Downgrading of vocational subjects

[david_carnell]

Katie. All good points except the idea that, not being much cop at academic subjects, young David does his woodwork course and finds great satisfaction from making things. All good stuff. To then leap to him taking up engineering (a profession Britain woefully lacks) because he likes making stuff is simply too great.

And I agree we need to teach customer service skills to those who work in those roles. But putting on your clothes te right way round, smiling and being polite and helpful do not require a qualification. And anyone saying otherwise in the education world is good winking our youth. You can learn all that in a week on a shop floor.

[Otta]

But what if young David is top of the class in his academic subjects, but happens to enjoy CDT, and becomes inspired by it?

You seem to be making this about academic subjects for clever kids, and vocational for thick kids, and it should just be about having the choice.

Having said that, there clearly will be those kids who don't excel academically, and yet work just as hard on their vocational subject as the geek who got the A* in maths, English, and all the sciences.. Why should they be told that their effort isn't worth as much, and what sort of message is that sending them in to the world with?

"Work as hard as you like, you'll always be second rate".

[Otta]

Just to add, that I have no doubt that there are vocational courses that need to be looked at and redesigned. I also have no doubt that some schools provably have tried to play the league tables.

That is because when you put in league tables and targets, people start using performance management techniques.

It's like the government and OFSTED being all shocked and scandalised following the death of baby p, because local authorities had seemed to be performing better. These local authorities never broke rules, they just interpreted the targets in a way that made them attainable.

League tables and OFSTED reports tell you nothing about a school.

[katie1997]

Yes d_c I did think that someone might pull me up on that for it being a great leap.

I am not denying that to be a good engineer (and am agreed about the lack of them in the UK), there is a necessity to have decent grades in academically important subjects such as maths and science. What I was trying to say (not very well I grant you) was that being good at those subjects does not necessarily enthuse or inspire pupils to take up such careers in the first place.

In some cases of course it may but you cannot under-estimate the value of practical activities that help people to see their connection with maths and science. So if vocational subjects were deemed not as important, we may not get the benefit anyway.

I was also trying to point out that it was perhaps a case of some vocational subjects holding greater value than others, for example, I would be dismayed if someone studying 'customer service' skills expected that to be weighted the same as a subject such as english or maths.

Literacy and numeracy are vital - as said above by others. But there are equally good practical subjects out there too. Some people are better at the purely academic subjects; some people better at vocational stuff; some people work well choosing a mixture of both.

Look at home ecomomics. I feel so old saying this but back in my day that encompassed: food & nutrition theory (yay), practical cookery, textiles & fabrics theory, practical sewing (ugh), making and mending type stuff. Now many people may view that as not quite as academically important as sciences, languages for the economy/job market. But I can think of plenty small (artisan if you like) food and drink producers, bespoke hand-made products being artfully produced by small businesses. So whetting people's appetites in some subject from a young age is pretty useful.

I won't even go into the sponges/marbles/straws props that I know have helped younger children to understand engineering concepts and who knows, may well have helped theories to stick in their mind and inspire them to study something they'd previously not have thought of later in life ;)

(sorry for long post, may edit later)

edited to add the word 'people' for clarity.

[katie1997]

:-$ I took so long writing that I didn't see all the other posts in between, sorry.

[Jeremy]

Clearly a bright child studying CDT alongside maths and physics has a great chance of going into engineering. Surely we all agree on that, but that's not the issue. The point is that the role of a school should be to provide students with a solid academic grounding. Once pupils have finished their GCSEs, then there should be the option to carry on the academic route, or embark on a vocational education.

Hairdressing training does not belong in schools, just as golf course management does not belong in universities.

[katie1997]

Please, please, someone tell me that hairdressing is not taught at secondary school? Really?

Mind you, what a welcome relief to check the timetable and see that you were about to be let loose armed with scissors, straighteners and a willing victim after Double Maths on a Monday morning.

"Miss, Miss....Jemima's hair has gone a funny colour....exactly HOW much hydrogen peroxide did you say again? Oh." :-$

[Jeremy]

Well in the R4 show Otta linked, John Humphry certainly implies that it is!

