Re: [suse-linux-uk-schools] Plans for a Linux distro
I'd like to help (well, after finals; so I'll be available in about 5 weeks time).
Ah. Well before I go any further I'll just point out that I'm a final year A-Level student, and have my A-Levels in may, so they have got to come first priority. My only connection with RM is that my place of education have an exceptionally bad RM Connect 1 network (which I am using now :( ). I don't study GNVQ IT myself, but the final straw came when I heard that the school had just bought VB to teach their students (they were origignally going to teach C++ or Delphi but couldn't afford the site licenses.
Would it be difficult to make the interface like RM Connect, so it'd be easy to pick up for people used to it?
And, presumably, RM Connect would have some sort of support with it, supplied by RM? I think that it would be important to have some sort of support system in place, otherwise schools (I
Good idea. presume)
wouldn't really look into it.
Yes, that would be a problem. However, I'm not really sure what form this distro might take at the moment, so I'll think about that later.
Also, universities are more likely to have Novell, or some sort of Unix system, rather than RM (in college here, we've got Netware 5, soon to be upgraded to Netware 6). Schools are going to be the most likely target audience.
Ah right. The only reason I included universities in the list is because I recently went to an Open Day at Queen Mary and they seemed to have a fair bit of RM kit...
You could use a static DHCP system - then you wouldn't need to enter the hostname, and the server will give the same IP address to that particular
workstation all the time. (Assuming you're talking about workstation; you
could supply a separate floppy disk & CD for the server). Presumably with
Yes, we would use DHCP. The thing I mean is the name of the box -- for example my machine at home is called venus, and this happens to be called itst24. the
workstation, you could just install the system via FTP/HTTP from the main
server? (i.e. having a copy of the distribution CDs copied onto the server hard drive)
Exactly.
You could use any distribution, and use GNU cfengine to make custom changes on a per-machine basis. It's very powerful software, and you can undoubtedly do what you want with it.
OK, sound something good to look at.
- From a programming perspective, completely differently. From an end-user perspective, fairly similar :-)
I'm mainly thinking of an administartive point of view. I have no idea how to restrict the GNOME desktop, but I can do this quite easily with KDE.
Stuff like Kylix and Open Office will also be provided. Be careful: you may find it difficult to distribute Kylix because it's non-Free software. You'd have to get permission from Borland.
Yes, I'm aware of that ;) The reason for including Kylix is as a replacement for VB, reasons mentioned above.
KDevelop is supposed to be nice for C/C++ QT apps, although I've never used it.
Ditto. I prefer vim ;)
And provide WINE - if it's in a school setting, they'll undoubtedly have some software that requires Windows (like ecctis).
Yes.
Sounds reasonable, although ReiserFS is more mature ;-) (start filesystem
flamewars here. And end here ;-)
LOL ;) Well ext3 had done me fine the last few months, it has a mailing list that the developers read, and it's compatible with ext2 :)
NIS is only used for sharing passwords. For the purposes described above, a simple MySQL database (or even some LDAP system, for people who like buzzwords) would probably be better.
Sorry yes. I did _intend_ to write LDAP, really ;)
Or simply have /home NFS mounted automatically at boot time, rather than at login time.
The reason for doing it at login is so that each users home directory will appear in the same place in the local file system. So even if the home directory was //server1/user1 or //server1/user2 it would always appear as /home/user. etc. Cheers, Chris Howells
[Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
I'd like to help (well, after finals; so I'll be available in about 5 weeks time).
Ah. Well before I go any further I'll just point out that I'm a final year A-Level student, and have my A-Levels in may, so they have got to come first priority.
I don't study GNVQ IT myself, but the final straw came when I heard that the school had just bought VB to teach their students (they were origignally going to teach C++ or Delphi but couldn't afford the site licenses.
That's odd considering /usr/bin/g++ is a C++ compiler and the man page is dated 30 April 1993.
Or simply have /home NFS mounted automatically at boot time, rather than at login time.
The reason for doing it at login is so that each users home directory will appear in the same place in the local file system. So even if the home directory was //server1/user1 or //server1/user2 it would always appear as /home/user. etc.
This sounds very much like the way Windows does things, which dosn't really make a lot of sense. Consider the following. Output of df -t nfs Filesystem 1k-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on stpeters-1:/var/qmail 4096380 2740008 1356372 67% /var/qmail/mnt stpeters-1:/var/sqwebmail 4096380 2740008 1356372 67% /var/sqwebmail stpeters-1:/home/staff 16126420 6041536 9265576 39% /home/staff stpeters-1:/home/other 1011928 144996 815528 15% /home/other stpeters-1:/home/comeduc 4032092 773084 3054184 20% /home/comeduc stpeters-a:/home/1998 27692232 5123756 22282600 19% /home/1998 stpeters-b:/home/1999 27692232 7896172 19510184 29% /home/1999 stpeters-c:/home/2000 27692232 4640680 22765676 17% /home/2000 stpeters-d:/home/2001 27692232 2193496 25212860 8% /home/2001 None of the user files reside on this machine. But everthing works as though they are. Because the path to every user's home directory is always the same. -- Mark Evans St. Peter's CofE High School Phone: +44 1392 204764 X109 Fax: +44 1392 204763
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 01:44:31PM -0000, Chris Howells wrote:
<snip>
I don't study GNVQ IT myself, but the final straw came when I heard that the school had just bought VB to teach their students (they were origignally going to teach C++ or Delphi but couldn't afford the site licenses.
The best way to learn programming IMHO is unix shell. If it must be on a Windows platform then they could use perl, or for an oo language python or Java. VB is a ticket to nowhere - it's platform dependent & it's unlike any proper oo or procedural language so the skills learnt aren't really transferable to other languages, it will also inevitably get dumped in favour of .NET. All the languages I've mentioned will give you a head start if you go onto uni to do cs. Python & perl are free and I'm sure there's at least one JDK for Windows that is free. Gvim also runs nicely on Windows. Your school is wasting it's money & I'm not surprised you're disgusted. -- Frank *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Boroughbridge. Tel: 01423 323019 --------- PGP keyID: 0xC0B341A3 *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* http://www.esperance-linux.co.uk/
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 01:44:31PM -0000, Chris Howells wrote:
I don't study GNVQ IT myself, but the final straw came when I heard that the school had just bought VB to teach their students (they were origignally going to teach C++ or Delphi but couldn't afford the site licenses.
The best way to learn programming IMHO is unix shell. If it must be on a Windows platform then they could use perl, or for an oo language python or Java.
Sorry, but after more than 20 years teaching programming in Schools and Colleges from the youngest to degree level, these would not 'cut the mustard' Students of all ages want their programs to look nice. They will spend hours making a simple program like a metri/imperial convertor look the part. Like it or not, it is Windows that has made them expect this. As a C programmer I would like them to learn C, followed by C++ but they would be discouraged very quickly by what appear to be drab programs. VB or Delphi are the only real options. (C Builder would be better, but for some reason it has never caught on as I would personally like it to) Kylix has just arrived, and this may change things a bit. Even at advanced level GNVQ students are not expected to produce fully operating GUIs as well as fully working programs, only the latter. If a student of mine can produce a program that does what it sets out to do, and the interface is generated by a RAD like VB they will get all of the marks available. If they produce a cute interface with no program behind it, or they drop out through becoming bogged down in the detail, or they fail to complete the task - they will fail the Unit.
VB is a ticket to nowhere - it's platform dependent & it's unlike any proper oo or procedural language so the skills learnt aren't really transferable to other languages, it will also inevitably get dumped in favour of .NET.
I totally agree, however students would not succeed with other languages as they would not complete the work to such a high standard. As an aside, although I think GUI RADs are the only way to teach programming in schools and colleges, on a personal level, it does stick in my throat a bit to teach structured top-down programming, and then use a system that is so bottom up it untrue, however I believe students MUST be able to succeed in any task they are set, hence the doublethink.
All the languages I've mentioned will give you a head start if you go onto uni to do cs.
Sorry must differ here. Recently surveying 10 Unis around the Midlands none demand that potential undergrads had studied programming - the usual comment is 'we'll teach them all the programming they need to know' First languages were a very mixed bunch including Modula2 Pascal ADA C and even VB! As a professional teacher I need to use the tools that will teach students in the most successful way. I think that there are many reasons to go open source, but the balance must always be between available expertise, cost and efficacy. VB is very much more effective as a teaching tool, well known and there are many good teaching resources available, so the cost may be overbalanced. We pay for the tool that works best, not the cheapest, or indeed the one that is ideologically the superior. I have introduced Linux resources into every college and school I have workind during the last 10 years - but because they were the best for the job, not because I wanted to break any company's grip on the market. Remember that a market is a place where people buy - and until there is a exact alternative - they will continue to buy. I suggest that we get back to the original idea of this thread and try to put together a distro that will enable schools to MANAGE their computer networks as easily as with RM Connect. With 400+ machines on our network we rebuild up to 20 a week - not because they are totally broken, but because with limited technician time it is quicker and easier to do this than to troubleshoot a 'flaky' machine. 30 minutes after putting in a disk and hitting reset the system is back up with all software installed and it is available to use totally from then on. Until an alternative system can do that we cannot expect hard pressed schools to even consider Linux. Climbs down off soapbox and settles down to do some real work on my Linuxbox - but that is as a consultant, not in school!
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: suse-linux-uk-schools-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands, e-mail: suse-linux-uk-schools-help@suse.com
On Saturday 02 February 2002 20:25, Nick Clarke wrote:
however I believe students MUST be able to succeed in any task they are set,
Hm, not much of a preparation for life. While I would agree that for the most part success is necessary for motivation, the occassional failure is also necessary to ensure that they are stretched. No sportsman alive has ever reached the top without pushing to the point of failure. One of the real difficulties in education is level of expectation. Its very easy to schedule tasks that can always be achieved, much more difficult to challenge at the limit of capacity and that's where learning is most effective.
All the languages I've mentioned will give you a head start if you go onto uni to do cs.
Sorry must differ here. Recently surveying 10 Unis around the Midlands none demand that potential undergrads had studied programming
But that's not what he said. If they know how to program properly they will find things easier. Even back in the dim past when I learnt Algol W, those who had prior experience found it easier. (some joined the course in Y2 and had to pick it up whereas others had been taught in Y1)
As a professional teacher I need to use the tools that will teach students in the most successful way.
As a professional inspector, I need to ensure teachers really understand the difference between levels of success and potential ;-).
I think that there are many reasons to go open source, but the balance must always be between available expertise, cost and efficacy. VB is very much more effective as a teaching tool, well known and there are many good teaching resources available, so the cost may be overbalanced. We pay for the tool that works best, not the cheapest, or indeed the one that is ideologically the superior.
A good teacher can probably motivate and teach well with almost any tool. I have never done anything with VB, but I know average Year 7 kids can program simple games in BBC Basic and be motivated to do it. A level physics students can be motivated to write assembler routines to modify a data logger to become a seismometer. They key to these is finding an application that theyt think needs doing rather than worrying about the particular language used in its implementation.
I suggest that we get back to the original idea of this thread and try to put together a distro that will enable schools to MANAGE their computer networks as easily as with RM Connect.
Many schools manage their networks effectively without resorting to RM Connect. I don't think you need a Linux distro to do this, just a set of configuration rules for an existing distribution.
With 400+ machines on our network we rebuild up to 20 a week - not because they are totally broken, but because with limited technician time it is quicker and easier to do this than to troubleshoot a 'flaky' machine. 30 minutes after putting in a disk and hitting reset the system is back up with all software installed and it is available to use totally from then on. Until an alternative system can do that we cannot expect hard pressed schools to even consider Linux.
30 minutes! That's an age. The Linux systems we put in rebuild from the server in a lot less time than that, and there are several methods of achieving the same thing on NT and 2000 networks. Its nothing specifically special to do with RM Connect.
Climbs down off soapbox and settles down to do some real work on my Linuxbox - but that is as a consultant, not in school!
What sort of consultancy? I'm curious. Regards, -- IanL
On Sat, 2 Feb 2002, Nick Clarke wrote:
The best way to learn programming IMHO is unix shell. If it must be on a Windows platform then they could use perl, or for an oo language python or Java. Sorry, but after more than 20 years teaching programming in Schools and Colleges from the youngest to degree level, these would not 'cut the mustard' Students of all ages want their programs to look nice. They will spend hours making a simple program like a metri/imperial convertor look the part. Like it or not, it is Windows that has made them expect this. As a C programmer I would like them to learn C, followed by C++ but they would be discouraged very quickly by what appear to be drab programs. VB or Delphi are the only real options. (C Builder would be better, but for some reason it has never caught on as I would personally like it to) Kylix has just arrived, and this may change things a bit.
KDevelop has been available for some time and offers point-and-click C++ program development that is (IMO) superior to both VB and Delphi. VB, for example, doesn't even support layout management!
<snip> exact alternative - they will continue to buy. I suggest that we get back to the original idea of this thread and try to put together a distro that will enable schools to MANAGE their computer networks as easily as with RM Connect. With 400+ machines on our network we rebuild up to 20 a week - not because they are totally broken, but because with limited technician time it is quicker and easier to do this than to troubleshoot a 'flaky' machine. 30 minutes after putting in a disk and hitting reset the system is back up with all software installed and it is available to use totally from then on. Until an alternative system can do that we cannot expect hard pressed schools to even consider Linux.
30 minutes!! Try 3 minutes for an equivalent Linux build on modern hardware. Add to this the bonus feature that it is possible to build Linux terminals that are guaranteed indestructible from the software point of view. Michael
On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 08:25:14PM -0000, Nick Clarke wrote:
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 01:44:31PM -0000, Chris Howells wrote:
I don't study GNVQ IT myself, but the final straw came when I heard that the school had just bought VB to teach their students (they were origignally going to teach C++ or Delphi but couldn't afford the site licenses.
The best way to learn programming IMHO is unix shell. If it must be on a Windows platform then they could use perl, or for an oo language python or Java.
Sorry, but after more than 20 years teaching programming in Schools and Colleges from the youngest to degree level, these would not 'cut the mustard'
Students of all ages want their programs to look nice.
Do you know what? I don't care what the kids want, I want what's good for them.
They will spend hours making a simple program like a metri/imperial convertor look the part.
Hours wasting their time polishing turds.
Like it or not, it is Windows that has made them expect this. As a C programmer I would like them to learn C, followed by C++ ...
I wouldn't. They'd get bogged down with pointers & casts etc. They should learn on a garbage collected, non-strongly typed language....without a GUI.
but they would be discouraged very quickly by what appear to be drab programs.
If they were put to task to program a Cartesian/Polar co-ordinate convertor, a Fibonacci tree generator, Imperial/Metric convertor or such like then they'd find it challenging irrespective of what language they're using or how they are developing it. What the program looks like is a total irrelevance, it's what it does & how it does it that's the interesting thing & by pandering to their supposed preference/interest in an IDE/RAD you are hence focusing their attention away from the interesting bit; in essence you're failing your pupils based on your own uninformed prejudice. You're also encouraging them to take away the same prejudices as you & come away thinking that the only way to program is using a complicated IDE/RAD. The text editor/command line option has the additional advantages over the IDE in that they don't waste time having to find their way around the IDE and nor does the teacher for that matter. The financial waste goes without saying and what's more they'd be able tp program at home without any expense should they wish to do so.
VB or Delphi are the only real options.
Prejudiced drivel.
(C Builder would be better, but for some reason it has never caught on as I would personally like it to) Kylix has just arrived, and this may change things a bit.
I've told you why C/C++ are not suitable languages for secondary school students & your suggestion that they are shows you know little about programming and even less about teaching programming.
Even at advanced level GNVQ students are not expected to produce fully operating GUIs as well as fully working programs, only the latter.
Quite right too.
If a student of mine can produce a program that does what it sets out to do, and the interface is generated by a RAD like VB they will get all of the marks available.
& what if they write the same program using Java, python, perl...? No marks because the interface is a command line? Why can't they use Javascript & a browser if they want pretty pictures? At least they'd get to grips with object-orientation and html.
If they produce a cute interface with no program behind it, or they drop out through becoming bogged down in the detail, or they fail to complete the task - they will fail the Unit.
So the sensible thing would be to deny them the opportunity to waste their time on a fancy interface & hence fail, wouldn't it? But you're giving them the opportunity to do so & by your choice of software implicitly encouraging them to waste time & fail.
VB is a ticket to nowhere - it's platform dependent & it's unlike any proper oo or procedural language so the skills learnt aren't really transferable to other languages, it will also inevitably get dumped in favour of .NET.
I totally agree, however students would not succeed with other languages as they would not complete the work to such a high standard.
Meaningless nonsense. What `standard'? My standard FWIW: the program works & doesn't have any bugs in it. You have to elaborate as to why only VB of all languages can achieve this `high standard'.
As an aside, although I think GUI RADs are the only way to teach programming in schools and colleges, on a personal level, it does stick in my throat a bit to teach structured top-down programming, and then use a system that is so bottom up it untrue, however I believe students MUST be able to succeed in any task they are set, hence the doublethink.
As I've already indicated, IMHO, you don't know how to teach programming & just because you've got 20 yrs experience of doing it the wrong way doesn't mean diddly.
All the languages I've mentioned will give you a head start if you go onto uni to do cs.
Sorry must differ here. Recently surveying 10 Unis around the Midlands none demand that potential undergrads had studied programming - the usual comment is 'we'll teach them all the programming they need to know' First languages were a very mixed bunch including Modula2 Pascal ADA C and even VB!
I know that unbelievably there are some uni's teaching VB, quite simply these people have got a hide to call themselves universities. You obviously don't understand my point that any reasonable language with conditional statements, looping constructs etc. will give them a head start at uni. Whereas programming on a platform dependent IDE in a language that's universally acknowledged as leading to poor programming style & which doesn't have a hell of a lot in common with other languages doesn't.
As a professional teacher I need to use the tools that will teach students in the most successful way. I think that there are many reasons to go open source, but the balance must always be between available expertise, cost and efficacy. VB is very much more effective as a teaching tool, well known and there are many good teaching resources available, so the cost may be overbalanced.
How do you know what's best when you refuse to countenance the possibility that students can learn a language quite happily using a text editor? I'm not making it up - there's at least one person on this list who's pupils use vim to program...happily & successfully.
We pay for the tool that works best, not the cheapest, or indeed the one that is ideologically the superior.
You've given the game away. You obviously think that: paying = best Which kind of indicates that you have indeed got an idealogy about software - and a not very healthy one at that.
I have introduced Linux resources into every college and school I have workind during the last 10 years - but because they were the best for the job, not because I wanted to break any company's grip on the market. Remember that a market is a place where people buy - and until there is a exact alternative - they will continue to buy. I suggest that we get back to the original idea of this thread and try to put together a distro that will enable schools to MANAGE their computer networks as easily as with RM Connect. With 400+ machines on our network we rebuild up to 20 a week - not because they are totally broken, but because with limited technician time it is quicker and easier to do this than to troubleshoot a 'flaky' machine. 30 minutes after putting in a disk and hitting reset the system is back up with all software installed and it is available to use totally from then on.
In your 20 yr experience how often do you have to rebuild a unix box? How much technician time do you suppose you'd save if all the boxes on your network were linux?
Until an alternative system can do that we cannot expect hard pressed schools to even consider Linux.
You'll be waiting a long time for unix machines to fall over at a rate of 5% a week, so I guess by your criteria you'll never be able to consider Linux.
Climbs down off soapbox and settles down to do some real work on my Linuxbox - but that is as a consultant, not in school!
God help your clients....and your pupils. -- Frank *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Boroughbridge. Tel: 01423 323019 --------- PGP keyID: 0xC0B341A3 *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* http://www.esperance-linux.co.uk/ Real programmers don't comment their code. It was hard to write, it should be hard to understand.
Well Frank, you had better have a go at me as well then. I happen to agree with Nick Clarke. Either that or calm down and see the picture from other people's point of view too. I don't know what your idea of a good Saturday night is but character assassination at 3am seems somewhat akin to wandering the streets after the pubs have shut and smashing up the town to let out your frustration. If you are locked-in to mainstream software, you will be using, most likely, VBA for all your A'level work. Some won't of course, but the way the exam boards are going at the moment seems to almost dictate that you use VBA and Access at some point. People like VB. They find it easy and intuitive. People record simple macros then they edit them. VB is a natural progression from on from this. That the way the mainstream world is working. Sorry if you feel that I may be wrong but from where I am standing, this is the case. While I am talking about A'levels and the way they are taught at school, I want to take the opportunity to praise up Chris Howells. I would never have guessed that he was still doing A'levels. My sympathy goes out to you, Chris. You must be well above the rest of your class or you have an exceptional teacher. I think the current set of A' level specifications we have are really tedious and have had all the fun almost systematically removed. What do other people think? Is this something on which to start a new thread? Bruce Miller. -----Original Message----- From: 'Frank Shute' [mailto:frank@esperance-linux.co.uk] Sent: 03 February 2002 03:09 To: Nick Clarke Cc: Schools List Subject: Re: [suse-linux-uk-schools] Plans for a Linux distro On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 08:25:14PM -0000, Nick Clarke wrote:
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 01:44:31PM -0000, Chris Howells wrote:
I don't study GNVQ IT myself, but the final straw came when I heard
that
the school had just bought VB to teach their students (they were origignally going to teach C++ or Delphi but couldn't afford the site licenses.
The best way to learn programming IMHO is unix shell. If it must be on a Windows platform then they could use perl, or for an oo language python or Java.
Sorry, but after more than 20 years teaching programming in Schools and Colleges from the youngest to degree level, these would not 'cut the mustard'
Students of all ages want their programs to look nice.
Do you know what? I don't care what the kids want, I want what's good for them.
They will spend hours making a simple program like a metri/imperial convertor look the part.
Hours wasting their time polishing turds.
Like it or not, it is Windows that has made them expect this. As a C programmer I would like them to learn C, followed by C++ ...
I wouldn't. They'd get bogged down with pointers & casts etc. They should learn on a garbage collected, non-strongly typed language....without a GUI.
but they would be discouraged very quickly by what appear to be drab programs.
If they were put to task to program a Cartesian/Polar co-ordinate convertor, a Fibonacci tree generator, Imperial/Metric convertor or such like then they'd find it challenging irrespective of what language they're using or how they are developing it. What the program looks like is a total irrelevance, it's what it does & how it does it that's the interesting thing & by pandering to their supposed preference/interest in an IDE/RAD you are hence focusing their attention away from the interesting bit; in essence you're failing your pupils based on your own uninformed prejudice. You're also encouraging them to take away the same prejudices as you & come away thinking that the only way to program is using a complicated IDE/RAD. The text editor/command line option has the additional advantages over the IDE in that they don't waste time having to find their way around the IDE and nor does the teacher for that matter. The financial waste goes without saying and what's more they'd be able tp program at home without any expense should they wish to do so.
VB or Delphi are the only real options.
Prejudiced drivel.
(C Builder would be better, but for some reason it has never caught on as I would personally like it to) Kylix has just arrived, and this may change things a bit.
I've told you why C/C++ are not suitable languages for secondary school students & your suggestion that they are shows you know little about programming and even less about teaching programming.
Even at advanced level GNVQ students are not expected to produce fully operating GUIs as well as fully working programs, only the latter.
Quite right too.
If a student of mine can produce a program that does what it sets out to do, and the interface is generated by a RAD like VB they will get all of the marks available.
& what if they write the same program using Java, python, perl...? No marks because the interface is a command line? Why can't they use Javascript & a browser if they want pretty pictures? At least they'd get to grips with object-orientation and html.
If they produce a cute interface with no program behind it, or they drop out through becoming bogged down in the detail, or they fail to complete the task - they will fail the Unit.
So the sensible thing would be to deny them the opportunity to waste their time on a fancy interface & hence fail, wouldn't it? But you're giving them the opportunity to do so & by your choice of software implicitly encouraging them to waste time & fail.
