Some points for discussion -

• 
  
  young kids are natural scientists interested in what is and what is happening i.e. they do/can/want to learn
• 
  
  school can(and too often does) destroy this natural ability
• 
  the national curriculum is restrictive to both teachers and students
  
• 
  Numeracy is not the same as maths
• 
  
  Once reading has become 'easy' learning only requires incentive (and sometimes some initial direction)
• The only accurate way of accessing your new knowledge is yourself - pieces of paper from exams are a poor substitute
• schools create bullying/'wrong' peer presure/'unnatural' social gatherings
• 
  we have technology(internet) that could be used for personalised teaching/learning
• 
  Education should be top down (but starting at what age?) i.e. the most up to date knowledge first

For example

• 
  evolution before cells before flower petals
• 
  
  atoms/elements before chemistry before friction and pulleys
• 
  deep time(big bang and earth) before history
• 
  
  chaos theory/fractals/number theoy before calculus before quadratic equations
• 
  human dispersal before agriculture before 'local' history

and

• 
  in all cases 'what we don't know' since this is the largest topic and also the most interesting
• 
  There are (almost) no children who cannot learn academic subjects - it is school (and their other environments) that stops/puts off/damages their abilities

Some points for discussion -

. young kids are natural scientists interested in what is and what is happening i.e. they do/can/want to learn

. school can(and too often does) destroy this natural ability

This is true. However, what they want to learn and when and how, often don't fit into society's perceptions of their needs. What do you do with a child who is interested in, say, dinosaurs, but not interested enough to want to learn to read books about them? Isn't there a point during which children don't know enough to know what they need to know to find out more about what they're interested in? I'm not saying current techniques have this right, but I'm interested in exploring that issue.

. the national curriculum is restrictive to both teachers and students

. Numeracy is not the same as maths

. Once reading has become 'easy' learning only requires incentive (and sometimes some initial direction)

Your first point here is true, but let's remember why the NC was brought in. It was because of huge concerns about some schools that were not in fact doing a good job of teaching, and about lack of co-ordination meaning that children who moved from one school to another frequently studied the same subject matter several different times. I do think the NC is too restrictive, but I wouldn't like to see it replaced by the somewhat laissez faire system in place before.

Numeracy is not the same as maths, but infinitely more useful in everyday life and thus not to be disregarded.

It takes a long time before reading becomes 'easy', and even then comprehension doesn't always follow in its train. Your comment seems to imply that every child should have individual teaching in all subjects, which is commendably idealistic, but I'd like to know how as a nation we would fund this, which is a boring but necessary factor to bear in mind.

.The only accurate way of accessing your new knowledge is yourself - pieces of paper from exams are a poor substitute

Undeniably true, but how else would you suggest we assess the acquisition of new knowledge?

.schools create bullying/'wrong' peer presure/'unnatural' social gatherings

. we have technology(internet) that could be used for personalised teaching/learning

There is undoubtedly bullying and peer pressure in any large gathering of people. I'd suggest that learning to deal with that at school is an excellent preparation for real life unless it becomes something that is having a deleterious effect on the child, in which case any half-decent school should be stepping in to sort it out. All schools have anti-bullying policies and tactics in place these days.

Personalised teaching and learning is good as far as it goes, but I would suggest that it isn't necessarily the only important factor in learning. What about bouncing ideas off other people? Learning to listen to other people's ideas? Grasping that occasionally you may have to rethink not on factual but on interpretive grounds?

. Education should be top down (but starting at what age?) i.e. the most up to date knowledge first
For example

- evolution before cells before flower petals

- atoms/elements before chemistry before friction and pulleys

- deep time(big bang and earth) before history

- chaos theory/fractals/number theoy before calculus before quadratic equations

- human dispersal before agriculture before 'local' history

and
- in all cases 'what we don't know' since this is the largest topic and also the most interesting

Interesting ideas, but I'm not sure that what a young child can grasp of some of this is going to be worth teaching without the foundation of other stuff. For example, local history is often taught in primary schools because children can apply it to what they see around them. This fits in with Piaget's research about the concrete thinking skills of children coming ahead of their abstract thinking skills. 'Human dispersal' is a very abstract concept, don't you think?

