[Squeakland] Squeak 'non-starter' in U.K. schools?

[Alan Kay]

Hi Jim --

At 10:55 AM +0100 7/7/03, Jim Ford wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I'm a science technician in a U.K. Independant (non-State) Secondary School.
>I've had experience of several programming languages (including Logo) and
>when I came accross Squeak became a convert to the concept of it being an
>excellent learning tool - not only for children, but adults as well.
>
>I've tried introducing Squeak to science teachers, but encountered the
>problem that I've come across with other ideas I've had, which is: if it's
>not in 'The National Curriculum', it won't get taught.

The US is definitely moving in a similar direction: towards extremely 
rigid national curricula.

>  As has been mentioned
>many times in the U.K. national papers, our schools are so focused on
>gaining good published examination results - the so-called 'League Tables' -
>(in spite of the protestations of some Head Teachers), that _nothing_
>outside 'The Curriculum' has the remotest chance of being taught. The
>pressure on teaching staff to 'Deliver the Curriculum' is such that whilst
>they may show interest in Squeak, there is not the tiniest slot in the
>teaching day for it to be introduced.
>
>I believe that as long as the U.K. education system remains tied to the
>stultifying influence of examination orientated 'League Tables', innovative
>ideas such as Squeak will never be introduced, unless (as is _most_ unlikely)
>as officially part of the National Curriculum.

There are various ways to look at this. In the US, it's really a 
mixed bag, because the "official curricula" are poorly taught and 
learned, and so, looking on the bright side of things, it's good that 
important subjects like music, art, and real math and science aren't 
official and thus don't get ruined for the children. However, I can't 
quite get myself to be that happy about the current situation, since 
the names of important and interesting subjects such as math and 
science are ruined in the children's eyes, and this taint can remain 
for many years.

When we started this effort many years ago in the 60s -- inspired by 
Seymour Papert -- pretty much everyone then thought that most gains 
would be somewhat subversive and outside of formal schooling, and 
that the advent of personal computers and the Internet (both of which 
were well underway) would provide something more like nonschool 
books, libraries, bookstores, etc., from which anyone could learn by 
themselves and in clubs with others. It is likely that this set of 
envisioned processes will be what is required -- and to have quite a 
bit of child to child mentoring -- in order for any real changes to 
happen in the next decade.

By the way, in the US at least, things would be helped tremendously 
if scientists and mathematicians were much more strongly involved in 
elementary schooling (and in clubs etc). This is one of our biggest 
problems: not enough people who actually understand the real content 
are involved and want to be involved.

Cheers,

Alan

>
>I would be interested in comments on the above from those involved in the
>U.K. education system!
>
>Regards: Jim Ford
>
>--
>Spam poison - don't use! ---> botulin at watford53.freeserve.co.uk <---
>_______________________________________________
>Squeakland mailing list
>Squeakland at squeakland.org
>http://squeakland.org/mailman/listinfo/squeakland


--