Downgrading of vocational subjects

[El Pibe]

It's something of a viscous circle though isn't it.

Teaching is a much maligned profession.

Beauracracy and league table type pressures have only served to undermine moral in the profession too.

Retention, especially among the young is relatively low.

Government can't compete with the private sector, but if we we were to rely entirely on the private sector literacy and numeracy would be significantly ower as a huge swathe would simply exclude their children from education (much like the 40 million americans who exclude themselves from health care).

I'm sure we'd love to have good teachers educating our young, but how do you persuade them to do it? ANd if we get rid of the bad teachers there aren't enough left to teach everyone.

Lowest common denominator socialism?

Perhaps, but the alternative is worse.

Maybe public education whould be means tested and if you can pay for it you'll have to. I'd not be happy about it but it might be the only way we can prevent writing off our youth.

[Undisputedtruth]

Our schools decayed under a Thatcher government. It is right that Labour rebuilt our schools at a time when the UK was the fourth largest economy in the world. It is about treating our children as human beings.

There have always been a shortage of good maths & science teachers even from the days of a Thatcher government. To blame the maths illiteracy on the last labour government is plainly short-sighted over the real issues.

[El Pibe]

Successive governements have failed to address the issue of how to squeeze quality out of an underfunded education system.

Labour may have added a financial sticking plaster during their term, but it was unsustainable and left an expensive PFI legacy. PLus it was they who have overseen the introduction of the league table results obsessed culture which is undermining both real educational values and demoralising the profession.

Your black & white, 4 labour legs good... mantra is becoming really quite tedious UDT.

[Undisputedtruth]

Not sure about the black and white accusation. Just pointing out what's right and wrong. For example, it was the Tories, and not Labour, who introduced league tables for Schools.

The PFI concept was introduced by the Tories. In fact, it was invented by Norman Lamont, a former Tory Chancellor.

[Brendan]

Yeah but Labour were responsible for the uk having a Tory prime minister from 1997 - 2007.

[El Pibe]

We've been through this.

Yes PFI was introduced by the tories and ued in a limited fashion.

It is not an intrinsically bad idea.

It was abused by Brown to get spending off balance sheet, and in typical new labour fashion they had an idea but no interest in detail, so that they pursued it incredibly badly and negotiated some woefully poor deals.

My god, I can't stand the tories and find myself defending them. Aaaagh.

They got lots and lots wrong, including the national curriculum, but Nulabour got lots and lots wronger.

It's no coincidence that exam results in a league obsessed system are at an all time high, but basica literacy and numeracy skills are at an all time low, and that includes many of those headed to university.

Something is rotten, and a blinkered party political partisan bleating is what got us into this mess, it ain't going to get us out of it.

Your faith in labour is heartening, but I fear naively misplaced.

[Undisputedtruth]

I don't have much faith in Labour either, El Pibe. Just that I rather have Labour in power than the Tories where 99% of the population benefits.

I'm not a fan of PFIs btw. As I said before, without PFIs, Labour would not have been able to rebuild the schools and hospitals which decayed under a Thatcher government. If the Tories had managed the infrastructure better then there would be no need for expensive PFI projects.

Basic numeracy and literacy have always been a problem, regardless of political parties.

Sure Labout got some things wrong but they got lots of things right. For example would East Dulwich flourished under a Tory government?

ETA: It was Norman Baker, a conservative Education minister, who introduced schools league tables.

[Otta]

He introduced inset days too, good man!

Labour, Tory. Tory, Labour... Meh.

[uncleglen]

If a pupil in school has a certain 'level' of literacy when they enter secondary education ( the reading age changes periodically usually to acommodate fewer students!) then the student receives remedial support. No such support is given in mathematics. People are ready to admit that they can't 'do' maths but will not admit that they cannot read. It seems like a badge of honour to some people not to be able to 'do' maths, but without it people are dependent on those that can and have to trust them! Mathematics underpins all technology and is totally taken for granted.

[Brendan]

Yes well we can all tell what that adds up to.

[pearl1]

Please don't be mean about Harris Girl's by suggesting they teach hairdressing - they don't!

What they do, is (same as most secondary schools) offer vocational training through local authority colleges to students unlikey to achieve 5 or more A*-C grades at GCSE. These courses vary from year to year depending on what is available from the local college, and involve some level of choice from the student.

This seems like a good thing to me?

[Jeremy]

I disagree, school should be for academic education. If a child is struggling to acheive reasonable grades, maybe it would be better to cut the number of subjects they're taking, and give them extra tuition in the most important ones. Moving GCSE students onto vocational courses seems a bit like giving up on them. Besides, there's plenty of time for vocational training after GCSEs.

[Natty]

There are children who, for a plethora of reasons, will never attain in maths and English. There are also those with SEN who will never attain. What do you suggest we do with these children? School should also be for teaching students about life, society and self-development/life skills not just academic acheivement. To say that carpentry is a hobby (sorry I know that was a lot earlier in the thread) is plain rude to all those whose make it their livlihoods. Vocational subjects are an important part of many student's schooling and can teach them skills that others might not be able to achieve if they more academic.

[AbDabs]

I wish I had been taught Latin. The rest of my family did, and whilst they all admit it was a hideous and painful experience at the time, they also report how useful it was to learn such structured grammar when they went on to a range of other European languages (which they then found very easy). Without that basic understanding of how languages are structured, I failed dismally.

