General Chat

Children are complaining about a GCSE biology question in which Darwin was shown with the body of a monkey. The question was Why is Darwin shown with the body of a monkey?

What are children learning in school these days??? I am only 32 and true I sat standard grades not GCSE's but I could have answered that question at 15.

Is education really being dumbed down now???

I don't think so. It would provide a lot of potential marks. I would answer it, off the top of my head and not being a biologist admittedly, as being an example of the derision and lampooning suffered by Darwin for daring to challenge the status quo of the establishment at that time. I believe the image may have arisen at the time of the 'Scopes monkey' trial in the USA. The student would be expected to know of the controversy that Darwinism evoked and how fiercely it was - and still is- denied. The history of science and the scientists is important in the understanding of the nature of a subject.

Anyway, I would have enlarged on that and gratefully collected the marks. I don't think it's dumbed down - to the contrary, the fact that students are complaining shows a gap in either the teaching or the understanding of the subject. But I haven't seen the syllabus so can't really say.

I think the problem is the kids all said they weren't taught it, eg they weren't taught to that test rather than testing their knowledge and ability to actually think!!

If they weren't taught it, then that's quite disturbing - it's an integral part of the subject. I don't know how they set the exams or the curriculum now, but it seems really strange if it wasn't taught. But as Tawny rightly says, its not exactly a hard question if the students had an interest in the subject overall. Free marks, really.

Shouldn't have tested their brains even if they hadn't been taught it....

Yes, I'm with you there

Unfortunately, education is no longer the 'all round' learning that it was.
Since the Government (to be precise, Gove and his minions) got involved in the curriculum, very young children are taught to answer SATS questions. Nothing else.
Same with GCSE's.
Reading is taught purely by phonics - not helpful for those with dyslexia.
Children are now also taught about pronouns, nouns, adverbs and other forms of English I've never heard of - yet I can still form a sentence - whilst they're learning to read.
I watched a programme on this, and it totally spoiled the children's enjoyment of reading for it's own sake.
My eldest (a very intelligent dyslexic) would have been illiterate if she'd had to endure it. Fortunately, she learned to read using a Nursery Rhyme book, before she went to school, and was on 'free' reading almost instantly, and this scheme didn't exist then..
Having to sit watching phonetic teaching of reading would have put her off reading for life..
We worked out strategies for other aspects of English, and, as she never had additional help, no-one knew she was dyslexic - until a teacher in her Secondary School said, in front of the class 'You write like a Dyslexic'!!
Yes her handwriting was/is awful - but what she wrote wasn't!
Her dad (now my ex - oh and also dyslexic) went to see the teacher concerned and the headteacher!!
My grandchildren could read before they started school, but found the teaching of reading at school boring - fortunately, they have plenty of books at home, that they can enjoy, in between the rigours of the 'set' books.
The two types of books are separate in their minds.
...but imagine a child who didn't know about reading for the pure pleasure of it?

Maths is now, I believe, based on a Japanese way of using numbers.
All very well, but Japanese numbers and letters are linked, so it makes sense to them.
Schools are now having to provide lessons for parents in 'maths', so they can help their children with their homework.
My ex has got a Masters in maths - as an adult - by that, I mean in the 21st century, (he teaches special needs pupils aged 18+ on agricultural engineering and groundsmanship).
He was babysitting our grandchildren, and helping the 8 year old with his maths - but couldn't make head nor tail of it. Grandson had to explain it to him :-(
His 15 year old sister was taught a totally different (and baffling) way - so even she couldn't help him.
Don't blame the children - it's the system that's at fault.

Did anyone see the BBC series were they put students through a 1950s teaching regime? "That'll Teach 'Em"

The students were all predicted to be A* at GCSE in English, Maths and History.

I seem to remember they sat O Levels at the start of the experiment and failed dismally.

For the rest of the series they were taught to obtain O Level standard, the regime being very similar to that I experienced in the late 60's early 70's.

I seem to remember that although no student got an O level 'A' they did do better than the original exam.

I agree with Maggie..."Don't blame the children - it's the system that's at fault."

Chris

I went to 6 different primary schools, from Scotland to Cornwall. edit: With 6 months of absolutely no education between the ages of 6 and 7, when I was in Banchory Sanitorium. I have no idea why. I didn't have TB, but the boy in the next room did (glass walls/notes etc)
The schools all had their own curriculum. this caused few problems, except I had to learn to write 'properly' 3 times - and all differently. :-(
The one problem I had was Greek/ Romans and the order of kings and queens.
I was taught 'basic' maths and English - sometimes re-learning what I already knew, and obviously missing 'bits'..
The last primary school I attended - in Mevagissey - was pretty 'laissez faire'.
Run by the wife of the dead headmaster, with her 'chum' - it bordered on a Dame school.
The morning started with a rousting rendering of 'Trelawney', and if the weather was nice, a very long 'nature ramble'.
Then we had to practise quite a lot for Mevagissey's version of the 'Furry Dance'.
I was there for over a year - then came the 11+.
Only I didn't know it was the 11+ - I thought it was just another end of term test.
I passed.
So, a school with no pressure, slightly more 'random' than my previous school in Devon. I can't remember what I was taught in either school, but obviously was taught something!
In the school in Devon, I do remember being asked to say the phonetic alphabet - aged 9.
I had no idea what it was (but still had a very high reading age).
Once it was explained - yes, I could reel it off, but I was never 'taught' it, and never needed it to learn to read (which I did, before school, using my brothers 'Beano').

I had a wide education, encompassing many things that would be deemed 'unnecessary' nowadays, but those 'unnecessaries' were probably the most important part of my education.