VB is a ticket to nowhere - it's platform dependent & it's unlike any proper oo or procedural language so the skills learnt aren't really transferable to other languages, it will also inevitably get dumped in favour of .NET.
I totally agree, however students would not succeed with other languages
as
they would not complete the work to such a high standard.
Meaningless nonsense. What `standard'? My standard FWIW: the program works & doesn't have any bugs in it. You have to elaborate as to why only VB of all languages can achieve this `high standard'.
As an aside, although I think GUI RADs are the only way to teach programming in schools and colleges, on a personal level, it does stick in my throat a bit to teach structured top-down programming, and then use a system that is so bottom up it untrue, however I believe students MUST be able to succeed in any task they are set, hence the doublethink.
As I've already indicated, IMHO, you don't know how to teach programming & just because you've got 20 yrs experience of doing it the wrong way doesn't mean diddly.
All the languages I've mentioned will give you a head start if you go onto uni to do cs.
Sorry must differ here. Recently surveying 10 Unis around the Midlands none demand that potential undergrads had studied programming - the usual comment is 'we'll teach them all the programming they need to know' First languages were a very mixed bunch including Modula2 Pascal ADA C and even VB!
I know that unbelievably there are some uni's teaching VB, quite simply these people have got a hide to call themselves universities. You obviously don't understand my point that any reasonable language with conditional statements, looping constructs etc. will give them a head start at uni. Whereas programming on a platform dependent IDE in a language that's universally acknowledged as leading to poor programming style & which doesn't have a hell of a lot in common with other languages doesn't.
As a professional teacher I need to use the tools that will teach students in the most successful way. I think that there are many reasons to go open source, but the balance must always be between available expertise, cost
and
efficacy. VB is very much more effective as a teaching tool, well known and there are many good teaching resources available, so the cost may be overbalanced.
How do you know what's best when you refuse to countenance the possibility that students can learn a language quite happily using a text editor? I'm not making it up - there's at least one person on this list who's pupils use vim to program...happily & successfully.
We pay for the tool that works best, not the cheapest, or indeed the one that is ideologically the superior.
You've given the game away. You obviously think that: paying = best Which kind of indicates that you have indeed got an idealogy about software - and a not very healthy one at that.
I have introduced Linux resources into every college and school I have workind during the last 10 years - but because they were the best for the job, not because I wanted to break any company's grip on the market. Remember that a market is a place where people buy - and until there is a exact alternative - they will continue to buy. I suggest that we get back to the original idea of this thread and try to put together a distro that will enable schools to MANAGE their computer networks as easily as with RM Connect. With 400+ machines on our network we rebuild up to 20 a week - not because they are totally broken, but because with limited technician time it is quicker and easier to do this than to troubleshoot a 'flaky' machine. 30 minutes after putting in a disk and hitting reset the system is back up with all software installed and it is available to use totally from then on.
In your 20 yr experience how often do you have to rebuild a unix box? How much technician time do you suppose you'd save if all the boxes on your network were linux?
Until an alternative system can do that we cannot expect hard pressed schools to even consider Linux.
You'll be waiting a long time for unix machines to fall over at a rate of 5% a week, so I guess by your criteria you'll never be able to consider Linux.
Climbs down off soapbox and settles down to do some real work on my Linuxbox - but that is as a consultant, not in school!
God help your clients....and your pupils. -- Frank *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Boroughbridge. Tel: 01423 323019 --------- PGP keyID: 0xC0B341A3 *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* http://www.esperance-linux.co.uk/ Real programmers don't comment their code. It was hard to write, it should be hard to understand. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: suse-linux-uk-schools-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands, e-mail: suse-linux-uk-schools-help@suse.com
On Sunday 03 February 2002 10:59, Bruce Miller wrote:
If you are locked-in to mainstream software, you will be using, most likely, VBA for all your A'level work. Some won't of course, but the way the exam boards are going at the moment seems to almost dictate that you use VBA and Access at some point.
That sounds more like locked into the examining system than mainstream software. Ok, you might then have little choice, but perhaps one of the reasons Universities say they prefer students who have not been "taught" programing is that from their point of view this is not a good starting point. Actually I doubt it is VB per se but teaching that allows bad habits that are difficult to eradicate later.
People like VB. They find it easy and intuitive. People record simple macros then they edit them. VB is a natural progression from on from this. That the way the mainstream world is working. Sorry if you feel that I may be wrong but from where I am standing, this is the case.
I think that the point is that this incremental progression can be achieved with other environments, ask Michael Brown, its just that most teachers and the exam boards are not aware of what is possible because they have a particular set of experiences. Bit like the comment about building stations from RM Connect as if this is the only way to do it. IMHO this is the main problem with technology. If the education system trains button pressing because its easy to get results rather than understanding the hard stuff that makes people think, we are reduced to being victims of believing marketing propaganda such as "you can't manage a schools network without RM Connect" or MS invented the Internet.
While I am talking about A'levels and the way they are taught at school, I want to take the opportunity to praise up Chris Howells. I would never have guessed that he was still doing A'levels. My sympathy goes out to you, Chris. You must be well above the rest of your class or you have an exceptional teacher.
I'd second that. The sad fact is that I have come across a number of Chris Howells who end up having to do things despite rather than because of the education system and that includes teachers, exam boards, inspectors, many of who have a much more limited view of technology than the students.
I think the current set of A' level specifications we have are really tedious and have had all the fun almost systematically removed. What do other people think? Is this something on which to start a new thread?
Not just A level, despite all the rhetoric, the National Curriculum is decidedly anti-education in respect of new technologies. Regards, -- IanL
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday 03 February 2002 10:59 am, Bruce Miller wrote:
While I am talking about A'levels and the way they are taught at school, I want to take the opportunity to praise up Chris Howells. I would never have guessed that he was still doing A'levels. My sympathy goes out to you, Chris. You must be well above the rest of your class or you have an exceptional teacher.
Hrm, well, in what subject? ;) I've never done IT (apart from those silly introductory courses they do in lower school -- everything I know is self-taught), my subjects are physics, maths, and chemistry :) The main reason I decided not to do IT (my school only offers GNVQ, not A-Level) was mainly that I felt it would be a waste of my time :( OK, so I'll be the first to admit that that means my C++ is fairly crap (I've only been writing 5 weeks -- Qt usually does such a nice job of hiding the scary bits -- the only scary bit so far was a dynamic_cast :) ), and I've no idea how a compiler or something works, but I'm not entirely convinced that something like that would be covered at GNVQ/A-Level anyway. Some of the GNVQ course does make me laugh -- like having to learn how to install software. Sticking a CD into the drive, watching it autorun and clicking "Next" a few times. What an absolute waste of time (IMVHO). - -- Cheers, Chris Howells -- chris@chrishowells.co.uk, howells@kde.org Web: http://chrishowells.co.uk, PGP key: http://chrishowells.co.uk/pgp.txt KDE: http://www.koffice.org, http://edu.kde.org, http://usability.kde.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8XYu8F8Iu1zN5WiwRAinfAJ49Tf9DujOaOrlAl7zzQfWhz4G7zwCcCLWL 2RMd0ip2nvuX0V2CQqUjIyg= =LPxk -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 10:59:38AM -0000, Bruce Miller wrote:
Well Frank, you had better have a go at me as well then. I happen to agree with Nick Clarke.
Either that or calm down and see the picture from other people's point of view too.
I'm prepared to look at the picture if somebody paints me a sensible picture.
I don't know what your idea of a good Saturday night is but character assassination at 3am seems somewhat akin to wandering the streets after the pubs have shut and smashing up the town to let out your frustration.
Yeah, I got bored with smashing up the town ;)
If you are locked-in to mainstream software, you will be using, most likely, VBA for all your A'level work. Some won't of course, but the way the exam boards are going at the moment seems to almost dictate that you use VBA and Access at some point. People like VB. They find it easy and intuitive.
