The interesting thing, for me at least, is seeing the confidence sucked out of trump and his supporters.
I think it's still likely he'll pull it back but he has a lot of enemies with crowbars ready - as soon as they see a chink in his armour they'll disembowel him....
The media destruction of Donald, when/if it comes could well be spectacular.
I'm wondering if Trump is losing the electoral thread a bit, its like he's lost another marble. You get the feeling a Trumper Tantrum isn't far away or a Howard Dean.
Still, has a lot of delegates in the bank but things are not getting easier.
Weirdest theory I heard today.
He's like Brewster in Brewster's Millions. He doesn't want to win, so he keeps on doing/saying outrageous things so he'll lose.
Except all it does is boost his poll share.
As good as any theory going. I've done really well out of the last two GOP contests but just packed it in this year. Just couldn't get my head around it but the bones are beginning to feel Trump has gone over the top of the hill forgetting that the point is to get to the top and stay there.
Yes, I've been feeling the same. But so far he's mostly proved the theory that any publicity is good publicity. If you manage to make the entire primary season be about what outrageous thing you just said, and not about any other candidate, then there comes a point when you start to seem inevitable. A sort of dead cat candidate strategy, sustained over 6 months.
'May has been a competent Home Secretary but nothing more and certainly doesn't inspire as a leader.'
'Isn't it extremely difficult to be a competent Home Secretary? For that reason alone, maybe Ms May's abilities are greater than would appear.'
Spot on, the normal tenure for the job is two years.
The normal tenure for any minister has traditionally been about two years. In Blair's time I think the average dropped somewhat but having someone in post for a long period is one of Cameron's more unusual features as a PM and one which I genuinely applaud. When I was a civil servant we loved having new ministers.
The interesting thing, for me at least, is seeing the confidence sucked out of trump and his supporters.
I think it's still likely he'll pull it back but he has a lot of enemies with crowbars ready - as soon as they see a chink in his armour they'll disembowel him....
The media destruction of Donald, when/if it comes could well be spectacular.
He seemed to have lost his cool during the interview he did on the plane yesterday. That's the first time I have seen him appear genuinely angry, rather than the faux rah rah stuff.
The interesting thing, for me at least, is seeing the confidence sucked out of trump and his supporters.
I think it's still likely he'll pull it back but he has a lot of enemies with crowbars ready - as soon as they see a chink in his armour they'll disembowel him....
The media destruction of Donald, when/if it comes could well be spectacular.
As long as there are still primaries going on he gets a boost whenever he wins, and each win puts a damper on whatever the latest devastating media story was supposed to be.
The problems for him come when the primaries dry up but there's a long period before the convention where Republicans are still futilely hoping they can stop him.
The obvious solution would be to STFU during that time, but he may not have good STFU skills...
'May has been a competent Home Secretary but nothing more and certainly doesn't inspire as a leader.'
'Isn't it extremely difficult to be a competent Home Secretary? For that reason alone, maybe Ms May's abilities are greater than would appear.'
Spot on, the normal tenure for the job is two years.
The normal tenure for any minister has traditionally been about two years. In Blair's time I think the average dropped somewhat but having someone in post for a long period is one of Cameron's more unusual features as a PM and one which I genuinely applaud. When I was a civil servant we loved having new ministers.
In a previous life we used to reckon you needed a minimum of 3 years in a senior position...the first year to muck it up, the second to learn from your mistakes, the third to actually start getting stuff right.....of course, we moved people on average after two and a half years.....
'May has been a competent Home Secretary but nothing more and certainly doesn't inspire as a leader.'
'Isn't it extremely difficult to be a competent Home Secretary? For that reason alone, maybe Ms May's abilities are greater than would appear.'
Spot on, the normal tenure for the job is two years.
she's not particularly competent. just Cameron doesn't like reshuffles. She gets an easy ride for some reason. Also the home office has now had justice split off(is that right?), so the job is likely easier than it used to be.
Odd how she's rated considering all the perceived failures on immigration are on her watch.
I quite like Gove though I disagree with him on almost everything
About a decade ago, someone suggested I put myself forward as a Tory candidates list to be an MP, I said no.
I never regretted, until recently.
Tbf When I joined the party just after the 97 wipeout. I was asked if I would be interested in standing. I replied 'Wouldn't be my wisest decision'
I just knew my sense of humour and sarcasm would get me into trouble on a regular basis were I to become an MP.
You should go for it now, Mr. Eagles. You are ten years older and have built a good career so you should be able to control your humour and sarcasm more. Even if you can't we need a few MPs who are not just clones and lobby fodder, especially ones with a taste for outrageous shoes.
I'm also on team Jeremy Hunt because Tissue Price and I are on him as next PM at 66/1he's been firm with the Doctors.
Always good when a Tory Minister puts the public sector in their place.
Their place being the plane to Australia?
But they tell us they love the NHS, nor is this about money.
They really love the NHS if they are heading for Australia.
Retention rates in Medicine are at an all time low, at least until this years figures are published, but despite my jest it is not Australia that is the destination. There are the same numbers heading there as in 2013 (about 8%) the big increase is in people quitting medicine entirely. This is probably worse as Doctors in Australia may return if conditions improve, but those who quit for other careers will most likely never return.
Retention rates were always likely to go down with the shift to more female trained doctors. Soon after completing university a significant number start having children with an inevitable decline in full time doctors. We have lots of part time female GPs for example. Others just step away for 10+ years.
his tenure as Education Secretary vastly improved education standards.
I'm not sure I'd agree with that TSE. More knowledgeable people than me have talked about maths, so I won't revisit that, but in history at least standards have dropped like a stone in these new exams. The new A-level is less exacting than the old one and a less effective bridge to degree level. Indeed, it's not ridiculously harder than the old GCSE.
As for the new GCSE, there is a very heavy emphasis on description ahead of analysis, and some of the questions are truly puerile. For example, from OCR's new history paper; If you saw an artist painting your site, what things would you tell them to include (that's the original phrasing, mistakes and all).
I like the content and I think the underlying principles are sound. But Gove has not been careful in checking that these were not hijacked by the exam boards, most of whom deliberately and knowingly rejected the advice of the academics he brought in on what it would be advisable to include to make it a worthwhile qualification. That suggests a casual approach, not competence.
Virtually everybody on this site could stand for either Labour or Conservative in a safe seat and get in, whether or not they'd get through the selection process is another matter. Only really good candidates could make the difference and be successful in a marginal. Even then national events are the overwhelming factor in getting elected.
A few more on here should give it a go, talking to the public in the spotlight is a whole lot different to banging on a keyboard.
About a decade ago, someone suggested I put myself forward as a Tory candidates list to be an MP, I said no.
I never regretted that decision until recently.
Not wishing to understate your prospects, but unless by now you have made conspicuous progress in local government or at Tory HQ or as a ministerial advisor, then your chances of your making it onto the candidates list look pretty remote, far less any ambitions you may harbour of then actually getting elected as an MP. This is especially so at a time when there is likely to be a significant reduction in the number of MPs in the HoC and therefore quite a number of ex-MPs looking for a return. Your best chance is probably to keep plugging away on the media side of things and hoping thereby to get noticed and fast-tracked. Perhaps taking on something like Kieran Pedley has done on PB.comTV would be a good idea, so that you become known as a personality in your own right rather than simply a very effective thread writer and blogger in chief alongside OGH.
his tenure as Education Secretary vastly improved education standards.
I'm not sure I'd agree with that TSE. More knowledgeable people than me have talked about maths, so I won't revisit that, but in history at least standards have dropped like a stone in these new exams. The new A-level is less exacting than the old one and a less effective bridge to degree level. Indeed, it's not ridiculously harder than the old GCSE.
