Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-edu (332 mails)
| < Previous | Next > |
Re: [suse-linux-uk-schools] Plans for a Linux distro
- From: Ian <ian.lynch2@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 22:44:30 +0000 (UTC)
- Message-id: <02020422350503.15725@xxxxxxxxxx>
On Monday 04 February 2002 15:13, 'Frank Shute' wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 08:06:28AM +0000, Ian wrote:
> Yet my understanding is that people doing the hard technical subjects
> at A level is falling & universities are failing to fill their places
> for engineering/sciences.
Falling because there is more choice in a whole range of other things. That
simply makes it even more competitive for the relatively small number of
maths students with straight As.
> Admissions tutors know that a good pass in any of these subjects
> (but especially maths) indicates they've got a student who can think
> logically and is bright.
Yes but there are too few of them to go around. That's my point. So some
students who can't hack A level maths to Computer studies, GNVQ ICT etc and
the universities need to fill places so they take students that they would
not have done a few years back.
> Computer studies at A level? From the sounds of it, it's a glorified
> MCSE in a lot of cases without the pupil necessarily having even
> programmed in a proper language or with an understanding of the basics of
> how a microprocessor works.
Whatever, that is not the real point. The thing is that these students get
access to the courses otherwise quite a few university lecturers are out of a
job. OK I agree these courses could be improved but you also need sufficient
teachers capable of teaching mathematically more rigorous stuff and they
simply don't exist in the numbers required.
> > > Schools are driven by bogus league tables that mean their and their
> > > pupil's & staff's success is gauged by exam passes.
> >
> > If you look at any situations where league tables are introduced,
> > standards rise. Look at Rugby Union.
>
> You're looking at the wrong thing.
No I'm not. If you take the NHS, it is pretty easy to argue that standards
might well have fallen further without the league tables since under-funding
is the main limiting factor. (Culture is 20 years out of date too but that is
just another non-controlled variable)
> Look at the NHS, standards have
> fallen. You can't gauge the performance of a public service
> empirically
You can judge exam performance. If you want exam performance improvements
(not necessarily an improvement in the educationservice as that depends on
your point of view) you can set targets etc and it will improve - it has!
That doesn't necessarily mean anything other than exam technique has improved
but since so much store is put on exams its still an important indicator.
> > The fact is that there are many many more students
> > in the system and in the pre-league tables era, many of these would never
> > have passed a GCSE or an A level let alone gone to Univ.
>
> Yes there are. But what are they studying at uni? And why are more
> passing? More are passing IMO because the system is such that you can
> effectively `buy' an A level certificate from an examining board by
> hunting around and choosing the one with the easiest papers.
Gross exaggeration. Exams might or might not be easier. Independent studies
suggest they are different but no easier. But in any case lots more kids go
to universities to do a wide variety of things. My youngest son is doing a
degree in film making and some of that course was on data storage formats. He
is one that did not go through a conventional A level route so in my day he
would not have been at uni. I am glad he is and what he is learning seems
useful to him in what he wants to do - set up his own business making films
for companies. So should we deny these kids on the grounds they can't pass A
level maths?
> > If we believe getting more students into HE is a good thing the
> > current problems inevitable. OTOH if you believe HE is only suited
> > to a minority, you have a point and we should be requiring A or B
> > grade at A level in say 4 or 5 subjects for anyone to enter any
> > University.
>
> HE per se is a good thing but that doesn't mean that 50% of students
> (or whatever the govt's 10 yr plan says) should do it. Whilst going to
> university is equated as being the ultimate in educative success, as
> determined by the bogus league tables, then the system is skewed into
> sending people to university whether it's suitable for them or not.
>
> > Bear in mind this would also
> > mean redundancies in university teaching staff.
>
> So be it, they can always get jobs elsewhere.
Maybe but perhaps its just as easy and cost-effective to change the nature of
universities to be rather broader in their scope.
> You're right in that it's symptomatic but not the real pathology of
> the problem, but ICT in schools as it currently stands is shameful.
> Yes, there are good schools but is there anything more than guidelines
> for them to follow? There should be examples of best practice for them
> to follow rather than the current seemingly ad hoc approach.
I agree with this for the most part but until you have 10s of thousands of
good IT graduates coming into teaching and some of the so-called IT expert
decision makers at the top who actually know something about technology that
is going to be very difficult to change. Let's fight battles we can win.
> > > Too right. Linux and open source software needs to be seen in the
> > > wider perspective of what IMHO is a failing education system & it's
> > > political context.
