It’s… Michael Gove’s Flying Circus

2-267389212_6397df7048_z

A prototype GoveAir flying machine: ‘No frills, no fun, just facts’

All Change Please! has learnt that GoveAir‘s CEO has announced plans to introduce a new fleet of ‘Back to Basics’ 21st Century flying machines, based on a random pick-and-mix assemblage of components from different countries across the world.  However, it remains to see if the idea will ever actually take-off.

The Heath Robinson-influenced specifications were drawn up over the weekend by a group of representatives from various passenger organisations and focus groups, and include the general requirements for important things such as wings, windows and seats, though it is thought these may eventually be red-penned by the CEO. To keep costs down further, curved surfaces or indents will not be allowed, and this will also apparently help ensure architects and designers don’t get any richer than they already are. Existing pilots, more used to flying modern so-called progressive planes, will be re-trained on Spitfires from the 1950s.

At the same time, flight times will be extended to last a whole day, and pilots’ holidays reduced. They will also be required to take on extra administrative duties, including collecting ticket money and refuelling the planes.

Pilots are naturally bitterly opposed to the plans and are likely to join rival airline marxyJet. According to GoveAir, this will fit in well with their plans to introduce easily re-programmable robot pilots over the next five years.

Controversially the Nation’s children will be expected to be on-board during the test flights. The CEO of GoveAir explained:

“Things have changed since the 19th century, and parents are just too busy now to look after their own children. And with the current completely unforeseen demand for extra school places it will help reduce the need for new school buildings. We also feel it is important to bring more rigour into flying, and to encourage youngsters to become pilots themselves we will be sending a letter of encouragement to all those who manage to survive the experience.  Of course, it would have been much simpler to rely on updating the current design of airplanes which has been successfully evolving over many years, but where’s the Daily Mail headline in that?”

Were you there at the time? Are you happy for your child to fly with Gove Air? Please send us your comments and experiences…

Facts contained in this post loosely based on the following sources:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22202694

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2013/apr/17/teachers-more-clerical-work-review

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10004236/Ministers-urging-more-bright-pupils-to-apply-to-university.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/shortcuts/2012/oct/02/michel-goves-war-on-architecture-curves

http://www.guardian.co.uk/local-government-network/2013/apr/10/rising-demand-school-places

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/gove-fun-is-a-relic-of-history-2013041966164

Image credit: Flickr Redteam http://www.flickr.com/photos/redteam/267389212

Pass Notes: There’s no business like…

1S-arrow-15630_640

In this post All Change Please! turns its attention to another important school subject to see how it fares in the proposed new draft National Curriculum.

Ah, finally – Business and Economics. That’s one of the most popular subjects students study at university isn’t it?

Yes, by quite a big margin – nearly twice as many as History.

And absolutely vital to the nation’s future growth and prosperity. So I suppose you”ll be telling me that the DfE has included some daft content inappropriately placed in the wrong key stages and written in a way that relates more to business practices of the 1950′s?

Errr, no I won’t be actually.

You mean they’ve managed to get this one right? That’s a turn up for the textbooks.

Well, no, not really. You see, Business and Economics is not part of the National Curriculum at all.

What? So let’s get this straight. Business and Economics is the most popular university subject, and the basis of the future economic success of the country, and we don’t teach our children anything about it at all while at school?

Yes, you’ve got it one.

Ah, well, I suppose it could be argued that we have such well organised management systems and a highly motivated workforce that the basic principles do not really needed to be introduced in schools.

Well you could argue that but in most cases you’d be wrong. Just the other day I heard about someone who works for a leading UK global company. He’s very good at bringing in new clients, but the problem is that this means more work for the delivery team, so they’ve just got rid of him. And then I know a manager of a small business who can’t manage to recruit employees with a good work ethic – it seems they just want to do the least they can get away with, without realising that unless they all work together to help build the business and keep it going, they will soon be out of a job. At the same time too many business are running on out-moded management and administrative structures, and are likely to fail in the next five to ten years unless they completely transform their culture. And do you really think the current economy is being well-handled by the government? So there is definitely an absolutely essential need for children to understand how businesses work, how money is made and lost, and that teamwork and collaboration are essential.

So why aren’t business leaders making more of a fuss?

That’s a very good question. At least Sir Richard Branson managed to express his concerns last week and revealed his usual insightful grasp of the situation when he said:  “Some of the things people study at school are not particularly relevant for when they actually leave school.”

Gosh. Next I suppose you’ll be telling me there is no media studies to give children at least some insight into the way in which the information they consume is created, manipulated and distributed, and no engineering on the curriculum either, despite the fact that engineering is one of the priority professions for UK immigration.

Yes, you guessed it!

Talking of which, I hear chicken sexing is another of the priority professions for immigrants. No chance of that being included in the National Curriculum I suppose?

Well, I expect they could probably find some space for it in D&T…

Do say:  Mind your own business.

Don’t say:  Pass the Branson Pickle, would you?

And finally,  if you haven’t already done so, don’t forget that your country needs you to vote for your least favourite subject in the Grand National Curriculum Consultation competition. The bookies have History as odds on to win, with D&T coming up quickly on the rails. Let’s just hope that Secretary of State ridden by Michael Gove out of Government falls at the first and has to be inhumanely put down. Talking of whom, if you’ve not seen it yet, this is worth a watch…  http://www.goveversusreality.com/

 

Image credit: http://pixabay.com/en/arrow-business-crisis-decline-15630/

E.T. Phone Home….

