Can we please have less politics in our GCSE's: a plea from a 16 year old.....

Joe Iles is 16. He's about to do his GCSEs and hopes to study Latin, German, Further Maths and English or History at A Level (so he's no slouch). After that, he's thinking of studying Classics and Modern Languages at University. But he's not happy with the school curriculum, and was inspired to write for School Gate after the Cambridge Primary Review criticised the restrictions for children at a younger age. He thinks that there's too much politics, that these are pushing out proper learning, and that social issues are being pushed far too hard...

So, over to Joe:

"In recent years, it seems that the school curricula are featuring more and more in public debate. There was considerable press coverage of a study last week which revealed that in primary education, the focus has been steered away from the arts and humanities leaving children “tied to their desks” struggling with the nine times table. The report claims this has “squeezed out” other areas of learning, rendering children’s artistic capacities under-developed and neglected. Furthermore, the report claims not only that the curriculum has been narrowed, but that what remains has become heavily “politicised”.

As a current GCSE student, I can identify with this “politicisation”. It seems to me as if the GCSE curricula, above all for science, no longer focus on understanding the subject. The core biology science curriculum now calls for very little knowledge of the biology that we had studied in the years preceding GCSE, but seems to be a governmental attempt to raise awareness of current social issues. For example, section A of the core biology exam concentrates on contraception, drugs, alcohol, smoking, obesity, anorexia and the MMR vaccines, whilst section B tackles broader issues such as global warming, GM crops, creationism vs Darwinism and alternative energy sources.

Perhaps this is the best solution to the some of the social problems that Britain faces today. Maybe through education, education and education, Labour may finally succeed in reducing teenage pregnancies, child obesity and begin to steer Britain towards a greener way of life.
Perhaps indeed, learning about the advantages and disadvantages of wind and solar power is vastly more useful to the average sixteen year old than a full understanding of the differences between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. In this way, the younger generation may begin to have a much clearer idea of current affairs, enabling us to partake more readily in the critical issues of the day, making us more informed voters and leaders of tomorrow.

An important aspect of the “politicisation” of the curriculum is the use of exams. Not only are the social issues agenda studied in class, but students must take exams on these topics, requiring an in depth analysis of the themes, and also meaning that students’ grades at GCSE depend on their knowledge of the subject in hand, encouraging a much more motivated and engaged learning process.

However, one of the key problems with sitting exams about topics of this nature is that the exam board are required to write mark schemes clearly detailing the answers that they want within a rigid framework. This leaves no room for debate on the part of the student, meaning that instead of producing insightful, perceptive and interesting answers, pupils tend towards putting down what they think the mark scheme is most likely to have as an acceptable response. For example, in a question about embryo screening, the advantage of screening embryos in accordance to the mark scheme was to reduce health care costs for the parents. I found it a little disconcerting, if not positively concerning, to discover that my answer that it would improve the quality of life for the child, did not feature. Is it right to present these issues to pupils in such a way that they are blinkered into one channel of thought? Is it not more productive to allow pupils to debate current affairs in such a way that they are able to access all viewpoints and form their own opinions? Arguably, the government is now more concerned with indoctrination than discussion.

In my view, it must be asked if the science curriculum is really the right place for these social issues to be debated and taught. Indeed, if education is really the process by which someone’s innate intelligence is led out, then perhaps topical issues should be addressed elsewhere. Arguably, in the hours that we spend in full time education, it is more important to develop an understanding of the basics of the world around us; to understand the science behind the issues as opposed to an awareness of the actual issues, and indeed problems, that science can both cause and solve.

Furthermore, those who are employed to teach Biology, Chemistry and Physics may well become frustrated by the deviance of the curriculum from their chosen subject. Thus, their passion for the subject, presumably because of which they chose teaching in the first place, diminishes. Can pupils really find a topic which frustrates their teachers engaging?

For the pupils, this intervention and politicisation can become annoyingly transparent. Having studied global warming in all three sciences, Geography, English, French, German and Spanish, I have found that its initial shock has now ceased to have an impact. The topic has become stale, and my will to change for the better has been weakened.

There is no doubt that there are a number of social issues, concerning young people, which need to be addressed in one way or another. My question is whether GCSE science is really the place for it. Maybe PSHE is a more obvious option, but the problem is that PSHE is not regarded with anywhere near the same level of importance. I think that as young people, we do need to understand the current topics being debated, but it is possibly more beneficial to be invited to participate seriously in balanced discussion, as opposed to having to show we know the effects of smoking in part b) of question nine."