The exam boards are a disgrace, they make a business out of making their exams as easy as possible to pass and the whole education system colludes with the dirty little business. Ask admissions tutors at any university of how their intake of undergrads stack up when it comes to being prepared to take a technical subject at degree level - the fact is that they don't. OK, they'll weed out the chaff from the corn but they've still got a hell of a lot of preparation to do on these students. Schools are driven by bogus league tables that mean their and their pupil's & staff's success is gauged by exam passes. Hence demeaned & worthless exams passed by students studying worthless and demeaning dross like VB.
People record simple macros then they edit them. VB is a natural progression from on from this. That the way the mainstream world is working. Sorry if you feel that I may be wrong but from where I am standing, this is the case.
Yes, but is it right? And is it right that somebody posts to this list & explicitly suggests that it is the only `possibility'? And when someone questions the status quo they're condemned for being some sort of thug?
While I am talking about A'levels and the way they are taught at school, I want to take the opportunity to praise up Chris Howells. I would never have guessed that he was still doing A'levels. My sympathy goes out to you, Chris. You must be well above the rest of your class or you have an exceptional teacher.
I think the current set of A' level specifications we have are really tedious and have had all the fun almost systematically removed. What do other people think? Is this something on which to start a new thread?
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. To kick off with, league tables should be binned along with the present exam boards. -- Frank *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Boroughbridge. Tel: 01423 323019 --------- PGP keyID: 0xC0B341A3 *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* http://www.esperance-linux.co.uk/ Artistic ventures highlighted. Rob a museum.
On Sunday 03 February 2002 23:32, 'Frank Shute' wrote:
Ask admissions tutors at any university of how their intake of undergrads stack up when it comes to being prepared to take a technical subject at degree level - the fact is that they don't. OK, they'll weed out the chaff from the corn but they've still got a hell of a lot of preparation to do on these students.
A level subjects are not uniformily difficult (or easy depending on your view point) Universities are in fierce competition for the best students. Far more students go to university so unless they are significantly more intelligent for some reason, the number of able ones per population entering is lower. This is why there is a big demand for maths because A level maths students are generally speaking the brightest of those with a technical leaning. Probably why admissions tutors prefer maths to computer studies at A level.
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. 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. 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. Bear in mind this would also mean redundancies in university teaching staff.
Hence demeaned & worthless exams passed by students studying worthless and demeaning dross like VB.
This is a minor thing in the scheme of things and there are plenty of similar issues in other subjects. I think the lack of technical rigour in ICT throughout the education system is the real problem of which the VB thing is a symptom, and its not the most important one.
People record simple macros then they edit them. VB is a natural progression from on from this. That the way the mainstream world is working. Sorry if you feel that I may be wrong but from where I am standing, this is the case.
Yes, but is it right? And is it right that somebody posts to this list & explicitly suggests that it is the only `possibility'? And when someone questions the status quo they're condemned for being some sort of thug?
Thats just an effect of the emotion you put into your replies :-)
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.
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 exams boards and replace them with what? No exams? 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? -- IanL
On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 08:06:28AM +0000, Ian wrote:
On Sunday 03 February 2002 23:32, 'Frank Shute' wrote:
Ask admissions tutors at any university of how their intake of undergrads stack up when it comes to being prepared to take a technical subject at degree level - the fact is that they don't. OK, they'll weed out the chaff from the corn but they've still got a hell of a lot of preparation to do on these students.
A level subjects are not uniformily difficult (or easy depending on your view point)
Universities are in fierce competition for the best students. Far more students go to university so unless they are significantly more intelligent for some reason, the number of able ones per population entering is lower. This is why there is a big demand for maths because A level maths students are generally speaking the brightest of those with a technical leaning. Probably why admissions tutors prefer maths to computer studies at A level.
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. 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. 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.
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. Look at the NHS, standards have fallen. You can't gauge the performance of a public service empirically & to attempt to do so is not only a waste of time but ends up driving the public service from fullfilling it's service obligations on a case-by-case basis to attempting to cook a league table.
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.
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.
Hence demeaned & worthless exams passed by students studying worthless and demeaning dross like VB.
This is a minor thing in the scheme of things and there are plenty of similar issues in other subjects. I think the lack of technical rigour in ICT throughout the education system is the real problem of which the VB thing is a symptom, and its not the most important one.
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.
People record simple macros then they edit them. VB is a natural progression from on from this. That the way the mainstream world is working. Sorry if you feel that I may be wrong but from where I am standing, this is the case.
Yes, but is it right? And is it right that somebody posts to this list & explicitly suggests that it is the only `possibility'? And when someone questions the status quo they're condemned for being some sort of thug?
Thats just an effect of the emotion you put into your replies :-)
I guess so.
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.
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
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. Too much store is currently put towards not letting students suffer failure & making them feeling worthwhile at all costs. 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. -- Frank *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Boroughbridge. Tel: 01423 323019 --------- PGP keyID: 0xC0B341A3 *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* http://www.esperance-linux.co.uk/
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 10:35:05PM +0000, Ian wrote:
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.
Fair point.
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.
That's my point too! They're taking students they really shouldn't be taking because a decree has gone out that 50% of people should go to university. So irrespective of the individual merit of an applicant, university's are feeling compelled into dropping standards to fill what is by any stretch of the imagination a bogus quota dreamed up by some think-tank.
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.
As I indicated, I don't really care. Why give people jobs if they aren't worthwhile?
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.
Now we are beginning to suffer the consequences of the more choice/falling standards/lack of people doing intellectually rigorous subjects. The few who do go and do maths/engineering at university get immediately cherry-picked by industry for well-paid jobs thus leaving education to pick up the crumbs for maths/sciences teaching. The result is declining teaching standards & even fewer students going on to do maths/science at uni. It's a vicious circle.
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)
Example: A govt edict goes out that hospitals should reduce their waiting lists, the hospital managers pressurise the consultants to sort it out. After much moaning from the consultants the difficult but more severe cases are pushed to the back of the queue & the people with ingrowing toenails, piles etc. are dragged in to be operated on. Result! The govt has turned the health service around & they've got the facts to prove it - waiting lists are coming down and the hospital league tables indicate that less hospitals are `failing' and meeting the Stalinist govt's bogus targets. But there's a price to pay - the patients with the more important problems now have to wait longer to be treated, the consultants are pissed-off because their clinical judgement with regards the urgency of treating patients has been ridden over rough-shod and money and time has been wasted treating elderly patients with ingrowing toenails who if you'd given them a few months would have snuffed it anyway. I can give you any number of examples from the health service because that's one are that I'm familar with. Now repeat ad nauseum for other scenarios and other public services. The fact is that huge amounts are being wasted to meet the bogus targets which do nobody any good except the government because they can then advertise how `successful' they've been & hence get re-elected. They then whinge about `years of under-investment' which people swallow whole & have then got the hide to raise taxes in order to `sort things out'. The newly raised taxes are then spent on building MPs the most expensive office space in the country whilst building hospitals on the never-never.
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.
It's an entirely useless indicator. It indicates precisely nothing. It could be one of many things: * Teachers have got better. - as I've said before I think they're about as good/bad as they always have been with the exception of maths/sciences where there are too few to go around. * Exam technique of students has got better. - Possibly, but then you should make the exams harder in order to get more comparable results year-on-year. * Students IQ has improved. - Although it's said that IQ has improved, I personally think IQ is another entirely bogus statistic & can't be measured satisfactorily. In fact, Darwinism would seem to say that since the brain-dead can live on social security and procreate, people should be getting thicker. * The exams are easier. - Look at papers now & papers 30 yrs ago and judge for yourself. IMO they are a country mile easier.
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.
Then the studies suck and are done by people who are far from independent.
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.
I'm glad he's enjoying it but IMO he would have been better off doing a more `hands on' subject at a traditional Poly or College like he probably would have done 20 yrs ago. Back then they managed to integrate such a subject well with job experience and such like. There was a more varied education available then: Unis, Polys, Colleges, apprenticeships...and everybody could find their niche. Now the whole damned lot is being dumped into university in order to fulfil a govt's entirely political target.
So should we deny these kids on the grounds they can't pass A level maths?
No, you should deny them on the basis that university isn't the best place for them to learn such a subject. Education needs to be stratified but not just on the grounds of academic ability.
