gnvqsos Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 How Gove is still in a job is staggering beyond belief He is retained because like BJ he is a useful distraction for Cameron.Do Tories have any steak in state learning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 Of course they do! Do Labour have any stake in state learning? All they seem to want to do is produce benefit claimants that will vote for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 The history syllabus is no doubt being dumbed down to a narrow series of 'facts' that are not open to interpretation and designed to be learned by rote.How is that different from what it's always been? I mean, for the very young to young classes of age? The purpose of the curriculum is to equip all kids with knowledge of fundamentals/basics of history, there is no "dumbing down" as such: there are only so many hours of tuition that can be dedicated to history as a topic, besides all others. In that context, the Gvt choice is whether these few hours are spent focusing on minor/anecdotal aspects, or more fundamental aspects. Which should it be, according to you? It's exactly the opposite of what learning history should be about.There are ample opportunities for kids interested in history to develop their knowledge in much further depth and details in secondary and tertiary education. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 How is that different from what it's always been? I mean, for the very young to young classes of age? The purpose of the curriculum is to equip all kids with knowledge of fundamentals/basics of history, there is no "dumbing down" as such: there are only so many hours of tuition that can be dedicated to history as a topic, besides all others. In that context, the Gvt choice is whether these few hours are spent focusing on minor/anecdotal aspects, or more fundamental aspects. Which should it be, according to you? There are ample opportunities for kids interested in history to develop their knowledge in much further depth and details in secondary and tertiary education. I am sorry but children who choose History may be forced to sacrifice another option,whereas Sciences and Maths etc.are core subjects.History has been marginalised by changes in the curriculum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 How is that different from what it's always been? I mean, for the very young to young classes of age? The purpose of the curriculum is to equip all kids with knowledge of fundamentals/basics of history, there are only so many hours of tuition that can be dedicated to history as a topic, besides all others. There are ample opportunities for kids interested in history to develop their knowledge in much further depth and details in secondary and tertiary education. I think the curriculum is too prescribed. Some kids are not bright or driven enough to even learn the basics and fundamentals but they still have to be taught the same stuff as everyone else-thats a waste of everyones time. With a good teacher with some flexibility they could be taught the love of learning which is what school should be about. If you have that you will want to learn whether its chemistry or woodwork. I remember at GCSE being forced to take a humanities subject, even though I loved school and was perfectly able to do it I was not in the slightest bit interested so it was a waste of everyones time. Other kids were forced to take a language even if they had no interest and aptitude for it. One of the most important subjects should be PE but no-one seems to care about that. Personally I think a massive shake-up would be a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 I think the curriculum is too prescribed. Some kids are not bright or driven enough to even learn the basics and fundamentals but they still have to be taught the same stuff as everyone else-thats a waste of everyones time. With a good teacher with some flexibility they could be taught the love of learning which is what school should be about. If you have that you will want to learn whether its chemistry or woodwork. I remember at GCSE being forced to take a humanities subject, even though I loved school and was perfectly able to do it I was not in the slightest bit interested so it was a waste of everyones time. Other kids were forced to take a language even if they had no interest and aptitude for it. One of the most important subjects should be PE but no-one seems to care about that. Personally I think a massive shake-up would be a good thing. Which group did you fall into? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 I am sorry but children who choose History may be forced to sacrifice another option,whereas Sciences and Maths etc.are core subjects.History has been marginalised by changes in the curriculum.That is not the topic of the discussion, though, is it? The OP has raised a point about the contents/amounts/details of history as a tuition topic within the Curriculum. Not the 'importance' of history, relative to other topics, within the entire Curriculum. FWIW, I did my entire schooling in France. History was always a non-core subject, but compulsory and taught from day one right through (about 15 years) until the Baccalauréat - whichever version of it (scientific, economics, languages, litterary, etc.) Early years was basic fundamentals and a lot of rote learning, later years was in-depth in specific aspects of history and a lot less rote learning. Same way maths and other topics were taught: rote learning to ensure as much of the (young) class of age stores the basics, on which more in-depth learning is gradually built according to capacity and interest. AFAIK that's still how it works to this day. I think the curriculum is too prescribed.Not sure what you mean by that. Some kids are not bright or driven enough to even learn the basics and fundamentals but they still have to be taught the same stuff as everyone else-thats a waste of everyones time.I beg to differ, as that's where the usefulness (however marginal, but better than nowt) of rote learning comes in. Fundamental historical facts, just like math tables and the periodical table, are ripe subject-matter for rote learning. Where's the problem with trying to equip learning-averse kids with fundamentals? Are you suggesting they should they be left to become imbeciles? With a good teacher with some flexibility they could be taught the love of learning which is what school should be about. If you have that you will want to learn whether its chemistry or woodwork.Or history indeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 dear Loob A quick history question based on rote-who were the first three post war prime ministers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 dear Loob A quick history question based on rote-who were the first three post war prime ministers? Charles de Gaulle Félix Gouin Georges Bidault dear gnvqsos, ask me no stupid question, and you will get no stupid answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 Charles de Gaulle Félix Gouin Georges Bidault dear gnvqsos, ask me no stupid question, and you will get no stupid answer Were any of these in the Vicky government where France gave up the fight and accepted German rule? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.