[david_carnell]

It's taught at Harris girls, I believe.

Katie - ill come back to your points shortly.

[????]

Given some of the appalling stats from our worst performing schools on basic literacy and numeracy some need to just concentrate on the basics.

Personally, I'd like to see some sort of managiung money/moneysense (poor names but you know what I mean) added to the compulsory curriculum. The lack of awareness of basic person finance and how it works even among 'well educated' people is staggering! If people took a bit of control in this area of their lives we wouldn't get into half the sh1te we do and the banks wouldn't get away with half the sh1te they do.

[david_carnell]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But what if young David is top of the class in his

> academic subjects, but happens to enjoy CDT, and

> becomes inspired by it?

>

> You seem to be making this about academic subjects

> for clever kids, and vocational for thick kids,

> and it should just be about having the choice.

>

> Having said that, there clearly will be those kids

> who don't excel academically, and yet work just as

> hard on their vocational subject as the geek who

> got the A* in maths, English, and all the

> sciences.. Why should they be told that their

> effort isn't worth as much, and what sort of

> message is that sending them in to the world

> with?

>

> "Work as hard as you like, you'll always be second

> rate".

Otta - you're trying to second guess my thoughts and getting it wrong.

I have no problem with schools offering a diverse range of subjects, both academic and vocational. In fact I think it should be encouraged as it will be more likely to turn out well rounded pupils.

Clearly some children will thrive at some subjects and struggle at others.

But I just struggle with the idea that all subjects are of equal worth and merit and should therefore be given equal qualifications. An A* in Chinese or Maths or Chemistry is demonstrably more "difficult" than one in Media Studies, Hairdressing or Woodwork. I'd like to see that recognised either through a thorough reworking of the exam system.

It doesn't send the wrong message to pupils at all. Yours on the other hand - that all subjects are equal and valued as such by the outside world - is merely deluding children until the moment the step outside the school gates and discover that media studies equates to a hill of beans compared to their friends with a science a-level.

[david_carnell]

katie1997 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes d_c I did think that someone might pull me up

> on that for it being a great leap.

>

> I am not denying that to be a good engineer (and

> am agreed about the lack of them in the UK), there

> is a necessity to have decent grades in

> academically important subjects such as maths and

> science. What I was trying to say (not very well

> I grant you) was that being good at those subjects

> does not necessarily enthuse or inspire pupils to

> take up such careers in the first place.

Agreed - a passion for a subject cannot be taught by rote. A good teacher and exciting practical lessons can help tremendously.

> In some cases of course it may but you cannot

> under-estimate the value of practical activities

> that help people to see their connection with

> maths and science. So if vocational subjects were

> deemed not as important, we may not get the

> benefit anyway.

I think the key is that they should be seen as supplementary rather than of equal weight.

> I was also trying to point out that it was perhaps

> a case of some vocational subjects holding greater

> value than others, for example, I would be

> dismayed if someone studying 'customer service'

> skills expected that to be weighted the same as a

> subject such as english or maths.

Agreed - as would I. See my earlier post. There is a clear and obvious hierarchy of "worth" although we persist in deluding ourselves to the contrary.

> Literacy and numeracy are vital - as said above by

> others. But there are equally good practical

> subjects out there too. Some people are better at

> the purely academic subjects; some people better

> at vocational stuff; some people work well

> choosing a mixture of both.

Again, agreed. A mix of subjects equates to more well rounded characters. And people should be free to follow vocational subjects if this is what they excel at. The chances are that passion should lead to an apprenticeship to learn industry skills. But the government is failing to help provide these where they are needed.

> Look at home ecomomics. I feel so old saying this

> but back in my day that encompassed: food &

> nutrition theory (yay), practical cookery,

> textiles & fabrics theory, practical sewing (ugh),

> making and mending type stuff. Now many people

> may view that as not quite as academically

> important as sciences, languages for the

> economy/job market. But I can think of plenty

> small (artisan if you like) food and drink

> producers, bespoke hand-made products being

> artfully produced by small businesses. So

> whetting people's appetites in some subject from a

> young age is pretty useful.