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.
Broader scope means less real choice as to what sort of education you get - universities are just becoming higher education comprehensives and IMO comprehensives are good for no one except the politically correct.
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.
It is going to be difficult to change, but the way I see it the IT in schools agenda is still very much up for grabs.
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.
That's right, it's no longer the top 10% who go to university it's the top 30% and that's not because all of a sudden 30% of the populace have got an IQ of >x rather than 10% a few years back. BTW, my understanding of IQ is that you can't change it by teaching full stop. It's whole premise is that a bright Aboriginal with no education whatsoever can have an equivalent IQ of an Oxford don.
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 did all my O's with Oxford bar maths! I was in the bottom stream of maths at school so they decided to go with AEB because the paper was supposedly a piece of piss - it was too, as evidenced by my getting an A grade and guys in the higher streams who were much better than me had to sit the Oxford paper ... and some failed! But in those days, 1977, all the boards papers were considered roughly equivalent except Oxford and AEB - Oxford the standard being higher and AEB lower. Now they're all jostling at the low-end of the market and they know that the lower the standard the more revenue for the company be it Edexcel or whatever.
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 :-)
The exams are easier to pass, there's no question of this - the results prove it. Hence, there has to be a wider gap between the ability of those who scrape a certain grade & those at the top-end of that grade. A distribution diagram will prove this point.
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.
Give them a good kicking for being thick, stand them in the corner with a dunces hat on and they'll soon buck up their ideas. (Just kidding ;) -- Frank *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Boroughbridge. Tel: 01423 323019 --------- PGP keyID: 0xC0B341A3 *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* http://www.esperance-linux.co.uk/ The shortest distance between two points is under construction. -- Noelie Alito
On Tuesday 05 February 2002 00:57, 'Frank Shute' wrote:
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.
That's my point too! They're taking students they really shouldn't be taking because a decree has gone out that 50% of people should go to university.
Not s much a decree as a comparison with other countries and the view that keeping more people educated for longer is what makes for economic prosperity.
So irrespective of the individual merit of an applicant, university's are feeling compelled into dropping standards
Another way of looking at it is that teaching in unis has to improve because there are higher expectations of what they should be able to get from students of lower ability. That is exactly what is happening in primary and secondary education. You can argue that its inappropriate for unis and there should be some other institution but that is probably just like the differentiation between grammar and secondary mods which is all but gone.
what is by any stretch of the imagination a bogus quota dreamed up by some think-tank
Not really, its just a matter of getting more people through HE. Its debateable about whether it should be 30,40 50 or 60% In the end it has to be done incrementally for the system to cope but if its good for some why not all? OK courses might have to be changed and additional qualifications but there are HNC etc as well as degrees.
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.
As I indicated, I don't really care. Why give people jobs if they aren't worthwhile.
But they are worthwhile to those students and as an employer I would rather take on someone who has been to university even if they were not in the top 20% of students.
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.
Now we are beginning to suffer the consequences of the more choice/falling standards/lack of people doing intellectually rigorous subjects.
The few who do go and do maths/engineering at university get immediately cherry-picked by industry for well-paid jobs
Actually that isn't true either. There are plenty of people with pure maths and science degrees who then find it difficult to get into the jobs they want and things like engineering are often not well paid. Education has always had a problem competing with industry in the jobs market.
Example: A govt edict goes out that hospitals should reduce their waiting lists, the hospital managers pressurise the consultants to sort it out. After much moaning from the consultants the difficult but more severe cases are pushed to the back of the queue & the people with ingrowing toenails, piles etc. are dragged in to be operated on.
Equally examples can be found of management being more focussed and so on.
Result! The govt has turned the health service around & they've got the facts to prove it - waiting lists are coming down and the hospital league tables indicate that less hospitals are `failing' and meeting the Stalinist govt's bogus targets.
Except they haven't and because the figures are available they are a lot more accountable.
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.
It's an entirely useless indicator. It indicates precisely nothing. It could be one of many things:
But I used to inspect schools for a living and the rigour in the teaching that you so want definitely improved with more focus on these output measures. They can actually tell you a lot. OK care has to be exercised and probably things have gone too far but it certainly made a much needed difference in the focus of many people. For example, statistically my youngest son would almost certainly have got a C in maths at GCSE not a D if he had attended a different school. Its easy to see it just by looking at the stats.
- Look at papers now & papers 30 yrs ago and judge for yourself. IMO they are a country mile easier.
There is a lot more on them now. All the independent studies seem to come to no conclusion on this. I did my GCEs 30 years ago and I know they were different not necessarily harder. Even if they are a bit easier does it really matter? Just take A/A* grades if you think C is too easy.
Then the studies suck and are done by people who are far from independent.
Again, not true. Radio 4 (nothing to do with exam boards AFAIK) got a reporter to do a GCSE in geography (he got an A GCE) and a GCSE student who got an A* to do the GCE. Conclusion from an examiner was the the reporter was good on factual knowledge but weak on analysis compared to the student. Ever watched University Challenge recently? Some very bright young people *and* these days they have to answer science and maths questions ;-)
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.
I'm glad he's enjoying it but IMO he would have been better off doing a more `hands on' subject at a traditional Poly or College like he probably would have done 20 yrs ago.
It is hands on. He uses cameras etc, he has done practical electronics, practical programming, business studies, maths etc. Why do you think things in the past were always better?
Back then they managed to integrate such a subject well with job experience and such like.
What makes you think that they don't now? He has had commercial jobs to do as work experience. He was commended by a BBC cameraman for a piece he did when he was doing a BTEC in media studies (another maligned subject based largely on ignorance - Chris Woodhead for one)
There was a more varied education available then: Unis, Polys, Colleges, apprenticeships...
No, ther ewas greater variety in the institutions which is a very inefficient and devisive means of delivery. Everyone can still find their niche. Unis are just different types of place and they have to change like everyone else.
So should we deny these kids on the grounds they can't pass A level maths?
No, you should deny them on the basis that university isn't the best place for them to learn such a subject.
They don't . In the case of my son the maths component is a small part of the course and its not at A level but it does actually bring him up in the areas needed. Stafford Uni seem quite capable of doing this. My other son graduated with a 2.1 in CAD from UCE but his main strength was using CAD software not maths. Does it matter? He works for his mother's computer company and is mainly involved in buying hardware and music technology. What matters is that he has had the opportunity to mature and develop in a technological environment the precise nature of it is not that important.
Education needs to be stratified but not just on the grounds of academic ability.
Seems to me that stratifying on the grounds of ability is exactly what you want. Education needs to differentiate on the grounds of ability but it also needs to be flexible and streamlined. The old system was anything but.
Maybe but perhaps its just as easy and cost-effective to change the nature of universities to be rather broader in their scope.
Broader scope means less real choice as to what sort of education you get - universities are just becoming higher education comprehensives and IMO comprehensives are good for no one except the politically correct.
Well I have to disagree with that. On the whole comprehensive schools provide scope for movement as well as differentiation. I do a lot of work In Kent LEA the last bastion of the grammar school and I see the damage done to the minority. You seem to have a strange mixture of politics. Pro-selection, anti-league tables, pro-elitism anti the Daily Mail ;-).
It is going to be difficult to change, but the way I see it the IT in schools agenda is still very much up for grabs.
Its ICT :-). ICT is not up for grabs, its politically symbolic and has been hi-jacked by the likes of BECTa who get funded to the tune of about £12m a year to further their agenda under the guise of being official advisors to the DfEE. The only real way to counter this is to set fires burning at grass roots level that will eventually roast the quangos and LEA bureaucracy into action.
That's right, it's no longer the top 10% who go to university it's the top 30% and that's not because all of a sudden 30% of the populace have got an IQ of >x rather than 10% a few years back.
Question is why set the cut off level at an arbitrary 10 or 30 %? That is like grammar schools at an arbitrary 25% or 30% if they are struggling for admission numbers ;-)
BTW, my understanding of IQ is that you can't change it by teaching full stop. It's whole premise is that a bright Aboriginal with no education whatsoever can have an equivalent IQ of an Oxford don.
