NationStates Jolt Archive

An exchange I've just read in another thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13238124&postcount=64) included this little pair of comments:

Equally, an examination is an examination. The system might be different, however, it is undeniable that examinations 20 years ago rewarded intelligent, individual thought rather more than today.Not really, the examinations of 20 years ago were more about how vitriolic you were in your argument, rather than how much factual information you can get into, say, a history essay.

I'd much rather have people learning skills like accuracy than being rewarded for pretentiously mouthing off about the woeful days of War Communism, to be honest.

It got me thinking. I know that there are a few teachers in the NSG-reading audience, and I'm interested to hear what they (and everyone else, of course) think about the whole thing. I'm also interested in getting a little perspective from hearing what people who were educated in other countries think of the current state of education wherever they happen to be.

I sat my 'O' levels 20 years ago in the UK. It was a transitional time for the exams system and 'O's started to be phased out the following year (my brother, who was a year behind me throughout our school lives, sat a mixture of Os and standard grades). My memory of the exams themselves is no doubt a bit blurred but I don't recall them being startlingly difficult. At that time the system was still recovering from the teachers' strikes that had taken place a couple of years previously that had resulted in the vast majority of schools (in Scotland, I don't have info on the situation elsewhere in the UK) being reduced to a 2 day teaching week for a significant period of the academic year, and yet I don't recall there being any serious lack of achievement amongst my peers. This may just be selective memory, of course.

There are constant complaints in this country about how exams are being made easier, usually peaking at around the time that schoolchildren get their results each Autumn, but I've found myself becoming increasingly unsure that all the ire is being directed at the right part of the system.

Instead, I see the perceived 'dumbing down' of exams as being a consequence of the subjects themselves becoming broader and broader in scope as humanity's knowledge base expands. For example, the biology that is taught to schoolchildren today is far more wide-ranging than the teaching that I received 20 years ago. Mendelian genetics took several months of lessons when I was at school... today (according to a friend's daughter, who has just completed her S4 exams) it is covered by 2 weeks of classes. I'm sure the same could be said of other subjects.

With this expansion in the range of component parts in each subject comes an inevitable decrease in the depth of the subject matter covered, and this decrease in depth leads (I suspect) to a perception by past qualifiers in the subjects that the exams are 'easier'.

I'm starting to believe that it would be beneficial to overhaul the entire thing... to do away with a 'biology' exams in schools in favour of zoology, anatomy, microbiology, etc. Ditto physics, which could be optics, mechanics etc. I have no good frame of reference for the social sciences, since the closest I came to them was Geography, but I am sure that an argument could be made for, for example, splitting up History into regional or cultural flavours so that it could be taught in more depth. You get the picture.

Am I completely off track? Have I over-simplified things? Is the curriculum just fine the way it is? Would forcing schoolchildren to specialise in certain areas of certain subjects cause a horrible skills shortage somewhere down the line? Conversely, would allowing them a wider choice in subjects to study encourage more of them to stay on and study, since they would theoretically have a better chance of choosing subjects that held an interest for them?

Tell me :)

I suspect that your thread will be hijacked by Americans sharing their distorted views of American education and you'll likely not get the answer you're looking for.

IMHO your entire thread is about specializaiton - which I feel is best left to colleges. Public education is about providing a primary education to citizens; reading, arithmatic, history, government, etc. It is supposed to be only a working knowledge. Sometime areound mid-high-school age specialization becomes feasable. In collge it becomes mandatory - specialize in accounting, arts, arcitecture, etc. Though colleges spend some time in the associated arts - speciaalization is still for college... and definately for the student to determine at a mature age - if they even choose to go that rout. There are plenty of people who never pursue college who still contribute greatly to society - It is a great insult to them to discount that.

there has been some serious dumbing down in the foreign languages which is really quite sad and I remember my old science teacher saying that every year kids get lazier and less willing to learn (whilst other nations have non-chavs which means we are all fucked)

I'd would like to see foreign language taught from very early on and maybe that suggested class of philosophy might do some good (maybe)

I have no good frame of reference for the social sciences, since the closest I came to them was Geography, but I am sure that an argument could be made for, for example, splitting up History into regional or cultural flavours so that it could be taught in more depth. You get the picture.

already is sorta (way back in 2006 anyway) schools chose to do either crime and punishment or history of medicine with some history around you (?) added in...well there was also Ireland and rise of Nazi's (but no WWII!)

the class on crime and punishment is pretty much the only thing that ables me to baffle the hordes of barbarians who like harsh punishment (which doesn't work)

I suspect that your thread will be hijacked by Americans sharing their distorted views of American education and you'll likely not get the answer you're looking for.
That's possible, but then again I did ask for views from those who'd been educated in other countries so I'm happy to take my chances.