As for the new GCSE, there is a very heavy emphasis on description ahead of analysis, and some of the questions are truly puerile. For example, from OCR's new history paper; If you saw an artist painting your site, what things would you tell them to include (that's the original phrasing, mistakes and all).
I like the content and I think the underlying principles are sound. But Gove has not been careful in checking that these were not hijacked by the exam boards, most of whom deliberately and knowingly rejected the advice of the academics he brought in on what it would be advisable to include to make it a worthwhile qualification. That suggests a casual approach, not competence.
I'd add to this that the new approach at primary level is absurd and appears specifically designed to mark most children as failures from an early age. This isn't just a failure of application but one of approach.
Your penultimate paragraph where you mention description reinforces my view that we are returning to the world of rote learning. That has a certain appeal for some people but does have a risk of creating unthinking automatons.
his tenure as Education Secretary vastly improved education standards.
I'm not sure I'd agree with that TSE. More knowledgeable people than me have talked about maths, so I won't revisit that, but in history at least standards have dropped like a stone in these new exams. The new A-level is less exacting than the old one and a less effective bridge to degree level. Indeed, it's not ridiculously harder than the old GCSE.
As for the new GCSE, there is a very heavy emphasis on description ahead of analysis, and some of the questions are truly puerile. For example, from OCR's new history paper; If you saw an artist painting your site, what things would you tell them to include (that's the original phrasing, mistakes and all).
I like the content and I think the underlying principles are sound. But Gove has not been careful in checking that these were not hijacked by the exam boards, most of whom deliberately and knowingly rejected the advice of the academics he brought in on what it would be advisable to include to make it a worthwhile qualification. That suggests a casual approach, not competence.
Education policy seems to be focused on improving our position in the PISA rankings. So basically it's all about more and more testing. The countries that sit atop PISA produce great followers, but few self-starters. Getting education right is a long, slow process that begins with primary schools, maybe even pre-school. The best way to raise standards in a meaningful, transformative way is to start there. Kids first need to learn how to learn. By the time they reach secondary school they are already set in their ways.
his tenure as Education Secretary vastly improved education standards.
I'm not sure I'd agree with that TSE. More knowledgeable people than me have talked about maths, so I won't revisit that, but in history at least standards have dropped like a stone in these new exams. The new A-level is less exacting than the old one and a less effective bridge to degree level. Indeed, it's not ridiculously harder than the old GCSE.
As for the new GCSE, there is a very heavy emphasis on description ahead of analysis, and some of the questions are truly puerile. For example, from OCR's new history paper; If you saw an artist painting your site, what things would you tell them to include (that's the original phrasing, mistakes and all).
I like the content and I think the underlying principles are sound. But Gove has not been careful in checking that these were not hijacked by the exam boards, most of whom deliberately and knowingly rejected the advice of the academics he brought in on what it would be advisable to include to make it a worthwhile qualification. That suggests a casual approach, not competence.
I'd add to this that the new approach at primary level is absurd and appears specifically designed to mark most children as failures from an early age. This isn't just a failure of application but one of approach.
Your penultimate paragraph where you mention description reinforces my view that we are returning to the world of rote learning. That has a certain appeal for some people but does have a risk of creating unthinking automatons.
Yep, it's all about passing tests. To compete globally we need self-starters and critical thinkers, not people who have spent their childhoods being coached to pass exams.
his tenure as Education Secretary vastly improved education standards.
I'm not sure I'd agree with that TSE. More knowledgeable people than me have talked about maths, so I won't revisit that, but in history at least standards have dropped like a stone in these new exams. The new A-level is less exacting than the old one and a less effective bridge to degree level. Indeed, it's not ridiculously harder than the old GCSE.
As for the new GCSE, there is a very heavy emphasis on description ahead of analysis, and some of the questions are truly puerile. For example, from OCR's new history paper; If you saw an artist painting your site, what things would you tell them to include (that's the original phrasing, mistakes and all).
I like the content and I think the underlying principles are sound. But Gove has not been careful in checking that these were not hijacked by the exam boards, most of whom deliberately and knowingly rejected the advice of the academics he brought in on what it would be advisable to include to make it a worthwhile qualification. That suggests a casual approach, not competence.
I'd add to this that the new approach at primary level is absurd and appears specifically designed to mark most children as failures from an early age. This isn't just a failure of application but one of approach.
Your penultimate paragraph where you mention description reinforces my view that we are returning to the world of rote learning. That has a certain appeal for some people but does have a risk of creating unthinking automatons.
Yep, it's all about passing tests. To compete globally we need self-starters and critical thinkers, not people who have spent their childhoods being coached to pass exams.
In fairness to Gove, the latter has been a problem for years, certainly since league tables came in.
But I have a horrible feeling these new exams will make it worse not better, which was the exact opposite of what was intended.
his tenure as Education Secretary vastly improved education standards.
I'm not sure I'd agree with that TSE. More knowledgeable people than me have talked about maths, so I won't revisit that, but in history at least standards have dropped like a stone in these new exams. The new A-level is less exacting than the old one and a less effective bridge to degree level. Indeed, it's not ridiculously harder than the old GCSE.
As for the new GCSE, there is a very heavy emphasis on description ahead of analysis, and some of the questions are truly puerile. For example, from OCR's new history paper; If you saw an artist painting your site, what things would you tell them to include (that's the original phrasing, mistakes and all).
I like the content and I think the underlying principles are sound. But Gove has not been careful in checking that these were not hijacked by the exam boards, most of whom deliberately and knowingly rejected the advice of the academics he brought in on what it would be advisable to include to make it a worthwhile qualification. That suggests a casual approach, not competence.
I'd add to this that the new approach at primary level is absurd and appears specifically designed to mark most children as failures from an early age. This isn't just a failure of application but one of approach.
Your penultimate paragraph where you mention description reinforces my view that we are returning to the world of rote learning. That has a certain appeal for some people but does have a risk of creating unthinking automatons.
Yep, it's all about passing tests. To compete globally we need self-starters and critical thinkers, not people who have spent their childhoods being coached to pass exams.
In fairness to Gove, the latter has been a problem for years, certainly since league tables came in.
But I have a horrible feeling these new exams will make it worse not better, which was the exact opposite of what was intended.
I agree - the test obsession kicked in with Kenneth Baker and has accelerated. Gove's heart is clearly in the right place, but I am not sold on his solutions. And Ms Morgan's forced academy scheme just looks perverse, especially for primaries.
I'm also on team Jeremy Hunt because Tissue Price and I are on him as next PM at 66/1he's been firm with the Doctors.
Always good when a Tory Minister puts the public sector in their place.
Their place being the plane to Australia?
But they tell us they love the NHS, nor is this about money.
They really love the NHS if they are heading for Australia.
Retention rates in Medicine are at an all time low, at least until this years figures are published, but despite my jest it is not Australia that is the destination. There are the same numbers heading there as in 2013 (about 8%) the big increase is in people quitting medicine entirely. This is probably worse as Doctors in Australia may return if conditions improve, but those who quit for other careers will most likely never return.
Retention rates were always likely to go down with the shift to more female trained doctors. Soon after completing university a significant number start having children with an inevitable decline in full time doctors. We have lots of part time female GPs for example. Others just step away for 10+ years.
The proportion of female medical graduates has not changed for a decade or more, but the retention rate in postgraduate training (govt figures 2 years post qualification) has dropped from 73% to 54% over a 4 year period.
It is not just about pay (though of course that matters to everyone), like in teaching there are many other factors affecting job satisfaction.
I'm not sure I'd agree with that TSE. More knowledgeable people than me have talked about maths, so I won't revisit that, but in history at least standards have dropped like a stone in these new exams. The new A-level is less exacting than the old one and a less effective bridge to degree level. Indeed, it's not ridiculously harder than the old GCSE.
