UKIP Launches New Education Policy

BASILDON BOY · 14-08-2006, 12:48 AM

Its becasue they are taught languages at the same time as learning thier native tongue

John Page · 14-08-2006, 07:20 AM

I've pulled some of these points together in my blog.

----------
http://thepurplescorpion.blogspot.com/

SponPlague · 14-08-2006, 08:58 AM

Research has shown, I belive, that up to the age of around 8 it is fairly easy for kids to learn another tongue.

Our problem is that historically we don't start second languages until senior school, when it is too late...

Clippo · 14-08-2006, 09:34 AM

I read through the document and re: languages & I thought it said this:-

All teaching must be done in English, with the exception in the areas where Gaelic & Welsh are the natural mother tongue and of course in foreign language lessons.
Pupils whose knowledge of English is minimal, (i.e. implying immigrants) will be given extra English tuition.

As to stipulating a necessity for a second language, I can't remember but that may be implicit by the end of the last paragraph. Sorry, I haven't the will or stamina to re-read the document to pin these quotes down exactly.

Clippo · 14-08-2006, 10:13 AM

Just searched quickly for my comments in previous posts and they're on bottom of P.7.
I also couldn't find anything about a stipulation to learn a second language. Logically, it should have been in the 'Reform of National Curriculum, p.13 but it isn't.
For the record I agree that at least 1 foreign language should be compulsory.

In respect of this section, they say that

1. Sex, Health & social engineering education will be abolished -
I agree with this in it's current form but strongly urge it should be replaced by teaching by e.g. Police, Health professionals, drug specialists, first aid specialists (maybe even Health & safety) etc.. in those specialist areas. Possibly back this up with compulsory say 3 month placements in any or several of these public services.

2. Religious studies will become optional -
As an atheist I don't have a problem with that but I think Comparative Religious studies, (maybe compulsory even), would be better to 'understand the other person's point of view'.

3. A single general science GCSE will be abolished and replaced by a GCSE in at least one science from Chemistry, Physics or Biology.
As a scientist I realise that I'm biased but I am disappointed by this half-hearted approach to Science Education. I have long contended that Britain's previous pre-eminence in the business & manufacturing world was due to the extraordinary inventiveness of our scientists & engineers. In the future, Britiain will only be able to compete and stay in the top league by technological superiority. Already there are reports that China is pushing for more innovation internally so we must stay ahead of the game. I think the only way to do this is to 'go a bundle' on Science & Technology Education.
UKIP say, at the start of the same section, they will replace the QCA. Dare I hope the replacement will think the same way?

John Page · 14-08-2006, 11:24 AM

Well I don't know who our policymaker talked to (or did someone just write a paper in Brussels, a practice I deplore?) but this is what the CBI say - my emphasis

Quote:

UK schools are letting down business by producing too few scientists, the Confederation of British Industry says.

Director-general Richard Lambert said bosses had "serious anxieties" and that more children needed to be allowed to study three science subjects at GCSE.

Alan Ward, UK chief executive of technology firm Siemens, said most 16-year-olds' knowledge was "dire".

The government said it was working to improve science teaching to make it "a more attractive option" for pupils.

A-level slump

The CBI said the current system, under which most pupils study for a "combined science" double GCSE - rather than chemistry, physics and biology separately - meant the curriculum had been "stripped down".

Even universities had to offer remedial classes to science students to help fill gaps in their knowledge, it added.

The CBI said the number of A-level students taking physics had fallen 56% in 20 years. In chemistry the decline was 37%.

The CBI estimates that the UK will need 2.4 million more people to work in scientific jobs by 2014.

Mr Lambert said: "Employers are increasingly worried about the long-term decline in numbers studying A-level physics, chemistry and maths, and the knock-on effect on these subjects, and engineering, at university.

"They see, at first hand, the young people who leave school and university looking for a job, and compare them to what they need - and increasingly are looking overseas for graduates."

China, India, Brazil and eastern European countries were producing hundreds of thousands of scientists and engineers every year, he added.

Mr Lambert said: "This is not a criticism of young people - they work hard to achieve the best possible grades in the system provided.

"But it is clear we need more specialised teachers to share their enthusiasm for science and fire the imaginations of pupils, and to persuade them to study the core individual disciplines to high levels.

