Education

Well I am trying Greatnan. I would really like to find out why people think rote learning and strict chronology is the right way to teach young children history and exactly how they would go about it with a mixed ability class. I think people often focus on teaching without thinking about how children learn. I have just spent a week visiting historical sites with two of my grandchildren. The seven year old is an able child who could tell you masses about the Romans. I don't think she could place them on a timeline with absolute accuracy at the moment, but she will have a huge amount of understanding of the way they lived when she does develop a more sophisticated chronology.

I ^ still Don"t ^ what exposition of the pedagogy means .

Makes one wonder if the poster knew herself , or was she just using big words , she didn"t really know the meaning of .

Bless [oh in some circles , it is said I musn"t use that }

Pedagogy: the method and practice of teaching, especially as an academic subject or theoretical concept.
Exposition: setting forth of the meaning or purpose.
Yes I know what it means nonu.

Well, that came straight out of an online dictionary!

But I'm sure you did know.

It's not me who's hi-jacking the thread!

I find dictionaries are very useful for explaining things simply. If you want the long version then that would indeed be possible.

Mamie; did you teach in primary schools? Is so there's something I'd like to ask you opinion about but would have to pm it [it's a bit personal].

Of course Tegan. Teacher, adviser and inspector of schools if that helps.

Thanks; I'll send you a pm [it's about something that happened today at my grandson's school].

Mamie, I was not advocating rote learning of dates - I have had success with timelines with my remedial pupils. They were always surprised to see how little time man had been on earth. I do think that it would be better if children, however young, knew that the Romans predated the Saxons , and how the civilisation they left fell largely into disrepair. Just picking out a period and not relating to what came before and after seems a wasted opportunity.

I used to love learning things by heart at school and [bit sad, me] used to read encyclopedias and learn 'worlds longest rivers, highest mountains' etc. Wish I could still do that now..would be great for pub quizzes and suchlike.

There should, of course, be references back to previous eras - like the style of the houses that were built when easier travel abroad meant that wealthy people came back after beingimpressed by the remains of Roman architecture. Mentioning something like that almost in passing gives a hint that the Romans came well before the people building a lot of our stately homes.

Tegan, you are not alone. I used to read Atlases instead of Enid Blyton. And I still know hundreds of poems off by heart, and speeches from Shakespeare. The only use to which I have been able to put most of my knowledge is in trivial quizzes!

I'm good at quizzes too, but it comes from very wide reading where, I think, you pick up things by a sort of osmosis. So I know a lot of facts, but don't necessarily understand all of them - for example I could say what a scientific term is, but not know much about the subject. Great for quizzes, but not much else.

Going back a few pages on this thread - yes, there are schemes where QTS (Qualified Teacher Status) can be obtained by learning on the job. The Graduate Teacher Programme is one example; I have trained and assessed many successful teachers on this route.

Trouble is I'm starting to forget all the poems and speeches and rivers which worries me a bit .

My uncle bought me an atlas and got me to learn all the world's capitals on which he would quiz me weekly. I have taught certain Shakespeare plays so often that I seem to have quotes for all occasions - sometimes biblical ones as well. Greatnan I read Enid Blyton as well as my atlas and dictionary.

My uncle bought me an atlas and got me to learn all the world's capitals on which he would quiz me weekly. I have taught certain Shakespeare plays so often that I seem to have quotes for all occasions - sometimes biblical ones as well. Greatnan I read Enid Blyton as well as my atlas and dictionary.

I wonder why, if schools do such a good job and resist change, the CBI is calling for it? Why do employers find school leavers, in some instances, unemployable? Is the objective for an education to find worthwhile employment and if so, why not heed what employers want? Why does it feel that teachers resist change, not for the childrens' sake, but for their own?

Probably many posters were lucky enough to go to Grammar schools, I was. I remember from another thread, many had sent their children, for whatever reason, to private schools, I did.

Michael Gove appears to be moving in the right direction, I do not understand the total negativity regarding this. There is no requirement for him to have prior teaching experience for goodness sake. It's politics, he has a team and hopefully they consult both within the educationalists and with industry.

I've no doubt there will be howls of protest from all the retired/current teachers on here which I will read with interest.

It goes without saying that I do realise that there are good, inspirational teachers and it certainly isn't a job I would want to do. My question really is who knows the best curriculum, the teachers or potential employers? If the two don't agree, then what is the point of an education?

