Yet more dumbed down pseduo science in our schools.

[DominiConnor]

The government wants a new, "science" certificate that is absolutely impossible to fail.
Dumb

Given that both Tony and Cherie Blair are both comitted christians, perhaps this is the game plan ?
Evolution is bunk

The government has already put millions vinto schools with a policy of teaching that evolution is nonsense.

I don't.

I've never taught it.

Neither have I, and none of my collegues have taught it either.

We are now offereing 360 science, and it can be single or double....all the kids are doing it as double. For the aplied science candidates we are offereing the BTEC, and so far it seems to be going well.

I totaly agree with you that there is little or no point in forcing children into a course where they will come out with nothing.

DC will be saying 'dumbed down and worthless' I prefer to see it as a way of offering courses to children that allow them some sense of achievent, since as you say they all have to do science in some form.

and not only will they get a G if you forse them into the wrong course, but teir attitude gets worse, along with it their behaviour and they get on a horrible negative spiral.

When we first offered applied science GCSE (as was) I saw a class of real 'horrors' turn right around, they all gor CC and then got into the FE courses they wanted (mostly in conrstruction type stuff)

I see that part of my job as every bit as valid as teaching the top end AAA kids who go on to do medicine.

Absolutely. In fact these are the children most at risk from buying into all the pseudo science rubbish. All the more important that they are taught proper science, in a way they can understand, in a format at which they can succeed and which will hold their interest.

and also at a rate slow enough so that you can actually embed the understanding. Then these kids will understand so much more about the world we live in and the choices that will be made on their behalf.

I don't think that science education should be the preserve of the elite, you don't either BBS, neither do any of the teachers I work with.

I just get pissed off that no adjustment is made for those kids who find this stuff tough.

A few years ago I taght a kids of 12 with a reading age of 6. We had to use words like Chromatography, and this kid had to learn the high frewuency words from year 2!

Kids like this have a right to an appropriate education. You can argue, and I'd agree that this child needed a special school ,but wasn't in one. If we can't have the best for him, them lets at least have something approachable!

Or do we shove kids like him up chimnies?

It's no better in Britain.
survey

More people in Britain believe in creationism and intelligent design than evolution.
Is it any wonder the homoeopathic cures sell so well ?

Older people are less likely to believe in ID/Creationism, supporting the idea that dumbing down of science in schools is having the effect that Christians want.

The difference between Britain and America, is that people are fighting further Christian attempts to force superstition into the science syllabus, which is not something we see a lot of here.
Ironically the Catholic church is dead set against ID, seeing it as not only rubbish, but sacrilegious rubbish, since ID inevitably leads you to a view of God as both stupid and deceitful.

It's no better in Britain.
survey

More people in Britain believe in creationism and intelligent design than evolution.
Is it any wonder the homoeopathic cures sell so well ?

Older people are less likely to believe in ID/Creationism, supporting the idea that dumbing down of science in schools is having the effect that Christians want.

The difference between Britain and America, is that people are fighting further Christian attempts to force superstition into the science syllabus, which is not something we see a lot of here.
Ironically the Catholic church is dead set against ID, seeing it as not only rubbish, but sacrilegious rubbish, since ID inevitably leads you to a view of God as both stupid and deceitful.

Given that I call helping kids at the bottom end of the ability spectrum "hugely valuable", I fail to see a lack of compassion there.

As you should well be able to work out, I'm all for helping people who need it , and MB has read enough of my posts to make that remark beneath her, which raises an interesting point about her response...

MB, I may accept your schools results are average, but my point was in two parts, and I said you weren't an average science teacher, a point you chose to ignore...
In other posts you have used your rather considerably above average qualifications as evidence that you know better than me.
Bit quiet about them now ?
Having it both ways ?

Also, although I'm sneery about stuff like literary analysis, that doesn't mean that some poor sod didn't try to teach it to me, and that in spite of my efforts, some got in.
I note MB, that you talk of your school's average, not your average, ie the one for science teaching.
How average is that ?

As Lazurus Long said, it's much easier to pretend a higher status than a lower one.

Well, thank you for saying that I am not average, in such a warm, charming and supportive way DC, you have quite made my day!

Yes, me qualifications are rather good, and I do rather well by the kids I teach. However I am not alone. There are quite a few like me where I teach.

