EDUKATION
My cousin John has been staying with me. He is an experienced teacher, and because his visits tend to coincide with national examination results, we tend to have robust debates about education that go on till the early hours.
Each year, the number of pupils who obtain good passes in GCSE and A Levels increases, while the popular perception amongst the public, employers, universities and the armed forces is that standards of education are slipping badly, to the extent that many children appear to be leaving school without even the most basic skills, and are ill-equipped to cope with the job market or the complexities of modern life.
Educators insist that the higher number of passes is down to hard work and improved methods by the teaching profession, while others suggest that exams are getting easier. There is probably some truth in both these arguments. Nobody doubts that a good British education is excellent, but an average education is possibly not good enough. People of my generation tend to believe that while in particular instances, pupils may learn things that we did not, overall, education today is less rigorous and narrower in scope than in our day. If true, how can this be?
I believe that because there is unrelenting pressure on teachers to perform better, and because that performance is measured by exam results, we have got into the unfortunate position where children are not being educated as such, but merely schooled into passing examinations, which is certainly not the same thing. Teachers are, I think, almost mesmerised by the process of adequately preparing kids to the examination standard, and see that as the ultimate goal, and by so doing, they pass on that idea, and those anxieties, to their pupils, who see the GCSE and A Level exams as some almost insurmountable mountain that has to be climbed, and thus get the whole thing out of proportion.
Much better, I suggest, was the old idea, where a teacher would tell pupils that he was going to educate them thoroughly in a subject, and when they had obtained that knowledge, they would have no problem in passing any examination, almost with their eyes closed.
Secondly, much more emphasis should be paid to practical skills than at present. As an example, In Maths, a series of procedures has to be taught, and those particular boxes ticked, e.g. compound interest and quadratic equations. I presume sufficient time is allowed for each of those items to be absorbed, and no more, but in real life, many children will never ever need to do a quadratic again, but they will all their life need to understand compound interest, because of their credit cards, mortgages, hire purchase agreements, etc. Credit card companies exist on the premise that not one in a thousand people understands just what situation they are getting into. The exploding figures on personal debt and bankruptcies bear this out; people are not sufficiently educated in handling money, so perhaps 5, 10, or even 20 times as much effort should be spent on this area of teaching. The trouble is, teachers on the whole are well paid, and are less likely to suffer from debt problems as other less well paid people, so do not see the need maybe.
Coursework is a valuable teaching component, and is highly beneficial, however I do not believe it should be any part of the examination process. I read that in some subjects, it can amount to 25% of the marks towards a GCSE. Coursework encourages children to work alone, to research, to discuss the subject out of the classroom, but it can also be written by friends, parents, or even downloaded from the Internet. How can this be of any true relevance? If, say, an essay is required, that essay should be written completely and without exception under invigilation.
Lastly, I see a modern tendency by teachers to have a personal relationship with their pupils, which I think is wrong. Teachers are not there to be liked or understood. A teacher should command respect, be a slightly remote figure, a man of mystery commanding nothing but respect, with an air of authority. I doubt even that they should know a teacher’s Christian name, let alone whether he is married, single, gay, straight, where he went on his holiday’s etc. In the workplace a good boss is not Mr. Niceguy, but someone who knows his job, inspires you, and treats you fairly. A teacher is there to impart knowledge, to inspire and enthuse you, no more, no less; he should not be a character.
I would be interested in comments from any other readers.
From the very start every pupil was expected to go on to university, medical school or military academy. There were no "optional" subjects - everyone had to study the curriculum and there were none of the "soft" courses (media studies etc.).
I think the primary differences between education then and now were 1) Success was expected, hard work was valued (like homework 6 nights a week and throughout the holidays) 2) The schools concentrated on a solid basic education in maths, languages, the sciences, history and geography with the more specialised courses being taken at university. 3) Competition was valued.
I have watched my three (now grown) children pass through the English education system and I was amazed at the minimal command of the basic subjects (especially history and geography) that the system provided. I have also had a chance to observe the American system and the big criticism I have there is how subjects such as Algebra or Tigonometry are done for maybe a single academic year and then dropped. We started Algebra in the first year of grammar school and kept at it until the last year.
I just find it amazing that so many children today leave school with no qualifications whatsoever, despite the huge and continuimg investment in education, and even many students at university apparently have so little grasp of grammar that they cannot construct a sentence properly, never mind write an essay.
I have so many things that I want to raise, but I would not have the time, so I guess I should just do a skeleton response.
After reading your ideas again, I feel that the ENglish system is much different to the Australian system. And points that you raise cause much vigorous debate even among teachers. Some of your points involve huge philosophical concepts.
So I think I shall just respond very generally, in an attempt to give a context rather than look at each individual point.
Like the history of time, fashion and politics, the trends in education are circular. What one generation thinks of as innovative, another thinks as 'been there - done that'.
