# Teaching > General Teaching >  Conservatives to return to traditional teaching methods.

## Paulclem

Yesterday in The The Times I was reading that the Conservatives want to rewrite the National Curriculum and return to traditional teaching methods such as:

Learning poetry by heart
Reciting the Kings and Queens of England etc.

They want to use the advice of writers and the celebrity mathematician Carole Vordrman.

Themed lessons on Global warming and social issues are to be replaced with a return to traditional subjects. 

Moden languages are to be revived - presumably by making them compulsory again. 

Learning Blogging skills has been criticised.

What do you think?

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

I would like to return to some aspects of traditional teaching, or common sense as it could be termed, but seriously I think that this is just political spin and nothing will come of it either way. I think this is the article you were referring to:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7052100.ece

The way that it is worded suggests to me that these are just point scorers and not hard and solid definites of what would happen to the National Curriculum under the Conservatives. From what I have read and heard on the matter there would be very little real difference to state education under any of the parties. All of them support privatisation in the form of trusts and academies and all of them are due to cut funding!

----------


## Paulclem

> I would like to return to some aspects of traditional teaching, or common sense as it could be termed, but seriously I think that this is just political spin and nothing will come of it either way. I think this is the article you were referring to:
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7052100.ece
> 
> The way that it is worded suggests to me that these are just point scorers and not hard and solid definites of what would happen to the National Curriculum under the Conservatives. From what I have read and heard on the matter there would be very little real difference to state education under any of the parties. All of them support privatisation in the form of trusts and academies and all of them are due to cut funding!


It's the politicising of education that I don't like. The idea that one style of teaching stands for some kind of value - traditional, solid, British - when in fact anyone who is in education knows that you need a variety of styles under your belt to apply to different scenarios. 

It smacks of - back in the good old days - when in fact the results of the good old days was to have to fund a countrywide education for adults who really should have learned at school. Is it better today - well I'll be in a job for a while as an adult educator, but there is the fact that kids need to know a lot more stuff as well.

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

Yes, its just image and political spin unfortunately. On the surface they stand for solid traditional values, so they try to echo that image in education but its a lightweight proposal, well its not even a proposal just one mans wish list which I think is mentioned in the article. One of the only definite changes is in moving forward with the idea to privatise failing schools into academies. Weve been told that the bottom 100 schools in the country (of which I work for one according to the stats) will be immediately changed into academies, thereby selling off the schools into private hands. I cant see that this is going to make any difference at all. Many of the academies that have been set up have had no or little improvements in results, as if changing a schools name is going to make any difference.

Another proposal what they seem to be mentioning a lot at the moment is the idea of letting parents set-up their own schools if they are unhappy with the ones available now. Again, Im not exactly optimistic about this. It might seem like a good idea on the surface, but to me, by allowing parents to build their own schools and to take education into their own hands seems to be at bit extreme. Surely it is just easier to try to solve the existing problems as opposed to building new ones alongside the failing ones? It sounds like a cheap way out of admitting that they cant really solve the problems that already exist now but they are willing to pass the buck on to someone else.

----------


## neilgee

Why have children learn the kings and queens of England? The suggestion is that this is something most parents would agree with but this particular parent thinks it sounds like nostalgic nonsense, it rings of a longing for a "lost England" that seems to attract Tory politicians. I don't think this sort of stuff will help their cause at all.

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

I can see your point, but at the same time there is a pretty poor standard of general knowledge when it comes to things of this nature. I'm pretty sure that the majority of say, 13/14 years olds who I work with, wouldn't have a clue about any of the monarchs outside of Henry VIII - and I bet even a few of them haven't even heard of him! I wouldn't want to necessarily see them being made to stand up and recite the order of the monarchs from Alfred the Great by rote, but at the same time there are massive holes in secondary education  *please don't even mention literature*  that really needs filling, though the Conservatives arent going to fill it, that's for sure.

----------


## Paulclem

I think he Kings and Queens of England appeals to the public's memory of what they conceived school to be like. One of the problems with secondary education is that parents are consulted, but not really involved. The tribal kids are able to seperate home and school, whilst the teachers no doubt get an easier ride because there's less scrutiny and questioning of what they do. 

