.jpg "Ed Vaizey")
Speaking on BBC Two current affairs programme Newsnight, the UK's minister for culture, communications and creative industries Ed Vaizey tonight called for a revolution in computer science education akin to that which occured in the '80s.
When questioned over the UK's drop from third to sixth place in global development rankings and the fact that only 19 per cent of the nation's teachers are qualified to teach computer science, Vaizey called on UK businesses to help back that revolution.
"We need another BBC Micro and we need businesses to get behind a revolutionary computer science," he said, later mentioning Rasperry Pi, the cheap computer David Braben helped to design. "ICT [Information and Communications Technology] is part of the curriculum, but the problem is ICT is taught badly in schools - that's no disrespect to teachers, but students are taught how to use computer programs, not how to program.
"I don't think you can turn this around over night, but what we can do is to get companies like Google and Facebook to get into schools and start teaching."
Industry veteran Ian Livingstone, co-author of the Livingstone-Hope Next Gen review, questioned UK secretary of state for education Michael Gove's educational reforms during a report aired ahead of Vaizey's interview, saying: "Learning about Powerpoint, Word and Excel is useful but boring. You need to put creative technology into the hands of children. [Gove] doesn't appear to want to change his curiculum as it stands, but he can't operate without computer sciences, and neither can this country."
In response, Ed Vaizey pointed to Gove's reforms as a solution to the nations currently "squeezed" curriculum and lack of qualified teachers in the sector.
"The paradox is that the reforms Michael Gove wants to do are actually to free up the curriculum," he said. "He wants a core curriculum of core subjects with a breadth of skills that are useful to everyone going through life, and then give schools the flexibility to put in additional subjects - that could include computer science."
Going on to highlight the 20 schools currently piloting a new computer science curriculum trial, dubbed "Behind the Screen" and led by technology skills body e-Skills in collaboration with its partners (which include Microsoft, Google and IBM), Vaizey again stressed the importance of working with businesses in order to more quickly usher in stronger computer science education.
"We've got a lot of people doing computer science and are very skilled, but the issue is that there is a recognition that ICT has been allowed to stultify and become effectively 'office services'. We need another revolution, like the one started outside of government in the early 80s but this time working with the government."
Comments
59I think Mr Livingstone has forgotten what the G in GCSE stands for. And the S for that matter.
He also seems to be labouring under the misaprehension that making a computer game is all about programming and is complete ignoring things like art and English lit. Hell, he's ignoring things like business studies/management which are incredibly woeful in current secondary.
ICT is supposed to give all pupils a grounding in the tech and then give them some training in applying it in whatever career they're choosing not just programming. By all means offer extra curricular activities but I think programming is a) mostly too advanced for most 14-16 years olds and b) nowhere near as relevant to modern game production as he thinks it is.
C-
The business studies curriculum is pretty good actually. Although the application of business in the UK games industry seems pretty woeful (see the fuckwits at APB).
He's right to ignore things like English lit and art, because we're not short of poncy writers and artists. We're short of engineers. It's not about "modern game production" either, it's about engineering.
ICT is a crock, even at A level. It's about the use of office productivity software. This may have been relevant in the 90s, when fewer families had computers, and school was the only place kids could familiarise themselves with office equipment. This is no longer the case.
Learning to program is going to a be a lot more relevant for anyone than yet another foreign language. Even at GCSE level, students should understand how algorithms work, how databases work, the basics of design.
"programming is nowhere near as relevant to modern game production as he thinks it is" - You clearly have no understanding of games development.
He's correct in that this all needs to happen but the problem is that it should have happened five years ago. The standard of programming graduates is woeful these days. Games Development degrees are so bad, we actually stopped interviewing people with them and only bothered with computer science guys.
hahnchen - 100% agree.
What's the point of having lots of engineers and nobody who can do 3D modelling or understand the difference between writing a story for the page and a story for a game?
Yes, understanding how an IF statement works is handy but when there's much more useful game applications like Unity, Flash or the Unreal/Cry Engine middleware what's the point?
Secondary school kids should be looking at Unreal/Half Life mods at best, not worrying about stack overflows.
