M575 - National Curriculum Review Motion Watch

This discussion is closed.
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#61
Report 1 month ago
#61
(Original post by Glaz)
Didn't you say something before about needing to fill in a P45 or something? I got no clue what that is - a finance class could teach me
I think a P45 is a redundancy form - I'm pretty sure someone tried to hand Theresa May one once while she was making a speech.
0
Glaz
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#62
Report 1 month ago
#62
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
I think a P45 is a redundancy form - I'm pretty sure someone tried to hand Theresa May one once while she was making a speech.
Loooooool
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#63
Report 1 month ago
#63
(Original post by Joleee)
1) ability to read a contract
2) CV writing and interview skills. job placement/career advice
3) learning how to read a newspaper. what is propaganda, spin, framing, who owns the paper. learning to read critically because otherwise we continue to generate citizens who believe everything they read.
4) where to find mental health services. how to help yourself/help your friends
5) reform on sex education. what is consent
6) basic money knowledge. how to do your taxes
7) some kind of survival class. if you had to live off £10 a week how would you get by?

didn't study in the UK so obviously don't know what's already part of the curriculum.

also agree your motion is rather vague.
How do you teach people how to read a newspaper, what propaganda, spin and framing are in a newspaper context? It's not a realistic thing to do.

It's the same with consent. Consent isn't a cut and dry thing, it's a massive grey area. The rest of the things are easily found out on google.
0
The Mogg
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#64
Report 1 month ago
#64
(Original post by Glaz)
Didn't you say something before about needing to fill in a P45 or something? I got no clue what that is - a finance class could teach me
You know what else could teach you that? Google.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#65
Report 1 month ago
#65
(Original post by The Mogg)
You know what else could teach you that? Google.
You could say that for pretty much the entire national curriculum.
0
Glaz
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#66
Report 1 month ago
#66
(Original post by The Mogg)
You know what else could teach you that? Google.
:ottid:
(Original post by 04MR17)
You could say that for pretty much the entire national curriculum.
0
The Mogg
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#67
Report 1 month ago
#67
(Original post by 04MR17)
You could say that for pretty much the entire national curriculum.
Well then, let's cancel school and do everything via google!

Seriously though, although classes for things like taxes etc sound alright in theory, I feel they would become another PSE, which as Catus has already pointed out is full of dogsh**, among being completely useless.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#68
Report 1 month ago
#68
(Original post by 04MR17)
You could say that for pretty much the entire national curriculum.
And there lies the crux...

Children probably won't start Googling algebra, physics, maths and all the rest. The majority certainly won't have the commitment to follow a work plan to grasp a broad understanding. The same is true with sex ed, money management, tax returns etc...

However, everyone needs the latter. When they need it they google it. I would bet a small fortune that most teenagers have googled sex ed questions. The same is true when they get their first job and want information about taxes. The information is directly needed and can be found.

The same can't be said about algebra, physics, maths and the rest. As people in this thread have shown, they regard mechanics in maths as pointless. It's true the exact problems in the lessons aren't common place in life. What's untrue is they are unhelpful. They build up a basis for more complex information in A levels and uni. Some jobs after uni might not use that information directly, some do. What is true is they require a skill set evidenced by having a degree in any subject. This isn't going to change any time soon. Imagine doing uni level level work or having a job in later life where some maths ability was needed. It would be impossible to google low level maths and high level maths to understand something. It would take far too long. The same applies to physics or chemistry. That's why we teach them at school. It allows children to build up a basic understanding of core subjects that they can't really get elsewhere.

It therefore becomes a time issue. You can't teach all, you need to prioritise things. You might as well prioritise the broad knowledge knowing the life skills can be googled later
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#69
Report 1 month ago
#69
(Original post by The Mogg)
Well then, let's cancel school and do everything via google!

Seriously though, although classes for things like taxes etc sound alright in theory, I feel they would become another PSE, which as Catus has already pointed out is full of dogsh**, among being completely useless.
They would! A tax return is obvious. It has boxes that ask for personal details. It's self-explanatory. You can't teach someone to write their name where it says name etc... It would be however long each week of messing around with your friends
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#70
Report 1 month ago
#70
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
And there lies the crux...

