Dunces of illiberalism

[An_Inspector_Calls]

FF
Typically you seek to create an argument I did not make, and then disprove it. The examinations I referred to were obviously internal assessments - as you well know. And I don't recall the setting of these examinations stulting the imagination of the teachers.

[french frank]

FF
Typically you seek to create an argument I did not make, and then disprove it. The examinations I referred to were obviously internal assessments - as you well know. And I don't recall the setting of these examinations stulting the imagination of the teachers.

But the whole argument is about the public system - not the private arrangements made by individual schools which teachers were entirely free to run as suited the courses they taught. They put their courses together, they set exams. They didn't have to rigorously spend x hours per week covering subject y along the lines dictated by the national curriculum. Teachers find they don't have time to branch out with their own ideas.

[teamsaint]

FF
Typically you seek to create an argument I did not make, and then disprove it. The examinations I referred to were obviously internal assessments - as you well know. And I don't recall the setting of these examinations stulting the imagination of the teachers.

Most of the teaching that went on when I was at school was desperately unimaginative....which was the norm, I suspect.
Teachers now know how to , and try to, deliver much more imaginative lessons....but have you SEEN the contents of what has to be taught in "literacy hour"?

I mean, we can actually all survive, even if our apostrophes are incorrect.....but then real understanding and love of great literature(and music, science etc) by the masses would be pretty dangerous for the bankers and arms dealers..might give folks ideas beyond buying the latest iphone.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

But the whole argument is about the public system - not the private arrangements made by individual schools which teachers were entirely free to run as suited the courses they taught. They put their courses together, they set exams. They didn't have to rigorously spend x hours per week covering subject y along the lines dictated by the national curriculum. Teachers find they don't have time to branch out with their own ideas.

I suspect that over the years the curriculum of our single qualification examination system has been dumbed down so that all the children can achieve a qualification. So much for avoiding elitism. I'd bet folding money that if you were to compare the mathematics curriculum (perhaps the easiest subject to measure) to O level with GCSE you'd see a marked reduction in subject matter for the latter. And if that's correct, I fail to see how a 'lighter' curriculum confines the imagination of the teachers more than the supposedly liberated teachers of yore.

I suspect the curriculum and specification of teaching methods has been introduced over the years as an attempt to counter an obvious declining standard of teaching ability.

TS (#14) Why do you see selection for university as being elitist when the aim of successive governments has been to send 50 % of all pupils to university?

[teamsaint]

AIC, you have misunderstood. I didn't use the word elitist. I said that the exam system serves mostly as a way for the elite universities to select.
of course they have to select, but they tend, for whatever reason, probably cost, to use this method.

Your allegation that there is "an obvious declining standard of teaching ability" is based on what?

In my view, much of the so called grade inflation is due to much better teaching to task than 30/50 years ago.
I was never really taught how to construct a good essay....just left to get on with it. (and went to a very good school, and never struggle academically.)My own children studied similar subjects to me at A level and I KNOW they were better taught in terms of how to construct an essay.
This can have some negative effects, since I feel that it tends to make kids rely on process rather than investigation, for instance. But its true nonetheless.

[heliocentric]

real understanding and love of great literature (and music, science etc) by the masses would be pretty dangerous for the bankers and arms dealers..might give folks ideas beyond buying the latest iphone.

Exactly.

[amateur51]

but then real understanding and love of great literature(and music, science etc) by the masses would be pretty dangerous for the bankers and arms dealers..might give folks ideas beyond buying the latest iphone.

Steady now, have a care!

[An_Inspector_Calls]

but then real understanding and love of great literature(and music, science etc) by the masses would be pretty dangerous for the bankers and arms dealers..might give folks ideas beyond buying the latest iphone.

Utter piffle

[amateur51]

Utter piffle

Care to say why?

You don't have to, of course, but I'll just regard you as a total plonker if you don't

[Serial_Apologist]

Care to say why?

You don't have to, of course, but I'll just regard you as a total plonker if you don't

Careful Ams - a total plonker is more qualified than a partial one...

[amateur51]

Careful Ams - a total plonker is more qualified than a partial one...

[David-G]

real understanding and love of great literature(and music, science etc) by the masses would be pretty dangerous for the bankers and arms dealers..might give folks ideas beyond buying the latest iphone.

Well with respect, it's utter complete piffle because (a) bankers and arms dealers don't control education anyway, and (b) if the powers that be actually had an understanding and love of science and music themselves, I don't suppose that these things would be so underfunded. It's not very convincing as a conspiracy theory.

[teamsaint]

Well with respect, it's utter complete piffle because (a) bankers and arms dealers don't control education anyway, and (b) if the powers that be actually had an understanding and love of science and music themselves, I don't suppose that these things would be so underfunded. It's not very convincing as a conspiracy theory.

the bankers and arms dealers control the government, who give our kids the education they think they deserve.(remember cameron saying that he wouldn't do anything to harm the banks, before the euro conference?)
i didn't suggest those in control DO have a love and understanding of these things..in fact I suspect the opposite...but do know how dangerous thinking can be, and they sure don't want us following or understanding the likes of Shelley, Beethoven, Shakespeare, Turner etc.

On the other hand,perhaps most the population are just stupid. That's a nice easy explanation.

[David-G]

the bankers and arms dealers control the government

Well actually, no.

i didn't suggest those in control DO have an understanding of these things..in fact I suspect the opposite...but they sure don't want us following or understanding the likes of Shelley, Beethoven, Shakespeare, Turner etc.

On the contrary. As the powers that be don't particularly care about or understand the arts, they would not have the imagination to think Shelley Beethoven etc potentially subversive.

[teamsaint]

Well actually, no.


On the contrary. As the powers that be don't particularly care about or understand the arts, they would not have the imagination to think Shelley Beethoven etc potentially subversive.

well just saying no isn't very powerful . At least I gave one example which suggests control.

Even if the government are utter philistines, which is quite possible, it's also true that their advisors might recognise the danger.They do have lots of highly educated advisors.