> >
> > The education system has been failing for years, in fact ever since I can
> > remember but in reality for the most part, my observations show better
> > teaching than when I was at school. That doesn't mean everything in the
> > garden is rosey but neither is it all doom and gloom.
>
> My guess is that teachers are about as good/bad as they've always been
> it's the system that they work under (performance tables etc) that
> means that the students they are pushing out are quite frankly not up
> to very much in my experience.
Some are. I taught a kid who won the British Physics Olympiad and he was
quite bright ;-). He went to a bog standard comp too. The students will seem
weaker if you come across more who are below the 10 percent or so that used
to get to uni. You don't suddenly change IQ by that many percentage points
across the population even with vg teaching.
> > > To kick off with, league tables should be binned along with the
> > > present exam boards.
> >
> > You forgot IMHO :-)
> >
> > And what are you going to put in their place? OK ban league tables but
> > with the wonders of modern technology the Daily Mail will do unofficial
> > ones.
>
> Ban the Daily Mail & do us all a favour? ;)
>
> > Ban exams boards and replace them with what? No exams?
>
> Get rid of the current exam boards & replace them with a not for profit
> organisation which isn't subject to political interference - a tall
> order I know when we've got Joe Stalin's clone in no.10
Not convinced that this would change that much. I remember the exam boards
pre- all this and they made mistakes too. Also I swapped to AEB from Oxford
for my kids back in the80s because the questions were easier. Things haven't
changed that much.
> > I have some sympathy with getting rid of GCSE if most people stay on
> > to 18 but ingeneral you need some measurement of performance and
> > progress otherwise how do you decide who goes on which university
> > course who who is qualified to do what job?
>
> ATM, the exams are not really indicative of performance. Clueless
> bozos and brilliant students alike can get grade A's in most subjects.
Again not true. If it was as random as this employers and HE would just
choose students at random. Some people who get As have no other personal
skills and some people with Cs are very effective in some other fields. But
the IQ/EQ argument is another thread :-)
> Too much store is currently put towards not letting students suffer
> failure & making them feeling worthwhile at all costs.
Again its a matter of balance so I would say yes and no!
> Let them fail and experience what life's like - it's not only success
> but bitter failure too. Then they'll be better prepared for the
> outside world.
A lot do fail. The key is to try and get everyone sufficient success to see
their failures from a position of strength and then admit them sufficiently
to improve. At all levels this is a very difficult issue in management.
Regards,
--
IanL
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 08:06:28AM +0000, Ian wrote:
> Yet my understanding is that people doing the hard technical subjects
> at A level is falling & universities are failing to fill their places
> for engineering/sciences.
Falling because there is more choice in a whole range of other things. That
simply makes it even more competitive for the relatively small number of
maths students with straight As.
> Admissions tutors know that a good pass in any of these subjects
> (but especially maths) indicates they've got a student who can think
> logically and is bright.
Yes but there are too few of them to go around. That's my point. So some
students who can't hack A level maths to Computer studies, GNVQ ICT etc and
the universities need to fill places so they take students that they would
not have done a few years back.
> Computer studies at A level? From the sounds of it, it's a glorified
> MCSE in a lot of cases without the pupil necessarily having even
> programmed in a proper language or with an understanding of the basics of
> how a microprocessor works.
Whatever, that is not the real point. The thing is that these students get
access to the courses otherwise quite a few university lecturers are out of a
job. OK I agree these courses could be improved but you also need sufficient
teachers capable of teaching mathematically more rigorous stuff and they
simply don't exist in the numbers required.
> > > Schools are driven by bogus league tables that mean their and their
> > > pupil's & staff's success is gauged by exam passes.
> >
> > If you look at any situations where league tables are introduced,
> > standards rise. Look at Rugby Union.
>
> You're looking at the wrong thing.
No I'm not. If you take the NHS, it is pretty easy to argue that standards
might well have fallen further without the league tables since under-funding
is the main limiting factor. (Culture is 20 years out of date too but that is
just another non-controlled variable)
> Look at the NHS, standards have
> fallen. You can't gauge the performance of a public service
> empirically
You can judge exam performance. If you want exam performance improvements
(not necessarily an improvement in the educationservice as that depends on
your point of view) you can set targets etc and it will improve - it has!
That doesn't necessarily mean anything other than exam technique has improved
but since so much store is put on exams its still an important indicator.
> > The fact is that there are many many more students
> > in the system and in the pre-league tables era, many of these would never
> > have passed a GCSE or an A level let alone gone to Univ.