As for the new GCSE, there is a very heavy emphasis on description ahead of analysis, and some of the questions are truly puerile. For example, from OCR's new history paper; If you saw an artist painting your site, what things would you tell them to include (that's the original phrasing, mistakes and all).
I like the content and I think the underlying principles are sound. But Gove has not been careful in checking that these were not hijacked by the exam boards, most of whom deliberately and knowingly rejected the advice of the academics he brought in on what it would be advisable to include to make it a worthwhile qualification. That suggests a casual approach, not competence.
I'd add to this that the new approach at primary level is absurd and appears specifically designed to mark most children as failures from an early age. This isn't just a failure of application but one of approach.
Your penultimate paragraph where you mention description reinforces my view that we are returning to the world of rote learning. That has a certain appeal for some people but does have a risk of creating unthinking automatons.
A significant amount of rote learning in the education system has a lot of merits. The best way for a lot of people to learn critical thinking isn't actually to try and teach it in the abstract from early childhood, but to make sure they learn lots and lots of actual stuff, at which point most will start seeing the patterns, connections, and inconsistencies.
The meme that "we don't need to teach facts because people can just google now" is one of the most dangerous education myths. It's up with "we don't need to teach maths because calculators" from my childhood and the forthcoming "we don't need to teach spelling because autocorrect".
Even insofar as it would have any merit, you need to know what to google, you need to know how to place it in context without spending all day googling, and you need enough background knowledge stored in your brain to know if what you have found on the internet is true or not.
his tenure as Education Secretary vastly improved education standards.
I'm not sure I'd agree with that TSE. More knowledgeable people than me have talked about maths, so I won't revisit that, but in history at least standards have dropped like a stone in these new exams. The new A-level is less exacting than the old one and a less effective bridge to degree level. Indeed, it's not ridiculously harder than the old GCSE.
As for the new GCSE, there is a very heavy emphasis on description ahead of analysis, and some of the questions are truly puerile. For example, from OCR's new history paper; If you saw an artist painting your site, what things would you tell them to include (that's the original phrasing, mistakes and all).
I like the content and I think the underlying principles are sound. But Gove has not been careful in checking that these were not hijacked by the exam boards, most of whom deliberately and knowingly rejected the advice of the academics he brought in on what it would be advisable to include to make it a worthwhile qualification. That suggests a casual approach, not competence.
I'd add to this that the new approach at primary level is absurd and appears specifically designed to mark most children as failures from an early age. This isn't just a failure of application but one of approach.
Your penultimate paragraph where you mention description reinforces my view that we are returning to the world of rote learning. That has a certain appeal for some people but does have a risk of creating unthinking automatons.
Yep, it's all about passing tests. To compete globally we need self-starters and critical thinkers, not people who have spent their childhoods being coached to pass exams.
I have covered quite a bit of educational theory in my work teaching at the medical school.
Assessment has always driven learning. The question that students ask me is not "will learning this be useful in my career?" or "will learning this make me a better doctor?" It is "will this be in the exam?"
If we want to have people who are self starters or critical thinkers, then we need to set up a system that recognises and gives good marks to those that do. It is not easy setting such assessments.
ISTR several of those recommendations solve polling issues that were mentioned by people on here *before* the GE.
Amidst all the arguments, history and trains, we certainly have a lot of insightful people on here.
Well, indeed. Recommendation 10 looks interesting - I wonder if that would have stopped or at least dissuaded Survation from supressing their correct poll.
About a decade ago, someone suggested I put myself forward as a Tory candidates list to be an MP, I said no.
I never regretted that decision until recently.
Not wishing to understate your prospects, but unless by now you have made conspicuous progress in local government or at Tory HQ or as a ministerial advisor, then your chances of your making it onto the candidates list look pretty remote, far less any ambitions you may harbour of then actually getting elected as an MP. This is especially so at a time when there is likely to be a significant reduction in the number of MPs in the HoC and therefore quite a number of ex-MPs looking for a return.
I'm also on team Jeremy Hunt because Tissue Price and I are on him as next PM at 66/1he's been firm with the Doctors.
Always good when a Tory Minister puts the public sector in their place.
Their place being the plane to Australia?
But they tell us they love the NHS, nor is this about money.
They really love the NHS if they are heading for Australia.
Retention rates in Medicine are at an all time low, at least until this years figures are published, but despite my jest it is not Australia that is the destination. There are the same numbers heading there as in 2013 (about 8%) the big increase is in people quitting medicine entirely. This is probably worse as Doctors in Australia may return if conditions improve, but those who quit for other careers will most likely never return.
Retention rates were always likely to go down with the shift to more female trained doctors. Soon after completing university a significant number start having children with an inevitable decline in full time doctors. We have lots of part time female GPs for example. Others just step away for 10+ years.
While that is certainly true, retention rates in some specialties ( like A&E) are appalling.
I'm not sure I'd agree with that TSE. More knowledgeable people than me have talked about maths, so I won't revisit that, but in history at least standards have dropped like a stone in these new exams. The new A-level is less exacting than the old one and a less effective bridge to degree level. Indeed, it's not ridiculously harder than the old GCSE.
As for the new GCSE, there is a very heavy emphasis on description ahead of analysis, and some of the questions are truly puerile. For example, from OCR's new history paper; If you saw an artist e.
I'd add to this that the new approach at primary level .
A significant amount of rote learning in the education system has a lot of merits. The best way for a lot of people to learn critical thinking isn't actually to try and teach it in the abstract from early childhood, but to make sure they learn lots and lots of actual stuff, at which point most will start seeing the patterns, connections, and inconsistencies.
The meme that "we don't need to teach facts because people can just google now" is one of the most dangerous education myths. It's up with "we don't need to teach maths because calculators" from my childhood and the forthcoming "we don't need to teach spelling because autocorrect".
Even insofar as it would have any merit, you need to know what to google, you need to know how to place it in context without spending all day googling, and you need enough background knowledge stored in your brain to know if what you have found on the internet is true or not.
I would certainly agree with that in the context of medical school. There has been a move away from tough subjects like anatomy or pharmacology to softer subjects like communication skills, which were barely taught in my day. This is particularly so in General Practice.
Communication skills are unquestionably important in a doctor, but cannot be divorced from content. There needs to be a vast hinterland of information on the mental map if the practitioner is to act as an effective guide. Any fool can use google.
I'm not sure I'd agree with that TSE. More knowledgeable people than me have talked about maths, so I won't revisit that, but in history at least standards have dropped like a stone in these new exams. The new A-level is less exacting than the old one and a less effective bridge to degree level. Indeed, it's not ridiculously harder than the old GCSE.
As for the new GCSE, there is a very heavy emphasis on description ahead of analysis, and some of the questions are truly puerile. For example, from OCR's new history paper; If you saw an artist painting your site, what things would you tell them to include (that's the original phrasing, mistakes and all).
I like the content and I think the underlying principles are sound. But Gove has not been careful in checking that these were not hijacked by the exam boards, most of whom deliberately and knowingly rejected the advice of the academics he brought in on what it would be advisable to include to make it a worthwhile qualification. That suggests a casual approach, not competence.
I'd add to this that the new approach at primary level is absurd and appears specifically designed to mark most children as failures from an early age. This isn't just a failure of application but one of approach.
Your penultimate paragraph where you mention description reinforces my view that we are returning to the world of rote learning. That has a certain appeal for some people but does have a risk of creating unthinking automatons.
A significant amount of rote learning in the education system has a lot of merits. The best way for a lot of people to learn critical thinking isn't actually to try and teach it in the abstract from early childhood, but to make sure they learn lots and lots of actual stuff, at which point most will start seeing the patterns, connections, and inconsistencies.
