Is Michael Gove a danger to our children?

[SevenRivers]

I would not let Michael Gove anywhere near a child of mine. He seems to be more concerned with schooling than education. This latest crusade of his to "reform" what is taught in schools is idealogical revisionism at it's worst.

 

This article from today's i newspaper will explain further.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/pay-attention-michael-gove-this-is-the-british-history-we-really-need-to-learn-about-8488860.html

 

Another column here from Peter Hitchins to provide some balance.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2257668/PETER-HITCHENS-How-multiculture-fanatics-took-Mary-Seacole-hostage.html#axzz2KftcxYFW

 

Poor old Mary Seacole, a good-hearted, kindly person, has been the sad victim of fanatics.

 

Long after she was dead, zealots used Mrs Seacole in their bitter campaign to abolish Britain and replace it with a multicultural nothingness.

 

Their target was Florence Nightingale, steely, Protestant, patriotic, self-disciplined and authoritarian.

 

They wanted to expel Miss Nightingale from the national pantheon.

 

They chose Mary Seacole, a jolly hotelkeeper and herbal healer, as their weapon.

 

Mrs Seacole did not reform the hospitals first of Britain and later of most of the world. She did not re-found nursing as a profession.

 

She was not remotely the equal of Florence Nightingale.

 

But because she was non-white, nobody dared to resist. They were scared of being called ‘racist’. So Mrs Seacole was put in the history books, as long ago as 1992.

 

Then she was turned into a national heroine and went into the National Curriculum.

[gnvqsos]

Another column here from Peter Hitchins to provide some balance.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2257668/PETER-HITCHENS-How-multiculture-fanatics-took-Mary-Seacole-hostage.html#axzz2KftcxYFW

 

if Hitchens had presented a factual account it might have helped but any valid points were tarnished by use of terms like fanatics,multicultural nothingness.I suppose it is to stir up the jaded readership.

[L00b]

Were any of these in the Vicky Vichy government where France gave up the fight and accepted German rule?

 

Given the context of the thread, I sholl sayy zis only wonce: Oh, the irony!

[gnvqsos]

 

Given the context of the thread, I sholl sayy zis only wonce: Oh, the irony!

 

That's alright I frequently do this when not wearing my glasses.Leave out the Halo Hallo crap,and answer the question please madamoiselle.

[Lotusflower]

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.

 

Party political point scoring is, hopefully, for another thread.

 

This is a thread intended to discuss the matter of attempts by Michael Gove to tailor History taught to our children.

[L00b]

I was laughing at your question (at which the comment was also directed), not your misspelling.

Leave out the Halo Hallo Allo Allo crap,and answer the question please madamoiselle Mademoiselle.

Give me one good reason why I should, M'sieur dame.

[Ms Macbeth]

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?

Or history indeed

 

I agree. I'm of a generation where rote learning was common practice. In my sixties I can spell pretty well, my grammar isn't too bad, and I can still do arithmetic without the need of a calculator. There was a wide academic spread in my primary school, but I can't remember anyone not being able to read, at least to a basic level by the time we went up to secondary. And we had to speak 'properly' in class.

 

I'm pleased my six year old granddaughter is given spelling tests, they were sadly lacking during some of my children's primary education in the 70s, where the sandpit and free play was in force! (We eventually moved and they went to a more traditional school).

 

I don't believe Michael Gove is any more of a danger than other Education Ministers, and I like the fact he wants personal finance to be included. If kids learn about rip off APRs, that has to be of use!

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/teacher-network/teacher-blog/2013/feb/11/draft-national-curriculum-teachers-michael-gove

[Lotusflower]

Another column here from Peter Hitchins to provide some balance.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2257668/PETER-HITCHENS-How-multiculture-fanatics-took-Mary-Seacole-hostage.html#axzz2KftcxYFW

 

Peter Hitchens and balance...in the same sentence...fascinating.

[llamatron]

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.Not sure what you mean by that.

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?

Or history indeed

 

learning history by rote is the most pointless thing imaginable (its also the most boring way to learn and teach). The only reason for learning history other than interest is to learn from past mistakes and achievements and to learn the investigative science. If you are learning by rote you are missing all the important parts of history.

 

bold: not even remotely (great knee jerk answer though:hihi:), if we teach them something they have an interest in and aptitude for we end up with a kid with a skill that enjoys learning rather than a bitter, angry person with no skills. Thinking every kid needs to know every subject at a very dull level is counter productive.

[alchresearch]

if Hitchens had presented a factual account it might have helped but any valid points were tarnished by use of terms like fanatics,multicultural nothingness.I suppose it is to stir up the jaded readership.

 

Shooting the messenger again I see just because you don't like the facts.