. There are (almost) no children who cannot learn academic subjects - it is school (and their other environments) that stops/puts off/damages their abilities

There is some truth in this, but in my experience many children are not, actually, interested in many of the subjects they are required to learn. Your 'individualised learning' programmes would probably help with this, but on the other hand it might well produce a generation of children with completely unbalanced skills.

We can't stop learning. We are learning machines. Every single moment of our lives we are learning - the only event that stops us learning is death.

Our brains react to every input. As a consequence our minds changes. Our mind changes as a result of every input. Some of these changes have a long term significant effect. It is these long term significant effects that the word 'learnt' usually refers to, but all inputs have some learning value.

It has been shown that long term effects (or learning) are affected by our emotional status (brain studies are in their infancy so any further details are questionable). It has also been shown that we are more likely to remember information from the first ten minutes and the last ten minutes of a learning session. Although I haven't seen it stated in any research this could be attributed to the changed emotional state going into a learning session and, likewise, expectation of change towards the end.

Evolution has caused us to be emotionally 'happy' in family or small tribal groupings. A school playground reflects thsi evolutionary need; small groupings occur within larger numbers. However, within the small groups there is always some attention focused on the possible hostile 'others'. Is it likely that the ten minute learning period is adversely affected? Another reason for discarding schools??????

Part of smiley_face's signature was (136808) ' Chemistry is, in no way, shape or form, fun or interesting. Prove me wrong'

This attitude to any subject is oneof the main reasons that significant change to education is needed, highlghting both the problem and the potential solution.

Smiley_face, here's my response to your challenge.

(1) chemistry is the intermediate step between physics and biology
(2) chemistry is the result of physical proceswses - being able to explain chemistry in terms of physics is one way of demonstrating that our understanding of physics is accurate
(3) boilogy is the result of chemical processes
(4) You, and almost everything that affects you, are, at least in part, a result of chemical reactions - the purity of water, the way beer comes about, the drugs you take, even your attraction to a particular girl

Look up the BZ reaction and just as importantly its history

Look up carbon buckyballs and its history

Look up chemical gradients in embryo development

These will show you the interesting and fun part of chemistry.
(I'm not internet savvy, so please post links if you find the info on the net)

(For the down side look up Midgley)

A few outstanding problems in chemistry (or related to) (accuracy not guarenteed)

. prediction of chemical compound properties
. origin of life
.complete description of a burning candle
. molecular computers/storage
. macro/nano size property differences
. water/DNA interaction
. petrolium replacement(s)
. high temperature superconductors
. cloud formation
. gravity versus weightless compound production
. protection from oxygen( rusting)
. simple/cheap/safe drugs
. solar panel efficiency
. water purification
. effects of chemicals in the brain

What follows is probably the main plank underpinning my thoughts on education.

I have reasons for being very specific about separating numeracy and maths. These two terms are often used interchangeably, as though they mean the same thing. They do not! You will often hear the statement 'I hate maths' or 'Im no good at maths' from both children and adults, including primary schoold teachers. When questioned this nearly always truns out to refer to, ororiginate from a very specific subset of what is defined in the national curiculum as numeracy. This subset is adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing numbers.

The assessment of a child's understanding of these is significantly different to anything that has gone bfore and to most that comes after. Success is not defined as understanding the concepts, but as being able to follow some algorithms exactly using unnatural ideas. When looked at this way it is suprising that any of us can do it (Einstein is the most famous example of (partial) failure). Unnatural needs explaining. Fairly recent research, totally unconnected to educational reaserach, shows that we have little natural understanding of numbers beyond that of birds!!! Success at almost anything else is defined, and praised as, understanding and use of ideas - not by slavishly remembering step1, step2,..... Success is defined as being able to follow and repeat over and over a purely mechanical (albeit mental) process. Anything less than perfeaction is rated as impling you're not good enough to spend the next 40 years in one spot on the Model T Ford ptoduction line.