Its just a short hand way of saying innate ability. You can make a difference to cognitive ability but that's traditionally been less emphasised than knowledge in exams because of the simple cost of examining. I doubt you can actually get a cultural, learning non-influenced IQ test.
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 did all my O's with Oxford bar maths! I was in the bottom stream of maths at school so they decided to go with AEB because the paper was supposedly a piece of piss - it was too, as evidenced by my getting an A grade and guys in the higher streams who were much better than me had to sit the Oxford paper ... and some failed!
So things are not any different. I did Cambridge and I seem to be older than you :-)
But in those days, 1977, all the boards papers were considered roughly equivalent except Oxford and AEB - Oxford the standard being higher and AEB lower. Now they're all jostling at the low-end of the market and they know that the lower the standard the more revenue for the company be it Edexcel or whatever.
QCA is the governement regulating body its predecessor SCAA. There has always been a regulating body for the exams so exams have to get past this body to go through. If you are saying QCA is politically corrupt, then the nature of the exam boards, whether public or privately owned or a charity is really irrelevant. other fields.
But the IQ/EQ argument is another thread :-)
The exams are easier to pass, there's no question of this - the results prove it.
No they don't, it might just be that the students are better prepared. Its interesting that the ones who have a vested interest in proving they are cleverer because they passed the exams when they were harder are us oldies. Bit insulting to some of the youngsters who work particularly hard. I have taught plenty of kids who were not as bright as me at their age but worked far harder and some who were simply a lot clever than me. Independent studies do not bear out your conclusions. Personally, I don't see it matters anyway. All you need is to provide routes for progression and ways for employers to make decisions and I see no evidence that either of these is compromised.
Give them a good kicking for being thick, stand them in the corner with a dunces hat on and they'll soon buck up their ideas.
(Just kidding ;)
But all the evidence suggests that nothing could be further from the truth. At the opposite end of the spectrum telling them they are wonderful no matter what is equally as ineffective. The devil is in the detail. regards, -- IanL
On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 09:30:19PM +0000, Ian wrote:
On Tuesday 05 February 2002 00:57, 'Frank Shute' wrote:
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.
That's my point too! They're taking students they really shouldn't be taking because a decree has gone out that 50% of people should go to university.
Not s much a decree as a comparison with other countries and the view that keeping more people educated for longer is what makes for economic prosperity.
I'm sorry Ian but I have to disagree with you, it's a decree or target or whatever you like to call it but it's a figure that's been set in stone. It's not a comparison with other countries. I agree with you that they want to educate people further and longer, and we'd all probably agree that that is a `good thing'. But you don't do that by setting entirely arbitrary targets. You encourage people to get themselves educated, you don't force them into it which is what the target essentially does. It forces people to meet those targets irrespective of the worth of sending 50% of people to university. I still reckon that most of this 50% would probably have better, more fulfilling lives outside of a university. It's implicit nowadays that if you don't go to university that educationally you have failed, your teachers have failed and the schools have failed. How do you encourage people to go to university & meet the targets? Of course, you scrap the grant and ask students to incur huge debts....ah yes, the wonders of the `third way' and `joined up government'.
So irrespective of the individual merit of an applicant, university's are feeling compelled into dropping standards
Another way of looking at it is that teaching in unis has to improve because there are higher expectations of what they should be able to get from students of lower ability.
But it can't happen. Teaching can only improve marginally, sure there are some lecturers who are duff but most do their damndest for stuff all pay and ever dwindling resources as a result of the increased student numbers.
That is exactly what is happening in primary and secondary education. You can argue that its inappropriate for unis and there should be some other institution but that is probably just like the differentiation between grammar and secondary mods which is all but gone.
But by producing the league tables you're essentially saying: `see those schools at the top of the tables, they're the grammars and the ones at the other end are the comprehensives' so really it still exists.
what is by any stretch of the imagination a bogus quota dreamed up by some think-tank
Not really, its just a matter of getting more people through HE. Its debateable about whether it should be 30,40 50 or 60%
You don't address inadequate numbers of people in higher education by introducing a quota, no more than you address racism in certain jobs by introducing quotas it's patronising tosh & everybody ends up hating you both black & white.
In the end it has to be done incrementally for the system to cope but if its good for some why not all? OK courses might have to be changed and additional qualifications but there are HNC etc as well as degrees.
But it's not being done incrementally, in the last 20 yrs undergraduate numbers have snowballed & there's less choice for what form your tertiary education takes. Less choice is bad; it doesn't matter whether it's choosing a computer OS or type of education.
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.
As I indicated, I don't really care. Why give people jobs if they aren't worthwhile.
But they are worthwhile to those students and as an employer I would rather take on someone who has been to university even if they were not in the top 20% of students.
I think you misunderstood me, I was talking about the lecturers being out of a job. As for choosing an employee it depends on the job, but I'd be keener to employ somebody nowadays with a less traditional qualification than a degree then I would say twenty years ago - largely because it would show an independence of thought and I just don't think that a degree has the same amount of credibility nowadays.
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.
Now we are beginning to suffer the consequences of the more choice/falling standards/lack of people doing intellectually rigorous subjects.
The few who do go and do maths/engineering at university get immediately cherry-picked by industry for well-paid jobs
Actually that isn't true either. There are plenty of people with pure maths and science degrees who then find it difficult to get into the jobs they want and things like engineering are often not well paid. Education has always had a problem competing with industry in the jobs market.
If there are people coming out of universities with maths/engineering degrees and not getting jobs then something is very wrong indeed. Don't ask me what - it could be any number of things but that's really worrying.
Example: A govt edict goes out that hospitals should reduce their waiting lists, the hospital managers pressurise the consultants to sort it out. After much moaning from the consultants the difficult but more severe cases are pushed to the back of the queue & the people with ingrowing toenails, piles etc. are dragged in to be operated on.
Equally examples can be found of management being more focussed and so on.
The managers are clueless government place-men. It's well known that health authority jobs and hence managers jobs are given as an act of political patronage by the government. These people haven't got a clue about management which is another reason why the health service is a disaster zone.
Result! The govt has turned the health service around & they've got the facts to prove it - waiting lists are coming down and the hospital league tables indicate that less hospitals are `failing' and meeting the Stalinist govt's bogus targets.
Except they haven't and because the figures are available they are a lot more accountable.
The true measure of these managers and this governments usefulness is that despite their best efforts at cooking the figures they even managed to fail to cook them enough. Accountable to whom? They are all in it up to their necks in a wilful act of treason, corruption and public betrayal.
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.
It's an entirely useless indicator. It indicates precisely nothing. It could be one of many things:
But I used to inspect schools for a living and the rigour in the teaching that you so want definitely improved with more focus on these output measures. They can actually tell you a lot.
I'd quote Churchill to you about statistics but I'll make do with Vic Reeves instead: `87% of statistics are made up on the spot' To actually believe the statistics is an act of naivity on your part equivalent to little short of a belief in astrology.
OK care has to be exercised and probably things have gone too far but it certainly made a much needed difference in the focus of many people. For example, statistically my youngest son would almost certainly have got a C in maths at GCSE not a D if he had attended a different school. Its easy to see it just by looking at the stats.
I mentioned my experience in another post. My grade A at O level maths was a truly worthless crumb of comfort when I realised it meant precisely nothing - just another cooked up statistic.
- Look at papers now & papers 30 yrs ago and judge for yourself. IMO they are a country mile easier.
There is a lot more on them now. All the independent studies seem to come to no conclusion on this. I did my GCEs 30 years ago and I know they were different not necessarily harder. Even if they are a bit easier does it really matter? Just take A/A* grades if you think C is too easy.
But what's the equivalent to an A grade in O level maths in terms of GCSE maths nowadays? An exam board examiner spilled the beans and said that only 19% of people with GCSE A/A* would have *passed* O level maths - this was widely reported quite recently.
Then the studies suck and are done by people who are far from independent.
Again, not true. Radio 4 (nothing to do with exam boards AFAIK) got a reporter to do a GCSE in geography (he got an A GCE) and a GCSE student who got an A* to do the GCE. Conclusion from an examiner was the the reporter was good on factual knowledge but weak on analysis compared to the student.
