Britain - The Official Thread

[Touring Mars]

The Sun... the same newspaper that devoted an entire blog to following the birth of the last royal baby.

I'm not surprised by The Sun making front page news out of such a cheap shot, nor by their breath-taking hypocrisy.

 

[Lizard]

What do you consider the minimum acceptable standard of education to be?

Well. What do you need to keep the country moving? Personally I think everyone should have the chance to work for a undergrad degree. Reasons being.

Firstly jobs are more tech based now, and thus we need a higher qualified population on average. Having loads of people in an out of date factory or farming isn't going to cut it in today's world.
Now to counter the obvious reply. People still take up the manual work even where tuition is free and you get plenty of money to live off etc.

Secondly. Education is one of the best ways to allow people to move up in the world. If people want to get a nice job etc uni can do that. Compare this to the past when it wasn't possible for a lot of people. Then people were often poor for life having no chance of getting out of it.



You yourself are highly educated if my memory serves. What if you were stopped from gaining this education by money or something else? You wouldn't enjoy the life you do now. You would just accept that would you?

 

[Peasantslayer]

Ze German has mit ze Nazi salute been exposed.

View attachment 412257

7 pages worth including the cover! The Queen was only 6 years old.

 

[Famine]

Well. What do you need to keep the country moving? Personally I think everyone should have the chance to

Not what I asked.

I asked what the minimum standard of education should be. What do you think is the barest minimum amount of education everyone in the country should have?

That needs to be established first - and your first sentence (or rather second) is closer to the mark, though it really answers why and not what.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Firstly jobs are more tech based now, and thus we need a higher qualified population on average. Having loads of people in an out of date factory or farming isn't going to cut it in today's world.

Secondly. Education is one of the best ways to allow people to move up in the world. If people want to get a nice job etc uni can do that. Compare this to the past when it wasn't possible for a lot of people. Then people were often poor for life having no chance of getting out of it.

You seem to be overlooking the massive area between "out of date factory or farming" and having a degree, like those are the only two choices.

My feeling is, to keep the country moving, we do not particularly need people educated to a higher standard than is potentially available now without going to Uni. The problem for me, and the one I believe is actually more responsible for the poverty/wealth divide you speak of, is the poor standard of basic education GCSE/A-level style education.

Within our company, the people we employ who are not going to budge from the £16,000-£18,000 a year pay bracket are the ones whose SPAG is poor, and can't be trusted to do basic maths without the aid of a calculator. We contribute a minimum of £6,000 a year (IIRC) to the employees that we have on foundation degree courses, and these people can potentially earn more in future... however... They are massively unlikely to ever get on to 'big' money within our company because we are relatively small, and though profitable, can't afford to pay people more than they are worth to the company simply because they might have a degree.

I don't have a degree, I don't even have particularly good A-level grades, persistence and hard-work has placed me as a Director and highest earner within the company, but the limitation for me is the same, my value to the company is only finite, it's currently only around £40k a year plus benefits, I am not rich by any means, but do you class this as poverty?

The people who are going to be poor for life aren't the ones without a degree, they're the ones that use text speak on job application forms.

 

[Famine]

The problem for me, and the one I believe is actually more responsible for the poverty/wealth divide you speak of, is the poor standard of basic education GCSE/A-level style education.

Which is an interesting comment in the context of my question to @haitch40 - what is the minimum level of education that everyone* needs?

A Bachelor's degree is a specialism, so it's not that. A-Levels are specialisms too, so it can't be that either. To an extent GCSEs are too, though there are core subjects treated as essential - and yet the standards required to attain a certificate of competence in those core, essential subjects are so low that employers are seeing huge swathes of people who are not competent. That suggests that not only are GCSEs not the minimum level of education that everyone* needs, they're not even taught or assessed to a level where they'd provide it if they were - at least in state schools, which is its own argument.


So the question I posed to @haitch40 remains of what is the minimum level of education that everyone* needs - his "What do you need to keep the country moving?".


*Save those who have limitations that prevent them from learning and necessitate their dependence on someone else

 

[TenEightyOne]

Which is an interesting comment in the context of my question to @haitch40 - what is the minimum level of education that everyone* needs?

