Two issues have arisen in the last few days that have got me thinking. One has made me very confused and a little angry, the other just thoughtful. I was going to deal with them both in the same post, but have changed my mind they are best dealt with separately.
Lets start with angry shall we. I read in the newspaper yesterday (though it wasn't yesterday's newspaper, I think it was from last week) the education authorities in America are introducing creationism into the teaching curriculum. Now for those of you who do not know, creationism is a very popular point of view in America with regards to how we got here. Creationists believe that evolution doesn't happen, they believe that we were created by god, and that any improvements that might have occurred are god's design. There is also a certain amount of debate regarding the age of the earth, but I won't go into that right now.
Over the years, some of the finest minds our race has ever produced have done research into evolution, and the evolutionary process. Finding connections between species, and scientific evidence of evolution. Creatures will evolve to fit their surroundings, people ask why if we evolved from monkeys, do we still have monkeys. I have an answer for this, it's not a particularly scientific one, but it works for me.
The reason as I see it that monkeys still exist is that they are quite happy where they are. They are perfectly adapted for their environment and do very well thank you very much. Something happened to the apes that we descended from, a curiosity about the wider world - one of the more profound evolutionary steps I believe was not a physical one, but a mental one. We got curious about the wider world, and ventured out into it, over the generations we adapted to our new surroundings, and the way we lived in them.
But I'm getting off the point, the scary thing about creationism being on the teaching curriculum in the states is not that I disagree with it, I am a very open minded person, I hold to some rather odd beliefs myself (or would like to think they could be true) my problem is that it will encourage a school of thought that has already more than enough influence in America. Religion is a fine and good thing, it serves many purposes, for some it gives purpose, others hope. Faith is not an issue here, what I mistrust slightly is Organised religion. And when organised religion gets into education systems, all the fun starts to happen. You get the zealous ones, those who are not open minded enough to accept that other faiths may well be just as relevant as their own. You get almost institutionalised guilt tripping. And strange twistings of the tenets of a religion (such as the pro life movement).
At this point I would like to point out very strongly that I have no problem with faith, everyone has their own personal faith, and I believe everyone carries a fragment of the divine within them (hey call me a hippy if you like, I care not. With a belief like that, it's not hard to see how I came to be tolerant of other's faith). My problem is in what happens when organised religion meets political power. It is at this point that religion ceases to be about faith (most of the time) and becomes about control, and so you end up with a situation like we have now. With a discredited and probably ill founded belief is being taught LIKE A SCIENCE SUBJECT. I give up, the world is a f**king scary place when that can happen.
Anyone agree with me?
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Education - Part 2
Well it's that time of year again. I'd like to start by wishing all those awaiting thei A-Level results the very best of luck, you deserve it. However, I'm going to tackle a subject (quite a controversial subject) that I feel quite strongly about, that involves A-Levels.
Every year in the UK, at about this time of year, the same arguments begin. As predictions and projections for A-Level pass rates are released. The line in all the papers is always the same.
ARE A-LEVELS TOO EASY? or ARE A-LEVELS GETTING EASIER?
My answer, it's possible. I've studied A-Levels, and they were bloody hard, that was eight years ago though. However, easier or not there is a definite problem with them, it is not that they are getting easier (which they may be, certainly evidence suggests that is the case), or that the student's are getting smarter (I'm taking absolutely nothing away from those of you awaiting your results, and nothing I say here discredits you in any way - at least that is not my intention). The problem is that when you study A-Levels now, you do not study the subject but the curriculum. What's the difference you may ask.
Subject = knowledge realting to the subject as a whole, the teaching of which leaves the student with a good wide variety of knowledge with regard to said subject.
Curriculum = knowledge relating to the area's of the subject that are likely to be covered in examination. A snapshot or cross section of the knowledge required for a student to have a good level of proficiency in the subject as a whole.
This failing in the system I beleive has been brought on by the introduction of Academic League Tables. Showing the pass rates etc of various educational institutions. Now this is an act of supreme lazyness, and one of misguided if innocent stupidity in my opinion (not that i'm the almighty authority on anything). The government no doubt thought that league tables would be a great idea, being able to see how well you did in relation to other institutions would no doubt make them push harder to get better results.
The problem is that better grades does not necessarily equal better educated students. Oh within the boundaries of the Curriculum, such students are fantastic, and well done to them - it takes hard work to do what they and I have done, but in the broader aspects of their subject, only the most avid or enthusiasticly interested student will be able to hald their own in the same way. It is the system that has failed here.
Now just being a normal joe, my idea's probably aren't going to be noted any more than (as a friend of mine put it recently) a fart in a hurricane. But I'm going to put them down anyway.
I think that A-Level subjects should have a more abstract element to them, some other way of expressing the student's knowledge of the Subject. Perhaps they should be encouraged in one project, to study a subject that lies outside of the curriculum. With the tutor providing help and guidance to the student. While this is less easily measured than an exam, it would push students to push the boundaries of their studies.