>
> Yes there are. But what are they studying at uni? And why are more
> passing? More are passing IMO because the system is such that you can
> effectively `buy' an A level certificate from an examining board by
> hunting around and choosing the one with the easiest papers.
Gross exaggeration. Exams might or might not be easier. Independent studies
suggest they are different but no easier. But in any case lots more kids go
to universities to do a wide variety of things. My youngest son is doing a
degree in film making and some of that course was on data storage formats. He
is one that did not go through a conventional A level route so in my day he
would not have been at uni. I am glad he is and what he is learning seems
useful to him in what he wants to do - set up his own business making films
for companies. So should we deny these kids on the grounds they can't pass A
level maths?
> > If we believe getting more students into HE is a good thing the
> > current problems inevitable. OTOH if you believe HE is only suited
> > to a minority, you have a point and we should be requiring A or B
> > grade at A level in say 4 or 5 subjects for anyone to enter any
> > University.
>
> HE per se is a good thing but that doesn't mean that 50% of students
> (or whatever the govt's 10 yr plan says) should do it. Whilst going to
> university is equated as being the ultimate in educative success, as
> determined by the bogus league tables, then the system is skewed into
> sending people to university whether it's suitable for them or not.
>
> > Bear in mind this would also
> > mean redundancies in university teaching staff.
>
> So be it, they can always get jobs elsewhere.
Maybe but perhaps its just as easy and cost-effective to change the nature of
universities to be rather broader in their scope.
> You're right in that it's symptomatic but not the real pathology of
> the problem, but ICT in schools as it currently stands is shameful.
> Yes, there are good schools but is there anything more than guidelines
> for them to follow? There should be examples of best practice for them
> to follow rather than the current seemingly ad hoc approach.
I agree with this for the most part but until you have 10s of thousands of
good IT graduates coming into teaching and some of the so-called IT expert
decision makers at the top who actually know something about technology that
is going to be very difficult to change. Let's fight battles we can win.
> > > Too right. Linux and open source software needs to be seen in the
> > > wider perspective of what IMHO is a failing education system & it's
> > > political context.
> >
> > The education system has been failing for years, in fact ever since I can
> > remember but in reality for the most part, my observations show better
> > teaching than when I was at school. That doesn't mean everything in the
> > garden is rosey but neither is it all doom and gloom.
>
> My guess is that teachers are about as good/bad as they've always been
> it's the system that they work under (performance tables etc) that
> means that the students they are pushing out are quite frankly not up
> to very much in my experience.
Some are. I taught a kid who won the British Physics Olympiad and he was
quite bright ;-). He went to a bog standard comp too. The students will seem
weaker if you come across more who are below the 10 percent or so that used
to get to uni. You don't suddenly change IQ by that many percentage points
across the population even with vg teaching.
> > > To kick off with, league tables should be binned along with the
> > > present exam boards.
> >
> > You forgot IMHO :-)
> >
> > And what are you going to put in their place? OK ban league tables but
> > with the wonders of modern technology the Daily Mail will do unofficial
> > ones.
>
> Ban the Daily Mail & do us all a favour? ;)
>
> > Ban exams boards and replace them with what? No exams?
>
> Get rid of the current exam boards & replace them with a not for profit
> organisation which isn't subject to political interference - a tall
> order I know when we've got Joe Stalin's clone in no.10
Not convinced that this would change that much. I remember the exam boards
pre- all this and they made mistakes too. Also I swapped to AEB from Oxford
for my kids back in the80s because the questions were easier. Things haven't
changed that much.
> > I have some sympathy with getting rid of GCSE if most people stay on
> > to 18 but ingeneral you need some measurement of performance and
> > progress otherwise how do you decide who goes on which university
> > course who who is qualified to do what job?
>
> ATM, the exams are not really indicative of performance. Clueless
> bozos and brilliant students alike can get grade A's in most subjects.
Again not true. If it was as random as this employers and HE would just
choose students at random. Some people who get As have no other personal
skills and some people with Cs are very effective in some other fields. But
the IQ/EQ argument is another thread :-)
> Too much store is currently put towards not letting students suffer
> failure & making them feeling worthwhile at all costs.
Again its a matter of balance so I would say yes and no!
> Let them fail and experience what life's like - it's not only success
> but bitter failure too. Then they'll be better prepared for the
> outside world.
A lot do fail. The key is to try and get everyone sufficient success to see
their failures from a position of strength and then admit them sufficiently
to improve. At all levels this is a very difficult issue in management.
Regards,
--
IanL
| < Previous | Next > |