"Needs" is employment-dependent, but I think the minimum that everybody should have is a competency in electronic document manipulation, a competent standard in reading and oration, a competent standard in criticism and a developed understanding of cultures, lifestyles and geography.

If it was up to me there'd be no curriculum other than play, music, singing and craft until about 8 years of age... there's a proper core right there

 

[prisonermonkeys]

"Needs" is employment-dependent, but I think the minimum that everybody should have is a competency in electronic document manipulation, a competent standard in reading and oration, a competent standard in criticism and a developed understanding of cultures, lifestyles and geography.

Is that you, Ron Dennis?

 

[Famine]

"Needs" is employment-dependent,

That would be a specialism. Anything that you do because you want to do a certain career (or don't) is a specialism through choice, not a necessity. The minimum standard for everyone would be a baseline of education that every single person in the UK should have, individual limitations aside.

I think the minimum that everybody should have is a competency in electronic document manipulation, a competent standard in reading and oration, a competent standard in criticism and a developed understanding of cultures, lifestyles and geography.

So no mathematics in there? No science?

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Everyone should be able to think critically and be open to new ideas, as well as being able to accept that they are wrong. They should be able to do it in a way that follows basic reason and logic but still considers emotional influences. That is what education should be striving for rather than focusing on competency in certain subjects. If you teach someone a subject, they will remember it and use it for the rest of their life. If you teach someone to learn, they will learn about everything they want or need to for the rest of their life.

 

[TenEightyOne]

That would be a specialism. Anything that you do because you want to do a certain career (or don't) is a specialism through choice, not a necessity. The minimum standard for everyone would be a baseline of education that every single person in the UK should have, individual limitations aside.

So no mathematics in there? No science?

No pure mathematics or science, no. They're not applicable to many people after they leave school and should, I believe, form part of "specialisms" through elective education. Having a far more musical curriculum than we do now (a natural human competency) takes care of much of the brain processes that we currently try to SAT through a pure maths curriculum. Children can attain good numeracy in their early years with the correct approach, sadly I don't feel that the Nat Curric approach gets anywhere near satisfying that.

The same is true of "science", the ideas that I believe you refer to are mental conservation, interrogation of properties, testing of hypotheses, creation of theories. Again, that's all do-able with the correct early approach rather than very late in a person's educational life (say 10 or 11 years of age).

 

[Dotini]

As civilization blossoms into a golden age of artificial intelligence, robotics, advanced economic engineering and productivity, there will be little need for all but a tiny handful to acquire education in the trades, business, agriculture, technical industries or sciences. At last, liberated from want, bequeathed with the full range of human rights, people will be free to pursue music, dance, crafts, philosophy, literature and poetry. Maybe some sports. Accordingly, education should be entirely optional, and a la carte, up to the choice of each individual.

 

[polysmut]

Everyone should be able to think critically and be open to new ideas, as well as being able to accept that they are wrong. They should be able to do it in a way that follows basic reason and logic but still considers emotional influences. That is what education should be striving for rather than focusing on competency in certain subjects. If you teach someone a subject, they will remember it and use it for the rest of their life. If you teach someone to learn, they will learn about everything they want or need to for the rest of their life.

That is something I only realised after leaving formal education. So it seems like a failure in the system that I wasn't taught that.

No pure mathematics or science, no. They're not applicable to many people after they leave school and should, I believe, form part of "specialisms" through elective education. Having a far more musical curriculum than we do now (a natural human competency) takes care of much of the brain processes that we currently try to SAT through a pure maths curriculum. Children can attain good numeracy in their early years with the correct approach, sadly I don't feel that the Nat Curric approach gets anywhere near satisfying that.

The same is true of "science", the ideas that I believe you refer to are mental conservation, interrogation of properties, testing of hypotheses, creation of theories. Again, that's all do-able with the correct early approach rather than very late in a person's educational life (say 10 or 11 years of age).

If everybody is taught a wide range of subjects in early life, some will go on to specialise. If you are left to find your own specialty, without getting a start in some fundamentals, you might never find it. A great mathematician or scientist or specialist in some other area might not go on to make a discovery that they would make if they were following a path that, in your system, they never thought to follow. Humanity could be worse off as a result.
I think you are saying that people will still learn all the things they need but would there not be a lot of missed opportunities?

