Tough Young Teachers

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 12:41 am

It's a very interesting series of programs....

Fact remains though...Crown Woods (where i went) was the first comp in this country, it's featured very heavily in the program.

...They spent so much money demolishing the original, whole lot of it, to build the first academy!

Suspect

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 12:55 am

...Are academy schools the way forward?

They are tailor made schools, developed towards, each individual students capabilities, and what they find interesting etc..

Probably in the wrong section, but i think that they are a good idea!

Why should you be forced to attend classes that you have no kind of interest in?

Surely if you have an interest in a certain subject, then you should be allowed to spend more periods a day, on those subjects?

by Ben Reilly Fri Jan 24, 2014 1:04 am

I moved it to Social Issues.

Regarding the topic, I think it's good to have students study subjects they're not interested in. For one thing, they may eventually develop an interest in those subjects; for another thing, we all have to eventually develop the ability to complete tasks that we don't find engaging, and I think schools should foster that ability.

Finally, I think it's better if only to give kids an idea of the size of the intellectual world we live in.

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 1:13 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:I moved it to Social Issues.

Regarding the topic, I think it's good to have students study subjects they're not interested in. For one thing, they may eventually develop an interest in those subjects; for another thing, we all have to eventually develop the ability to complete tasks that we don't find engaging, and I think schools should foster that ability.

Finally, I think it's better if only to give kids an idea of the size of the intellectual world we live in.

What if some kids aren't interested in chemistry, physics, games, woodwork etc....At the old Crown Woods, we were required to abide by the National curriculum.

In the end...After about year three, i think that i made it plain....The subjects that i wasn't interested in, i refused to attend them.

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 1:15 am

...I think that the teaching staff let this go, because i was in full attendance of the subjects that i enjoyed!

by Ben Reilly Fri Jan 24, 2014 1:15 am

Catman wrote:What if some kids aren't interested in chemistry, physics, games, woodwork etc....At the old Crown Woods, we were required to abide by the National curriculum.

In the end...After about year three, i think that i made it plain....The subjects that i wasn't interested in, i refused to attend them.

I believe I pretty much already answered this.

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 1:25 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Catman wrote:What if some kids aren't interested in chemistry, physics, games, woodwork etc....At the old Crown Woods, we were required to abide by the National curriculum.

In the end...After about year three, i think that i made it plain....The subjects that i wasn't interested in, i refused to attend them.

I believe I pretty much already answered this.

Fair enough then! Cool

We had school strikes...At Crown Woods, when i was there, during the Youth Training Scheme fiasco!

by veya_victaous Fri Jan 24, 2014 2:28 am

@catman
Education needs to be across the board,
It is one thing to allow specialization once students are starting to look towards leaving school and starting a career. But Missing an chance for education will always leave you the lesser.

Not that Teens (including myself at the time) necessarily realise that

by Ben Reilly Fri Jan 24, 2014 4:50 am

veya_victaous wrote:@catman
Education needs to be across the board,
It is one thing to allow specialization once students are starting to look towards leaving school and starting a career. But Missing an chance for education will always leave you the lesser.

Not that Teens (including myself at the time) necessarily realise that

Precisely, nobody can realistically say what they're interested in and what they're not interested in until they have some experience! I mean, at four I would probably have told you I had no interest in learning the alphabet, but where would that have left me today?

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 5:04 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:@catman
Education needs to be across the board,
It is one thing to allow specialization once students are starting to look towards leaving school and starting a career. But Missing an chance for education will always leave you the lesser.

Not that Teens (including myself at the time) necessarily realise that

Precisely, nobody can realistically say what they're interested in and what they're not interested in until they have some experience! I mean, at four I would probably have told you I had no interest in learning the alphabet, but where would that have left me today?

When you go to secondary school, that is 12-18 in this country...I think you know which subjects that you are interested in!

by Ben Reilly Fri Jan 24, 2014 5:08 am

Catman wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:@catman
Education needs to be across the board,
It is one thing to allow specialization once students are starting to look towards leaving school and starting a career. But Missing an chance for education will always leave you the lesser.

Not that Teens (including myself at the time) necessarily realise that

Precisely, nobody can realistically say what they're interested in and what they're not interested in until they have some experience! I mean, at four I would probably have told you I had no interest in learning the alphabet, but where would that have left me today?

When you go to secondary school, that is 12-18 in this country...I think you know which subjects that you are interested in!

Ah, but still -- in my country, deciding you didn't like studying literature at the age of 12 would mean you were never exposed to many classic novels, short stories or poems. I simply can't abide the notion Smile

Not to mention, I didn't start algebra until age 12, and that just helps you think around the angles of so many problems and is so good for intellectual agility.

I say again -- children simply haven't learned enough to know what they're going to be interested in. It is the duty of adult society to introduce them to as much of the world as possible, not just the parts of the world that a childish mind might find appealing.