The meme that "we don't need to teach facts because people can just google now" is one of the most dangerous education myths. It's up with "we don't need to teach maths because calculators" from my childhood and the forthcoming "we don't need to teach spelling because autocorrect".
Even insofar as it would have any merit, you need to know what to google, you need to know how to place it in context without spending all day googling, and you need enough background knowledge stored in your brain to know if what you have found on the internet is true or not.
I'm not sure I'd agree with that TSE. More knowledgeable people than me have talked about maths, so I won't revisit that, but in history at least standards have dropped like a stone in these new exams. The new A-level is less exacting than the old one and a less effective bridge to degree level. Indeed, it's not ridiculously harder than the old GCSE.
As for the new GCSE, there is a very heavy emphasis on description ahead of analysis, and some of the questions are truly puerile. For example, from OCR's new history paper; If you saw an artist painting your site, what things would you tell them to include (that's the original phrasing, mistakes and all).
I like the content and I think the underlying principles are sound. But Gove has not been careful in checking that these were not hijacked by the exam boards, most of whom deliberately and knowingly rejected the advice of the academics he brought in on what it would be advisable to include to make it a worthwhile qualification. That suggests a casual approach, not competence.
I'd add to this that the new approach at primary level is absurd and appears specifically designed to mark most children as failures from an early age. This isn't just a failure of application but one of approach.
Your penultimate paragraph where you mention description reinforces my view that we are returning to the world of rote learning. That has a certain appeal for some people but does have a risk of creating unthinking automatons.
Even insofar as it would have any merit, you need to know what to google, you need to know how to place it in context without spending all day googling, and you need enough background knowledge stored in your brain to know if what you have found on the internet is true or not.
his tenure as Education Secretary vastly improved education standards.
I'm not sure I'd agree with that TSE. More knowledgeable people than me have talked about maths, so I won't revisit that, but in history at least standards have dropped like a stone in these new exams. The new A-level is less exacting than the old one and a less effective bridge to degree level. Indeed, it's not ridiculously harder than the old GCSE.
I like the content and I think the underlying principles are sound. But Gove has not been careful in checking that these were not hijacked by the exam boards, most of whom deliberately and knowingly rejected the advice of the academics he brought in on what it would be advisable to include to make it a worthwhile qualification. That suggests a casual approach, not competence.
I'd add to this that the new approach at primary level is absurd and appears specifically designed to mark most children as failures from an early age. This isn't just a failure of application but one of approach.
Your penultimate paragraph where you mention description reinforces my view that we are returning to the world of rote learning. That has a certain appeal for some people but does have a risk of creating unthinking automatons.
Yep, it's all about passing tests. To compete globally we need self-starters and critical thinkers, not people who have spent their childhoods being coached to pass exams.
I have covered quite a bit of educational theory in my work teaching at the medical school.
Assessment has always driven learning. The question that students ask me is not "will learning this be useful in my career?" or "will learning this make me a better doctor?" It is "will this be in the exam?"
If we want to have people who are self starters or critical thinkers, then we need to set up a system that recognises and gives good marks to those that do. It is not easy setting such assessments.
I am not arguing that exams are bad. I am arguing that an education system that is based solely on coaching children to pass exams is a skewed system. When I was at school we had something called the lower sixth - the year after O levels in which you were slowly introduced to a new way of looking at subjects. It was slow, it was relatively relaxed and it was enjoyable. Now there are A/S levels and it's all revision and exams. My kids were stressed in a way I never was. And it's going on from aged 4. I just don't think it will deliver what we really need.
"I just knew my sense of humour and sarcasm would get me into trouble on a regular basis were I to become an MP."
That's what's lacking with today's MPs. The treading on eggshells in case one or two "sensitive" people are offended. I'm not bothered about that at all, and seeing people making apologies for saying what they think is vomit-making.
I'm no fan of Ken Livingstone, but why insincere apologies are required for his comments about Kevan Jones are beyond me. He dislikes him, he meant to offend him, and he succeeded.
Had he made a joke about the subject, I'd be comfortable about it. - it's a joke and not to be taken seriously. "Oh, but they might go off and commit suicide," is the meme. If so, should they be in public life, or even working? "Oh, but he might take offence." is another. Tough, worse things happen in the real world.
For the avoidance of doubt, I'd prefer Jones to Newt Man, but it's the principle.
his tenure as Education Secretary vastly improved education standards.
I'm not sure I'd agree with that TSE. More knowledgeable people than me have talked about maths, so I won't revisit that, but in history at least standards have dropped like a stone in these new exams. The new A-level is less exacting than the old one and a less effective bridge to degree level. Indeed, it's not ridiculously harder than the old GCSE.
As for the new GCSE, there is a very heavy emphasis on description ahead of analysis, and some of the questions are truly puerile. For example, from OCR's new history paper; If you saw an artist painting your site, what things would you tell them to include (that's the original phrasing, mistakes and all).
I like the content and I think the underlying principles are sound. But Gove has not been careful in checking that these were not hijacked by the exam boards, most of whom deliberately and knowingly rejected the advice of the academics he brought in on what it would be advisable to include to make it a worthwhile qualification. That suggests a casual approach, not competence.
I'd add to this that the new approach at primary level is absurd and appears specifically designed to mark most children as failures from an early age. This isn't just a failure of application but one of approach.
Your penultimate paragraph where you mention description reinforces my view that we are returning to the world of rote learning. That has a certain appeal for some people but does have a risk of creating unthinking automatons.
Yep, it's all about passing tests. To compete globally we need self-starters and critical thinkers, not people who have spent their childhoods being coached to pass exams.
I have covered quite a bit of educational theory in my work teaching at the medical school.
Assessment has always driven learning. The question that students ask me is not "will learning this be useful in my career?" or "will learning this make me a better doctor?" It is "will this be in the exam?"
If we want to have people who are self starters or critical thinkers, then we need to set up a system that recognises and gives good marks to those that do. It is not easy setting such assessments.
I was surprised by an article on the BBC News site yesterday claiming that children should know 200 words by their third birthday. it seems rather low: does anyone have more information, for instance what is meant by 'know' ?
I'm not sure I'd agree with that TSE. More knowledgeable people than me have talked about maths, so I won't revisit that, but in history at least standards have dropped like a stone in these new exams. The new A-level is less exacting than the old one and a less effective bridge to degree level. Indeed, it's not ridiculously harder than the old GCSE.
As for the new GCSE, there is a very heavy emphasis on description ahead of analysis, and some of the questions are truly puerile. For example, from OCR's new history paper; If you saw an artist painting your site, what things would you tell them to include (that's the original phrasing, mistakes and all).
I like the content and I think the underlying principles are sound. But Gove has not been careful in checking that these were not hijacked by the exam boards, most of whom deliberately and knowingly rejected the advice of the academics he brought in on what it would be advisable to include to make it a worthwhile qualification. That suggests a casual approach, not competence.
I'd add to this that the new approach at primary level is absurd and appears specifically designed to mark most children as failures from an early age. This isn't just a failure of application but one of approach.
Your penultimate paragraph where you mention description reinforces my view that we are returning to the world of rote learning. That has a certain appeal for some people but does have a risk of creating unthinking automatons.
A significant amount of rote learning in the education system has a lot of merits. The best way for a lot of people to learn critical thinking isn't actually to try and teach it in the abstract from early childhood, but to make sure they learn lots and lots of actual stuff, at which point most will start seeing the patterns, connections, and inconsistencies
Even insofar as it would have any merit, you need to know what to google, you need to know how to place it in context without spending all day googling, and you need enough background knowledge stored in your brain to know if what you have found on the internet is true or not.
