Time To Overhaul Our Education System.

[Anna B 1,401]

7 hours ago, RJRB said:

I see so much in there to disagree with even if that puts me at odds with the national curriculum,Ofsted and teachers.

The building blocks of science,whether chemistry,physics or biology have their foundation in the periodic table,Einstein’s theory of relativity ,dissection etc.

Some things are immutable and should be included in the curriculum and backed by text books.

To say “books can’t go home” and “books are of limited value” is so wrong.

I would hope that books would lead students to access the much wider range of information now available on the internet,which is also of great importance.

Sadly,I am sure that cost and ever changing policy in education are factors.

I well remember a heated discussion with the CDT teacher of one of my sons.

I was fortunate to be taught some elements of woodwork and metalwork which have been useful throughout my life.

Others had cookery lessons .

We were all able to bring home our projects whether it was a sea grass stool or an Apple Charlotte.

My kids made nothing at Secondary school level and I was told that it was due to the cost.

I agree with much of this. Our education still seems to be embedded in the 'glory years' of the 50s. We need to move on and make it fit for purpose, relevant and useful. Most of it is about regurgitating 'facts' for exams, which IMO isn't really education.

 

I can honestly say I have never used trigonometry, cosines  or Logarithms since school (I didn't understand them then, and I wouldn't now) but never learned anything much about money, stocks and shares or banking systems which would have been a lot more useful. I enjoyed history modules but never got an overview of history and why certain events were of particular importance.

 

We need to teach youngsters how to think, not what to think, and encourage a love of learning which will last them a lifetime. 

[RJRB 688]

57 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

The result being that the "imaginary" text books must be getting bigger and bigger? 

Publishers are not particularly interested in producing such books as there is no demand.

They are dated in content, emphasis, application and relationship to the National curriculum and Examination

There is no demand because they are not suitable learning materials and have been superseded  by modern publishing  and IT.

 

 

I doubt that text books of the 1960s were any thicker than text books of the 1920s or 30s.they were just revised periodically and where necessary.

If schools are not funded to provide dedicated text books to students then demand will not be sufficient for the publishing houses.

There is a ready demand for text books for the more demanding university courses,both new and second hand.

This is not to deny the importance of wider information available by internet access.

To state that text books are not suitable learning materials is quite an extraordinary assertion.

The written word is probably well to the forefront of any advances made in any field in the world.

 

[Annie Bynnol 612]

8 hours ago, RJRB said:

I doubt that text books of the 1960s were any thicker than text books of the 1920s or 30s.they were just revised periodically and where necessary.

If schools are not funded to provide dedicated text books to students then demand will not be sufficient for the publishing houses.

There is a ready demand for text books for the more demanding university courses,both new and second hand.

This is not to deny the importance of wider information available by internet access.

To state that text books are not suitable learning materials is quite an extraordinary assertion.

The written word is probably well to the forefront of any advances made in any field in the world.

 

What a cruel post!

Sat here with two sets of Chemistry books from Masters degrees  recently completed at the UKs top Univesities but left behind by their users. Along comes a post that says there is a demand for second hand for these books. 

Previously advertised on line, to bookshops,three Chemistry departments -not wanted.

Bought for nearly £300 offered £18 and postage £13(Hermes) for six of them  and six  rejected. 

So, what the girls said still applies -"chuck 'em"

 

It's so hard to imagine using textbooks from a bygone age, even if you add and remove  chapter after chapter to reflect new understanding and application you would still be left with having to change all the scientific names and mathematical units.

I was one of the lucky few in a top set of 12 which used a 1960's chemistry text book in 1970 and had to change nearly all the units and chemical names, omit paragraphs and chapters no-longer in the curriculum and making additions.The other four classes in that year only had textbooks to copy out of. 

 

Being a science pupil was hard enough when your biology teacher refused to accept let alone teach evolution and a geology teacher who had never heard of continental drift- luckily before there was a modern university science library down the road with  weekly/monthly science periodicals and reading lists.

 

 

[nightrider 13]

28 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

What a cruel post!

Sat here with two sets of Chemistry books from Masters degrees  recently completed at the UKs top Univesities but left behind by their users. Along comes a post that says there is a demand for second hand for these books. 

Previously advertised on line, to bookshops,three Chemistry departments -not wanted.

Bought for nearly £300 offered £18 and postage £13(Hermes) for six of them  and six  rejected. 

 

 

 

Have you tried advertising them direct to students? I sold one textbook to an undergraduate (via SheffieldForum in fact!)

 

I bought many textbooks second hand as an undergraduate - it was cheaper! I think I got them from bookshops, so am surprised they would not want them (unless students nowadays expect to only have new things??!)

[RJRB 688]

52 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

What a cruel post!

Sat here with two sets of Chemistry books from Masters degrees  recently completed at the UKs top Univesities but left behind by their users. Along comes a post that says there is a demand for second hand for these books. 

Previously advertised on line, to bookshops,three Chemistry departments -not wanted.

Bought for nearly £300 offered £18 and postage £13(Hermes) for six of them  and six  rejected. 

So, what the girls said still applies -"chuck 'em"

 

It's so hard to imagine using textbooks from a bygone age, even if you add and remove  chapter after chapter to reflect new understanding and application you would still be left with having to change all the scientific names and mathematical units.

