Cthulthu

the acquisition and application of knowledge is the greatest of the skills.

And those in power know this. Here's my take:

Modern economies need highly-skilled but docile, compliant workers. What they don't need so much is knowledgeable people.

People who know things---especially things they are not supposed to know---can get ideas. Ideas make people uppity, make them aspire to have and do and be more, make them want things above their station. People "in the know"---people who have knowledge--- can cause all kinds of trouble for business and governments, now and historically. 'Twas ever thus, from ancient times to the present.

The solution, in the view of governments and business, is to educate people to be skilled---that is, able to do all sorts of things that are valuable to economic development, while at the same time keeping them ignorant: that is, not knowing what's important to know, and not knowing that they don't know it. Voila: CfE!

Knowledge is power, Give people a wealth of skills along with a dearth of knowledge and you'll keep them weak, docile, and utterly controllable. Meanwhile, the power classes claim knowledge as their preserve by right and exercise that claim through their private education systems, for example.

CanuckGrrl

Cthulthu

the acquisition and application of knowledge is the greatest of the skills.

And those in power know this. Here's my take:

Modern economies need highly-skilled but docile, compliant workers. What they don't need so much is knowledgeable people.

People who know things---especially things they are not supposed to know---can get ideas. Ideas make people uppity, make them aspire to have and do and be more, make them want things above their station. People "in the know"---people who have knowledge--- can cause all kinds of trouble for business and governments, now and historically. 'Twas ever thus, from ancient times to the present.

The solution, in the view of governments and business, is to educate people to be skilled---that is, able to do all sorts of things that are valuable to economic development, while at the same time keeping them ignorant: that is, not knowing what's important to know, and not knowing that they don't know it. Voila: CfE!

Knowledge is power, Give people a wealth of skills along with a dearth of knowledge and you'll keep them weak, docile, and utterly controllable. Meanwhile, the power classes claim knowledge as their preserve by right and exercise that claim through their private education systems, for example.

 

 

Now, now!  That'll be enough of that Bolshie talk!  Be about your business there, colonial chappie!

 

Dom, vive la revolution!

CG, couldn't agree more (with your longer post)

CanuckGrrl

Here's my take:

Modern economies need highly-skilled but docile, compliant workers.

Not entirely - they can skill up workers pretty quickly,. To get the docile, compliant people, they look for those who can memorise lots of information for an exam then recite it parrot fashion. They are the ultimate malleable worker - they'll do anything if there is a reward at the end of it.

What they don't need so much is knowledgeable people.

People who know things---especially things they are not supposed to know---can get ideas.

People who THINK get ideas,. People who memorise stuff for exams get good exam results then forget everything they've memorised within a year. Thats the sort of worker you need - mind full of their job, and not of how volcanoes are formed, or how the egyptians developed irrigation. But your way works too..... It's all about how you perceive things. Only a small part of my knowledge came from school. The largest part of my knowledge came from personal research, which included using skills which were taught in school or university, like how to use a library, how to take notes, and how to cross reference and check the validity of findings. How often do we teach these skills to our pupils? Pupils still think that "taking notes" means copying off the board. Knowledge is power? Nice soundbite, but everyone has knowledge (or access to knowledge) these days. To have power you need to have something the majority doesn't have. Which is where yer skills come in, in particular the ability to use the knowledge you have to reason and solve problems.

Yer both right - CG about politics, you about intelligence.

One major interest to me is how we come to an understanding of what interdisciplinary learning is. Anyone attempted the LTS info on IDL? Making connections is also there in multidisciplinary learning. I like Julie Klein's definition that IDL deals with themes or problems that would be impossible to explore from the perspective of only one discipline. However given that in my setting there is the most appalling load of twaddle being passed off as IDL I feel it is a wasted opportunity in many instances.

millicentipede

One major interest to me is how we come to an understanding of what interdisciplinary learning is. Anyone attempted the LTS info on IDL? Making connections is also there in multidisciplinary learning. I like Julie Klein's definition that IDL deals with themes or problems that would be impossible to explore from the perspective of only one discipline. However given that in my setting there is the most appalling load of twaddle being passed off as IDL I feel it is a wasted opportunity in many instances.

You're right. IDL can be something as simple as this: Home Economics: take a recipe for 4 people and cook it for 1 - link with numeracy. Physics: Use v=ut+1/2at^2 to calculate velocity. - link with maths. History: research how world war 2 started and write a newspaper report - link with English. These are 3 examples I could think of in 5 minutes that show how we already have IDL built into our courses. IDL should not be anything which is contrived to cover as many subjects as possible - nothing in real life is like that and the sooner those on high realise it the better. The 3 examples I gave above not only have links, but meaningful links, and there is the difference that no-one seems to appreciate. IDL works when every discipline benefits from the activity. Contriving to fit your subject where it doesn't naturally fit only adds to confusion for the kids.

