How maths lessons have changed over the years...

[lala]

Chinas trying to train up a work force from sub-peasant level to prole level, to boost productivity. We're trying to pull them back to prole level, after making the mistake of giving them ideas above their station.

Incidentally, I'd like to know the background of these questions. I suspect THE TRUTH may not be as clear cut as it appears.

[puffin]

Do you really think we are trying to pull them back to prole level?

I think it has more to do with the notion that you should never let children fail at anything because it will harm their psychy.
The old notion of letting children see that you don't succeed without hard work and if you don't work failure will inevitably be the result seems to have got lost in there somewhere.
The desperate need among politicians to look as if they are producing a nation of brilliant pupils because of their remarkably successful annual alterations to curricula, exams, teaching assessments etc also encourages a pullback of the finishing line.
The end result may well be the same, even if the aim isn't, though.

[omnipleasant]

"I think it has more to do with the notion that you should never let children fail at anything because it will harm their psychy."

I think that's utter, utter shite.

Firstly, exams are not "easier". They are different. We don't need to to do third degree differentiation in our heads any more in the real world, we can do it in a second on a pooter. This is part of the reason why the best degrees, the ones that really educate kids best and give them the best opportunities are things like media studies.

Secondly, the myth - the horrible rightwing, Thatcherite myth - that we shouldn't be nice to kids, we should let them "compete" and let the losers "deal with it", even though they are only 13, that we shouldn't be gentle to kids and encourage them if they fail because failing is "what real life is like, you 12 year old LOSER" is one of the most depressing things about Britain today.

[lala]

Puff, I genuinely believe there is a movement away from educational excellence for all (though it never existed, of course, properly, in the first place - but it was at least a goal that was to be aspired to) in favour of a shabby sort of "Make sure they can count and read a court summons" sort of education. Historically, 'twas always thus, of course. The idea of giving the oiks access to the Knowledge is both new and frightening.

I'll emphasise, that this is perhaps not even a conciously defined objective, but it is underpinning educational policy - it's implicit in Omni's post above - "We don't need to to do third degree differentiation in our heads any more in the real world, we can do it in a second on a pooter." There are lots of things that some would say we don't need to do in the real world, like worry too much about our gvernment and alternatives to market ideology (before anyone starts, yes, the Soviets did precisely the same from the other angle).

Second important point is that this is at policy level, not at teaching level. Teachers, as I'm sure we agree, range from cussed to idealistic and tend to want to make things better, which is why they'll continue to actually try to teach people to think and to know stuff, inspite of the orders from above and the resistance from below.

[ricklinc]

This is part of the reason why the best degrees, the ones that really educate kids best and give them the best opportunities are things like media studies.

Yes. This is what we need. People capable of watching television and writing about it in their blogs.

Teachers, as I'm sure we agree, range from cussed to idealistic and tend to want to make things better, which is why they'll continue to actually try to teach people to think

Yes. Teach them to think dweeb stuff like multiculturalism.

[lala]

Yes. This is what we need. People capable of watching television and writing about it in their blogs.[/i]

Once again irony seems to be an alien language to you.

Yes. Teach them to think dweeb stuff like multiculturalism. [/i]

No, like proper stuff like maths, history, geography, metalwork, mechanics and how to communicate effectively and comprehend what they read. The last being especially important, so they don't get fooled by the Daily Mail propoganda, or spend the rest of their sad lives whining about dweebs on the internet.

[ricklinc]

So it's either needlework, social studies or media studies that you teach. You seem a bit defensive of media studies. A subject that can be learned or studied by anybody who wants to by watching TV, playing on the computer and fingering themselves a bit. If you have to teach them that stuff then they're probably not worth it anyway.

It's worse than I thought. You're a nebbish. You walk into a room and people look up to see who just left.

[ricklinc]

I can't recall whether it was LaLa or Omnipresent but they both seem to share common delusions so which one doesn't matter. But whichever one it was typed that being able to do some mathematistical thing was pointless because you can do it on the computerisational device. Which demonstrates a huge error in understanding. One of the most important points about teaching maths is that it also teaches how to think logically. As opposed to the fuzzy subjects which don't. This makes a massive difference in life. You can teach an understanding of mathematics or you can teach an understanding of the media. It depends. Do you want to teach kids to think their way through problems or do you want to teach them to do a presentation of problems using coloured pencils and a slideshow?