There's a lamentable lack of knowledge about education by the public, whereas everyone's been and so they assume that it is the same or similar to their own experience. The consequence of this is that the public is susceptible to cynical campaigns by politicians. Parents are busy wih work or other siblings, the kids don't want their parents involved, the teachers feel challenged by any kind of scrutiny. More openness. More scrutiny. More discussion and understanding. It should be like this because everyone wants standards to improve through a negotiated vision. 

Ok - I'll get off my soapbox.  :Biggrin:

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

Yes but I wouldnt want you to think that teachers arent scrutinised though by other parties because they are to an incredible degree. Work check scrutiny, marking scrutiny, ofstead observations, departmental observations, management observations and more are all part of the burden of teaching on a term basis. It is not a free ride by a long shot. For me there is far too much out of the hands of the individual teacher, too much teaching by little fad interventions which come with the wind, too much teaching to other peoples ideas and not enough common sense being allowed by people who are doing the teaching. 

Further to this, teaching now has been forced into trying to compete with instant entertainments and gratification. Most students (at least the ones I know) want to be constantly entertained, not educated. Of course the ideal is that you can do both at the same time, and you can, but education is a two-way process, a two-way interaction and sometimes the simple methods of repetition of essentials is called for and is the often a best option  at least to supplement more creative methods. I dont know though, perhaps learning by rote, by repetition, is against human rights or health and safety these days??? 

Now Ill get of _my_ soapbox. :Blush5:

----------


## MarkBastable

It's worth pointing out, I think, that 'celebrity mathematician Carol Vooderman' (born 1960, educated at a brand new comprehensive school in Clywd) belongs to precisely the generation of kids who were educated using the methods on which Tories now blame everything from poor adult literacy to increased sunspot activity.

----------


## Paulclem

Ok- soapbox out again.

Yes but I wouldn’t want you to think that teachers aren’t scrutinised though by other parties because they are to an incredible degree. Work check scrutiny, marking scrutiny, ofstead observations, departmental observations, management observations and more are all part of the burden of teaching on a term basis.

I understand and sypathise, but that's not what I had in mind. Most of the observers are part of the school/ ed system - somewhat locked into the school/ system.

What i meant was by other parties to really see what's going on in education, not as a challenge to teachers particularly. (Though you must know of the odd coaster). Do parents really understand what goes on in the classroom for example? If they don't, well how can their choices in the election or whatever for education be informed. How can they support their kids? All it does is help the kids who are avoiding/ disrupting/ not achieving get away with it easier. 

And is the school year sensible? I know we like the holidays, but how can any teacher teach, plan, meet, develop, buy, reflect, co-ordinate - and all the rest of it - in term time when they should be teaching, focusing on teaching and getting better at teaching? 

I'm not having a go at teachers - I'm having a go at the lack of vision and ideas that has landed us with the less than satisfactory system we have now. 

OK - away with the soapbox.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Paulclem

> It's worth pointing out, I think, that 'celebrity mathematician Carol Vooderman' (born 1960, educated at a brand new comprehensive school in Clywd) belongs to precisely the generation of kids who were educated using the methods on which Tories now blame everything from poor adult literacy to increased sunspot activity.


Did you see her on question time? I was less than impressed.

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

Yes I know you weren't having at go at teachers and I know what you meant, I just thought I'd have a turn on your soap box and air a few general things myself. 

In terms of your point though, I think in any walk of life the closer you get to the picture the worse it becomes.  :Banana: I'd hate to get behind the scenes in the NHS or see the wasted hours and the red tape that the emergency forces probably have to endure, I know that the level of abuse that these people take is rising significantly each year or any number of other things. At least with teaching there are regular parental meetings, phone calls home, open days etc, so that parents have some idea of what is going off, more than we do in other areas of public service.

----------


## Wilde woman

Interesting discussion going on here. I've noticed that everyone replying here is from the UK, so let me throw in my two cents as an American.




> Learning poetry by heart
> Reciting the Kings and Queens of England etc.