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 5:21 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Catman wrote:

When you go to secondary school, that is 12-18 in this country...I think you know which subjects that you are interested in!

Ah, but still -- in my country, deciding you didn't like studying literature at the age of 12 would mean you were never exposed to many classic novels, short stories or poems. I simply can't abide the notion

Not to mention, I didn't start algebra until age 12, and that just helps you think around the angles of so many problems and is so good for intellectual agility.

I say again -- children simply haven't learned enough to know what they're going to be interested in. It is the duty of adult society to introduce them to as much of the world as possible, not just the parts of the world that a childish mind might find appealing.

We will have to agree to disagree then, children grow up a lot faster these days, and the the advent of modern technologies etc...They can more tap into their specific interests, and those interests should be nurtured.

Of course, maths & English should always be compulsory....In this country they are bringing in life skill classes, they should be compulsory...Apart from those, the child should decide IMO.

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 5:26 am

...If a child demonstrates great athletic prowess, then they should be allowed to spend most of their time in a gym!

...If a child displays an appitude for history and politics, then they should be allowed to spend more time doing those lessons!

by Ben Reilly Fri Jan 24, 2014 5:42 am

Catman wrote:...If a child demonstrates great athletic prowess, then they should be allowed to spend most of their time in a gym!

...If a child displays an appitude for history and politics, then they should be allowed to spend more time doing those lessons!

I can agree with allowing more time to specialize in areas of strenght, particularly at an older age (like at least 14). But not to the total exclusion of other subjects -- a well-rounded education is, I believe, a fundamental right in a first-world nation, and should be the goal of all nations.

I went to school with a guy who's now a research scientist. Back when we were younger, he was a regular kid and was mainly interested in playing and later, girls. If he hadn't had to take chemistry, biology and physics in high school (which for most of us is 15-18), I'm confident he would not have discovered his talent and would not be where he is today.

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:58 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Catman wrote:...If a child demonstrates great athletic prowess, then they should be allowed to spend most of their time in a gym!

...If a child displays an appitude for history and politics, then they should be allowed to spend more time doing those lessons!

I can agree with allowing more time to specialize in areas of strenght, particularly at an older age (like at least 14). But not to the total exclusion of other subjects -- a well-rounded education is, I believe, a fundamental right in a first-world nation, and should be the goal of all nations.

I went to school with a guy who's now a research scientist. Back when we were younger, he was a regular kid and was mainly interested in playing and later, girls. If he hadn't had to take chemistry, biology and physics in high school (which for most of us is 15-18), I'm confident he would not have discovered his talent and would not be where he is today.

Hmmm...Well i mentioned the the third year, which would be about 14...Before i employed methods, not to attend certain subjects.

....I would suggest that the kids grow up much faster these days, which is why i think that they can pick the subjects that they are interested in, from leaving primary school.

by Ben Reilly Fri Jan 24, 2014 7:29 am

That could be -- interesting point. BACK IN MY DAY, we didn't have this fancy Internet to learn about the world more quickly. But then, is that what kids are doing with it? Or are they just like ...

TIMMY: skul sux dood

TOMMY: lol yeah

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 7:34 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:That could be -- interesting point. BACK IN MY DAY, we didn't have this fancy Internet to learn about the world more quickly. But then, is that what kids are doing with it? Or are they just like ...

TIMMY: skul sux dood

TOMMY: lol yeah

I just think that humans have evolved more over the decades, we live longer, the kids are more intelligent and grow up earlier...I see this through my nephew, since he was walking, when we were probably crawling, if that makes any kind of sense.

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:04 am

Academies, just like G.C.S.E's, just like vocational qualifications, are a way of hiding the not so clever in our society and therefore massaging the figures so we don't see how our children's education has been dumbed down.

by Guest Fri Jan 24, 2014 10:38 am

You mean academies, beloved by Michael Grove, whose teachers don't have to be qualified, who don't have to comply with standards set by local authorities, and who can be run by anyone, the standard bearers for the way forward according to the Conservatives lol

by Sponsored content

Tough Young Teachers

Tough Young Teachers

Re: Tough Young Teachers

Re: Tough Young Teachers

Re: Tough Young Teachers

Re: Tough Young Teachers

Re: Tough Young Teachers

Re: Tough Young Teachers

Re: Tough Young Teachers

Re: Tough Young Teachers

Re: Tough Young Teachers

Re: Tough Young Teachers

Re: Tough Young Teachers

Re: Tough Young Teachers

Re: Tough Young Teachers

Re: Tough Young Teachers

Re: Tough Young Teachers

Re: Tough Young Teachers

Re: Tough Young Teachers

Re: Tough Young Teachers

Re: Tough Young Teachers