I also wish I'd had lessons in metalwork and woodwork - but perhaps only a term of each. A GCSE of combined practical and life skills would be useful (to include finance and cooking) to everyone and provide a taster of what might be interesting for those who aren't academically minded but, otherwise, I think there is a terrible risk of a late starter being sent down a path that doesn't give any alternative options at the end of it. If you get a maths GCSE but hate maths, it's still got a place on your CV. If you get a GCSE in woodwork but then decide you want to work in an office you may regret it.

By the way, I am an engineer - the lack of metalwork/woodwork meant we had one 'catch up' lesson at University so that we could complete the necessary project work. That was sufficient. Those that hadn't been taught any applied (as well as pure) maths had a much harder time of it.

I'd also like to make the point that if you're inclined to the practical side of engineering you will still need adequate competency in English/Maths/IT to deal with the administration that goes with all but the most menial of tasks. (Contracts/health and safety/taxman)

When I was at school we had elocution classes. For those who are not academically able it's a shame that this isn't an option. Every time I ring up a call centre on my mobile and find it impossible to hear the person at the other end, it makes me wonder how much easier it would be if they'd had a few hours of 'How Now Brown Cow'

[sophiesofa]

I'm a DT teacher so will try and defend my subject. For key stage 3 in the school I work in the students do a half term in each of the following: food tech, textiles, graphics, product design, resistant materials (it's not called woodwork anyomre!) and one about recycling/the envionment. At GCSE they choose between: not picking DT, textiles, graphics, food and resistant materials - each subject is 60% coursework, 40% written exam. The coursework involves research, technical drawing skills (not so much for food), creativity, prototyping, consumer testing, making it and evaluation. I have a mixture of high ability, very low ability and SEN students. The able students of course find it quite easy, but they enjoy it and I think they chose it partly to have a bit of a break from the 'heavy' subjects. The low ability hate the book work and only want to be in the workshop, but they won't pass if they do that. Many of my low ability students aspire to be plumbers, electricians, carpenters which I think is wonderful. I do not think from doing a GCSE in resistamt materials puts them much ahead of someone who hasn't done it, but it's given them a bit of an introduction and got them interested in the related industries.

I don't think an A in Resistant Materials is the equivalent of an A in maths, they are just completely different subjects. Potential further education / employers don't just look at the number of GCSEs, they see if they're relevant.

"If you get a GCSE in woodwork but then decide you want to work in an office you may regret it." It's just one optional GCSE - you get to do lots, so I don't think it's a waste at all. I could regret being forced to do Latin at school, but It's not hindered my life at all, it was just incredibly boring (to me).

[Jeremy]

I have absolutely no problem with GCSEs in Design and Technology. What I'm not happy about is children being taken out of the GCSE path to study BTECs in "Horse Care" or "Nail Technology", and then to pretend that these are the equivalent of 2 (or more) GCSEs.

[Brendan]

Are you talking about a Btech? As is Bachelor of Technology?

As someone who?s first undergrad degree was a Btech I can assure you have to finish school (or I suppose get your ?Ey Levels as it?s called over here) before you even start on a 4 year programme of study.

[AbDabs]

Brendan Wrote:

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

> Are you talking about a Btech? As is Bachelor of

> Technology?

>

> As someone who?s first undergrad degree was a

> Btech I can assure you have to finish school (or I

> suppose get your ?Ey Levels as it?s called over

> here) before you even start on a 4 year programme

> of study.

Btecs aren't the same as Btechs. The former is a vocational equivalent (so they say) of A levels.

[Jeremy]

Brendan Wrote:

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

> As someone who?s first undergrad degree was a Btech

Was that in South Africa? I don't think that qualification exists in the UK.

[Brendan]

Yes it was in SA. Quick look at wikipedia says that the Btech is still around in SA, Aus, Canada et. but was discontinued in the uk and those type of courses are now just called BScs.

I think mine was in nail technology or was it elephant dung relocating. It was a long time ago now I can?t really remember.

[sophiesofa]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> I have absolutely no problem with GCSEs in Design

> and Technology. What I'm not happy about is

> children being taken out of the GCSE path to study

> BTECs in "Horse Care" or "Nail Technology", and

> then to pretend that these are the equivalent of 2

> (or more) GCSEs.

Often these courses say they're the equivalent of x amount of GCSEs, but in reality people don't view them as being. But... It's the only way some students will get any kind of qualification, so it's better than nothing in my view.

[dulwichgirl2]

Clearly we need vocational sujects as well as academic ones.

That is to say - we need plumbers and doctors.

We don't need people with "degrees" from strange institutions in twiddly cupcake making or purple fence building or pretend you're a tomato for 24 hours. THere has been FAR too much utter bx going on funded by Government. It diminishes those doing serous and useful vocational courses like plumbing, boilers, brickwall building, whatever. THese people are useful to society - "move like a monkey and express yourself" courses are not.

[david_carnell]

Interesting article here following on from Michael Gove's new education plans.

[uncleglen]

Vocational courses should be replaced with apprenticeships and day- release at college to get the bits of paper to prove you were trained. The recognition of vocational courses (for GCSE equivalence) as a means of getting on to an A level course has lessened this year.