That £4m on Latin lessons should be spent on a modern foreign language

[newnortherner111]

www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/latin-state-schools-england-williamson-b1894202.html

Latest idea from the Education Secretary. Given that the Prime Minister has been in a Catholic church at least once, did he not tell Gavin Williamson that the Catholic Mass is usually in the local language now, and has been for over 50 years?

Encouraging learning Spanish for example would be much better and actually have a use in real life.

It's also very divisive along the lines of what CP Snow called The Two Cultures. Where knowledge of the classics is valued over knowledge of the Laws of Thermodynamics in certain circles and for no good reason other than it's a class signifier.

Yes. I was pretty much steeped in that kind of attitude until teaching in state schools knocked it out of me. I kind of slightly miss the comfortable certainty I used to have about the higher value of the type of education I had, if I'm honest.

Presumably everyone saying Latin was great for them were able to read/write in English too? The number of children moving up to secondary who are unable to is shocking. Priorities.

I've just found out that Gav has also - apparently with no sense of irony whatsoever - said, in the same statement that
'All schools MUST give homework' and 'All schools MUST instil a love of learning'

But the CP Snow thing doesn't work anywhere else these days where views seem so utilitarian : can't do it unless it's useful sez Gav.

I think kids should have access to all sorts of opportunities and subjects. And sate schools should offer as many as they can. But this is a half baked and not fully explained or justified plan.

At the end of the day it's all about whether you believe in learning for learnings sake ... personally I do - it shouldn't be the privilege of the few.

But the CP Snow thing doesn't work anywhere else these days

Not many scientists among the people who run the country tbf.

That's true. Although that depends on how much you think Chris Whitty etc are atm.

@BackforGood

I've just found out that Gav has also - apparently with no sense of irony whatsoever - said, in the same statement that 'All schools MUST give homework' and 'All schools MUST instil a love of learning'

You WILL love learning. I insist!

@DGRossetti

At the end of the day it's all about whether you believe in learning for learnings sake ... personally I do - it shouldn't be the privilege of the few.

Yes. So... less tunnel visioned focus on exam results? More access to 'lifelong learning' . There's that old saying education is wasted on the young - some of the more cultural elements may be appreciated much better with a bit of maturity.

good thread from Michael Rosen

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1421714469139402753.html

@DGRossetti

At the end of the day it's all about whether you believe in learning for learnings sake ... personally I do - it shouldn't be the privilege of the few.

I've always believed in learning for learning's sake. From a working class background myself, my parents chose all my options for me. I didn't get a choice, and whilst I would have liked to have studied art and music, I was made to do supposedly more 'practical' subjects. Nonetheless, I went on to study Literature. I think I would have enjoyed Latin and it would have helped with my degree in terms of understanding the allusions being made. That said, the majority of working class comp students probably don't want 'learning for learning's sake' and can be very difficult to engage with already if they feel the education they're being given has no relevance to them. In my experience, the one-size-fits-all educational approach does not work, and we should have a system in place whereby there is more streaming. Kids who are more hands-on should learn more practical skills and trades in school. Not every kid is academic, they will struggle with Latin, won't enjoy it and it won't confer them any practical skills they can use in the real world. Many of them will be disruptive and prevent the kids who do want to learn from progressing. Latin might serve Literature students well, but in addition to this as an option, I'd like to see other more practical options.

@Newrumpus

Not having Latin available at state schools in discriminatory. It makes it more difficult for those not accessing a private education to compete in certain fields. It is a source of cultural capital. I studied Literature at Cambridge University and remember the crippling inferiority I felt when I realised that there were cultural references that I didn’t understand which my peers did. This isn’t just Latin but Classics, more widely. Latin should be available for all not just the elite.

I hear what you are saying but I think the Latin is just a detail here – if Latin became universally available and widely taught, there would absolutely be another signifier of privilege that would ensure just as effectively that a state school pupil felt out of their depth among private-school–educated students in the way you describe. The point isn’t that they don’t get Latin, the point is that they don’t get it.

Yep, if every private school started teaching Morris Dancing, that would suddenly be v important to emulate.

Kids who are more hands-on should learn more practical skills and trades in school

Whenever this is implemented, it is always the disadvantaged kids who end up being found to be more 'hands-on' and suited to the trades where the kids of the middle classes are found to be 'academic'. Vocational and academic streaming from early on perpetuates social inequity (v few FSM kids at grammar schools, for example).

@noblegiraffe

Yep, if every private school started teaching Morris Dancing, that would suddenly be v important to emulate.

Kids who are more hands-on should learn more practical skills and trades in school

Whenever this is implemented, it is always the disadvantaged kids who end up being found to be more 'hands-on' and suited to the trades where the kids of the middle classes are found to be 'academic'. Vocational and academic streaming from early on perpetuates social inequity (v few FSM kids at grammar schools, for example).

I understand your concern as I would definitely have been pushed into doing something more 'practical' by my parents. Streaming worked well for me in my school, though. My classes that weren't streamed were disrupted by the kids who didn't want to learn running amok, and there was a world of difference in the classes that were streamed. I just don't think academia is something that can be enforced. Kids who are from backgrounds where their parents are involved in their education will always be at an advantage, and this is more likely to be the middle class kids. I don't pretend to have all the answers here.

Ultimately, I believe kids will be most advantaged by having parents who take an interest in their education and preferably also have some money to throw at it - all those extra-curricular activities that look so good on UCAS applications. Latin is neither here nor there. I guess initiatives to get parents more involved in their children's education may be the most productive way to address this inequality, but some parents - like mine - don't give a sh*t and there's nothing you can really do about that.

