This may be a bit rambling – the discussion on the OU blog set off a couple of thoughts.
First thought; talent. It would seem reasonable to say that people are talented in different areas. Such a statement seems to raise no controversy when talking about footballers, tennis players, ballet dancers, opera singers, carpenters, mechanics, engineers, or any other physically expressed talent. It would also seem clear that the great majority of people can be brought to a basic level of competency in most things – for example, my early training in the Army was as a tank crewman, so I am reasonably competent with a hammer, a screwdriver and an adjustable spanner, (as well as a 12-pound sledgehammer and a crowbar.) It also seems to be the case that most people, given the opportunity and instruction, can be brought to a higher level of competency in some things. It is, however, equally clear that some people have the basic equipment which allows them to excel in one – or more – particular thing – Andy Murray, Dame Kiri Te Kawana, Auguste Rodin, Michael Phelps – I can play tennis, sing, make models and swim, but…
So, we all have the basic equipment to be reasonable competent in many fields of endeavour. This raises no controversy when discussing physical achievement, but, to even suggest that such resaoning also applies to abstract talents immediately provokes all sorts of, in my view, confused argument. To even suggest that some people have the basic equipment to be inherently more intelligent than others seems to be anathema to some and I don’t understand why. In my life I have met many people who are just smarter than me – and also the converse, and I completely fail to see why that should be a controversial statement.
The second thought was about education. I had read, with outrage, the article in the Telegraph about Sussex University restricting the teaching of History. Go to the University’s prospectus page and you will see a number of courses in some sort of ‘studies.’ I would suggest that any course with ‘studies’ in the title is a waste of time and money, as are those you might see in some ‘university’ prospectuses like, ‘Health Service, (or Local Government,) Management’ – degrees in bureacracy.
When I was approaching school-leaving age, there was a variety of options open to the school leaver, University, Technical College, Apprenticeships, a variety of trainee jobs – almost everyone, should they have the inclination, could find some form of further education that would suit them. It was also, of course, the case that the great majority of my peers left school with the basic skills which would allow them to pursue a further course of studies should they so wish. That is not the case today. Under the current system, too many young people leave school without basic skills in Reading, Arithmetic and Expression, (writing, if you must,) – scandalous, in my view.
It seems to be the case that the education ‘establishment’ has lost sight of the basic premise of schooling and is sunk in a quagmire of ideological prejudice which focusses on social engineering, rather than the primary goal of education. We are failing our children.
Boadicea's Chariot 
Bravo, I know it’s PC to believe it, but I seriously doubt whether there are more illiterates leaving school now than there were in the ’50s. Even though the ‘3Rs’ and learning by rote were the rule then, the selective system left many ‘on the street’ at 15 years old. The big difference in my opinion is not this relative worsening of the children’s skill levels but the common attitude among school-leavers now that work is for idiots and the state will pay out wha’ever. In the ’50s the old work ethic still prevailed.
Janus. You may be right. Perhaps, ‘sub-literate’ might be a better word. Two examples spring to mind; compare an 11+ paper from the 50s-60s with a GCSE – or whatever they are calling it this week – paper. (Let’s not get side-tracked on Grammar schools – compare the content.) Then consider the fact that, in my working class household as a child, the newspaper of choice was the Daily Herald and see if you can find a similar mass circulation newspaper of equivalent content today.
Bravo, you’re right about the exam papers. The Key Stage 3 (year 9) SATS tests now done by 13/14 year olds are in some ways easier than the old 11+ papers, which were not focused on multiple-choice questions.
Janus
I’m not sure that I’d agree with you. The numbers of children reaching secondary school with inadequate skills in the 3Rs has lead to an increasing number of remedial classes in those institutions. And Universities have now established remedial classes as well.
Boa, I suspect however that it is the policy that has changed, not the incidence of illiteracy at age 11. It is now PC to test for ‘needs’ and apply ‘remedies’. Before, kids were branded thick and stayed that way, with no hope of help or guidance.
It’s wisdom that’s in short supply.
Can you be wise and thick at the same time?
I don’t see why not. For instance you could be just wise enough to know that you’re thick and adjust to life accordingly.
Jazz, where does wisdom come from? is it a separate quality from ‘IQ’? We need Jamie Macnab to confuse the issue. 😉
Janus, oh no we don’t!
Janus!
My education (and I’m sure yours) was a long series of tests. They weren’t done just to make us miserable – but as part of continual assessment so that remedial intervention could be taken before things got too bad.
Can’t set exams and tests for the little dears these days on account of they might get stressed or, far worse, someone might just come top – or bottom… Consequently problems are only discovered every one or two years by which time they have become in need of serious remedial treatment.
Janus
I don’t know where wisdom comes from. Maybe from the same place that as common sense and judgement, possibly from experience, but then you need to be wise enough to learn from experience.
Gosh I’m confused already.
Boa. I think you have it about right. Janus. I don’t agree that children were just ‘branded.’ I have written in another place that the 11+, for example. was not the end of assessment – there were opportunities to change track at 13+ and 15+ also – and more co-operation between Grammar and Sec Modern schools than is generally remembered…
What I bemoan today is lack of opportunity; it is Uni or bust, however appropriate for the child, or however appropriate to University study the subject.
Bravo, you’re probably right that not all kids were branded but I have a cousin who was. Luckily he could take up a ‘trade’ which as you say seems to be harder now, unless it’s a new uni subject.
