University contradiction

Mitty

Mitty

Mitty

Associate
Joined
5 Nov 2010
Posts
75
Location
Essex
So I have an exam tomorrow on issues in education (I am a trainee teacher). I am well prepared for it but can't help wondering why they are assessing us by means of exam and assignments. We have been learning about the disadvantages of assessing children using exams and tests (SAT's etc). If this is the case then why don't they practice what they preach and assess us in a "formative" way. That's how we are being trained to assess children.

Just needed to get that off my chest :)
 
Mitty said:
So I have an exam tomorrow on issues in education (I am a trainee teacher). I am well prepared for it but can't help wondering why they are assessing us by means of exam and assignments. We have been learning about the disadvantages of assessing children using exams and tests (SAT's etc). If this is the case then why don't they practice what they preach and assess us in a "formative" way. That's how we are being trained to assess children.

Just needed to get that off my chest :)
Click to expand...

Because you are not a child? :)
 
Yeah I am aware of that but it just puts unnecessary stress on us. For those of us who aren't very academic, it's not fair. I can write an academic essay but is that going to make me a better teacher? I don't think so.
 
Teaching is much more than promoting academic achievement. It's about developing the whole child (social and life skills etc). Children will grow up being able to pass tests not to live life. Exams are not the only option though, at the moment primary schools are working towards formative assessment so that assessment informs future learning.
 
Well I hope you become a better teacher than any of the several hundred I encountered, because there wasnt 1 of them who made an attempt to teach social and life skills.
 
Mitty said:
Teaching is much more than promoting academic achievement. It's about developing the whole child (social and life skills etc). Children will grow up being able to pass tests not to live life. Exams are not the only option though, at the moment primary schools are working towards formative assessment so that assessment informs future learning.
Click to expand...

That's all well and good, but how do you suggest they assess you?
 
By observing us teaching a class. Also through discussion with us and observations of us working with our peers etc. These are some of the ways we are supposed to assess children. I not totally against assignment and exams but if we fail one, that's the end of our course basically. If you fail a module, you fail the whole course based on limited assessment.

I was just having a little rant anyway, I like a good moan from time to time lol. =)
 
Mitty said:
Teaching is much more than promoting academic achievement. It's about developing the whole child (social and life skills etc). Children will grow up being able to pass tests not to live life. Exams are not the only option though, at the moment primary schools are working towards formative assessment so that assessment informs future learning.
Click to expand...

Social and life skills are not things that teachers are supposed to be teaching, social and life skills are what kids gain from interacting with their friends, from their parents, from visiting places with their parents, etc.

THIS is what is wrong with education in this country, education should be about academic stuff, not about "life skills".
 
Well there is a lot of research to suggest otherwise. Some children come from disadvantaged families so won't have the opportunity to learn these valuable life skills. I agree most learning that children do happens outside of school but this may not be good enough to support them through life.

If all we teach is purely academic, children won't know what behaviour is expected of them in a classroom OR in a real life situation. For example some children may think that it is okay to talk over someone; if all we do is teach academic knowledge, how do we tackle that?

The only reason I take this view is that I have been on a course for three years in which we read extensively about this and have seen it work in practice. I have also had good experience of this myself.
 
Mitty said:
If all we teach is purely academic, children won't know what behaviour is expected of them in a classroom OR in a real life situation. For example some children may think that it is okay to talk over someone; if all we do is teach academic knowledge, how do we tackle that?
Click to expand...

Because those are basic decency/courtesy skills that parents should instil into their kids?

Besides, you don't teach kids not to talk over someone, you tell them off for doing it...

We are heading further down the slippery slope of "it's not my job/responsibility to do that, let the state do it for me"
Schools are for teaching academic subjects, with a few other things thrown in (such as sports), schools are NOT for teaching kids how to wipe their arses, due their shoelaces, or behave themselves properly ... kids should know that BEFORE they go to school.
 
what about the children who are from backgrounds in which their parents neglect them and do not teach them these skills. Do we just leave them to fend for themselves? This is why most schools work with parents to get a balance.

Don't get me wrong, academic stuff is important but there are barriers to learning which schools need to address. For example, if a child is feeling anxious or unsafe at school, they might not be able to learn to the best of their ability. So teaching children how to manage their feelings and be a good citizen/friend is beneficial to enable learning to occur.

Children aren't passive learners, we can't spoon feed them. Teaching them HOW to learn is much more valuable than telling them about certain subjects. I mean who chooses what goes into our national curriculum? You can't just accept that we teach children whats in the curriculum and that's it.

As for "telling children off". If we teach children what is expected of them and how to be a good person, we wouldn't have to tell children off as much. You should research into it more. Try looking at the behaviour for learning website.

Anyway I could discuss this all day. This is helping me with my exam preparation as it goes. Consolidating my knowledge by discussing. A social skill I learned at school ;)
 
rypt said:
Because those are basic decency/courtesy skills that parents should instil into their kids? ... Schools are NOT for teaching kids how to wipe their arses, due their shoelaces, or behave themselves properly ... kids should know that BEFORE they go to school.
Click to expand...

Should, but some don't unfortunately! Schools need to be prepared to deal with those children as well as the ones who actually have social skills.
 
Surely kids who are neglected should be under state care anyway ...

The point is, we keep on putting a bandaid over the real problem, keep going down the "state doing the role that used to be done by parents" route.

Besides, should kids who are real trouble be in mainstream education anyway, surely they are harming the learning ability of kids whose parents actually bothered to raise them?
 
Last edited:
But the reality of it is, people will always find a way of blaming someone else for their failures. Good schools will have relationships with parents to help them get the best for their child. Believe it or not most parents do give a damn about their children's education.
 
What you have failed to grasp is that your course serves two distinct purposes, one is to equip you with the necessary skills to be an effective classroom teacher the other is to educate you to a degree level standard in the subject of Education. This exam is for your Degree, exams and coursework being the usual way of assesing such things. Your classroom practice and QTS is to train you as a classroom teacher.

You don't have to thank me for explaining what you are doing at university.
 
rypt said:
Besides, should kids who are real trouble be in mainstream education anyway, surely they are harming the learning ability of kids whose parents actually bothered to raise them?
Click to expand...

What's your definition of "real trouble"? If you removed every child from a school class who was mildly disruptive, you'd have about 3 kids per year. So where does the line get drawn?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom