An interesting article on the state of foreign language learning in Sheffield, UK, (link).

quote:

Thousands of Sheffield teenagers are turning their backs on the chance to learn a foreign language - with numbers taking GCSEs in subjects like French, German and Spanish plummeting.

(Wikipedia on GCSE.)

I always feel suspicious of articles that use those special journalistic words that rarely appear anywhere outside the columns of newspapers. Therefore, as soon as I read the final word of the first paragraph, "plummeting" I was suspicious of what I was going to read.

And I still don't know, simply because of the careless use of statistics and the random switching between percentages, actual figures and varying trends, as to quite how much the drop in language learning is o or even if it matters.

Maybe we should have a thread about journalistic words. In addition to "plummet" how about "rage", "shock" and "horror". Rarely if ever used in normal verbal intercourse but scattered around newspaper articles like so much lexical confetti.

Maybe we should have a thread about journalistic words.

Sounds good to me. Post on.

quote:

And I still don't know, simply because of the careless use of statistics and the random switching between percentages, actual figures and varying trends, as to quite how much the drop in language learning is o or even if it matters.

That's the problem with those UK articles.

Not sure that I'd agree about your thoughts on journalistic words, though. I find plummet to be a particularly colorful word that I enjoy using, when appropriate of course. I agree with z's comment about starting a thread on journalistic. It might be an interesting discussion.

quote:

I find plummet to be a particularly colorful word that I enjoy using, when appropriate of course.

It's not that there's anything wrong with the words per se - it's simply the way that they are dropped into newspaper articles to add some sense of spurious importance.

For example, so far as I can see from that badly-written article, there has been a slight drop in numbers of students studying foreign languages in one part of Yorkshire. In no way have they "plummeted", but to entitle an article "Small drop in numbers studying languages" wouldn't make a story.

So numbers must "plummet; people must "rage"; groups will show "fury" and travellers' "dream holidays" will become "holidays from hell".

There's a complete lexicon of such words and I think we need to start the Wordcraft English/Journalese dictionary!

One I saw today

Knife Injuries SWAMP hospitals

I shall start a new thread.

A couple more articles from the BBC on lanugage GCSEs, (link and link).

Interesting, z. I think we have the same problems here in the U.S.

Quote from the QCA ""The present examination system is not based on an aptitude-based conception of comparability and its adoption would create a major threat to public confidence in students' results."

Is this organisation the most guilty of using arcane and pedantic language when describing simple concepts, or are there others that are worse?

Mind you, I do speak as one who has crossed lexical swords with them in the past - most noticeably when they took me to task for my use of language in an examination specification I had submitted and, in their highly critical letter, managed to spell "its" as "it's". My reply to them, pointing out their own deficiencies, was not accorded the courtesy of a reply.

Does that mean what I think it means?

"People wouldn't believe the results if we graded students by how good they are."

Kind of makes you wonder how they do grade them.

quote:

Kind of makes you wonder how they do grade them.

Re-arrange these words into a well-known phrase or saying:

"Air finger wet in the"

Some more information has come to my attention via the Language Policy list, on the state of education and literacy in the UK. I'd never heard of the Moser Report or the Leitch Review, but I'm assuming that Bob, who is in the ed biz (as Tom Lehrer quipped in the '60s), has.

quote:

Since 1997, the Government has focused first on schools (with the national literacy and numeracy strategies) and then on adult learning, particularly basic literacy and numeracy. In 1998 it asked Sir Claus Moser, chairman of the Basic Skills Agency, to produce a report on how "to tackle the vast basic skills problem in this country". A Fresh Start - improving literacy and numeracy, known as the Moser Report, stated that up to 7 million adults in England have difficulties with literacy and numeracy - a bigger proportion than in any other western country apart from Poland and Ireland. One in five adults, it stated, are functionally illiterate - that is, if given the Yellow Pages they cannot find the page for plumbers.

References:

• The The Moser Report: A Fresh Start—Improving Literacy and Numeracy
  
• Leitch Review: Prosperity for All in the Global Economy—World Class Skills
  
• Skills for Life Needs and Impact Survey
  
• Wikipedia article on Skills For Life (link)
  

quote:

"Air finger wet in the"

The only acceptable rearrangement i can come up with is Wet finger in the air.

Weathervane ?

That's the system they must be using if they aren't measuring actual achievement.

quote:

Originally posted by zmježd:
'm assuming that Bob, who is in the ed biz (as Tom Lehrer quipped in the '60s), has.

Yes, I have - but I make a point of never reading any Government sponsored reports on education. Their ill-thought out schemes always just depress me.

Their ill-thought out schemes always just depress me.

Yeah, I hear. I didn't even look at their solutions, just the stats ...

quote:

Yes, I have - but I make a point of never reading any Government sponsored reports on education. Their ill-thought out schemes always just depress me.

The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is one of the worst quangos in the country - which is a terrible shame when you consider that they have the potential to affect young people's entire lives.

I've ranted over this before but I think I'll have another rant here. Pretty much every one of the Government's "plans" for education in recent years seems to be aimed at stamping it out altogether. The intention appears to be to completely eradicate it and replace it with training - the difference being that the "training" is aimed specifically and solely at putting people into a job and that any education that falls outside that remit is by definition A BAD THING.

