Jonesieblog

Here’s a wordle from all the blog posts listed in the Scotedublogs rss feed:

Stumble it!

The TIMSS (Trends in Mathematics and Science Study) 2007 report is out.  The headline news is that England has jumped up the ranking for performance in science and maths at P2 and S2, whilst Scotland has remained pretty much where it was back in 2003.

This is clearly not good news for any politician, but I was rather alarmed to hear Fiona Hyslop’s knee-jerk reaction that these figures called for urgent action.

Don’t we have a clear agenda in Scotland for progress in education, called A Curriculum for Excellence?  Doesn’t it say that we seek to develop 4 capacities in our young people?  Is it not inevitable that our attempt to develop these 4 capacities might result in our youngsters doing slightly less well in dry measurments of subject-based competencies?  Is aCfE not doomed if we launch into defensive action the first time a study suggests that this might be happening?

I am certain that the Latin skills of the average 16 year old in Scotland have declined dramatically since 1950.  I am equally certain that this is not a cause for concern.  Is anyone in power going to be brave enough to stand up and say that the same might be true of the TIMSS results?  If not, then their support for A Curriculum For Excellence is just so much hot air.

No teacher in Scotland should be complacent about the numeracy and science skills of our young people.  They matter a great deal.  But we should pause to reflect before acting.

Stumble it!

Terry Freedman (http://terry-freedman.org.uk/) and Miles Berry (http://milesberry.net) are presenting at the BETT show (on the Saturday, see http://www.bettshow.com/page.cfm/action=Seminars/SeminarID=64) for the BCS, exploring children’s informal learning outside the classroom and what implications this might have for  teachers and schools. As well as a literature review and some case studies, they’ve also put together a quick google-form based survey (see http://edtechuk.net ) to get some quantitative data of our own.

Stumble it!

This post is going to read like I’ve had a complaint!  I haven’t had any negative comments in fact, but on reflection I’ve decided that my last post could be construed as an attack on the motives of educational gurus, and I didn’t mean it to be one. So…

As I said, I believe that enduring inequalities in the education system present a more pressing case for change than the fact that society needs different things from young people than it did 60 years ago.

In my presentation of this position, I may have seemed to suggest that educational gurus are not concerned about redressing social inequalities.  This is certainly not the case.  Stephen Heppell, for example, chairs The Inclusion Trust, which is making a real difference to the lives of disadvantaged youngsters.

With that caveat added, I’m happy to stand by my words!

Stumble it!

I guess that most teachers would agree, deep down, that schools represent a far from ideal solution to the education of young people. They are institutions - institutions which struggle to cater for the individual needs of young people and in which it is all too easy for the suffering of individuals to be overlooked. These are systemic problems, which persist despite the hard work and dedication of those employed in schools at all levels.

Ever was it thus.

If you listened to a certain brand of education gurus, you might imagine that there was once a time when schools represented a perfect solution, and that it is only now, as the digital generation passes through school into a digital society, that schools and the “factory education” that they offer are failing to provide young people with what they need.

Rubbish! The profound failings of schools have nothing to do with the nature of the current generation of students, and nothing to do with the kinds of careers that young people will be pursuing once they leave school. The inadequacies of school education are broadly the same today as they were in 1950. In 1950, schools were institutions in which the socially advantaged did better than the socially disadvantaged, and in which those with additional support needs often gained very little indeed.

Are we not still wrestling with these same problems? And are these problems not more deserving of our attention than the fact that wee Kevin may find school somewhat less of a rush than playing Call of Duty? Didn’t wee Kevin in 1950 similarly find school less of a rush than playing football and fighting in the playground?

I do value the opinions of those who choose to observe, analyse and imagine rather than to work in classrooms day-to-day. Education needs these people. But many of them are picking entirely the wrong issue as their rallying call for change in education.

Stumble it!