Janus
Opportunity is a ‘commodity’ that’s been ‘colonised’ by the educational establishment. IOW they want opportunity to be conditional on jumping through their hoops.
Jazz, one of the things that sticks in my craw is the deliberate stifling of competitive effort in schools. Everybody has to be equal, except they ain’t, never will be (etc).
Janus,
What about setting up qualifications in subjects like maths, Physics and English where you can just turn up and take the exam more or less when you like. The syllabus in each subject rigorous and well publicised. Pass or Fail at 70% no five stars triple A s or any of that bullshit. Study how you like when you like or not at all, it’s up to you, say a £100 fee for sitting the exam half refunded if you pass.Obviously no course work required.
I think this could work really well for a lot of people. It would free them from the tyranny of the educational establishment whilst providing an opportunity to gain a respected qualification.
Jazz, great idea. But the Jobsworth Tendency wouldn’t allow it. Every idea has to have its quota of mindless bureaucracy to feed off it.
Bravo, ref your first point: talents. I went to school with a chap (now Oxford Prof of Neurology) who was so multi-talented he hardly had time to breathe. Not just academic subjects. Sport, acting, languages, girls……everything. Is that sickening or wha’? 😉
Janus
“….Every idea has to have its quota of mindless bureaucracy to feed off it….”
Very well put.
Can we not find a way round the jobsworths?
Janus, >I went to school with a chap (now Oxford Prof of Neurology) who was so multi-talented …< Yep, some people are just like that – whe rest of us can only sigh and keep buggering on 🙂
From today’s Telegraph:
>Only four out of 10 teachers could work out that 2.1 per cent of 400 is 8.4. Only a third knew that 1.4 divided by 0.1 is 14, and less than 50 per cent could work out that a half divided by a quarter is 2. Almost a quarter of children are leaving primary school with a poor grasp of maths, even though spending on the subject is about £2.5 billion a year. Around 135,000 pupils start secondary school unable to cope with their courses. Alison Wolf, professor of public sector management at King’s College, London, …<
Professor of public sector management?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/primaryeducation/7229107/Basic-sums-baffle-primary-teachers.html
I still have a poor grasp of maths. (Though the examples you give I could manage, given a piece of paper and a pencil. Mental maths for me is very hard.)
But, what I wanted to say in response to the last comment is this: do all teachers need to know how to do maths, even if they do not teach it? The drama teacher,the English teacher, the Art teacher (etc.) may only need to know enough maths to give a percentage mark from a score of 35 out of 75 for example.
Some folk are polymaths and some of us are not. Surely education should be about ensuring everyone finds their strengths and leaves school with enough skills to have a fulfilling life.
RE the proprtion of illiterates leaving school in the 50s to now.
What makes it so stark is that in the 50s there was still a huge market for labour which did not need to be literate. Now there are very few jobs available for them in the modern economy.
I know many semi literate people in Wales, I used to have a nice sideline of writing letters on their behalf to DEFRA/IRS/etc Straight £20 per shot. You would be surprised how many rich farmers used to turn up on my doorstep, (that included reading and interpreting the answer!)
Being illiterate doesn’t stop you making money, interestingly, in Wales they always try to marry women who can read, write and do accounts properly! I got tired of repelling them literally, not very flattering only wanting the secretarial organisational skills!!!
I never understood either why being high IQ was such a social no no. I find the whole thing quite bizarre. I have always made a point of never picking my friends from my own IQ set, I find them too liberal, left wing, airy fairy, idealistic and far to tolerant, irritatingly so. I learnt the hard way, no 1 incumbent just had to go, he read the New Statesman and believed it! I have always preferred more practical down to earth people, successful in business who I would estimate to be in the area of 120-125 or so.
Bugger, a bald eagle has just zoomed past the window! We have happy vole hunting in our stream!
Most of the teachers these days are illiterate themselves, ought to be shovelling burgers.
Sorry for wandering about, that eagle is consuming my attention, the size of a pterodactyl!
>Surely education should be about ensuring everyone finds their strengths and leaves school with enough skills to have a fulfilling life.<
Spot on Pseu. All children shoulf leave school being able to do at least one thing well.
I would have thought, however, that Primary School teachers need to be able to teach all of the basics? I still recall mental arithmetic lessons – 'Three half crowns? (Me, smart as a whip,) 'Seven an' six' He. 'Thirteen.' Me. er, er, Oh-hh, 'Seven shillings and sixpence.'..(Hushed tones when we talked about him, '….he was in Bomber Command….') The same for spelling and dictation. SHouldn't primary School teachers be able to do it all?
Good comment Christina and very well put.
It’s not just knowing the times table or being able to work out 7½% of 350 or whatever. As important is understanding about signs, brackets, factorisation and so on – basic arithmetical skills. If you haven’t got them you won’t half struggle with algebra, trig and the rest.
I presume none of these people make anything any more?
Without being able to do basic geometry how on earth do you know how much wood/fabric etc to buy?
Buy cheap shop crap I suppose.
Have you ever looked at cheap ready made curtains?
I’ve seen better dish rags!
When I trained as a teacher we were made to sit a series of basic numeracy , literacy and IT test, which everyone whinged about. But you weren’t, and still aren’t, entitled to qualified teacher status without passing them. I had no qualms about doing them; apart from wondering why the government obviously had so little faith in my existing GCSES – and those of everyone of my generation, that it felt the need to test us again. The whole idea is rather expensive and bureaucratic, in my opinion, and demonstrates the government’s lack of faith in its own examinations system.