This new curriculum was created by a one Sir Jim Rose who is the former Ofsted chief (Ofsted = OFfice for STandards in EDucation). He wants to take the 13 current "subject areas" and whittle them down to a concise 6 "learning areas". So, instead of "things you need to know" I guess they'll be taught "there are things in here that you need to know". Yeah, what could possibly go wrong?
- "...be able to place historical events within a chronology; to place the periods, events and changes they have studied within a chronological framework, and to understand some of the links between them."
How to negotiate? Guys learn that one sooner than girls. ("C'mon, baby. I'll tell you I love you if you have sex with me.") But girls do catch on. ("If you'll pay me the amount of alimony I'm asking for and give me the house and give me the car, I might think about sleeping with you again during this lifetime.")
- I found this one to be odd: "Less emphasis on the use of calculators than in the current curriculum." (OK, so they'll be sending in their English assignments that they researched on Wikipedia in 140 characters or less via Twitter and they'll be using their trusty abacus for math homework and carving their answers into a rock.)
This move "away from education" is perplexing to me. There are enough idiots out there who (technically) have been educated with a real curriculum. Can you imagine the dough heads that say, Flori-duh, for example, could churn out with a schedule like this? Look, I'm all for research skills and effective communication, but why Wikipedia? If you want to instill some web-based knowledge in their unmolded little brains, what say you start with Google? If you know how to use Google in the most effective and efficient way possible, you're going to be able to kick Wikipedia's ass with the (accurate) information that you'll be able to find. This plan does not thrill me and I'm a bit worried about the education system in general over there. (I'm also a bit worried that something like this will begin to take hold over here in the US. Sadly however, in some schools, teaching crap would be better than what they're currently teaching, which is nothing.)
It would seem that part of the rationale is that kids know about Wikipedia and Twitter and they don't know about World War II, so it's better to teach them about something they know. I thought the whole point of "teaching" something was so that people who didn't know about the subject would learn about it? But now, if they don't know about something then they are going to not be interested in learning about it at all? That seems...what's the word...oh yeah, effing ridiculous. (So it's two words. I misplaced my abacus when I was Twittering.) I hope that someone mentions this to Sir Jim Rose, but I don't know if they will because he's pretty darned scary looking over there. Yipes.
The article in The Guardian states that the "...reforms requiring schoolchildren to study Twitter and blogs would not apply in Wales. The changes would affect primary schools in England only." So there you have it. If you live in England, get your kids into school in Wales. You know, while I'm really curious as to how this is going to turn out, I have a hard time getting excited about social experiments where the end result could be of great detriment to society. Put that in your pipe and Twitter it.
And while you're at it, feel free to follow me on Twitter. (Dear God, I can't believe I just said that.) You can click on the link in the Twitter section of the sidebar over there on the right, or you can just go to the Twitter website and follow me under my Twitter name (can't believe I just said that either) OpusP. If you don't know what in the hell Twitter is, you're not alone. I still don't think I know what it is. Happy tweeting.Sphere: Related Content