If you want to argue that there are probelms in the education system, I'd agree with you, offhand I can't think of any teacher who would argue with you.

However you are never going to make things better if you consistanly denigrate the profession that you will have to work with. A guess what, thet even means those people with arts degrees, and us lowly Biologists.

My department (and it is mine in the meaning of where I work, I'm not the head of department) average is 75% A to C grades. My personal* average runs about half as good again as the school average(calculated in a dfferent way), so I do as well as the department. But we do this in three ways.

One. the department is largly made up of highly dedicated teachers who give of their best

Two. The department is well led by an imaginative, keen, intellegent (dare I say it, biologist), who makes sure that internal dicipline is well run

Three. We use those terrible Apllied science courses that you snear at.

You see, when you give children appropriate work, in things that they stand some chance of succeding at, they tend to work and do well.

As yourself tis DC, how many things do you choose to do each day that you are crap at? Chances are, as an adult almost none. But we inforce work on children when we, and they, know they can't do it. So every day the poor little buggers come into school and see that they are 'dummies' (to use your oh so caring and respectful word). Eventually they realise that accademic sucess is never going to be theirs. And so they act up. After all, far better to fail because you are 'hard' and a bit of a lad (ette) than because you are thick) yes? Saves face for them you see.

On the other hand you can give them courses where they can do well. I realise that we are not training scientists for top end science jobs. But science education isn't all about that is it? You fear the encroachment of creationism (not taught in my lab, and over my dead body btw), and the nest way to make sure that people don't mistake it for sceince is to teach them well at school.

And for some children a low level examonation is the way to sort this. there are some children who cannot even aspite to Foundation level science as it stands. But as long as the government insists they should be in mainstream (something that i disagree wit for soe of them) and as long as science is compulsolry, we should have the ability to teach them things they have some chance of understanding.

Ps I don't pretend a higher status, I'm damn good at my job, and know considerably more about science education in schools han you do. Because it is my job, and not yours.

Xenia - about your earlier point - what do you find wrong about some children doing A-levels and others the IB?

?I'm damn good at my job?

I have trouble with MB?s self-congratulatory statements as her postings usually contain numerous typing or spelling mistakes (this time there are 23!). If she can make howlers on basic stuff like this then I start to wonder which of her other pronouncements are also misguided.

Oh, sorry darling. you see I can't spell. Which is why I spell check all my lessons,and put them up on the computer, because my hand writing is also dreadful.

I can correct their science spellings, and do so.

You don't like me much, do you?

Oh, and since you need froom, my school expects our kids to make 1.1 progress through KS3, my kids last year made 1.6. We expect KS4 to male 1.0, mine made 1.7. Last year I more than doubled the uptake of children doing AS biology from 20 to 45. (I had taught them at GCSE)

So my kids do rather well. I am a good teacher, and in fact I am asked to lecture to the specialist schools trust.

I can't spell. I can't type, my modern forign language skills are crap and I'm very bad at parking. There are 1001 things that I can't do, but I really can teach.

I don't particulatrly care if you like to mock the fact that I can't spell (though in fact my typing is to blame for much of the time) since as a professional I make sure that my lessons are spell checked. I'm just not too bothered about MN.

"Xenia - about your earlier point - what do you find wrong about some children doing A-levels and others the IB?"

It's confusing. One of my daughter's schools - North London Collegiate did if some girls chose, the IB the year after she left. They got more girls into Oxbridge than ever before or certainly a lot anyway. It looked like there might be some pro IB bias of the universities because of how the grading was worked so didn't seem fair to me. Also when I went into the sixth form I adored giving up loads of subjects and just concentrating on a very few I loved. It would be awful to have to keep so many up in the sixth form. I liked early specialisation. You have more time to go into things in more depth.

sorry, proof...that was a typo

Hmm... I didn't do either A-levels or the IB but another school leaving exam, where I had 14 subjects in the equivalent of the lower sixth and eleven in the equivalent of the upper sixth. All subjects were not taught to the same (totally hypothetical) level as at A-level.

When I went to university in the UK the breadth of my education at school proved to be a huge advantage. I wasn't quite as well trained at essay writing as the post A-level students but this proved very easy to remedy. However, the advantages of the breadth of education I received meant that I sailed through my course (First with distinction) and went on to work and study in a type of environment that UK arts graduates typically don't manage to.