From what I experienced in American schools, memorization (and esp. recitation) are disparaged. As a tutor, I've seen students who literally cannot remember what I told them ten seconds ago. So from a personal standpoint, I would like to see more memorization, particularly in reciting poetry. I guarantee that none of my students could recite a single poem by heart. I understand that poetry is not a standard my which we can measure educational effectiveness, but it astounds me how little students actually KNOW. 

Case in point, I tutored a student during finals week who could not tell me who America fought in the American Revolution. She guessed..."France???" And I felt myself die a little inside.




> Modern languages are to be revived - presumably by making them compulsory again.


Are modern languages not compulsory in the UK? My students usually have to take two years worth of foreign language to graduate, but that's just according to state requirements. (I don't know what the nation requires.) But languages are taught very badly in America; most of my students don't even learn English grammar in their schools anymore. It's sad, but I too learned most of my grammar from taking a foreign language class - in my case, Latin. (Also a language rarely taught anymore.)

----------


## Nightshade

Just bout the kings and queens of england, last year I had a kid come looking for a book for a project on Edward II son of Henry VIII!  :Yikes:  
I spent a good 15 minutes trying to figure out if she meant Edward II or Henry VIII's son (whose number escapes me 6 I think) because she was insiting scotland was somehow involved. Eventually I told her mum rigt here is something on each and you need to figure this out but I am betting that its Tudors as that is generally what primary kids do!

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

> From what I experienced in American schools, memorization (and esp. recitation) are disparaged. As a tutor, I've seen students who literally cannot remember what I told them ten seconds ago. So from a personal standpoint, I would like to see more memorization, particularly in reciting poetry. I guarantee that none of my students could recite a single poem by heart. I understand that poetry is not a standard my which we can measure educational effectiveness, but it astounds me how little students actually KNOW. 
> 
> Case in point, I tutored a student during finals week who could not tell me who America fought in the American Revolution. She guessed..."France???" And I felt myself die a little inside.


Totally agree with your points and observations. It seems to me that common sense is almost totally lacking from the majority of state institutions with is reflected in student knowledge. Once I was talking about Italy (rather dreamily) and one student asked me if it was in France?!? Italy? I mean what?  :Mad2:  It's not even funny.

 :Rant: 
Technology is a wonderful thing, but so are the "old, boring" methods such as memorisation and recital - you know those old boring methods that actually work! If students aren't hooked up to computers every 5 minutes they can't even function today it seems - and don't even mention mobile phones... 





> Are modern languages not compulsory in the UK? My students usually have to take two years worth of foreign language to graduate, but that's just according to state requirements. (I don't know what the nation requires.) But languages are taught very badly in America; most of my students don't even learn English grammar in their schools anymore. It's sad, but I too learned most of my grammar from taking a foreign language class - in my case, Latin. (Also a language rarely taught anymore.


They are compulsory from ages 11-13 only and optional after that. However, I suspect that most of them can just about manage to say "bonjour" and count to three after those years. And "grammar" and "Latin" what are they, places in Africa?

I need to lay down...

Edit: Ha, ha just read your comment about mobile phones in the other thread.

----------


## Wilde woman

> Further to this, teaching now has been forced into trying to compete with instant entertainments and gratification. Most students (at least the ones I know) want to be constantly entertained, not educated. Of course the ideal is that you can do both at the same time, and you can, but education is a two-way process, a two-way interaction and sometimes the simple methods of repetition of essentials is called for and is the often a best option  at least to supplement more creative methods.


Exactly! I know teachers, mostly of history and English, who show movies in class all day long. Their defense: it's a creative method of teaching. Now, I'm not opposed to showing films in class, but there has to be a TEACHING component to it. There are some English teachers who show film adaptations INSTEAD of having their students read the corresponding novel.

I've tried to discuss the Iliad or Odyssey with students whose only knowledge of Classics came from movies like "Troy" and "300".  :Rolleyes5:  And then we wonder why so many students are barely literate.

Whatever happened to good old-fashioned reading? Even when teachers do assign novels, it seems as though they never read them in class; they just assign chapters and the students have to do it for homework. If teachers would have students read aloud in class and ask them to summarize "in plain English" what they'd just read, I think it would become glaringly obvious that their reading level is not up to par.