That's a good example - and I think home economics is a vital subject but perhaps where I differ from you is that I think it's vital for turning out decent citizens rather than artisan craft workers. The inability to cook decent food from scratch leads to further, expensive social problems down the line.

Also, and this pains me, Quids is bang on the money (no pun intended) with his idea to teach personal finance. I can do a quadratic equation but have little idea how a mortgage works. That's an appalling state of affairs in the teaching of maths.

[Otta]

Otta - you're trying to second guess my

thoughts and getting it wrong.

Well I apologise if that is what I've done. Ironic though, that that is exactly what I felt you were doing to me yesterday.

I seem to be struggling to put across what I mean here. I am not saying that all subjects are equally difficult.

I don't think a 15 year old girl doing hair dressing will believe deep down that what she is doing is as difficult as maths, or that it will lead to a career in politics. Equally, I'd agree that hairdressing doesn't really belong in secondary schools.

How though do you decide which subjects are less worthy? Several times, you've mentioned woodwork. It could be argued that if woodwork is to be downgraded, then so should art and music.

[david_carnell]

Now you've stumped me. I have no idea.

And obviously some people find maths very easy because they're wired like that yet they find PE very fustrating. And there are those who find the reverse.

How do we judge worth? Or difficulty? I genuinely don't know but I think we need to try.

Edit: and just for the record, I have no problem with woodwork. I love woodwork. I do an evening class in it and am in awe of the skill of cabinet makers and carpenters.

[zeban]

I absolutely agree with quids on personal finance, and it's funny because me and my friend were saying the same thing the other day. she said the biggest regret in her life so far is getting into debt at a young age. she couldn't wait to get a credit card even though she actually had no idea what she was letting herself in for. And she's still paying back all her debts now, 10 years later. And as for me, I had no idea what a mortage was let alone how it worked until I was about 19/20 when I got to uni and started hearing other people talking about them.

I mean, I know it's easier for kids now to find out such info- there was no internet for me growing up- but I do think it would be a really good thing to teach it in school.

[katie1997]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well in the R4 show Otta linked, John Humphry

> certainly implies that it is!

I didn't spot that but then I thought I had opened all the links to articles. Am genuinely shocked if hairdressing is being taught at secondary school in that case.

Think am agreed with d_c and otta that a mix of subjects is valuable and we shouldn't be tellinmg someone who excels at woodwork that their achievement is nothing compared to eg being brill at maths. Def agree that targeted vocational skills are what's needed; one with industry support and buy-in with offers of training, experience in form of apprenticeships. But that schools must first ensure that as high as possible standards of literacy and numeracy are taught.

You're right d_c that some subjects do help us to become good citizens and that in my view is a good contribution to the ecomomy/society as well. We got taught what I guess would be classed as 'citizenship' now - the welfare state, voting systems such as fptp, pr, the constitution, etc. We also did extr-curricular classes/projects in enterprise, setting up and running a business, coming up with products we made and a business plan to market/sell them. All good stuff. But didn't help get into certain university courses but then again, not everyone needs to go to uni to do what they want.

Courses in personal finances at school level would be great, I agree with quids. Remember my poor mum trying to teach me that (in vain).

I disagree with all universities being the same and think that the old technical colleges should have stayed as they were doing what they do well. Agree that golf course management should not be a uni course either.

[indiepanda]

katie1997 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Courses in personal finances at school level would

> be great, I agree with quids. Remember my poor mum

> trying to teach me that (in vain).

Martin Lewis (the guy who set up the "money savings expert" wesbite) set up a petition on this on the government's epetition site. It reached it's required > 100,000 signatures level and the government's current response is:

?The Government agrees that young people should have access to good quality personal finance education, so that they leave school with the knowledge and confidence to manage their money effectively. Parents can also play a crucial role in helping young people to become financially aware in their day-to-day lives.