Read School Gate on:

How secondary schools stop kids from being creative

Should we have academic selection at 14?

Why do so many bright teenagers drop out of education?

Comments

[Whimsey]

I agree that for example in biology, there are now 'in topic diversions' in to debating things like the MMR, drugs, but to an extent I dont' think that's a bad idea.

Traditionally, scientists have found it very easy to avoid thinking about the social implications of their subjects, so if future scientists have them introduced early, in school, then that is no bad thing to my mind.

However, I do worry a bit about just what is considered the 'right' attitude to hold! It's clear, for example, that pupils are told that refusing MMR is 'bad', with not much debate around it!

Worse, in geography, it's clear that pupils are told that deporting asylum seekers is 'wrong', again, with little or no debate about it.

I don't mind politics in school subjects per se - I do mind if they are taught what their politics should be!

(Shades of the good old University of Wallamalloo - "We don't mind you teaching Marxism, so long as you teach that it's wrong".....!)

Overall, though, I would say that the 'in topic diversions' into discussing drugs/MMR/geo-migration etc, should NOT be given any more curriculum space, and that, in the end, the subject matter is the science itself, not what society does with it!

[ExPat escapee!]

Hope springs eternal - maybe, just maybe, the young of this country can see through the indoctrination that is rife in the UK.
That is, hopefully, if this intelligent young man speaks for his generation.

[Nicola S.]

I completely agree with Joe's comments above. Though not a teacher of Science (I teach Art), I can't comment directly on that subject. However, from talking to various people who have been involved with educating children in some form (Food technology, Maths, MFL)it is clear that standards have changed and not for the better. Children now get taught how to make a jacket potato as opposed to proper culinary skills; the 'A' level Maths papers students were given twenty years ago, are far more difficult and taxing than what is done today - the standard of an 'A' grade is so radically different.
The labour government changed the national Curriculum so that it is now no longer compulsory for pupils to study a language at GCSE, making us an ever more ignorant nation when it comes to conversing in anything other than English.

In the context of the next generation of professionals that this country is producing, we will be churning out sub-standard graduates and this is having a detrimental effect on the current and future workforce.

[Joachim]

This youth needs to learn to write with clarity and concision. As does "Whimsey" below.

[Emily]

I find it hard to believe that a 16 year old wrote this piece. I am sure that someone edited it for him. I suspect he goes to public school - how many state schools do latin nowadays - or even tell their students about studying classics. I don't neccessarily believe that their is anything wrong with what has been said, just that it is not written by him. Also - if he is really going to study latin and the clasics - he needs to do a lot more work - sorting out his singulars and plurals.

[Sam Tarran's Ghost]

If you don't believe a state-educated sixteen year old can write well, take a look at the weblog of Sam Tarran, who's just turned 17 but has been blogging since 2006. He's a Conservative, too.

[CF]

Emily,

I don't really think you should be lecturing others when you do not understand the different spelling and applications of the word 'there'.

[Whimsey]

"This youth needs to learn to write with clarity and concision. As does "Whimsey" below."

And you should learn some politeness. Unprovoked, gratituitous rudeness to strangers is socially unacceptable.

[Whimsey]

Talking about plurals, my hackles impetuously rose when I read 'less politics' before a second later realising that the 's' on politics doesn't represent a true plural, but a collective noun (or whatever it's called!), and so 'less' is actually OK, and you don't need to say 'fewer'.

Emily - Latin may not be that common in state schools (though I think I read it was getting more popular again), but it is offered at some, such as grammar schools (though possibly not all). Schools may more often do Classical Studies, which doesn't have much Latin language in it, but does do great stuff in making the ancient Mediterranean world an exciting place to learn about (Trojan War, Persian Wars, Alex the Grape, Punic Wars, Gallic Wars, barbarian invasions, Islamic conquest - all good bloody stuff!!!!)(and no boring old declensions and conjugations or ablative absolutes to bother about!)

[William]

You bunch of idiots...everyone that is correcting him getting all uppety. Ridiculous. For one, he's only 16, he has a huge vocabulary for his age and writes with maturity.

Honestly, this piece of writing is of a much higher standard than that of many adults. How about you just forget the fact that his plurals are perhaps not perfect and concentrate on the subject in hand. Or perhaps you read this artical in order for you to show your "higher intellect". To put a 16 year old down is just plain ridiculous...sorry I just feel that those of you who lecture and moan about spelling on here, should go and become teachers or educators, if you're somehow so intelligent and feel the need to tell everyone about it.