----------


## Emil Miller

_I would like to return to some aspects of traditional teaching, or common sense as it could be termed, but seriously I think that this is just political spin and nothing will come of it either way._

All to true. If the Conservatives really intended to do anything about it, they would have pitched in when the loony liberals started their nonsense years ago.The first prerequisite of learning anything is mental and, if necessary, physical discipline from which all else follows. If pupils enjoy what they are doing that's a plus, if not, they are still learning the most important lesson of all:that life isn't an endless round of fun and games.

----------


## Scheherazade

> The first prerequisite of learning anything is mental and, if necessary, physical discipline from which all else follows. If pupils enjoy what they are doing that's a plus, if not, they are still learning the most important lesson of all:that life isn't an endless round of fun and games.


Such a shame in the 21st century we don't teach that way, eh?

 :Rolleyes5:

----------


## Emil Miller

> Such a shame in the 21st century we don't teach that way, eh?


Yep the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

----------


## Paulclem

The examples given in my original post about reciting the Kings and Queens and learing poetry by heart are really signifiers of the belief that retuning to the "Good old days" will solve current educational problems. This is what people of a certain age remember about education, and I think Brian may well be one of those misty eyed about the past.

You might think that I'm againt learning thigs by rote, but I'm not. It is one tool in a teacher's box, and in fact there are far better methods of learning stuff such as Tony Buzan's methods which use creative thinking. 

What I mean is the chalk and talk approach as envisaged by the article. Just chalk and talk? There are lots of ways of teaching, one of the least effective is just chalk and talk. It doesn't engage after a certain amount of time.


Exactly! I know teachers, mostly of history and English, who show movies in class all day long. Their defense: it's a creative method of teaching. Now, I'm not opposed to showing films in class, but there has to be a TEACHING component to it. There are some English teachers who show film adaptations INSTEAD of having their students read the corresponding novel.

I agree with this completely. Films/ videos have their place, and the internet is brilliant for the short sharp extract. The good teacher will use it as a stimulus to furher work of course.

My concern is that an attempt to place political spin upon methods merely limits the tools you have available. From what I've read on discussions from the US angle, the problems in schools are similar to UK schools. It just makes me laugh to think that people can contemplate a 50's solution to this century's challenges. In opposition to Brian, I think people learn better when they are engaged/ focused and -horror of horrors - enjoying it. The fact that our kids are less receptive to an education system based upon a 100 year old model is no surprise really. All the lessons of the past can supplement newer types of teaching, but we have to include the kid's new skills and abilities to supplement our tried and trusted methods. 

As a PS to the rote learning thing, I - an ailing 46 yr old - am convinced that using the computer every day has improved my memory - which is a chemical muscle. All the emails, logins, numbers etc that I work with every day work are staying in. Plus my historical uselessness with names is improving. Anecdotal, but as a skill - working.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Scheherazade

> Yep the proof of the pudding is in the eating.


Exactly.

Imagine how those students would have been without the current methods...

 :Tongue:

----------


## Paulclem

Looking back to the seventies, I don't think the kids then were any less aggressive, and perhaps they were more so. You just have to look at the football hooliganism which peaked in the 70s. 

I think a significant way in which kids today are different is that they do not so easily accept what is told them. I think this is positive. We want confident, questioning kids who are not just going to accept things. What goes along with that though is challenge and overconfidence. We have to find ways to deal with it. They still need an education that is effective and will help them to what they want. 

What will not help is some return to former methods. Parents - let alone teachers - won't have it. You hear things like bring back the cane and national service, as if these solved things in their time. Having the cane - or the strap at my Primary school - did not stop me getting into fights, which were not my fault by the way. They didn't stop anything. It was a simple consequence - the simple consequence being that the same kids got caned, and those who didn't get into trouble didn't. 

Similarly, the old schooling methods churned out kids for manual labour. 11+ clever kids to Grammar school and a profession. Others to a second class education and then factiory work. They need a lot more about them these days, because labour intensive industry won't be where they are working. 