 

[Beeblebrox237]

No maths and sciences? How silly.

 

[TenEightyOne]

No maths and sciences? How silly.

Not quite, only as part of other subjects, no non-elective maths/science core lessons after the end of the "free" curriculum at around 9/10 years old. There's plenty of science and maths rolled up in creative discovery before that time.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Not quite, only as part of other subjects, no non-elective maths/science core lessons after the end of the "free" curriculum at around 9/10 years old. There's plenty of science and maths rolled up in creative discovery before that time.

Creative discovery? Really? So you're just going to creatively discover the scientific method or F=MA?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Creative discovery? Really? So you're just going to creatively discover the scientific method or F=MA?

Haha, what? You'd learn that in science... no?

 

[Famine]

No pure mathematics or science, no. They're not applicable to many people after they leave school and should, I believe, form part of "specialisms" through elective education.

Mathematics is applicable on a daily basis in almost everything we do. Unless you plan on being paid with The Concept of Ennui and do all your shopping in exchange for your dance interpretation of The Harrowing of the North, you'll be using money. Hell, even bartering involves exchange "n" shiny beads for "x" horses. It's very useful when supermarkets have offers on that turn out - with a moment's divison - not to be offers at all.

As for the sciences, do you not think that some grounding in human biology is a decent baseline for healthcare? Should people not know health risks, warning signs (like breast and testicular cancer), why not vaccinating your children is moronic, how to not have children or that raping a virgin isn't a cure for AIDS?


If you think that the goal of educating children is to allow them to function in society and not diminish it, mathematics and biology - at least anatomy - are very important indeed.

Having a far more musical curriculum than we do now (a natural human competency)

It may be a natural human competency (though not if you've ever watched any X Factor), but musical theory is a very academic subject. If not the theory of music, then what? Genres? How to play an instrument?

I think you'd struggle to teach a baseline of "music" to everyone.

The same is true of "science", the ideas that I believe you refer to are mental conservation, interrogation of properties, testing of hypotheses, creation of theories. Again, that's all do-able with the correct early approach rather than very late in a person's educational life (say 10 or 11 years of age).

Well, I was under the impression that we were talking about what the basic minimum educational standard should be without any age limitations.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Mathematics is applicable on a daily basis in almost everything we do. Unless you plan on being paid with The Concept of Ennui and do all your shopping in exchange for your dance interpretation of The Harrowing of the North, you'll be using money. Hell, even bartering involves exchange "n" shiny beads for "x" horses. It's very useful when supermarkets have offers on that turn out - with a moment's divison - not to be offers at all.

As for the sciences, do you not think that some grounding in human biology is a decent baseline for healthcare? Should people not know health risks, warning signs (like breast and testicular cancer), why not vaccinating your children is moronic, how to not have children or that raping a virgin isn't a cure for AIDS?

If you think that the goal of educating children is to allow them to function in society and not diminish it, mathematics and biology - at least anatomy - are very important indeed.

Absolutely, but alternate curricula (I'm thinking particularly of Montessori) give a rounded grounding for high elective attainment. That's the kind of baseline that is more than adequate in my opinion.

I think you'd struggle to teach a baseline of "music" to everyone.

I wholeheartedly disagree, that's an adult's way of thinking, or so I very often find.

Well, I was under the impression that we were talking about what the basic minimum educational standard should be without any age limitations.

That's a fair point but I'd stress that in a good and completely alternative curriculum the minimum standard for adulthood can be reached early.

If you're asking how that baseline can be achieved in the mainstream system as it stands today I'd say it can't for all pupils, it's too selective and too broken.

More widely I stand by what I said earlier;

...everybody should have is a competency in electronic document manipulation, a competent standard in reading and oration, a competent standard in criticism and a developed understanding of cultures, lifestyles and geography.

If it was up to me there'd be no curriculum other than play, music, singing and craft until about 8 years of age... there's a proper core right there

 

[Famine]

Absolutely, but alternate curricula (I'm thinking particularly of Montessori) give a rounded grounding for high elective attainment. That's the kind of baseline that is more than adequate in my opinion.

Alternative to what? I'm asking what the basic minimum standard of education should be for everyone.

I wholeheartedly disagree, that's an adult's way of thinking, or so I very often find.