Either way...I have to agree with what is said in the article. The curriculum doesn't encourage a learning process that will enable a student to fulfil all their capacities. However, the reason that political issues are being tackled in class, is because of the lack of students doing work outside of school (I should know, I was one of them).

[pdev]

Whims, You are as always absolutely correct. Bad grammar should be justify an immediate flogging.

[Tom Streamer]

RE: Emily, as has been mentioned - State schools do teach Latin. My Grammar School did not (unfortunately) but another local Grammar School certainly did, as well as Chinese I believe. The fact that you do not believe a 16 year old capable of writing the above piece is an excellent example of the phenomena known as "projection".

[opiniononeverything]

Can people please put down their Daily Mail for a moment and realise that Joe is not a minority, despite the scare mongering about 'feral' teens that goes on? I went to a state school (comp, not grammar)that did Latin and Classical Studies and encountered many teens like Joe. My friend now teaches at that school and by and large the pupils are the same - hardworking and keen to learn. When will we stop tarnishing all with the same brush? I hope someone listens to this guy, because he is absolutely spot on, wherever he is educated!!

[Mara MacSeoinin]

I am astonished that so few of the comments above concentrate upon the subject about which this young man is writing: the fact that rather than teaching children and young adults ways in which to look at the world around them from a position of strength and how to reason from cause to effect, they are being indoctrinated with the official party line. And, on a more worldly note, if specific biological facts are being ditched in favour of fashionable subjects, how on earth are we to educate our future doctors? Such poor methods will contribute to a rise in discrimination, as private schools will carry on teaching the 'old fashioned' way and universities, particularly ones like Cambridge which insist on a pre-med exam, will select candidates who actually know a little about biology.

[Sophie]

I agree with the over-politicisation - having taken GCSEs last year in the sciences, I found it interesting learning about the issues surrounding the topics, but we were never encouraged to debate on the issues or even present our own opinion- instead encouraged to give a coherent answer that would gain the marks (as my school was a comprehensive, poor in the league tables. I would have much rather learnt pure facts in science, and saved the social side for another subject- indeed, the controversies over MMR's link to autism was the focus of my AS Critical Thinking exam, where I was supposed to be debating it.

As for languages, Joe is right about the dullness of global warming- I learnt it all at GCSE in French and Spanish and am not looking forward to next year's topics in both subjects (globalisation, global warming, etc.) Surely to assist my learning it would be more helpful to learn about the culture of the country? I know the possibility of next year's topics is making many of my friends drop languages, an undervalued subject as it is.

Though there should definitely be a primary focus on making GCSEs more difficult, as the jump to A level is much more difficult than anyone realises...

[karen B.Sc]

Age 38, I took AS French in 2004 which was very political. Being so deeply opposed to the bullying and mind control of this government on issues such as MMR, immigation, racism, my anger stopped me from talking in the french conversation class, ironically. As for the so called creationism Vs. evolution debate. Give me a break, there is no bleeping debate. Why do we permit these loonies to set a curriculum like this. My children will be home educated if this continues, education for the masses like a heard of brainwashed, left brained automatons or sheep.

[karen B.Sc]

Age 38, I took AS French in 2004 which was very political. Being so deeply opposed to the bullying and mind control of this government on issues such as MMR, immigation, racism, my anger stopped me from talking in the french conversation class, ironically. As for the so called creationism Vs. evolution debate. Give me a break, there is no bleeping debate. Why do we permit these loonies to set a curriculum like this. My children will be home educated if this continues, education for the masses like a heard of brainwashed, left brained automatons or sheep.

[Jenny]

Ax excellent article with very good insight. Joe, if you read any of the comments below, please don't be discouraged by the negative ones. The whole point of education is give the mind the tools and skills to make its own decisions and judgements on the world around. In that, your education has been successful.

[Sam]

Well said, Joe! We should be teaching young people how to think, reason, evaluate what they're told, solve problems, and teach themselves, not simply coaching them to pass exams.

We need to find a way to give good teachers more freedom to choose what and how they teach, and cut the time they waste doing paperwork (I'm not a teacher).

[Rev Serafim]

Social Engineering is the name of the game. Teaching about the culture of a country would show up differences. Differences are not allowed. If we are to make globalization successful, we must teach issues, not facts. This was the old Soviet method, now adopted by British education. I was 'trained' by these social engineers at a College of Education in London.

[Josh]

Agreed, anyone who takes a step back and looks at our society can see this indoctrination happening, obviously it is completely wrong. What makes it worse is the vile nature of the indoctrination, the ideology of which I am against. It is now so obvious that people going through the education system are spotting it…well done NuLabour.

