No more Classics in school

Max Sinister · Mar 31, 2006

I got this idea in another thread.

I read somewhere that Maggie Thatcher once suggested that schools (well, public schools) should only teach English, Maths and science. No more foreign languages, history (shock!), and so on.

But what would actually happen in the long run if this plan was implemented, let's say, in 1984 Britain?

Alexius · Mar 31, 2006

There'd be a much higher percentage of children attending private schools. There are a large number of people in Britain who either send their children to state schools due to personal beliefs (that private education perpetuates the class system and is therefore wrong) or who could afford to privately educate their children, but would have to make sacrifices to do so. Most, if not all, of these people, would go private, and there would be a resurgence of "second-tier" private schools, which would be comparable in quality to OTL state schools and charge significantly lower fees than OTL private schools.

Also, can the OP please change the thread title. "Classics" refers to the study of ancient languages (for the past 150 years or so, this has meant Latin and Greek).

Jason · Mar 31, 2006

Such a mucking around with the schooling system would also result in a lot of voter problems. Most Tories have a sort-of love-hate relationship with history (for example) and would object to it not being tuaght in schools. and think of all those teachers now out of work!

I reckon we would see Maggie lose the next election, all hail PM Kinnock? (think he was still Labour leader)

Max Sinister · Mar 31, 2006

Jason said:
I reckon we would see Maggie lose the next election, all hail PM Kinnock? (think he was still Labour leader)

He was, but I was actually wondering about the long-term results if such a decision was implemented in real life. If you think that's ASB in 1980s' Britain, choose another place / time.

Jason · Mar 31, 2006

Max Sinister said:
He was, but I was actually wondering about the long-term results if such a decision was implemented in real life. If you think that's ASB in 1980s' Britain, choose another place / time.

My personal feeling is that Maggie loses, Labour gets in and reinstates all the other subjects. strangely, knowing how bloody difficult we Brits can be about things, in the meantime there has been an upsurge in 'out of schools' learning in all the 'banned' subjects-including sport (which I think was also one thing Maggie thought wasn't going to be taught in schools). A strange knock-on is the much greater development of the idea of 'life-long' and 'informal' learning so that by 2005 it is such an ingrained part of the national pysche that you are the extreme exception if you are not doing at least one 'adult education' session a week.

There could be big issues for unis teaching arts, history, archaeology, etc.

an interesting issue could be if no sport in schools then will we see even more selling off of school playing fields for housing, shopping developments.

basileus · Mar 31, 2006

Max Sinister said:
I got this idea in another thread.

I read somewhere that Maggie Thatcher once suggested that schools (well, public schools) should only teach English, Maths and science. No more foreign languages, history (shock!), and so on.

But what would actually happen in the long run if this plan was implemented, let's say, in 1984 Britain?

Ignorance is strength, freedom is slavery, peace is war

Peter Cowan · Mar 31, 2006

Maggie may have suggested it but Blair may actually do it. There is talk of diluting the teaching of subjects like History, Geography and Foreign languages and making them optional for the post-14 age group. They will be replaced by vocational subjects - this is actually a reversion to the pre-comprehensive era of Grammar schools (academic, creaming off the brightest for the professions) and Secondary Modern (all the rest, taught to produce people for the mundane jobs).

Given that standards in UK state schools ("public" schools in the UK are in fact private) are variable - in some schools as little as 30% of pupils leave with pass grade in Maths and English language - one wonders if many of the pupils learn anything anyway.

Akiyama · Mar 31, 2006

I think New Labour is a better bet than the Conservatives for this.

This is from a story in The Guardian three years ago, when Charles Clarke was UK Education Secretary (he is now Home Secretary).

In reported comments this week, the education secretary seemed dismissive of the dustier corners of history: "I don't mind there being some medievalists around for ornamental purposes, but there is no reason for the state to pay for them," Mr Clarke allegedly told a gathering at University College, Worcester.

The quote is disputed. A transcript released yesterday quotes the minister musing about why the state should fund the "medieval concept of the university as a community of scholars seeking truth", while urging universities to think more about how they benefit the economy. In the same speech he appeared to threaten a 99% cut in state funds for unproductive forms of study.

His apparent attack on humanities has aroused indignation, coming from an education secretary who regards learning for its own sake as "a bit dodgy".

Akiyama · Mar 31, 2006

Peter Cowan said:
Maggie may have suggested it but Blair may actually do it. There is talk of diluting the teaching of subjects like History, Geography and Foreign languages and making them optional for the post-14 age group. They will be replaced by vocational subjects - this is actually a reversion to the pre-comprehensive era of Grammar schools (academic, creaming off the brightest for the professions) and Secondary Modern (all the rest, taught to produce people for the mundane jobs).

