Is Michael Gove a danger to our children?

[SevenRivers]

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.

 

YAB uses similarly divisive language in the Indy.

 

---------- Post added 12-02-2013 at 11:41 ----------

 

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

 

Lol yes I agree but at least it gives the total opposite perspective to YAB in the Indy.

[L00b]

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.

You should distinguish the nuance in my posts, rather than keep to sweeping generalisations for the sake of your argument (which has merit...to a point - i.e. that at which my argument has merit): nowhere have I said, or suggested, that all of history should be taught by rote, or that rote is the only valid method of educating kids.

 

My point is that, for those fundamental aspects of history which are so well-established (i.e. factual) as to be completely beyond doubt and not open to interpretation, and so elementary as tuition subject-matter for kids at the earliest age, rote is ideal, because it ensures (in principle) that an entire class of age will build its knowledge of 'H'istory on a sound, country- and socially-relevant, common basis.

 

Don't tell me 7 year olds would develop a keen interest in the history of WW2 and, within that, excesses of the Nazi regime to "learn from past mistakes". 7 year olds need to know there have been 2 world wars in the XXth century, start and end dates, and main protagonists. Rote is fine for that, even those not bothered about history/WW2 should know that there have been 2 in the XXth century in which their country took part.

 

Some will gain a further interest from that, gain further/better/deeper knowledge from syllabus components that relate to it over subsequent years at school and/or look into it further outside school. Others won't. That's not important (or, well, less at any rate: to each their topic(s) of knowledge interest, that's the whole point).

bold: not even remotely (great knee jerk answer though:hihi:),

Well, that is what your post suggested - and continues to suggest:

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.

Are you seriously suggesting all kids should be taught on an individual, case-by-case basis, commensurate with attitude and aptitude, rather than from a common syllabus?

 

You do realise education resources are finite, right? (not making a political point, just a common sense observation)

Thinking every kid needs to know every subject at a very dull level is counter productive.

Counter-productive for the society they live and likely will continue to live in? Really?

 

Again, less of the broad strokes, please. Kids don't learn about "every" subject: they learn about core and not-so-core subjects, wherein these not-so-core subjects are deemed still fundamental enough to warrant their place in the Curriculum. There aren't that many of them, to be fair. Though there may be a case for culling really not-so-core subjects. Like basket-weaving, perhaps

[Lotusflower]

We seem to be getting a tad bogged down about the contribution made by Mary Seacole, or as some would see it, the lack of contribution. Judge for yourselves.

http://www.notablebiographies.com/supp/Supplement-Mi-So/Seacole-Mary.html

 

But what about the Yemeni contribution mentioned in the article I posted and what about the other references?

http://www.naba.org.uk/CONTENT/articles/Diaspora/yemeni_community_in_the_uk.htm

 

Sophia Duleep Singh for example. My knowledge from school regarding the Suffragettes was all about the Pankhursts and Emily Davison throwing herself under the King's horse.

http://historysheroes.e2bn.org/hero/3521

 

Thomas Spence is another important figure missing from what is taught. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRspence.htm

 

How rounded a picture is being given to classrooms full of impressionable children being taught their country's history by rote?

 

I agree that for certain subjects teaching by rote does work. I'm 67 in June and still know my tables for instance. With History I think rote only gets you as far as the bones of the subject when what is far more important (imo) is the meat. It gives a more rounded picture of how we got to where we are.

As I said earlier, just trawl through anything discussed on this forum that touches upon Britain and Britishness or England or Englishness. The levels of ignorance are shocking.

[SevenRivers]

Thing is Swami there are probably hundreds of Brits worthy of at least a mention, but you simply can't get them all in curriculum. And different people want different sorts included. Me, I'd like more Basiljet and Brunel. Some might prefer explorers etc. What I don't think should be done though is shoe horning notable figures into the curriculum on the basis of skin colour, should be on merit and their contribution to our history.

[alchresearch]

Thing is Swami there are probably hundreds of Brits worthy of at least a mention, but you simply can't get them all in curriculum.

 

Yep, Kitty Wilkinson is just one of many who made a worthy contribution. And there are quite a few people named after her on Merseyside.

[Lotusflower]

Thing is Swami there are probably hundreds of Brits worthy of at least a mention, but you simply can't get them all in curriculum. And different people want different sorts included. Me, I'd like more Basiljet and Brunel. Some might prefer explorers etc. What I don't think should be done though is shoe horning notable figures into the curriculum on the basis of skin colour, should be on merit and their contribution to our history.

 

Agreed.

 

---------- Post added 12-02-2013 at 15:08 ----------

 

Yep, Kitty Wilkinson is just one of many who made a worthy contribution. And there are quite a few people named after her on Merseyside.

 

I must confess I had never heard of Kitty Wilkinson until I read your post. My thanks!