[Les]

Joe, despite the comments some people have made, your article is well written and concise. Our education system, once the envy of the civilised world has been reduced to an indoctrination machine by the NuLabour government in an attempt to attain their socialist nirvana.
Fortunately, regardless of the populist media stereotype, not all youths are self-absorbed celebrity-obsessed, binge-drinkers who are unable to think for themselves.

Let us hope that following the next general election, we are able to vote in a government who will depoliticise our education system. Whilst children should be aware of current social issues, how the political mechanism works or should work and given the opportunity to discuss them, it should not be done at the detriment of the core education requirements.

[Thomas]

If you think Britain is bad, just come to France and spend some time in the schools over here. You would be shocked by the over-politicisation of the classroom and the way teachers force their pupils to parrot back certain political ideas, be that Marxist in the state school system or Gaullist-Christian ideology in the parochial schools. What's worse, teens seem to adhere to such ideologies out of peer pressure and from a desire to please the teachers (and differentiate themselves from their parents). At any rate, bravo to Joe Iles for his insight and courage.

[Junk Male]

Well written. As for the 'accusation' that it was 'edited' - isn't most of what you read in newspapers edited?

And what if the author does attend a public school ? Does that somehow invalidate his arguments? That sort of inverted snobbery is one one of the hallmarks of the Nu Labour slime who have perverted the educational system into a propaganda tool worthy of the Hitler Youth.

At 60, I was glad to retire early from the cesspit of corruption, managerial incompetence and waste that passes for education under the McBroonshirt regime.

[Steve]

This is why higher education is such a rip off, you pay to be indoctrinated. Tenure should be abolished, then we might see some improvements, and less of this.

[WA]

Well said, well done Joe. a far more eloquent and sensible piece than many an adult today could write.

[mia]

this kid is 16? he looks 21 in the picture.

[Paul Saigon]

What a disgrace that Zanu Labour have brought England to this. Here in Vietnam parents send their children overseas to get a decent education. International schools and many independent schools in the UK now teach International GCSEs as the syllabus is not dictated from 10 Downing Street.

[pete]

As a science teacher I don't mind the dumbed down curriculums that the state insists upon. The job has become easier because of them. As a hired hand I'm not responsible for what my employer insists I do.

The current science/current affairs/social issues curriculums are the only way to make science suitable for most children. Unfortunately those children capable of studying real science are missing out.

GCSEs are a bit of a joke academically, and not just in science.

[Gloves]

The kid looks 21, as the the photo is of a 21 year old. Great chat from the 16 year old though.

[L Mungeam]

Good point. I found that doing separate subjects for biology, chemistry and physics was far better- more in depth study was achieved. Also, how about a gcse in Environmental Science as a stand alone subject? This is an issue for the future and would be the best and only place for any (objective) political intervention in gcse science. Science should be taught in a context, but not at the expense of dumbing it down and failing to teach the basics. We used to have social and personal education classes for topical debates regarding society and politics, these were not learnt at the expense of valuable science teaching time.

[Jeremy Poynton]

Well said, young man. New Labour wants its tentacles in everything; they see nothing as outside their remit - witness the current mutterings about home schooling and links to child abuse. This is outrageous, and an attempt for sure by ML to muscle in on home schooling, one of the few things that as yet they have no control over.

And control, as we now know, is the core of New Labour's malevolent being.

Pete 12:09pm. Sound to me that teaching is just a job for you, yes? No wonder we are in such a mess educationally.

[Rhys]

I have just completed my GCSEs at a state village college and have not encountered any of the problems discussed in previous comments. Certain aspects of the science curriculae were geared towards social issues but this was balanced with a healthy amount of 'real' science. Crucially, our teachers allowed us to debate the issues, meaning we got to use our science knowledge in a wider context.
I personally do not believe that the lack of debate is the fault of the government, it seems to be the fault of certain (by no means all) teachers, who find it easier to teach to the exam than to allow for reasoned discussion (which is by no means conciously curtailed by the goverment curriculae themselves)

[Steve]

Certain aspects of the science curriculae were geared towards social issues but this was balanced with a healthy amount of 'real' science. Crucially, our teachers allowed us to debate the issues, meaning we got to use our science knowledge in a wider context.

------------------------------------

In other words it became concensus, which is not science at all, it is
politics / polling / indoctrination.

Science is based on facts alone, the hoax about man made global warming is good recent example,when the earth has actually been cooling since the late 90's.

[GLEE]

Extremely well written and well said, Joe. A very interesting article making some extremely valid points.

Also well said Junk Male and Whimsey, regarding the bizarrely unprompted vitriol in some of the comments.

I especially agree with the following: "And what if the author does attend a public school? Does that somehow invalidate his arguments?". Exactly! Precisely! Well said Junk Male. What school Joe attends should have no bearing on the reception of his opinion!

p.s. Whimsey, your posts are always interesting, so pay no heed to that person who needs flogging.

[James E. Petts]

It is inherent in leftist ideology to politicise as much as possible - socialism is the doctrine of universal and unabated state control of everything. For that reason, socialism is an extremely dangerous doctrine. The most important social challenge of this century is to make socialism as socially despised as racism, if not more so.

[Togu Tofu]

In my opinion, what needs to be learned, is how to think. How to critically analyse the information available, how to formulate hypotheses, how to test hypotheses, how to discuss the merits of your opinion and those of the others within the context of EVIDENCE gathered under rigourously controlled conditions. Once these basics are in the pocket then its worth seeing the theories that we have come to accept as truths, consider them on the evidence available and then accept or reject the theories as appropriate. It is scientific method that needs to be taught first. As it was in my days of the O level, it was more faith based.. the teacher said X happens, I just believed it.

[delilah]

Centralised exams have always suffered from this limitation. Any fule kno that even back in the golden eighties passing A-level biology or geography, for instance, required little more than the Lett's Revise study pack and a photographic memory; bringing in any wider reading, deep analysis or creativity would do nothing but lose you marks. What joy it was to sit the Oxbridge entrance exams, which were completely the other way round. What a pain it was to do professional exams afterwards and cram oneself back into the "correct" answer in order to get the rubber stamp. I hope Joe and his ilk have the opportunity to experience an Oxbridge-style education. Until then, he just has to grit his teeth, write what sells, get his qualification, and move on. A means to an end, rather than an education. At least he has somehow absorbed the skills to distinguish matters of falsifiable fact from matters of aspirational belief - the real tragedy is that an awful lot of school leavers (and teachers) don't seem to appreciate that there IS a difference.

[rwn]

well spoken Joe. I am a former teacher of English and classics. As I read your remarks I feel an enormous sense of relief.You are quite right. Formal Assessments of Theoretical speculations and of comparative ideology can become simplistic political dogma.If well patronized and funded the theory will be placed in front of students for Verification and agreement. PS What do you think of this story?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25117220-13881,00.html

[Joe Iles]

Thank you all for your comments.

This is my first attempt at this so it has been fascinating reading everyone's responses - and just for the record, yes I am 16 and yes I did write the article without any aid or indeed editing, so all the mistakes are mine.

Please keep the comments coming!

[David Hundeyin]

All I have to say to Joe and everyone else is, if you can afford it, please get yourself into the schools that REALLY matter, the top schools (Oxbridge, LSE, etc). The level of social engineering in the UK as observed by a neutral observer like myself is alarming. The only way to escape being brainwashed is to get into the same institutions the politicians send their kids to. Anyone who pays a visit to any British university outside the top 20 will observe such a high level of academic decadence under a veneer of investment. As someone from a fairly well-to-do background, I went to international schools all my life, first in Lagos, Nigeria, then in Maastricht, Netherlands. I had the chance to go on to a top university here in the UK, but I chose to explore the experience of a 'common bloke's university', and eventually, I settled for Hull University. I have never made a worse mistake. Anyone who can, should get right up there. George Orwell probably was a precog or something. '1984' doesn't capture what is heading for Europe in the next six years.

[Philipo Inzaghi]

U cheeky little bastard, excellent points however.

[Peter Thompson]

I empathise with Joe's frustration, but it also needs to be put in context. part of the problem is the need to maintain reliability in exam marking across a national curriculum- you can arguably increase the validity and allow more recognition of individual creativity but it may come at the expense of that reliability.
Another key consideration is that education is ALWAYS politicised. What some of the respondents here want is not DEpoliticisation but REpoliticisation that suits their own agendas (honestly, if anyone thinks teachning global warming is a left-wing conspiracy, they should read the Stern report!)
If you learn about science through applying the theory to contemporary social issues, that's making it relevant to an awful lot of young people who might otherwise not be interested in abstract theory. However, if you're teaching the social issues INSTEAD OF of the relevant discipline knowledge, then that's a problem. But the two are not incompatible in principle, and I'm not quite sure from Joe's observations precisely what problem he wants fixed.

[Ben]

Peter Thompson is wrong. Education is not ALWAYS politicised - that's just the kind of self-fulfilling prophesy that got us into the mess that Joe describes.