Aren't history, geography and foreign languages already optional for the post 14 age-group? They certainly were at my school in the 1980s - the only compulsary GCSE (14-16) subjects were Maths and English.

Peter Cowan · Mar 31, 2006

Aren't history, geography and foreign languages already optional for the post 14 age-group? They certainly were at my school in the 1980s - the only compulsary GCSE (14-16) subjects were Maths and English.

Ooops - I think I meant to say pre-14. Either way it is still a bit frightening.

Akiyama · Mar 31, 2006

It doesn't bother me. In fact, I think it's a good idea.

With languages, 11 is too late to start learning anyway, particularly if you're only getting one or two hours a week of lessons, during which time you get individual attention, what, 3% of the time? So if we're not going to teach them properly we might as well drop them. I have forgotten most of my French (5 years) and all my Latin and German (2 years each).

Geography: well I can't remember learning anything in geography.

History could be enjoyable or deadly boring, depending on the teacher and the subject. What did I get out it? An extremely shallow knowledge of the Tudors, the Reformation, the Russian Revolution and the First World War. It could sometimes be enjoyable but I can't honestly say it was any use. I forgot everything I learned about ancient history, the middle ages, and the industrial revolution.

English Literature: completely useless. And it put me off Shakespeare for life.

Art: I'm not sure that drawing is a useful skill, but it's nice to be competent in something. And it was enjoyable too. I should have done it at A-level . . .

OTOH, I've also forgotton everything I learned in science and maths. Any knowledge I have of academic subjects is due to reading up on them off my own bat after leaving school. I really don't think that between the ages of 11 and 16 is a good time for people to learn academic subjects, and certainly not in the extremely shallow way they are taught in UK schools, with no attempt to master anything, just learn it until the exam/essay then forget about it. No attempt to show how or why things relate to one another. And absolutely no attempt to teach anything that has any practical application in everyday life. Children just aren't that interested.

My proposed curriculum:

Maths
English
Chinese (from age 4 or 5)
Science (a very hands-on approach)
IT
Art, Dance, Drama, Music or Creative Writing (choose any two)
PE
Project (pupil chooses something that they are interested in and studies it)
Coping With Real Life
A vocational subject
Philosophy (emphasis on how to think logically)
Driving (this is such a useful skill, why isn't it taught?)

Reveilled · Mar 31, 2006

Since the curriculum for Scotland is different from the one in England, I imagine you might see some migration to Scotland of young couples starting a family, especially if private schools are beyond their reach or contradictory to the parents' ideology.

If the Scottish School system begins to race ahead of the English one, you might see a quicker downfall of Thatcherism, if not, Thatcher might last longer in power.

Interesting that everything but English and Maths is optional post-14 years in England, though. Up here, languages, sciences, social sciences, and vocational subjects are all compulsory (student does one subject of each and can choose to do a second subject in one group), along with Religious Education and PE, though the latter are not examined upon unless you choose to do the optional course.
Also, Classics where I went to school referred to the history of the Ancient Greeks and Romans, not to their languages (which were taught individually as Latin and as Ancient Greek).

The Ubbergeek · Mar 31, 2006

Minor point of bother for me:

The peoples who aim to put 'languages of the futures', 'exotics' ones forward and slams 'useless' ones like French, Spanish, German, etc... Come on, a token american or britishes will have more chances to use them than Mandarin or Chinese in his life. Plus, its ay something about the reluctance to care for the neighboor man and more for a distant, 'cooler' culture (like the otaku do...)....

MrP · Mar 31, 2006

Akiyama said:
With languages, 11 is too late to start learning anyway, particularly if you're only getting one or two hours a week of lessons, during which time you get individual attention, what, 3% of the time? So if we're not going to teach them properly we might as well drop them. I have forgotten most of my French (5 years) and all my Latin and German (2 years each).

Oh, no, you're generalising, Akiyama.

I began French, German, Latin and Ancient Greek all after 11. The only reason I'm not fluent nowadays is lack of motivation.

Akiyama said:
Geography: well I can't remember learning anything in geography.

I'd agree that Geography fails to teach some fundmaental info: distrance between London and Manchester, where are Edinburgh and Glasgow in relation to one another, & so on. That's a problem with the curriculum. I rather think that knowing about onion weathering of rock formations and the impact of humans on the landscape can wait until I know where Plymouth is.

Akiyama said:
History could be enjoyable or deadly boring, depending on the teacher and the subject. What did I get out it? An extremely shallow knowledge of the Tudors, the Reformation, the Russian Revolution and the First World War. It could sometimes be enjoyable but I can't honestly say it was any use. I forgot everything I learned about ancient history, the middle ages, and the industrial revolution.

History could have its uses. Admittedly, the main one it had for me was exposing the deficiencies of the curriculum again.