Anyone else interested please follow this link.

http://www.stjamescemetery.co.uk/kitty.htm

[alchresearch]

The ironic thing is that she is taught in schools, but only in the local area!

 

I'd never heard of her until a local brewery brought out a very tasty chocolate and vanilla stout named in her honour:

 

http://www.liverpoolorganicbrewery.com/cask/regular/kitty-wilkinson

[llamatron]

You should distinguish the nuance in my posts, rather than keep to sweeping generalisations for the sake of your argument (which has merit...to a point - i.e. that at which my argument has merit): nowhere have I said, or suggested, that all of history should be taught by rote, or that rote is the only valid method of educating kids.

 

My point is that, for those fundamental aspects of history which are so well-established (i.e. factual) as to be completely beyond doubt and not open to interpretation, and so elementary as tuition subject-matter for kids at the earliest age, rote is ideal, because it ensures (in principle) that an entire class of age will build its knowledge of 'H'istory on a sound, country- and socially-relevant, common basis.

 

Don't tell me 7 year olds would develop a keen interest in the history of WW2 and, within that, excesses of the Nazi regime to "learn from past mistakes". 7 year olds need to know there have been 2 world wars in the XXth century, start and end dates, and main protagonists. Rote is fine for that, even those not bothered about history/WW2 should know that there have been 2 in the XXth century in which their country took part.

 

Some will gain a further interest from that, gain further/better/deeper knowledge from syllabus components that relate to it over subsequent years at school and/or look into it further outside school. Others won't. That's not important (or, well, less at any rate: to each their topic(s) of knowledge interest, that's the whole point).

Well, that is what your post suggested - and continues to suggest:

Are you seriously suggesting all kids should be taught on an individual, case-by-case basis, commensurate with attitude and aptitude, rather than from a common syllabus?

 

You do realise education resources are finite, right? (not making a political point, just a common sense observation)

Counter-productive for the society they live and likely will continue to live in? Really?

 

Again, less of the broad strokes, please. Kids don't learn about "every" subject: they learn about core and not-so-core subjects, wherein these not-so-core subjects are deemed still fundamental enough to warrant their place in the Curriculum. There aren't that many of them, to be fair. Though there may be a case for culling really not-so-core subjects. Like basket-weaving, perhaps

 

7 year olds don't need to know the dates. In real life the only time you need to know the dates is for pub quizzes. You need to know why things happened then you will automatically know the order. There is absolutely no need to learn dates particularly when you are 7. If you teach a 7 year old that there was a war where a lot of people were killed just because of their race they have learned the most important lesson.

 

You are taking massive leaps of non logic to argue with things I have not said!

[L00b]

7 year olds don't need to know the dates. In real life the only time you need to know the dates is for pub quizzes.

And there is the crux of the matter: you know the dates on the occasion of a pub quiz (or any other occasion, however more or less trivial) because your learnt it as a kid (by rote or otherwise).

You are taking massive leaps of non logic to argue with things I have not said!

How so, pray tell? Did you not say that:

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.

 

Does the above not clearly make a case for teaching subject-matter to kids on an individual, case-by-case basis, commensurate with attitude and aptitude, rather than from a common syllabus? (my own words, to which you took exception).

 

 

Or is your (unsaid -I'm checking here-) premise that all kids in any given classroom at any given time will want to learn this same 'something' with the same level of 'interest' and 'aptitude'? (a clearly illogical premise, considering educational requirements and resources, and accordingly I can't objectively imagine that it is what you meant)

 

Not as if I'm putting words in your mouth, is it?

 

EDIT: btw -

If you teach a 7 year old that there was a war where a lot of people were killed just because of their race they have learned the most important lesson.

You won't have taught that 7 year old much about WWII, then, will you?

[llamatron]

And there is the crux of the matter: you know the dates on the occasion of a pub quiz (or any other occasion, however more or less trivial) because your learnt it as a kid (by rote or otherwise).

How so, pray tell? Did you not say that:

 

 

Does the above not clearly make a case for teaching subject-matter to kids on an individual, case-by-case basis, commensurate with attitude and aptitude, rather than from a common syllabus? (my own words, to which you took exception).

 

Or is your (unsaid -I'm checking here-) premise that all kids in any given classroom at any given time will want to learn this same something with the same level of interest and aptitude? (a clearly illogical premise, considering educational requirements and resources)

 

Not as if I'm putting words in your mouth, is it?

 

When is knowing a date not trivial? I can't think of there ever being a time where I had any need to know a date (apart from a pub quiz).

 

Everything you said was a non logical leap from something I wrote that was general to a crazy extreme you came up with.

 

Also I took no exception, I just commented that the syllabus was too prescribed. It should be more flexible. (waits for you to indignantly comment that I am suggesting every kid should have their own personal teacher for each subject).