Children probably won't start Googling algebra, physics, maths and all the rest. The majority certainly won't have the commitment to follow a work plan to grasp a broad understanding. The same is true with sex ed, money management, tax returns etc...

However, everyone needs the latter. When they need it they google it. I would bet a small fortune that most teenagers have googled sex ed questions. The same is true when they get their first job and want information about taxes. The information is directly needed and can be found.

The same can't be said about algebra, physics, maths and the rest. As people in this thread have shown, they regard mechanics in maths as pointless. It's true the exact problems in the lessons aren't common place in life. What's untrue is they are unhelpful. They build up a basis for more complex information in A levels and uni. Some jobs after uni might not use that information directly, some do. What is true is they require a skill set evidenced by having a degree in any subject. This isn't going to change any time soon. Imagine doing uni level level work or having a job in later life where some maths ability was needed. It would be impossible to google low level maths and high level maths to understand something. It would take far too long. The same applies to physics or chemistry. That's why we teach them at school. It allows children to build up a basic understanding of core subjects that they can't really get elsewhere.

It therefore becomes a time issue. You can't teach all, you need to prioritise things. You might as well prioritise the broad knowledge knowing the life skills can be googled later
Do we really want children asking the internet questions about sex?

The point isn't just about teaching them knowledge, it's soft skills. How to find things out for yourself, how to understand what's required...
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#71
Report 1 month ago
#71
(Original post by Aph)
Do we really want children asking the internet questions about sex?

The point isn't just about teaching them knowledge, it's soft skills. How to find things out for yourself, how to understand what's required...
Yes, actually. There will be a wide range of information, certainly more than a teacher can provide, and there will be multiple viewpoints. Googling sex questions is a great idea.

Teaching them how to find things out is worse. They know of google already.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#72
Report 1 month ago
#72
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
Yes, actually. There will be a wide range of information, certainly more than a teacher can provide, and there will be multiple viewpoints. Googling sex questions is a great idea.

Teaching them how to find things out is worse. They know of google already.
I'm just completely shocked you think that. I personally think that children turning to the internet for sex advice is the worse idea in the world.

Knowing what Google is is very different to knowing how to Google effectively and how to think critically.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#73
Report 1 month ago
#73
(Original post by Aph)
I'm just completely shocked you think that. I personally think that children turning to the internet for sex advice is the worse idea in the world.

Knowing what Google is is very different to knowing how to Google effectively and how to think critically.
There are worse ideas. The idea that we're going to big up a person to this all-knowing God of sex advice is worse to me. Plus, we're always going to have children using Google. There's a stigma around talking about sex that I don't believe is going to change any time soon. Are children going to ask their parents or teacher for sex information? No! They'll use the internet. Anonymity makes them feel more comfortable. TSR shows us that

I see them as the same thing. It's hard not to be able to find out info using google since the changes to the search algorithm
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#74
Report 1 month ago
#74
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
How do you teach people how to read a newspaper, what propaganda, spin and framing are in a newspaper context? It's not a realistic thing to do.

It's the same with consent. Consent isn't a cut and dry thing, it's a massive grey area. The rest of the things are easily found out on google.
Teaching people to read a newspaper would not be hard. I can think of exercises to do!
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#75
Report 1 month ago
#75
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
And there lies the crux...

Children probably won't start Googling algebra, physics, maths and all the rest. The majority certainly won't have the commitment to follow a work plan to grasp a broad understanding. The same is true with sex ed, money management, tax returns etc...

However, everyone needs the latter. When they need it they google it. I would bet a small fortune that most teenagers have googled sex ed questions. The same is true when they get their first job and want information about taxes. The information is directly needed and can be found.