I was one of the lucky few in a top set of 12 which used a 1960's chemistry text book in 1970 and had to change nearly all the units and chemical names, omit paragraphs and chapters no-longer in the curriculum and making additions.The other four classes in that year only had textbooks to copy out of. 

 

 

 

Quite a dramatic opening line and a pretty specious argument to dismiss the value of text books.

My experience is that of a ready demand for second hand text books,and indeed books of all stripes.

Lets get away from science for a moment as I acknowledged earlier that the rapid escalation of knowledge did pose particular problems.

English Literature,languages,mathematics,certainly up to university level,history up to the present day.

I would add that my original post was directed at primary and secondary education.

This level of education cannot hope to provide the students with anything more than the basic tools of reading ,writing and arithmetic,plus of course the aim of engendering sufficient interest for each student to pursue their passions and talents.Socialisation is also high on the priority list.

Specialisation is an absolute must at the appropriate time .

Returning to the science,your argument seems to centre on your experience at this specialist cutting edge level I.e graduate and post graduate level.

The requirements are of course different here.

 

[Annie Bynnol 612]

18 hours ago, nightrider said:

Yes. I doubt teaching Newtons laws of motion for example has any new material compared to when I learnt it!

....

Over a hundred years ago Einstein showed that Newtons laws are an excellent approximation and work on the snooker table - they do not work in the Universe. 

 

Newtons laws are such a joy to teach and experience that no educator in their right mind  would use a textbook, there are so many resources at hand to physically do experiments and so many wonderful online resources for enrichment, reinforcement and revision.  

Textbooks (I recommend Vines and Rees vol1 c 1964) are a great substitute for bricks when repeating the gravity/acceleration experiments.

 

Throughout history only a small minority of school children have had access to textbooks to use at school and at home. In a school science textbooks are no substitute for proper learning.

 

 

 

[nightrider 13]

6 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

Over a hundred years ago Einstein showed that Newtons laws are an excellent approximation and work on the snooker table - they do not work in the Universe. 

 

 

 

 

 

Obviously. I doubt we are teaching the finer points of the full calculations using General Relativity to school children though.

[Annie Bynnol 612]

47 minutes ago, RJRB said:

 

Returning to the science,your argument seems to centre on your experience at this specialist cutting edge level I.e graduate and post graduate level

 

This is wrong.

The first time I mention "graduate and post graduate level" was in response to your opinion that there is a "...  ready demand for text books for the more demanding university courses,both new and second hand." I have only parental experience of the current state of second hand text books and of University  Chemistry courses. 

Also in several posts I have stated either "children", "pupils", "secondary" or "11-16".

 

[nightrider 13]

12 hours ago, Anna B said:

I agree with much of this. Our education still seems to be embedded in the 'glory years' of the 50s. We need to move on and make it fit for purpose, relevant and useful. Most of it is about regurgitating 'facts' for exams, which IMO isn't really education.

 

I can honestly say I have never used trigonometry, cosines  or Logarithms since school (I didn't understand them then, and I wouldn't now) but never learned anything much about money, stocks and shares or banking systems which would have been a lot more useful. I enjoyed history modules but never got an overview of history and why certain events were of particular importance.

 

We need to teach youngsters how to think, not what to think, and encourage a love of learning which will last them a lifetime. 

I think there is a reasonable argument that teaching  trigonometry, cosines  or Logarithms etc helps to develop logical thinking skills in order to understand it (even if one does not fully understand the topic in the end). I would be curious to know how many people who say they could never understand these things in fact just had useless teachers. Teaching does not pay well and most math graduates can get very well paid jobs doing easier things that are a lot less hassle ( I know enough teachers to know its a horrible job nowadays).

 

I agree its a scandal we don't teach more about money, stocks etc to empower people to use their money wisely and also to not get conned. I don't think it should be an either/or with maths though! I suspect its deliberate we don't teach about banking systems though, a lot of people don't want anyone to know how money really works (esp. the bit about the magic money tree because then all kinds of awkward questions could be asked...)

 

Edited January 13, 2021 by nightrider

[Annie Bynnol 612]

18 minutes ago, nightrider said:

Obviously. I doubt we are teaching the finer points of the full calculations using General Relativity to school children though.

General Relativity is the name of a theory and its mathematical derivation and application is not required, but it would need to be referred to in good teaching to cover the syllabus eg at 14-16 the AQA GCSE Physics Specification  p72- 75 Space Physics and p76 Key Ideas.

Oh I forgot -more importantly the children will ask because they are interested. 

[RJRB 688]

24 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

This is wrong.

The first time I mention "graduate and post graduate level" was in response to your opinion that there is a "...  ready demand for text books for the more demanding university courses,both new and second hand." I have only parental experience of the current state of second hand text books and of University  Chemistry courses. 

Also in several posts I have stated either "children", "pupils", "secondary" or "11-16".

 

Just going back to my original post it does state that my thoughts had not been fully thought through.

I also said “the days of text books is gone”.

So I am moderating my views as I go along ,and now think that there is a continuing need for text books through primary and secondary education.

As said by Sir Isaac Newton “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants”

 

[alchresearch 214]

6 minutes ago, RJRB said:

So I am moderating my views as I go along ,and now think that there is a continuing need for text books through primary and secondary education.

 

 

Yep, if it ain't broke etc.

 

e-books are certainly convenient, but I sometimes think there's no substitute for a paper book.