This story from the Guardian seems to have arrived courtesy of a press release from the Professional Association of Teachers - yes those them ones with a fairly recent notorious history of unresearched HE bashing and other frankly dotty suggestions, so perhaps all in all, one needn't take this story too seriously.
But whichever way you look at it, you wouldn't want your child in the school system since either the story is true, in which case, you don't, or it is not and you still don't, given that the voice of teachers would therefore be so out of whack.
HT: Jonathan
Carlotta,
ReplyDeleteDid you see this story?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4793655.stm
When I say to people that Google, Wikipedia and a stack of second hand books will give you an education cheaper, easier and quicker, they laugh. This story backs up my viewpoint quite nicely.
One of the reasons stated in the article for people failing is that they were part of the education programme where students were believed to be able to pick up literacy naturally, without formal teaching.
ReplyDeletequote
"Professor Alan Smithers, director of the Centre of Education and Employment at the University of Buckingham said the results suggested the education of many candidates had been lacking.
He said: "The average age of teacher recruits these days is 30. So a lot of them will have come through school at a time when spelling and punctuation were thought to inhibit creativity."
He added: "I thought anyone who had come through at least 13 years of education really ought to have a basic ability in mastering words and numbers but the fact that so many are failing to demonstrate this is worrying - and teachers have to demonstrate how to use words and numbers to a class."
The suggestion is that the younger applicants who had a more formal education are doing better in these tests.