Another way could be for part of a student's examination process to be based on debate or conversation with the tutor and/or other students. Perhaps the week before the lecturer could tell the student's the subject of the following week's debate. To allow them a week to dig up the information and familiarise themselves with it. You can get a far better understanding of a person's knowledge of a subject if the examinations and assesments are done in a variety of different ways. and verbal expression of knowledge, and the benefits of sharing such knowledge provide a very active platform for student's to push the boundaries. This information would be taken into account in the student's final grades, but the subjects discussed there would lie outside of the standard exam curriculum, they may be related, thus improving background knowledge in the subject. But they would not be directly called on in examinations.
Well, what do you think? I'm hoping to get some sort of discussion going here, would be interesting to see your thoughts.
Every year in the UK, at about this time of year, the same arguments begin. As predictions and projections for A-Level pass rates are released. The line in all the papers is always the same.
ARE A-LEVELS TOO EASY? or ARE A-LEVELS GETTING EASIER?
My answer, it's possible. I've studied A-Levels, and they were bloody hard, that was eight years ago though. However, easier or not there is a definite problem with them, it is not that they are getting easier (which they may be, certainly evidence suggests that is the case), or that the student's are getting smarter (I'm taking absolutely nothing away from those of you awaiting your results, and nothing I say here discredits you in any way - at least that is not my intention). The problem is that when you study A-Levels now, you do not study the subject but the curriculum. What's the difference you may ask.
Subject = knowledge realting to the subject as a whole, the teaching of which leaves the student with a good wide variety of knowledge with regard to said subject.
Curriculum = knowledge relating to the area's of the subject that are likely to be covered in examination. A snapshot or cross section of the knowledge required for a student to have a good level of proficiency in the subject as a whole.
This failing in the system I beleive has been brought on by the introduction of Academic League Tables. Showing the pass rates etc of various educational institutions. Now this is an act of supreme lazyness, and one of misguided if innocent stupidity in my opinion (not that i'm the almighty authority on anything). The government no doubt thought that league tables would be a great idea, being able to see how well you did in relation to other institutions would no doubt make them push harder to get better results.
The problem is that better grades does not necessarily equal better educated students. Oh within the boundaries of the Curriculum, such students are fantastic, and well done to them - it takes hard work to do what they and I have done, but in the broader aspects of their subject, only the most avid or enthusiasticly interested student will be able to hald their own in the same way. It is the system that has failed here.
Now just being a normal joe, my idea's probably aren't going to be noted any more than (as a friend of mine put it recently) a fart in a hurricane. But I'm going to put them down anyway.
I think that A-Level subjects should have a more abstract element to them, some other way of expressing the student's knowledge of the Subject. Perhaps they should be encouraged in one project, to study a subject that lies outside of the curriculum. With the tutor providing help and guidance to the student. While this is less easily measured than an exam, it would push students to push the boundaries of their studies.
Another way could be for part of a student's examination process to be based on debate or conversation with the tutor and/or other students. Perhaps the week before the lecturer could tell the student's the subject of the following week's debate. To allow them a week to dig up the information and familiarise themselves with it. You can get a far better understanding of a person's knowledge of a subject if the examinations and assesments are done in a variety of different ways. and verbal expression of knowledge, and the benefits of sharing such knowledge provide a very active platform for student's to push the boundaries. This information would be taken into account in the student's final grades, but the subjects discussed there would lie outside of the standard exam curriculum, they may be related, thus improving background knowledge in the subject. But they would not be directly called on in examinations.
Well, what do you think? I'm hoping to get some sort of discussion going here, would be interesting to see your thoughts.
Monday, August 08, 2005
Robin Cook
This is a breif tribute (it has to be breif because I know so Little of the man's career) to Robin Cook, who died while hillwalking in scotland on saturday.
I had heard of Mr Cook on the news, and on satire programs like Have I Got News for You and Spitting Image. It wasn't until I saw him on Parkinson when he was publicising his book "Point of Departure" that I got any sort of idea about the man. I found him to be posessed of a very sharp humour, and an intellect to match (as you have to have to survive even one day in the house of commons) I liked him instantly. He resigned from government because of his disagreements regarding the events in Iraq, and his resignation speech was the only speech in the history of the House of Commons to get a standing ovation. Resigned from the one thing he had based his life on since school, to step away from that in support of your own beleifs was a brave thing to do. A shame that such a brilliant man should die so young, I had been looking forward to the possibility of another book from him.
There you go, as I said, a short tribute to a man I admired. Rest in peace Robin.
I had heard of Mr Cook on the news, and on satire programs like Have I Got News for You and Spitting Image. It wasn't until I saw him on Parkinson when he was publicising his book "Point of Departure" that I got any sort of idea about the man. I found him to be posessed of a very sharp humour, and an intellect to match (as you have to have to survive even one day in the house of commons) I liked him instantly. He resigned from government because of his disagreements regarding the events in Iraq, and his resignation speech was the only speech in the history of the House of Commons to get a standing ovation. Resigned from the one thing he had based his life on since school, to step away from that in support of your own beleifs was a brave thing to do. A shame that such a brilliant man should die so young, I had been looking forward to the possibility of another book from him.
There you go, as I said, a short tribute to a man I admired. Rest in peace Robin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
