Студопедия

Главная страница Случайная страница

Разделы сайта

АвтомобилиАстрономияБиологияГеографияДом и садДругие языкиДругоеИнформатикаИсторияКультураЛитератураЛогикаМатематикаМедицинаМеталлургияМеханикаОбразованиеОхрана трудаПедагогикаПолитикаПравоПсихологияРелигияРиторикаСоциологияСпортСтроительствоТехнологияТуризмФизикаФилософияФинансыХимияЧерчениеЭкологияЭкономикаЭлектроника






Tim Footman






Topic 2: Education

Discussion topics

 

1) Education’s purpose is to replace an empty mind with an open one. Malcolm Forbes, US publisher

 

2) Speak about educational snobbery and ‘Mickey Mouse‘ degrees. Why are certain subjects, such as media studies, dismissed as worthless?

 

3) What is the importance of good education? How can governments make sure that everyone has access to good education?

 

4) The examination system is intrinsically flawed and arbitrary - do you agree? What form of assessment is more efficient and reliable: exams or continuous assessment of the students’ knowledge?

 

5) The pros and cons of written and oral examinations. Should the examination system be improved or abolished altogether?

 

 

6) School uniforms are the bane of the pupils’ existence. How can you account for the fact that most schoolchildren tend to feel bitterly resentful of having to wear uniforms?

 

7) How do you feel about parents educating their children at home (home schooling)? Think about socialization, quality of education, parent-child relationship, financial aspect(s). The pros and cons of online education.

 

8) What are the advantages of getting a job when you leave school, instead of going to university?

 

9) The society should seek to stem the tide of increased school bullying, intimidation and peer harassment before they reach appalling proportions. What, in your opinion, is the most effective way of tackling the problem?

 

10) The sinking ship of youth opportunity. What can be done to alleviate the problem of youth unemployment?

 

11) Many of us go through life with an array of uncompleted tasks, nibbling at our conscience. How serious, in your opinion, is the problem of procrastination? To what extent can it adversely impact on your academic performance?

 

 

Rock and roll education

The only way we'll get a decent examination system is if everyone agrees what they want from education. But that isn't going to happen.

Tim Footman

theguardian.com, Tuesday 28 August 2007

So, it's over for another year. The GCSE and A-level results have been and gone, and we've had all the usual responses: the editorials saying that exams are too easy; the students saying that they've slogged their guts out, thank you very much.

Before we go any further, I should just say that yes, students do work extremely hard, much harder than I ever did at school. But, with all due respect to them, that misses the point. Sisyphus worked hard rolling his rock up the hill, but it didn't do him any good. The problem is that we're focusing so hard on the exam results themselves, that we seem to have lost touch with what they're meant to be measuring.

I've always thought that employers' protestations about the inadequacy of the education system ring a little hollow. Yes, some employers want more scientists or engineers. But some want more linguists. Others want more graphic designers, sales executives, copy editors, actuaries, plasterers, pyrotechnicians, chaos theorists, pole dancers. If we believe the sole purpose of an examination system is to train people for employment, and try to satisfy all the competing voices, we'll become as frustrated as Sisyphus himself.

Last week, Agnes Poirier posted an article in French here on Comment Is Free. It attracted more than 300 responses, including a few from people who had studied and passed French at GCSE or O-level, and still couldn't understand it. This may exacerbate the headaches of those worried about the falling numbers of people studying modern languages: the number of Brits who can speak French is presumably even smaller than we thought. Except that passing French at GCSE or O-level has never really signalled that you can speak French. Instead, it signals that you have the capabilities necessary to pass that examination. You need self-discipline, focus, organization, a decent memory and the ability to do what you're told.

And a lot of employers want those capabilities in their employees. Yes, it would be handy to have a couple of people on the payroll who can speak to a client in Perpignan or Pyongyang. But it is far more useful in the broader scheme of things to have lots of people who turn up on time, complete their tasks on schedule and within budget, don't go on strike, and remember to switch off the air-conditioning if they're last out on a Friday.

But again, this doesn't suit everyone. Those who do bemoan the inadequacy of the British system often look yearningly towards Asia, where students are supposedly light years ahead of their Western contemporaries in maths and sciences. But they're looking at a system that promotes rote-learning and obedience above initiative and genuine problem-solving skills.