So I don't buy the "depth" argument. I think that you get a better overall education by studying a full range of subjects (with some emphasis on your personal strong points) until 18.

The reason the IB is popular with universities is that post-IB students are better prepared for university study than post-A-level students. So I think that all school pupils who could benefit from it (it is difficult, more difficult than most, if not all, national school leaving examinations) ought to be offered the IB.

"You don't like me much, do you?"

I don't like the fact that you can't be bothered to spell or type properly: it is disrespectful to your readers and implies a slapdash attitude. You diminish what you say by how you say it. Everyone makes some mistakes but you seem to make more than most (Cod excepted).

I feel that the IB has a lot to offer. A braod education beeing a good idea, as a general rule, and will aloow children to put their area of specialism into a greater world context. I find the lack of general knowledge in children somewhat alarming.

I like my kids to put science within a historical, geopolitical, etc context. makes for better learning ime.

hard cheese then. Beacuse I don't have the time or the inclination to change. People will have to take me as they find me. And being able to make pot shots at my spelling may entertain some, while it doesn't bother me.

Didn't hinder my academic studies either.

And in fact, being able to point out the odd mistake, can actually help children who have to deal with things like dylslexia and dyspraxia. makes them realise that not being able to spell doen't mean you are 'thick' and can actually be good at something.

I take great care over my lessons. ATM I am delevloping a Wiki space for my sixth form, I also have a message board for the. I take my job very seriously and make a lot of effort to make sure my kids get the best I can give them. I keep up to date on the latest pedagogical research. I lecture to other teachers particularly on the use of ICT in teaching. (
MN is something I do in my sapre time. Sorry I don't impress you, but TBH, that isn't why I post on MN

Yes, but you get that width from age 5 to 16 up the GCSEs and then you do less. We seem to be pushing children to study for longer and longer. Why not just concentrate the width of topics up to 16 and then let them study what they choose to study? I don't like the US broad UK degree equivalent stage either. Prefer at 18 you pick your topic and again do it in depth and stick with it.

Not sure if agree with that Xiena. One of the brightest kids I ever taught at St Andrews university did psychology as her 3rd option. She had entered as a modern linguist. During her first year of study she because utterly absorbed in the science, took it has her main degree, then went on to do a Phd, trained as a doctor and is now a first rate psychiatrist.

Sometimes flexibility can be helpful. I prefer the Scotish system because it doesn't force children to decide too soon

May be. I know it's hard to know what you're going to like. One of my daughters did mostly science A levels but I'm not sure that was right for her and I think she probably now regrets it. I do think not all children want a lot of subjects. It often means more exams and more work too and there's more than enough of that as it is without making them going more. Bad enough having to do 4 AS levels in lower sixth and exams then when we only had to do 3 A levels and exams in the last year.

My father read a physics degree and only after graduating read medicine and became a psychiatrist but I don't think doing a broader degree originally would help - you just waste more time and money and put off starting your life and have more debt. We don't want to get like the Germans doing exams until 30s etc.

Xenia - I walked into GCE O-levels aged 14 and 15 at the British Council in Brussels in the early 1980s and came away with straight As having done no specific preparation at all (my school curriculum was totally different). So I wasn't left with a lasting impression that O-levels were very demanding, and the general consensus in the media seems to be that UK schools standards for 15/16 year olds have not risen and may have fallen in the past 25 years.

The globalisation of education, which is happening right now, isn't going in the direction of A-level type specialisation at 16-18.

Xenia - I completely agree that we don't want people studying until they are 30 - that is an economically unsustainable model that all so-called developed countries need to address as a matter of urgency.

What we need is for our education system to be optimised so that children learn as much as possible as painlessly as possible at the time that it is easiest for them to assimilate any particular field of human experience.

That is why I am so happy my daughter will go to a school where she will be starting her fourth language aged 11 - languages are really easy to learn when one is young, hard to learn later.

Quite. I would have thought that our role as teachers was to make sure that all children made the maximum progress, regardless of their 'level'. In fact, as a teacher, the greatest job satisfaction come from teaching the children who struggle most.

The shame is our education system isn't flexible enough to cater for the needs of such children, and reward all progress in an appropriate manner.