Yes, sorry (again). I came over as remarkably ungrateful there. I moved to quickly onto a wider point after stating that I hadn't read it yet. Don't get me wrong either, there is a lot to be said for looking at other education systems for ideas. It is just that Gove has carried on a tradition, seen in the UK and the US since the 70s, of nicking the ideas of any country that is doing better either in terms of production or, PISA and TIMSS terms without looking at root and branch changes in wider socio-cultural or political contexts (such as higher taxation, for instance)

For instance, I would quite happily study the Cuban education system for pointers of success while realising that much of their success is based in the unique social, cultural and political context of the country. Of course, UK, as well as US, governments wouldn't even entertain acknowledging their success let alone studying it



Maybe, I've not been clear. Presently, you have to have English, Maths and, I think, Science GCSE/O-level to teach the same (and other subjects) at primary school. Of course, you have to have A-levels (or equivalent) and a degree as well to get to the PGCE. To teach a subject at secondary level, you have to have a degree in that subject.

Now, the A-level is another level, you could argue but, firstly, I am not sure that you necessarily have to have an A-level in a subject to teach it so I am not sure that counts as a level per se. Also, with the sort of one-year access course that I took instead of a two year A-level, it is even more marginal.

In my case, I was educated in Maths, English and Science to O-level/GCSE C-grade standard at school (albeit just Physics), a similar standard at college in all three (with brief forays into A-level standard in Maths and Science but these were optional in the latter) and will currently be at the same level throughout my teacher training. Believe me, that is more than enough.

I know that, despite my abilities in Maths and English that are not shared by many of my peers on the course, however, I would be floundering to teach beyond the first couple of years, if that, of secondary and, really a degree is necessary for this level of, not only subject knowledge but with the levels of reflection, critiquing and self-assessment that secondary school children seem to be taught nowadays.

Is this any clearer?

Yes, thanks.

We probably need another thread for this stuff, but this one's just too handy for ed policy.



Good related article on measuring school quality from the Washington Post here.

Christ, California does dreadfully, doesn't it?

Yeah. The one that surprises me most is Kentucky. Results way above the trend-line (just eyeballing it, it does kind of look like they have the best results in the country, adjusting for this particular SES measure), which means they're doing something right. Can't imagine what it would be.

Texas does surprisingly well too.

West Virginia is now memorable to me for something.

Arrests at a private religious school.

www.schoolsimprovement.net/four-teachers...en-as-young-as-five/

Given that whenever someone says anything "soft" about drugs they get accused of "sending the wrong signal", maybe we should consider the signals Gove sent recently re physical restraint.

School denying it, but lot of arrests.

My FOIA re the legal advice on the appeal that never was v the Information Commissioner (on disclosure of Mrs Blurt) has come back.

Guess what? They aren't publishing the advice. Included in the response is the following strange assertion:



This was kind of my point. Gove was very obviously stalling. There was no reason at all why legal advice should take so long on so simple a matter.

Something else about client confidentiality- I was assuming that wouldn't apply to in house legal advice.

Ho hum.

Interesting programme on one of Gove's heroes and, it has to be said, it isn't complete bunkum that he talks. I would be interested to see what our teachers on here think. Everyone else as well but specifically them

I think that the Government position that suggests that the curriculum is dominated by skills and not knowledge is overplayed. It is a nonsense to suggest that the Primary curriculum does not teach facts. The curriculum is quite presriptive and certainly includes, grammar, multiplication tables, historical dates etc. The danger in a shift to a greater balance in terms of facts is a corresponding decline in critical thinking.

I really have no problem with kids knowing stuff. From my own experience finding out something interesting leads me to want to find out more about it, to research it more and in some instances to realise what I thought I knew was in fact an oversimplification/wrong/questionable etc. and this is a desirable process and I would have thought a likely outcome from a more fact based approach.

Of course the alarm bells ring about what is included as "The right cultural knowledge" The programme doesn't deal with this at all. The all pervading arrogance that surrounds all Government thinking on education at the moment would leave me to worry that this could be summed up as:

This is what we know, we are great and British, role models for you, if you want social mobility you need to know it as well. Oh, and by the way your current cultural knowledge is useless, ditch it loser.

This would be a disaster.

The "right" cultural knowledge is indeed one of the difficulties of Hirsch's approach, but it seems to me that he's got a point in saying that there are certain cultural reference points, that if you don't "get", you'll be considered "less intelligent" out there in The World. Rich kids get that stuff automatically at home - immigrants and poorer kids don't.

I don't think Hirsch says you have to teach these things in a hagiographic fashion - just that there are some central cultural/historical stories/tropes that it is helpful to know as a functioning member of society.

Take the bible for instance. I really think it needs to be taught as literature, because there are so many references in everyday life and in literature to the stories it. I don't think it needs to be taught in a religious sense, but I think unless people know the stories, they are cut off not just from the our culture's religious heritage but much of its cultural heritage.

That's a particularly fraught example, but it's the kind of thing he's on about.

My Renaissance Art History professor decided that he had devote special sections to students who weren't familiar with the Bible (and especially the New Testament), as they otherwise found it very difficult to keep things straight.

I hadn't even thought about art, but it would probably be even more important there, wouldn't it?

A basic grounding is literally essential to any understanding of Renaissance art, and the more you know the better. That's not the case with 20th century art, or non-Western art from the 15th or 16th centuries.

Cultural capital, isn't it. However, much of the cultural capital comes from, not so much hard data, as cultural attitudes. The reason that I go to the headmaster if Bored Jr has a problem, join the board of governors if I am pissed off with the school, inform the police if he is getting hassle with parents is because I know I am the equal of the teachers, head, police. My emotional, social, cultural and academic background has given me the self-confidence to know this. This is nothing to do with my absolute dire grasp of historical facts and other cultural touchpoints that Gove and Hirsch feel necessary.

In my experience, I have found that, unfortunately, many others don't feel the same way as I do about teachers, police etc and kids from those families don't have the same cultural capital. Parental, specifically, maternal education has the biggest effect on academic outcomes for children over income etc, which, on my reading, ties in with this cultural capital point. Schools, obviously, are having to build on this or, perhaps, fight against it and I am not sure that a culturally selected library of knowledge is going to help.

Not taking the piss but already we see the problem. I know we aren't exactly shitfootballbanter.com but, similarly, we aren't the Etonian cabal that are running the country and already we have got to the Bible and Renaissance art within four posts.

That's all true, but not quite my point (or Hirsch's). It's more about, if you're in an argument with someone at your governors' meeting, and he/she starts having a go at the headmaster, saying this will be their Waterloo, or asking where their 30 pieces of silver are, and if the headmaster shoots back asking who will rid him of this turbulent priest - the people in the room who know what in the fuck all these metaphors mean have an advantage in the discussion over those who don't. and that's the kind of thing hirsch says we should focus on - making sure people understand the touchstones of public discourse.

Bored of Education wrote:


I'd fucking hope not. Those people are idiots.

Excellent, lots of sport then.

But possibly not 1970s county cricket.