Do We Ever Really Care Who Lived In Our...
Home & Garden12 mins ago
Would This Learning Be All That Bad For Our Children?
37 Answers
Please excuse this rather long copy and paste exercise, but some will not bother to read all the article, but I think this is the more important section.
/// The new curriculum is intended to usher in a back-to-basics approach to education, described by Mr Gove as arming children with the 'fundamental building blocks' needed to learn. ///
/// In maths, children will begin fractions from the age of five and know their 12-times table by nine. ///
/// There will be a greater emphasis on grammar, spelling and punctuation in English, with poems recited in front of classmates from age five. ///
/// One of the most contentious subjects is history, which will cover events chronologically from the Stone Age to the Cold War. Critics have claimed the focus on key dates and characters risks creating a 'monochrome' list of goodies and baddies and will be biased towards white British men. ///
/// The new curriculum is intended to usher in a back-to-basics approach to education, described by Mr Gove as arming children with the 'fundamental building blocks' needed to learn. ///
/// In maths, children will begin fractions from the age of five and know their 12-times table by nine. ///
/// There will be a greater emphasis on grammar, spelling and punctuation in English, with poems recited in front of classmates from age five. ///
/// One of the most contentious subjects is history, which will cover events chronologically from the Stone Age to the Cold War. Critics have claimed the focus on key dates and characters risks creating a 'monochrome' list of goodies and baddies and will be biased towards white British men. ///
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
God no! I was always taken to lots of social gatherings, clubs and occasions, have never found it hard to make friends of all ages and always try to integrate into whatever is going on.
I did though have a bit of discomfort being 'humoured' by some adults for a while as I've never really been spoken to as anything less than an equal but when I got to approximately 11 or 12 adults that I didn't know well would sort of unintentionally patronise me and I did find that very difficult because I was very keen not to be rude but I did find it hard and quite annoying. Now that doesnt really happen because I look older and could be anything from 14 to 20, so it's not a problem, but generally there have been no negative social problems from being home schooled.
I did though have a bit of discomfort being 'humoured' by some adults for a while as I've never really been spoken to as anything less than an equal but when I got to approximately 11 or 12 adults that I didn't know well would sort of unintentionally patronise me and I did find that very difficult because I was very keen not to be rude but I did find it hard and quite annoying. Now that doesnt really happen because I look older and could be anything from 14 to 20, so it's not a problem, but generally there have been no negative social problems from being home schooled.
>>>In maths, children will begin fractions from the age of five
Whoever suggested that seems to know absolutely nothing about developmental psychology and, in particular, the highly-respected work of Jean Piaget.
Very young children may well be able to grasp the mechanical techniques of working with fractions but they wouldn't actually have a clue about what they were really doing. Consequently they'll be able to get through short-term testing with flying colours but then be unable to make use of the 'knowledge' (that they haven't really got anyway) in any meaningful way later.
As an analogy, I've met young children who can do addition and subtraction (including multi-digit sums with lots of 'carrying'), just as accurately and quickly as I can, but who when faced with a simple 'real life' question have to ask "Is it an add or a take?". (i.e. they have fully mastered the techniques but they haven't really got a clue as to what it is that they're actually doing).
Introducing young children to fractions before they've reached an appropriate developmental stage might result in them being able to handle basic arithmetical techniques but it will teach them absolutely nothing at all about what mathematics is all about!
Whoever suggested that seems to know absolutely nothing about developmental psychology and, in particular, the highly-respected work of Jean Piaget.
Very young children may well be able to grasp the mechanical techniques of working with fractions but they wouldn't actually have a clue about what they were really doing. Consequently they'll be able to get through short-term testing with flying colours but then be unable to make use of the 'knowledge' (that they haven't really got anyway) in any meaningful way later.
As an analogy, I've met young children who can do addition and subtraction (including multi-digit sums with lots of 'carrying'), just as accurately and quickly as I can, but who when faced with a simple 'real life' question have to ask "Is it an add or a take?". (i.e. they have fully mastered the techniques but they haven't really got a clue as to what it is that they're actually doing).
Introducing young children to fractions before they've reached an appropriate developmental stage might result in them being able to handle basic arithmetical techniques but it will teach them absolutely nothing at all about what mathematics is all about!
Rocky
//If kids were taught times tables properly they wouldn't need to chunk//
Er No that's got nothing to do with it
You still need to know your times tables
Chunking stops you from having to do more complex operations such as carrying
So you want to multiply 43x53 how's your daughters 43 times table?
Trouble is it doesn't scale as the numbers become bigger the number of calculations become unmanageable
Try 2376 x 8132 with chunking!
//If kids were taught times tables properly they wouldn't need to chunk//
Er No that's got nothing to do with it
You still need to know your times tables
Chunking stops you from having to do more complex operations such as carrying
So you want to multiply 43x53 how's your daughters 43 times table?
Trouble is it doesn't scale as the numbers become bigger the number of calculations become unmanageable
Try 2376 x 8132 with chunking!
That's probably true Buenchico but surely you would teach fractions 'naturally' to children that age like having 20 sweets and sharing them between four of you and saying that is 1/4 of the sweets in each pile? I was taught both fractions and percentages like that from quite a young age (I'm not sure how young but I woud guess 7 or under) and it felt very natural. If you share sweets out unequally with little kids they will soon tell you without any prompting, so clearly they do understand fractions quite early.