The problem has nothing to to do with Gove, Minions or SATS.

The post-war downhill spiral started with the introduction of CSE's in the 1960's in an attempt to make sure everyone left school with a qualification. It didn't work and by the time GCSE's were introduced in the 1980's the rot had already set in and standards across all ages had fallen.

Also, problems are not just linked to 'modern' methods of teaching, although as suggested, some of these have not necessarily been the best way, but rather to the fact that increasingly more time is spent on 'non-core' subjects.

There are signs, though, of a move back to more traditional teaching methods. For example my ten year old now does spelling each week, not that different to the way we learned back in the 1950's.

There was a huge drop in standards when the GCSE replaced the separate GCE and CSE. I was teaching Biology at the time and lots of the old GCE content was moved up to be part of the A level syllabus. The new GCSE exam was much easier and the more able kids weren't stretched as they had been. A grade C in the new exam was supposed to be equivalent to the old O level, but there was no way it was. I was getting grade C in the General Science exam for kids who had entered the school in the remedial classes. It could have been our brilliant teaching of course, but it wasn't. Their level of literacy was still low, it was the exam being taken in modules rather than in one test at the end . Most of the papers were multiple choice, so they didn't even have to string a sentence together

CSE's were introduced to give children who hadn't attended a Grammar school, the chance to do obtain GCE's.
Not all children develop at the same speed (something that seems to have been forgotten).
Tom may have been incredibly intelligent, but didn't reach his 'peak' until after the 11+. He could re-take it at 13 or 14, and go on to Grammar School. If he failed and could 'prove' himself with CSE's, he could attend 6th form at Grammar school /College and take GCE's.
Children have always had spellings at least once a week.

I agree with Linda, the introduction of 'tick box' answers was a disaster - and led to children being taught purely to tick the right boxes - now they're being taught to answer questions the 'correct', and limited way.
When I was at school, if you put extra information in the answer in GCE's - you got extra marks. Papers were marked by people who knew the subject.
When my daughter took her GCSE's, she was marked DOWN for putting extra (but relevant) information in - because the marker had no idea about the subject they were marking, but had a list of 'things' to look out for - a tick box regime.
This means, as long as the child takes in the relevant information, parrot-like, they have a chance of passing.
The child with a wider view may fail, because they know too much.

I think you'll find the DofE - not necessarily Gove - he focussed on messing up primary education - had a LOT to do with this.

As for non-core subjects, don't you think these widen a child's perception?

I watched an interesting clip about education in Finland, which has much better educational results than the UK.
What have they done?
Longer holidays.
No homework - though older students may get a maximum of 30 minutes worth.
Children are at school for 3 or 4 hours a day - including lunchtime
Non- core lessons are included in these 4 hours.

Why does this work?
Children have time to be children, they're also less stressed
A child can't 'truly' concentrate for more than 2 hours, so the majority of time, they're not really taking anything in.
Finland has a stable education system, that isn't being tinkered with every 5 minutes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-37716005

Children haven't had spelling tests once a week, at least not in my 10 year old grandson's school in the 6 years he has attended. They were re-introduced this last year.

Back in the early 1900's I was involved with an office move from London to the West Country. The standard of literacy and numeracy of the 300 or so school leavers were were recruiting was pathetic, even for those with A or B GCSE's in Math and English. The recruiting team ended up having to set ability tests to distinguish the mediocre from the downright poor.

If your grandson didn't have spelling tests - this was the school's choice.

Why do you think the standard of literacy was so poor?

The Cornish School I attended had a very relaxed attitude to lessons - yet over half the class passed the 11+
Could this have been the 'Finland' effect? ie. giving children the time to absorb what they're learning, with no pressure.
My sister took her 11+ in Cornwall at the same time as me - but was aged 14.
Like me, she had no idea what the test was about - just thought it was another end of term test.
She passed. We moved to Hampshire at the start of the Summer Holiday, and both went to the same Grammar School.

My first school was in Scotland. For the first term, we only went for half a day.
By the end of that time, all the children knew the basics of the alphabet, and numbers,could read a little, were capable of writing (albeit in a scrawl) and repeating at least their 2x tables - and could socialise!!.
This was a good basis for 'real' learning later on.

I was taught the "old-fashioned" way, by rote. I was lucky, in that I was quite bright, had a good memory and did well in tests and things. Other children were probably bored stiff and learnt little. We were taught spelling, grammar, punctuation etc. This was in the 40's/early 50's.

My 2 sons also learnt the above and had spelling tests every week. This in the 60's.

My 2 grandaughters were taught by entirely different methods (although not phonics) and they also had spelling tests every week, starting at the age of 5. I remember helping elder one with her spelling and she had words like to, too, and two. I think the words were put into sentences by the teacher and the child had to write down the correct one. Anyway, both children are extremely literate. This was in the 2000's.

I think part of the problem is constant government tinkering with the system, and the rest is because, inevitably, some teachers are better than others.

"An investment in knowledge pays the best interest". (Benjamin Franklin).

One of the things that Makes the Finnish system work is that all teachers must have at least a Masters degree and are extremely well paid. And held in very high esteem. In the UK it's traditional to belittle teachers and they are absolutely not highly paid. Education is not a political pawn and subjected to constant change to enhance the political career of the Minister in charge.

Children also must learn 2 foreign languages, English and Swedish.

And most importantly, education is embraced. Students WANT to learn. Their role models aren't soap opera stars, vacuous celebrities or footballers. It's a great system. Until we manage to instil a similar ethos in the UK, we will always lag behind :(

Too true, Eldrick, and children are given the time to be children!