Do any teachers on here support Michael Gove's education policies?

[SummerExhibition]

Just wondering. Everything related to curriculum changes, academies, free schools etc gets a bashing on here and just wondering if there's another side to the argument really.

Excellent post by pointythings

pharisee, Maths and Further Maths are at A-level. At the moment there are other maths qualifications that can be taken at GCSE as well as GCSE maths such as GCSE statistics or Additional Maths, but they are designed to be free-standing qualifications and usually only the most able take them. The current pilot which has just been extended is for a linked pair of GCSEs which together cover the current single GCSE syllabus but with extra bits - and I think most students would be expected to take both.

But actually, who knows what the future holds.

globalmouse Mon 18-Jun-12 09:44:42 I just wanted to say that I totally agree with you about the askGove Education Committee Meeting. I was "lucky" in that my question was put to him and the reply was so superficial I am still seething at his ignorance (on summer borns). His superficiality was disgusting. (Sorry not even a teacher, although may be heading that way in a couple of years)

News today about the lack of rigour in A level maths and English- from universities

Just what i was saying....

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-18497563

alice the universities, and you, seem to be missing the point that A-level maths is not, nor should it be seen as an entrance exam for a university maths course. Maths A-level was deliberately stripped of some content a while back because no bugger was taking it. Maths A-level take-up has improved so actually on average sixth formers are now better qualified in maths. If unis want mathematicians, then they need to start focusing on further maths, take-up of which has increased since efforts to make it more widely available. AS further maths as an option has also led to better qualified mathematicians and getting rid of AS levels would be a disasterous move for this, and many other obvious reasons.

I admit I am surprised to see Russell group universities being so against modular courses when that is what they seem to teach. How many degrees are based soley on the result of exams taken at the end of the course?

I can't help but think he's being demonised a bit. I am all for academic rigour in the curriculum. I always wanted some aspects of a traditional, classical education for my children. I love the idea of teachers that promote the best novelists and poets and begin lessons with something inspiring from Shakespeare or Dryden. Something other than you'd likely get at home. I love the idea of aiming for excellence and not mediocrity - although there should be provision for all abilities. I admit I am probably terribly old fashioned. Isn't his main aim trying to change the emphasis & introduce choice rather than completely rewrite the curriculum?

He says he wants effective bullying policies as per private schools and wants to bring in the standards/expectations within the best independent schools and apply them to state schools. He also wants to make teaching a higher status job and attract outstanding people to the profession. He is looking to introduce KIPP schools. He says: KIPP charter schools (the initials stand for the Knowledge Is Power Programme) (in USA) are hugely successful schools, which have been started by teachers and operate outside local authority control. They have high standards, longer hours and ensure that children in neighbourhoods where a majority didn't even graduate from high school are now going on to elite colleges. They've only been made possible because the system was freed up in certain states to allow teachers to open new schools in response to parental demand.

What's so wrong with these Goveian remarks for example:

I never actually said anything about learning by rote and I totally agree with what I think is your overall view - teaching styles should be a matter of parental choice and professional autonomy - but my experience is that many parents want a rigorous, knowledge-based education for their children and aren't getting it. If they had money, they could buy it in the private sector. I want those of us who are in the state sector to have the same choice.

He also says the below, would need to google to see if these are respected experts/researchers etc. What are their reputations etc?:

My research is based on work done by people like Michael Fullan, Michael Brabner and Fenton Whelan into the world's best education systems, the comparative research done by people like the OECD and academic work done by people like Dylan Williams at the Institute of Education, Caroline Hoxby in the US and E.D. Hirsch.

All of the above may be unworkable but why is it so terrible to have high aspirations for our children?

"the universities, and you, seem to be missing the point that A-level maths is not, nor should it be seen as an entrance exam for a university maths course"

All A-levels (indeed, all final school leaving exams) are, by definition, preparation for higher education. An A-level is not a professional or vocational qualification that is an end in itself.

Pointy i agree and disagree with some of what you say.

Had I a magic wand, I'd scrap the NC as it's too prescriptive and narrow.
I began teaching pre-NC and would much prefer it to go back to that.

