http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...football-clubs-to-help-run-state-schools.html Kind of a crossover between football and politics, but an interesting point nonetheless. Michael Gove has said that Premiee League clubs should run, or assist in the running of state schools. Your thoughts? DTLW
For once someone on this message board has got something spot on. The idiot Gove thinks he is PM material and has his advisors come up with a new headline grabbing idea every week in order to promote him when what he and they should be doing is running our education system. Keep your eyes and ears open for his next stupid idea which should come along in seven days time.
Our education system is not fit for purpose and indeed most of the worlds education system is not fit for purpose for a large proportion of children. That's especially true the older a child gets and when their talents and motivations do not fit a single model. The free schools system could be seen as a gamble, but it will produce innovative ideas in the education sector and hopefully better quality and choice for parents and children. I see no harm in a football club being associated with a free school and it seems clear that the one described in the article is a school aimed (slightly generalising) at young boys who struggle with heavy academic subjects and whose skill sets are more practical. If it motivates young kids to attend school and leave with meaningful qualifications ready for working life then i'm all for it.
People always blame the education system, but the fact is most kids nowadays are much smarter than the previous generation. It's not the educational system that's teaching children that evolution never happens, or coming up with complex reasons why global warming isn't happening. Most parents couldn't pass a high school science or math course and the politicians are even worse. How do you expect the kids to learn calculus when you can't even do algebra?
I would believe that if they could punctuate, spell and follow the rules of grammar. Don't be fooled into thinking that an academic education is what makes you smart. Some of the cleverest people I have known have been nowhere near a University.
Children don't get smarter with each generation. They know a lot about some things, but their general ignorance is jaw dropping. That will only get worse as they will have to spend more time on increasingly complicated technology...and remember, the children of today will appear just as ignorant about modern technology when they are fifty as many of us do. The thing I find sad is the lack of interest of so many of the young in anything but technology (phones, games etc). I am almost the polar opposite...have little interest in technology (other than when it useful to me), but am interested in just about everything else. I call it 'having a soul'.
This is a stupid idea. And sorry to our senior members, but on average people get smarter all the time. Whatever you might believe, standards of education have improved and people have access to much more information than they used to.
Being able to access information and being able to make use of it are two very different things. I sit down and watch University Challenge every Monday evening and on average I get about ten to fifteen questions right and my knowledge has been acquired through study, reading and experience. As I said earlier being able to Google an answer doesn't make you clever. It is my personal opinion that we oldies have probably received a better all round education than many young people today. I had to study French and German at school with no opting out because it was hard. Pure and applied maths and all three sciences were compulsory with at least two hours of homework every evening and we were expected to read two novels a week. I can more than hold my own with my very clever daughters and granddaughters so please none of this trying to portray us oldies as not being very bright.
Knowing more isn't getting smarter. Intelligence is genetic...whether you achieve your potential is down to life and education. Good education and teachers can help a child achieve their potential, but that potential is set at birth. It is now suspected that intelligence is increased by a good placenta during gestation...this increases oxygen and nutrients to the developing brain. This means that the level of intelligence is related more to the intelligence of the mother (and quality of placenta which is inherited)and not the father...therefore men should choose the mothers of their children carefully. There may also be a link with the interest in knowledge and education that an intelligent mother may impart to their offspring. Even before I read all that recently, I had observed during life that self made men who had been successful and risen above their family didn't necessarily have intelligent children. It was a casual observation which makes sense in light of recent discoveries. Of course theories change all the time...may be disproved in the future.
One thing we do have to remember, Godders, is that we have accumulated knowledge over the years. It is hard to work out how much we knew when we were 18 and how much we have learnt since then. I have met university students doing work during the long vac and have written them off as not very bright. It is possible that we appeared ignorant to the oldies in our young days. As a science graduate, I was below par on history and geography...I have learnt a lot more in the last decade because I have developed a real interest.
I have to disagree with the people nay saying this. It's factually true that kids are getting smarter as IQ measurements drift upwards over time. As I'm sure you'll disbelieve me, have a look at the "Flynn Effect". However, smartness and education are very far from each other. Smartness is the bricks, mortar and woodwork. Education determines what's built from the raw materials. My kids are at private school. They are being educated by dedicated, interested and capable teachers. The school's fabric and "facilities" are terrible but I care not a bit as the education is wonderful. The tragedy, the tragedy so awful that I implore you to read the next phrase twice, is that the fees we pay are almost exactly the amount the government pays per child in the state system for significantly worse results. That is disgraceful. If a private school can offer that quality of education for a given amoutn, why can't the state? Vin PS. When I say same amount, it was within £100 last time I looked, so easily within a couple of percent.
We have to be careful about using IQ as a measurement of intelligence on its own as it is difficult to devise a test that isn't biased towards one group. For instance in an extreme case, you couldn't expect a Bushman to even understand what is required in tests designed for Europeans...wouldn't tell you a lot about their IQ. Intelligence doesn't change, just the ability to understand and take tests. If I could have afforded it I would have put my son through private education as he was said to be very bright when young but he lost his way. He's done alright in life, but he regrets not working at school. Not working isn't tolerated at private schools. In defence of ordinary schools, they have to cope with a wide range of abilities and behaviour.
Government passing the buck/deflecting attention away from their own failings. "Oh, Prem football clubs have lots of money, lets exploit that, plus it's an easy stick to get the media to beat" Not aware of Gove encouraging his chums in the city to help fund schools. That money only ever flows one way, deeper into their own pockets whilst the Govt turn a blind eye and take their backhander.
Indeed; that will be some of the difference but not all of it. Academies are getting better results than local government run schools despite having no selection. A large part of it is that the govenment money goes through the Department of Education through the local govenment education department to the school. My cash goes to the school. Academies get their money directly as well. However, it's not just money, it's also an attitude. When Moss Side school became an academy they had over 50% truancy rate in the GCSE year. They cut it to 2% within a month. How? They had all the teachers stand by the entrance gates and say hello to the kids by name as they arrived at the school - no-one had previously shown any interest in whether they attended and the kids responded. Didn't cost a single penny. Vin
Probably not true that it's caused by increased familiarity with the tests - long explanation but it seems to be reasonably clear. And the bushman may not score the same as the European but if their scores (however low) drift upwards, something's happening. However, exposure to infectious diseases may be a significant factor so the Bushman may we waiting a while for his kids to experience the increase enjoyed in the richer world. Vin
