,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Enjoyed listening to the first episode of @GoWithMeOnThis from @Ndidi1st and @miss_mcinerney - of course I now stick my two pence worth in!
My read of the literature puts me in @miss_mcinerney camp. All starts with knowing stuff. I think the vs skills bit get into semantics often - call using knowledge a skill fine (just don’t make the skill generic). Call it procedural knowledge fine. Know stuff then do stuff.
I’m even there for know stuff about a behaviour and then do stuff with the knowledge of the behaviour and call it something like kindness. It’s murky between biologically primary and secondary in this territory.
BUT what we mustn’t do (in my view) is just say well it’s semantics and it’s a balance (laser on you here @Ndidi1st). Why? Because opportunity cost. It’s a balance, it’s both ignores the reality for educators who design curriculum (by which I mean everything a kid experiences).
There is a finite amount of time. Everything we learn takes up some of that time. So what knowledge (and subsequent use of it) do we prioritise? Where do we spend that precious time. If you had 100 hours how would you split it?
And so to answer that you need to talk about intent - the purpose of education - if you think it’s about jobs you’ll make a different call to if you think it’s about equality or inheriting the canon.
I don’t think I know anyone who doesn’t think it’s a balance. I’d love to know more people who can say what they think that balance should be. What a bloody brilliant conversation that always is!