Schools already use Personal, Social, Health and Economic (PSHE) education as a framework within which to teach young people about personal financial management. The existing PSHE programmes of study include elements aimed at ensuring that by the time they leave school, pupils should be able to manage their money, understand and explain financial risk and reward, and identify how finance will play an important part in their lives and in achieving their aspirations. We are currently carrying out a review to determine how best to support schools to improve the quality of all PSHE teaching.?

Frankly I think they ought to teach some finance as part of the maths course never mind just in PSHE so people understand how it works. I can remember spending time at GSCE on trigonometry which has been of no use to me despite doing a job that requires a decent grade in A level maths. Think things like that should be saved for A level, and they should introduce things like compound interest which everyone should understand - e.g. how to calculate how big your credit card bill will become in X years if you only pay off the minimum.

As to the wider topic, I think my concern about the vocational subjects that count towards GCSE is that it seems in some schools, less able children are encouraged to do these subjects not because they want but because the head wants to boost the school's position in the league table, which doesn't necessarily serve their best interests.

Personally I think most vocational education could wait until after the age of 16.

[Otta]

I love woodwork. I do an evening class in it

Aiming for a rocking crib in oak perhaps?

[david_carnell]

Alas, that's beyond my abilities. I'm attempting a farmhouse table but it's early days. I should have paid attention at school!

[El Pibe]

I achieved one thing in woodwork at school.

A little set of shelves. It was basically a small ikea Billy.

I proudly took it home only for my dad to say 'Hmm the screws could be useful' and promptly dismantling it before my eyes and throwing the wood on the fire.

I can't even whittle these days so traumatised am I.

[Undisputedtruth]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Given some of the appalling stats from our worst

> performing schools on basic literacy and numeracy

> some need to just concentrate on the basics.

>

> Personally, I'd like to see some sort of managiung

> money/moneysense (poor names but you know what I

> mean) added to the compulsory curriculum. The lack

> of awareness of basic person finance and how it

> works even among 'well educated' people is

> staggering! If people took a bit of control in

> this area of their lives we wouldn't get into half

> the sh1te we do and the banks wouldn't get away

> with half the sh1te they do.

I think you're spot on there. I used to work with grammar Kings and Queens but they had very poor maths skills and not good at anything else for that matter.

Life skills are just as important as academic skills but I wonder if all of the proposed changes are part of the Tory dogma. For example are we going see an increase in Latin being taught in Schools? And how useful is Latin in the real world apart from, of course, the East Dulwich Forum?

[Huguenot]

"I can't even whittle these days so traumatised am I."

And thus Yoda tossed away his chisel, and stepped gracefully into midi-clorian management.

Strictly speaking, maths would be an underpinning skill for personal finance, but that doesn't mean personal finance should be taught in maths classes. It probably means Home Economics ahould be elevated and subjects like this included.

Are we being daft though? I'm pretty sure that schools have changed a lot since I was there several decades ago? Don't they teach this stuff now?

I was taught 'pure' academic stuff (except applied mathematics mainly for physics/engineering katydid), but it didn't make me think credit cards were free money.

I 'kind of' agree with Otta about vocational subjects. I thought plumbers were stupid until I was around 25 and discovered they netted around 80k a year. I really didn't give a shit about their spelling then. With all my special academic skills I only overtook plumbers' income in my mid thirties, and most people never do. I'm not saying income is everything, but it's not a bad yardstick for personal success (not including worthy personal issues).

The question seems to be 'what is school for'?

[zeban]

Just to add Huguenot, my friend certainly didn't think credit cards were free money! she just didn't realise how high the interest rates were and that if you default on a payment you get charged etc etc. It was managing her credit card that she didn't think about and if you're naive like she was and not switched on when it came to personal finance then it's easy to ignore the small print and get over excited.

[Huguenot]

What about General Studies? Couldn't one of those be about personal finance?

[womanofdulwich]

So Huguenot- you earn a fair bit of money and you when you have an interview for a job you tell the person offering you a job they are stupid. I deduce you are a management consultant? Do I pass go and collect ?200?