However, I take issue with your first point bcause you appear to be advocating a kind of 1:1 teaching method- when the child is "ready" to leabr. How would this work and what do you really mean?

Re. poetry- I disagree. As a former English teacher, the value of learning poetry over lists of kings or anything else, is greater: poems are written to be read aloud: they have rhythm and rhyme ( sometimes) as well as rich imagery. learning a poem by heart does not simply improve memory- it enables the subtleties of language and vocabulary to be absorbed almost imperceptibly, which helps with creative writing and imagination. learning lists purely for either facts or as a memory game/tool is not the same at all.

I do agree with you about the proliferation of exam boards- when I was a pupil myself I think there were two boards and it was geographical- my school had to use the Northern board.

But even when I first began teaching there were at least 2 options and schools did pick and choose according to the "easiness" of the syllabus.

Noble I admit I am surprised to see Russell group universities being so against modular courses when that is what they seem to teach. How many degrees are based soley on the result of exams taken at the end of the course?

Do you actually know anything about universities? Both my DCS recently graduated from top 10 Russsell unis and excluding their dissertations which carried some weight, their final degrees were awarded as a result of marks gained in their 2nd and 3rd year exams. My DCs studied economics and chemistry.

I think you are confused. Topics are taught over the degree course as 6modules^ ie topics-and each exam focuses on a module- but the exams are blocked together over a week or two- they are not examined on each module randomly throughout the 3 years.

There are less demanding degrees and unis which have other ways of assessing.

And re, maths and further maths- if maths A was more demanding instead of having being dumbed down , as many were not passing it, then there would be no need for F Maths!

Hamish good post and agree 100%.

Bonsoir, it appears that I wasn't clear enough. I said A-level maths shouldn't be seen as an entrance exam for a university maths course. There are many other university courses which require post-16 maths and they are already struggling as take-up for maths which is considered a difficult A-level means they haven't a large enough pool of candidates. Making maths A-level more challenging would shaft them even further - they don't want a more challenging maths a-level, they want more people taking maths A-level as it is - or even Maths AS.

University maths departments instead of moaning about maths A-level should be concentrating on improving the take-up of Further Maths by making it a course requirement and at the same time helping to improve access to it.

Take-up for Maths A-level would certainly be helped by improving Maths GCSE which at the moment is poor preparation.

their final degrees were awarded as a result of marks gained in their 2nd and 3rd year exams

Then why should A-levels not be awarded as a result of marks gained over 2 years too?

Noble there is a slight difference in the amount of content between an A level course and a degree.

How can you possibly compare the two?

Would you suggest for instance that students studying medicine were examined once, after 5 years' learning, at the end of those 5 years?

There is a difference between learning a module every 6 weeks and having an exam in it, and learning 6 modules over a year then being tested on all 6 over 2 weeks in June.

Noble I don't understand your logic at all re. maths.

Universities say that many students are not prepared for their courses because the maths A level has been dumbed-down.

so you are suggesting it's made easier?

Of course maths A level is needed to a maths degree! and for other degrees such as some of the sciences.

What you will find in practise is that, depending on the necessity of maths A for a degree, unis are more likely to lower the grade they demand from students.

so if you have a rigorous A level, unis can chose whether to accept a student with an A grade or a C grade, depending on the degree.

Both my DCs needed maths but unis were happy to accept a high grade at AS level, because their degrees were not pure maths degrees.

Thanks, Alice. He also writes very well, far better than John Prescott if the 'Mumsnet chats' are anything to go by.

alice students tend to take rather more A-levels at once than degree courses. Tbh I wouldn't mind dropping the Jan module sitting, it's the suggested scrapping of AS levels that I find appalling.

I notice you haven't even acknowledged the chaos that has been caused by Gove's pronouncements, which appear to be off the top of his head rather than carefully considered and backed up with plans of action.

No alice, I am not suggesting that maths a-level is made easier, I am suggesting that it is not made harder. You are failing to understand that university courses that require some element of maths are not able to drop their requirement from an A to a C, they are having to drop post 16 maths as a requirement at all because not enough people are taking it in the first place. We need to encourage more people to take the current version of A-level maths not put even more people off it.