1S-et_2078116b

Q:  What have cars made from the 1920s by the Morris Garages company, an Extra-Terrestrial being, a Decision-feedback Equaliser and a Networked Computer got in common? Oh, and a Blob from outer space, but we’ll come to that later.

The answer is – not a lot, unless of course you take their initials, M.G. and E.T. and put them together in the DfE and ask them to re-write the NC. Which, it increasingly seems, is exactly what they did. All by themselves, with no help at all from anyone else – presumably lest they be accused of cheating, which would never do, would it?

First the rumour turned into speculation, which nearly transformed into a possible fact on Wikipedia, before becoming what will very probably be an urban myth. And the rumour was that, dissatisfied with the work of all the special advisors he had appointed, Morris Garages actually wrote the revised Networked Computer History curriculum himself as part of his weekend homework assignment.

And then there’s been the rather awkward question of who it actually was who put together the daft draft proposals for Design and Technology, which has led to a series of increasingly convincing conspiracy theories. It was always fairly obvious from the terminology and language used that it was probably written by someone who had themselves had a fairly unfortunate teenage experience of a typical ‘Can’t Do That’ department in the late 1980s and early 90s in which girls did the cooking, arranged the flowers and sewed on buttons while the boys made and mended things in a jolly useful sort of way. Which became an even more interesting theory to consider when Extra Terrestrial revealed that she had herself studied D&T at her former Yorkshire girls’ grammar school, at exactly this sort of time. And there was further evidence on her website that she indeed comes from another planet, where everything is simply wonderful down on Jollity Farm:

Anyway, in case you missed it, the good news is that E.T. has publicly stated in a recent commons debate that the daft D&T proposals (recently appropriately described as being ‘unfit for consultation’), will be the subject of ‘serious consultation’, and that this time the advice of DATA and other people who actually know something about the subject will be considered. Well, a bit anyway. Maybe. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps….

And in a confused and misleading speech earlier in the week, E.T. made some confusing and misleading horticultural references:

“Government has a part to play in setting out the trellises and marking out the footpaths. How the garden grows is for schools to decide. And in order for teachers to be able to give life to the garden, government has to give them freedom: freedom from excessively prescriptive top-down diktats and the freedom to innovate.”

Before going on to highlight the importance of the relationship between D&T and computers:

“Design and technology offer a reminder of the interaction between subjects. Computers have a central role in design and technology these days and our new, more challenging computing programme of study is designed to prepare pupils to work in the cutting-edge industries of the future.”

Hmm – now here’s a thought. Perhaps D&T and IT should be combined into one area. Now what shall we call it? Ah I know – how about ‘Technology‘? Extra Terrestrial, even if you won’t phone home, maybe the time has at least come to phone a friend?

Meanwhile Morris Garages was brought up sharply on the motorway by a letter to the papers written by a ton-up of 100 academics who hoped to overtake his fact-filled curriculum by coming up fast on the left-hand lane. So MG quickly checked his right-wing mirror and came to the conclusion that obviously these must simply be the ‘wrong sort of academics’. Or, as the Daily Mail, drawing on the full might of its great intellectual wisdom, cleverly called them on Friday – ‘nitwits‘. But by the Mail on Sunday MG was clearly pressing his right foot down hard on the accelerator pedal, driving completely out-of-control and shouting ‘Poop-poop!’ while attacking the 100 academics as being ‘The new Enemies Of Promise…who seem more interested in valuing Marxism, revering jargon and fighting excellence.’ and imaginatively identifying them as the so-called ‘Blob’ -  which actually turns out to stand not for something from outer space, but for Big Learning Organisational Bureaucracies that have absolutely nothing to do with Marxist Enemies of Promise. But, as someone pointed out on Twitter, perhaps the most alarming indication of the current decline in standards was that the Mail on Sunday’s editor missed the opportunity to use the headline: ‘Marx out of a hundred?’

Now All Change Please! had previously assumed that the purpose of MG’s crusade was to provide more opportunities for everyone to become an academic, whether they wanted to or not.  But it now seems our children are not just all destined to become failed academics, but failed right-wing academics. And MGs inaccurate and nonsensical rhetoric is daily gaining the increasing support of the masses who fail to grasp that his real agenda involves a great deal more than simply teaching children how to read, write and do sums. Oh, and learn how to cook and grow their own food.

Meanwhile, back at the Department for Education, it is thought that officials recently discovered that in fact the initials DfE actually stood for something quite different: Design focused Evaluation, which it seems is concerned with the effectiveness of constructive alignment in an educational course.  However, they are obviously trying to keep very quiet about this in case anyone else finds out.

Do say:  My life’s work is ‘intergenerational ethnography of the intersection of class, place, education and school resistance’

Don’t say:  ‘We are Blob’

Background MG Badge Image credit: Brian Snelson

Can I see tea?

8127876004_0233d81485_c
Over recent weeks All Change Please! has posted about the draft National Curriculum requirements for Design & Technology, Art & Design, and History. Now it’s time to look at the new-fangled Computer studies (or as a DfE press release recently called it, ‘Computing Studies’), and to help us we’re delighted to welcome back the wondeful spirit of Joyce Grenfell, who is leading today’s Key Stage 1 lesson.