You didn't answer what aspect of music you want teaching - nor why it's so useful to have all adults show knowledge of that aspect to qualify it as basic minimum standard of eduction.

If it's music theory... Music theory is hard, technical, complicated and I haven't used it a single day in 20 years. Sure, it was useful for me while I played my choice of musical instrument at school, the National Festival of Music for Youth final and (my choice of) university, but since then, nada.

If it's an instrument, what instrument should everyone be able to play (anything but the poxy recorder) and why? Where does being able to blow one's own trumpet fit into the minimum standard of education for everyone?

That's a fair point but I'd stress that in a good and completely alternative curriculum the minimum standard for adulthood can be reached early.

Alternative to what? I'm asking what the basic minimum standard of education should be for everyone.

If you're asking how that baseline can be achieved in the mainstream system as it stands today I'd say it can't for all pupils, it's too selective and too broken.

You'll note that I haven't said anything about the mainstream system as it stands today.

More widely I stand by what I said earlier;

If it was up to me there'd be no curriculum other than play, music, singing and craft until about 8 years of age... there's a proper core right there

It is up to you. The question is, literally, what the basic minimum standard of education should be for everyone. If you think that's a set curriculum that involves no numeracy or literacy up to age 8, that classes as part of your basic minimum standard.

@haitch40 partially answered the question for his own ideal of "What do you need to keep the country moving?". I'd agree, but I'd extend it to "What does everyone need in order to function in the daily world to neither its detriment nor theirs"...

 

[TenEightyOne]

Alternative to what? I'm asking what the basic minimum standard of education should be for everyone.You didn't answer what aspect of music you want teaching - nor why it's so useful to have all adults show knowledge of that aspect to qualify it as basic minimum standard of eduction.

Again you're looking at a pure subject; I'm not advocating Grade V theory as a part of the basic curriculum for sure. However, confidence in singing, rhythm making and instrumental experimentation leads in to all kinds of experiences and understandings of people, of the world, of teamwork, of history, of geography and of science. Many children left to their own devices with instruments will learn to play one or more of them to a surprisingly good standard (anecdotal from my own experience).

None of those aspects are pure as a subject. The same is true of making, breaking, mending, building, messing, tasting, hearing, pushing, touching experiences through play.

Through that type of early learning experience people will all reach at least a basic minimum standard where they can read, write and talk confidently and where they can use different methods to process number problems. They should be able to express themselves without fear, they should be understanding of others. Most of all they shouldn't ever be scared that they might fail at something - in fact they should try to attain failure in order to have confidence to learn.

Those basic skills give people the ability to continue to learn about the thing that interests them - the idea of a common skill-set for people at the beginning of working age is, to me, a ridiculous one. They should have attained a common skill-set for learning long before that.

 

[Famine]

Again you're looking at a pure subject

Except for the part where I've twice asked you what part of music you're talking about. I even asked you in that bit that you quoted:

You didn't answer what aspect of music you want teaching - nor why it's so useful to have all adults show knowledge of that aspect to qualify it as basic minimum standard of eduction.

I'm not advocating Grade V theory as a part of the basic curriculum for sure.

Okay, so we bin music theory.

However, confidence in singing, rhythm making and instrumental experimentation leads in to all kinds of experiences and understandings of people, of the world, of teamwork, of history, of geography and of science.

That doesn't seem to be a particularly well thought out "minimum standard of education". That seems to be simply letting people play instruments and then learning other things independently.

Many children left to their own devices with instruments will learn to play one or more of them to a surprisingly good standard (anecdotal from my own experience).

As above.

While "many" may learn to play something by ear, some won't. I'm also not wholly sure what number will do their own independent learning and in what topics. That's not a minimum standard for everyone, it's a hopefully beneficial for some. It's a nice opportunity to have, but it's not something that will be of benefit everyone in order to qualify it as something that must be taught.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Except for the part where I've twice asked you what part of music you're talking about.

Apologies; simply making music of any kind is beneficial, of particular benefit are

singing, rhythm making and instrumental experimentation

Doing those things inspires and engenders a number of important qualities.

That doesn't seem to be a particularly well thought out "minimum standard of education". That seems to be simply letting people play instruments and then learning other things independently.

