What is the purpose of education?

First topic message reminder :

“Why, mummy?” “What’s that for, daddy?” How many parents feel like tearing their hair out when confronted by an endless stream of questions from a toddler, yet at the same time knowing they must satisfy the child’s natural curiosity? But what happens to that enquiring mind? How many adults question what's going on around them? Shouldn’t an important purpose of education be to prolong the natural curiosity of the child into adulthood?

I remember two teachers in particular from my schooldays. There was a brutal English teacher, who would hit you if you made the same spelling mistake twice. At least I don’t make many spelling mistakes. On the positive side, I remember a brilliant History teacher who taught you to question everything. He started by giving us the same news story as reported in ‘The Daily Mail’ and ‘The Guardian’, asking us to account for the differences, then he did the same with articles written by different historians on the same topic. He produced photographs (I remember in particular an Edwardian alley scene) and asked us to look for the unwitting testimony in them. His idea of education was to continually ask the question “Why?”

Writing in his blog, Mark Berthelemy has argued that schools today take children - who are literally "born learners" - and educate the ability to learn out of them, by forcing them through the sausage-machine that is our "education system". Lou McGill asks: “How can we expect people to be creative, if we expect them all to achieve certain set targets, and disparage certain areas of learning as less important than others?” Berthelemy went on to say that education should be “about encouraging the creative minds we're born with, and developing them - not stifling them”, and “looking out for injustice and not accepting it”.
http://www.learningconversations.co.uk/main/index.php/2011/02/09/what-is-the-purpose-of?blog=5

In the latter part of the nineteenth century, teachers were remunerated under a scheme known as “payment by results”, which politicians boasted would either be efficient or cheap. One inherent weakness in that arrangement was that teachers only taught children to the level of passing the test and failed to develop their full potential. But have we reverted to that system of teaching now? The introduction of the National Curriculum in 1988 brought with it a plethora of tests as children moved from one level to another. At a recent debate to launch Compass’ e-book ‘Education For the Good Society’, Leicester University lecturer Dr. Katy Layton-Jones spoke of the emergence of "a terrified generation" who had been brought up on education for the test and were frightened to engage with ideas.
http://www.compassonline.org.uk/news/item.asp?n=13891

Josie Fraser, a social and educational technologist, has argued that a fundamental purpose of education should be “to acknowledge the inevitability of change, celebrate the value of life as a thing in process, and promote an awareness of other ways of doing things - of discoveries yet to be made and solutions yet to be invented". She continued: “The purpose of education should be to expand expectations, not to confine them - to support our learners in understanding the impact they can have on their world".
http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6075468

Others will argue that the purpose of education is to provide what the economy needs. Some of us will reply that the best thing for the country is if as many people as possible achieve their potential and at the same time create something. Berthelemy concludes that the purpose of education in our current society is to become better than other people, but that instead it should be about achieving our individual potential. It should be about helping each other to find out what we are good at, and developing those skills/gifts/talents. Not to be better than someone else, but to be as good as we can get.

It would be as surpising to find that an assortment of Tory Ministers were up to their necks in quietly furthering the interests of their various 'chums' , as it would to find a queue of kids at a sweet shop offering free toffee...

Gove Assesses Tory Educational Standards

(telegraph.co.uk)

" I am confident that you girls will go down in History. Not to mention Mathematics, Geography, Physics, Latin..."

Phil Hornby wrote:Gove Assesses Tory Educational Standards

(telegraph.co.uk)

" I am confident that you girls will go down in History. Not to mention Mathematics, Geography, Physics, Latin..."

trevorw2539
Wiki.
He was a proponent of the view that the invasion of Iraq would bring peace and democracy both to Iraq and the wider Middle East. In December 2008 Gove wrote that declarations of either victory or defeat in Iraq in 2003 were premature, and with the benefit of hindsight "The liberation of Iraq has actually been that rarest of things – a proper British foreign policy success. Next year, while the world goes into recession, Iraq is likely to enjoy 10% GDP growth. Alone in the Arab Middle East, it is now a fully functioning democracy with a free press, properly contested elections and an independent judiciary ... Sunni and Shia contend for power in parliament, not in street battles. The ingenuity, idealism and intelligence of the Iraqi people can now find an outlet in a free society rather than being deployed, as they were for decades, simply to ensure survival in a fascist republic that stank of fear. "[29]
My underlining

Are there 2 Iraqs?