I like the bit about history teaching being biased towards white British men. That's a danger is it? Has anybody noticed that British history is entirely about white British men ? Which women do we introduce ? Queen Victoria, and then who? Boudicca? Mary Seacole? Florence Nightingale? The Pankhursts? Only the Pankhursts have a claim to having changed the course of our history. Even Victoria did not directly affect it; she existed to be humoured by her Prime Ministers, who carried on dealing with the world as it was.
I take your point Sharingan but you're still introducing 'dividing' (even if you only call it 'sharing') when most children are still struggling to learn the differencing between 'adding and 'taking'. I taught maths for 15 years and I know how easy it is to leave young people confused and bewildered by moving at too fast a pace. Children learn best when they have confidence in what they're doing. It's better to slow the pace down a bit (and have children feeling secure) than it is to risk trying to do things too fast. (I've had to explain that many times to parents who wanted to know why we weren't teaching advanced astro-physics to their 11-year-old 'child prodigies'!)
If you taught maths for 15 years I bow to your superior knowledge but also I have had no experience of school, my teaching has always been one to one so I imagine that would make a huge difference. My younger siblings are taught in the same way and are doing similarly to me but if that would be possible in a large class scenario I really dont know.
Yes, shari, if Eva Braun hadn't had had 'a headache' Hitler would never have annexed the Sudetenland ! (I assume they were together then; more research needed. I sense a PhD coming up) Of course, what you say is true, but it's rather difficult to identify anyone female who was a true eminence grise. It is natural for feminists and egalitarians to look for such figures, and tempting to exaggerate the contributions of any. Their best hope is to look at a thinker like Mary Wollstonecraft or Mary Stopes as a pioneer of contraception, women who had an influence on social history.
This playing up of comparatively minor women in history is a worthy attempt to give girls more self-esteem, by saying that women have always been overlooked or underrated and they should not be trapped in the same thinking that created that state of affairs . The same applies to black figures in our history. Mary Seacole falls into both categories, even though her contribution was widely accepted and she was feted in her own time, the feeling is that she was ignored far too much or altogether.
This playing up of comparatively minor women in history is a worthy attempt to give girls more self-esteem, by saying that women have always been overlooked or underrated and they should not be trapped in the same thinking that created that state of affairs . The same applies to black figures in our history. Mary Seacole falls into both categories, even though her contribution was widely accepted and she was feted in her own time, the feeling is that she was ignored far too much or altogether.
If the purpose of education is to equip children with the tools for being happy, successful and making a life, then I don't think Gove's plans for history education are consistent with that. If we want people to grow up with a better understanding of the world at large, then focusing exclusively on British history isn't a particularly effective way of doing that.
To give one example, pretty much everyone agrees that China will become a more prominent part of the world economy and political system in future decades. If we don't equip the next generation with an understanding of China's background, they are vulnerable as potential voters to the often ignorant and agenda-driven portrayals of foreigners pushed by politicians and mainstream media.
I'm not saying British history isn't important - and as someone who came out of education only 6/7 years ago, I don't think the current curriculum does either - but to treat it as the only history our children need to learn to understand the information they're going to be battered with later in life is somewhat ludicrous.
To give one example, pretty much everyone agrees that China will become a more prominent part of the world economy and political system in future decades. If we don't equip the next generation with an understanding of China's background, they are vulnerable as potential voters to the often ignorant and agenda-driven portrayals of foreigners pushed by politicians and mainstream media.
I'm not saying British history isn't important - and as someone who came out of education only 6/7 years ago, I don't think the current curriculum does either - but to treat it as the only history our children need to learn to understand the information they're going to be battered with later in life is somewhat ludicrous.
-- answer removed --
FredPuli43
One or two incorrect statements here, it seems.
/// I like the bit about history teaching being biased towards white British men. That's a danger is it? ///
No since this nation was a prominently white European nation, and one cannot change that fact,
/// Has anybody noticed that British history is entirely about white British men ? ///
Not entirely there have been many women in British history.
/// Which women do we introduce ? Queen Victoria, and then who? ///
Well for starters.
Anne of Cleves
Anne Boleyn
Boadicia
Elizabeth I
Elizabeth II
Elizabeth the late Queen Mother
Lady Jane Grey
Elizabeth Fry
Lady Jane Grey
Catherine Howard
Mary Queen of Scots
Mary I
Florence Nightingale
Catherine Parr
Jane Seymour
Margaret Thatcher
Queen Victoria.
/// Only the Pankhursts have a claim to having changed the course of our history. ///
One or two in the above list can put in a claim to that remark.
One or two incorrect statements here, it seems.
/// I like the bit about history teaching being biased towards white British men. That's a danger is it? ///
No since this nation was a prominently white European nation, and one cannot change that fact,
/// Has anybody noticed that British history is entirely about white British men ? ///
Not entirely there have been many women in British history.
/// Which women do we introduce ? Queen Victoria, and then who? ///
Well for starters.
Anne of Cleves
Anne Boleyn
Boadicia
Elizabeth I
Elizabeth II
Elizabeth the late Queen Mother
Lady Jane Grey
Elizabeth Fry
Lady Jane Grey
Catherine Howard
Mary Queen of Scots
Mary I
Florence Nightingale
Catherine Parr
Jane Seymour
Margaret Thatcher
Queen Victoria.
/// Only the Pankhursts have a claim to having changed the course of our history. ///
One or two in the above list can put in a claim to that remark.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles106 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles125 mins ago
Body & Soul142 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles143 mins ago
ChatterBank148 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.