UK National curriculum review: children to learn facts and figures in subject shake-up

Daily Telegraph ^ | Jan 20, 2011 | Graeme Paton, Education Writer

[Cincinatus' Wife]

A major review of school subjects…..is expected to lead to a focus on the essential knowledge pupils should grasp at each key stage of their education.

The move is intended to reverse more than a decade of dumbing down of primary and secondary school subjects in favour of trendy skills-based lessons and “cross-curricular themes”.

Launching the review, the Coalition said the last Government stripped vital content from the national curriculum, leaving pupils with a poor understanding of English literature, maths, science, foreign languages, history and geography.

….Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, said “profound mistakes” made with the curriculum by Labour led to England plummeting in international league tables……..

"The existing national curriculum embodies poverty of aspiration."

…. teachers’ leaders accused ministers of advocating a return to the “public school curriculum they were taught over 25 years ago”

Mary Bousted, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, said: “All students need a broad and balanced curriculum to give them a mix of academic, creative, practical and social skills to fit them for life in the fast moving world of the 21st century.

“The subjects and skills taught in schools should not be based on ministers’ pet interests.”

….Today, the Government will unveil a panel of senior head teachers and academics that will carry out a wholesale review of the framework…..

The panel will also include Bernice McCabe, headmistress of the fee-paying North London Collegiate School, who has been hugely critical of the recent shift away from traditional subjects in favour of lifestyle lessons and skills-based teaching.

....Mr Gove has also called for proper mental arithmetic, algebra by the age of 11 and a greater focus on foreign languages....

[Cincinatus' Wife]

They're reclaiming education.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

But...... teachers condemn 'elitist' reforms "....They insisted that a renewed focus on detailed subject knowledge was “elitist” and would alienate thousands of children, particularly those from the poorest backgrounds...."

[Berlin_Freeper]

They went so far with dumbing down that now they will find a new way with dumbing up.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Curriculum must educate not indoctrinate.

This entire idea that learning basic knowledge leaves poor people behind is smoke and mirrors garbage but necessary to disguise what’s really going on.

The “MY CHILD IS AN HONOR STUDENT” bumper sticker is a teachers’ union’s ploy to keep parents stupid about how much their kids really don’t know.

[exDemMom]

Launching the review, the Coalition said the last Government stripped vital content from the national curriculum, leaving pupils with a poor understanding of English literature, maths, science, foreign languages, history and geography.

They could start with teaching British kids the proper way to spell "math." (That's just one thing about British English I find truly annoying. Another is the omission of the article with the word "hospital"--as in, "going to hospital" instead of "going to THE hospital.")

[exDemMom]

But...... teachers condemn 'elitist' reforms "....They insisted that a renewed focus on detailed subject knowledge was “elitist” and would alienate thousands of children, particularly those from the poorest backgrounds...."

If they're required to teach the poorest kids basic academic knowledge, those kids just might find a way to climb out of poverty (like I did). We can't have THAT now, can we?

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Yes. You can’t keep growing your ranks and sucking every available (or borrowed) penny from the public if you routinely turn out an educated, contributing, respectful citizen.

When everything is going to hell in a hand basket, you can cry for more teachers, more money and more social engineering.

Long past time to return to the basics.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

“It’s as if Michael Gove were reading my mind. Every time he does something, I leap for joy! All those years I used to wish… all those years I was desperate for something to be done. I genuinely had no idea it was because the wrong people were in power. I just thought “the Government” didn’t know what was going on in our schools, and if I could just tell them, they could fix it. So I wrote an anonymous book, hoping that this might make them see. What I didn’t understand was that some people will never see, no matter how much you try to open their eyes. But then Michael Gove came along, took over the reigns and finally is trying to fix our broken education system......”

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/katharinebirbalsingh/100072693/state-school-teachers-are-trapped-in-the-wreckage-of-a-broken-education-system/

[Graybeard58]

Those things you mentioned annoy me too, plus many others. It’s their form of English however and I suppose they are to be allowed to bastardize it, any way they choose.

It’s not as if we don’t do it too.

[Mitch86]

My dear, if we were to enter in for a tit-for-tat address of every corruption to the language hoisted on to the world by your country, we would be here a very long time.

But as it goes, if the subject were known as Mathematic, I could see a point for it to be reduced to Math. However it is Mathematics, and, thus, Maths.

[SeeSac]

They could start with teaching British kids the proper way to spell "math."

Interesting. They probably say over there that Americans do not know how to spell maths.

[Timocrat]

They could start with teaching British kids the proper way to spell "math." (That's just one thing about British English I find truly annoying. Another is the omission of the article with the word "hospital"--as in, "going to hospital" instead of "going to THE hospital.")

Mathematics, of which Math(s) is an abbreviation, is a plural noun keeping the noun in its plural form is actually more logical.