"We must smash the stereotypes that surround science and rebrand it as desirable and exciting; a gateway to some fantastic career opportunities.

"But the UK risks being knocked off its perch as a world-leader in science, engineering and technology. We cannot afford for this to happen."

Mr Lambert said the government had to set "more challenging" targets for getting people to study science.

Universities had to receive extra funding to offer more science degrees, he added.

Schools Minister Jim Knight said: "Increasing the number of scientists is a priority for this government and we are already making significant progress on delivering the actions being called for by the CBI."

The number of science graduates had increased since 1997, as had spending on teaching physics and chemistry in schools, he added.

Mr Knight said: "We have been working across government with employers, schools and experts in the field to both improve the quality of science teaching and make science a more attractive option.

"It is this joint working that will ensure we deliver the scientists of the future."

When he says it is "a" priority, he gives the game away. If everything's "a" priority, then nothing is.

Clippo · 14-08-2006, 02:05 PM

The Telegraph carries a report today of the CBI article:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../14/ncbi14.xml

I promise you I made my comments hours before I'd seen these articles. Naturally, I agree virtually with all that is aid in it except perhaps :-

Quote from quote in John's last post:-

Quote:

"But the UK risks being knocked off its perch as a world-leader in science, engineering and technology. We cannot afford for this to happen."

I'm afraid I think has already been knocked off!

I assume John's last comment refers to UKIP's man in Brussells. If that is so, & he said everything is a priority then I have to disagree.

In no way am I denigrating 'arts' subjects - I enjoy History, Literature, Music, Foreign Languages, Art etc. immensly even though I'm not very good at some of them and there is a place in national society for a significant number of people with qualifications in those subjects.

I'm also not denigrating 'craft' education either. On the contrary. As I've got older I've been forced to some extent by cost & availability of competent artisans to become a DIYer. I never cease to marvel at the skill of those who have completed appropriate apprenticeships.

For a short period of my career I was a company trainer & when assisting a manager to recruit Engineering & electrical apprentices the collapse of numeracy & literacy was frightenly self evident.

The Educational establishment seems to me to have drifted a long way from an initial primary aim of preparing young people for employment & contributing to society. Education, like the NHS has become a political football & a source for convenient soundbites.

Nobody in appropriate authority seems to have done even a notional cost-benefit exercise with respect to education's value to Britain. What does Britain need from the education system.

If it's not too late, I would love to see UKIP being creative in its' approach to subjects that are really a priority in the national need sense. How about differential & more generous grants & scholarships for potential students studying those subjects & even extras for teachers of those subjects?

I could go on, & on - such a missed chance UKIP to have a 'sea-change'' in the country's education !!! :cry: :cry: :cry:

John Page · 14-08-2006, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clippo

I assume John's last comment refers to UKIP's man in Brussells. If that is so, & he said everything is a priority then I have to disagree.

No, that final comment was my very own. Let me explain briefly.

The Minister is quoted as saying, "Increasing the number of scientists is a priority for this government...".

This sounds awfully good, but how many priorities does the government have in this area? Typically it has lots of priorities and targets in any area. Therefore, in isolation, this statement that he got away with is meaningless. We need to know where science teaching sits in the order of priorities, and what effort the government is putting into it compared to other "priorities".

Hence my comment that if everything is a priority, nothing is.

Percy the Poodle · 14-08-2006, 06:01 PM

I think this paper is a huge missed opportunity to go into detail about how our children could be better educated. Instead we are left with many populist soundbites with no funding planned for the ideas and a glaring (as I have pointed out) inaccuracy in one key area.

One question I would like to ask. Of the people who were involved in the producing of this paper:

How many at present work in the state education system or have done so in the last ten years?

How many have been educated in the state education system in the last ten years?

How many such people did they talk to the production of this document who fitted into either of the two categories?

Clippo · 14-08-2006, 07:09 PM

John,
My erroneous assumption & my slightly ambiguous (with hindsight) disagreement statement has confused your point.

Although I can't see the quote from the minister that everything is a priority, I absolutely agree with you - it is a nonsensical & illogical statement to say everything is a priority. Hence why I went on to say UKIP should really prioritise their suggestions.

