The truth of international comparison

2021 May 3 Monday 09:19

Courtesy of a teachers' mailing list, encountered an interesting research document by 'Ofsted', a review of the science curriculum. Notable highlights:

• International research comparisons are a damning indictment of the English education system, as mentioned previously. Is it really credible to have perpetual growth in "standards" to an eventual 100 % A grade attainment?;
• Too many schools prefer to achieve good results in an easy route, by allowing only high ability/motivation pupils to study single sciences and prevent others from aspirations to pursue a scientific pathway. Another example of discrimination in the school system;
• Useful explanation of the distinction between substantive and disciplinary knowledge domains;
• Since primary schools have insufficient (<&thin;5 %!) sciences specialist teachers, perhaps there is a strong case for secondary schools (maybe those within mats consisting of groups of primary and secondary schools) to "donate" sciences teachers to primary schools for multiple brief time periods;
• Recognition at the fallacy of poor implementation of video content and "discovery-learning" of practicals as useful to develop robust scientific comprehension;
• Science is recognised for its wider contribution to the economy, environment, society.

The last statement reminds of a recent opinion declared by Peter Radford during the UK EdChat conference:

I think the UK government considers that education is basically to keep people in their place, minimise disruption to the status quo and keep the economy going. There is perhaps some vision for STEM subjects in order to drive technological development and make sure we don't lag behind the rest of the world. But I can't see any vision for education that truly embraces everyone and recognises the power of education to transform society. The vested interests in maintaining the status quo are too great.

Webmention: Curriculum Time in Science

Reply to: DJG Teaching

In conjuction with the aforementioned review of science curricula in schools, it seems that appropriate organisation of science provision is related to the overall efficacy of a school.

It would be useful if curriculum design could be measured against school performance. Since science teachers are undervalued in terms of impact upon school performance, economic and societal development, a "Department Progress-8 score" should be a basis for science teachers to be paid more than others. Let's wait a few milli-seconds for the unions to oppose.

Tedious, tiresome tags

2021 May 28 Friday 18:52

Sick of it. Collation of "evidence" of students' work, when the vast majority of such paper will be ignored (ofqual are interested/capable to evaluate only a sample!) and disposed without a second glance. Ostensibly, although tedious, summative assessment is supposed useful to gauge efficacy as a teacher and to gain an individual insight into each student's comprehension (assuming sensible questions: another story for another day). Not this year.

Rant over. Let the brief holiday begin. If only escape to a foreign beach was possible...