“Ok class, let’s all gather round. Today we’re going to learn about computers. I expect you already know a lot more about them than I do, don’t you? Well at least I’m rather hoping you do. Now, first make sure your smart phones and tablets are all switched off please – you’re not really supposed to have them in school are you? No, I’m sorry Larry you’ll just have to finish working on your facebook hacking app later – which reminds me, you really must tell me what a hacking app is. Anyway just so long as it doesn’t involve shooting people with guns – we wouldn’t want anything nasty like that now would we?

What’s that Steve? You’ve got an apple for me? How thoughtful. Oh! It’s not that sort of apple. Still, never mind – Yes, Pierre, you’re right, I can always sell it on eBay.

No Sergey, you can’t be excused to go and do a google.

Right, let’s see what it says here. Ah yes. Now, who can tell me what an algorthim is? Ah, that’s good to see how many hands are up!

So, Jeff, what do you think it is?

A type of alligator you’d find in the Amazon? No I don’t think so Jeff.

What’s your answer Ada?

A special type of rhythm used in music? No, a very good guess dear, but not quite right I’m afraid.

No Bill, I’m pretty sure it has nothing to do with Al Gore. And please stop looking out of the windows and try to concentrate.

Oh dear, I was afraid of that, none of you know what an algorthim is, which is a bit awkward really, because I don’t either. Let’s see what it says here. Hmm – it seems that it is basically a simple or complex process automated by a computer programme. Well that’s not very helpful is it children? Still never mind. I’ve got a better idea, let’s all learn how to spell it instead. Well would you believe it, they seem to have spelt it wrong here. I’m sure it must be algorhythm.

No Salman, you khan’t do that here. Wait until you get home this evening.

Well, nearly time for you to go out and play. Now, next week’s computer lesson looks more fun. Apparently we’re all going to make a tasty Raspberry Pi. Really, these computer geeks are not very good at spelling are they? I suppose that must be cleverly linked in with the new requirements to teach cookery – or Design and Technology or whatever it’s called now…

Ah, break-time at last. Can ICT out ready in the staff room?

Any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely intentional.

Don’t confuse me with the facts…*

Those of us who are lucky enough to be able to remember the late 60s and early 70s were saddened last week to learn of the passing of Kevin Ayers. A founder member of the experimental and highly creative jazz rock group Soft Machine, he then went on to find greater success leading his own band, and releasing some 17 albums.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/feb/20/kevin-ayers-dies-aged-68

Now All Change Please! was surprised to read in all the obituaries that appeared the next day that Ayers apparently attended the Simon Langton school in Canterbury, where he met the other members of the Soft Machine. Now it so happens that All Change Please! taught at this exact same school during the 1980s, and there is clear documentation and recall evidence from staff who were there at the time that the other two other members of the band were indeed pupils there in the early 1960s. However as far as All Change Please! is aware there is nothing to suggest Ayers ever attended as well. On the cover biography notes of the first Soft Machine album, while it states that the other two were at the school, it does not name of the school that Kevin Ayers’ went to. And indeed checking Ayers’ own account he states he attended a boarding school (which Simon Langton wasn’t) and that he met the others in completely different circumstances, as confirmed in the ‘official’ Soft Machine Biography published in 2005.

But within hours of the publication of the obituary, Ayers’ Wikipedia entry had been updated to state that he attended the Simon Langton school in Canterbury (as evidenced by the Guardian Obituary), where he met the other members of the band. As such this will now doubtless pass into history as a fact, which it seems quite clearly isn’t.

So, Mr Gove, is it right to just teach our children the so-called facts, when the facts are subject to such misrepresentation and inaccuracy? The Kevin Ayers example is in itself of no great importance, but others are. Surely what really matters is that children learn that there are no such things as facts? Sources need to be carefully analysed, cross-referenced, and potentially challenged. And they also need to be taught not to believe everything, or perhaps even anything, that they read in the papers. Or, for that matter, on Wikipedia.

Meanwhile it is the proposed new History curriculum that has been widely reported in the press (diverting attention away from the even more inappropriate proposals for Design & Technology). As discussed here:

Why Too Much History is Bad History: The Proposed History Curriculum
http://myblogs.informa.com/jvc/2013/02/22/why-too-much-history-is-bad-history-the-proposed-history-curriculum/

it is clear the authors of the curriculum have a complete lack of understanding of how and when children learn.

The linear chronology only gets underway in KS2, between the ages of 7-11, when kids are expected to grasp a huge swathe of history, beginning with the Greeks and Romans (though I see no mention of the Egyptians, Babylonians, Chinese or Indus Valley peoples), and then bomb emphatically through British history’s trajectory, from Stonehenge to the Glorious Revolution, via all the headline history that a 1950s textbook might include.

By the start of KS3, kids are 11.  When I was that age, I distinctly remember making a project book about mummification and tombs in Ancient Egypt – one which I found creative and thrilling – but our youngsters will instead hurtle headlong into Clive of India and the Age of Revolution. Soon after, they will be grappling with the US Constitution and Enlightenment philosophy…

Teachers will no doubt endeavour to enliven their lessons, but with such a curriculum they will struggle to captivate the imaginations of their young pupils, and that will be a fatal tragedy for the subject of history.

Children do need to acquire a ‘time-line’ of history, but this is just not the way to achieve it. Acquiring so-called facts in the context of a time-line is very different from learning everything only in the order in which it happened. And that’s a fact.

*According to that highly reliable source of all knowledge Wikipedia, ‘Don’t confuse me with the facts. I have a closed mind already’ was said by Earl Landgrebe during the Watergate hearings in 1974.

** But according to the far more reliable source of all quotations “Quote…Unquote’, the phrase dates back to a 1945 article in an advertising periodical, and the saying appeared on a sign on a prominent Democrat’s desk in 1954.

Update 3rd March 2013. All Change Please! is pleased to be able to report that history has now been re-written, and the offending Wikipedia entry has now been more accurately updated!

 

How does your D&T garden grow?

1S-3932324472_b4118b221d_z

Mary, Mary quite contrary,
How does your garden grow?
With silver bells and cockle shells
And pretty maids all in a row.

Once upon a time, a young Michael Gove probably enjoyed learning, reciting and being tested on an innocent little nursery rhyme that was all about a pretty little garden. However, its origins are apparently steeped in history. According to some sources, Mary is ‘Bloody’ Mary Tudor, and the ‘garden’ is thought to be a reference to the growing number of graveyards filled with all those who refused to agree with her. Meanwhile the silver bells and cockle shells were actually references to torture by thumbscrews and, well you can guess for yourselves what part of the body cockle shells might be attached to. And ‘pretty maids’ it seems were actually an early form of the guillotine.

http://www.rhymes.org.uk/mary_mary_quite_contrary.htm  (Other interpretations are available from all good websites)

All Change Please! hardly needs to spell it out, does it? Today “Bloody’ Michael Gove is creating an increasing number of graveyards that accommodate all the positive developments that have taken place in education over the past 50 years, and is doing so by inflicting the torture of new EBacc and NC specifications and applying them to various sensitive parts of the profession. And if you still disagree, to mix my nursery rhymes, here comes Ofsted to chop off your head.

During the past few days reaction to the proposed Design & Technology National Curriculum has been largely one of disbelief, and focused mainly on the inclusion of gardening and cookery. As far as All Change Please! can discover, a number of conservative Middle England organic gardening concerns launched a full-scale Thatcher-esque ‘Task Force’ to persuade the DfE to include food and gardening as part of the National Curriculum to promote a more healthy future lifestyle for our children. Now of course All Change Please! has no problem with that as such – it’s just a pity, and entirely inappropriate, that D&T should be expected to deliver it.

All Change Please! has also heard ‘on the grapevine’ that references in the new curriculum to sustainability were not permitted, and indeed there is no mention of it anywhere in the whole document, so in the immediate future it seems unlikely to be included. But of course there is absolutely nothing to stop teachers adding it into the mix themselves.

Meanwhile it seems that at a D&T conference on Wednesday 13th there was a growing awareness and acceptance that perhaps the current delivery of the subject in most schools was not working effectively and had failed to sufficiently move forward in recent years. Indeed the strong reaction against the inclusion of horticulture merely reflects the wider community’s refusal to even consider change. These days survival demands rapid evolution to meet new challenges, not standing still and putting up the barricades.

It remains important however for the DfE to receive as many objections as possible to the current proposals, but at the same time simply criticising the inclusion of horticulture and suggesting that it should be simply thrown onto the compost heap are unlikely to achieve anything – food and horticulture are not going to go away. Instead it will be helpful to clearly articulate what the practical issues of implementation are, and as such how they might be potentially detrimental to the future of art, design and technology education and subsequent HE and career progression. The objective needs to be to clarify that the knowledge and skills involved in growing and cooking food are different (but no less worthy) disciplines to creative design-led problem-solving and that as such they need to be staffed and accommodated accordingly.

In All Change Please‘s last post ‘Are Bill and Ben working at the DfE?‘ it promised its consultation re-draft of the D&T proposals, and indeed they are available here D&TNCEdited (pdf download). It is interesting to see how, that with just a few changes of terminology and the removal of the exemplification, the content suddenly sounds a great deal more acceptable, if still far from ideal. While it remains a missed opportunity to actively prompt and inspire the further positive development of D&T, at least now it no longer reads like something written in the 1950s.

And finally, here’s a Christmas Cracker of a joke sent in by Roberta from Manchester:

                ‘Why did Michael Gove include horticulture in Design & Technology?’

                ‘Because he thought it was a STEM subject…’

Followed by the adaption of the saying “You can take a horse to water but you can’t make it drink” by Dorothy Parker, and submitted by a reader from Hereford:

                “You can take a horticulture but you can’t make her think.”

Image Credit: Kira Jones Designs

Are Bill and Ben now working at the DfE?

1S-fpm_and_weed

Was it Bill or was it Ben? And is Little Weed really Michael Gove?

The proposed new design and technology curriculum* is of course, a huge joke. It’s actually hilariously funny, until you realise that it isn’t. DATA have already made it clear that this was not in any way what they had submitted. The unconfirmed, but easy to believe, rumour is that Bill and Ben the Flowerpot Men at the DfE drastically pruned the various submissions with a pair of secaturs, and re-potted them along with an old seed packet from the 1950s that they found in the shed at the bottom of the garden, while deciding to add ‘horticulture’ in just for a bit of fun, or perhaps out of some sort of self-interest. As a result it’s incoherent and inappropriately written, obviously by a wooden-headed puppet who has no knowledge of the subject whatsoever, and probably had a really bad experience with a CDT teacher while at public school. Who else could possibly have written:

Through working in fields selected from those listed in the introduction (materials (including textiles), horticulture, electricals and electronics, construction, and mechanics), pupils should be taught to…‘ ?

All Change Please! is surprised Mr Gove approved such a clumsy statement such as this. I wonder what he’s really up to? And perhaps even more worrying is the thought that Andy Pandy, Looby Loo and Big Spotty Dog might currently be in charge of the Departments of Health, the Treasury and Foreign Affairs.

Perhaps the most curious element is the sudden inclusion of ‘horticulture’ as a material to be studied and used. Where on earth has this come from? And then there are the strange references to pupils ‘working in the field’ – presumably the answer must lie in the soil..?  Essentially the proposals appear to signal a return to children being taught how to grow food and cook it, to knit, stitch, patch and mend, and to undertake motorcycle maintenance – albeit with missing Zen – just as they did in the 1950s. There is little emphasis on creativity or open-ended problem-solving, and design is largely relegated to ‘decoration‘ and making ‘things that work‘. Meanwhile: ‘Pupils should be given the opportunity to work in emerging areas of design and technology, such as food design, design for disability, and age-related design‘. That is to say, areas that actually emerged way back in the 1970s. I can’t imagine this is going to exactly impress Sir James and Sir Jonathan?

And does it really refer to the long-ago discredited and largely forgotten about ‘design cycle’. Yes, it does. Meanwhile I also look forward to some interesting conversations about how teachers should approach the challenge of the formal assessment of a pupil’s ‘love of cooking’.

All Change Please! has no problem with the introduction a slimmed-down specification of basic D&T concepts that define the basis of the subject. It’s just that this isn’t it as far as D&T is commonly taught in schools today. The question becomes what to do about it? The DfE are unlikely to admit to their incompetence and agree to re-conceive the whole document, and they currently seem even less likely to respond to the advice of subject associations or teachers.

But wait!  All Change Please! just wouldn’t be All Change Please! if it didn’t take an alternative, disruptive view of the situation. In fact it has come to the conclusion that the new D&T specification is actually a brilliant, forward-looking, post-modern, localised approach to 21st century convivial technology and sustainable self-sufficiency in the forthcoming age of austerity. And let’s be honest, in many schools a single well-taught woodwork or cookery lesson often provides a far better educational experience than a term’s worth of misapplied and misinformed, meaningless 1960s mass-production orientated D&T where all most pupils do is end up with a pile of sawdust and cake crumbs, supported by a dozen or so identical templated A3 development sheets.

Meanwhile, thinking back, some twenty or so years ago All Change Please! had an interesting discussion/argument/fight/bloody battle with some local authority advisors in which it unsuccessfully tried to persuade them that a project involving ‘designing with flowers’ for a large scale festival was every bit as much of a good D&T project as any other, if not more so in that it involved developing colour-coded graphic modelling systems, technical issues concerning how the seasonal flowers would be prepared, securely held in place and sustained, alongside the obvious aesthetic issues of combinations and contrasts of colour, texture and smell. Detailed planning and costing was essential. And back in the 1980s All Change Please! used to run ‘The Backdoor Project’ where students identified a small area of waste or derelict outdoor space and proposed how it should be re-planned, planted and landscaped. And there was the student who once did an excellent project on continuous-flow hydroponics, and the A level candidate who did a landscape architecture-based major project.  On these matters All Change Please! is of course speaking horticulturally, as Miss Prism once said, and therefore actually welcomes it as an area that perhaps should always have been included, particularly in terms of design for sustainability. As All Change Please! always used to say: ‘It’s not so much what you design that matters, it’s the way that you design it..

And in the future, when the oil runs low and gets prohibitively expensive, it’s going to be extremely useful to be able to maintain and repair everyday mechanical devices such as bicycles, sewing machines and wood burning stoves. For most people, tomorrow is not going to be about about innovating more and more sophisticated high-tech gizmos to be made by robots in China, but recycling, reusing and making things at a local level. Creative D&T teachers could really make this approach work, while perhaps the rest will actually be able to deliver the craft-based knowledge and skills they are actually good at.

It is of course important to remember that the proposed requirement is defining only the basics of what must be covered, and not what can’t be developed or included in addition. Does the document actually prevent good D&T teachers in any way from delivering good quality D&T? Perhaps the problem is not so much the intended content, but simply the way it has been written? Maybe the way forward is to confuse the DfE by congratulating it on its impressive vision, and politely offer help to improve the vocabulary and exemplification to make it more understandable to teachers? And that is exactly what All Change Please! is in the process of doing, as it will reveal in a further post in a few days’ time.

* The new proposed curriculum and consultation document can be downloaded here. The D&T section starts on page 156

A wolf in sheep’s clothing?

6716652525_75d5e98afd_bWhich one is the real Mr Gove?

