Keep politicians out of education.

O for goodness sake Bags I have not called anyone names. If you wish to think of the word denier as a rude name that is your problem.

have noticed that on some occassions people manage to post the same message twice

How does that happen ? [just curious] emoticon

Added emphasis?

Well ok ...but still don't know how they manage it?

I don't know either?

Well, come on CC ...you managed it!!

lol carbon I read 'denier' as in tights and wondered what on earth that had to do with the conversation.

Oh don't blooming hijack our education thread you two! Enough already. Please!
Science begins with being interested in the world and how it works, observing more closely and then starting to measure it. And with lots and lots of questions - Why is the sky blue? Why is it dark in the night?
Maybe Gove is right on this one (though I cringe, I do, to admit it). My GS aged 4 noticed every spiders web and bug as he walks along he road and (i know i have put this once on GN before) announced recently "I love you mother nature" .His sister at that age used to know that clouds were made of water vapour. At the moment, aged 7, she wants to be a zoologist. I hope they will grow up to be scientists of some kind.
So we may go back to the nature walk as a valid lesson - oh and the nature table - do you remember them?
Jane Goodall used to spend hours and hours watching hens as a child. Weird - but it prepared her for months of chimp watching.
Not sure how well todays primary teachers are equipped to deal with free flow curiosity about the bushes, trees and bugs? Not been part of the training for a while.
I remember a friend of mine, doing her BEd as a mature student, telling this story:
College of education you should picture, on top of a hill. Students sitting outside during lunch hour. Duck walks past.
Ed Student 1: How did that GET here?
Ed student 2 (my friend): Flew, I suppose.
Ed student 1 : Do ducks FLY!!?? I never knew that!

Yes, other people did too on a previous occasion, and an amusing exchange followed.

The fact remains, carbon, that the scientific methods starts with and depends on observations of nature, and the recordings thereof, so how can a proposal that children start their science education with observations of nature (which they do anyway in all the schools I've had to do with; check out the national curriculum and you'll see too) be not teaching them the scientific method? Perhaps you are thinking of creationist establishments? Although it has been decreed in law, I believe, that creationism cannot be taught as fact in British schools.

Were you taught the scientific method?

Sorry feetee... crossed post with jess's.

jess, infant teachers deal with "free flow" nature, nature walks and nature tables all the time! Where've you been if you think it,s not included in their training?

So loved taking the gs on nature walks when they were young and doing scavenger hunts with them!! Happy days

'health and safety' now ...every child has to wash hands as soon as handled something ...where is the pleasure in that?? Even a simple nature walk around the school grounds ...goes with the mantra of 'don't touch'

Still do nature walks and scavenger hunts with Cubs too. We make them wash their hands before touching food, but we ain't fussed otherwise. Neither are they. Besides, there is usually enough rain on the grass to wash one's hands naturally around here !

Parents keep saying how much they like our down to earth approach

Some of them found a lizard in their tent last weekend and brought it to show me. It was lovely.

Now that Bags is what learning is all about!! Wonderful That is something they'll never forget.

Handwashing is overrated!

After using the loo and b4 food are my only absolutes for kids. On the occasions we visit farms I make an exception and wash as we leave the farm!

I'm glad it's not just me FeeTee. I always think of tights.

Have to say that I'm now in the habit of carrying one of those hand gels in my handbag these days ...especially having been on a cruise where something was rife!!

I was quoting from The Guardian: reforms to the national curriculum unveiled by Michael Gove......"children will be encouraged to learn science by studying nature, and schools will be expected to place less emphasis on teaching scientific method".
Of course, it goes without saying that studying nature is good. However observation is just not enough - things so very often are not as they seem. Understanding the scientific method is so so important. Start with observation but then measurement, experiment, hypothesis, testing, predictions and so on.
It is so important to question everything and there are processes to go through before something can be thought to be scientific (or true). I think people's misunderstanding of science is a big problem in today' world.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Or read Popper

Where have I been bags ? in secondary that's where.
I will ask my mate who is a Year 5 student if he gets to go on nature walks.
My DH at the age of 6 had a year in the Irish system, in a tiny village school in the furthest SW tip. They had one teacher, known throughout the village as "Batty O'...." and a wood fired stove. He used to send the entire school out collecting driftwood sometimes, presumably so he could have a nap.
He also once, famously, insisted to my SIL that there was "no such word as crockery". They call it "delft" over there.
Apparently the kids were more than a bit behind when they returned to England a year later.
However DH at least did recover and passed his 11+.

I agree about how important the scientific method is and would be very surprised if elements of it were not already on the national curriculum at all levels from infant classes upwards, which is why I'm a bit puzzled by the word "unveiled".

There was an interesting article about things not being what they seem recently, where an early Antarctic explorer (one of Scott's crew?) was perturbed by what he interpreted as the unnatural behaviour penguins. Newer interpretations make it seem perfectly natural. One can argue, of course, that anything natural things do is natural.

Anyway, yes, teach the scientific method. I'm all for that, starting with the wee ones observing and taking an interest in all that's around them in their natural environment, which is what they do naturally, at least in my experience.

Interpretations of the observations, especially when you're dealing with the more complex parts of nature that we don't fully understand yet are, as history shows, where problems arise. But rigorous application of the scientific method should, eventually, iron those out.

I suppose taking kids on nature walks and similar things could depend on where the school is. City schools have perhaps fewer opportunities than rural ones, but even cities have trees and parks and gardens and rivers...

I checked bags with my mate , Year 5.
"In year 3 we went on a trip to a forest and had to do a checklist about what colour bluebells were"
On probing he said: "Sometimes we go out and do something called ecoheroes and we get a glove and go round the school picking up litter and some people think it's cool but it is just a way of tricking us into picking up litter"
So no, I don't think nature walks are on the curriculum round here!

The recommendation from the Michael Gove "changes" to the curriculum that I struggle with is the one about learning the subjunctive in Year 6. Be that as it may, can anyone (without cheating) come up with six common uses of the subjunctive in English today?
I have used one already.
Subjunctivitis I reckon.

How many teachers know what it is? Even English teachers!