Rather ironically, in one of the sections of the "Skills For Life:ESOL" materials that they produced a couple of years ago there is a reading exercise based on an extract from an article in which Tony Blair said that we needed to give equal importance to vocational and academic education. Of course with his loose approach to the truth this should, in hindsight, have been interpreted as meaning throwing out academic qualifications completely.

In my most cynical and depressed moments I see this as being a deliberate attempt to create a nation of robots incapable of critically analysing anything that they are told because robots do as they are told. A population that have been taught only how to function within their limited range of specific tasks is a population easily controlled.
Far from being one of the worst Quangos the QCA is exactly following its brief of destroying education.

The only thing George Orwell got wrong was the date.

As a trainer am often confused with being an educationalist and have to explain that there is a difference between training and education. Education is more about imparting new knowledge and skills; training is about learning how to put those areas of skill and knowledge into use in a particular situation or environment.

For example, schools (usually) turn out people who can read, write and converse; training will enable them to use those skills effectively in, say, selling or guiding.

The old joke about the difference between education is, just think how you would feel if your daughter came home from school and told you that she had been having sex education. Now imagine how you would feel were she to tell you that she had been having sex training.

A significant difference...

I see this as being a deliberate attempt to create a nation of robots incapable of critically analysing anything that they are told because robots do as they are told.

This has been going on in US education at least since the end of the WW2. Colleges and universities, in the US, used mainly to teach people some general knowledge (e.g., history, classics, literature, math) and some critical thinking skills (e.g., logic, rhetoric, empiricism). There was very little vocational training going on, except for some arithmetic, reading and composition, etc. After the war, more and more of the ed biz became obsessed with and focused on more vocational skills and training in universities. When I teach, I tend to emphasize more conceptual topics with some practical examples. I would rather teach word processing than Word 2003 or programming rather than Perl or Java. One important thing I learned during my last two years of college was that not all learning was cut and dried. It was an ongoing and often contentious process. It seems rather obvious to me now, but I know many people who believe there is one revealed truth, and it's a simple matter of opening up students' heads and pouring that into them. Also, for many education stops with graduation, be it high school or college. But for others, it's an continuing process.

Sorry to have missed this topic, folks-- I've been distracted by a visit from my friend, the Brisbane Strain (Influenza)-- at least I'm assuming that's who she is. News pundits would have us believe she is "Raging" (not "Plummeting") in 49 out of 50 states. (The 50th being FL-- which leads me to a phone call from my dear brother from the Orlando Airport yesterday, on his way to JFK, wondering whether all the weather-canceled flights were justified by what I saw falling on the ground... All I could say was, "Why, O why, dear bro?-- stay by your pool, fool!")

Anyhoo. Thanks for excellent article references, which I have forwarded for comment to my UK early-language-learning forum (Helen Myers, mentioned in zmj's last link, BTW, one of our regulars!) I will keep you posted. But, just judging from postings there (UK) over the last yr or two, I can tell you there's loads happening at the age 5 - 9 age level as regards world language. Excellent programs, & lots of emphasis on finding a good way of assessing (testing) as we go. I should be so lucky. Things are far worse over here, dear Kalleh.

In advance of UK teachers' input, I'm going to hazard a guess, Bob Hale correct me if I'm wrong: I suspect that, as has happened over here, the graduation requirements have been "corrected" pursuant to what's going on in the early grades. To be specific: here, as there, a mere year or so of world language is required for h.s. graduation (whereas about 5 yrs ago it was 2).

The reason for the downgrading seems to be that, for students who started school in the mid-90's, world language was being taught in the elementary grades. Those students obtain the equivalent of "French (or whatever) I" in middle school. In high school they are therefore required only to take "French II." Go figure: foolish bureaucrats made the change effective for kids who never got world language in elem. sch. (e.g. my 2 elder boys), so they are let off the hook. (?!)

Since no one yet has brought up the statistics in z's post, I will. The Moser Report stated: "...up to 7 million adults in England have difficulties with literacy and numeracy - a bigger proportion than in any other western country apart from Poland and Ireland. One in five adults, it stated, are functionally illiterate - that is, if given the Yellow Pages they cannot find the page for plumbers." That statistic is stunning. I can't imagine it's that bad. Do they cite the study, z?

quote:

The intention appears to be to completely eradicate it and replace it with training - the difference being that the "training" is aimed specifically and solely at putting people into a job and that any education that falls outside that remit is by definition A BAD THING.

I agree with you, Bob, and with z's discussion related to our problems in the U.S. Another aspect of the U.S. problems is the community college system, and herein starts my rant: [rant]Community colleges have become huge systems with intense political pressure. While it is an inexpensive way for those with limited funds to become prepared for a baccalaureate program, it has become so much more than that. In some states now community colleges actually award bachelor's degrees, even though they don't have the resources, especially in terms of qualified professors, to do so. However, the community college presidents are quite politically savvy and are able to get their way with the legislators. In nursing, at least, it takes longer and costs more for nurses to get their associate degree (2-year degree) than for them to be educated in a 4-year program. However, the community colleges are cleverly able to pull the wool over the eyes of the public on that. [/rant]

quote:

Things are far worse over here, dear Kalleh.

Well, bethree, I can't really say because I am not nearly as familiar with the U.K. system as with the U.S. one. I am confused as to why you say that. Is it from this comment (above) to z?: "Interesting, z. I think we have the same problems here in the U.S."

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,