What Should We Teach The Next Generation?

pqrdef

zagubov wrote: »

Somebody suggested we (taxpayers) should just fund useful courses and let people pay for self-indulgent ones that don't fit them into a job.

But which is which? Learning a musical instrument is more likely to get you some work than an A level in Chemistry.

pqrdef

chewmylegoff wrote: »

the reason i suggest it is that it's not available in any meaningful form at the moment. frankly i don't think that we need to do a lot more to encourage people to do history of art, or film studies, but i think there are large number of people who are made to feel useless by the education system because they are unable to make much progress academically. trying to force them to continue through the academic pathway is useless, if someone is struggling with the basics, then they're hardly going to get physics. if classroom study was focussed on the basics, but outside of that there was the opportunity to do something that you were actually good at / interested in then the education system might add rather more value at the bottom end than it currently does.

Amen to most of that, though I take exception to "bottom end".

But everybody knows the object of schooling is to notch up as many exam passes as possible, don't they, so if some kids are doing non-exam courses, everybody knows they're the kids who're crap at passing exams. To avoid this, if you're going to teach drain-rodding, you have to start with a syllabus and an exam and a qualification, which you insist is as good as a GCSE. This is all deemed necessary so the course doesn't look inferior. Then you dredge up some pointless material for the syllabus - "threads used to connect drain rods". Then you teach it from a textbook. It's a disaster area.

Generally the best way to learn a job is on the job, though a day release for college seems to be obligatory nowadays whether useful or not.

zagubov

Callie22 wrote: »

'English lit' per se may not be useful to many people, but again it's about the skills you learn whilst studying it. Analysis of text, developing an idea, constructing an argument and communicating that effectively - they're all very useful things to know, and worthwhile transferable skills. I agree that the way it's taught in a lot of schools is awful and the range of texts used is boringly narrow, but when it's done right it's a great subject to study (and no I don't have a degree in it ) It goes back to my earlier point, that pretty much everything taught at secondary level is 'useless' in itself, so schools should focus more on the skills developed when studying a particular subject.

And to go back to an earlier post, I disagree that people would get 'burnt out' studying a full curriculum. It works well in lots of other countries, and it can work well here - just look at things like the International Baccalaureate. I agree that 'teaching to test' is a problem, but that's why we need to look at the way things are taught. Just memorising stuff by rote is not learning. That kind of teaching is why so many young people fall down when they get to uni, because you don't (well you shouldn't!) get your hand held. It's also doing young people a huge disservice, because as I said people are going to have to become more adaptable and it's not inconceivable that people in the future may have two or even three 'careers' over a lifetime, and that will involve learning lots of new things. If you don't know how to do that effectively then you're going to struggle.

A very good quote. I've taught the IB and it's a poor preparation for certain courses such as medicine IMHO.

On the other hand the GCE system has no flexibility at all - it gives no general preparation for a degree.

I remember the machinations of selecting subjects for a candidate who didn 't know whether to study pharmacy or accountancy. I found the right three subjects he had to study (Maths, Economics, Chemistry) but three subjects routinely makes you a one-trick pony.

Learning by rote is important for the health sector. The concepts in medicine aren't individually demanding- the sheer amount of stuff you need to learn, is.

For most courses, we need a general school certificate that opens rather than closes doors

recoverydust

The next generation should be taught to swim and to build fires and to fish.....

IveSeenTheLight

pqrdef wrote: »

On the other hand, some people won't learn even that much, and if they aren't getting there in writing or arithmetic by the age of 10, then it's useless to keep flogging the dead horse.

Whilst I understand the concept you are intending and indeed the best years for learning are the early one, there are many people who don;t realise the consequences until later in life and through their own choice take the decisions to retake earlier training to develop themselves.

ash28

pqrdef wrote: »

But which is which? Learning a musical instrument is more likely to get you some work than an A level in Chemistry.

Doing what - busking? Just kidding.....

On the other hand all of my children took theatre studies as an option at school and I have to admit I went ballistic - I thought it would be an absolute waste of time. How wrong I was.

One of our daughters was going through a selection process and part of the process meant they were put into pairs, given a task and they had to prepare a presentation and present it to both the selectors and selectees.

Her partner (she said) was particularly arrogant, knew everything and really tried to take over and insisted he would do the presentation, only one of them was allowed at the front to present, however when the time came he froze and couldn't do the presentation.

She stepped in took over and did it and it was her first presentation. She got a job and he didn't. Obviously the presentation was only part of it.

She was told afterwards that what swung it for her was the presentation and the way she stepped in and was able to take over.

Without the confidence she gained in speaking and expressing herself in front of people by doing theatre studies at school she probably wouldn't have been as successful.

Afterwards when people were moaning that their kids wanted to do theatre studies - I always said let them, they'll probably gain a lot from it.

pqrdef

zagubov wrote: »

On the other hand the GCE system has no flexibility at all - it gives no general preparation for a degree.

I think the Sixth Form period especially is only marking time. The kids aren't old enough for university, but few university courses actually need A level standard in any subject as a prerequisite (though it doesn't stop them asking for it).

Kids might be better prepared for university if they took a break and spent that time getting work experience (unpaid internships?) or doing something non-academic. Compulsory gap years.

zagubov

pqrdef wrote: »

I think the Sixth Form period especially is only marking time. The kids aren't old enough for university, but few university courses actually need A level standard in any subject as a prerequisite (though it doesn't stop them asking for it).

Kids might be better prepared for university if they took a break and spent that time getting work experience (unpaid internships?) or doing something non-academic. Compulsory gap years.

Absolutely. I feel that instead of expanding the university sector by converting perfectly good polytechnics into universities, they should have expanded the OU, and let people study part-time and enter the world of work part-time. Let people graduate gradually.

You could even let people take on more work as senior workers retired from full time work on a gradual basis. But that would take joined up thinking which our masters and betters don't do much.:D


My question remains though- at secondary level what should everybody be taught?

vivatifosi

zagubov wrote: »

My question remains though- at secondary level what should everybody be taught?

I still think you need english and maths. By english I mean how to read; write; spell; the basics of grammar, etc. For maths I'm also thinking of the basics. Essentially the type of maths that you would need to get by in life, whether that's working out the area of a floor as a carpet layer or of paint as a decorator. Also people should be taught how to budget and work out the cheapest option. If people understand how maths has a practical application to what they need to know then they will learn it.

Further there's room for sport and music, even if only as options. There are many people in sport who weren't brilliant scholars and similar with musicians. If people have non-academic skills the system owes the student the opportunity to identify those and to try to help develop them. Practical courses would be good too. The sort of thing that was available as an option when I was at school: childcare, metalwork, motor vehicle engineering, could sit alongside more modern options such as principles of web design. I also think there should be classes in business.

moneyinmypocket

The yoof need a good kick up the back side and a reality check - some are good but most are complaining lazy hard done bys