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?

this is the problem with Goveism.

Pages and pages already exist on criteria for success and key learning points for each subject. We don't need to start all over again.

Are children not taught facts at the moment, crumbled?

Surely education these days is a mixture of facts, skills, debate, creative thinking, investigation, analysis and evaluation? It certainly is at my primary school.

When my ds did GCSE history he was certainly learning dates and facts. Maybe it's been dumbed down over the last 5 years... he also did some really interesting analysis of social history, which I would have loved to have done at school.

NorthLondon, I share your interest in what teachers think it means. At least one here seems to have no clue at all.

I think NorthLondonDad wanted to know what YOU thought it meant, crumbled - as did most people on the thread. Fivecandles knows perfectly well, but had also asked you several times what you thought it meant. Quite different.

I was asked for that Loopy; apparently some people have no idea what an education is?

No, Ipad, many facts are not taught. Much of geography for example consists of social geography in which the facts are highly changeable, and the interpretations of which are difficult to master without a sound basic knowledge of borders and capitals (which is not taught, not in my children's experience).

Feenie: I'm not sure about that. Unless, after I'd explained, the misunderstanding and misrepresentation was entirely deliberate.

Were entirely deliberate.

Crumbled The Head rightly points out that what Gove is proposing will actually go back to an approach discarded in the 80s as dry and lacking rigour. He is doing precisely what they suggest, imposing a chronological approach at the expense of the opportunity to analyse certain aspects of History in more depth. Have you looked at the curriculum? The sheer volume of factual information teachers will be required to impart, and remember that the first half of Gove's version of history will be taught by non specialist teachers in primary schools because obviously History got more complex and harder to understand as it went along , precludes the opportunity that students currently have to explore certain aspects of History in greater detail and depth. Also let us not forget that the only other world governments who pick and choose which facts their children learn about History are actually Marxist, using History as a political tool is the antithesis of the liberal enlightened education Gove claims to champion.

That is why only 4% of the members of the Historical Association, which comprise teachers and university academics in every shade from red to blue, and every state of tweediness and enthusiasm for the study of the past, think his proposals are a positive change. And why even those who supported his proposals and were involved in the consultation have turned their backs on him. As I quoted upthread

"Steven Mastin, head of history at a school in Cambridge, who worked alongside historian Simon Schama as an adviser to Gove, said the curriculum bore "no resemblance" to the drafts he worked on as late as last month. Mastin said he approved of Gove's aims in revamping the curriculum, but the proposed version failed to offer children the broad and balanced education that had been promised.

Mastin, who stood for the Tories at the last general election, said: "Between January and the publication of this document ? which no one involved in the consultation process had seen ? someone has typed it up and I have no idea who that is. It would be scary if we become the only nation in the western world to not teach anything beyond our shores." "

If you think what Gove is proposing will deliver rigour and the components of a full and rounded history education then you are in a small minority, certainly of those who really understand and care about the study of History.

crumbled I'd actually agree with you about geography. I don't think applies to any other subject though.

Copthall: it's obviously a strong reaction to what has gone before, and a radical attempt to forestall and remove the gaps and imbalance of history education for the last two decades. Teachers should have complained about that - the in depth study of some periods for which there was no context, no broad sweep, the ability to pick and choose modules bearing no relation to each other, leaving vast lakes of interconnecting knowledge untouched. And the taking and retaking of modules, not to acquire more knowledge but to achieve better grades by dint of key words, phrases, soures. Did you complain about that? Did you campaign? Those who didn't have no credibility for me when they complain about these changes.

Maybe it's been dumbed down over the last 5 years. The experiences of my children go back much longer than five years.

Ipad, thanks, but there's no reason to think it doesn't. History, for a start.

ipad Just one of the two module of my daughters AS exams involved more events and dates than I learned for my final A level exams and certainly a good deal more understanding of the economic and social issues as well as the political. The History GCSE is notoriously demanding.

Ds certainly learnt 'facts' for GCSE history, and covered more than I did for O level. I remember sitting down making a complicated flow chart with him to work out what was happening. What fun we had.

He also did AS geography. That was 'stuffed' with facts. However, I think it would have been useful for him to get some basic knowledge of where places / counties are at primary school.