Peter sees politics everywhere: he thinks even the demand (by people like me) that politics should be kept out of the classroom is political. Presumably, I suffer from false consciousness, because I can't see that underneath my (and Joe's) reasonable demand that children should not be indoctrinated by any government beats the heart of a right-winger.

Er, no. Children should not be indoctrinated by any government - left or right - and teaching should be painstakingly politically neutral. Peter's belief that that's not possible is firstly just pessimistic but, secondly, itself a left-wing apology. So there you go, Peter: right back atcha, you say I'm right-wing, I'll say you're left wing and the debate has degenerated into unedifying and unresolvable mud-slinging. That's the only thing that your insistence that schooling is always political achieves: it lowers the tone of the debate.

[Peter G]

Joe, the many posters here are right. The ONLY way to get away from this crazy system (and get yourself a decent shot at the kind of decent career the political classes like to reserve for their children) is to make sure you do everything you can to get in to an elite University. I'm talking top 10 at the very least. They are the only saviours of the public education system in this country.

[Hannah]

This is a really well written article, but I don't see what the issue really is. Doing a biology GCSE which allows you to apply your knowledge in a broader context sounds both interesting and a good way to learn. There is more chance to study in depth at A-level and degree level. This just seems like science teaching is becoming more relevant and exciting, and hopefully will inspire kids everywhere to study it further. I think you Joe might be one of the more unfortunate people who is too clever to really benefit from it, but I think rather than politicisation of subjects it is a contextualisation, so all these things don't seem so arbitary.

[Neil]

I have children at primary school, and I found your article disturbing! I took GCSE biology, and none of these subjects were on the list. I was a little early for Global Warming, but the rest could have been candidates. I am happy for children to be taught about the topics - but not at the expense of true scientific knowledge.

I am particularly concerned because these topics are indeed "political" in the sense that there is plenty of room for disent. Individual views on morality, liberty, and the value of each outcome will colour your view- and there is no legitimate way of marking one person's values against another's.

Education involves learning facts and learning skills. One crucial skill is debate, but it does not fall happily into a science exam. How on earth do you mark a child that comes to the "wrong" answer. For example, that efforts to combat teenage pregnancy should be reduced, because they infringe on the rights of a sexually mature indivual to freedom of action and expression. I don't share that view, but if "debate" is to be rewarded, then a pupil should be able to get high marks for a cogent arguement along those lines. If they would not be so rewarded, then we are not teaching debate, we are indoctrinating our children with political views.

[SAH]

My understanding is that state education owes its existence to politicisation. However, I too have desired my own ivory tower, and empathise. Meritocratic systems are often oppressive, and tend create reactionary factions along ideological divisions - luckily for you, the fundamentals of your argument are well established and you are therefore one among many.

[D]

Well this article is extremely well written for such a young mind. Congratulations!

I disagree with your thesis: awareness of the issues is more important than the niggling details, otherwise you can't see the wood for trees, and there are lots of grammatical errors in your piece (particularly in the middle) but on the whole it was extremely well crafted. Well done!

[Hannah]

I agree Joe. I did my GCSE's 10 years ago then went on to do science A Levels. We didn't have so many questions like these in our exams but there were still a fair few where we had to rote learn the acceptable opinions to political issues. I later went to university to study science and spent the first term desperately trying to learn all the 'real' science my lecturers presumed we had been taught at school. Discussions about issues like these are very important but they should not take the place of other teaching. A separate subject would be much more appropriate.

[Martyn Conterio]

The politicisation of education is a good thing...how can subjects be taught without them being contextualised within social issues? What should we be saying to children - 'well, some people like black people and some people don't?' Then go down a history of 'socially-led science' ie Social Darwinism? Or should it be a political history of slavery, capitalism and economics. Even science is negotiated by society...and philosophy and such. To teach without this contextual social and political frame-work...well, it just wouldn't work.

When you get to university...then raise your voice and change the world...as a 16 year old GSCE student...you just look like a pompous oink. Go out and chase girls and drink...then be artistic and write about it.

[jon]

I find this shocking. I guess that in a few years, the state will not have to deal with irritating climate change "deniers" and I presume any questioning of the health risks due to passive smoking means no A*. Joe, you should look up some 1960's and 70's biology text books on the web. I'm sure they are available somewhere. You'll be shocked at amount of content and level of understanding required. What you're getting isn't education, but only you can remedy that.

[lily]

Joe,

My friends and I have been saying this for the last 2 years of our GCSE course, thanks for being able to put it into a concise and well written letter.
P.S. if you were to visit my school ( a girl's grammar school) I think you would receive many marriage proposals.