Ooooo the soap box has been out tonight. Shall I stick it back in the cupboard now?  :Biggrin:

----------


## stlukesguild

I agree with Neely that there are a great many aspects of education that a more "conservative" or "traditional" methodology would surely improve... but I also share his suspicion that this is little more than a spin on a given politicized approach to what is being taught. In the US, a recent similar dialog is under way in response to efforts by conservatives in Texas to rewrite the curriculum:

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...e-curriculum/1

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...WrN1QD9EDD4EO0

Unfortunately it is this sort of concept of the purpose of education that I suspect is at the heart of any dispute regarding "progressive/liberal" vs "conservative/traditional" educational methodologies. 

What I am thinking of when I suggest that we may indeed need a return to certain "conservative" approaches to education is something along the lines of what was argued by E.D. Hirsch in his book, _The Schools We Need (and why we don't have them)_. Hirsch was a great champion of a liberal idea of public education... the notion that all children should be given an equal access to the quality education needed to succeed in our society... an idea one would hope that everyone... regardless of political leaning, is on board with. Hirsch noticed that a great many of the liberal/progressive educational strategies (such as the "feel-good/no losers" approach, and the avoidance of memorization of objective "facts") actually had the exact opposite effect... especially in the poor schools which needed it the most. Hirsch discovered that the Italian politician and theorist, Antonio Gramsci (imprisoned by Mussolini) had recognized the problem of progressive education as early as the 1930s:

_"The new concept of Schooling is in its Romatic phase (ala Rousseau) in which the replacement of "mechanical" by "natural" methods has become unhealthily exaggerated... Previously pupils at least acquired a certain baggage of concrete facts. Now there will no longer be any baggage to put in order... The most paradoxical aspect of it all is that this new aspect of school is being advocated as being democratic, while in fact it is destined not merely to perpetuate social differences, but crystallize them in Chinese complexities."_

The "romantic" progressive concepts of schooling avoid the learning of "facts" because it is feared these will perpetuate stereotypes... the notion that one writer, one artist, one historical personage is more important than another. This, in the US, is then combined with the lack of any real federal or national standards resulting in a system in which almost every school has its own curriculum... makes its own choices about what books to read and what facts to present. When this is further combined with *No Child Left Behind* which has resulted in schools focusing upon teaching strategies for taking tests as a means of grabbing the needed scores as opposed to actually teaching a curriculum that is aligned with what the student will be tested upon, the result is an absolute mess in which we cannot be certain that a child in this school at this age will be expected to have mastered the same knowledge and skills as a student in another school just around the block... let alone across the country.

Hirsch recognized that in order to succeed in education and in our society one must accumulate a certain agreed upon body of knowledge. One cannot master reading... let alone "higher order thinking skills" such as analysis, comparison, synthesis, etc... without a body of concrete facts. Progressive educators argue that a curriculum based upon such facts is inherently bound to be racist, sexist, nationalistic. The problem is that the alternative handicaps those very students it claims to assist. The reality is that public education is not the end-all/be-all. Once a student has mastered certain facts, reading, math, etc... he or she is certainly free to branch out and explore other alternative ideas and voices... and certainly higher education should be expected to offer just that. At present, however, higher education needs to begin at a remedial level... teaching many of the basic skills and body of knowledge that should have been mastered in elementary and secondary school.

I think a significant way in which kids today are different is that they do not so easily accept what is told them. I think this is positive. We want confident, questioning kids who are not just going to accept things. 

The problem is that we have this is spades. After having stressed a "no losers/no wrong answers" approach to education with a continual massaging of students' "fragile" egos we now have a generation of students with an absolute bloated sense of self-esteem... far out of proportion to their abilities... indeed a self-esteem that in no way is based upon merits or abilities. This has further eroded discipline as students imagine their teachers (and parents) are all idiots. Certainly, we do not wish to return to a Victorian notion of education in which students are afraid of ever questioning or challenging authority, but what we now have a student body with an inflated sense of self importance and no solid foundation of knowledge and critical thinking abilities upon which to base this.

