations, as alot of basic knowledge is sadly lacking. Good posting here BarryW.
Tell them that I came, and no one answered.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
15 November 2009
21:5633196#5
This really doesn't surprise me at all. But I'm not sure how you gauge intelligence or worth of knowledge in this one-dimensional way. I don't think that any 'fact' of 'piece of information' is absolutely useless but surely schools and parents (the ultimate educationalists) should be interested in promoting the ability to deal with information. We have to be more contextual about education and just because we know something, we shouldn't assume that someone else, who doesn't, collectively knows less.
All the things 'The Times' has listed here, I got taught a primary school, but then we didn't have a National Curriculum to follow that includes ICT, or tests to pass to prove the worth of the school and teachers (of course this has nothing to with demographic *cough*). My son (4) knows some of this planet stuff already because I told him but this doesn't make him smart and I don't care if they don't teach it to him at school. He has a lot more to grapple with than I did, as I did compared to my Dad.... for instance and extra 22 years worth of history and modern computers not just 2bit BBCs. I will fill in the other gaps if he wants me to and surely that's my job.
Millions of people are doing jobs today that weren't even invented when I went for careers advice just 15 years ago. I'm pretty sure the people who have these jobs didn't have to (and don't have to) know who Neil Armstrong is. The point is that if they had to, they would be able to.
This is the sort of topic that public school types use as a kind of criticism of the state school system (as this journalist probably is a product of this and is at least the agenda of the Times) but then: "Hey that's OK because us jolly good chaps in independent schools didn't have to follow the National Curriculum because we're here because our parents could afford it, making us exempt from the 'free market' Thatcherite approach to education"
Bern who went to school 135 years ago surely never got taught about Churchill or Armstrong, is this a failing? The amount of information in this wonderful world increases every second, but the school day remains the same length!
Guest 686- Registered: 5 May 2009
- Posts: 556
16 November 2009
00:5533207#6
Good postings all round.
What I can't get my head around is how so many youngsters move up to secondary school unable to read, write or count. Is it my imagination or are the schools more interested in getting themselves into a good position on some league table than in educating the next generation?
What happened to "Back to Basics"? Give the youngsters the correct tools (The three 'R's and they'll teach themselves and gain an interest in subjects other than Wii, PS2 and text messaging.
Part of the problem, in my humble opinion, is the distinct lack of discipline in schools; or at home for that matter. This isn't the fault of the schools per se but a distinct shift in the ethics and morals of society in general since the mid '70s brought about by that over-paid bunch of numties in Brussels.
Phil West
If at first you don't succeed, use a BIGGER hammer!!
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
16 November 2009
09:4333229#7
That's a good post too Phil.
AS DT1 said, having a good depth of General Knowledge doesn't necessarily make you clever. We are always told that Comprehensive schools are the best and let's get rid of Grammar schools; I don't believe we should do this at all, but we should be able to impart general knowledge in any school curriculum - shouldn't we ?
Just as an aside: Bern, you tell us your an old socialist (maybe not so old of course), so why do you have kids at the Grammar school ? I thought that would have been against your political principles.
I'm pleased to hear you support Grammar schools though.
Roger
16 November 2009
09:5433230#8
I do support good grammars, but I have good reason to be sceptical about our locals ones. Good Grammars achieve not only academically but holistically, and evidence seems to indicate that the other local schools are achieving more in this direction - a shame, because the concept of Grammar school education is a good one. I am an old socialist, and it does seem odd, but it is simply a matter of targetting education: not everyone is academic, so to try to push academic education onto everyone is silly, I feel the same about the stupid idea of encouraging more people to get a degree.........it results in idiotic Mickey mouse degrees in nose-picking and bum-wiping. Eveyone has talents, however, and educators are supposed to be able to develop those talents, not make un-academics feel like failures. Our education system is a shambles, frankly, and it is such a waste - of the pupils talents, of the good teacehrs abilities, and of a decent system allowed to rot. Shirley Williams, hold out your hand and take your punishment!!!!!!!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
16 November 2009
10:1733236#9
Well said Bern. If more on the left adopted your educational attitudes we would have a far better system. Sadly the left wing educational establishment have a lot to answer for.
I will always support our grammars but I do think that they dig too deeply into the catchment resulting in some getting a Grammar education who should be better off elsewhere. The number of grammar places needs to better reflect the size of the school age population locally and that may mean co-educational rather than single sex grammars to be cost effective.
Guest 686- Registered: 5 May 2009
- Posts: 556
16 November 2009
11:4133243#10
You can lead a horse to water...
This idea of a one size education fits all is plain daft. There are those that will take to a grammar school education like a duck to water while others would struggle. The same goes for forcing youngsters into a university education which does little more than degrade the value of a degree. It is, I believe, this attitude that has destroyed the trades and crafts in this country. By all means encourage those with the aptitude for acedemia to go on to higher education, but not every child has that aptitude and should be encouraged along a different path. A nation full of acedemics is all well and good but we still need to build houses, fix the plumbing, install power and lighting and even sweep the streets and drive the buses.
Phil West
If at first you don't succeed, use a BIGGER hammer!!
16 November 2009
11:4833244#11
I can only agree - academic success is only one stream of success, and the others are just as valid and valuable. I have to say, though, BarryW, I prefer the concept of single sex schools. Boys and Girls develop and learn differently and need different models of education to achieve, and the distraction of hormones and urges can seriously detract from education!!! I suppose I will be biased, as I went to a convent........................