As I said, further maths is what the maths heavy uni departments should be looking at improving the take-up for. Everyone else is very interested in improving the take-up of maths. Why should they lose out even more just because Gove's mantra is 'everything is shit, let's make it harder'?

Noble- can you tell me where you found that info?

Where is the info that too few students are taking maths A level, which then impacts on them studying something at degree level?

I have not heard anything about low uptake of maths A level being an issue with uni entrance requirements.

I think your proposal is very short sighted: suppose they do keep it at the level it is- and yes, more studenets might take it- but will they be equipped for their uni course with what they have learned? Not according to the unis as shown in mylink today.

If the Russell Group felt that maths should be easier, or as easy as it is now, then they would be saying so- wouldn't they?

IME most courses which require maths A are over subscribed , so I have not seen it as the problem which you describe.
Where is the evidence?

Noble this article seems to dispute your view that maths is less popular.

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/7953869/A-level-results-maths-and-science-more-popular-in-the-recession.html

It is one of several showing this.

A rise of over 6 % recently in students taking maths A level.

Hamishbear said: I love the idea of teachers that promote the best novelists and poets and begin lessons with something inspiring from Shakespeare or Dryden. Have you ever read any Dryden? I've taught Dryden at University level and while I agree he is an important (and often very funny) poet, it would be a rare secondary age child that would find him inspiring -- even with the best will and and the best teaching in the world.

That's just it, you'll remember that Dryden enthusiast from school :). We did Trollope at school, you wouldn't have thought Barchester Towers was terribly inspiring either but all of us come to appreciate some of the subtleties in time, even the less academic. This was at a comp too and I think it was brilliant. Our form teacher used to talk constantly about Trollope being a post office clerk with lofty ambitions, I think the idea was we could do/be anything we wanted. Maybe Dryden not the best example but something other than the usual suspects would be good.

came to appreciate the subtleties, even.

Alice I am not advocating teaching 1:1 - that is the other extreme. However, the proposed primary curriculum seems to lay down very rigidly what all children must know by a certain age, without allowing for any flexibility or differentiation.

This is potentially an explosive problem in KS1, where you will find a huge range of intellectual, physical and emotional maturity among children who are all within a 1-year age range. In any YrR class you will find some children by the end of the year still struggling with simple CVC words whilst others are reading Roald Dahl. Rigidity at this stage will brand some children as failures at a very early age - it would be far better to suggest an age range, within which children coudl realistically be expected to meet certain milestones.

I've also heard it said (alarmingly) that the proposal is to stop all differentiation within a class, meaning that no-one will be able to move on until everyone has mastered core content. I find this very worrying indeed as it risks turning off children who struggle as well as children who are very able.

I must disagree with you about poetry. Yes, ideally all children should take pleasure in the nuances of language and its rhythms. But they won't, and forcing it will be completely counterproductive for some. I think ideally we shoudl separate the verbal expression of language from the training of memory - what is wrong with teaching verbal expression by having children read out loud? This could be from a piece of poetry they have memorised, it coudl be a passage from a book they are particilarly interested in (which could be non-fiction), or it could be starting the basics of public speaking, i.e. having them speak on a topic they are keen on and have prepared for. This could all be done in an age-appropriate way, with flexibility and creativity, with the teacher trusted to support all children in finding the most appropriate route for a child to develop skills. What is proposed is narrow, restrictive and one-size-fits-all of the worst kind. And I say this as someone who loves poetry and has two children who do learn poems by heart and enjoy it.

And what is this obsession with Dryden? Yes, let's by all means go back to teaching whole texts in secondary. I find it horrifying that excerpts are considered enough. However, we need to look beyond a narrow range of what is considered 'worthy' literature. Why for instance Dryden and not T.S Eliot, or Gerard Manley Hopkins? Why Shakespeare but not Marlow or Webster? And what about modern poetry and literature? We need to get away from this belief that everything that is old is inherently better and cast our net more widely. Inspire pupils with literary texts by all means, but there is so much more out there.

Sorry about all the shoudl and coudl - they are a typing bugbear of mine. I can spell, honest .