Also, imo, without re-quoting them here, the rest of the minister's comments are textbook political guff.

I'm not sure of the implication in Percy the Poodle's questions. Do you wish people from the 2 categories had been involved or not?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

14-08-2006, 12:48 AM	#41 (permalink)
BASILDON BOY Uber Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: N'Djamena, Chad Posts: 2,062	Its becasue they are taught languages at the same time as learning thier native tongue

14-08-2006, 07:20 AM	#42 (permalink)
John Page Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Welwyn Hatfield (Herts.) Posts: 1,878	I've pulled some of these points together in my blog. ---------- http://thepurplescorpion.blogspot.com/

14-08-2006, 08:58 AM	#43 (permalink)
SponPlague Uber Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Zurich Posts: 3,401	Research has shown, I belive, that up to the age of around 8 it is fairly easy for kids to learn another tongue. Our problem is that historically we don't start second languages until senior school, when it is too late...

14-08-2006, 09:34 AM	#44 (permalink)
Clippo Uber Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Cheshire Posts: 2,443	I read through the document and re: languages & I thought it said this:- All teaching must be done in English, with the exception in the areas where Gaelic & Welsh are the natural mother tongue and of course in foreign language lessons. Pupils whose knowledge of English is minimal, (i.e. implying immigrants) will be given extra English tuition. As to stipulating a necessity for a second language, I can't remember but that may be implicit by the end of the last paragraph. Sorry, I haven't the will or stamina to re-read the document to pin these quotes down exactly.

14-08-2006, 10:13 AM	#45 (permalink)
Clippo Uber Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Cheshire Posts: 2,443	Just searched quickly for my comments in previous posts and they're on bottom of P.7. I also couldn't find anything about a stipulation to learn a second language. Logically, it should have been in the 'Reform of National Curriculum, p.13 but it isn't. For the record I agree that at least 1 foreign language should be compulsory. In respect of this section, they say that 1. Sex, Health & social engineering education will be abolished - I agree with this in it's current form but strongly urge it should be replaced by teaching by e.g. Police, Health professionals, drug specialists, first aid specialists (maybe even Health & safety) etc.. in those specialist areas. Possibly back this up with compulsory say 3 month placements in any or several of these public services. 2. Religious studies will become optional - As an atheist I don't have a problem with that but I think Comparative Religious studies, (maybe compulsory even), would be better to 'understand the other person's point of view'. 3. A single general science GCSE will be abolished and replaced by a GCSE in at least one science from Chemistry, Physics or Biology. As a scientist I realise that I'm biased but I am disappointed by this half-hearted approach to Science Education. I have long contended that Britain's previous pre-eminence in the business & manufacturing world was due to the extraordinary inventiveness of our scientists & engineers. In the future, Britiain will only be able to compete and stay in the top league by technological superiority. Already there are reports that China is pushing for more innovation internally so we must stay ahead of the game. I think the only way to do this is to 'go a bundle' on Science & Technology Education. UKIP say, at the start of the same section, they will replace the QCA. Dare I hope the replacement will think the same way?

14-08-2006, 06:01 PM	#49 (permalink)
Percy the Poodle Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: East Devon Posts: 362	I think this paper is a huge missed opportunity to go into detail about how our children could be better educated. Instead we are left with many populist soundbites with no funding planned for the ideas and a glaring (as I have pointed out) inaccuracy in one key area. One question I would like to ask. Of the people who were involved in the producing of this paper: How many at present work in the state education system or have done so in the last ten years? How many have been educated in the state education system in the last ten years? How many such people did they talk to the production of this document who fitted into either of the two categories?

14-08-2006, 07:09 PM	#50 (permalink)
Clippo Uber Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Cheshire Posts: 2,443	John, My erroneous assumption & my slightly ambiguous (with hindsight) disagreement statement has confused your point. Although I can't see the quote from the minister that everything is a priority, I absolutely agree with you - it is a nonsensical & illogical statement to say everything is a priority. Hence why I went on to say UKIP should really prioritise their suggestions. Also, imo, without re-quoting them here, the rest of the minister's comments are textbook political guff. I'm not sure of the implication in Percy the Poodle's questions. Do you wish people from the 2 categories had been involved or not?