[ByronicHero]

(Original post by Jangrafess)
I disagree that you needed to know what percentages you needed to get in the exam... you would have performed equally well anyway, and you can do that **** on a calculator.

You don't need above basic numeracy skills to work out interest rates either, it's simple stuff. I'm talking about quadratic equations, not mental arithmetic. (Some smart arse TSR knob will come in and say they do quadratics in their head whilst masturbating now )

Well if you could do that then you weren't taught it anyway and you've undermined your point somewhat.

You learn those calculator skills, and the ability to use them effectively, during GCSE maths.

The point is you are taught it during GCSE, whether you can do it previously (as many even slightly precocious people can) or not is irrelevant; the point was regarding the need or lack thereof of the skills learnt during GCSE maths.

I don't understand what you mean by the last point sorry

[toronto353]

(Original post by Stricof)
So is Mandarin. China is the fastest growing economy in the world. Several top Private schools in the country have taken initiative to make Mandarin compulsory up to GCSE/A level standard. That is an indication that Mandarin for example, easily plays on the same field as English.

Therefore it is a necessity.

Hundreds of Thousands of individuals can speak languages. Government initiatives to Language graduates or brining MFL teachers from abroad would solve this problem

They have problems because GCSE Languages aren't compulsory anymore. They removed the compulsory status about a year before i did GCSE. Big mistake.

I wholeheartedly support compulsory language GCSEs, but not compulsory primary education in modern languages. The vast majority of students won't need modern languages as they do English or Maths, why spend money solving this problem when this money would be better spent rooting out the bad teachers and offering incentives to our best graduates to get them teaching?

Solve the underlying problems first, then add on this Bill.

[ByronicHero]

(Original post by Stricof)
So you're debating on the sake of a status quo instead of something positive. What kind of backwards logic is this?

I'm debating what the priority should be - there is a far more pronounced negative effect to those who fail to learn English/Maths to a certain level than to those who simply don't speak more than one language. It's perfectly legitimate logic in my mind.

[Jangrafess]

(Original post by paddy__power)
You learn those calculator skills, and the ability to use them effectively, during GCSE maths.

The point is you are taught it during GCSE, whether you can do it previously (as many even slightly precocious people can) or not is irrelevant; the point was regarding the need or lack thereof of the skills learnt during GCSE maths.

I don't understand what you mean by the last point sorry

Yes, and that's basic maths, which is not what I'm asking you to prove you've had to use. I accept that basic maths and numeracy is important, I don't accept that anything more is necessary and time devoted to that could be better used to teach things like or including language.

I know, see above sentence.

[ajp100688]

(Original post by toronto353)
I wholeheartedly support compulsory language GCSEs, but not compulsory primary education in modern languages. The vast majority of students won't need modern languages as they do English or Maths, why spend money solving this problem when this money would be better spent rooting out the bad teachers and offering incentives to our best graduates to get them teaching?

Solve the underlying problems first, then add on this Bill.

Kinda addressing this situation are you aware of just how many Language Graduates there are out there struggling for jobs these days. This bill would have a side effect of attracting them into teaching as they can use their talents and the language they obviously enjoy. Thus improving teaching standards by drawing in those that may not have considered teaching.

It's not a primary aim of this bill but it could be an interesting side effect.

[toronto353]

Since we are debating about teaching useful things. Why not teach Latin and Greek and Arabic. They are all the building blocks of our language as well as many others. The argument that this is somehow necessary could be made about any subject and hence the argument and the Bill are weak.

[Stricof]

(Original post by paddy__power)
I'm debating what the priority should be - there is a far more pronounced negative effect to those who fail to learn English/Maths to a certain level than to those who simply don't speak more than one language. It's perfectly legitimate logic in my mind.

This is not an excuse. English and Maths are taught with more hours and more priority than languages.

(Original post by toronto353)
I wholeheartedly support compulsory language GCSEs, but not compulsory primary education in modern languages. The vast majority of students won't need modern languages as they do English or Maths, why spend money solving this problem when this money would be better spent rooting out the bad teachers and offering incentives to our best graduates to get them teaching?

Solve the underlying problems first, then add on this Bill.

I think it should start at Primary school because the interest in something starts when you are young. Furthermore the ability to learn at a younger age is much greater. But it should be taught slowly in P. School.