Public education is about providing a primary education to citizens; reading, arithmatic, history, government, etc. It is supposed to be only a working knowledge. Sometime areound mid-high-school age specialization becomes feasable
I agree that a general grounding in base subjects is essential, but I believe that this can be accomplished early enough to allow for some specialisation around the mid-teenage years. I don't know what "mid-high-school" age is, but where I'm from children are already expected to select subjects for Year4 exams at the end of Year 2 - that's aged 14 for most children, I believe.

There are plenty of people who never pursue college who still contribute greatly to society - It is a great insult to them to discount that
Who's discounting anything? or insulting anyone?

I'd would like to see foreign language taught from very early on and maybe that suggested class of philosophy might do some good (maybe)
Ahh yes, I should have mentioned languages. I'd love to see a second language being taught from primary school age since it's a source of continual embarrassment to me that we, as a nation, are so poor in that area.

I'm less sold on the idea of a philosophy class, but that's just personal bias (I've always liked to make up my own mind about what and how to think, rather than having it spoon fed to me). You're probably right.

I think the idea that we're 'dumbing down' education is probably a way for people to retrospectively increase their own academic achievements.

I don't know if specializing so early is such a good idea... most of the people I know are in college (or should be) and still don't have a clue of what they want to do. (neither do I btw). I had to go through the french system, having to chose a specialization at the end of 9th grade, and I took the science and math spe. which is now utterly useless to me since i'm in polisci.
I believe that giving the students a wide choice of classes would be a better idea (IB style) so that they can try out a few things and start figuring out what they want to do in college.
Everyone has compulsory philosophy classes at the latest in 12th grade in France, and I think its a pretty good idea. You learn many concepts that you could barely grasp before and you start understanding what philosophical thought is, which is useful whatever you do.
The one big thing I think is missing in education these days are compulsory basic polisci classes. Everyone is given a voice, so why not make these voices count ? How can you possibly allow someone to vote if they don't even know what a liberal, a conservative, or a socialist are ?

I'm less sold on the idea of a philosophy class, but that's just personal bias (I've always liked to make up my own mind about what and how to think, rather than having it spoon fed to me). You're probably right.

I was thinking more classes based on teaching kids to think, the ever irritating smash bus stop vs steal car light come to mind

The one big thing I think is missing in education these days are compulsory basic polisci classes. Everyone is given a voice, so why not make these voices count ? How can you possibly allow someone to vote if they don't even know what a liberal, a conservative, or a socialist are ?

Mostly, we did that in combination of language classes, philosophy, history and economics, however it was relevant. So, economics, for example, would obviously discuss economics, where language classes were more specific towards one country and philosophy had more to do with what philosophers thought (so no real labelling of them, just how their ideas shaped today's labels). History obviously taught us about a few political parties once in a while (such as how the Nazi party actually managed to win a democratic vote, kinda teaching the result of apathy).

I think that worked out quite well.

I think your assessment that subjects have become broader in the last decades is fair, but whether the shift should be halted is less clear. In universities specialism is a must, but before that you can become too specific as it may narrow the children's possibilities for further study due to not knowing anything about a topic. However, I do think the IB system is a better one than the current A levels most use, and a similar system is currently being developed by Cambridge University for use in the next decades.

On the languages thing, I totally agree, our lack of skill in foreign languages is shocking, and one must be introduced at primary school level - but which one? French? Spanish? Chinese? Something too different to English may interfere with their development in that.

On philosophy, I think its a good idea also, but perhaps combined into the current RE courses which are lacking in interest at the moment. RE should teach about other religions as well as general philosophical thought.

I think a better course in citizenship or PSHE is needed, mine were always very basic and uninformative. These need to be extended to political knowledge, laws and rights, improved sex ed to include awareness of other sexualities as well as the normal STIs and contraceptives stuff; but also things like managing finances, the housing market etc. I feel children/young adults aren't equipped with knowledge like this when they leave school and its left to parents to 'teach' them about it or, probably more likely, be left to figure it out themselves.

I agree that languages are being neglected. I live in Canada and they are making it so that you don't start French until grade 7. This is too late, in my opinion it should start in kindergarden.

I don't think that philosophy should be taught in school. People will find out about philosophy in their own time based on what they think and agree/disagree with. Also, it would be very hard to decide a good time for philosophy, for me at this point it would be absolutely pointless and boring and just a review. Two years ago I would not have been able to appreciate what was being said, it might have even turned me off philosophy in the future. Due to differences in maturity levels I don't think that a school can effectively teach philosophy if it is forced, philosophy, I find is best explore through personal exploration and discussions with people who you feel comfortable talking to. Not an indifferent classroom.

This may be off topic but a huge problem for me right now is a lack of options. At our school we have a social studies for each year and as far as history goes that is it. I would love to study the Reformation, Russian Revolution, Eastern History or the Enlightenment in further depth but it isn't avialable. Also for English there is an English class for each grade, but I've already read all the books we have studied. I'd like a more difficult option or a creative writing class or an other class of that sort.