Lily- 16

[Peter Thompson]

Ben is the one who is wrong. He narrowly equates politicisation with state indoctrination.
Politics in the broader sense concerns the exercising of power, which in regard to education, can come in many forms. Sometimes, this may indeed be related to a right/left ideological agenda espoused by a particular government. But the question of what counts as knowledge within any academic discipline, and what portions of it should be included (and by definition, excluded) in a prescibed school curriculum cannot avoid the contestation and prioritisation of certain epistemologies and objects of enquiry over others. That's also political- If you don't agree, Ben, go and talk to Ofsted, publish an article in an academic journal, or maybe read some Foucault, Marcuse or Plato (or is critical thinking another left-wing conspiracy?).

[will]

is it really a surprise that this government uses school lessons to indoctrinate kids into their way of thinking? I wouldnt be surprised if, there was a politics gcse that focussed soley on the politics of "progressives" as the proven best way to run a country.

Schools should also stop wasting half of kids yr 11,12 and 13 with the teaching of "exam techniques" as happend 6-8 yrs ago when i was doing my gcses and a levels. Instead a significant percentage of a pupils grade should be derived directly from the quality of the classwork they have done and the level of understanding of the subject the teacher believes they have shown. That would lead to a far more balanced grade come the end of the year as some kids perform well in exams and terribly in coursework and vice versa and others are extremely lazy but probably understand the subject far more than their class mates who work harder. (i definately fell into this category.)

at the end of the day school should be about educating kids, so that when they enter the real world either after gcses, a levels or a degree, they are prepared for the world of work and have a usable understanding and ability to apply their knowledge of maths english science IT etc. The obcession with league tables, forces schools to ignore education in exchange for a formula to create the most a-cs possible. This situation cannot be in the best interest of the child or the country.

[LEO]

his room is purple!

[Sarah]

I can see the benefits of studying in a broader context, but we do need some more variety in this context. In my final A level year, I have studied climate change and global warming excessively in just about every subject. It is an important issue, of course, but after 7 years I think students get the idea!

[Ben]

Peter's name-checking Foucault and Marcuse cuts no ice, I'm afraid. Neither does the implication that he's published a lot in academic journals and knows some people at Ofsted convince me that he's got it right on the politicization of the curriculum.

Holding that curricular choices are political through and through debases the whole exercise of thinking sensibly about what children should learn. It turns sensible debates about the curriculum into political slanging matches (like the one Peter seems intent on having) and it leaves no space for deciding what children should be taught on the simple basis of what it is that children should know (and what they should be able to do), so that they can get on in life as citizens and workers.

It is when politics drives out epistemology as the main driver behind curricular choices that critical thinking truly suffers (but I'd still love to hear what Plato has to do with this).

[Rhys]

Not that I am disagreeing entirely with the sentiment expressed in the article, but it would seem that the discussion of ethics/smoking/pregnancy/drinking as part of the science curriculum is in part an effort to encourage students to make better, more informed choices.
I am aware that this has a slight whiff of socialism about it, but do any of the commentors below have any better ideas on how to tackle social issues among students (which, while grossly exaggerated, are nevertheless in existence)?

A fellow 16 year old!

[Peter Thompson]

How amusing Ben- you apply a left-versus-right dichotomy to my initial arguments and accuse me of lowering the tone of the debate and then you take my expansion of your overly-narrow definition of politics and allege that I've starting a slanging match! Are you a politician by any chance?
I must clarify my earlier comments-
Foucault is mentioned because of his work on the relation between power and knowledge.
Marcuse is mentioned because he examines the commodification/ trivialisation of knowledge as a product of the cultural industries.
Plato is mentioned because his mentor, Socrates, was put to death for teaching dialectic to the youth of Athens and found guilty of corrupting them- a salutary tale in this context!
I mentioned Ofted only because their role in curriculum design and determining the quality of schools is of course highly political- ask any headteacher!
And my reference to journals, far from being self-aggrandisement, was intended to indicate that what gets published is often a matter of espistemological fashion and involves more politics than the academic community would care to admit.
Meanwhile, Ben, your remark about "leaving no space for deciding what children should be taught on the simple basis of what it is that children should know" begs an enormous normative and political question- i.e. just what is it that children should know? Is the answer self-evident to you Ben, or can it be disputed? The fact that Joe is questioning the education system's assumptions about what it supposes he ought to 'know', and (ironically) your insistence that politics is driving out epistemology both demonstrate my point about power-relations being immanent in all forms of knowledge/ education. Fancy some Hemlock? :)

[Claudia]

As for Science A levels being more in depth, as one commenter suggested, I'm afraid this isn't true either.