If you intend to participate in a religious ceremony on any particular Sunday do you say "I'm going to the Church on Sunday" or " I'm going to Church on Sunday"?

US and UK, two nations seperated by the same language.

[Barney.Wanish]

This is my first post. I’m neither English or American. I’m a retired Irishman living in Ireland. I was not a teacher.
Now I would like to write about the subject of a new School Curriculum.
Why do we have schools?
Are they to provide jobs for teachers?
Are they to prepare children for later life?

I think they are there to prepare children for later life.
The vocal word came before the written word. The written word is just a record of vocal words or of one’s thoughts. So the written word should be as close to the sounds that emanate from the mouth as possible.

Which of these subjects will prepare a child for future life:
1. How and what is best to eat to avoid illness and have a healthy life. How to prepare such food.
2. How to look after your body by exercise and avoiding poisons like salt, sugar and saturated fat.
3.The Three Rs.

Which subject would you have preferred to learn?
1. Ancient Greek or how to get the best out of a job interview.
2.Trigonometry or how to fill out an income tax form.
3.Advanced maths or how to get on with people.
etc.
I could write many more fundamental choices. What I am basically saying is : It is easier for teachers to assess Maths results/Language results than to assess the subjects essential for modern life. This is not a good excuse for teaching children subjects which may never affect their adult lives

[exDemMom]

Mathematics, of which Math(s) is an abbreviation, is a plural noun keeping the noun in its plural form is actually more logical.

First of all, the "s" ending does not necessarily denote a plural, nor does lack of it denote a singular. Using the linguistic definition of mass nouns vs. count nouns, I have always thought of "mathematics" as belonging in the mass noun category, if anything. That is completely consistent with the grammar used to denote other subjects taught in school: English grammar (not grammars), composition, biology, geometry, physics (not a plural, either), physical education, art, etc. Therefore, to add an "s" to the end of "math" to make the abbreviation plural when the full word fits better grammatically into the mass category of nouns is incorrect.

If you intend to participate in a religious ceremony on any particular Sunday do you say "I'm going to the Church on Sunday" or " I'm going to Church on Sunday"?

I go to THE store. I go to THE amusement park. I go to THE DMV. Etc. "I go to church" without an article to me denotes that I am going to participate in the actions taking place at the church building. I might also go to choir practice. Or go to class. All of those imply specific activities. If I am not going to attend a religious service, I'll say "I'm going to THE church." What kind of activity does "I'm going to hospital" imply that I'm participating in?

[Timocrat]

Therefore, to add an "s" to the end of "math" to make the abbreviation plural when the full word fits better grammatically into the mass category of nouns is incorrect.

In which case I suggest you inform Merriam-Webster and the Oxford English Dictionary as they are both under the (Ahem) mistaken impression that it is a plural noun.

What kind of activity does "I'm going to hospital" imply that I'm participating in?

Just as going to church implies that you are going for spiritual renewal going to hospital implies you are going for some serious physical renewal.

[exDemMom]

In which case I suggest you inform Merriam-Webster and the Oxford English Dictionary as they are both under the (Ahem) mistaken impression that it is a plural noun.

Then why don't we study "biologies"? Or "chemistries"? Mathematics is a subject, as are chemistry and biology. They all occupy the same place in the language. (And wouldn't it sound funny to say "Mathematics are a subject"?)

World English Dictionary mathematics (ˌmæθəˈmætɪks, ˌmæθˈmæt-)

—n 1. (functioning as singular) a group of related sciences, including algebra, geometry, and calculus, concerned with the study of number, quantity, shape, and space and their interrelationships by using a specialized notation

2. (functioning as singular or plural) mathematical operations and processes involved in the solution of a problem or study of some scientific field

[C14: mathematik (n), via Latin from Greek (adj), from mathēma a science, mathēmatikos (adj); related to manthanein to learn]

Note that the original word in Greek has an "s" ending.

[Winniesboy]

While your etymology is impeccable, I suggest that it's of limited relevance to colloquial, conventional abbreviations such as those under discussion. I know of no system of grammar, however prescriptive in other respects, which applies rules to such conventions, the nature of which is to evolve through local custom and usage. It would be possible to imagine yet another version, let's call it 'mathics', becoming established in another anglophone region. Were that to happen, it would be neither more nor less 'correct' than either 'maths' or 'math'.

Your other example, 'going to hospital', is not in common use here in England, or at least not in exactly that form. If we were going to visit a patient, we would say, as I imagine would you, 'I'm going to the hospital....'. If, however, I was to be admitted as a patient myself, I would say 'I'm going into hospital', rather than 'to hospital'. There are other similar usages in which the article is conventionally omitted after 'into'. For instance, I would say 'I'm going into town to do some shopping', not 'going into the town'.