The same can't be said about algebra, physics, maths and the rest. As people in this thread have shown, they regard mechanics in maths as pointless. It's true the exact problems in the lessons aren't common place in life. What's untrue is they are unhelpful. They build up a basis for more complex information in A levels and uni. Some jobs after uni might not use that information directly, some do. What is true is they require a skill set evidenced by having a degree in any subject. This isn't going to change any time soon. Imagine doing uni level level work or having a job in later life where some maths ability was needed. It would be impossible to google low level maths and high level maths to understand something. It would take far too long. The same applies to physics or chemistry. That's why we teach them at school. It allows children to build up a basic understanding of core subjects that they can't really get elsewhere.

It therefore becomes a time issue. You can't teach all, you need to prioritise things. You might as well prioritise the broad knowledge knowing the life skills can be googled later
You've criticised my motion for wasting your time then you've just quoted me listing things I already know, answering an argument I didn't make.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#76
Report 1 month ago
#76
All these disagreements is simply more evidence that what to do with the national curriculum should be put to the people.

Nothing in the motion says taxes or anything else will ne included in a new curriculum. Arguments for and against these things should be made if and when a public consultation takes place. Otherwise this is entirely premature speculation.
1
Joleee
Badges: 18
#77
Report 1 month ago
#77
if anyone wants to argue the points i made, thank you - i'm flattered. i'm also not part of this motion at all. was just throwing sh*t out there at 7am for the sake of spurring an argument. if you're against this motion because of my suggestions, you are arguing against the wrong person.

for the record, i never suggested students should be able to do a complicated tax return - i said basic money knowledge. said knowledge could theoretically be done in up to three classes and could literally be incorporate that into any A level subject with no harm being done to said subject. you know, those classes you don't pay attention to or call in 'sick' for.

clearly there is confusion about consent, so i suggested reform of sex education. not suggesting a brand new subject - you need to calm down.

it's not my idea to introduce media literacy into the educational system publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcumeds/363/363.pdf - page 63 for the record. it's actually quite easy to introduce critical reading of the media into most humanities subjects.Miss Maddie in my opinion, should be a prerequisite for existing.

sorry if i missed any points. exhausted from work and my brain is fried.
2
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#78
Report 1 month ago
#78
(Original post by 04MR17)
You've criticised my motion for wasting your time then you've just quoted me listing things I already know, answering an argument I didn't make.
Does the motion waste time? Yes. A consultation is not the most pressing issue of the education topic.

Your quote gave an entrance for my extended piece against changing the curriculum to include life skills. Should it be decided in a consultation? God no. The problem with consultations is they don't achieve anything new. Everything that comes out of them has already been explored before
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#79
Report 1 month ago
#79
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
Teaching people to read a newspaper would not be hard. I can think of exercises to do!
Of these exercises, how many could be done in English as part of comprehensions and practising literary analysis?
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#80
Report 1 month ago
#80
(Original post by Joleee)
if anyone wants to argue the points i made, thank you - i'm flattered. i'm also not part of this motion at all. was just throwing sh*t out there at 7am for the sake of spurring an argument. if you're against this motion because of my suggestions, you are arguing against the wrong person.

for the record, i never suggested students should be able to do a complicated tax return - i said basic money knowledge. said knowledge could theoretically be done in up to three classes and could literally be incorporate that into any A level subject with no harm being done to said subject. you know, those classes you don't pay attention to or call in 'sick' for.

clearly there is confusion about consent, so i suggested reform of sex education. not suggesting a brand new subject - you need to calm down.

it's not my idea to introduce media literacy into the educational system publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcumeds/363/363.pdf - page 63 for the record. it's actually quite easy to introduce critical reading of the media into most humanities subjects.Miss Maddie in my opinion, should be a prerequisite for existing.

sorry if i missed any points. exhausted from work and my brain is fried.
I know it's not your idea. A predominantly left wing committee moans about Brexit coverage and fake news. No surprises there then. That's not even the first time people have argued about putting critical media into humanities subjects. It's been talked about for years and still isn't widespread. That's telling in itself and we all know why it's not widespread
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (479)
66.44%
No (242)
33.56%

Watched Threads

View All