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.

martianbishop - I think it is impossible to argue against the ideal of an education system that enables every child to reach its maximum potential, whatever his or her inherent strengths and weaknesses.

In fact, the UK education model is quite flexible by international standards.

true , in terms of the dreaded NC even. But I don't like the 'you must decide what you want to be at the age of 16' ness of the UK system.

People do change their minds, and by that time the education has often shoehorned them into Arts Or Science or Humanities tracks.

I like the IB because it reduces this.

I don't think that the UK education system puts enough value into alternative, or applied, vocational types of education. If it isn't academic it most often isn't valued.

I agree with you entirely about the IB. I think it's a huge improvement on A-levels. At least in the UK the IB is a valued alternative. Here in France it would be a brave soul who decided to opt out of the French baccalaureate in favour of the IB.

As for the issue of not valuing vocational skills and qualifications, I fear that that is also an international issue, not solely a UK one. Far too many people go to university these days when they would be better off doing a really good vocational training.

Agree again

I find it so disheartening to see kids view themselves as failing because they cannot conform to a set of preconceptions about what education is all about.

And then, ironically, we all moan about the lack of good well trainied plumbers, carpenters etc etc.

Go figure!

What do you think can and should be done about correcting those pre(mis)conceptions?

Do you think it is an issue for governments?

Christie- I spent last monday morning in ds1's SLD/PMLD school filming his class (6-8 year olds). What a wonderful place! I was very impressed by how much they did, and how well they all coped with having a camera aimed at them all morning.

I was thinking about you whilst I was in there- it must be job that to some extent brings its own rewards, but what a lot of work. Very impressed.

I am deeply sceptical of the ability of government to help. First of all, they aren't exactly keen on science, but even if they were, the time has largely passed for action.

My school had actually rather good training for us working class kids. We were taught carpentry, metalwork, and as I recall the work on fibre glass fabrication made us sought after. This was backed up by technical drawing, and the ongoing projects to keep the school vehicles on the road.
The school had excellent links to local manufacturers, and placed a useful % of kids directly.
But it was all very working class, and that's not where we wanted to be. In retrospect, it must have broken the teachers hearts when in a matter of a couple of years, the kids refused to do their subjects bit time.

There was a vicious circle that "practical" subjects were seen as for the dim kids, which meant that only the dimmer kids wanted to do it.
British manufacturing died because it became so amazingly unattractive to smrater people. It's run by dim people who'd rather be on a golf course, who visibly cringe if spoken to be an engineer.

There is a shortage of plumbers etc partly because of this wave which happened at about the same time across the country.
Kids get very bad careers advice, and that's doubly true for girls, so they often simply don't know that a decent living may be had in manual trades.
Phrased like that, it sounds easy to fix, but this has been true for 30 years.

DC - I am shocked by your opinion "the time has largely passed for action".

There can, to my mind, NEVER be a case for it being "too late" in matters of society.

How can a country maintain and improve its relative wealth and standard of living if we adopt fatalistic attitudes to social progress?

I think there should be more liason between the Dfes and industry to find out exactly what industry needs from the education system.

If industry has been involved in the process I feel that they will be more likely to accept the value of the qualifications, and not see them as qualifications for 'dummies' (sic). this could put forward the 'different but equal' ethos that we need.

And as well as being helpful to industry this wil stop kids feeling like failures because they don't get on wth the 'trad' academic route through school.

The boys who first took the Applied science GCSE wiith us did very well, exceptionally well compared to their performance in other subjects. This did so because they could see how the examoniation worked, could make small improvements that built up their portfolio standard until they got CC passes. This helped them to get into FE collage to go down the various routes of their choosing, mostly hands on , vocational stuff.

Had they stayed in the Academic GCSE stream they would have got Es and Fs, and the collage wouldn't have taken them. In addition they would have become (more) disruptive. As it was, giving them the right course improved their behaviour beyond recognition.

MB - thank you.

Again, I think that the issue of discrepancy between what is taught at school (and beyond) and the skills that employers actually need people to have is international.

I am sure that governments have a role to play, but I also feel that employers are not taking enough responsibility and initiative of their own to offer educational opportunities to school-age children.

I would be very, very happy to send my teenage children to, for example, a John Lewis sponsored summer camp, where they could learn about the business model and the skills they need to acquire to work in high-performance retail.