What will not help is some return to former methods. Parents - let alone teachers - won't have it. You hear things like bring back the cane and national service...

I wouldn't be so sure. Many of the former methods of teaching such rote memorization, phonics, etc... were far more successful than many of today's strategies. Perhaps we don't want to return to caning (or "paddling" in the US)... although a phone call to parents often amounts to the same thing... but we still need to employ consequences related to student behavior. The big problem is that the world has drastically changed. 50 years ago it was quite acceptable for a majority of students to drop out of school before graduation: there were plenty of work to be found in the industrial sectors... or with a little vocational training... something a bit more. Today we are no longer living in the industrial age, and we in America (or in Europe) no longer have the advantage of being the only industrialized nations in the world competing in the marketplace. We now have the goal of teaching all children... but too often we're attempting to do this with a sort of cookie-cutter/one-size-fits-all approach that is a result of our misguided notions of Equality, Democracy, and Egalitarianism. The reality is that all students are not the same... are not cut out to learn the same... or cut out for the same roles in society. By not recognizing this we are condemning a great many to a worthless educational experience that does nothing to prepare them for adult life in the 21st century.

----------


## Paulclem

Firstly I'd like to say that I do agree with a lot of what you say. 

Many of the former methods of teaching such rote memorization, phonics, etc... were far more successful than many of today's strategies.

I agree, with certain provisos. In the 90's in the UK, the education system was overhauled from the ridiculous original National Curriculum to the literacy and numeracy hour, which were designed to give Primary - 4-11 yr olds- the basic skills for secondary school. Things like learning the times tables - which often went on in individual teacher's classrooms anyway, and phonics - were brought back and reinforced. This was a good move and recognised that learning the times tables by rote - singing them usually - was a great maths advantage. Never having learned my times tables - probably bacause of the progressive methods you mentioned - or grammar, was originally a handicap to me, so I can personally testify to the validity of these methods. They are really essential. 

The rote learning mentioned in the article - The Kings and Queens of England and poetry is a different matter, and this is probably the usual, but still disturbing spin by the right. 

Having said that, I think that kids should learn the Kings and Queens of England. They could even learn to recite them, but it is the implied method and all that it signifies that I have an issue with. The audience for the article is no doubt the right of the political spectrum ,and they will associate with a whole package they can envisage from their own schooling. 

The model is "take this list home and learn them by Tuesday where there will be a test". We could substitue spellings as well, or any set of facts.

The problem I have is that this is lazy teaching. In fact it is not teaching at all. It says - go home and get your parents to help you. The probable outcome - I speculate of course - is that the top 25% will go home, learn the list with their interested parents, research the list and learn a lot about the history. They will get close to 100% correct and have got a lot out of it. 

The next 50% will manage to learn the greater part of the list, get a bit out of it perhaps, but focus mainly on the task. The bottom 25% will fail to learn the list to any great degree, and not get much support, or any education from it. As I said, this could be a spelling list too. The tops will learn as they always have, with interested vigour, the middle 50s will manage, and the bottoms will again have it reinforced that they are not as good as everyone else. 

A better way would be to get the kids to learn by rote, but teach the methods for learning it - get the kids to design an appropriate narrative along the lines of Buzan's teaching methods which links key historical ideas about the Kings and Queens. This could be rhyme or song or rap or story. Not only do the tops and middles still learn, but the multisensory experience may well help the bottoms to learn them too. if not they may well have leaned an important mnemonic method, practised and completed a narrative and used key historical facts. I know as a kid what I would have preferred to do. 

My second point follows on from this. They are just teaching methods that any good teacher wil employ skillfully to give the best learning experience. Yet politicians will cynically try to capitalise on the associations of trendy left and conservative teaching methods. In fact I don't think it has anything to do with teaching methods. They are merely tools politicised, by each's agenda. I think your articles illustrate this where the language in Texas is being manipulated to exploit conservative opinion. (Things are simpler here -the Govt's body - the QCA sets the curriculum). I think the same thing is evident in the article I referred to. It is about perception, audience and opinion, but it really annoys me that this same ball game goes on every time there is an election. 