Yes, just about completely. I'm only advocating music as a part of a free curriculum, not as a whole solution. Preparation for independent learning is key. I'm aware that you didn't ask for comparisons of the current UK system but I feel that a comparison is important; currently we don't teach young people to learn and consequently they have little overall interest in learning. We teach them to regurgitate facts.We measure the quantity and subjective quality of the regurgitation with little consideration for how each person is able to use those facts or how they might be able to improve upon their understanding of them.

Naturally some students will work hard at elective disciplines but, as we often see now, those disciplines hold little merit for employers in the real job market.

While "many" may learn to play something by ear, some won't.

If the ears work then they will learn to play by ear. Small children are far better at playing by ear than older children - it's my opinion based on many observations that this is not a biological deficit in older children. I'll stress again though; a musical curriculum doesn't form the breadth of my proposition.

I'm also not wholly sure what number will do their own independent learning and in what topics.

I think a much larger number than you expect will learn without even necessarily realising that's what they're doing - the formalities of WALT and WILF would have no place in their consciousnesses. The topics? In the whole curriculum, whatever they like, I can think of no topics where full exploration doesn't include a better-than-minimum level of core numeracy, literacy or criticism.

That's not a minimum standard for everyone, it's a hopefully beneficial for some.

There are many "alternative" systems that do very well, very often they do better than conventional state systems. Montessori (admittedly a mix of free learning and routine curricula) does very well indeed. Against the current systems I believe that a version of what I propose would be beneficial for many more, I also believe that it would genuinely provide every single person with the potential to reach a minimum standard and to far exceed it.

It's a nice opportunity to have, but it's not something that will be of benefit everyone in order to qualify it as something that must be taught.

I'd reverse the last sentence and say that the minimum skills are something that must be learnt. I feel that you allude to the conventional UK system when you say "must be taught". Must be learnt, not always the same thing. Sure, that zone of proximal development is enhanced by enhancing educators but that doesn't mean we need a list of must-be-taughts.

 

[Famine]

I think you're greatly overegging the pudding of exactly what most kids would get out of making noises and being encouraged to independently investigate music. Nevertheless:

I'm only advocating music as a part of a free curriculum, not as a whole solution.

Then it's not really an answer to the question "What is the minimum level of education that everyone* needs?".

Which is the question I asked. Not how to achieve it. What is it?

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Haha, what? You'd learn that in science... no?

I didn't until the age of 16.

 

[MatskiMonk]

There are certain subjects that teach knowledge, there are others that impart an ability... for instance, History, or Geography - these are subjects that will teach you facts... that most will forget if they do not use them regularly... subjects like English Language (as it was called when I was at school), and Maths, develop an ability to handle something that is put before you, even if the content of what's put before you is not something you've learned.

The latter is the most important as far as I'm concerned, and though I wouldn't want to overlook the importance of the other subjects, this I feel is the the most important.. so the question of what is the minimum standard becomes picking an arbitrary percentage of times that someone has to get questions right based on this ability.

Kids should also be taught not to drink a bottle of wine whilst cooking and then a four pack of San Miguel whilst eating and then explaining their ideas on education on the internet whilst slightly tipsy.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Kids should also be taught not to drink a bottle of wine whilst cooking and then a four pack of San Miguel whilst eating and then explaining their ideas on education on the internet whilst slightly tipsy.

Interesting... aimed at me? I no longer drink and I've taught a lot of kids but can no longer count myself as one. I wish I could, sometimes, to both.

What is the minimum level of education that everyone* needs?

In the UK it's literally a C at GCSE level in English, Maths and Science. You know that so I presumed you were asking about minimum ability. That isn't achievable for some students in the system that funnels to GCSEs.

I'd repeat that the minimum for every student leaving education should be

...a competency in electronic document manipulation, a competent standard in reading and oration, a competent standard in criticism and a developed understanding of cultures, lifestyles and geography.

I think you're greatly overegging the pudding of exactly what most kids would get out of making noises and being encouraged to independently investigate music.

With respect and from experience I continue to disagree with that. I wouldn't say that I'd envisage complete independence and autonomy, that ZPD needs to remain. Qualified oversight would be required, I'm not recommending a Lord of the Flies approach.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Interesting... aimed at me?