In the UK now to get into university you need to show you've done some work experience in holidays etc. But that's only the 50% who go to university. I think some employers do sponsor a lot of things in schools too. A lot of employers would be pretty glad if 16 year olds could spell and add up to the standards we want 11 year olds to have actually. It's almost a primary school issue as much as secondary.

Anna8888, I did'nt like writing it.
I am not fatalistic, just realistic.

The unwavering hostility in Britain to science has damaged it fatally.
Look how many MNers genuinely believe in homoeopathy, how the BBC can get away with such garbage as it's "science" programme "Horizon".

Look at the newsletter or brochure for your school. What % of that is sport and what % science ?
Did you even think to question that ?

If French and German were to be merged into a single subject called "foreign" would you think something amiss ?
Think of the last scientist you saw portrayed on TV, and honestly answer me that you want your kid to grow up like that ?

I'm not terribly excited about the idea of employers sponsoring things in school, actually. I'd be far more excited about them sponsoring activities totally unrelated to school, where they could get children into a different mindset entirely.

I think the language analogy shows how little you understand how Science is taught in schools. In fact, they are 'lumped together' - as modern foreign languages. Does that mean they are taught at the same time, in the same lesson? Of course not. The timetable may say 'Science', but the National Curriculum itself divides into three disciplines. Bizarrely they are not called Biology, Chamistry and Physics, but that is what they are. Teachers are generally recruited as specialists in one of the three. And yes, there is of course a shortage of Physics tachers, as there is a shortage of Physics graduates, and teaching is not always seen as an appealing postgraduate option, but in all the schools I have taught in, children were taught by specialists from GCSE up.

A research project Christie.

DC

I don't live in England but in France, where science has a higher profile ("pays d'ingénieurs) in education.

People all over the globe, including in France, believe all sorts of rubbish that flies in the face of all scientific evidence to the contrary. Anti-cellulite creams? Herbal appetite suppressants? Astrology? Graphology? All rife here and huge money-spinners, to name just a few examples.

I certainly am not fatalistic or defeatist, even in the face of such stupidity.

And what would employers sponsor outside school ?
Sport.
And perhaps a bit of more sport, and if they were criticised for sponsoring too much sport they'd sponsor Golf.
They'd be quite rational to do so.
British parents care more about sport than science, so they'd get more kudos for that.

DC - I just can't hack such a defeatist attitude. Where would humanity be if we all gave up?

Annaa888, that is why banks in London pay me good money to find French science graduates who are seen as vastly better than British ones.

Interestingly enough the French deal with "foreign" kids better than Britain's openly racist under resourcing of schools with too many coloured kids in it.
The effect is so profound that even though we're based in London we have more French/Algerians on our "smart" list than Cambridge graduates.

ditto becky. We have the same situation. wherever posible, and it isn't always because of the national shortage of Physics teachers, all our children are taught by subject specialists. they are all taught biology by biologists and chemistry by chemists at GCSE. Over 50% of our GCSE students are taught physics by physicists. All AS and A2 courses are taught by specialists.

We do teach all 3 at ks3, but tbh all the staff are more than up to that.

In fact my physics ks3 lessons tend to be better than some of my biology ones at that level

Just because it is called 'science' doesn't make it generic. Understanding the curriculum and examination specification make this quite clear.

The lack of phsycists is a problem which the government has to address.

I feel I should make the point that Scotland has a different exam system to England and many of the posts are lumping them together.

The Scottish system of Highers in a broad range of subjects affords a better choice of degree or career than the English system does, in that pupils normally study 6 or so Highers and usually keep both english and maths subjects as part of their choices. It also means that pupils can take three sciences separately and still have room for maths, english and possibly a foreign language.

At the day I signed up for my University course, I could have chosen to study any subject I wished (with the exeption only of any foreign language topics).

The length of time taken to study for most honours degrees in Scotland is longer (at 4years) which incorporates the extra year of studying that English pupils do for A-levels (highers are a one year course). This does mean that sometimes maturity is an issue on arriving at university a year earlier - although many do stay on at school for the extra year and do more highers and/or certificate of sixth year studies (Just a smidgeoun ahead of an A-level paper). Pupils who take this route usually always have a non-conditional offer for universities at the start of this year, which makes the final year at school very enjoyable, from my dim and distant memory

Anaa8888, humanity is doing just fine, and there was a time when Britain did a lot to make the world a better place.
That's not true any more.
Game over.
We lost.

already sung the praises of the Scotish system, feel it is a lot better, particularly the flexibility of the University education.

Oops - missed that MB!