I am not arguing against teaching facts or some rote learning. Both have very important roles to play. I am arguing sgainst the amount of formalised testing that is now done. It leaves no time for anything else. I had no homework when I was at primary school. I don't get why it is now deemed necessary.
his tenure as Education Secretary vastly improved education standards.
I'm not sure I'd agree with that TSE. More knowledgeable people than me have talked about maths, so I won't revisit that, but in history at least standards have dropped like a stone in these new exams. The new A-level is less exacting than the old one and a less effective bridge to degree level. Indeed, it's not ridiculously harder than the old GCSE.
As for the new GCSE, there is a very heavy emphasis on description ahead of analysis, and some of the questions are truly puerile. For example, from OCR's new history paper; If you saw an artist painting your site, what things would you tell them to include (that's the original phrasing, mistakes and all).
I like the content and I think the underlying principles are sound. But Gove has not been careful in checking that these were not hijacked by the exam boards, most of whom deliberately and knowingly rejected the advice of the academics he brought in on what it would be advisable to include to make it a worthwhile qualification. That suggests a casual approach, not competence.
I'd add to this that the new approach at primary level is absurd and appears specifically designed to mark most children as failures from an early age. This isn't just a failure of application but one of approach.
Your penultimate paragraph where you mention description reinforces my view that we are returning to the world of rote learning. That has a certain appeal for some people but does have a risk of creating unthinking automatons.
Yep, it's all about passing tests. To compete globally we need self-starters and critical thinkers, not people who have spent their childhoods being coached to pass exams.
I have covered quite a bit of educational theory in my work teaching at the medical school.
Assessment has always driven learning. The question that students ask me is not "will learning this be useful in my career?" or "will learning this make me a better doctor?" It is "will this be in the exam?"
If we want to have people who are self starters or critical thinkers, then we need to set up a system that recognises and gives good marks to those that do. It is not easy setting such assessments.
I was surprised by an article on the BBC News site yesterday claiming that children should know 200 words by their third birthday. it seems rather low: does anyone have more information, for instance what is meant by 'know' ?
In case anyone is offended .... Jobs in medicine, teaching and politics would have been a disaster for me, and I admit it. Science has the solace of not having to be understanding of 'foibles'. People are just confounding factors and an irritant.
On second thoughts Mr Eagles, you may have made a wise decision.
I am not arguing against teaching facts or some rote learning. Both have very important roles to play. I am arguing sgainst the amount of formalised testing that is now done. It leaves no time for anything else. I had no homework when I was at primary school. I don't get why it is now deemed necessary.
formalised testing is cheap and profitable for the companies that run academies and produce the testing materials (you can bet they have directors in common, even if they are not done by the exact same company)
Now I don't expect the media will start devoting this with the amount of attention that they do Trump's campaign manager touching someone's arm, but the email scandal continues to burn.
The rumour in former FBI agent circles is that the Bureau is negotiating immunity for Huma Abedin. HRC is a weak enough candidate without all the corruption her family have been involved in being dragged up again. Still think Obama and the DC establishment are corrupt enough to pardon her, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to justify that and it won't stop FBI leaks etc.
I was surprised by an article on the BBC News site yesterday claiming that children should know 200 words by their third birthday. it seems rather low: does anyone have more information, for instance what is meant by 'know' ?
targets of this kind (probably quoted out of context by the bbc) for 3 year-old clearly insane. Our fully bilingual eldest didn't say any words till he was 3. Doesn't mean he didn't know any as you rightly point out.
this is a blair hangover unfortunately:
modus operandi — 1) identify a genuine and pressing problem (understimulated toddlers)
2) identify a spurious target and test it 3) introduce spurious qualifications for those implementing the action 4) claim things have improved because the results of 2) are up (with massaging) and the number of people with qualification 3) is increased.
My back aches like it's in its ninetieth year (*), my body feels like it's in its fiftieth, and my brain in its third. Too much Mr Tumble rots the brain.
A consequence of looking after an active toddler ...
(*) So still a youngster compared to your venerable self.
A significant amount of rote learning in the education system has a lot of merits. The best way for a lot of people to learn critical thinking isn't actually to try and teach it in the abstract from early childhood, but to make sure they learn lots and lots of actual stuff, at which point most will start seeing the patterns, connections, and inconsistencies.
The meme that "we don't need to teach facts because people can just google now" is one of the most dangerous education myths. It's up with "we don't need to teach maths because calculators" from my childhood and the forthcoming "we don't need to teach spelling because autocorrect".
Even insofar as it would have any merit, you need to know what to google, you need to know how to place it in context without spending all day googling, and you need enough background knowledge stored in your brain to know if what you have found on the internet is true or not.
I have no objection to teaching facts, nor does any sane teacher (I make no comment on NUT members). Having been a professional researcher/academic, however, I do think however that there is little value in teaching only facts. The loss of the analytical dimension worries me. After all, it is no good knowing something and then not being able to do something with that knowledge.
The most insightful critique I have ever read of that problem, incidentally, is in Huxley's Brave New World, On the shortcomings of hypnopedia.
I am not arguing against teaching facts or some rote learning. Both have very important roles to play. I am arguing sgainst the amount of formalised testing that is now done. It leaves no time for anything else. I had no homework when I was at primary school. I don't get why it is now deemed necessary.
formalised testing is cheap and profitable for the companies that run academies and produce the testing materials (you can bet they have directors in common, even if they are not done by the exact same company)
It's a way for everyone to show "progress" in improving standards. But what it actually does all too often is impede proper, detailed learning. If you are tested constantly in all the subjects you study at school how are you going to have time to look beyond the specifics of what you need to know to pass the next test?
I am not arguing against teaching facts or some rote learning. Both have very important roles to play. I am arguing sgainst the amount of formalised testing that is now done. It leaves no time for anything else. I had no homework when I was at primary school. I don't get why it is now deemed necessary.
formalised testing is cheap and profitable for the companies that run academies and produce the testing materials (you can bet they have directors in common, even if they are not done by the exact same company)
Rupert Murdoch has it sorted. Pearson owns the exam boards, publishes the supporting materials (at extortionate prices, I might add) and is trying to muscle in on the actual running of schools too.
My last head, who was no bleeding-heart liberal, talked of Establishment stitch-ups.
"I just knew my sense of humour and sarcasm would get me into trouble on a regular basis were I to become an MP."
That's what's lacking with today's MPs. The treading on eggshells in case one or two "sensitive" people are offended. I'm not bothered about that at all, and seeing people making apologies for saying what they think is vomit-making.
I'm no fan of Ken Livingstone, but why insincere apologies are required for his comments about Kevan Jones are beyond me. He dislikes him, he meant to offend him, and he succeeded.
Had he made a joke about the subject, I'd be comfortable about it. - it's a joke and not to be taken seriously. "Oh, but they might go off and commit suicide," is the meme. If so, should they be in public life, or even working? "Oh, but he might take offence." is another. Tough, worse things happen in the real world.
For the avoidance of doubt, I'd prefer Jones to Newt Man, but it's the principle.
Don't think I agree, not because of anything special about MPs, but because there isn't any good reason to make the world more difficult than it is by exchanging hurtful remarks. For MPs in particular, though, it diverts the discussion from the issue. Ken and Kevan disagree about Trident - fine, let's hear why. If we find ourselves discussing what they think of each other personally, it's a waste of time.
I am not arguing against teaching facts or some rote learning. Both have very important roles to play. I am arguing sgainst the amount of formalised testing that is now done. It leaves no time for anything else. I had no homework when I was at primary school. I don't get why it is now deemed necessary.
formalised testing is cheap and profitable for the companies that run academies and produce the testing materials (you can bet they have directors in common, even if they are not done by the exact same company)
It's a way for everyone to show "progress" in improving standards. But what it actually does all too often is impede proper, detailed learning. If you are tested constantly in all the subjects you study at school how are you going to have time to look beyond the specifics of what you need to know to pass the next test?