Up until last year, it was. I am in the (dubiously) fortunate position of having studied both curricula, due to my inability to take the exams for the first due to illness.

The new syllabus reads like a government propaganda leaflet. There is actually a paragraph that praises the government's actions in the MMR controversy.

Last year's syllabus had much harder science. But it is going to be much harder to get a good mark in the new one as we have to try to second-guess the mark-scheme's answers, rather than answer the question.

[Becky Fisher]

Joe
As a fellow 16 year old GCSE student, I was relieved when I read this piece and found that this viewpoint was being shared with the world!
I completely identify with your points about the political content of exams, especially in the sciences. Many of my teachers have expressed to us the sheer lack up science there is in our exams...a high point being this week when our teacher decided that he did not become a chemistry teacher to teach about 'the importance of ion balances in the diets of professional swimmers'!!

As for your comments about answering questions to fit the marking grid, I have found just the same. After being taught throughout my secondary education to think originally and to use reasoning that was 'outside of the box,' filling the tick boxes was my main problem, as I received countless notes from teachers actually apologising for my poor grades...the problem being that my answers were far more mature than the syllabus!

Personally, I'm relishing the idea of moving on to A levels, and hope I can go on to an 'Oxbridge style' university education where I will be allowed to exercise my thoughts without relying on an incomprehensive mark scheme. All I hope is that you, me, and the many other young people with this problem will have the privelege of doing so...
Nice one!!!
Becky
xXx

[Meredith]

I am an American, but I am familiar with the educational system in your country (it's taught in our schools to a certain extent). I don't know how one would manage to understand societal issues without a strong background in the basic theories that are behind those issues (everything in biology goes back to the cell). American schools are often taunted, among other American issues...But we do allow our students to make their own decisions, based on what they are taught in school. If they have facts to back-up their opinion, then their opinion is not necessarily wrong, whatever it may be. Which is probably why we have so many political problems throughout the country. But at least we are instilled with a passion for speaking our mind, based on sound principles, and not being forced to follow a party line.I grade standardized exams during the summer (I am in Professional school now) and create rubrics to score essay exam items. You'd be surprised how much we agonize over trying to assess the validity of a student's opinion, even if it doesn't follow our rigid rubric. That encourages creativity, which encourages innovation, which contributes to society in more ways than someone who "colors in the lines". We may not take some things seriously enough, but we do try to encourage students to be their own person. Of course, some people still emerge from our educational system making erroneous conclusions about social issues, but that is not how they were taught. It was their decision to forgo reason in favor of (insert crazy American opinion here). Just my two cents.

[Junaid]

Joe,
Your piece is really good and the content reflects on your maturity. Its nice to see people thinking about this issue. I finished school in 2006 and I took 'O level' exams instead of GCSE's (not that I had a choice, being educated in Pakistan-and after reading this I'm glad I was) and they have a lot more 'traditional' content.

[Hannah]

Joe, alomost everything you have written is what I have said! I hae had several arguments with my friends (who have become sheep, for they willinly accept it without question) and teachers in science about how we aren't allowed to debate anything, as we have to be taught the 'right' answers as ours are 'wrong'.

In Biology we were doing genetics, and I was so happy - finally some science! only to find out it was related to genetic modification. I went back to sleep. Religion is another of these topics, I know very little through school about major religions, such as the basics of Islam, but I can tell you their views on abortion.

x

[Hannah]

ah ha, just seen my typing errors. Sorry, I always do this, I type way to fast and then don't look over what I've typed.

[Rhiannon]

I couldn't agree more.

On one mock GCSE science paper I remember doing in class was the question 'What would be an advantage of wooden window frames over PVC frames?'
The correct answer turned out to be 'Wooden frames look nicer.'

As a result I now know absolutely bugger-all about science.

[Angela]

Great article! Keep up the good work and good luck with your A Levels.

(Ever thought of going into politics and trying to change the system? Heck, I'd vote for you!)

[ali meg]

I go to school with joe he is 16, stop being mean. xoxoxoxoxoox

[ali meg]

o wait he has just turned 17. my mistake
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[Tim]

This has to be the most middle-class comment section I've ever read!

You all give me giggles when you compare this to the Hitler Youth. Also, calling Labour "left" has to be the most naive thing I've read in years.

It's an interesting article, but one that must have been inspired by the kid overhearing his parents talk about what "an absolute disgrace this is" and going with it just so he can get into the Times