ICT in schools should NOT be about turning out software engineers. No more than Woodwork should be about how to make a lathe. Start giving the kids something as basic as a scripting language and you'll lose 99.9% of them and switch them off for life.
Constructing queries in Access or Formulas in Excel is more than enough programming concepts for most kids.
Really.
Perhaps you'd like to tell us which AAA games you've written from scratch. Or not, as you haven't.
Games are a collaberative process involving many disciplines. It's also perfectly possible to constuct games without a jot of"proper" programming. Ever used LBP? How about Kodu?
You clearly have no idea how to teach a child (or anyone) a subject.You don't start with the hardest bit. You start with the easy bit and see how many you lose along the way.
Putting more prgramming into schools is not going to produce more programmers. Some will take it up and further, most will not. You can't put a module in a GCSE and expect to churn out an army of Jonathan Blows. You can't force it on to anyone.
To add, you two are exactly the root of this problem. Snotty snooty attitude to game development raising high barriers and keeping people who can't program out stiffling creativity and interest in current and future generations.
It's tragic old school thinking that's lead us to this situation. Tragic old school thinking that's now being proposed as a solution. Laughable.
dude, this isn't strictly about the videogame industry. It's about ICT as a whole. As the subject's currently taught, students gain very little independence from a limited suite of applications. I'm not sure I even learned the hotkeys for cut and paste in all my time studying ICT at secondary school level.
There are a million wannabe games designers and script kiddies who want to get into the industry, they are not what companies want (artists are obviously a different matter) . The industry needs engineers with good core computer science and (in the case of games) C++ skills.
Trying to suggest that programming isn't relevant in professional games development is jaw dropingly naive, trust me it is still THE skill if you want to get into the industry.
I really think that it's a huge problem with this country as a whole that we have people talking about how they are 'an ideas man', 'my core skills are creative thinking' blah blah blah. What we need are engineers, people who are skilled and can make tangible assets (physical and digital) which can then be sold. The education system needs to be geared up to provide these people, not another puke with a 2:2 in games design or media studies.
I'm not sure how hard this statement is for you to comprehend - "It's not about "modern game production" either, it's about engineering."
I don't give a crap about "modern game production", nor does Vaizey, no matter what he says. I don't want the next generation churning out Half-Life mods or doing level design. That's not where the money is. We have more writers and artists than we can hire already. And as the print industry goes kaputt, we'll probably have even more.
I want the next generation building platforms. You can train kids to build fancy little scripted corridors in UnrealEd - and then they can join in the ridiculously hit driven, tax break thirsty games industry. Or, you could arm them with the skills to build the next Unreal Engine - which is the better business? Which is going to pay off our deficit? What do I want my taxes to fund?
It's not about coming up with a generation of Jonathan Blows, it's about giving kids the right skills to be successful in an information economy. An understanding of the building blocks of software is a lot more relevant than what we're currently giving them. A curriculum that includes algorithms, and the basics of software design, is going to be a heck of a lot better base than the recording of excel macros. We somehow manage to teach our kids trigonometry at GCSE level, a skill that I've never had to use, for anything - and yet we can't teach them the discrete mathematics required for algorithms?
I took the IT A Level just under 10 years ago, it was bullshit then. Before writing my previous post, I took a look at the Edexcel curriculum for IT A Level now, it is still bullshit.
Well, here today on this website it's about games.
I'd agree that the ICT syllabus needs work. Lots and lots of work. It's outdated, as outdated as the idea that adding more programming will produce more programmers and a healthier game industry.
If you want an example of how outdated it is look at the suggestion of needing another BBC Micro. How many kids today realistically don't have access to a PC of some description/age. You can buy a Netbook for £150.
The BBC micro retailed at £325. IN 1981!
not sure if you're pursuing the angle that learning to program is prohibitively expensive or that it's prohibitively difficult for secondary school students. either way, you're wrong. basic programming dovetails very nicely with basic maths - they provide different but complementary perspectives on syntax, for instance.