Having taught in Asia, I can see the benefits of this, not least in terms of discipline. Having worked as a magazine editor in Asia, attempting to persuade journalists to write stories that displayed a little more analysis and insight than a regurgitated press release, my overriding memory is of banging my head against my keyboard.

What I want from an examination system is probably different from what the CBI, or the TUC, or the universities or the government want. And the poor bloody students will continue to work hard, rolling their metaphorical rocks up the hill in five directions at once, and still nobody will be satisfied.

The next time I interview someone for a job, though, I'll tell you who'll get it: the person who didn't need to follow that link to know who Sisyphus was.

Comments:

1) Good article. There is definitely a division as to whether people see school as a training system to add economic value to people by training them to be able to perform jobs and those who see education as a means of producing well rounded, thoughtful people. I think you need a bit of both. Obviously school must give people the basics. You can't study anything unless you can read, write and perform basic analysis. Plus it’s no good being the world’s greatest thinker if you can't get a job. However, knowing who Sysiphus was betrays neither job related knowledge nor an ability at free thinking. It only shows that you've studied classics.

 

2) I have to agree with the general analysis that education has become learning how to pass exams, not learning the subject itself. The whole thing has become a game: past-papers, mock exam after mock exam, teachers handing out lists of the most salient points to be memorized and regurgitated.

I took my A-levels in '98 and despite having done what could be fairly described as very little work walked through with mostly A grades.

It wasn't because the exams are getting easier, and it certainly wasn't because I am some kind of genius, it was due to the ridiculous amount of time that was spent teaching me not the subject, but the exam system. I can remember one teacher, one only, in my entire school career who actually emphasized the virtues of critical and independent thought, but even he was effectively shackled from doing so as exam time approached.

I'm tempted to think this is partly caused by exam result league tables - schools have a vested interest in getting every pupil the highest grade possible, not the best education.

 

3) I understand that there have to be standards, but students are overtested and some are bad test takers. Students are more than just test taking machines!

 

4) As a teacher what I would like for my students is that they are educated. Unfortunately, being educated is way down the list of priorities here in Spain and would seem to be similarly looked down on in Britain as well. It seems that the objective is to train our children to pass exams. That's more or less what I do. I train my students to pass exams. That's what they want, that's what their parents want and that's what the government wants, the all important piece of paper. Of course they've forgotten it all six months after they graduate, as it's just memorizing facts and figures. So we train our students to memorize lists of facts and figures that they use on one day (the exam day) and then forget.

 

5) " Education has been designed to ensure that certain social groups never attain the levels required to improve...."

This is seems to me a sweeping generalization. You have blamed much of the problems on the poor level of teaching in some 'inner city schools'. This is only a partial picture. Many children come from families where education is under-valued and is not seen as a route to self-improvement and job opportunity. Many of these children are alienating from the education system and would be regardless of the quality of the teaching.

My son goes to an infant school with a very good reputation. My wife and myself do not believe they are meeting our sons needs with sufficiently challenging work and so we often supplement his learning. Most parents to varying degrees can (and should) aid in their children's learning. Even those who have limited ability and in the most deprived neighbourhoods could encourage their children in other ways - they could, for example, take out membership of a public library for their children. Many do just that but there are others for whom education has low or zero priority.

Education is a partnership between the school and the family. Sometimes the failure is due to inadequate teaching. Other times it is due to inadequate parenting other times both. Your assertions strike me as a gross simplification.

 

6) Another problem with education today is that whilst it has expanded, more people than ever go to university, all it seems to be doing is producing graduates with degrees of questionable utility. There is also the problem of snobbery.

A degree in " leisure studies, " " sports science" and such are often mocked as " Mickey Mouse" degrees. Yet the given the growth of the leisure industry, these degrees are probably more useful than History, Classics etc.

Note: Mickey Mouse degrees (or Mickey Mouse courses, known as bird courses in Canada) is a term for university degree courses regarded as worthless or irrelevant. The term is a dysphemism, originating in the common usage of " Mickey Mouse" as a pejorative. It came to prominence in the UK after use by the country's national tabloids.

 

 






© 2023 :: MyLektsii.ru :: Мои Лекции
Все материалы представленные на сайте исключительно с целью ознакомления читателями и не преследуют коммерческих целей или нарушение авторских прав.
Копирование текстов разрешено только с указанием индексируемой ссылки на источник.