I am happy to defend the current curriculum, chronology is useful for studying broad sweeps of history but it really is overrated, timelines are not rocket science. I gained a good appreciation of the broad sweep of British and World History by reading a few Ladybird books. However what I didn't gain from my education was the fascination that my girls have developed about the past, through for instance the chance to understand the role women played in the past or the chance to understand the history of other cultures, something I was ill equipped to do when I went to live in one (and many more of our DCs will need those skills in the global marketplaces of the future). Noone says a curriculum shouldn't change and develop. I am quite prepared to for instance to concede Niall Ferguson's point that we should introduce a little more balance into the appraisal of the history of Empire for instance, even the Chinese can concede Mao was a mixture of good and bad. But throw the baby out with the bathwater? If there is one thing History teaches us it's that swinging to extremes never works out well.

However when it comes to the shoddy marking of exams via ticksheets that fail to allow room for well argued and evidenced essays that diverge from the template then yes there does need to be change.

That's a more interesting and thoughtful post and I appreciate the tone - I also see value in what you've written about.

ditto the fun learning the 10 page tables of country timelines for the Scramble for Africa

Crumbledwalnuts
"Those who didn't have no credibility for me when they complain about these changes"

So your arguement has no basis. Very much like gove 'i am right and everyone else is wrong'.

It is also very telling that you throw buzzwords around and don't explain yourself, and avoid telling people what you think they mean by belittling other posters for not knowing your thoughts on the subject.

Some "facts" are useful without a great deal of analysis and critical thought, and I think it's wrong to imagine that a curriculum should be weighed down by analysis once the facts are under the belt. The facts, for example, about which African, Asian and South American countries were occupied by which European governments. A simple "recall" knowledge of this would help hugely with understanding of many subsequent events, conflicts and political developments. This can be taught without an entire module on the imperialistic efforts of every individual nation, the internal problems it caused, or even how they came to acquire independence. This is the sort of thing denounced as Gradgrindism. I think it's valuable.

Grade boundaries : O Levels and A levels used to be graded according to the Normal distribution. Personally I'd like to see a return to that.
Because if you got an A it would mean you were in the top 10% nationally in that subject.
Gettng grade B would mean you were in the top 25%
and, yes, there are statistical variations between cohorts but they are tiny compared with the grade inflation that resulted in over half of Chemistry A level students getting Grade A or above last year

and yes, the current system attempts to even out the academic rigour of subjects (far more A grades are awarded in pure sciences than Media Studies) but the public perception is that it has failed.

Child Centred Learning : in laymans terms it means trying to explain the lesson in such a way that the pupils actually understand what they have been taught rather than just being able to parrot it back (as is the system in China for example) without comprehension.
Child centred learning leads to analytical development - which is why the UK turns out the best design engineers in the world, bar none.

Curriculum design : I'm sorry but Ministers should get their greasy little paws out of it - full stop. Private schools do not let them : and UK private schools are the most successful in the world - go figure

So your arguement has no basis.

No, Boneyback; I think they were wrong then so I have a reason, a basis, for believing their judgement is flawed. That's an evidence based decision. A lot of people agree with me about those sorts of problems too, so I'm not the only on who thinks that judgement was flawed.

It is also very telling that you throw buzzwords around and don't explain yourself, and avoid telling people what you think they mean by belittling other posters for not knowing your thoughts on the subject.

You're mixing me up with people who've not read my explanations (perhaps you're one of them?) and with the people who've tried to deliberately misunderstand those explanations, and occasionally belittle me. That was one of the reasons I got bored, but it's just getting a bit more interesting now so I'm not going to bother with side-sniping (though feel free to carry on - I just won't respond)

'f you really, really don't know what "all the components of a full and rounded education" '

Crumbled, it means different things to different people. I would like to know what it means to YOU. As in, what SPECIFICALLY is missing that you think is missing.

I'm not quite sure why you think I should or could guess what is in your mind. How peculiar.

And why on earth why don't you just tell us since you feel so strongly about it.

But ministers are keeping their greasy little paws out of curriculum design in academies and free schools.

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?

Fivecandles I did, have a look (bored).

BoffinMum
that was filmed at Haberdashers Askes : holy crap, if he bores them : and they knew they were being filmed : it says it all

Crumbledwalnuts

Your arguement has no basis as your mind is closed to any response that does not fit your understanding of the situation.

"
You're mixing me up with people who've not read my explanations (perhaps you're one of them?) and with the people who've tried to deliberately misunderstand those explanations, and occasionally belittle me. That was one of the reasons I got bored, but it's just getting a bit more interesting now so I'm not going to bother with side-sniping (though feel free to carry on - I just won't respond)"

So that is my second point proven.

"side-sniping " - "(perhaps you're one of them?)" pot and kettle.

and you still haven't defined "stuff".