The nature of education must change if it is to properly address society's needs. Cultural attitudes and values are so different, when compared to the 1950s say. Back then teachers recieved 'automatic' respect and students often 'marched' around in rows. The baby boomers were also taught to 'respect' authority. When the media gained more power (due to access) people began to see 'war' live. They began to question 'authority'. Generation 'y' have a clear and distinct distrust of authority figures. THey do not necessarity respect police, doctors, religious figures and teachers.
So during time, teachers have to change approaches. So teachers can't 'power over' students anymore. Many classroom discipline strategies from the 1950's are illegal now. Now teachers have to 'power with' - we are not authority figures, but we are leaders.
While cultures change, educators also need to change curriculum and its implementation. Academics are important and so are the practical sides. Throughout history we have done a few swings of that pendulum. One main political difference is that the government over the last 25 years have 'encouraged' more students to stay on at school and further their studies. I don't think that it is unfair to say that 'school' is not for every kid. It is not necessarily an indicator of whether that person is successful or happy... but teachers are faced with more senior students, who in the 1950's would have left and got trades etc.
Because this has happened, the stats look worse. Literacy levels are down blah blah blah. The government might be putting in more money, but we have a lot more bloody students. AND, a great example happening to me is that the government has just thrown a shit load at schools to implement software for a new reporting system. (That aint no strategy to improve teaching and learning) But they can use those stats in the media, if taechers dare to strike for a pay rise. They manipulate all of that to suite them.
So.... in terms of assessment of learning... do we teach what we value or do we 'value' what we teach? A lot of kids don't know their 'times tables' anymore. A lot of people might get upset at that. Perhaps that is just a memory game anyway... we now are in an information technology age. If they understand the principal, they can FIND the information of 3 multiplied by 5. I am not a Maths teacher so maybe this is a bad point. The CONCEPT is much more important than rote learning facts.
So now we teach 'skills' and 'concpets' One does not have to memorise the dates of when England 'colonised' bits of the globe. But the kids might explore the idea of history being about 'power'.
I guess it is personal preference, but I know that I want my son to be able to understand deep and significant concepts, develop the skills to be a life long learner and the skills to find information, when he needs it. I don't care if he cannot tell me when Captain Cook bumped into Australia.
So that philosophy of teaching (as brief as it was) is fairly new. There are lots of conservative people ready to shout it down because many just want things to be done the way the were done to them. "If it was good enough for me then it is good enough for...."
At present, we don't walk into classrooms as this magnificent disseminator of information that we give to kids. We encourage kids to explore ideas, so that the learning goes from within to without. Hmmm, I don't think that I have explained myself well there.
Personally, I know that we work on basic writing skills. But with so many young adults in the education system, of course not all of them are going to be able to write sophisticated prose. Some kids just will never be able to develop those skills. (Their skills are just in other areas)
I have to say, in closing, cause I am even boring myself, that I do have personal relationships with students, but they are about 'academic' intimacy. I know a lot more about them, than they do about me. I am 'credible' but also 'approachable'. I think that is what good teachers should be. Whether they know my first name or not, makes no difference. I model respectful relationships with all memebers of the school community, if a kid is going 'apeshit' in the hall, I don't raise my voice and yell and run for the cane. I still model respectful behaviour because I want to teach so much more than just the curriculum. As a leader to young adults, (well, 12-18 age bracket) my responsibility is so much more than just the basics.
The other thing to think about is demographics. What works for a 'middle class' school, in terms of curriculum and management and assessment, might not work for a small 'working class' country town. Some people I know think that school 'uniform' is essential. But I have a friend who lives at the north of australia that has sustained 'wet seasons'. That school realises that mums can't get uniforms dry sometimes. Uniform is not the 'essential' there.
So many things to consider. But 'rules and guidelines' are about the 'masses'. what is good for the masses is not necessarily good for the individual. Where I work, we try as much as possible to work on the individual.
To be honest, I never let people know that I am a teacher (when I am out socially) cause too many people want to BLAME teachers for so much. It is a shame, as most teachers are hard working, selfless individuals who just want to do a good job. I don't debate issues, because everyone considers themselves and expert, because they have all been to school.
Issues of education are so bloody complex.
As for secondary school, NZ's new NCEA system has come under fire from both teachers and parents. Every parent I've spoken to tell me how their child is now not motivated to work hard. They do the bare minimum and don't bother doing any extra work. Students are learning less. Is it any wonder we come across people who can't write a complete grammatical sentence or that correct spelling is rare? What used to be general knowledge is now completely unheard of by most kids. They seem to be far more interested in the latest gadgetry - ipods, cellphones, etc etc.
As for teachers themselves, I certainly don't envy the job they have to do - to try to motivate students and keep them interested in such a world. Unfortunately, many of those teachers are ignorant of the basics as well. It may be that teachers are far more stressed, judging, at least, by the attitude of some towards students in general - more aggressive, less respect being shown by each side. My daughter lost all respect for her school because of the way she was treated by aggressive and intractable teachers, and left early. Yet she is a very intelligent kid.