I'd like to see History move the direction of giving us a good overview of what has happened up to now. As you say, specialisation can wait till later. I suffered badly from having to endure a WWI history curriculum that was focused on how the war impacted on people. While the stuff about crop rotation was also based on the impact on people. It still staggers me that we covered WWI, and our notes on Passchendaele (as a battle, rather a piece of human drama) filled a paragraph.

Akiyama said:
English Literature: completely useless. And it put me off Shakespeare for life.

While I will say that English (Language) introduced me to the concept of verbs, nouns and whatnot (an education completed by Latin and Greek, sadly), it failed to take it any further. We had one lesson in our first year on it. How strange it is that so few of my classmates can correctly place an apostrophe.

Eng Lit also killed my interest in Shakespeare . . . Dickens, Steinbeck, and almost anything else it touched. As my brother just pointed out, however, we should introduce Sherlock Holmes into EngLit. That'd be beneficial!

Akiyama said:
Art: I'm not sure that drawing is a useful skill, but it's nice to be competent in something. And it was enjoyable too. I should have done it at A-level . . .

*shudder*I hated Art, but will defend the option of taking it up. If for nought else than becoming an artist. It's very handy for architects, too, and I've a friend who's a Surveyor who finds it very useful in his work.

Reveilled · Mar 31, 2006

The Ubbergeek said:
Minor point of bother for me:

The peoples who aim to put 'languages of the futures', 'exotics' ones forward and slams 'useless' ones like French, Spanish, German, etc... Come on, a token american or britishes will have more chances to use them than Mandarin or Chinese in his life. Plus, its ay something about the reluctance to care for the neighboor man and more for a distant, 'cooler' culture (like the otaku do...)....

I don't think that Spanish is usually classed as one of the 'useless' ones. In any case, I would agree with the sentiment. There may be more Chinese speakers in the world, but one is more likely to speak to French and German speakers than Chinese speakers if you live in Britain. I'd like to see Latin dropped for Dutch, though, and Spanish made as commonly taught as French and German.

MrP · Mar 31, 2006

Reveilled said:
I don't think that Spanish is usually classed as one of the 'useless' ones. In any case, I would agree with the sentiment. There may be more Chinese speakers in the world, but one is more likely to speak to French and German speakers than Chinese speakers if you live in Britain. I'd like to see Latin dropped for Dutch, though, and Spanish made as commonly taught as French and German.

It depends if you want people to understand languages properly. I was lucky, I followed a system of German teaching that covered definite articles, tenses and all the usual bumf. My classmates still spent a few weeks being taught the concept of the passive - one I'd known for years, thanks to Latin. My ex, meanwhile, was specifically prevented from using grammar in lessons. She was encouraged to guess whether die, der or das was appropriate for a particular situation.

As long as the curriculum fails to teach people how to write in English, there will be a need to teach them Latin. For at least in Ancient Greek and Latin, we still learn such things. Anyway, Latin here ain't compulsory in state schools. It's only optional in some. It was compulsory for the first two years at my school, but as I say, public schools aren't totally bound by politicians' whimsy. Nonetheless, nearly everyone dropped it asap.

I'd like to see an increase in Spanish teaching, too. After all, she covers a significant portion of the world.

Reveilled · Mar 31, 2006

MrP said:
It depends if you want people to understand languages properly. I was lucky, I followed a system of German teaching that covered definite articles, tenses and all the usual bumf. My classmates still spent a few weeks being taught the concept of the passive - one I'd known for years, thanks to Latin. My ex, meanwhile, was specifically prevented from using grammar in lessons. She was encouraged to guess whether die, der or das was appropriate for a particular situation.

As long as the curriculum fails to teach people how to write in English, there will be a need to teach them Latin. For at least in Ancient Greek and Latin, we still learn such things. Anyway, Latin here ain't compulsory in state schools. It's only optional in some. It was compulsory for the first two years at my school, but as I say, public schools aren't totally bound by politicians' whimsy. Nonetheless, nearly everyone dropped it asap.

I'd like to see an increase in Spanish teaching, too. After all, she covers a significant portion of the world.

Well, at least for my education, using Latin to learn passive voice in German would have been impossible on the basis that Latin wasn't available as a subject until I had been learning German for four years (Latin being an optional Secondary School subject, and German being a compulsory Primary School one).

And if helping people with their English is the basis for teaching Latin, wouldn't more benefit be gleaned from teaching them Old English instead? We get a fancy word here or there from Latin, but the grammatical backbone of English and its most vital words come from Old English and Germanic. Plus, Old English would be helpful with German too, probably more than Latin would.
Either way, I would say that if kids aren't being taught how to write properly in English, that last thing you'd want to do is spend time where you could be teaching them more English teaching Latin instead. I think my ability with English would have been all the better if those hours learning Latin had been used to learn clause structure and phonetics.