In the sixties we trained too many sociologists. So we got too much sociology and now convicted criminals in prison have to get their human rights claims in fast before they get released early. Now we're training too many media students. Fcuk knows what kind of lack of benefit that's going to achieve in a decade or so. Best case is that they end up harmless. But the advantages of having a plague of highly trained and equipped media manipulators can't be positive.

[lala]

Which demonstrates a huge error in understanding. One of the most important points about teaching maths is that it also teaches how to think logically. As opposed to the fuzzy subjects which don't. This makes a massive difference in life.[/i]

Which is actually what I was saying in #63.

Hah. You agree with me. Dweeb.

[mistressdao]

I don't think children are engaged enough. I am not against exams, I just think that not all children should be taking them. I also believe that an inability in some to pass exams is not an indication of any lack of intelligence.

I noted when my last child ( now 28) was at school that from age of 14 -16 all they did was coaching towards sitting GCSE's at different levels, some to get A others to get a D grade.

Education has become to narrow and we need to broaded it and yes let's include needlework and domestic skills in that for both boys and girls, skills that are sadly lacking in this throw away age.

encourage young people, facilitate them to know how to broaden their knowledge base

[ricklinc]

No it isn't. You want to teach people that every word in a newspaper you don't like is a lie. That's not the same as teaching them to go find out for themselves. What's up, is the idea too Kipling for you?

The fuzzy subjects don't teach an open mind. They don't teach a difference between rules that exist because they are built into the universe and rules that exist because they are made up by a bunch of damp patches.

[lala]

You want to teach people that every word in a newspaper you don't like is a lie. That's not the same as teaching them to go find out for themselves.[/i]

I suggest you check everything against the facts. Which very few people on here bother to do.

It's depressing how often you find what are presented as facts turn out to be, at best, misrepresentatinos or exaggerations. And how rarely people seem to notice.

What's up, is the idea too Kipling for you?[/i]

I actually like Kipling.

[ricklinc]

I don't mean the cakes.

[lala]

Neither do I. Not so keen on the poetry, it's a bit too pompous. But THe Strange Ride of Mowbray Dukes (?) is a superb story.

[ricklinc]

And where do you get these facts against which to check everything that the Daily Mail prints? Is there a Dweeb.com site that you subscribe to for the purpose? Peachy.

[lala]

"Morrowbie Jukes," even.

Here you go: www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/1982/

"Even in these days, when local self government has destroyed the greater part of a native's respect for a Sahib, I have been accustomed to a certain amount of civility from my inferiors ..." Outstanding.

[lala]

And where do you get these facts against which to check everything that the Daily Mail prints? Is there a Dweeb.com site that you subscribe to for the purpose? Peachy. [/i]

Sometimes they are buried in the newspaper article, beyond the point where a lot of people stop reading, and long after the appropriate spin has been put on them in the opening paragraphs. Or - as I've done countless times with Mail stories based on Civitas style reports here - you go back to the original source and see what is really being said.

Like that recent one where the Mail claimed the gummint were throwing millions of dollars into a sex ed programme that wasn't working, because the girls were falling pregnant more frequently than those not receiving sex ed. Only, it turned out to be false on threee grounds: it wasn't a 'sex ed' course but a general life skills course, there wasn't anything wrong with the idea per se, just the way it was being delivered, and, most importantly, it was a complete lie by the Mail to claim the girls in the comparison weren't receiving sex ed - they were, through other, better administered courses.

[lala]

Or this one: newsgeneral.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=news&action=display&thread=1937&page=1

[mids]

The Mail is almost always correct. It's especially correct when the left say it's not.

[ricklinc]

I don't read the Mail. Or the Telegraph. Normally at this time of year I would be in Italy sneering at the sh1t that The Independant prints it being the only English newspaper available in Ostuni. Part of the reason to go to Italy is to get away from computers so I don't do what I normally do which is look at the BBC website. And it's lefty bias. So I don't mind LaLa heaping scorn on a newspaper that I don't read.

But does he ever actually find out anything? He seems to spend his leisure time looking for why things aren't true. That's heartbreakingly sad. Does he do it because he never got over finding out the truth about Santa? Or is rubbishing the Daily Mail part of his media studies lecture to future paperclip-shufflers? Does he ever give the same brutally critical treatment to dweeb newspapers? Maybe he should concentrate his sadness on doing that exclusively for a month or two.