But failure here comes early in life and the failure in wrongly interprted as 'can't learn' by teachers, parents, and peers. This 'can't learn' starts a positive feedback loop ('positive' is used here in its very narrow mathematical/engineering meaning). I didn't learn, hence I can't learn, hence I won't try, hence I won't learn, hence I can't learn; this leads to 'I can't learn' so I'll be disruptive so I wont learn going to diaffection.

(((((((( Speculation: Can, and does, the negative affects of this postive feedback loop cross generation to generation? Does it cause bad ripple effects across the whole of societyt?

Speculation: Is there a correlation or causal link between number education problems and repetive PC game playing?

Question: How skewed to unnatural number manipulation are the 11+ and IQ tests?

Comment: Jenny stated 'human dispersal' was abstract. To me it is a concrete happening. Numbers and number symbols are abstract. How does this tie in with Piaget's child stage development and what should be taught when?

Comment: My reaction to '99' followed by '100' is to see a numerical relationship. Some adults (children?) see a design discontinuity, How does this affect numeracy teaching/learning?

Comment: If I, as an amauter, have so many questions/speculations, about the most fundamental educational icon isn't it time to throw off the Victorian shackles surrounding the whole of education? )))))))))))))))

We invented machines to do things by rote - pumping water, building cars, etc. We all now have mobile phones (including 3rd world countries which all hace calculators so the mechanics of numeracy no longer need to be mastered (previous attempts (late 60s 70s?) didn't have the benefit of phones).

Having stated that number manipulation is not natural, I'll point out that there are people who believe that mathematical thinking is a natural ability common to all of us.

Dinosaurs, etc. This can be restated as when does a young child become not a youind child, or when can a child be usefully directed in formal learning. From what little I know of Piaget's research this varies from child yo child. Our primary/secondary split is very arbitary- other countries have possibly more appropriate splits.

Reading is crucial. It also appears to be one of the most controversial topics in early education. Can Buzan's ideas on reading, speed reading, and learning be adapted to the younder child?

My thoughts on education have, in general, been based on the assumption of 'successful' early schooling.

National Curriculum: Does a significant movement from school to school happen still? (or was that a post WW2 phenomena) This is a reason for individual, inernet based, education (after an age I can't define (see also my para about a trial in post 136365)

There is a compromise needed between the NC and lassez faire. Currently, the NC side is over dominent (see smiley_face's post for evidence)

Reading becoming 'easy'

Reading becoming easy and comprehension are tied together in a feedback loop. The aim should be to make this a positive feedback. Can Buzan's ideas be used for this purpose.

Individual teaching:

Again, I'm having difficulty defining when this becomes feasible for any particular child, but it is based on the use of the internet, with direction, for self learning. Tutor type support and no, or little, need for extensive need of schools. Reduced schools releases funds. Within a generation or two(with my rose tinted glasses on) the country's educational level would be raised such that feewer specialist teachers would be needed. (A poitical statement: Trident, NHS computerisation, ID cards, civil service consultants fees would provide more than enough funds, reduce radicalisation, reduce disaffection, reduce social security, increase tax take)

Exams: No immediate alternative BUT

The ideal result of a child's education should not be exam results. These should only be a by product. The ideal result is that the child should have the knowledge, capability, wish, and the confidence to explore any subject at any future time. Although I know of no research to support me , my life's experiences suggest that confidence is the major factor lacking today.

Text books still appear to be a major inhibitor to confidence. Over the past 20 to 30 years the genre of books for the general public, at least in the scirntific sphere, has been developing. It is now possible for anyone to develop a good knowledge, at least of science, without recourse to text books - IF they have the confidence to start.

When you jump up into the air you come back down. This is because you and the earth are attracted to each other. This attraction is called gravity. About four and a half billion years ago gravity caused a lot of matter to come together and the Earth was formed.

I'm not sure what reading age this is aimed at - I would say that effectively the piece as a whole is about at a 12-13 year-old's level. One of the problems is that you use passive voice quite a bit, which never has as good an impact for children as active voice.