Only if you have the same Saturday night habits as me

 

[Famine]

In the UK it's literally a C at GCSE level in English, Maths and Science.

Yet many students don't achieve that - so that's not true. And even when they do, as @MatskiMonk pointed out a few hours ago, they're often not competent - so it still isn't:

A Bachelor's degree is a specialism, so it's not that. A-Levels are specialisms too, so it can't be that either. To an extent GCSEs are too, though there are core subjects treated as essential - and yet the standards required to attain a certificate of competence in those core, essential subjects are so low that employers are seeing huge swathes of people who are not competent. That suggests that not only are GCSEs not the minimum level of education that everyone* needs, they're not even taught or assessed to a level where they'd provide it if they were - at least in state schools, which is its own argument.


So the question I posed to @haitch40 remains of what is the minimum level of education that everyone* needs - his "What do you need to keep the country moving?".

You know that so I presumed you were asking about minimum ability. That isn't achievable for some students in the system that funnels to GCSEs.

I'd repeat that the minimum for every student leaving education should be

Then I'll repeat the questions I asked in response to that:

Mathematics is applicable on a daily basis in almost everything we do. Unless you plan on being paid with The Concept of Ennui and do all your shopping in exchange for your dance interpretation of The Harrowing of the North, you'll be using money. Hell, even bartering involves exchange "n" shiny beads for "x" horses. It's very useful when supermarkets have offers on that turn out - with a moment's divison - not to be offers at all.

As for the sciences, do you not think that some grounding in human biology is a decent baseline for healthcare? Should people not know health risks, warning signs (like breast and testicular cancer), why not vaccinating your children is moronic, how to not have children or that raping a virgin isn't a cure for AIDS?


If you think that the goal of educating children is to allow them to function in society and not diminish it, mathematics and biology - at least anatomy - are very important indeed.

With respect and from experience I continue to disagree with that. I wouldn't say that I'd envisage complete independence and autonomy, that ZPD needs to remain. Qualified oversight would be required, I'm not recommending a Lord of the Flies approach.

From my experience both as a student in state and private schools and as "a responsible adult" in state and private schools and as someone who studied a musical instrument, no. Kids are not interested in musicality - and many aren't really interested in music any more either.


But it's still not an answer to the question "What is the minimum level of education that everyone* needs?".

Oddly, even though I was giving him a bit of a hard time, @haitch40 has actually provided the best (if a little unspecific) answer of:

What do you need to keep the country moving?

As I said, I agree in part, but I'd expand it to:

"What does everyone need in order to function in the daily world to neither its detriment nor theirs"...

That could be a very short list or a very long one, but some aspects of mathematics, human anatomy and English language should be included, along with critical thinking and rationality.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Yet many students don't achieve that - so that's not true. And even when they do, as @MatskiMonk pointed out a few hours ago, they're often not competent - so it still isn't:

I'm painfully aware that I'm now splitting hairs in the way you hate but that comment goes to the heart of my point; students in the current system don't achieve to the level that the system calls "the minimum". I quite agree with @MatskiMonk that those curricular competencies, even when achieved, are not always appropriate.

From my experience both as a student in state and private schools and as "a responsible adult" in state and private schools and as someone who studied a musical instrument, no. Kids are not interested in musicality

It depends on the age, after 6 the innate abilities (which we call "talent" when preserved in older children) will have very much faded, rather like the innate human aptitude for foreign languages.

and many aren't really interested in music any more either.

Which I think illustrates my point that an interest exists. I'd reinforce my statement that it's an innate interest. Music is something we just do, like language.

But it's still not an answer to the question "What is the minimum level of education that everyone* needs?"

I think I've stated that several times so clearly I'm wide of the mark when anticipating your expectation. I've stated the abilities that I think form the minimum and I've explained that I don't think the current system gives a framework for either providing or measuring that minimum.

That could be a very short list or a very long one, but some aspects of mathematics, human anatomy and English language should be included, along with critical thinking and rationality.

I completely agree. When I said "a competency in electronic document manipulation, a competent standard in reading and oration, a competent standard in criticism and a developed understanding of cultures, lifestyles and geography" I think I'd covered all your points except Human Anatomy. That's one I wish I'd included