CheesyWotsits

People who memorise stuff for exams get good exam results then forget everything they've memorised within a year.

That's not really knowledge, then, is it, if you forget it all?

CheesyWotsits

Only a small part of my knowledge came from school.

Oh, mine too. But my old fashioned education in a backwater gave me a solid and comprehensive framework to which I was able to add throughout my life. Most importantly, that framework highlighted gaps in my learning that I have needed to address. It's as important to know what you don't know as it is to know what you do know.

CheesyWotsits

largest part of my knowledge came from personal research, which included using skills which were taught in school or university, like how to use a library, how to take notes, and how to cross reference and check the validity of findings

Ditto for me, for which I thank my high school teachers and uni lecturers from my heart.

CheesyWotsits

How often do we teach these skills to our pupils? Pupils still think that "taking notes" means copying off the board.

Well, speak for yourself, cheesy. I teach my P4s how to make notes by finding key words and rewriting main ideas in their own words with the book or text closed. They have become adept at summarising whole pages from their texts. It's hardly rocket-science. 

 

CheesyWotsits

Knowledge is power? Nice soundbite

Not mine. See here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientia_potentia_est

Read in particular the "interpretation" section at the bottom, which coincidentally pretty much reiterates my original point about the possession of knowledge, and no, I didn't write this wikipedia entry, and yes, I know that you have to take wikipedia with a pinch of salt, it's not exactly the font of all, um, knowledge.

CheesyWotsits

everyone has knowledge (or access to knowledge) these days.

Whew. "Access to knowledge"--what exactly do you mean by that? And do you see this "access" as equivalent---as literally equal in value---to possessing knowledge?

No.

[edited by: CheesyWotsits at 0:13 (GMT 0) on 28-4-2012]

Read my post again Canuck. You stated your opinion (not knowledge)and I stated my opinion (again, not knowledge) which is why I also mentioned that :

But your way works too.....

Education is a combination of knowledge and skills and the emphasis shifts depending on circumstance. When you're a baby, the need for knowledge is outweighed by the fundamental need to acquire skills. as you get older and the basic skills have been learned, it's more important to gain knowledge. But there comes a time again, where all this knowledge is just sitting there waiting for a metaphorical pub quiz, and you need to develop skills to help you take all this knowledge and use it to pave your way in the world. Later on, when your career is settled and your thirst for knowledge increases (maybe the realisation that you can make a few quid from pub quizzes? ;) ) the focus may shift again.

I teach secondary pupils, and I teach a subject that is heavily skills based, you teach P4 pupils. It's clear that our focus in terms of what we teach is going to be different and it's clear what those differences are. It doesn't make either one of us right, no matter how many references to wikipedia are made. ;)

Suffice to say, I'd rather my pupils knew how to solve an equation rather than memorised the formula for the area of a circle, because if they know how to solve an equation and I GIVE them the formula for the area of a circle, they have the skills required to rearrange the formula to make another. That is something they can use again and again for every formula they come across. The alternative is to list every permutation of the circle area formula and get them to memorise it, but this "knowledge" only applies to that specific formula. They would then have to repeat this process every time they came across a new formula.

CheesyWotsits

It doesn't make either one of us right,

I agree, and that's why this thread is called "Opinion".

 

CheesyWotsits

Education is a combination of knowledge and skills and the emphasis shifts depending on circumstance.

Agree 100%, although I would gently suggest that for school-aged children, the acquisition of knowledge and skills should go hand in hand, with equal emphasis, so that children not only acquire knowledge and but own that knowledge by using it in various ways, ie, through the development of relevant skills, as in your maths formula example.

It's just that CfE---or to be more accurate, the way CfE is being implemented in my LA----tips the balance much too far towards skills for my liking.  

[edited by: CanuckGrrl at 16:55 (GMT 0) on 28-4-2012]

CheesyWotsits

Education is a combination of knowledge and skills

Am I the only one who can't figure out what skills pupils are meant to have acquired with the advent of CfE?

catmother

CheesyWotsits

Education is a combination of knowledge and skills

Am I the only one who can't figure out what skills pupils are meant to have acquired with the advent of CfE?

Confidence beyond their ability, as far as I can see.

catmother

CheesyWotsits

Education is a combination of knowledge and skills

Am I the only one who can't figure out what skills pupils are meant to have acquired with the advent of CfE?

Can't speak for all subjects, but for my own, the skills aren't different. Just that there is more focus on assessing the skills.

No doubt this is all explained with the utmost clarity in your shiny green folder.  Have you not looked???????  (lol)