I agree absolutely. But this (UK) government doesn't seem to have an idea of what education is for beyond competing in the pisa education rankings and keeping youngsters out of their unemployment stats.
Eventually you will end up with a Japanese style system where the kids finish school and then go to evening cram school to memorize more guff so they can pass the entrance exam for the next school where they will cram more stuff.
(I know because my lad has gone through this. and yes, I think his critical thinking skills are underdeveloped as a result.)
nice and profitable for the eduction companies tho.
I wonder what you get if you correlate youth suicide rates and pisa rankings
I am not arguing against teaching facts or some rote learning. Both have very important roles to play. I am arguing sgainst the amount of formalised testing that is now done. It leaves no time for anything else. I had no homework when I was at primary school. I don't get why it is now deemed necessary.
formalised testing is cheap and profitable for the companies that run academies and produce the testing materials (you can bet they have directors in common, even if they are not done by the exact same company)
Rupert Murdoch has it sorted. Pearson owns the exam boards, publishes the supporting materials (at extortionate prices, I might add) and is trying to muscle in on the actual running of schools too.
My last head, who was no bleeding-heart liberal, talked of Establishment stitch-ups.
I sometimes wonder whether the exam boards aren't at least as much part of the problem as the NUT etc.
There is a lot of tosh being talked about on here today re Education..Perhaps if the students put down their smart phones and gaming boxes they could cram for exams and have time for "free thinking".
I have a question about steel tariffs. Are the common steel tariffs for the EEA? That is, if we weren't in the EU but were in the EEA would we still be subject to common tariffs?
For what it's worth I think this is a bit of an academic point because I don't think hiking up tariffs to protect old an inefficient industries is the way to go.
A significant amount of rote learning in the education system has a lot of merits. The best way for a lot of people to learn critical thinking isn't actually to try and teach it in the abstract from early childhood, but to make sure they learn lots and lots of actual stuff, at which point most will start seeing the patterns, connections, and inconsistencies.
The meme that "we don't need to teach facts because people can just google now" is one of the most dangerous education myths. It's up with "we don't need to teach maths because calculators" from my childhood and the forthcoming "we don't need to teach spelling because autocorrect".
Even insofar as it would have any merit, you need to know what to google, you need to know how to place it in context without spending all day googling, and you need enough background knowledge stored in your brain to know if what you have found on the internet is true or not.
I have no objection to teaching facts, nor does any sane teacher (I make no comment on NUT members). Having been a professional researcher/academic, however, I do think however that there is little value in teaching only facts. The loss of the analytical dimension worries me. After all, it is no good knowing something and then not being able to do something with that knowledge.
The most insightful critique I have ever read of that problem, incidentally, is in Huxley's Brave New World, On the shortcomings of hypnopedia.
There’s a progression in learning theory isn’t there, from instructing children in what they need to learn to motivating adults, i.e. what they want to learn.
Dying patients are routinely being left dehydrated and in pain during their final hours, a shocking report reveals today.
Thousands have been denied fluids and medication – and in some cases doctors have not even told their relatives they are about to die, the report says. The authors warn that some NHS staff tended to shy away from the terminally ill and were afraid to comfort them or hold their hand. They describe this as a 'cross the road attitude'.
The major audit – which involved more than 9,000 patients – also exposes how the majority of NHS hospitals have no specialist end-of-life doctors and nurses on wards at nights and weekends.
About a decade ago, someone suggested I put myself forward as a Tory candidates list to be an MP, I said no.
I never regretted that decision until recently.
Not wishing to understate your prospects, but unless by now you have made conspicuous progress in local government or at Tory HQ or as a ministerial advisor, then your chances of your making it onto the candidates list look pretty remote, far less any ambitions you may harbour of then actually getting elected as an MP. This is especially so at a time when there is likely to be a significant reduction in the number of MPs in the HoC and therefore quite a number of ex-MPs looking for a return. Your best chance is probably to keep plugging away on the media side of things and hoping thereby to get noticed and fast-tracked. Perhaps taking on something like Kieran Pedley has done on PB.comTV would be a good idea, so that you become known as a personality in your own right rather than simply a very effective thread writer and blogger in chief alongside OGH.
Thanks to my stint as editor of PB, I've managed to meet/get to know very well a few people in the Tory Party/CCHQ in the last few years.
They were the ones who recently suggested I become an MP.
But I realised that ship has sailed.
But I revel in the glory they said, I was the only one in British politics who spotted the potential for Corbyn making a complete idiot of himself at the Battle of Britain ceremony.
Steve Hawkes Jacob Rees Mogg wonders re Nicky Morgan's mad inter-railing claim.."how Phileas Fogg managed to get around the world in 80 days without EU"
Steve Hawkes Jacob Rees Mogg wonders re Nicky Morgan's mad inter-railing claim.."how Phileas Fogg managed to get around the world in 80 days without EU"
So he wants to know how a fictional character went around the world in less than 80 days?
I am not arguing against teaching facts or some rote learning. Both have very important roles to play. I am arguing sgainst the amount of formalised testing that is now done. It leaves no time for anything else. I had no homework when I was at primary school. I don't get why it is now deemed necessary.
formalised testing is cheap and profitable for the companies that run academies and produce the testing materials (you can bet they have directors in common, even if they are not done by the exact same company)
Rupert Murdoch has it sorted. Pearson owns the exam boards, publishes the supporting materials (at extortionate prices, I might add) and is trying to muscle in on the actual running of schools too.
My last head, who was no bleeding-heart liberal, talked of Establishment stitch-ups.
I sometimes wonder whether the exam boards aren't at least as much part of the problem as the NUT etc.
I might be way off-tack here, and I'm not involved in education (aside from the little 'un), but I wonder if there is a fundamental problem in education.
All children are different. I'm still in contact with the seven other families in out NCT group, and all our children are 21-22 months old. Each is very different and advanced (or otherwise) in different areas. At this stage some are shy, some are extrovert. Some speak alot, others babble. Some sit with toys for a while, others move from toy to toy repeatedly.
Isn't the problem trying to teach all children within a group in the same manner, when individualised approaches to suit the children might be best? Yet individualised teaching is massively expensive and can reduce social skills.
Steve Hawkes Jacob Rees Mogg wonders re Nicky Morgan's mad inter-railing claim.."how Phileas Fogg managed to get around the world in 80 days without EU"
So he wants to know how a fictional character went around the world in less than 80 days?
Listened to Len McCluskey on R4 on the way in to work and he actually not only made sense but had more of a grasp on life than most of the government ministers I've heard. Somebody should just tell Anna Soubry to stay away from a microphone.
I have a question about steel tariffs. Are the common steel tariffs for the EEA? That is, if we weren't in the EU but were in the EEA would we still be subject to common tariffs?
For what it's worth I think this is a bit of an academic point because I don't think hiking up tariffs to protect old an inefficient industries is the way to go.
Even if they were not, steel could be imported into the EU and then shipped into the UK.
There is a lot of tosh being talked about on here today re Education..Perhaps if the students put down their smart phones and gaming boxes they could cram for exams and have time for "free thinking".
check your reading comprehension skills. The discussion has been mainly about what they do in school, not in their free time.
Steve Hawkes Jacob Rees Mogg wonders re Nicky Morgan's mad inter-railing claim.."how Phileas Fogg managed to get around the world in 80 days without EU"
So he wants to know how a fictional character went around the world in less than 80 days?
Think he is just highlighting her ludicrous claim, Remainers seem more demented every day.