‘disadvantaged kids who end up being found to be more 'hands-on' and suited to the trades where the kids of the middle classes are found to be 'academic'. Vocational and academic streaming from early on perpetuates social inequity’

I agree. Everyone should have access to a decent broad curriculum which is flexible enough to accommodate a range of needs without being punitive.

Everyone should have access to a decent broad curriculum which is flexible enough to accommodate a range of needs without being punitive.
I agree, but what you get in classes with mixed abilities is the kids who don't want to learn or who simply have a lower level of ability with the subject preventing those who have more aptitude from progressing. It makes perfect sense to stream, it's done all the time with language classes. You would have a class for beginners and a different class for those who are more advanced. It makes the learning a lot more efficient if everyone in the class is roughly at the same level. It's ridiculous to assume all kids are going to be at the same level in every subject simply because they are of the same age. Similarly, it's ridiculous to make all students study the same narrow range of subjects. It's also not necessarily going to hold anyone back if a kid can learn to be a plumber on an apprenticeship for example, where they can earn a good wage and feel a sense of purpose and pride in what they're doing. It's absolutely demoralising and terrible for self-esteem to be forced to study something you have no aptitude for and that's why kids become disruptive.

Kids who are more hands-on should learn more practical skills and trades in school

Up to a point... in addition to nobelgiraffe's comments, it's also something of a false dichotomy. Practical skills are needed across the board.

Is learning an MFL 'academic' or a 'practical skill'? Some of the sciences and technologies can cover a range of abilities, from mostly 'practical' to highly theoretical and mathematical- with some people needing both Hard Maths and delicate manual skills. And then there's music, art, drama ... These have wrongly been pushed out , they can also be a mix of 'academic' and practical and lead to 'trades'.

Teaching a broad curriculum is not incompatible with setting for ability.
I don’t believe there are kids who don’t want to learn - just kids who present as such at times, usually (but not always) because they are terrified of failure.

I also think that under the more 'practical' banner could be a range of subjects such as Business Studies, not just trades. Many kids might not be keen on academia, but they may be money motivated instead, or just need subjects where the learning is more rooted in applied knowledge. I think everyone should have access to an academic education, but some people will never engage with the arts, philosophy etc, it's not what moves or motivates them and that's just the way it is.

@Newrumpus

Teaching a broad curriculum is not incompatible with setting for ability. I don’t believe there are kids who don’t want to learn - just kids who present as such at times, usually (but not always) because they are terrified of failure.

That's a nice sentiment, but in reality those kids are sabotaging the education of kids who are well-behaved and those kids matter too. I agree it's a fear of failure, and sometimes that fear is justified because they simply are not good at certain subjects and never will be and forcing them to continue down a path where they're going to do badly surely isn't the best thing for them and their self-esteem. We all have different strengths and weaknesses, I think the education system should be more flexible to cater to these differences, but again I don't have the answers in reality as to how that would play out.

I don’t believe there are kids who don’t want to learn - just kids who present as such at times, usually (but not always) because they are terrified of failure.

Plenty of kids don't want to learn simply because they find a subject boring and/or pointless and don't particularly care whether they do well in it or not. Plenty of kids don't want to learn because they'd rather muck about with their friends, and the importance of school work for their future hasn't really sunk in yet (and in some cases never really does).

So essentially a one size fits all is not compatible with the wide diversity of pupils.

As much as many in education attempt with some ambition to raise the overall level especially as schools are as more ranked and rated by their success of overall educational grades attainment than other less measurable metrics including general pupil social and personal development.

The smarter alternative would be to cater for those more able and more suited to further challenge deeper greater learning so that these higher capability pupils are not held back, bored or suffer unfulfilled potential.

Those less able at the other end will likewise require extra tutoring to accommodate at their pace of learning.

The majority of the class would be in the medium cohort and achieve expected academic standards.

All pupils are different and not robots and so this must be accommodated appropriately to realise the potential of each pupil. Some will be more capable and academic, others more suited to develop their other talents be it artistic or sporting or practical as in applying their ability to learn a trade and manual skills which other pupils are not as well suited.

However as there are particular schools to accommodate pupils with specific needs there needs acknowledgment that there should be schools to cater for all three general abilities as well as these specific needs schools where these pupils will be better safeguarded with specific specialist teachers trained to have specific skills as required and bring out the potential of these pupils too.

Should pupils progress above and beyond the likely expectation - the system should be flexible to accommodate movement between these categories of schools. Indeed conversely if a pupil initially recognised as advanced struggles in due course - this pupil will again be better served in an alternative more suited school for that level of educational attainment.

This above would be a modern more flexible version of selective grammar schools, comprehensive academies and specific needs schools.

This is a reflection of further advance studies at university with some better suited to higher attainment students and not so much elitist but reality and a reflection of diversity. You cannot expect all pupils to be identical nor want to study the same subjects nor do as well academically.

@ivykaty44

Those that think that Latin isn't worthwhile or shouldn't be introduced - did you learn latin at schools yourselves? just curious to hear from someone that learnt latin and didn't see the point?

I did Latin and Greek at state school and my degree is in Classics.

I think there are far more worthwhile ways of spending the money.

Loving Andrew Bridgen weighing in on this :

In one Tweet he says Latin is great because when he went to university he needed public school educated people to translate the university motto for him and apparently learning Latin at school would save us all such dreadful humiliations (think how useful this would be at every football stadium too, Andrew!)

And then , later:

working class people shouldn't go to university. We have a shortgae of lorry drivers and it is all Tony Blair's fault for making them think they could get an education at unis with Latin mottos