[toronto353]

(Original post by ajp100688)
Kinda addressing this situation are you aware of just how many Language Graduates there are out there struggling for jobs these days. This bill would have a side effect of attracting them into teaching as they can use their talents and the language they obviously enjoy. Thus improving teaching standards by drawing in those that may not have considered teaching.

It's not a primary aim of this bill but it could be an interesting side effect.

However, it would cost us a lot of money that we don't currently have to provide EVERY school with a dedicated language teacher(s).

[ByronicHero]

(Original post by Jangrafess)
Yes, and that's basic maths, which is not what I'm asking you to prove you've had to use. I accept that basic maths and numeracy is important, I don't accept that anything more is necessary and time devoted to that could be better used to teach things like or including language.

I know, see above sentence.

It is basic maths yes, very very basic, but all the same it is taught at GCSE level and is needed. It is built on the foundations of maths taught in primary schools. Many people are failing to learn these foundations currently, so the introduction of another facet to an already failing system doesn't sit well with me.

I can make my peace with 3 years compulsory language teaching years 7 - 9, but I think doing it before then is wrong because the basics -that we agree are most important - have simply not been learnt by most people yet.

Do you see what I mean?

If all primary school children were comfortably able to read, write and do basic maths when they leave then I feel the arguemnt to include a language would be stronger; that's not the case though.

[ajp100688]

(Original post by toronto353)
Since we are debating about teaching useful things. Why not teach Latin and Greek and Arabic. They are all the building blocks of our language as well as many others. The argument that this is somehow necessary could be made about any subject and hence the argument and the Bill are weak.

The entire basis of the bill is a socio-political argument that our monolingual society hurts our understanding of foreign countries, our children's horizons and the country's economic performance. For these reasons the Classical Languages were not included. I take on board the argument they are useful and indeed they are but I didn't feel they fit the concept of this bill.

Also Arabic is explicitly mentioned in the bill as a promoted GCSE subject and could be chosen as the secondary language if an LEA so wanted to.

[WhatTheFunk]

where are these teachers going to come from when at that level you taught by the same teacher for everything, there are a number of studies that show you learn a language alot better at a younger age, something like French or Spanish would be helpful in the world, a hour or 2 a week, to be fair once i got to year 7 8 9 when you made to do it, poor teachers along with other things meant nothing was learnt you pretty much used to the hour to mess about in

god know why you have to do art at school, one of the most pointless thing i used to find

[toronto353]

(Original post by paddy__power)
If all primary school children were comfortably able to read, write and do basic maths when they leave then I feel the arguemnt to include a language would be stronger; that's not the case though.

Fully agree with this point. You could just be making the literacy problem worse by confusing children by introducing new languages.

[ByronicHero]

(Original post by Stricof)
This is not an excuse. English and Maths are taught with more hours and more priority than languages.
I think it should start at Primary school because the interest in something starts when you are young. Furthermore the ability to learn at a younger age is much greater. But it should be taught slowly in P. School.

And are still not taught well enough, this should be rectified before anything else happens. It's like having a ship with a hole in it and adding new sails.

[Smack]

(Original post by Jangrafess)
Yes, and that's basic maths, which is not what I'm asking you to prove you've had to use. I accept that basic maths and numeracy is important, I don't accept that anything more is necessary and time devoted to that could be better used to teach things like or including language.

I know, see above sentence.

Foreign languages aren't important to everyone. They're not to me. I've never ever needed to talk anything other than English.

Maths however is extremely important for anyone who wants to study and work in science, technology and finance. We're already failing to fill all required science and technology jobs, according to the CBI, who also say we need to double the amount of new science graduates or see skilled jobs disappear. If we don't teach maths to everyone, and don't value the subject, we're going to be left behind in a technologically advanced society.

[toronto353]

(Original post by ajp100688)
The entire basis of the bill is a socio-political argument that our monolingual society hurts our understanding of foreign countries, our children's horizons and the country's economic performance. For these reasons the Classical Languages were not included. I take on board the argument they are useful and indeed they are but I didn't feel they fit the concept of this bill.

Also Arabic is explicitly mentioned in the bill as a promoted GCSE subject and could be chosen as the secondary language if an LEA so wanted to.

Missed Arabic thanks for the clarification, but Latin and Greek have modern forms why can't these be taught.