My last point is about the kids:

The problem is that we have this is spades. After having stressed a "no losers/no wrong answers" approach to education with a continual massaging of students' "fragile" egos we now have a generation of students with an absolute bloated sense of self-esteem... far out of proportion to their abilities... indeed a self-esteem that in no way is based upon merits or abilities. 

I have no truck with the no losers approach. It is rubbish, and absolutely no preparation for real life. As one of 3 male Primary School teachers in a staff of 38, we really had no influence upon sports day hapening in our school. It didn't happen. I felt sorry for the sporty kids and my male colleagues and I used to mutter and complain about it. At my daughter's school they used to have an everyone wins sports day which my wife dreaded going to every year. It was dire, and of no value whatsoever. 

On the wrong answers though, I will say that it's really about confidence and humiliation at the extreme end of the spectrum. A significant number of our adult Learners cite humiliations by teachers turning them off education, and this clearly has had a detrimental effect on their circumstances. The odd thing is that when you hear these incidents, they are very minor to the ear, but not to them. 

I don't want to bloat anyones esteem, but I don't wish humiliation on anyone either. There are ways of correcting someone without this. In my adult classes, for example, a student get a spelling wrong. You can say it's wrong, or you can say it's 50% correct, and then go on to say how you could get it right by look cover spell check - a rote learning method by the way - or point them to spelling rules, or breaking up the word or a phonic approach. You can say this in front of the whole class - I did on Wednesday - they all know it's wrong, but instead of focusing on that, they are encouraged to learn the correct version. 

As for the self esteem problem, I agree, and I think it presents the main challenge to successfully educating the bottom 25%. 

We now have the goal of teaching all children... but too often we're attempting to do this with a sort of cookie-cutter/one-size-fits-all approach that is a result of our misguided notions of Equality, Democracy, and Egalitarianism. The reality is that all students are not the same... are not cut out to learn the same... or cut out for the same roles in society. By not recognizing this we are condemning a great many to a worthless educational experience that does nothing to prepare them for adult life in the 21st century. 

I agree with this. The phrase I've used is a one stop shop. It clearly doesn't work, and perhaps never did work, for a significant minority. I remember at school a teacher sharing with us top 25% the name the staff had for the bottom 25% - spoonies. (Spoon fed). This will have included the disillusioned, the misfits, the unsupported, the kids with special needs or mental health problems - the whole caboodle - in an open secret that these kids hadn't the capacity to be taught by the methods they then used - essentially the chalk and talk stuff. When I reflect back as a teacher of these people now, I think it's a disgrace. I can't actually write what I think about it on this forum for fear of censoship, but the fact that this teacher felt it was ok to collude with us kids on this just points to the ethos generally.It's a scrapheap policy, and we were enrolled in this. The idea that this kinfd of education could come back - well I'll just put a few stars *******

I just think political pronouncements like the one I raised do nothing to support the exploration of education in an effort to solve these problems. 

The reality is that all students are not the same... are not cut out to learn the same... or cut out for the same roles in society.

Again I agree - they are not the same, but I think it's worth the effort to see if things can be improved. Everybody needs the chance to learn, and not just in traditional ways that have not worked for many for so long. My family was poor, and I could so easily have been on that same scrap heap as my less fortunate younger siblings were consigned to. They are all off it now by the way, no thanks to the schooling they had though.

----------


## Revolte

> Yesterday in The The Times I was reading that the Conservatives want to rewrite the National Curriculum and return to traditional teaching methods such as:
> 
> Learning poetry by heart
> Reciting the Kings and Queens of England etc.
> 
> They want to use the advice of writers and the celebrity mathematician Carole Vordrman.
> 
> Themed lessons on Global warming and social issues are to be replaced with a return to traditional subjects. 
> 
> ...


I don't know how they teach out there, and I was kicked out of highschool and sent to contenuation school so I had teachers that had us do some of that. I think it's cool ( aside from social issues being replaced, thats not a good idea, at all, most people are already standoffish to learning or caring about that kind of stuff ).

something makes me laugh about consevatives wanting people to memorize poetry though.

----------

