Why are people so upset with Mr Gove?

[nlondondad]

An invitation to people to give an explanation as we can take it as given that people ARE upset.

Note: Two kinds of possible answers to this question.

1. Why you think other people are upset

1. Why you are upset...

Answers which do not give reasons, will be marked down.

Now to go away for a bit, I wonder what will happen while I am gone?

ipadquietly
But ministers are keeping their greasy little paws out of curriculum design in academies and free schools
sadly not : because Sponsored Academies are starting to topple over after bad Ofsted inspections
And non sponsored Academies are being set up to fail.

Academies are still "maintained" : if you live in the catchment of an academy and are in the 93% of the population who cannot afford private school, the Academy will have to take you in eventually

Crumbled, you mentioned one thing about Geography. I'm assuming you think, that, in itself, would not provide a 'full and rounded education'.

So, what would?

If you believe so strongly that those are missing, then you should tell us what needs adding to the current curriculum.

What about English and Maths for example?

I'm not quite sure why you find it boring to defend your strongly held beliefs. It's you who made the assertion in the first place.

'Maybe (if what you say about private schools is true, talkingpeace), Gove is introducing a rubbish 'national' curriculum so that the maintained schools will fail and he will force them to become academies?'

One interesting thing I'm noticing at the moment is that schools, including state schools, are abandoning the GCSE in droves in favour of the IGCSE which was once seen as more rigorous than GCSE but now isn't.

The changes afoot in GCSE English are going to make it so universally unpopular that it might end up untenable since so many are defecting to IGCSE.

It's boring because it's not a proper conversation - it's the misunderstanding and not reading things (not by me), and various other phrases used. I thought it had gone away, but it hasn't, and it's just such a waste of time.

Also, people, like crumbled, assume that Gove is including 'more stuff' in the curriculum but, as he is getting rid of things like coursework, the opposite will be true because it is simply not possible to assess everything via terminal exam.

It's just one more example of where Gove's assumption that a return to the 1950s necessarily equals more 'rigour' without understanding that the reverse is true or the enormity of the implications.

Same with getting rid of AS. Gove's assumption again, is more rigour, but as Oxford university has pointed out, it will mean less social mobility as universities will no longer be able to identify gifted students from humble backgrounds via their AS results.

Fivecandles: again with the deliberate misunderstanding of "stuff", after I've explained several times. This would probably happen, whatever I posted in answer to your questions. Whatever is the point in trying to answer them? The same thing will only happen again.

I can tell you what maths gcse needs - to be replaced with a double award. Like Carol Vorderman recommended in her Gove-commissioned report into maths education. But Gove seems to be dragging his heels over it. Why? There's a pilot study which has been going on for some time now...but it was started by Labour. Is that why he's hesitating?

Crumbled, there is no misunderstanding. It's a simple question:

What do YOU think is missing in the curriculum that would lead to a more full and rounded education?

Oh yes, there's deliberate misunderstanding, and after your penultimate post shows, no doubt there'll be more. There's no point and it's boring boring boring. Just think what you think, and I'll think what I think. So what?

We wouldn't 'misunderstand' you if you explained what you mean.

What do you mean by the additional 'stuff'? What specfically would you have in the curriculum that isn't already taught?

There we are again. I have explained. In fact I've given a couple of examples. You've chosen not to read, or to deliberately misunderstand, and it's verging on goading. Not a game I really want to waste my time playing.

But crumbled we don't know what you think because you won't tell us.

Saying it's 'boring' when asked to explain your position is extraordinarily childish.

It's the sort of thing my 6 year old might say when she knows she's in the wrong.

You gave ONE example about Geography.

What about English and Maths?

What is missing?

You realize it would take no longer to explain what is missing than it would to write that you're wasting your time?

There we are again with the insults - is it really any wonder I've no interest in the conversation? Are you deliberately saying things to make it so unpleasant to take part in the conversation that you can then say - Oh, I'm right, she couldn't answer me so she went away?

I have, literally no interest in explaining anything more to you. Maybe if Copthall comes back I'll read more of what she (he?) has got to say.

Yes - I do - I just don't want to play a stupid game after the performance of deliberate misunderstanding and smears earlier on. I'm putting my trousers on to take the dog out I can do it one-handed.

Crumbled, you're just avoiding the issue.

What is the stuff that you think is missing from the curriculum?

You said it, so explain.

Crumbled, surely you can see how you appear to other posters. It would take no longer to write a couple of things that you think are missing in the curriculum as it would to write that you're taking the dog out.

Could it be that you can't actually think of anything?

Well, I know what's missing. Practical science, instrumental music lessons, elite professional sports coaching, proper cookery. All things it is expensive for schools to provide.

I did O levels and I as I was lucky enough to have a good memory, I memorized 'stuff' and regurgitated it. I had no real understanding of much of it, and even less ability to undertake critical analysis.

I did learn capital cities, countries, battle dates and biographies. Most of which is completely redundant (especially the geog facts as so many countries have change borders and names since then!).

In contrast my DC have been taught to understand history and geography as processes and to look for and analyze the evidence. And given they can access the 'facts' 24/7 on the internet, this is a lot more important.

I teach at a university. We assess by different methods including presentations, coursework and open book and seen question exams. Why? Because terminal unseen exams are not a good measure of intellectual understanding. Oh and good lecturers design their modules for student-centred learning ;)

Gove, thankfully, can't do much about this as we are BIS rather than DfE.

Practical science IS part of the curriculum and always has been as is cookery although I agree there should probably be more of this. Music lessons and sports coaching have always been extra-curricular and I think that's probably right and proper.

But offered routinely in schools which it usually is.

crumbled
as somebody who did GCE s at a gels private school in the 1970s and I still have my revision books from that time on my bookshelves, I can list what has moved from one curriculum to the other BUT the reasons for the moves are often based on the development of knowledge.

Please, challenge me
(all others are welcome to do the same).
Specify three things that are no longer in the curriculum that you think should be / Gove will bring back for:

MATHS
BIOLOGY
GEOGRAPHY

and if you are truly right
PHYSICS
CHEMISTRY
FRENCH
LATIN
HISTORY
ENGLISH LITERATURE

(in that order by the way)

Teachers would have more credibility of they were open to reasoned debate on specific issues, rather than just a simple knee-jerk reaction to anything that involves change, or letting the light in from the real world.
We have come to expect nonsense form the NUT conferences and the ridiculous Ms Blower, but when parents, and indeed non-parents, see HTs behaving in a juvenile way and simply taking an entrenched attitude towards an person or a government, all credibility is lost, and people are bound to wonder why they are so 'anti' everything, without positive suggestions (other than, inevitably, 'give us more money!' )

see HTs behaving in a juvenile way

I don't know what you mean - could you explain, please?

Again, your post is so short on actual facts that it simply looks as if you have swallowed a DM comments section. Could you explain any of the sweeping generalisations you just made - with specific examples, please?