Perhaps an invasion of our schools would be in order. Another 'Foreign' Office success.

LEAVE OUR TEACHERS TO GET ON THEIR JOBS OF TEACHING. School is about learning, not red tape, constant exams. Most teachers are capable of knowing what a child is good at, and what they need to be encouraged in. They are quite capable of transmitting that information to parents in reports. Obviously some exams are necessary. Just as obviously some intelligent children go to pieces at exam time.
Overall assessment should always be taken into account. I believe that there is a system where a childs parents can ask for this when a child unexpectedly 'fails' an exam. I may stand corrected on this, though I think it happened locally after a child inexplicably 'failed' an exam.

Oh. And bring back the Birch - er - for Government Ministers of course

Most Professional Bodies (Accountants, Lawyers, Teachers etc.,) hold exams before you can get the magic letters after your name. In many cases after a "fail" you can, for a fee, have the Examiner explain what you SHOULD have written. In rare cases you might even get a revision of the mark originally applied.

That sounds similar to the idea above.

oftenwrong wrote:Most Professional Bodies (Accountants, Lawyers, Teachers etc.,) hold exams before you can get the magic letters after your name. In many cases after a "fail" you can, for a fee, have the Examiner explain what you SHOULD have written. In rare cases you might even get a revision of the mark originally applied.

That sounds similar to the idea above.

It sounds familiar. I have no problem with exams when necessary. 'O' levels and 'A' levels etc are an indication of possible 'futures'.
My youngest son thrived on Exams and went on to study at Oxford. My eldest was just as intelligent, but couldn't be bothered with exams. He was adept with his hands. He went on to train in the 'electrical' field, enjoying the practical side.
It just seems that children are pressured to learn, instead of learning being a 'pleasure'. Mind you, some teachers I've met could make the most 'pleasurable' experience mundane.

blueturando. Whatever Blair, Brown, Cameron or Gove did with Murdoch before the criminality of the phone-hacking scandal came to light is irrelevant to the functioning of government today. However, it’s clear that Coulson was in the thick of the sleaze, and how much Cameron knew may yet come out; why did he say he was giving Coulson “a second chance”, isn’t that proof that he knew Coulson had dirty hands?

The story was in today’s ‘Guardian’, and if you bother to read it you will see that it tells us that Gove is still very much in Murdoch’s pocket and that Murdoch still wants to stick his oar into education:-

Gove returned to his pro-Murdoch theme last week, publicly attacking the Leveson inquiry, set up in the wake of News International's misdeeds, as a threat to press freedom. "Whenever anyone sets up a new newspaper – as Rupert Murdoch has with ‘The Sun on Sunday’ – they should be applauded and not criticised", he said.

It was a reminder of the extraordinarily close links that still exist between publishing tycoon and Tory politician. One of Murdoch's long-term projects is what he calls a "revolutionary and profitable" move by his media companies into online education. Gove would be a key figure in any attempt to penetrate the British schools market.

The Education Secretary meets Murdoch frequently and is an enthusiastic backer of the ideas of Joel Klein, the head of Murdoch's new education division.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/feb/26/schools-crusade-gove-murdoch?CMP=twt_gu

I’m surprised that you seek to defend what must be one of the most corrupt and incompetent governments in British history. Half of its members had their hands in the expenses’ till before they came to power. Maude, Gove, Osborne and Cameron himself all made dubious claims and yet, while others had to go, they became ministers. Spelman was employing a nanny and pretending that it was a secretary, Ashcroft was paying the Tories instead of the Inland Revenue, and private health firms were bankrolling both the Tories and Lansley’s private office. Several Cabinet ministers, including Osborne and Hammond, have money stashed overseas to avoid tax, while they mock the rest of us with their "we're all in this together" mantra. Cameron showed his approval of tax avoiders by giving Philip Green a role in government.

17 days after they came to power, Laws had to go for giving £40k of our money to his boyfriend, but they can’t wait to have him back. What sleaze and sinister goings on involved Fox and Werritty we still don’t really know, and now there’s Emma Harrison and her company, which was being investigated for fraud when Cameron gave her a contract. (Gove gave a lucrative contract to a friend, but little is said about that.) The BBC has been intimidated with talk of fragmentation to please Murdoch, and former Tory minister Chris Patten has been installed as Chairman of the BBC Trust. Cameron is knee-deep in sleaze, he’s never far away from any of it, even to the extent of socialising with the likes of Rebekah Brooks and James Murdoch. Coulson has been entertained at Chequers since the turn of events became too hot for him to stay in Downing Street. Huhne's alleged law-breaking seems trivial compared to the rest of them.

This year we’re expected to celebrate 60 years of benefit scrounging by Mrs Windsor and her family. The very concept of monarchy is being shown to be useless – and treated with contempt – by Lansley, who is implementing parts of his hated legislation (such as GP commissioning) before it’s received the royal assent. If Mrs Windsor served any useful function, she would say “enough is enough” and throw her fifth cousin and his corrupt gang out of office before they can do any more damage to this country. So much sleaze in less than two years, and that's only the aspects we know about.

But DC looks such a NICE chap!

There certainly seems to be a need for an informed electorate today, in both the UK and US.

Apparently not according to Santorum, who thinks having the opportunity to go to college is snobbery. Of course, an ignorant electorate is easier to control - and brainwash.

Shirina wrote:

There certainly seems to be a need for an informed electorate today, in both the UK and US.

Of course, an ignorant electorate is easier to control - and brainwash.

 

Thus the need for an informed electorate in the UK and US.

RockOnBrother wrote:

Shirina wrote:

There certainly seems to be a need for an informed electorate today, in both the UK and US.

Of course, an ignorant electorate is easier to control - and brainwash.

Thus the need need for an informed electorate in the UK and US.

There is an informed electorate in the UK. Just not about politics, more about who won what at the Oscars or what is happening in Eastenders (a long running soap for those across the pond).
I don't believe there has been a 'well-informed' electorate since the beginning of WW2. Then we all knew what it was about. Since then the majority of people have voted on whether they personally have gained from the previous government + what will they gain from either party if they elect them.
That is not to say there aren't those who, like posters on here, really do take an interest. My guess is that there are very much in the minority.
The one thing I will say in Camerons favour. I believe he is making more people sit up and think about his radical reforms. Whether that works for him, or against him, time will tell. You do hear more in conversation about the NHS, benefits reform etc. Some of it ill-informed. Whether people will, in the end, believe Cameron or Miliband remains to be seen.

What is the purpose of education ?. Well i thought it would be obvious even to the un-educated, the purpose is to educate.
People haven't got the hang of education yet in this country, a lot of people have not been educated enough to know that you should not vote tory, or Lib/Dem for that matter.

jackthelad wrote:What is the purpose of education ?. Well i thought it would be obvious even to the un-educated, the purpose is to educate.
People haven't got the hang of education yet in this country, a lot of people have not been educated enough to know that you should not vote tory, or Lib/Dem for that matter.

You're right. I once knew a man so uneducated that when someone said 'laboratory' to him he thought they were asking him which party he belonged to.

An education allows you to become painfully aware of your limitations.

Noble sentiments, but there's nobody quicker to spot a weakness in others - and exploit it - than a playground full of children.

Blamhappy wrote:What will help is the fall of the Murdoch press.

...IF it does fall, of course. I wonder if Murdoch will keep bouncing back until everyone eventually forgets and it all just reverts to normal.

Mind you, elderly ladies are more likely to read the Daily Mail, and I'm not sure if there's any chance of that sizzling out or changing ideology.

Grasping the nettle on this. What would truly be the answer to Britain's ills, is a much better educated working class.

But the British established classes and establishment do not want an educated working class. Our State education systems have been grossly underfunded for decades and since Thatcher, when the iron lady cut income tax for all British workers, and in turn cut investment into all our vital services, ready for them to be privatised.

The right of the Tory party do not believe in anything other than privatisation, including private health, and private pensions.

Possibly.

I think people's ideology and political understanding come from their parents and the press, and not from school.

I don't know what I think about education. I get the impression that my mum and dad had a slightly better education than I did, but at the same time, I wouldn't want to revert to their era of education!

I wish that we would copy the superior systems in countries in mainland Europe. They start formal education later (four is too young) and yet they are at the same level (or higher) by the age of eleven. They all seem to learn fluent English by their teenage years, and I think their bilingualism facilitates a better understanding of world and current affairs. I think our UK-centric attitude here has large negative implications.

So I don't want to revert to our old education system from the harsh 1950s and 60s, but I do think we should start looking abroad for inspiration.

Blamhappy says,
I believe in democracy to a certain extent (there ARE limits, such as the majority of citizens would like the return of the death penalty, and I think that needs to be blocked in an authoritarian-type way).

I do believe it's selective democracy, if you are note voting with the majority you don't want it. The only people who get their own way all the time are called dictators. Fox hunters don't approve of the hunting ban, smokers don't like the smoking in public places ban, but more people want these bans. Now where hanging murderers is concerend, the people should be allowed a refferendum, i believe the result would be a lot more places in prison for the run of the mill criminal.

Blamhappy say's,
So I don't want to revert to our old education system from the harsh 1950s and 60s, but I do think we should start looking abroad for inspiration.

I went to school in in the thirties and forties, nothing harsh in education then, everyone left school able to read, write and add up, it was what they called the three R's. The sooner they get back to the old ways the better, there is for too much messing about with the education system.

I probably shouldn't keep bringing up the death penalty because it is emotive and a big subject in its own right! It's just the easiest example to use for the above. If we had a referendum on the death penalty, it would be reinstated, and the country would take a massive step back. It's inhumane and equates to revenge rather than justice. By the way, "death penalty" doesn't necessarily mean hanging! That's a method of killing designed for the pain and the spectacle. What sort of an outdated country would we be if that were our chosen option?

For me, it's a good example of why the majority school of thought shouldn't always be the the deciding factor in policy.

It would be fun to think of other awful policies that would come in if we put everything to a referendum.

By the way, yes, of course it would result in more prison spaces for "run of the mill" criminals. That's a given. It's not a reason for it though! Killing all rapists would make even more room. Shall we do that too then? It'd be very handy.

I'm being silly, but trying to make a point: If everything is just a means to an end, then nothing really matters.

Blamhappy say's,
If everything is just a means to an end, then nothing really matters.

You nearly had me singing that Queen song Bohemian Rhapsody, nothing really mattered in that.

jackthelad wrote:Blamhappy say's,
So I don't want to revert to our old education system from the harsh 1950s and 60s, but I do think we should start looking abroad for inspiration.

I went to school in in the thirties and forties, nothing harsh in education then, everyone left school able to read, write and add up, it was what they called the three R's. The sooner they get back to the old ways the better, there is for too much messing about with the education system.

Have you studied psychology? I actually think it's important to gain an understanding of how children learn, their developmental stages, and what situations make them prosper, before making decisions about our education system.

Yes, the old system propelled the early maturers to the top and extended their knowledge and capacity to learn, thereby providing a good number of children with excellent prospects in life, and there was indeed a lot of emphasis on maths and literacy (the "three Rs"), which meant that most did pretty well in those areas.

So, what was the result aside aside from that said above? My mum came out a very effective typist with superb English language skills. Excellent! Another great secretary! But, hang on... she has a brilliant brain, yet has no idea about science, can't do any DIY... No one bothered to stretch her brain, so her role in society is limited somewhat. It's hardly ideal, is it?

The system we have now is much better. I'm not sure if people's literacy skills have weakened, or if they're simply exposed now as a result of the computer age. Either way, instead of reverting to our old system, I think we need to build on the system we have now and make it more progressive.

jackthelad wrote:
You nearly had me singing that Queen song Bohemian Rhapsody, nothing really mattered in that.

Hahahahaha!

she has a brilliant brain, yet has no idea about science, can't do any DIY...

Einstein "did not commit anything to memory that he could find in a book"

Who says he could fry a sausage, or hang a shelf?

I object to the "proffesional student" who has no intention of working but staying in education. People have qualities and these qualities should be nurtured, as should natural ability/talent for the betterment of the self, and of the community around.

Take the Beehive, and the jobs are taken by bees as they grow and develop. Nurse bees, feeding the grubs, and fanning the hive entrance, then to guard bees to keep out intruders - wasps and bees from other hives, then caring for the Queen, then at last out and about to gather the pollen, nectar and water for the community.

The people IMO who do not want structured society in this country are to be found in Prisons AND in the Palace of Westminster!

Blamhappy quote

The system we have now is much better. I'm not sure if people's literacy skills have weakened, or if they're simply exposed now as a result of the computer age. Either way, instead of reverting to our old system, I think we need to build on the system we have now and make it more progressive.



Similar to Jack I went to school early, in the forties and fifties. In those days it was a case of learning and using your brain for most things. Nowadays we have all the technology to do even the simplest of things. I know children who use their mobile phone calculator to do simple sums while out shopping. Costing up etc.

My main concern is that we will eventually end up worse than a child of the 1900's. Technology will take over the functions of our brain, and in time we become so dependent on it we will not be able to function without it. To go out to buy something without our battery computor and when faced with 30% off, be lost to work it out. And it's happening even now. The bank clerk who, when I deposited some money (and who says miracles don't occur) used her fingers on the counter to add up a simple sum.

We need these things to help us with complicated calculations, with speed of access to answers. What we must not do is neglect the evolutionary process we have been through. For some people the very fact of using their brain to solve a problem, of asking why and not just accepting a fact, has led to their success in life, and to the benefit of mankind.

When confronted with a calculation or problem the first thing my youngest son does is to try and work it out in his head. He finds it stimulating. Only if it becomes complicated, or he needs further information will he resort to technology. He hopes to go into research when he leaves Oxford and believes his way will help him later.

When I left school 2 + 3 = 6. Hopefully it hasn't changed since then;)

Not sure about that really. I've seen plenty of people my parents' age unable to do simple sums. I don't think our increasing use of technology has lessened people's mathematical progress.

I was allowed to use a calculator at school and I was good at mental arithmetic. I'm pretty sure that the Curriculum requires both mental and useage of technology, as surely it should? We need to become well-versed in technology, since it's all around the modern world.

Although the Government meddles extensively, the National Curriculum is designed by people who know how children learn and know the target. Some people talk as if it's all made up willy nilly and that children are being taught rubbish.

LOL on the sum at the end!

Blamhappy wrote:Not sure about that really. I've seen plenty of people my parents' age unable to do simple sums. I don't think our increasing use of technology has lessened people's mathematical progress.

I was allowed to use a calculator at school and I was good at mental arithmetic. I'm pretty sure that the Curriculum requires both mental and useage of technology, as surely it should? We need to become well-versed in technology, since it's all around the modern world.

Although the Government meddles extensively, the National Curriculum is designed by people who know how children learn and know the target. Some people talk as if it's all made up willy nilly and that children are being taught rubbish.

LOL on the sum at the end!

No Blamhappy all we are saying is ONE SIZE does not fit all, and besides Goves Academies are failing already and he is leaving the local Council to clean up his mess after him saying the Councils would have nothing to do with the Academies

I'm confused now. So this is a discussion on the old 11+ system?

I did touch on that before. I think 11 is too young to determine people's futures. We already have streaming in schools anyway.

Right, I didn't know where to put this, and I'm reluctant to start new threads. Since we were talking about education here, maybe this is the place!

I've just seen on BBC News that Gove is considering handing A Levels over the university.

I don't particularly have an opinion either way on this - I'd have to listen to those who know what they're talking about before I could form my own opinion - but I can discuss it.

I think he's hoping that the universities will tug the reigns and ensure that pupils don't find it easy to get good grades. From my experience of A Levels and degrees, the former were harder anyway, and with the latter, I had more help. I'm not sure if people ever fail degrees - you just keep submitting until you get past the 40%. A Levels aren't as flexible.

Having looked through the Michael Gove trend on Twitter, I think perhaps I'm not alone in my initial reaction.

I think this is set to be the next government cock-up.

Gove is trying to make all schools use the same examination supplier (big business) so that exam grades are equal across the board. Now they're talking about returning to the O level system (worked for me) in an attempt to get kids at least a minimal education (reading and writing). Be honest, not all kids are cut out or university, bring back apprenticeships and give all kids a chance.

I hope they remember also to teach kids how to accept consignment to the scrap-heap at the age of 14, otherwise there are going to be quite a lot more gangs of adolescents prowling city streets.

Back in the 60's, parents thought they knew it all!

OH YES, their ultimate desire was for the kid to "have a better standard of living than himself"
Certainly the way my house workd.
When all the tests were coming up, I said I would like to - learn German and Scottish Gaelic, history and some other bits and bobs. YOU DO NOT NEED ANY OF THESE. I was lined up to work behind a delicatessen counter!

I was offered a job at the local aerodrome, maintaining aircraft instruments - 5 year apprentice ship. "THAT will not last - no future" (I ask you)

Offered a job as photographer (a hobby still) with the local Police Force. "No room for improvement!" again I ask you.

Ended up as Letterpress Machine Minder ("A job with REAL prospects and very good money" yeah so was a wheelwright in his day!) in a local jobbing printer, and as soon as my apprenticeship finished = 1975, hot metal print died off with the advent of Lithography, so, to driving Ambulances, buses and trains.

Now, I am not shouting about the "Best" advice given to me by those who should know better, but teachers etc, should have backed off!

I wish teachers would get on with teaching, and sort out courses aimed at the pupils. Read the top, and I wanted History. If I had been put on the group where history was a subject, I would have been lined up for MOST of the occupations I seem to align MYSELF to. BUT NO they put me to Geography, which ran with Currents of Accounts and English and a few more.
Subject groups were 'written in stone' and this threw many of us out with the bath water.

Latin served me particularly well. There is rarely a day goes by without I re-live those barbarians attacking the ramparts with arrows...

But your Doctor cannot decieve you with your prescriptions!

Phil Hornby wrote:Latin served me particularly well. There is rarely a day goes by without I re-live those barbarians attacking the ramparts with arrows...

Well, blow me down. Didn't know the Scots used Latin. ooops

Nemo me impune lacessit.

The motto of the Order of the Thistle, I believe? And I kinda like it as a personal statement , too.

If only I knew what it meant....

In happier (?) days, it was on the Black Watch badge.

Still used with other units, but the Black Watch is no more.

(Well it IS (NO dissent accepted!) if you are in Aberfeldy, by the Black Watch Memorial and Wade's Bridge.)

General Wade's roadbuilding skills are regularly revisited by grateful owners of 4 x 4 offroaders around Kingussie and elsewhere in the Highlands.

An example of why Gove is right regarding the education system?

Lord Ashcroft commissioned a poll to coincide with the establishing of a permanent memorial to Bomber Command, which is to be dedicated and unveiled by the Queen in Green Park, London, on 28th June. The memorial honours the 55,573 men of Bomber Command who lost their lives during the Second World War. You’d think that knowledge of this might be part of the national consciousness, imbued through the fervent patriotism latent within our schools and inculcated through a history syllabus which focuses on our great island story...

Yet only just over two in five secondary school children know the Battle of Britain was fought in the air, according to Lord Ashcroft’s survey. Some 1,007 children aged 11-18 were interviewed face-to-face between 15-23 May 2012. The survey was conducted throughout Great Britain and the results are nationally representative. The research also shows that only one third of children know the Second World War began in 1939, while only one in five know what happened on D-Day.

The results of the survey highlight the importance of ensuring that current and future generations remember the sacrifices made by those who served Britain in time of war. Key findings include:

•Only 34% of children – including less than half (45%) of those aged 17-18 – knew the Second World War began in 1939. 39% knew it ended in 1945 (again including 45% of 17-18 year-olds).

•While 92% of children could correctly identify a picture of Churchill the insurance dog, only 62% correctly identified a photo of Sir Winston Churchill. •43% knew the Battle of Britain was fought in the air; 29% said it was fought on land, and 8% at sea. 20% said they did not know.

•Only one third (34%) correctly said the Battle of Britain took place in the 1940s, and only 11% of these – about one in 27 of the whole sample – knew it happened in 1940.

•Only a fifth of children had some idea of what happened on D-Day. The most frequent answer was that it was the day the war ended.

•86% correctly said there had been two World Wars. One in twenty thought there had been three.

•Nearly a third (29%) were unable to give any unprompted explanation of why Britain had fought the Second World War. This included more than a fifth (21%) of those aged 17-18 and a quarter of those aged 15-16.

•89% correctly named Germany as an adversary in the Second World War. Only 15% named Japan unprompted. Nearly a quarter thought Britain ’s enemies had included Russia , France , China , the USA , Australia or New Zealand.

•Only 61% correctly named the USA as an ally of Britain ’s in the Second World War. One in ten thought our allies had included Italy, Germany or Japan.

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/most-young-people-do-not-know-battle-of.html