Just one example Sel: When I was a young advisory teacher for information technology a local businessman gave me his views. You must, he said, teach the children to program in MS DOS because that is the future. I use that example, because I think it demonstrates the difference between a narrow, skills-based view of education and the wider meaning of the word. Learning to be critical and competent users of ICT yes: one out of date programming language no.
I don't actually hear unanimity from "business" on this one. A friend who runs a very successful business was telling me the other day about how impressed he is with the skills and wider knowledge of recent recruits. Of course, he said, you have to recognise that the world has moved on and things have changed from some of the things that we thought were important. I suspect many people don't recognise this, which may also account for some of the problems British business has suffered from in the past.
Re chronology. Yes, timelines are helpful. However a secondary age child with special needs is not the same as a young child making sense of the world. Until you have enough historical pegs on which to hang your understanding, you will not really be able to place Romans, Saxons, Greeks in any order. A spiral is probably a more useful concept than the idea of linear understanding. You have to revisit, learning more each time you return.
I don't know how others "see" historical time. I have a picture (based I think on a childhood visit to Madame Tussaud). A long line, turn left after Henry VIII, left again after Mary Tudor and sharp right in 1900. Works for me!

The huge problem in this country is that business has, for the most part, totally forgotten or can't be bothered with its duty to provide proper, rigorous apprenticeships. There was a time when young school leavers would apply to big companies (Rolls Royce was just one example from the 60s) and they would train young people to a very high skill level. A successfully completed RR apprenticeship was the equivalent to a 2:2 degree.

Sadly, many employers now expect the education system, into which they invest nothing, to provide them with fully trained, biddable, submissive and expendable employees.

One of the reasons for Germany's economic success is that employers there are much more aware of their responsibilities and take their proper part in training and education.

There needs to be a sea change in attitude from many employers. If they look after their work force they will be repaid with loyalty and efficiency. John Lewis would be one example.

And as for 'who knows the best curriculum, teachers or employers' my heart sinks at a mindset that only sees education as providing fodder for the workplace. That is 'training' but education teaches people how to think, how to question, how to challenge. But Gove don't want that, does he? Or at least, not for the proletariat. Neither does he want the proletariat to have drama, music, dance, art or, indeed anything which enhances life. That is to be reserved for the elite.

I think another problem is that people always look for the negatives when they talk about young people. "They can't do xyz like I could at their age". (Did anyone watch Maureen Lipman on memory and its tricks?)
I am always amazed about how (some) Gransnetters talk so much about perceived problems in young people without relating it to their direct experience of their grandchildren. I remember starting a thread asking people about their grandchildren's experience of education. There were a few negative views, but the vast majority were positive. My granddaughters in the UK have loved the historical topics they have done and can tell you lots about the things they have learned. Do other grandparents not have the same enjoyment of their excitement and enthusiasm about mummies, Roman baths and evacuation? Are people too busy worrying that the children don't know Ethelred's precise dates or the details of the heptarchy?

It is somewhat worrying that Michael Gove is pressing ahead with his changes to the national curriculum in spite of the recommendations of those he consulted about it. He does appear to have some kind of fixation that probably relates to the way he was taught on the wonderfully logical basis of "It never did me any harm…"

Is the idea that education is exclusively for the purpose of preparing children to join an adult workforce slightly to the left of Marx politically? Karl, that is, not Groucho.

Just to clarify - I am not suggesting for one minute that children should not have a good understanding of the chronology of historical events. Of course they should and it should not just be about kings, queens and battles. I am simply arguing that starting with ancient history for five year olds and working through in strict chronological order is not the way to promote understanding, interest or enthusiasm. This is about how young children learn.
The existing history curriculum is not about a series of disconnected events. It wasn't perfect, but it was the result of practice, modification, discussion and understanding of how children learn. The new one does not have this basis.

You are correct, Mamie. And those of us with grandchidren will know how slowly the sense of chronology develops.

I have always felt that the study of history should begin with the children's own locality. Going out and carefully observing the built and natural landscape, and asking questions about how and why what is there, came to be there. Who built it? Who farmed it? Why was it built? What purpose did it serve? And so on. As the children get older their locality and region widens and then they will increasingly see the interconnectedness of things.

It's asking questions and know where and how to find the answers that makes a good historian. Not being the passive recepticle of 'facts' or received wisdom from on high.