Re: Learners - motorways, night, bad weather
Posted: Thu Dec 31, 2015 9:21 am
your points all make sense...
but we live in a society where historically we went on the basis of not regulating where possible...
we have a driving test which sets out to see if someone is at the correct standard before they get a licence...
to challenge your logic we must ask why we care about how someone is trained if they meet the standard we want, is our testing of someone's ability in the way they learn, or in the result / outcome - surely it has to be the latter, logically it doesn't matter if someone is taught by an ADI or a parent who just happens to be a naturally gifted driver and teacher - if they meet the standards on the day, then they get a licence... If the parent is no good as a teacher / driver, then presumably their child will fail the test...
if on the other hand there is a valid concern that some candidates pass their driving test without adequate teaching / learning / skills, then surely the issue is not the methodology by which they got there, but that the test failed to correctly identify them as not capable of driving to the desired standard...
I just don't see at a logical level why the person doing the teaching matters if the standards are reached... exactly the same issue in schooling - I have been a trained teacher for 20+ years and a school governor across a wide variety of schools for 15+ including state and private... In the state sector you must be qualified to teach, in the private sector it is usual, but not a requirement - I have seen good and bad teachers in both, their certificate allowing them to teach doesn't seem to be strongly linked to their ability as a teacher (and I say that having spent four years training, and having a certificate allowing me to teach!) - ultimately a good school looks for outcome - are children engaged in lessons / learning / producing results / continuing that subject to higher levels such as GCSE / A level / Degree...
The problem with a system based on 'trained / qualified' teachers is the assumptions it can lead to - I trained in the early 90s and am legally qualified to go into any school and teach any subject at any level, yet I have not actually taught in a school since the mid 90s and while I have an understanding as a governor, I do not have a detailed knowledge of the current teaching methodologies / curriculum / etc. Yet the 'system' would see me as a good teacher as I have a slip of paper filed away somewhere in the attic!
We have to base assessment on outcome, not on a belief in flawed systems...
Alasdair
but we live in a society where historically we went on the basis of not regulating where possible...
we have a driving test which sets out to see if someone is at the correct standard before they get a licence...
to challenge your logic we must ask why we care about how someone is trained if they meet the standard we want, is our testing of someone's ability in the way they learn, or in the result / outcome - surely it has to be the latter, logically it doesn't matter if someone is taught by an ADI or a parent who just happens to be a naturally gifted driver and teacher - if they meet the standards on the day, then they get a licence... If the parent is no good as a teacher / driver, then presumably their child will fail the test...
if on the other hand there is a valid concern that some candidates pass their driving test without adequate teaching / learning / skills, then surely the issue is not the methodology by which they got there, but that the test failed to correctly identify them as not capable of driving to the desired standard...
I just don't see at a logical level why the person doing the teaching matters if the standards are reached... exactly the same issue in schooling - I have been a trained teacher for 20+ years and a school governor across a wide variety of schools for 15+ including state and private... In the state sector you must be qualified to teach, in the private sector it is usual, but not a requirement - I have seen good and bad teachers in both, their certificate allowing them to teach doesn't seem to be strongly linked to their ability as a teacher (and I say that having spent four years training, and having a certificate allowing me to teach!) - ultimately a good school looks for outcome - are children engaged in lessons / learning / producing results / continuing that subject to higher levels such as GCSE / A level / Degree...
The problem with a system based on 'trained / qualified' teachers is the assumptions it can lead to - I trained in the early 90s and am legally qualified to go into any school and teach any subject at any level, yet I have not actually taught in a school since the mid 90s and while I have an understanding as a governor, I do not have a detailed knowledge of the current teaching methodologies / curriculum / etc. Yet the 'system' would see me as a good teacher as I have a slip of paper filed away somewhere in the attic!
We have to base assessment on outcome, not on a belief in flawed systems...
Alasdair