Reading much of today’s press, put to bed last night before nice Mr Gove’s appearance at the House of Commons today, one might easily jump to the conclusions that yesterday’s All Change Please!‘s post was now well past its sell-by date and suggest that the 7th February should become National Arts Day in which we all take to the streets singing, dancing and painting in celebration of the day the EBacc was laid to rest and the Arts lived to fight another day. And you might further want to celebrate the day that Mr Gove had to admit he had got the whole thing wrong and that he had finally come to his senses and did the right thing.

But nice, innocent looking Mr Gove is of course a lot sneakier than that. First he managed to shift the blame for his so-called U turn on GCSEs on the fact that he had been advised that setting up single, ie non-competitive, exam boards would fall foul of European legislation. Quite how those two things are connected All Change Please! has yet to establish. And in fact, all that Mr Gove actually announced was that his idea to re-name GCSEs as EBaccs had turned out to be a ‘bridge too far’. In other words the more so-called rigorous, end of course, 3 hour, no-conferring, academic written papers are still with us, but just now called GCSEs again. He then announced an end to the two-tier higher and lower system of papers, meaning that all pupils will have to answer exactly the same questions. However, he added, extension papers will be offered to more able candidates hoping to achieve the higher grades. So, no suggestion of a two tier approach there then?

But the most significant change announced was is in the introduction of a complicated eight subject performance measure, which extends the new EBacc, or rather GCSE, subjects by including a further three non EBacc GCSE subjects, ie that can potentially include Arts subjects, PE, RE, etc. So, as it stands, to come top of the league tables, schools will now have to encourage students to take English language, maths, two sciences, geography or history and a modern foreign language. Plus another three that are not EBacc GCSE subjects, up to a maximum of ten subjects. Now, add in English literature, and it will make it very difficult for a student to take all three sciences, or geography and history, or French and German (or whatever). Confused? You will be…, especially on Year 9 options evening. Hmm – All Change Please! is starting to get the distinct feeling that this is yet another hastily scribbled on the back of an envelope, quick-fix bit of spin written by an unpaid intern that the DfE hope they might get away with.

And then there’s the revelation that the EBCertificate has not actually gone away, as students who complete the core six academic EBacc GCSE subjects  will still gain the so-called prestigious award, and the measure will still be included in league tables. Now this does mean that while the 8 subject measure will at least give parents a better guidance as to the quality of breadth offered by a school, they will still want to see a good EBacc performance as well. So while the perceived value and uptake of Arts and other non-academic EBacc subjects has been raised, they still come second to the mighty EBC.

Meanwhile of course there’s also been the introduction of the proposed new National Curriculum. Strange that both things should be announced at exactly the same time? Why the urgency to tell everyone that EBaccs were going to be still called GCSEs, even though they weren’t? All Change Please! has no objection to a slimmed down NC defining the really fundamental knowledge that clearly everyone needs to acquire and understand, but there is little evidence here that what has been defined has been very carefully thought through in terms of the ease of the access to certain types of knowledge made possible by the information age, or indeed even agreed with teachers and subject associations. Much of it is as clear as mud.

And speaking of mud, watch out for tomorrow’s post on the new proposals for design and technology….

Going For Old?

Pikemen engage musketeers during a re-enactment of the Siege of

Academics engage Vocationalists during a re-enactment of the English Civil War

A few days ago someone drew to my attention to a link to my post ‘Your Country Needs You‘ (published in October) that had been included on ‘Scenes From The Battleground‘s recent blog post. In return I am pleased to reciprocate a link, and hope he will get as many extra views of his site as All Change Please! has since enjoyed as a result.

http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/2013/01/03/attitudes-which-cause-dumbing-down/

In this post I want to discuss some of the arguments that Scenes From The Battleground and other academics often present to justify their approach to teaching and learning, i.e.:

•  since the introduction of the GCSE, all teaching and learning has been made less challenging, or ‘dumbed down’
•  an academic approach to teaching and learning is the only one that can provide a worthwhile education, is appropriate for everyone, and if they are all taught in academic way exam results will automatically improve
•  it is better to have had an academic education and fail, than to have any other sort of education
•  teachers advise working class children not to apply for university
•  employers are only interested in graduates with good academic degrees

It remains of great concern that some academics, rather like the managing directors of companies such as Comet, Jessops and HMV, fail to acknowledge that the world is changing almost beyond recognition, and that the old ways are no longer necessarily the best ways. We can no longer afford for our children to experience a re-enactment of an education system no longer fit for purpose.

Dumbing down

Scenes From The Battleground seems convinced that education has been ‘dumbed down’, and he attempts to provide evidence that supports his fears, compounded by the fact that, as he admits, the posts he has linked to have been written by intelligent and experienced educationalists.

The thing is, you don’t exactly need to be a rocket surgeon or a brain scientist to work out that if the numbers of students going to university since the 1970s are going to rise from around 10% to 50%, then either standards of teaching and learning are going to have to rise unbelievably, or the entry examinations are going to need to be made  easier to pass. Of course academic education has been ‘dumbed down’. So in that respect All Change Please! finds itself in complete agreement with Scenes From The Battleground, Mr Gove and others like them, in that standards of academic education in schools have fallen over the years, and that they justifiably do need to be raised.