If we can expect every kid nowadays to have a £150 netbook, we can expect them to have acquired basic IT skills in the use of the more popular applications. Surely ICT should, therefore, be more about expanding and generalising such knowledge?
I'm loving the idea that education policy should be based on the fact the "industry" needs programmers and schools should be churning out good little C++ drones to satisfy that need.
I dunno dude, i think you're taking the tone of the article in the exact opposite way intended. better understanding of computer science entails greater freedom. Invariably you have to start with some language, and I'd imagine that Java would be suitable for GCSE students.
Yet you're promoting an education policy based on getting more people onto UnrealEd and writing interactive fiction? Get real.
Right now, kids come out of school knowing how to construct a triangle but not how to construct an algorithm.
Not just the games industry, the whole country is in need of highly skilled workers. The reason there is resistance to this from people (like yourself) is generally because they don't like the fact that things like programming, architecture, electronics engineering etc are hard. Yes they are but tough luck that's what we need, we are a small country who cannot compete on cheap labour, we need highly technical people and our education system needs to support this.
For example, the games industry in the UK doesn't need people who can write a script in unreal engine, we need people who can write the engine itself. Try turning up at a games company with the level you made in little big planet, see what happens. Those 'drones' as you call them are going to eat you alive in the real world, why? Because they probably worked a dam site harder.
Java is the kind of thing that gets looked down on.
Nobody seems to get it. You can't sit a 14-16 year old in front of Visual Studio and say get on with it.
You have to build up to it, teach the concepts in something accessible. Let them see their results instantly. Teach the fundamentals of game design (including programming logic), not one small highly specialised aspect of it.
You can't say to a kid "hey, learn this and one day, not only will you be able to make Gears of War 5, you'll be able to write the engine that powers it". Not only would that be unsellable, it's utterly an unrealistic end game for the vast vast vast majority of GCSE students.
You've already mentioned that game design is a multi-disciplinary discipline. It is.
But we have the art and design curriculum coming out with more artists than we can hire. We have the english curriculum doing the same thing.
What is not covered at all - is the programming. Our IT curriculum should cover this. That's the point being made. But you keep on going on about how kids are too stupid to grasp the algorithms or conditional statements or loops.
You think that we can stick kids in front of Microsoft Excel and Access, incredibly dull pieces of office software, that do incredibly boring things. Yet can't do the same with Visual Studio? Get them printing hello worlds and implementing simple things like Minesweeper?
dude. this is not about games. not. about. games.
no one is saying 'computer science should be taught at ict level oh and by the way, it should be taught according to victorian standards oh and while we're at it we should bring back the trivium and force them to memorise cicero'. you're constructing an elaborate straw man.
perhaps, by the end of ict, people should understand binary and hex, how machine code works, how assembly languages work, what a compiler is, etc. maybe they can make a text based chess game or know how to build a database, or at least what a database is. this stuff is on the level of what is taught in maths gcse.
Who is hiring school leavers for coding jobs anyway?
This is stuff that people should be doing at university. It also looks a bit like a return to what I did at school in the 80's, it didn't work then.
Eat me alive in the real world? I've worked in IT for twelve years and get a salary 4 times what a junior C++ programmer would. Why? Because I had an education that didn't just see programming as the be-all and end all (though I can do it quite happily) but because NOT EVERYONE IS THE SAME.
The IT and Games Industry needs people of all specialisms and skill sets. Not just programmers who (and everyone seems to be ignoring this) have no influence in the industry or what makes a hit game.
We need people who can make a game, not program an efficient algorithm. You think the makers of Angry Birds are the greatest programmers on the planet?
Carmack is a technical genius. There's no point having a wonderful engine if the people you give it to to make a game let you down badly.
I'll tell you who made a nice engine, those Devil wotsit people who were on the front of EDGE? Where are they now? Did they need more programmers?
how hard is it for you to understand that an ict gcse is not a videogame production gcse.
Only, our GCSE curriculum teaches art, music, business, english - yet doesn't teach even the fundamentals of code.
And you're putting your fingers in your ears, and saying "NYAH! NYAH! CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
Those devil guys, who coded the engine? You know what they're doing now? They've got a new job, elsewhere, building something. The artists on that project? Unemployed.
I'm sorry, is that a question for me or the Newsnight guests? I've been making the point all along that a ICT GCSE is not a games production GCSE.
ok, then follow that line of thought: where in the article does anyone mention videogames?
Without people coming through who have experience and love of making games even if it's in something basic or scripted that can give the singularly unimaginative programmers something to do and make a hit games then there won't be a games industry to employ them.
Then I guess all those programmers can go and work for Facebook or something instead.
Exactly, they can work at Facebook. Or they can try and build a new one. Those are the skills we need to be teaching our children.
We don't.
Sorry, if you want to debate the wider issue then take it over to The Register or something. We're on a video game forum
(and the guests were Livingstone and Braben but hey)
I want to debate the issue pertinent to the article, concerning general ICT education at GCSE level and how it doesn't extend to computer science.
I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone miss a point so convincingly.
How is it in anyway good to have programmers making engines that don't get used in real games or anyone wants?
You want kids to write the next Unreal or Cry Engine? Perhaps you should think back for a second and remember why any of us know what those two engines are.
(I'll give you a clue, it wasn't because they were really nicely programmed)
well, yes it was.
Miss the point? What sort of point are you pushing forward? Do you believe what you've just quoted there to be false?
I don't actually have the facts here, I made an assumption, but it feels pretty damn right. The people with the talent to code, will again be on board with a productive endeavour - others won't. If you think that's missing the point, then I have no idea what you expect from education policy. Because for me, it's about giving kids the right skills to be productive members of society. Maybe you have an ivory tower, let's learn classics for the sake of it Socrates bullshit. I don't.
Your familiar with El Reg, so take a look at this from one of their columnists - http://teddziuba.com/2011/07/the-craigslist-reverse-programmer-troll.html
Do you think that is possible in a world where we have enough engineers? Those nicely programmed engines with their nicely programmed tools and nicely programmed APIs. Yeah? Those nice programmers can go on to do anything they bloody want. They build the platform.
We don't have enough programming talent.
Also, you quoted that part of the argument. But you've still negated this part
"Only, our GCSE curriculum teaches art, music, business, english - yet doesn't teach even the fundamentals of code.
And you're putting your fingers in your ears, and saying "NYAH! NYAH! CAN'T HEAR YOU!""
Because that last bit, you're doing it again.
An engine is an empty vessel till other equally talented people put a game into it.
No one's disputing that they're equally talented (simply because there's no need to do such a thing). What they can do, at what cost, in what space of time, and with however much stability, is defined by the engine.
Of course. An engine that's already been written. Several engines serving all levels of skill that have already been written.
Why the hell we "need" to be producing people to write more engines not fill the existing ones I don't know.
scalable existing engines need to improved. sometimes entirely new ones will need to be written to take advantage of new technology or satisfy the needs of different design styles. every game project needs programmers - i'm terribly surprised you seem to be contradicting this.
It really depends what you mean by programmers. It's not true to say every game needs a programmer capable of writing C++ or his own engine.
What every game does need is an idea, and some vision. And a willingness to fail more often than you succeed. You're almost certainly going to need some good artists and business people as well.
I don't fancy a future of technically impressive games with little or no engagement or content. I thought we'd got past the Amiga demo scene in the early 90s
"It's not true to say every game needs a programmer capable of writing C++ or his own engine.", once again, you clearly have no understanding of professional games development.. I've worked as a programmer in the games industry for almost ten years, trust me you are wrong, 100%, completely, unequivocally wrong.
nor do i fancy a future of games that all look the same and have the same limitations because no one is capable of translating their creative vision into well-optimised code.
What part of you thinks we don't have enough artists? There's a hole in our curriculum, and you're saying "don't fill it".
Trust me, if you think professional games development is the future of games development you are 100%, completely, unequivocally wrong.
I take it the first game you ever made was in an engine you wrote from scratch using your C++ skills and was professionally published.
I'd put it to you that the vast majority of developers started off much more modestly using ready made engines aimed at first time users or more accessible platforms and took it from there (or more often than not never went any further). Braben tells a nice tale but there's no need to sit in front of a black screen writing lines of code to make a game anymore.
You can try and make the point that the only games that ever get made are written by professionals using C++ but you've either never opened your eyes or are being incredibly defensive about something you personally have dedicated a lot of time to. The world has changed, it's honestly about time you realised this.
I know I'd rather have the British youth produce the next Angry Birds then waste their education and lives shatting out the next Barbie's Horse Adventures. Couldn't give a stuff if a game is programmed using a "proper" language.
Professional games development is not the future of games development??? Please tell me more...
if you don't want them to be forced to learn a particular language, then you need to teach them computer science early so that they can see how it relates to their chosen field, and how different types of language might suit them.
you have a chip on your shoulder so you are continuing to equivocate basic computer science with this 'C++ drone' thing you're accusing the industry of manufacturing. It's far more sensible to suggest that gcse students should be taught the basic and general principles of programming and how they relate to what they already use - in large part, of course, this will be object-oriented languages such as C++, but there's all kinds of scope for further specialisation beyond this point, and of course it is pertinent to just about every academic field, including the arts.
There isn't a whole in the curriculum at all. There's a desire from some sectors for different skills to be included sure.
I'm saying if you want to get kids interested in making videogames showing them a page of code and saying "well, there it is, learn that, can't do it? Tough, that's what you have to learn to make a game" is utter bullshit.
For someone who works in IT, you seem awfully sure of all this. Did you fail your programming modules?
ict gcse is not about 'getting kids interested in making videogames'. it has nothing. to do. with videogames.
Me-
You-
That's where we disagree. As I mentioned in possibly my first post on this, no one gives a crap about the games industry. Because programmers can work anywhere they want. They're really useful and desirable in every possible field. The engine coders out there are a hell of a lot more valuable than the artists - maybe you don't think that - the market disagrees.
You also disagree with the notion that education is to provide the skills necessary to be a productive member of society.
You have absolutely no idea what education is for, or what skills we need to be competitive. You think it's acceptable that kids have no idea how an algorithm works. You think that an IT curriculum that is focused on the use of office productivity software holds value. You think that kids can somehow manage to do dull things in Access, yet cannot be taught the basics of database design.
You are short sighted in your constant focus on the games industry, when the argument is almost entirely outside of it. It's not about making a game. It's not about getting kids into a hit driven industry that is constantly hungry for tax breaks. It's about skills. It's about international competitiveness. And for that, we need engineers. We don't need need people who "understand the difference between writing a story for the page and a story for a game".
Do I honestly need to explain how the future of professional games development won't be found by pushing people down academic routes the "industry" thinks it needs.
The industry is creatively bankrupt. Churning out programmers to make the same peoples same old ideas is EXACTLY what we DO NOT need.
Fucking programmers. Autistic the lot of them.
This thread is over you win. And by win i mean, you are fucking retarded.
i'm not a programmer. i'm a musician. and i would have been very pleased to come out of secondary school at least understanding the basics of how programs interact with computers, rather than simply understanding how i am expected to interact with a limited suite of curricular applications.
Autistic and employed. The lot of them.
Aha, nice one.
Did you pass them and spend the rest of your days make Barbie's Horse Adventure? I bet that felt satisfying.
Have you ever made a game that was your idea?
I know I've won because you've failed to muster anything above an insult. It's amazing how often this happens actually.
Didn't you just label all programmers as autistic?
thank u guys for comments. for some of the time it was really informative about the subject at hand.
... other times i wished for encyclopedia what the shortened "ICt's" meant
Perhaps you should tell Ed Vaizey, Minister for culture, communications and creative industries this.
I'm sure the Education and Business ministers might have a different view as well. But we're talking about Eds view of the ICT curriculum and how it is or isn't supporting the objectives in his portfolio.
As long as we have lots of script kiddies and media graduates, i'm sure the country will be fine. No need to worry about the Chinese, angry birds will see us right.
4give mi noobiness, but, i cant't see the posts above 50. wheres page 2 button when u need it