Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by morgan8002)
    Yes. This is different situation though. By analogy it's a drug that's already in circulation(and mandatory for everyone to use), is very expensive, has a horrible method of use and we have no idea if it works, what the side effects are and whether there's even a condition that needs treating. Also, the drug has a little theoretical grounding, but it's shaky. We might want to find out the answers to these questions rather than blindly continuing to use the drug.
    If anyone wanted a drug to be taken off the market then they would research reasons why it should be done.

    Coming back to education, the consensus of qualified professionals and likely the majority of the population is that English should remain as a vital subject in both primary and secondary education. Making such a change would be, in the opinion of most professionals, catastrophic. It would be expensive.

    The onus is on anyone wishing to make such a drastic change to demonstrate why it would benefit pupils, firstly through theory and then through trials.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by morgan8002)
    It's primary research: I spent over a decade going to several schools and observing English lessons by various teachers.
    Out of curiosity, by this are you referring to your own education? Or time spend in classrooms after leaving school?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    If anyone wanted a drug to be taken off the market then they would research reasons why it should be done.

    Coming back to education, the consensus of qualified professionals and likely the majority of the population is that English should remain as a vital subject in both primary and secondary education. Making such a change would be, in the opinion of most professionals, catastrophic. It would be expensive.

    The onus is on anyone wishing to make such a drastic change to demonstrate why it would benefit pupils, firstly through theory and then through trials.
    Maybe they would. They wouldn't have to though since all drugs go through testing before being put on the market. The government wouldn't dream of making a drug or treatment mandatory, especially if it's untested and there's no definite reason for use; even vaccines aren't mandatory.

    Yes, that's why trials would need to be done. The risk is too great to change the whole system without the required evidence.
    It wouldn't be very expensive. The cheapest way would be to fire the English teachers, pay them their redundancy and rearrange the timetable so that the school day is shorter. The school has MADE the teachers' salaries minus the redundancy pay. There are of course other reasonable implementations(including for example optional English classes or classes in other subjects), the most expensive of which would have about the same cost as the English lessons, not taking into account the redundancy pay(which is insignificant in the long term).
    Speaking anecdotally, English teachers seem to take a lot of years off due to pregnancies and illnesses, so the school often has to pay double their salary to pay both them and the huge number of supply teachers to cover their lessons. If this is statistically significant across the country, it would mean that the change will make a lot of money.

    It's not too hard to demonstrate the theory. If someone already knows something, telling them again doesn't teach them it, since they already know it. If someone is fluent in both spoken and written English(which you'd expect from most secondary school students in a primarily English speaking part of the world) they don't need to be taught it anymore.
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    Out of curiosity, by this are you referring to your own education? Or time spend in classrooms after leaving school?
    It depends how you define education.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by morgan8002)
    Maybe they would. They wouldn't have to though since all drugs go through testing before being put on the market. The government wouldn't dream of making a drug or treatment mandatory, especially if it's untested and there's no definite reason for use; even vaccines aren't mandatory.

    Yes, that's why trials would need to be done. The risk is too great to change the whole system without the required evidence.
    It wouldn't be very expensive. The cheapest way would be to fire the English teachers, pay them their redundancy and rearrange the timetable so that the school day is shorter. The school has MADE the teachers' salaries minus the redundancy pay. There are of course other reasonable implementations(including for example optional English classes or classes in other subjects), the most expensive of which would have about the same cost as the English lessons, not taking into account the redundancy pay(which is insignificant in the long term).
    Yes, so like I say, I look forward to seeing research done on the proposal to ditch English from the secondary curriculum.

    Speaking anecdotally, English teachers seem to take a lot of years off due to pregnancies and illnesses, so the school often has to pay double their salary to pay both them and the huge number of supply teachers to cover their lessons. If this is statistically significant across the country, it would mean that the change will make a lot of money.
    Again, look forward to seeing the research.

    It's not too hard to demonstrate the theory. If someone already knows something, telling them again doesn't teach them it, since they already know it. If someone is fluent in both spoken and written English(which you'd expect from most secondary school students in a primarily English speaking part of the world) they don't need to be taught it anymore.
    The way the world works is that any concept that goes against what is the generally accepted view would have to carry a certain amount of weight behind it. Usually the person making the proposal would be someone (or usually a number if people) with an established reputation, background in the area and expertise. Also put forward in a rigorous way. Again, look forward to seeing something like that.

    It depends how you define education.
    I'm asking a simple question, that you can choose to answer or not. Were the years spent in English classes in a variety of schools that you referred to meaning ones spent as a pupil?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    Yes, so like I say, I look forward to seeing research done on the proposal to ditch English from the secondary curriculum.
    Me too!
    Again, look forward to seeing the research.
    Me too!
    The way the world works is that any concept that goes against what is the generally accepted view would have to carry a certain amount of weight behind it. Usually the person making the proposal would be someone (or usually a number if people) with an established reputation, background in the area and expertise. Also put forward in a rigorous way. Again, look forward to seeing something like that.
    Indeed. That is why research needs to be done in this area.
    You can't expect true rigour outside of mathematics, particularly in an area such as this.
    Me too!
    I'm asking a simple question, that you can choose to answer or not. Were the years spent in English classes in a variety of schools that you referred to meaning ones spent as a pupil?
    Again it depends on how you define pupil. If you go by this definition: "a person who is taught by another, especially a schoolchild or student in relation to a teacher.", then I spent 5 years and six months as a pupil and a further 7 years and 3 months not as a pupil.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by morgan8002)
    Me too!