The only way is academic

However, that’s about as far as our agreement goes. What Scenes From The Battleground really means is that there has been a lowering of academic expectations.  I would argue that at the same time there has been a raising of expectation and standards of technical and vocational ‘practical’ standards that are far more appropriate for the majority of students. There is also the frequent use by academics of the word ‘rigour’. Why do academics, politicians and journalists only associate ‘rigour’ with academic study? Rigour is something that can be and is applied to any area of study, be it in the Creative Arts, Business Studies, Physical Education, and so on.

Returning briefly to my ‘Going for Gold‘ Olympic medal analogy post, it’s like insisting that all athletes only prepare themselves for the rigour of the 100 metres. As a result, many swimmers, pole vaulters, marathon runners, etc., would never discover that their particular aptitude lay in a completely different discipline. (And I am equally concerned by the further comparison that only those athletes deemed likely to win a medal at the next Olympics will be given funding). The EBacc, as presently conceived, might well succeed in raising academic standards for a small minority, but at the same time will produce a much higher number of failures and disaffected teenagers.

Indeed the way Scenes From The Battleground sees the situation exemplifies exactly where much of the problem lies. While a few academics seem to have managed to join up the dots and grasp the bigger picture, for many a narrow academic education tends to produce people who only see the world from their own point-of-view. It worked for them, so it must be good for everyone, and all that needs to happen is for everyone to receive an academic education, and everything will be wonderful.

It is better to have tried and failed than never to have had an academic education

http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/2013/01/05/yes-those-were-definitely-examples-of-dumbing-down/
Having seemingly reassured himself that he is correct, in an up-date post Scenes From The Battleground states a commonly-held view amongst many academics:

‘It is better to make everyone try to get into a good university, and have a lot fail, than to write off so many of the able-but-poor like we do now. University should be a goal for all because a good education should be a goal for all and even in failing to achieve that goal, one may be given the means to achieve many other goals instead.’

Now this is a very contentious statement, and one I suspect few outside academia would agree with. First it has no regard for the future of the majority of students who would indeed fail to get to university, beyond the unsupported suggestion that as a result somehow they would be able to achieve ‘many other goals instead’. And it also quite wrongly equates university with being the only possible source of a worthwhile education.

Class Wars

Scenes From The Battleground also poses the question: “What would pushy middle-class parents make of this (non-academic activity)?” and suggests that they would perceive evidence of dumbing-down. If they were hoping their children were bound for a Russell Group university, then of course I would agree. But if a parent’s main concern is that their off-spring should find a worthwhile and well-paid job in the emerging economy – and that will in the future give them a good chance of enabling them to be happy and to live independently – then an increasing number are starting to realise that there is more relevant and up-to-date learning going on in some other more practical and less theoretical disciplines. And anyway, All Change Please!, like the majority of teachers, did not go into education specifically to meet the demands of the pushy middle-class parent, but the needs of all children, whatever their background.

‘Teachers cannot afford to be emphasising to kids that university is one goal among others, because the effect won’t be to deter the posh-but-thick; it will be to deter the working class’.

Scenes From The Battleground then goes on to discuss the much-used argument that social class remains the key factor in going to university (which indeed it may well be), and that teachers deter the working class from going there. I simply do not believe that the majority of teachers do this, at least not if the student shows the required level of potential academic ability and has the desire to do so. What they do do however, is to suggest that perhaps some students who are quite unlikely to achieve the necessary academic standards should consider alternative educational pathways that are more likely to enable them to succeed and obtain employment through more practically-related knowledge and experience.

Employability

Finally, and how many times does it need repeating, top company chief executives keep stating that what they need now is not graduates stuck in the old Industrial Age ways of memorising and recalling a prescribed, often out-of-date, body of knowledge, but life-long learners, creative risk-takers and collaborative problem-solvers willing and able to work flexibly to respond to ever-changing and entirely unpredictable markets that embrace instability. According to this article, today’s young people will find themselves living and working in the ‘Age of Chaos’, and will need to have a ‘Generation Flux’ mindset. I can only advise academics to stay in their ivory towers and lock the door firmly behind them!

http://designtaxi.com/news/355262/Are-You-Prepared-For-The-Workplace-Of-The-Future/

So why is it that at the same time though employers quite rightly complain that many school-leavers often lack, or are far from fluent in, basic numeracy and literacy skills? Perhaps this is because what they are being taught in schools is often too theoretical, and not grounded in the context of everyday, real-world problems?

Education needs to be appropriate for everyone, not just the academically-able.

Image credit: Anguskirk  http://www.flickr.com/photos/anguskirk/4944028963

The Gove of Christmas Present

320193886_4f81700be0_z

A Christmas Post

In which the parts of Scrooge and the Spirits of Christmas Past, Present and Future are all played by Michael “I do not see anything wrong with having the 19th century at the heart of the English curriculum” Gove.

Twas the night before Christmas at the DfE, and nothing stirred. Not even a GCSE grade. Ebenezer Gove was at his desk shredding letters from Michael Rosen when a deputation from various arts organisations approached. Before they could speak, Gove jumped up and shook them by the hand, saying “ I’m glad you applaud the excellent job I have been doing on behalf of the arts in schools, and I shall convey your appreciation to the house this very afternoon.”

“No, no.” said the arts organisations, “You misunderstand us, the arts in schools are in earnest need of nourishment, lest they should wither away completely.  At this festive time of year it is usually desirable that we should make some slight curriculum provision for the poor and destitute arts, who suffer greatly at the present time.”

