|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Gove does a big U turn. What does it mean?
|
Marinaki
Varangian Guard
# 343
|
Posted
I haven't visited the ship for a while; just popped in today and happened across this thread.
As an RE Teacher (History second subject)I fear that the current Governments education reforms have done irreversible damage to the status of RE in schools (especially in non-denominational ones).
There is no longer any clear cut position on what curriculum time should be devoted to RE in Free Schools, Academies (if any), what curriculum should be followed in those schools, and whether specialist teachers should be used. The DofE repeats the mantra that RE is compulsory at KS4 but provides no guidance on curriculum time or content or the obligations on schools. It is rarely an Ofsted focus.
What is the unintended (I would like to hope) consequence of the reforms - is that GCSE RS is increasingly being replaced by a half-hour slot in form time with a non-specialist. In local schools RS was moved out of the Humanities option block which just has History and Geography. It now has to compete with 15 other subjects. Effectively, any students who are triple scientists, double linguists, or talented at music and art cannot choose RS as a subject without losing the arts. In the past many would have chosen RS over either History or Geography or possibly in addition to. Now it is just not feasible. This has had an impact both on class size and calibre of candidates and will start to impact upon A level classes soon. Eventually, it will be hard to get quality students for Religious Studies, Theology, Philosophy courses at University because the numbers of A level students doing RS will just dwindle.
In my school a hardline atheist marxist teaches an RE session each week and declared to me, "Not only am I an atheist, but I'm an anti-theist. Even if you could rationally prove to me that there was a God I would not bow down and worship that God". He's also teaching the Philip Pullman books in English classes - in the same "balanced" way.
The real concerns of several subject associations and people involved in RE can be found here:
REthink RE
A good discussion of the issues on Radio 4
Today programme
Exact clip here
Impact of Ebacc Measure on RE 2012
All Party Parliamentary Enquiry Announcement
With regard to history. We teach it chronologically already, but I have my reservations about the pedagogy and age appropriateness of the current proposals. Especially for Primary School. It looks like something that has missed the wood for the trees. I may comment further in a later post when I have time.
[ 02. March 2013, 11:39: Message edited by: Marinaki ]
--------------------
IC I XC "If thou bear thy cross
---+--- cheerfully, it will bear
NI I KA thee."
Posts: 696 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
I have experience of some RE teaching too. I posted the original thread because where I have taught it for an academic year (I was there filling in for a staff sickness) the senior staff at this English Secondary school have, in their wisdom, abolished RE for all years 9,10 and 11. It still takes place at Year 7 and 8.
In it's place they have introduced a mish mash of poetry, spirituality, some assorted religious elements, and an eclectic mix of ''all sorts'' (It is called ''Insight''). They have withdrawn GCSE RE as a major option, but after some parental pressure, now offer it to those who specifically choose it at year 9 options stage, as a GCSE.
It seems that religious education, in my very limited experience, is withering on the vine. This seems a great pity and quite short sighted. But when I wrote to my local MP he came out with the usual ''RE is a compulsory subject'' rubbish, etc etc.
Now that the EBAC has been effectively abandoned what future for RE I wonder?
Once again education is a political ping pong ball to be hit around the ideological political corridors of Whitehall.
Saul the Apostle
[ 02. March 2013, 16:20: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
These are my notes to my SACRE concerning the current state of play:
Where we got to
survey by the NASUWT teaching union, January:
further evidence about the decline in the provision of subjects not in the EBacc
90.3 per cent indicated there had been a reduction in the provision of RE since the EBacc was introduced.
24 per cent of schools had reduced their number of RE subject specialist teaching staff
U turn in the Ebacc
not the subjects therein but the form of assessment
BUT 8 (not 5) subjects to be measured in league tables
small print in a new consultation document suggests that RE MAY be in a list of 8 subjects
IF it meets 'rigorous standards'.
I assume that means it will have to have a 'treasure chest of knowledge'.
While such content-based stuff will be less interesting to students, it will strengthen our hand at KS3 and A'level, also at ITT.
John Keast: still marginalised
If not allowed to count as a humanities subject
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marinaki
Varangian Guard
# 343
|
Posted
Saul, your school is effectively breaking the law. However, it's one of those laws like the fabled bale of hay in a London cab. It may be be required but no-one does it. Although, I would argue that good RE is infinitely more useful than a bale of hay. The law is not enforced and indeed there is no clear body that has the ability to ensure schools follow through with their obligations.
SACREs are responsible for non-denominations local authority schools. There are no checks on Academies and Free Schools as they are not answerable to SACRE. Even where schools are answerable to their local SACRE these bodies can only advise and not insist on RE being taught in accordance with the law. They have no teeth.
Moreover, given RE is still not part of the National Curriculum and, therefore, excluded from the current curriculum review, it is marginalized even further. However, given the pedagogically unsound history curriculum being proposed that might not be a bad thing.
Leo, as for the so-called U turn and the EBacc measure - Gove has still got the bones of what he wanted...just not the pretty name. Reforms and rigour are not a bad thing. However, the curriculum has been narrowed and arts etc. displaced. At the chalkface it often feels like the Department of Education has been taken over by faceless Vogons with a curriculum designed by Philistines.
But what would I know about the curriculum. I'm only a teacher after all and nobody ever asks us about education policy or reform.
[ 02. March 2013, 19:01: Message edited by: Marinaki ]
--------------------
IC I XC "If thou bear thy cross
---+--- cheerfully, it will bear
NI I KA thee."