[Jangrafess]

(Original post by paddy__power)
It is basic maths yes, very very basic, but all the same it is taught at GCSE level and is needed. It is built on the foundations of maths taught in primary schools. Many people are failing to learn these foundations currently, so the introduction of another facet to an already failing system doesn't sit well with me.

I can make my peace with 3 years compulsory language teaching years 7 - 9, but I think doing it before then is wrong because the basics -that we agree are most important - have simply not been learnt by most people yet.

Do you see what I mean?

If all primary school children were comfortably able to read, write and do basic maths when they leave then I feel the arguemnt to include a language would be stronger; that's not the case though.

I haven't denied that it is needed. Three hours a week before then really won't disrupt that. By your logic you might as well teach nothing but literacy and numeracy until the basics are known and wait for however long that takes before teaching anything else at all. Adequate primary teaching of literacy and numeracy isn't something you can decide by quantity of hours taught, it's about the quality of teaching, which is what should be addressed. Giving more mediocre preparation won't help anything. So address quality, which doesn't stop adding in some quality language teaching as well.

[ajp100688]

(Original post by toronto353)
Missed Arabic thanks for the clarification, but Latin and Greek have modern forms why can't these be taught.

Modern Greek can be under this bill. There is no such thing as 'Modern Latin', there's Church Latin if you mean that but it's not a living language in the conventional sense.

[Jangrafess]

(Original post by Smack)
Foreign languages aren't important to everyone. They're not to me. I've never ever needed to talk anything other than English.

Maths however is extremely important for anyone who wants to study and work in science, technology and finance. We're already failing to fill all required science and technology jobs, according to the CBI, who also say we need to double the amount of new science graduates or see skilled jobs disappear. If we don't teach maths to everyone, and don't value the subject, we're going to be left behind in a technologically advanced society.

Right, but equally everyone who doesn't go into a job like those you've mentioned won't need anywhere near the level of maths they are taught. I'm looking at some sort of compromise, involving a choice to go further in maths rather than the lengths compulsory education take you to in current academia. I don't want to leave maths behind either and were this a bill attempting to get rid of maths I'd be completely opposed to it. It isn't though, it's attempting to instil a level of MFL knowledge in a child that sets them up for future learning, in the same way as the maths tauht in primary prepares for the maths taught in secondary. Continental children and education systems manage it whilst not losing anything from their numerical ability. I don't see why we shouldn't be able to do the same, other than that we're really arrogant and assume they should learn to speak our language rather than us theirs.

[Stricof]

(Original post by paddy__power)
And are still not taught well enough, this should be rectified before anything else happens. It's like having a ship with a hole in it and adding new sails.

Well then its a problem about teacher efficiency isn't it. And not from an economic perspective but actually quality of teaching.
The top countries for Secondary academic achievement, all have compulsory second language proficiency. And they produce the best 'workers' of the future IMO. It also improves global relations etc. So this issue of maths and English is not relevant.

[ByronicHero]

(Original post by Jangrafess)
I haven't denied that it is needed. Three hours a week before then really won't disrupt that. By your logic you might as well teach nothing but literacy and numeracy until the basics are known and wait for however long that takes before teaching anything else at all. Adequate primary teaching of literacy and numeracy isn't something you can decide by quantity of hours taught, it's about the quality of teaching, which is what should be addressed. Giving more mediocre preparation won't help anything. So address quality, which doesn't stop adding in some quality language teaching as well.

Quality is preferable to quantity but practice is important; I do see the logic of your argument but I simply think that 3 hours IS a long time to take away from the core subjects and you think it isn't - ultimately I think we agree in principle but just not in practice. I can't support this because I think it will have a solidly negative effect - especially given some of the other things I have pointed out, you support it as you think the oposite. I don't think there is much middle ground to be found beyond that.

I agree with much of what you're saying, as on their own most of the statements are correct (IMO ofc) - but within the context of a failing system the emphasis should be on fixing what is broken. If someone has a ripper pair of school trousers you don't buy them a new shirt so to speak.

This bill doesn't adress the problems IMO, and while what it proposes is not bad in itself, it's the cost included in it's implementation I have the issue with.

I stated before that if there was provision for those who need extra help to not get the language classes but to get extra specialised classes to help them catch up instead I could potentially support this - I don't know what your thought on that would be.