    Me too!

    Indeed. That is why research needs to be done in this area.
    You can't expect true rigour outside of mathematics, particularly in an area such as this.
    Me too!

    Again it depends on how you define pupil. If you go by this definition: "a person who is taught by another, especially a schoolchild or student in relation to a teacher.", then I spent 5 years as a pupil and a further 7 years and 3 months not as a pupil.
    So why were you in the classroom for those 7 years and 3 months? Would your school say it was being younwere a pupil?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    So why were you in the classroom for those 7 years and 3 months?
    Mandatory "education".
    Would your school say it was being younwere a pupil?
    Sorry am I, youmseem not toa cohesive question forming ability.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by morgan8002)
    Mandatory "education".


    Sorry am I, youmseem not toa cohesive question forming ability.
    Big fingers, small keypad

    Don't get me wrong, you clearly speak English eloquently and perhaps you had substandard English teachers. But you had someone well-qualified in English in some way or another in front of you for years and didn't feel that they could enhance your command of the language or expertise in literature?

    Because I feel like I can speak and write (if not type) reasonably well, certainly sufficiently for my job. But I recognise that I would like to have better knowledge of the canon of English-language literature and a more in-depth knowledge of the written language. Only last year I vasly improved by previously limited understanding of the use of semi-colons, with the help of an English teacher as it happens
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    Big fingers, small keypad

    Don't get me wrong, you clearly speak English eloquently and perhaps you had substandard English teachers. But you had someone well-qualified in English in some way or another in front of you for years and didn't feel that they could enhance your command of the language or expertise in literature?
    I'm not sure. I had a lot of teachers(particularly supply teachers) so it's unlikely that they were all substandard.
    For the most part, no. There was the occasional question about some minor point that I brought up, but the teacher would never know the answer so I'd have to research it myself anyway.
    Because I feel like I can speak and write (if not type) reasonably well, certainly sufficiently for my job. But I recognise that I would like to have better knowledge of the canon of English-language literature and a more in-depth knowledge of the written language. Only last year I vasly improved by previously limited understanding of the use of semi-colons, with the help of an English teacher as it happens
    There's a point for me where I feel there's not much justification for improvement. As long as I'm able to express myself sufficiently clearly and correctly and able to understand any text I'd wish to read then it's enough for me. Sometimes I'll read up on some piece of grammar or etymology, but for the most part I'm happy with what I know. I'd rather learn another language.
    As for canon, it never seemed to fit in with English as a subject. Maybe our teachers weren't focussed on it, but we'd rarely study a book. When we did, we'd only read or listen to a chapter and the books weren't interesting in my opinion(with one exception that was apparently ruined by the class). The two short books we had to read in full we bought and read ourselves and the in-class analysis was just watching the film. It all seemed very pointless and I'm really not sure how a teacher can help with canon. I'm not interested in canon for the sake of it: I only want to read the subset that I'll find particularly interesting.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by una.7)
    what about crushing children's creativity by not encouraging any arts or humanties at a younger age? Just teaching science, maths, english would take the joy out of learning and put so many kids off school, and it helps brain development to learn about subjects like that when you're young! I don't even know what kind of school you want but it sounds like soul-crushing one to me. sorry.
    I am not saying dich all creative classes just have more emphasis on the 3 core subjects. I mean I would have rat here have been assess by a vocational course like a GNVQ or an AVCE at secondary school level.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by una.7)
    what about crushing children's creativity by not encouraging any arts or humanties at a younger age? Just teaching science, maths, english would take the joy out of learning and put so many kids off school, and it helps brain development to learn about subjects like that when you're young! I don't even know what kind of school you want but it sounds like soul-crushing one to me. sorry.
    Personally, I love maths in primary school and hated art.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by inhuman)
    Personally, I love maths in primary school and hated art.
    I don't think most people would agree. Primary school maths was the most depressing thing ever, I left primary school thinking I was a failure.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    I don't think most people would agree. Primary school maths was the most depressing thing ever, I left primary school thinking I was a failure.
    I think you are right.

    But does that mean it's good to go from one extreme to the other? Would you be happy if people like me will now leave primary school with this kind of mentality?
    • TSR Support Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by inhuman)
    I think you are right.

    But does that mean it's good to go from one extreme to the other? Would you be happy if people like me will now leave primary school with this kind of mentality?
    I didn't say it would be good to go to the other extreme.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    While I don't agree that English should be abolished from secondary education, I can see the OP's point. I think English Language is sufficient for most people.

    Perhaps it should be mandatory to read a book every week and just write an essay on it and move on to the next book. English is my second language and I improved it almost exclusively through reading and writing.

    If research on the effectiveness of studying English during secondary education is proposed; why not conduct the research yourself?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 24, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
    Uni match

    Applying to uni?

    Our tool will help you find the perfect course

    Articles:

    Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

    Quick link:

    Educational debate unanswered threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.