Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Education news' started by JosieWhitehead, Feb 18, 2016.
NO PLACE FOR SHOUTING EITHER
The brain training that you can achieve from learning things by rote can make it easier (and quicker) for anyone to memorise bits of information that need to be recalled without delay.
You can't really be an actor without the ability to do this, or a lawyer, or a politician, or car salesperson, or a doctor, or a nurse... I could go on.
Here's what I did learn..
When a person has a weak argument they quickly resort to picking holes in how an argument is presented against them to deflect attention from the weakness of their own argument.
If it makes you more comfortable I'll retract the "force feed' and you may replace it with a word you feel comfortable with that describes the act of making it compulsory for children to learn Shakespeare and recite poetry. When you've deemed a word suitable for your sensibilities please share and I'll make an effort to use it.
In the meantime it will do nothing to alter my view that neither of those things are necessary. Teaching the alphabet is. Teaching Shakespeare is not. Teaching children to read is. Teaching children to read poetry is not. One is fundamental. One could be a possible tool. There are plenty of other tools, many of which may be more suitable.
I did not learn any Shakespeare or poetry in my English classes. I did pay sufficient attention to learn the word 'supercilious'.
I don't necessarily entirely disagree with this. However, if you read my previous post, I asked the question, beyond basic arithmetic and literacy, what should we consider to be key skills / knowledge? How and what should we decide to teach to children (or for them to learn)?
This is for greater people that me to decide. My suggestion for how to go about it would be to establish a body of educators to have responsibility for the curriculum - free from political bias and meddling. Teaching could then truly be a profession.
My guess would be that they would keep literature in as an essential part. If you don't believe me then have a look at the various systems that have little or no political interference, and it still plays a central role.
Out of interest, what do you teach?
Why would I not believe that?
I teach children. Sometimes I teach teachers too, unless they already know it all.
children are not objects
It was the impression I had from your posts. I apologise if I misunderstood.
As do we all. However they are who, not what.
Not up to a little robust debate?
redlamp 2 ......... those who memorise the parts of the verb 'to be' can avoid errors such as "neither of those things are necessary". IS necessary, surely.
I enjoy robust debate.
Picking holes in how something is said opposed to what is being said is not robust debate, it's an attempt to poke in the hope of continued response. To that end I've made my point, most seem to have understood it. I've nothing further to add.
For the commenter above, seizing on 'neither is' vs 'neither are'; I suggest you step out from your glass-house, go for a nice walk in the sunshine and calm yourself down. You can reassess your priorities in life while you're at it.
I'm off for a nice long walk too.
It's not just about being 'entertaining' - it's about the fact that there's no time for consolidation and practice when you have to demonstrate progress every 10 minutes.
Sounds a little petulant to me.
If you are going to make opinionated and derogatory comments (force feed) about the job that many Secondary English teachers do, you should expect a little push back, and not flounce off when asked to justify yourself fully.
Patronizing to say the least.
There's no rhyme or reason for the spellings we have in the English language. Learning to spell words correctly must surely be "rote learning". I was a teacher of Pitman's shorthand (in the dark ages), ha ha Here we write the skeleton of the words, ie just the sounds on paper - but you have to know the correct spellings in order to transcribe the words into longhand. So someone looked at Pitman's shorthand and thought that something similar could be used to teach children to read quickly. So children were being taught symbols and spelling-short-cuts. Oh dear dear dear!!!! Whilst this was happening, we were being taught at the training college I went to that something will become a habit if it is done the same way 3 times. So how did they think that at the age of 8, children were then told that the words they'd learnt (the shortened way), must now be changed to the spelling that we have in English? Is somebody paid to come up with stupid ideas in order to keep a job? Unfortunately, in Colleges of Further Education, I had the result of this experiment coming into my classrooms and it was IMPOSSIBLE!!!
I couldn't disagree more with you. All the above is necessary. Poetry is great at making children understand the plurality of meanings behind words, Shakespeare is a cornerstone of British culture, and, let's face it, his plays can give you hindsight into today's world that nothing else can.
And the language is more than a tool, it has a beauty of its own, that great authors/poets magnify.
A world where languages are only interesting in as much as they are useful is an incredibly sad place.
tag is placed before what you write, then what you write is separated from the quote.[/QUOTE]
Oh, thank you very much. I am still learning. Nice to meet you. Josie
Some people also think that knowledge is more important than reading:
I'm not sure that learning poetry by heart is "rote learning". Poetry should have meaning. Learning poetry by heart and performing it has come back into the National Curriculum in the last couple of years, but when I was a child we all did this. We looked on this as being the first foot on the drama ladder. We were taught how to throw our voice across a room without shouting and how to make our voice interesting to listen to. We were taught how facial expression and body language also accompanied poetry recitals. We saw poetry as a performing arts subject which was the first foot on the drama ladder. I've been glad of all I learnt in this connection in my teaching career, especially when I've had to throw my voice to the four corners of a high-ceilinged Victorian classroom. Poetry links to many other arts subjects, and especially to music. One of my own poems went into an operatic work staged in Los Angeles last year and another has had music composed for it for organ and choir (a Remembrance Day poem). It has to be more than words being analysed for an exam, or a means of teaching punctuation or spelling. We don't treat song in this way do we?