In this little section, there is a huge conceptual leap between the child ('you') jumping up into the air and coming back down because gravity is causing it and the earth to be attracted to each other and gravity causing 'a lot of matter' to come together.

Four and a half billion years is not a length of time with I, you, or anyone else can really grasp. I'll come back to it later to halp give you some appreciation of what it means.

Typos? You mean 'which', not 'with' (and grammatically it should be 'that' anyway), and 'help', not 'halp'. On principle, I don't think it works to introduce a concept and then tell a child it's too difficult and you'll come back to it. Presumably if you're introducing it, I assume it's because they need to understand it in order to understand the rest? If you need to explain it, this is the place to explain it. Personally, I would start with the length of time and then move to the concept of gravity.

- you don't actually explain it later, either!

About three and a half billion years ago life burst onto the scene. No one knows how life started. At this time life stayed v ery small, consisting of one, or just a few cells. There were, however, lots of them. What is a cell? Its a bit like a blown up balloon, but witha lot of activity inside.

Typos - 'very' not 'v ery', 'It's' not 'its', 'with a' not 'witha'. You're skimming wildly over some difficult stuff here and it needs to be both more detailed and simplified. What does 'a lot of activity' mean in this context, for example? I also think that 'no one knows how life started' is a cop-out - there are plenty of possibilities that could be discussed, depending on the age of the child you are aiming at.

Nothing much happened for two billion years or so, exceopt that life continued. At this time groups of cells started getting together to live as little animals. These were still very small and primative in comparison to the life you see around you. No one knows why this change happened.

Typos - 'except' not exceopt, 'primitive', not primative. What does the word 'primitive' mean to a young child? Is there a better way of phrasing this? I really don't like the first sentence here - it's either incorrect or unnecessary. The last sentence is another cop-out, and the whole thing needs more detail.

About 525 million years ago new sorts of animals suddenly appeared. This is called the Cambrian explosion. Over time these changed until about 200 million years ago animals that we call dinosaurs appeared. These dominated life until about 65 million years ago. It is thought that dinosuars were dying out at this time but a major catastrophy helped them on their way. This was alarge rock hitting the earth. It was large enough and moving fast enough that it had a major impact on the weather for many years. This vhange was so severe that 90% of life died out. This massive dying out of life had happened before, but life somehow recovered and new life forms arose.

Typos - second dinosaur is mistyped, 'catastrophe', not catastrophy, 'a large' not alarge, 'change' not vhange. If you're going to introduce the word Cambrian, you need to explain the concept of eras, or it's a meaningless word. And why 'explosion' in this context? You know and I know what it means, but why would a young reader have that concept? There isn't enough detail here - kids are fascinated by the weird and wonderful creatures that preceded the dinosaurs. I also think it's inaccurate to say that dinosaurs 'dominated' life until about 65 million years ago - there were plenty of other life forms around, some of which evolved into us! Again, the use of passive voice is unhelpful, and a lot of stuff is skimmed over.

This recovery also occurreed after the dinosuars died out. Insects, wasps, flowers, birds, trees, and manmals became part of the landscape. Each of these continued to change over time, Eventually apes, bonobos, gorillas came about. One of these, probably bonobos, evolved to become us, that is human beings. The how, why, and when of this change are still being debated as new evidence is still being found and these questions may never be resolved. The only agreement is that human beings came into existance in Africa. It took many hundreds of thousands of years, possibly millions, for this new species to develop all the characteristics we associate with ourselves.

Typos - 'occurred' not occurreed, 'mammals' not manmals, 'existence' not existance. You've skimmed over a huge amount of stuff here, not least the evolution of mammals. Bonobos did not 'evolve to become us' - we share a common ancestor and the current theory is that they are our nearest relative. You haven't mentioned anything about other varieties of 'human being' such as Neanderthals etc, and yet some of the most interesting current work in the field of human evolution has been done using Neanderthal DNA.

Essentially, I think you need to clarify what age group this is aimed at. The language is appropriate for an average 12 year old, but the content is more appropriate for a younger child. Much is either not explained or skimmed over, and it's very abstract in places for a younger child.