It would be so helpful if you could provide links, Heather. I'm happy to read what you suggest but not if I have to track it down and then wonder if it's what you were referring to.Heather F wrote:I don't claim to know your views, I just made the comment because Old Andrew has a series of blogs addressing issues you have raised on this thread and putting forward views that disagree with yours. Try the one on the Education Secretary for starters.
You haven't previously mentioned the 'skills based markschemes at A Level' - what you'd mentioned was the 'twenty-first century skills agenda', which I am aware of.I have no desire to go through all the things I know about the school system and its problems because I am a secondary teacher that I would not otherwise know... You say I haven't yet told you anything about public exams you didn't already know... Really? So you know already all about the issues with the skills based markschemes at A Level I described. Really?
I was responding to what was reported in the Guardian article to which Jim posted a link. I couldn't find the text of the speech at that point.In fact you felt able to dismiss the speech out of hand before you even read it.
I think introducing the EBacc and upping the proportion of students in higher education might be considered 'big issues' by some people.You then analysed the speech without even making reference to the ways he was addressing some big issues in education.
I flagged up a few issues that caught my attention and where I felt Gove's view was flawed. I'm happy to do an exhaustive analysis if you want me toEither you didn't realise they were issues or weren't interested in those sections of the speech because you don't know how significant the issues are.
I do know some things about public exams. One of them is why separate subjects were introduced in the first place.If you know anything about public exams you would know that he addresses issues that dominate my working life.
I think that is very much the point. The education system in the UK has been characterised, throughout its history, by a lack of evidence to support what it does. Gove's speech showed a significant lack of 'here's the evidence, here's what we're going to do, here's what we predict will happen and here's when and how we shall evaluate it'.No one knows yet much about what will actually come out of the rhetoric but that is not the point.
I don't think Gove is ignorant of the issues facing the education system. I think he doesn't understand education. Or how systems work, for that matter. Or at least he makes assumptions about education, such as what it's like when it's 'properly understood'. If he understood it properly he could describe exactly what it's supposed to look like and why. If he understood systems, he probably wouldn't have a compulsory national curriculum or league tables.You wrote a comment dismissive of Gove, implying his ignorance of the issues. I suggested he was not ignorant and in fact keen to address issues which you yourself had raised as problems.
His job is to put in place policies that work. Any idiot can identify what the problems are. Wait and see what he identifies as problems once his policies are up and running. I'd bet money it will be parents, teachers and the unions.I make no claim about whether the policies he implements will work- I am just pleased that at least he has identified what some of the problems are.
Thank you, I found it.The article is "Could do Better. Using International comparisons to refine the National Curriculum in England". Tim Oates, Cambridge Assessment.