This is one of many work files belonging to a colleague of mine. It contains worksheets and notes pertaining to “stuff” that has been, but no longer is, part of GCSE Physics syllabuses. Not the full GCSE Physics course, just the stuff that’s no longer there.
Why does she keep the work? Well, every so often, a topic gets re-inserted, or comes up somewhere else, so the material can be used either as-is, or modified to fit.
What a colossal waste of time and effort!
- We know the canon of Physics.
- We know the Scope (for each level) and the Sequence it should be taught in to get the best results.
Why are we dictated to by exam boards and government about what gets taught at KS4&5?
It makes no sense to suddenly take out, or add great swathes of knowledge, as seems to happen.
Subject specialists, at all levels, and in all subjects, ought to come together and sort out the syllabuses properly. Then review them in 5 yearly intervals. And the same body of knowledge ought to be the basis of all assessments.
In reality, what with the EU (etc.) on one side, and devolving authorities on the other, the government appears to be losing things to tinker with. Thus it concentrates its attention on the soft underbelly of things it thinks it can improve. Things like Education and Health.
I know I’m slow, but I’m coming to the firm conclusion that the Westminster Talking Shop – Governments and oppositions – really don’t have much of a clue. They seem to have 3 angles:
- experience as a client and
- the belief that things are in slow and terminal decline.
Like the last, this particular iteration of Government says it’s keen to devolve power, so I thought I’d challenge them to do so:
Put decisions about Health and Education in the hands of the professional practitioners: doctors and nurses and teachers. Let those who deal with the issues on a daily basis elect a chief executive (accountable to the relevant Government Select Committee) and let the Councils have sub-committees which address each aspect of the service.
The PowerPoint can be downloaded here
@Kalinski1970 drew my attention this week to an independent body which exists to support all sectors of the teaching profession (the GTC that I (and many others) have been calling for for a while now).
Except it’s not called the General Teaching Council – it’s got a far cooler name that I sorely wish I’d thought of: The College of Teachers – what a great collective noun!
Set up in 1849 by Queen Victoria, under a Royal Charter, it’s organised as a Mutual, in that its members elect the trustees: a college for teachers, whose management is elected by teachers.
So why isn’t it “problem solved”? Well for a few reasons really:
- Firstly, the College does not enjoy a high profile. Teachers, School Leaders and even Educational Consultants expressed a collective “Wha? Who?” as the College emerged on the Twitter horizon this week.
- Its £104 per year membership fee. Whilst that’s not a huge amount of money, (and there are numerous benefits to being a member of the College), many teachers feel the need of the security of being in a Union – in case something should go wrong. Would they pay subs to two bodies? Because without 100% enrollment, the College obviously wouldn’t be completely representative. MORE
- It would inevitably mean an exponential expansion of the college – I’ve no idea how many members it currently has, but apparently there are hundreds of thousands of teachers across the land.
- And it would change the nature of the college, imposing a political element.
So, could the government find a way to fund the College, and yet keep it at arm’s length? Well they manage to do so in many other spheres of society. And might schools help out by funding their staff’s ongoing professional development? Perhaps.
Would the College want to transform itself? They tweeted, “We like a challenge.”
But would the teaching profession and the unions embrace the qualified advice of the College any more than they take on the ideas of the Secretary of State? Dunno.