“Are there no academies?” retorted Ebenezer Gove angrily, “And the free schools? Are they still in operation? I thought I had just allocated £1bn for new academy and free school buildings by taking it from the poor and the rising middle classes, and sacking the rest of the DfE staff?”

That night, as the Minister unlocked his front door he saw not the familiar large knocker, but the ghostly faces of Rutherford and Churchill, and Ebenezer ‘If I thought the EBacc proposals would lead to students dropping arts subjects, I would not be able to sleep at night, knowing that the ghosts of Rutherford and Churchill were hanging over my bed and chiding me for my failures’ Gove suspected that he might be in for a sleepless night.

Sure enough as the clock struck twelve, the Gove of Christmas Past appeared and took him back in time to a place he recognised well. “Good heaven!” said Gove, clasping his hands together, as he looked about him. “I went to private prep school here.”

“The school is not quite deserted,’ said the Gove of Christmas Past. “A solitary child, neglected by his friends, is left there still.” And indeed, there in the corner, while all the other children were making merry singing, dancing and painting jolly pictures, the young Gove sat alone reading his encyclopedias, and wondering what he could do to make himself happier. “I know,” he was thinking, “I will study hard and one day I will become Prime Minister and then I can put a stop to all this arts nonsense and ensure that everyone follows an academic curriculum and goes to Oxbridge.”

Shortly afterwards, the Gove of Christmas Present took him to a multi-cultural inner-city school where everyone was enjoying the end of term pantomime. “Bah! Humbug!” said Gove. “When I said Every child should be able to enjoy and appreciate great literature, music, drama and visual art I didn’t mean they should participate in them, just to read about them and then answer rigorous academic essay questions.

Finally the Gove of Christmas Future whisked him away to an imposing black door, emblazoned with a shining, golden number 10. “Ah,” said Ebenezer Gove with a gleam on his face and twinkle in his eye, “so I am to become Prime Minister after all”?   “Thank heavens, no.” said the Gove of Christmas Future solemnly. “Your education policies made the people so unhappy and damaged the economy so much that your party was defeated and you remained an opposition back-bencher for the rest of your miserable life.”

Waking in the morning and discovering that it was Christmas Day, Gove realised the folly of his ways and immediately set about abandoning the EBacc and letting teachers and children decide what was best for the curriculum and how to assess it. He even announced that in future he was going to start taking the advice of the teaching associations. The new academies and free schools were cancelled, and instead the money was spent on refurbishing every school building in the country and upgrading their art studios, design workshops and dance and drama suites. “God bless the arts”, he proclaimed ” – Every One of them!”

Sadly of course this is an entirely fictional story, and not a word of it is true. Or is it?

From the House of Commons Hansard Debates Monday 3rd December 2012

Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab): What assessment he has made of the likely contribution to the UK’s international achievements of studying creative subjects in school; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove): The arts are mankind’s greatest achievement. Every child should be able to enjoy and appreciate great literature, music, drama and visual art.

Fiona Mactaggart: But is the Secretary of State aware that Britain’s record in Nobel prizes—we have won 19 prizes for every 10 million of our population, whereas the USA has won 11 prizes per 10 million, and the EU has won 9 per 10 million—is achieved partly as a result of the combination of excellent science education and a strong creative tradition throughout our education system? At the same time, the Secretary of State’s EBacc proposals will result, according to research he has commissioned from Ipsos MORI, in something like a quarter of our schools dropping subjects such as art and design, design technology, music and so on. Will that mean that our international achievements, including in Nobel prizes, will slide down?

Michael Gove: If I thought the EBacc proposals would lead to that, I would not be able to sleep at night, knowing that the ghosts of Rutherford and Churchill were hanging over my bed and chiding me for my failures. I had the opportunity to speak to representatives of a variety of arts organisations today. They applauded the work we have done, not least the report that Darren Henley authored on cultural education.

Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab): Ian McNeilly, the head of the National Association for the Teaching of English, has said of the Government’s new English curriculum:
“It is fantastic that Mr Gove has acknowledged that English as a subject needs to move into a different century. Unfortunately for all concerned, he has chosen the 19th rather than the 21st”.
I am sure that the Secretary of State will regard that as the highest praise, but does he agree that that is almost certainly not what was intended? Will he therefore reflect again on the omissions from the curriculum—particularly in areas such as writing, analytical and listening skills—that have been invoked by our friends in the CBI?

Michael Gove: I do not see anything wrong with having the 19th century at the heart of the English curriculum. As far as I am concerned, Jane Austen, Charles Dickens and Thomas Hardy—not to mention George Eliot—are great names that every child should have the chance to study. As for the National Association for the Teaching of English, I am afraid that it is yet another pressure group that has been consistently wrong for decades. It is another aspect of the educational establishment involving the same people whose moral relativism and whose cultural approach of dumbing down have held our children back. Those on the Opposition Benches have not yet found a special interest group with which they will not dumbly nod along and assent to. I believe in excellence in English education. I believe in the canon of great works, in proper literature and in grammar, spelling and punctuation. As far as I am concerned, the NATE will command my respect only when it returns to rigour.

Image credit: Flickr – moominsean