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
16 November 2009
16:3033253#12
That is true, Bern, but I have had two boys through single sex Grammars and I think their 'whole person' education would have been better if they had girls to associate with at school. Mind you they are making up for it now
No reason why co-educational schools should not have some lessons single sex where appropriate to get the best of both worlds.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
16 November 2009
17:2233254#13
there are two [2] kinds of pupil,those who want to learn and those who dont.those who do should be encouraged those who dont well you know what they say you can lead a horse to water but you cant make it drink.
Guest 686- Registered: 5 May 2009
- Posts: 556
16 November 2009
18:2833265#14
Brian: That may be true once children reach secondary school but I think that in their early years they're like sponges for knowledge.
With the right encouragement in the pre-school environment children will go on to excell. I've seen this first hand from the days when my wife owned and operated her own pre-school nursery and a majority of her charges went on to do well in primary education and then on to grammar school and university.
When I was a youngster a nursery was somewhere that grew flowers and my pre-school education consisted of being taught to read and write by my parents. By the time I went to St. Andrews CofE primary school my reading age was already two or three years ahead of most of my peers - and I was only four!!!
Phil West
If at first you don't succeed, use a BIGGER hammer!!
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
16 November 2009
18:2933266#15
Those children/young adults who are academically gifted should be be encouraged to go for A-levels and on to Uni. but those who are not, should be encouraged to take an apprentice, whether for brick-laying, car-mechanics, plastering or what ever.
We'll always need road-sweepers, shop assistants, hairdressers etc. and no disgrace in any of that, the only disgrace is when people don't want to work at anything.
Roger
Guest 686- Registered: 5 May 2009
- Posts: 556
16 November 2009
18:3733270#16
Spot on Roger.
Phil West
If at first you don't succeed, use a BIGGER hammer!!
Guest 641- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 2,335
16 November 2009
20:5933291#17
Agreed Phil, ('sponge for knowledge') I was encouraged by my parents to read from an early age, I lapped up the Boys Own 'classics' like Treasure Island, Robinson Crusoe, Black Beauty (I thought was a bit 'girly') Richard the Lionheart & most swashbuckling titles. My Dad lost out in the morning though as I used to 'borrow' his paper first before going to school
16 November 2009
21:1733295#18
Agreed again - all mine could read before they went to school - it was a pleasure to teach them! - and were definitely "sponges". They are all different now though - 2 most definitely academic and 2 not so academic, but all with their own gifts and talents, and all as valuable and charming!
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
16 November 2009
21:3533297#19
Barry is right about the effect of the local Grammar schools on the rest of the schools in the area. The simple fact is that not enough children in the Dover area pass the Kent Test to fill the intake every year. This is why an additional test is held to fill their intake quota every year. Now call me cynical but I find it quite telling that this test should be held on a Saturday, making it as much a test of the parental commitment as of ability. This process was ruled as 'unfair' by KCC in Folkestone a number of years ago, but was allowed to continue in Dover, probably as it would expose the absurdity of this antiquated system.
I question the system and I have no personal gripe with the two good Grammar schools in Dover. However the system does create a number of significant problems. Firstly by not taking pupils of a certain standard it fundamentally defeats its supposed purpose. Secondly filling a set 'quota' and not the top percentage of the demographic, the upper ability at other schools declines, which is the current situation due to a lull in population. If a Local secondary modern school is getting 25% of their students (the lower proportion of the tested) though GCSEs at targets set by central government they are regarded as failing and potentially face restructuring. However a Grammar can get 90% (of the upper proportion) and is commended. As Barry says, some of these students would benefit from a different approach. So let's do it...oh but we can't because we wouldn't have enough students to justify our Grammar schools. Oh yes this really is a great system, silly me for being vaguely left wing.
Bern you mention holistic education, but last time I checked half the population seemed to be female and a different half were below average intelligence. How is a child's development going to be holistic if their formative years are blinkered from reality? Girls and boys are different; in fact girls develop academically faster than boys, which could make you question why we test them both at 11, with the same test? And what if a boy does put it all together at a slightly later date, move schools? It doesn't happen, of course he could at a Comprehensive (statistically equal to counties with grammar schools.) Smart kids do well at exams, and that is it. Still the most accurate descriptor of a child's academic achievement (not intelligence) in this country is what their parents do/have done and how much they earn. There is no coincidence that both yours and Barry's children went/go to the grammar school. And consequently no surprise that university places are still filled by vast amounts of public school types, that aren't necessarily smart. So why don't we encourage the likes of Prince Harry to do a plumbing apprenticeship (let's face it, he's no academic) Or is it the construct we have is too rigid and antiquated?
The education system seriously needs some reform but that isn't saying we should look to 'what things used to be'. Knowing teachers Phil I would say 99% would love to focus on the education of the future generation (and do) but league tables are used as a way of keeping people where they belong and shows little more than demographics rather than academic reality. My memory fails me on who introduced them? Do you know Barry?
17 November 2009
08:0033311#20
I wouldn't disagree - our education system has the spine of a jolly good system but has been beaten into submission by successive political agendas. Education should be, at its best, about enabling people to develop and learn, spotting potential and creating opportunities. It has become a treadmill for both the jobs market and the political trends. Disgraceful. I also agree, as said, that expecting children who are not academic to attempt to follow an academic path is just silly. The opportunity to do so should be there for all regardless of background, but it should be one of a range of options which are targeted at those who would benefit and thrive best in whichever arena is appropriate.
By the way, it is not a surprise that children of parents who are committed to their wellbeing and development and expect a level of achievement attain grammar school places - why shouldn't they? Rather than knock that we could be better employed looking at why other parents don't do the same.