But how much revision had he done?
Ever watched University Challenge recently? Some very bright young people *and* these days they have to answer science and maths questions ;-)
A trained monkey can answer general knowledge questions, doesn't mean they're bright.
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.
I'm glad he's enjoying it but IMO he would have been better off doing a more `hands on' subject at a traditional Poly or College like he probably would have done 20 yrs ago.
It is hands on. He uses cameras etc, he has done practical electronics, practical programming, business studies, maths etc. Why do you think things in the past were always better?
Because instead of bundling the `hands-on' students with the `academic' students, they had their differing needs catered for by differing establishments with differing strengths.
Back then they managed to integrate such a subject well with job experience and such like.
What makes you think that they don't now?
The colleges or polys where students like your son would have gone 20 odd years ago were specifically designed to deal with students like your son. Why then convert them all & paint them the same colour? It means a lack of specialisation.
He has had commercial jobs to do as work experience. He was commended by a BBC cameraman for a piece he did when he was doing a BTEC in media studies (another maligned subject based largely on ignorance - Chris Woodhead for one)
The less said about that bozo/child molester the better.
There was a more varied education available then: Unis, Polys, Colleges, apprenticeships...
No, ther ewas greater variety in the institutions which is a very inefficient and devisive means of delivery. Everyone can still find their niche. Unis are just different types of place and they have to change like everyone else.
But it used to be that you did a subject like film and you immediately narrowed the field down by saying `poly or college'. You then narrowed the field down further by saying `which ones do film'. Now every university in the land probably does film. Inefficient or what?
So should we deny these kids on the grounds they can't pass A level maths?
No, you should deny them on the basis that university isn't the best place for them to learn such a subject.
They don't . In the case of my son the maths component is a small part of the course and its not at A level but it does actually bring him up in the areas needed. Stafford Uni seem quite capable of doing this. My other son graduated with a 2.1 in CAD from UCE but his main strength was using CAD software not maths. Does it matter?
Yes. Because he's then unable to make full use of the CAD software, certainly in any meaningful engineering design respect. Things like FEA and 2nd moments of area would be meaningles concepts to him. BTW, I don't mean to demean your son's achievement in any way, it's just that without the maths his use of the software is limited.
He works for his mother's computer company and is mainly involved in buying hardware and music technology. What matters is that he has had the opportunity to mature and develop in a technological environment the precise nature of it is not that important.
Sure and I guess he had a good time doing it but in my day CAD meant that you were a pretty useful design engineer or architect - I guess things change. Glad to hear he's got a job though.
Education needs to be stratified but not just on the grounds of academic ability.
Seems to me that stratifying on the grounds of ability is exactly what you want. Education needs to differentiate on the grounds of ability but it also needs to be flexible and streamlined. The old system was anything but.
It's inflexible in that there is now less real choice IMO. `Streamlined' is just a synonym for `less choice'.
Maybe but perhaps its just as easy and cost-effective to change the nature of universities to be rather broader in their scope.
Broader scope means less real choice as to what sort of education you get - universities are just becoming higher education comprehensives and IMO comprehensives are good for no one except the politically correct.
Well I have to disagree with that. On the whole comprehensive schools provide scope for movement as well as differentiation. I do a lot of work In Kent LEA the last bastion of the grammar school and I see the damage done to the minority.
What damage?
You seem to have a strange mixture of politics. Pro-selection, anti-league tables, pro-elitism anti the Daily Mail ;-).
I don't know if it's that strange, I don't toe anybody's line & there's plenty of people like me who feel disenfranchised and disgusted by politics. I'd go and burn down MacDonald's if I had any energy left after writing monster screeds to mailing lists ;)
It is going to be difficult to change, but the way I see it the IT in schools agenda is still very much up for grabs.
Its ICT :-). ICT is not up for grabs, its politically symbolic and has been hi-jacked by the likes of BECTa who get funded to the tune of about £12m a year to further their agenda under the guise of being official advisors to the DfEE. The only real way to counter this is to set fires burning at grass roots level that will eventually roast the quangos and LEA bureaucracy into action.
`fires burning'....parliament, DfEE, Buck House, the Vatican ....now you're talking;)
That's right, it's no longer the top 10% who go to university it's the top 30% and that's not because all of a sudden 30% of the populace have got an IQ of >x rather than 10% a few years back.
Question is why set the cut off level at an arbitrary 10 or 30 %? That is like grammar schools at an arbitrary 25% or 30% if they are struggling for admission numbers ;-)
That's my whole point about the entirely arbitrary nature of these figures/targets.
BTW, my understanding of IQ is that you can't change it by teaching full stop. It's whole premise is that a bright Aboriginal with no education whatsoever can have an equivalent IQ of an Oxford don.
Its just a short hand way of saying innate ability. You can make a difference to cognitive ability but that's traditionally been less emphasised than knowledge in exams because of the simple cost of examining.
That's interesting.
I doubt you can actually get a cultural, learning non-influenced IQ test.
That's what I've always felt.
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 did all my O's with Oxford bar maths! I was in the bottom stream of maths at school so they decided to go with AEB because the paper was supposedly a piece of piss - it was too, as evidenced by my getting an A grade and guys in the higher streams who were much better than me had to sit the Oxford paper ... and some failed!
So things are not any different. I did Cambridge and I seem to be older than you :-)
But in those days, 1977, all the boards papers were considered roughly equivalent except Oxford and AEB - Oxford the standard being higher and AEB lower. Now they're all jostling at the low-end of the market and they know that the lower the standard the more revenue for the company be it Edexcel or whatever.
QCA is the governement regulating body its predecessor SCAA. There has always been a regulating body for the exams so exams have to get past this body to go through. If you are saying QCA is politically corrupt, then the nature of the exam boards, whether public or privately owned or a charity is really irrelevant. other fields.
If they're public companies then it's a very different thing in my book - after all a public company's whole purpose is to maximise profit for shareholders irrespective of pretty much anything. This immediately jeapordises the integrity of any exam knocked up by them.
But the IQ/EQ argument is another thread :-)
The exams are easier to pass, there's no question of this - the results prove it.
No they don't, it might just be that the students are better prepared.
The exams are easier to pass - whether that's due to students being better prepared is debatable. IMO it's not.
Its interesting that the ones who have a vested interest in proving they are cleverer because they passed the exams when they were harder are us oldies. Bit insulting to some of the youngsters who work particularly hard.
THEN INSULT THEM! It's an important point `are exams easier than they once where?' and I'm damned if I'm going to be hushed up by some stupid bloody Education Secretary saying that `I'm insulting the hard working kids of today'. I'm surprised you've fallen for that `politically correct' claptrap. If they're so bloody clever then they can stand up for themselves can't they?
I have taught plenty of kids who were not as bright as me at their age but worked far harder and some who were simply a lot clever than me. Independent studies do not bear out your conclusions. Personally, I don't see it matters anyway. All you need is to provide routes for progression and ways for employers to make decisions and I see no evidence that either of these is compromised.
Employers can't make informed decisions, when they say they want a graduate for a post they'll now get 50% of the country turning up on their doorstep rather than the single digit figure it once was.
Give them a good kicking for being thick, stand them in the corner with a dunces hat on and they'll soon buck up their ideas.
(Just kidding ;)
But all the evidence suggests that nothing could be further from the truth.
In my personal experience there's a lot to be said for it.
At the opposite end of the spectrum telling them they are wonderful no matter what is equally as ineffective.
It's worse IMO. They just end up thick, self-satisfied and smug...look around you, parliament's crawling with them.
The devil is in the detail.
True, so why the hell is the govt not looking at the detail?
regards,
Regards, -- Frank *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Boroughbridge. Tel: 01423 323019 --------- PGP keyID: 0xC0B341A3 *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* http://www.esperance-linux.co.uk/ You have an unusual understanding of the problems of human relationships.
participants (7)
-
'Frank Shute' -
Bruce Miller -
Chris Howells -
Ian -
Mark Evans -
Michael Brown -
Nick Clarke