Just because you say it over and over and over again doesnt make it any more true.
I generally ignore your posts.
As someone who comes across adults of all ages and backgrounds, it's interesting to see them struggle to achieve a level 2 qualification in literacy and numeracy - level 2 showing an employer that someone can work to an A - C grade GCSE. Lots of these people have learning differences etc and therefore, quite possibly, have slipped through 'the net' in their early years of education. However, this does not mean that all of them cannot go on to achieving higher levels of qualifications. Sorry, but I don't agree with the blame being placed on teachers - this is not usually the case.
It would be interesting to see real hard stats on the achievement levels of 16 year old today against historical data.
I can only make general observations based on what I see around me and conversations with teachers and young people.
1) It must be a failure of the system that enables primary school children to pass into High School without achieving an overall minimum standard of literacy and numeracy because that is the foundation needed for a High School education.
2) Until not that long ago High School students had Chemistry, Physics and Biology as three subjects and English language and literature as two subjects. Geography and history were mandatory subjects. Students therefore received teaching in all of these subjects. Now Science encompasses the three sciences, English encompasses the two English courses and Geography and History become "optional" gcse subjects. How can that be better today if students are taught less?
3) High school students no longer have targets that are measured against a national standard, but against their own personal target set by the school. This means that a parent can receive the excellent news that their child is performing well and is "on target." Most parents that I know would rather know that their child is doing well against a measurable level rather than an individual one set by a teacher.
4) I have now attended four High School "choices" meeting where parents and children spoke to us parents about gcse choices and I have used those events to talk to teachers and on every occasion I have left feeling in despair that virtually all teachers were comfortable with the general assumption that a gcse "c" was acceptable. How can it be acceptable to infer to a child that average is OK?
Forty years ago school leavers were in competition for jobs in their local area. Twenty years ago the competition was national as local employment became less important and todays school leavers will face competition from the world in the global marketplace. I am not sure that the standards of teaching and measures of achievement are appropriate for this new world - and I have not even touched on languages!
|uk|dl1|sec3_lnk3%26pLid%3D103560
OK back to the OP.
Miriam Gross is a journalist, not a scientist or professional educator. The document referred to in the article isn't a scientific research paper subject to peer review but a pamphlet written by her for the Centre for Policy Studies, which sounds terribly important but is just a right wing pressure group.
OK so does she cite any evidence for her astounding claims?
Well you can read the whole thing here.
Not a single source reference just unabashed claims, the odd anecodote and vague references to other research. If you presented this drivel at graduate level you would get an E.
Oh and btw it isnt a attack on teachers its a rallying cry for the phonics method.
SO rest easy, gawd elpus the country aint goin to the dawgs.
It is shocking behaviour and no place to hide
well with all the talk of teachers not doing there jobs to a good standard, they now decide to do this.
a national strike and right in the middle of kids exams. charming.
money over education of kids. is it any wonder standards are falling and as usual the kids will be the ones to suffer. so teachers have decided it is a pension over there pupils education, what a disgusting way to behave.