Posts: 696 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
Marinaki said: quote:
Gove has still got the bones of what he wanted...just not the pretty name. Reforms and rigour are not a bad thing. However, the curriculum has been narrowed and arts etc. displaced. At the chalkface it often feels like the Department of Education has been taken over by faceless Vogons with a curriculum designed by Philistines. But what would I know about the curriculum. I'm only a teacher after all and nobody ever asks us about education policy or reform.
I think that last statement hits the nail fair and squarely on the head.
I don't know Gove personally but my gut tells me he has IDEOLOGY written all over his forehead. Am I wrong here? Am I being wholly unfair? What is his motivating factors?
My earlier point was that (like other main public sector areas) education has been unhelpfully a highly political football. One example of this is the scary annual public media flagellation of teachers and indeed pupils when the GCSE results come out.
This is mind boggling. Most pupils, in my experience, are polite, good natured, hard working and committed. We then in public, in the summer when results come out, slag their efforts off as ''rapidly lowering standards in education.'' It is utterly foul and so predictable.
As far as the ideologue Gove is concerned I hope his little man's efforts peter out and he shuffles off into obscurity and the back benches. The horrid little man doesn't seem about to do that though.
Saul
[ 03. March 2013, 06:22: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marinaki
Varangian Guard
# 343
|
Posted
I think we misread the situation when we make it just about one man. There are obviously others in the DfE who are facilitating this mockery of sound pedagogy and how children learn things well, and what content (across the curriculum - not just history) is age appropriate.
As long as teachers and pedagogues are not involved this is going to be an unprecedented disaster.
Posts: 696 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cedd007
Shipmate
# 16180
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marinaki:
I think we misread the situation when we make it just about one man. There are obviously others in the DfE who are facilitating this mockery of sound pedagogy and how children learn things well, and what content (across the curriculum - not just history) is age appropriate.
As long as teachers and pedagogues are not involved this is going to be an unprecedented disaster.
There are good reasons why Michael Gove's name keeps cropping up. First, the Education Secretary has been given unprecedented powers, and at least one distinguished name in Education has argued that this is actually the essential issue. Secondly, Michael Gove has shown no compunction in using these powers in a dictatorial way from the very start of his time in office. Thirdly, Michael Gove has made no secret of the fact that he wants to revolutionise education (not necessarily a bad thing in itself, but a good reason why he gets a lot of flak). Fourthly, there is a huge mismatch between Michael Gove's soft words, for example his expressed admiration for the work of teachers, and what he is actually doing, which needs to be highlighted - and if that involves a suggestion he is sometimes guilty of terminological inexactitudes he has only himself to blame. Finally, if people have time to read it, there is strong evidence that Michael Gove ignored the advice of his experts in the Department at an early stage in the curriculum review:http://www.bera.ac.uk/content/background-michael-gove%E2%80%99s-response-report-expert-panel-national-curriculum-revie w-england
Posts: 58 | From: Essex, United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cedd007:
...
Finally, if people have time to read it, there is strong evidence that Michael Gove ignored the advice of his experts in the Department at an early stage in the curriculum review:http://www.bera.ac.uk/content/background-michael-gove%E2%80%99s-response-report-expert-panel-national-curriculum-revie w-england
That is similar to the situation in many departments, and it has been that way since (I think) the 1960's when Harold Wilson introduced 'Special Advisors'. He didn't have so many, but they proliferated under Thatcher, eased off a bit under Major and took off again when Blair was elected.
Essentially, these are consultants to give ministers ideological back up (because, let's face it, most ministers are pretty dim compared to the average Permanent Secretary). The permanent civil servants can advise and covertly oppose but most ministers have to rely on "his" men to enable him to keep the ball rolling.
It's worth adding that while the minister has been elected and the civil servants selected and trained, the special advisors are a mixed bag of political operators and unelectable cronies.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cedd007:
if people have time to read it, there is strong evidence that Michael Gove ignored the advice of his experts in the Department at an early stage in the curriculum review:http://www.bera.ac.uk/content/background-michael-gove%E2%80%99s-response-report-expert-panel-national-curriculum-revie w-england
Given that I hate Gove with a vengeance, I'd love to read that article but it doesn't work - is there a proper link please?
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
MP Tim Loughton was scathing about Gove's (mis) management at the Department of Education.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/michael-gove-blasted-by-conservative-colleague-1544330
I don't think it is just sour grapes on Loughton's part. Gove is part of the metropolitan Tory thought police/ss if you like of Feuhrer Cameron and Loughton is now sent off back to the back benches - despite being a brilliant Minister and energetic public servant.
Strange that.
Saul
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Inger
Shipmate
# 15285
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Cedd007:
if people have time to read it, there is strong evidence that Michael Gove ignored the advice of his experts in the Department at an early stage in the curriculum review:http://www.bera.ac.uk/content/background-michael-gove%E2%80%99s-response-report-expert-panel-national-curriculum-revie w-england
Given that I hate Gove with a vengeance, I'd love to read that article but it doesn't work - is there a proper link please?
I think this is the link
Posts: 332 | From: Newcastle, UK | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I ...will propose a toast in copious gin or whatever one's tipple to the person who wrote it.
Francis Gilbert, who has the evangelical zeal of the convert. He also has what we might charitably call 'an eccentric' view that Free Schools helped cause the London Riots.
I suppose at least he had the courage of his convictions to take his child out of private school before he trashed them. Feel sorry for the child though.
[ 08. March 2013, 00:16: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
