Typos are common.  Even the best typist can sometimes interchange letters while typing very fast.  Not all these mistakes can be caught right away.  Incorrect usage of homophones are also very common, but they are usually quite apparent if you read over it once.  Some common mistakes are “their” and “there”, or “your” and “you’re”, or “its” and “it’s”.  However, sometimes when I read some of these blogs and responses, it appears that the writer doesn’t even have a clue that they’re using the wrong homophone, because they are continually making the same mistake.  Another mistake is the incorrect usage, or lack thereof, of the apostrophe.  One of the biggest mistakes I’ve read involve the word “of” when the correct word (whether the writer knows it or not) is “have”.  Examples: “they should of” instead of “they should have”.  The correct contraction is “should’ve”, pronounced “should of”, but is really “should have”. 

I’m not an English teacher, and I learned American English.  So, of course, there will be differences in spelling and pronunciation of many words, not to mention the differences in vocabulary.  But I cannot believe that some basic English rules, such as the above, could possibly be that different.  For other things, such as, “noone” and “no one”, I still don’t know if the British accept alternate spellings.  No one in the US would spell “noone” on purpose unless it was someone’s name, and it would be pronounced “noon”.

Why do I bother?  Because English was not my first language, but it has become my primary and only language.  I can understand if someone is learning the language and genuinely makes a mistake; but for native speakers to make those mistakes is aggravating.  If they don’t bother to learn it well, why should a foreigner?  If I have to prove to prospective employers that I can read, write, speak and listen in English proficiently, just because I’m an immigrant in this country, I’d like to see that the natives can do even better.

Of course, the survey pointed out that in 1970, results of a similar survey showed similar results.  So, what does that mean?  The public is still clueless about basic anatomy.

Interestingly, almost everyone knew where their intestines were.  Then, again, that might not be so surprising given the obsession with eating.

Though the survey did not ask it, I would certainly hope that everyone knows where their brain is.  It’s hard to tell whether someone really has one sometimes.  Harder still to tell whether they know how to use it.

This is taken directly from the website:

‘The parents “struggled to understand” two very basic, draft report cards provided by the department – one with more explanatory information than the other.

“The overall perception was that they had to work very hard indeed for information which they didn’t know how to use.”

The researchers concluded that report cards could be very valuable.’

I’d like to understand how researchers came up with their conclusion.  If parents struggled to understand sample report cards, how is it going to be very valuable to them?  Or is it going to be valuable to the researchers who could care less how a school performed as long as their kids didn’t go there?

The unions plan to boycott the Sats stating that teachers are forced to teach to the tests.  I’ve heard similar arguments in the US, so I find it “old”.  Yet, when the government announced that it was scrapping the science part, the unions state this will make the curriculum more narrow.  Explain, please.  So, if they scrap English and Maths as well, will it make the curriculum practically null?

Some have complained that the exams have been “dumbed down”.  Now, that is a trend that no parent likes to hear.  It seems that the more changes that have been instituted in schools, the more the schools have deteriorated.  In response, the tests have adapted to the changes.  I don’t believe that the curriculum is geared towards the exams.  It appears the exams are “dumbed down” because of the curriculum.  There are claims that today’s students would not pass exams from bygone years.  If so, it does mean we are not teaching the right stuff to our kids.

Is it because we have introduced other subjects that have taken precedence?  Such as, ICT.  Information and technology is important for today’s world, but it should not replace fundamental educational instruction.  Most kids today have computers at home, or have access to them somewhere.  It is not difficult for them to learn ICT without it being a major part of the school curriculum.  Believe me, my kids were able to navigate on the web before entering school.  It is important to use technology in school, but it should not be a primary subject as it is today.

What about the idea of teacher assessments for performance in science?  If exams have been dumbed down, can I trust my children’s teachers to adequately assess their performance?  There have been complaints that our children take too many exams.  On the whole, there does appear to be a peculiar emphasis on exams here in the UK.  But I am not seeing that that exists in the primary school setting.  At least, there does not seem to be an emphasis on them in the schools.  Even when there is, I do not see grades.  My children have homework, projects and some basic English and maths tests.  But they only get check-marks and stars.  Having been through a system of letter grades, it is hard for me to gauge their performance.  So, how will the teachers assess it?

What about report cards?  We have report cards in the US as a means for assessing students’ individual performances.  Students are given grades in each subject, based on performance on homework, projects and exams throughout the term.  (Because of this, they do not have end of school exams.  However, they do have Sats-like exams in specific years, used as a measure of the school’s performance.  It does not affect the child’s progression from year to year, and many times, they are not even aware of the results.)  The report card does not report on students’ well-being as the BBC report stated.  It does report on their behaviour.  Perhaps, they take that to be a report on their well-being, but really, is it a tool to warn parents when their children do not fall in line.  But the UK wants report cards on schools, not students. 

Who will do them?  Ofsted does not want to do it because they feel that whoever prepares such reports will be under government control, and they wish to remain independent.  I’m not sure I’d want Ofsted to do it anyways.  I’ve learned that their independent reports on schools were not a reliable source for determining a school’s academic performance.  After all, their concern is students’ welfare and as long as all students are happy, I don’t believe they delve too much into the academic part.  I think there needs to be a balance between being happy and doing well academically.  The government needs to explore the details of this plan before saying they want school report cards.  I reserved judgment on the report cards.  It might be useful for parents, but until I see what is being reported and how, I cannot say.

With all these reports about changes to the educational system, it makes me wonder what happened to education in the UK?  Across the Atlantic, we saw it as a shining example of where we’d have liked to be.  Though it may still be better than the US (I have no way of really assessing that), it does not appear to be stellar.  What happened to the old way of teaching and learning?  Surely, the UK did not have these serious issues in those bygone years.

It’s back in the news. We all knew it was coming over the horizon and, shame on us, the BBC got in first with its anonymous poll of university chancellors. Student fees, who should be paying and how much?
 
Is a university education a universal right? Simply, no. Therefore, like the vast majority around the world, the British student should be expected to pay for the privilege. It’s a choice and an investment.

The country can benefit from having a better educated workforce, but the student retains the right to uproot and take his acquired knowledge anywhere in the world. Should the taxpayer fund the latter case? Should we bankroll the next generation of Sri-Lankan doctors, Canadian teachers or Australian architects? Of course not. If the British taxpayer funds university education, the country should benefit from the investment by retaining the next generation of British doctors, British teachers and British architects.

Does the country need to invest far more in further education and the academic and vocational development of young people if it is to be competitive in the global marketplace? You bet!

However, investment in education needs to be coupled with investment in post-university innovation. The chasm between the lecture theatre and the workforce needs to be narrowed if we are to convert well educated, bright young minds in to global innovators for Britain.  Young people emerge from universities full of unharnessed energy and innovation only to be rapidly subsumed in to the disillusioned rank and file.

There are very few places on the planet where true innovation occurs. The majority are in the United States, with perhaps one in Germany and, if we are charitable, one in the UK.  Why so few in the UK?  The reason is not lack of talent.  The UK harbours some of the finest minds on the planet in its upper echelon universities.  Our top universities compete in both teaching and research with the very best.  Despite many widespread and fashionable laments in the media about spiralling standards, the better UK schools and universities continue to turn out exceptionally well educated and able students, as good as any.

Where the UK woefully fails its students is at the post-university level.  We need greater investment, less nurturing, to allow more risks.  Currently, there is far greater opportunity and reward for being nurtured in the received ways, “staying in line” and filling dead men’s shoes, than for taking risks and following innovative ideas.

This or future governments must address broader issues related to how we as a country want to compete in a truly global marketplace, and a good first step would be broadening post-university opportunities.

In my opinion, there has been a decline in the educational system in recent years. And instead of concentrating on making education better, new ideas on how to teach seem to further undermine the basic teaching principles. We have now turned school into a playground rather than a learning institution. Some may see this as a good thing. The PC view is that we should make it fun to learn and adapt teaching methods to make it less intimidating to the student. While I wholeheartedly agree that children are more inclined to want to learn if they have fun doing it, we should not stoop to the level of making a joke out of serious education.

Those who subscribe to the PC view that we must end behaviors that tend to cause stress to children, thereby making it difficult for them to adjust to school, must believe that the previous generations of adults who graduated from a more vigorous school system are completely maladjusted. Otherwise, why such a push for changing the way subjects are taught in school? I refer to the changes in which subjects are now taught in conglomerates, while a particular era in history is the focal point. I will reserve my full opinion on this for another time. But I also refer to some specific changes being instituted that are downright and utterly ridiculous. This is the banning of red ink used by teachers. This ban is in effect in some, but not all, schools.

This may only be a first step in a series of minor improvements to the school system. We will have to hold our breaths and wait for the other ridiculous ideas to pour forth. Whoever came up with the notion that red ink was confrontational and undermined students’ efforts must have had quite a complex when (s)he received their papers back as a student. If they associated red ink with failure, or inadequate work, then it must have been a learned response to an habitual ritual. However, for most people, red ink can indicate good work as well as bad. Teachers have always used red ink because it is highly visible, and students were not allowed to use red ink in school so that teachers’ grading can be seen in contrast to the student work. Therefore, if a student turned in good work, sometimes the markings on the papers are used to highlight excellent points. There is no rhyme or reason to the belief that red ink is degrading. If this argument was valid, then it would be important to point out that if teachers’ ink changed colour, that new colour would soon come to replace red as the confrontational colour, as it will be the colour one sees on receiving work back from the teacher.