I have a question about steel tariffs. Are the common steel tariffs for the EEA? That is, if we weren't in the EU but were in the EEA would we still be subject to common tariffs?
For what it's worth I think this is a bit of an academic point because I don't think hiking up tariffs to protect old an inefficient industries is the way to go.
Just marvel at the exquisiteness of a Labour SoS for energy yes a Labour SoS for energy hiking up useless and counterproductive green taxes which, would you believe it, end up being a tax on competitiveness and value-, and job-destroying to boot. And then have Labour shrieking about it.
Steve Hawkes Jacob Rees Mogg wonders re Nicky Morgan's mad inter-railing claim.."how Phileas Fogg managed to get around the world in 80 days without EU"
So he wants to know how a fictional character went around the world in less than 80 days?
Think he is just highlighting her ludicrous claim, Remainers seem more demented every day.
Listened to Len McCluskey on R4 on the way in to work and he actually not only made sense but had more of a grasp on life than most of the government ministers I've heard. Somebody should just tell Anna Soubry to stay away from a microphone.
I need a drink.
Just had one, more like.
I was scouring PP for odds of Soubry for next Cons leader. Len, meanwhile, on the one hand bemoaned "low quality cheap steel imports" displacing our own, presumably equally low quality steel, while on the other pointed out that we were a high quality producer.
Steve Hawkes Jacob Rees Mogg wonders re Nicky Morgan's mad inter-railing claim.."how Phileas Fogg managed to get around the world in 80 days without EU"
So he wants to know how a fictional character went around the world in less than 80 days?
Think he is just highlighting her ludicrous claim, Remainers seem more demented every day.
Schrodinger's Leavers seem to want to abandon freedom of movement and retain it simultaneously.
I am not arguing against teaching facts or some rote learning. Both have very important roles to play. I am arguing sgainst the amount of formalised testing that is now done. It leaves no time for anything else. I had no homework when I was at primary school. I don't get why it is now deemed necessary.
formalised testing is cheap and profitable for the companies that run academies and produce the testing materials (you can bet they have directors in common, even if they are not done by the exact same company)
Rupert Murdoch has it sorted. Pearson owns the exam boards, publishes the supporting materials (at extortionate prices, I might add) and is trying to muscle in on the actual running of schools too.
My last head, who was no bleeding-heart liberal, talked of Establishment stitch-ups.
I sometimes wonder whether the exam boards aren't at least as much part of the problem as the NUT etc.
The multiple competing exam boards are the 'what the hell' element of English education that outsiders express extreme surprise about.
They seem bonkers to me but maybe I miss the benefits.
My back aches like it's in its ninetieth year (*), my body feels like it's in its fiftieth, and my brain in its third. Too much Mr Tumble rots the brain.
A consequence of looking after an active toddler ...
(*) So still a youngster compared to your venerable self.
I was reading before I was walking. That's unusual, apparently.
Steve Hawkes Jacob Rees Mogg wonders re Nicky Morgan's mad inter-railing claim.."how Phileas Fogg managed to get around the world in 80 days without EU"
So he wants to know how a fictional character went around the world in less than 80 days?
Think he is just highlighting her ludicrous claim, Remainers seem more demented every day.
Steve Hawkes Jacob Rees Mogg wonders re Nicky Morgan's mad inter-railing claim.."how Phileas Fogg managed to get around the world in 80 days without EU"
So he wants to know how a fictional character went around the world in less than 80 days?
Think he is just highlighting her ludicrous claim, Remainers seem more demented every day.
Schrodinger's Leavers seem to want to abandon freedom of movement and retain it simultaneously.
Todays headline is how it will affect football in this country, as claimed by a leading football agent.
There is a lot of tosh being talked about on here today re Education..Perhaps if the students put down their smart phones and gaming boxes they could cram for exams and have time for "free thinking".
check your reading comprehension skills. The discussion has been mainly about what they do in school, not in their free time.
In any case, I'd recommend Everything Bad Is Good For You for an enjoyable essay on why video games and junk TV have their virtues:
"If [new trade rules with China are] correct, and if allowed to run its course, Europe would be finished as an industrial and military region. It would be civilisational suicide."
Just catching up. Seems Steven Kinnock is "having a good war". Available for next leader at 34.'
Yes, he obviously enjoyed his juncet to Mumbai and moment in the spotlight,long after Tata had made their final decision.
Backed him up to a maximum allowable £14.73 after a DP interview some time ago when he showed how grown up he is while not compromising some fairly left wing beliefs.
Steve Hawkes Jacob Rees Mogg wonders re Nicky Morgan's mad inter-railing claim.."how Phileas Fogg managed to get around the world in 80 days without EU"
So he wants to know how a fictional character went around the world in less than 80 days?
Think he is just highlighting her ludicrous claim, Remainers seem more demented every day.
Schrodinger's Leavers seem to want to abandon freedom of movement and retain it simultaneously.
For most people in this country the cherished freedom of movement simply means standing at a customs post for 15-20 minutes longer on their annual holiday.
Any regular traveller over the last 10 years has accepted much longer waits without problems due to heightened security.
I have covered quite a bit of educational theory in my work teaching at the medical school.
Assessment has always driven learning. The question that students ask me is not "will learning this be useful in my career?" or "will learning this make me a better doctor?" It is "will this be in the exam?"
If we want to have people who are self starters or critical thinkers, then we need to set up a system that recognises and gives good marks to those that do. It is not easy setting such assessments.
I am not arguing that exams are bad. I am arguing that an education system that is based solely on coaching children to pass exams is a skewed system. When I was at school we had something called the lower sixth - the year after O levels in which you were slowly introduced to a new way of looking at subjects. It was slow, it was relatively relaxed and it was enjoyable. Now there are A/S levels and it's all revision and exams. My kids were stressed in a way I never was. And it's going on from aged 4. I just don't think it will deliver what we really need.
A/S levels always existed, but were ramped up because the NUT complained that it was outrageous to have a single pass/fail test for children.
Basically the NUT don't want any way to objectively monitor the performance of their members. That's probably in the interests of their members (don't forget they also reject rewarding the best teachers) but not in the best interests of the children.
Mr. Meeks, either that or different people have different opinions.
We saw Thatcherites yesterday link arms with nationalisers and tariff advocates. "Incoherent" doesn't begin to cover it.
Occasionally, the real world forces intellectual consistency to be abandoned. The bank rescues in 2008 have probably destroyed a "pure capitalism/no state intervention" argument forever.
On steel, I note that Sajid Javid has apparently been discouraging/blocking EU wide tarrifs - which leaves the "leave" argument that tarrifs could be used as a theoretical under a different government rather than that they 'would' be used under this one.
Comments
The interesting thing, for me at least, is seeing the confidence sucked out of trump and his supporters.
I think it's still likely he'll pull it back but he has a lot of enemies with crowbars ready - as soon as they see a chink in his armour they'll disembowel him....
The media destruction of Donald, when/if it comes could well be spectacular.
The problems for him come when the primaries dry up but there's a long period before the convention where Republicans are still futilely hoping they can stop him.
The obvious solution would be to STFU during that time, but he may not have good STFU skills...
Odd how she's rated considering all the perceived failures on immigration are on her watch.
I quite like Gove though I disagree with him on almost everything
http://www.murdermap.co.uk/investigate.asp
As for the new GCSE, there is a very heavy emphasis on description ahead of analysis, and some of the questions are truly puerile. For example, from OCR's new history paper; If you saw an artist painting your site, what things would you tell them to include (that's the original phrasing, mistakes and all).
I like the content and I think the underlying principles are sound. But Gove has not been careful in checking that these were not hijacked by the exam boards, most of whom deliberately and knowingly rejected the advice of the academics he brought in on what it would be advisable to include to make it a worthwhile qualification. That suggests a casual approach, not competence.
