Now I know they're crazy - Blackadder taken seriously

Oh well, I give up.
But I do agree the media are yet again making a mountain out of a mole hill.
WW1 was fought in a manner that was in our eyes today out dated, for gods sake it was a 100yrs ago, isn't that the point?
Similar things probably happened in the Crimean war and the Boer war.
Things were different then and we are very good at looking back and judging things by our standards today.
I guess I'm out dated as well then.

 

Because of the way that they're taught? They're taught to pass exams, not think. Ask them for a formula and they can recite it back to you just like that, but ask them to transpose that formula and they're stumped!
As much as Mr.Gove strikes me as an oddius little @*#%, he has at least recognised that we need change.

Blackadder as a teaching tool? Not in history maybe, but in english lit or drama there is a strong case.

 

You certainly are! Nowadays we can launch attacks with the push of a button, potentially wiping out entire continents!!! Now that's progress!
And if your state lacks access to such state of the art equipment then just strap some explosives to an eleven year old girl instead.
Evolution is a wonderful thing!!

 

I thought the point of teaching people about past wars was so that, hopefully, people can spot similar patterns unfolding today and hopefully not make the same mistakes.

In Britain today, we have a leader of a certain political party which is gaining some support from disillusioned people sick of the status quo, and ready to blame any section of society they can for their problems. That certain political party leader has very right wing views, and once attempted to define what an 'indigenous Briton' was. 75 years ago another European country was in that same situation, only they elected their nutter into power, and looked what happened there. Its important that kids know about such major events as the two world wars. Had WW2 never happened (and I know this is more about WW1), quite possibly people in Britain today would be far less cautious about supporting the BNP, and we might well end up with a nutter trying to evict ME from my homeland, because my family name has Nordic origins and therefore I'm probably not 'indiginous'.

 

How exactly do you stop someone invading your country, by education of you own citizens?
Especially when that education revolves around a comedy programme.

 

I think the thread is getting slightly side-tracked. History is a factual subject, and the fact is that WW1 had aspects of total futility, and this is portrayed in Blackadder quite brilliantly.

 

Eighty odd years ago the UK had its own fascist nutter, but he had as much hope of power as the current one. Despite the vocal minority, we British have a good track record of common sense and tolerance.

 

Who was that? (asking purely because I'm interested, as I didn't know that)

 

If not factually though.

Oswald Mosely.
I believe that I'm correct in saying that he was a former Labour MP and low ranking minister before he went off on one.

 

Quite right, and this was the point of the OP

 

I've often wondered that as well. After all, teachers have generally followed decades of random government mind-changing and manipulation to the letter, so it can't be their fault. Some thoughts-

The countries at the top of the table are usually Far Eastern countries with a much stronger structure of social control than ours. Conformity is more prized. Pupils fear failure to the point that student suicide for this reason is relatively common. Would this be desirable in the UK?

Such countries general have a society where parents expect to exert greater control over their offspring. Educational achievement is highly valued, teachers are respected and the expectation is that pupils should work hard and behave well. These values are weak or absent in swathes of British society.

High results in certain subjects eg maths/sciences, might be achieved by narrowing the curriculum, whereas the UK system has been intent on broadening it. The National Curriculum is a good thing, but it contains a lot of material that would never have been covered pre 1990. The more water you add the weaker the whisky gets.

When the tables are compiled, are we comparing like with like? In the UK, it is compulsory to attempt to educate everybody to a certain age, no matter how unwilling or unsuitable they are for this process. We have a large section of urban poor where educational achievement is low. Possibly in some countries some children never get included in the results table, or the make up of society is such that there are no large areas of economic deprivation.

As well as analysing what might be wrong with British education we should look at the social context in which it happens, it is not just about schools. Also analyse what it is about other education systems that makes them work and consider whether those features would be relevant to or desirable in our own society.

 

Not just since 1990. That's the year I left school. It often used to amuse me that people of my parents' generation would often choose to mock people of my generation for being allowed to use calculators instead of doing the 'basic arithmetic' in our heads. I used to love being able to retort that we were allowed to use calculators because the maths we did went way beyond basic arithmetic, which we covered in primary school, and then if I really wanted to prove the point I'd ask them something very simple like how to work out how much energy it takes to heat a litre of water from 0'C to boiling point, or or maybe something even simpler, such as 'if your car was electric but had the same horsepower, can you calculate how many watts of power the motor would need to be, and how much battery power would you need to achieve the same distance on a full charge as you'd get from your full tank of petrol'. Its all simple stuff, but its surprising how many calculator brigade mockers were left completely stumped.

I wouldn't mind betting that if I went back to school now, it would be like an alien language to me because things just keep moving on so quickly.

This is a widely used excuse which I think actually makes matters ten times worse for those 'urban poor'. Firstly, if society at large tells people often enough that a certain thing is true, then it becomes true in the minds of the people. Terms like 'disadvantaged' and 'underprivileged' make the 'disadvantaged' and 'underprivileged' people believe that's what they are, and that's all they'll ever be, so why bother.

The other thing is its entirely not true. Just by virtue of living in Britain people are advantaged and privileged. There is free education for all, even at college where often they will waive the fees if you can show that you're skint. We have a good and affordable comms infrastructure too, and free access to libraries. It is all there for the taking. The only thing you need is determination, and determination is not exclusive to the affluent. I know this first hand. I come from a skint background, grew up in very, very modest terrace house until we lost that after my dad lost his job when the steel works were privatised, then a couple of years in various bedsits, before we got a council house stuck right out the way on an estate affectionately known as 'Colditz'. If anything, it put me at an advantage rather than a disadvantage, because it made me all the more determined to build a better life. More than 20 years on, without wanting to blow my own trumpet, I can see I've done alright. I'm respected in my chosen field of expertise, don't seem to have too much bother getting a half decent salary, and I've earned myself a half decent house in a location of my choosing, and the love and respect of a good wife and a couple of great kids. I'm nothing special. I didn't do so great at school because I'm simply not as clever as some. If I can do it, pretty much anyone can. Just as long as they refuse to accept the 'disadvantaged' or 'underprivileged' tag. Except of course when it suits them, as it did for me when I wanted to go to uni, but didn't have the necessary qualifications. The head lecturer for the course I wanted saw how determined I was but couldn't break the rules. Then he had an idea, and asked if there was anything about my life that would put me in the 'underprivileged' heading. I said I was unemployed and lived in a council house and ask if that would do. He checked some paperwork, and then congratulated me on being welcomed onto the course