More able people unmentioned
Graham Brady
Andrea Leadsom
A few more on here should give it a go, talking to the public in the spotlight is a whole lot different to banging on a keyboard.
Your best chance is probably to keep plugging away on the media side of things and hoping thereby to get noticed and fast-tracked. Perhaps taking on something like Kieran Pedley has done on PB.comTV would be a good idea, so that you become known as a personality in your own right rather than simply a very effective thread writer and blogger in chief alongside OGH.
Your penultimate paragraph where you mention description reinforces my view that we are returning to the world of rote learning. That has a certain appeal for some people but does have a risk of creating unthinking automatons.
http://www.ncpolitics.uk/2016/03/polling-inquiry-report-published.html/
But I have a horrible feeling these new exams will make it worse not better, which was the exact opposite of what was intended.
It is not just about pay (though of course that matters to everyone), like in teaching there are many other factors affecting job satisfaction.
Amidst all the arguments, history and trains, we certainly have a lot of insightful people on here.
The meme that "we don't need to teach facts because people can just google now" is one of the most dangerous education myths. It's up with "we don't need to teach maths because calculators" from my childhood and the forthcoming "we don't need to teach spelling because autocorrect".
Even insofar as it would have any merit, you need to know what to google, you need to know how to place it in context without spending all day googling, and you need enough background knowledge stored in your brain to know if what you have found on the internet is true or not.
Recommended further reading:
https://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/information-and-understanding/
http://www.learningspy.co.uk/learning/♥-rote-learning/
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/the-war-on-rote-learning-just-doesn-t-add-up-1.2203918 (bonus cartoon, I really mean the book to which the article refers)
Assessment has always driven learning. The question that students ask me is not "will learning this be useful in my career?" or "will learning this make me a better doctor?" It is "will this be in the exam?"
If we want to have people who are self starters or critical thinkers, then we need to set up a system that recognises and gives good marks to those that do. It is not easy setting such assessments.
Meanwhile, F1 is grateful to FIFA for making the former look good by way of comparison:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35931031
Communication skills are unquestionably important in a doctor, but cannot be divorced from content. There needs to be a vast hinterland of information on the mental map if the practitioner is to act as an effective guide. Any fool can use google.
This chart tells you something interesting about British attitudes to the EU https://t.co/HTyAimW8By https://t.co/cqaKOU6VsV
24 hours 34 minutes 44 seconds
"I just knew my sense of humour and sarcasm would get me into trouble on a regular basis were I to become an MP."
That's what's lacking with today's MPs. The treading on eggshells in case one or two "sensitive" people are offended. I'm not bothered about that at all, and seeing people making apologies for saying what they think is vomit-making.
I'm no fan of Ken Livingstone, but why insincere apologies are required for his comments about Kevan Jones are beyond me. He dislikes him, he meant to offend him, and he succeeded.
Had he made a joke about the subject, I'd be comfortable about it. - it's a joke and not to be taken seriously. "Oh, but they might go off and commit suicide," is the meme. If so, should they be in public life, or even working? "Oh, but he might take offence." is another. Tough, worse things happen in the real world.
For the avoidance of doubt, I'd prefer Jones to Newt Man, but it's the principle.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35917037
On second thoughts Mr Eagles, you may have made a wise decision.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/03/hillary-clinton-email-discovery-221338#ixzz44PHxMh00
The rumour in former FBI agent circles is that the Bureau is negotiating immunity for Huma Abedin. HRC is a weak enough candidate without all the corruption her family have been involved in being dragged up again. Still think Obama and the DC establishment are corrupt enough to pardon her, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to justify that and it won't stop FBI leaks etc.
this is a blair hangover unfortunately:
modus operandi — 1) identify a genuine and pressing problem (understimulated toddlers)
2) identify a spurious target and test it
3) introduce spurious qualifications for those implementing the action
4) claim things have improved because the results of 2) are up (with massaging) and the number of people with qualification 3) is increased.
A consequence of looking after an active toddler ...
(*) So still a youngster compared to your venerable self.
The most insightful critique I have ever read of that problem, incidentally, is in Huxley's Brave New World, On the shortcomings of hypnopedia.
Labour have gone from judge-led inquires to online petitions. https://t.co/HLrtRjZQ7y
My last head, who was no bleeding-heart liberal, talked of Establishment stitch-ups.
Eventually you will end up with a Japanese style system where the kids finish school and then go to evening cram school to memorize more guff so they can pass the entrance exam for the next school where they will cram more stuff.
(I know because my lad has gone through this. and yes, I think his critical thinking skills are underdeveloped as a result.)
nice and profitable for the eduction companies tho.
I wonder what you get if you correlate youth suicide rates and pisa rankings
@twlldun: "I have a letter from Seumas of Islington who would like to discuss the issue of the Malvinas" https://t.co/PoYb9wRkuE
For what it's worth I think this is a bit of an academic point because I don't think hiking up tariffs to protect old an inefficient industries is the way to go.
Too often it goes:
"Something must be done!"
"Like what?"
"Dunno."
That's fine for members of the public, but cr@p for senior politicians who, all too soon, might have to make decisions on similar issues.
They were the ones who recently suggested I become an MP.
But I realised that ship has sailed.
But I revel in the glory they said, I was the only one in British politics who spotted the potential for Corbyn making a complete idiot of himself at the Battle of Britain ceremony.
Steve Hawkes
Jacob Rees Mogg wonders re Nicky Morgan's mad inter-railing claim.."how Phileas Fogg managed to get around the world in 80 days without EU"
All children are different. I'm still in contact with the seven other families in out NCT group, and all our children are 21-22 months old. Each is very different and advanced (or otherwise) in different areas. At this stage some are shy, some are extrovert. Some speak alot, others babble. Some sit with toys for a while, others move from toy to toy repeatedly.
Isn't the problem trying to teach all children within a group in the same manner, when individualised approaches to suit the children might be best? Yet individualised teaching is massively expensive and can reduce social skills.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nqN_7eGItM
Listened to Len McCluskey on R4 on the way in to work and he actually not only made sense but had more of a grasp on life than most of the government ministers I've heard. Somebody should just tell Anna Soubry to stay away from a microphone.
I need a drink.
Just catching up. Seems Steven Kinnock is "having a good war". Available for next leader at 34.
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/715294639620759552
I was scouring PP for odds of Soubry for next Cons leader. Len, meanwhile, on the one hand bemoaned "low quality cheap steel imports" displacing our own, presumably equally low quality steel, while on the other pointed out that we were a high quality producer.
They seem bonkers to me but maybe I miss the benefits.
Vested interest?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B002RI9XB0/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
"If [new trade rules with China are] correct, and if allowed to run its course, Europe would be finished as an industrial and military region. It would be civilisational suicide."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/03/30/britain-sacrifices-steel-industry-to-curry-favour-with-china/
Morning all,
Just catching up. Seems Steven Kinnock is "having a good war". Available for next leader at 34.'
Yes, he obviously enjoyed his juncet to Mumbai and moment in the spotlight,long after Tata had made their final decision.
Q4 GDP revised upwards from 0.5% to 0.6%
Any regular traveller over the last 10 years has accepted much longer waits without problems due to heightened security.
Basically the NUT don't want any way to objectively monitor the performance of their members. That's probably in the interests of their members (don't forget they also reject rewarding the best teachers) but not in the best interests of the children.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-35933452
Is Kolkata just Calcutta by another spelling?
On steel, I note that Sajid Javid has apparently been discouraging/blocking EU wide tarrifs - which leaves the "leave" argument that tarrifs could be used as a theoretical under a different government rather than that they 'would' be used under this one.