Does the government just trawl through statistics in an effort to find a way to lower standards through budget cuts? How can anybody seriously put forward the point of view that larger class sizes will not effect standards? Why can’t the government focus on improvement rather than cost cutting?
It’s a big question with many answers; often conflicting. I have been involved in education professionally for nearly 20 years, I am state educated but have had intimate ties with private education throughout that time.
The answer to the question is enormously affected by demographics. Most privately educated children will aspire (or at least their parents will) to A Levels, University and a career to follow. This will also be the case with many state educated pupils. However, (mainly) within the state sector there will also always be enormous quantities of students for whom school is just compulsory. They have to go and they look forward to leaving; often with few prospects and very little idea of what to do next.
It is these students that the system lets down the most.
If you leave school at 16 what should you know? Most people will agree that a basic knowledge of English and Maths (numeracy and literacy if you prefer) is a given – but what else?
In our heavily politicised system there is far too much emphasis on passing (so that the government can say what a good job they’re doing) and far too little on content.
To take one example it is possible for two students to both get an A* (A* being of course a nonsense concept in its own right) at GCSE without having done a single question in common. How can we possibly compare pier groups in this way? With multiple Examination Boards the statistics are meaningless. With this system there is also no standardisation of content excepting broad National Curriculum guidelines.
We need to sweep away the nonsense of the multiple exam board system, set up panels consisting of a mixture of academics and representatives from industry to decide exactly what people ought to know at 16 for each subject. There should be a single syllabus for each subject and everybody should sit the same examination.
Beyond 16 is the time to academically diversify, compulsory education should give everybody a solid grounding; even if they never read another word in their lives. Telling them they’ve ‘passed’ a meaningless exam helps nobody.
Gove wants tests for four-year-olds
Education secretary Michael Gove strongly indicates that he wants to introduce formal assessments for four and five-year-olds when they enter school in England.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/news/uk-26008500
On what is Mr Gove basing his sweeping self congratulation? Mr Gove appears to live in some fantasy parallel universe.
‘State schools will be able to stay open longer, so that there is more time for after-school activities, and the education secretary has repeated calls for tougher discipline.’
Has anybody consulted teachers on these life changing statements? How will teachers be empowered to toughen discipline? Will legislation be passed to allow punishments without the possibility of litigation?
Regarding the criticisms by Sir David Bell; I entirely agree. ‘Sir David was part of a group of business leaders and academics who published a report last week calling for a more independent, non-political approach to education policy.’
At last somebody talking sense. Michael Gove needs to stop looking in the mirror and actually try and improve the education system apolitically.
For me what credibility he might have had is now non-existent.
Although Tristram Hunt is commenting from a purely political standpoint (always say the opposite of the other side), I entirely agree that there should be, ‘… a qualified teacher in every classroom.’
Be interesting to see what happens with that if Labour get in.
Here’s my take on a story that appeared on BBC education
Parents too guilty to go private
An elite private schools leader says parents are made to feel it is morally unacceptable to pay for an education.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/news/education-24334356
I don’t know why representatives of private schools at their conferences bother to try to cause minor controversy in order to get into the press. Is not every private school in the country over-subscribed? As a parent I know that all you want for your children is the best opportunity possible.
I was state educated, thoroughly enjoyed school, have retained many friends and achieved good qualifications. My positive feelings about my school years leans me towards the state sector because that is my experience, not because of any kind of stance. I have friends who were privately educated, some of whom boarded, who also had a very positive experience and wish to replicate that for their children.
There are obviously people who find private education morally unacceptable; I wonder what their attitude would be after a windfall?
Keeping an open mind and checking your bank statements is probably the way forward.
Here’s my take on the following UK education story…
** Curriculum to match world’s best **
A revised national curriculum for schools in England is to be published later, with the aim of catching up with the world’s best education systems.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/news/education-23222068
I’m all for improvements in the curriculum but am also always wary of politicians making crowd pleasing statements. How can such changes realistically be implemented by 2014?
As for the content, politicians should leave well alone. Let the educational community decide on content; teachers are the people on the ground who best understand what is required and / or possible.
It also brings into question the whole system of academies. If academies are now the majority of secondary schools why on earth are they not expected to follow any new curriculum.
In the long term, with an increased number of academies, won’t changes in certain aspects of the curriculum be pointless?
Tech-levels to have A-level status
http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/news/education-23168781
I think this is a very positive step by the government. It’s about time that more vocational qualifications are given more credibility. It is vital that the standard of these qualifications is established and maintained at a high level but this a very positive step away from the ‘passing’ culture we have got used to in the past two decades. Hopefully this is an admission by the government that not all students are suited to mainstream academics and that proper vocational opportunities need to be opened up. That is not to say that lower achieving students should be pushed towards a more vocational route, there are those who might be academic high fliers who would prefer a different course. Giving vocational qualifications credibility will also help the economy as the training they receive has the potential to reassure trade and industry that those that have come down this route have acquired worthwhile skills to a high standard. The key is to make sure that standards are set at a high level and maintained.
Here’s my take on this story that appeared recently on the BBC website…
Schools failing brightest pupils
A culture of low expectations is letting down bright children in England’s non-selective secondary schools, Ofsted chief inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw says.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/news/education-22873257
It’s always wise to be slightly suspicious of sweeping conclusions based on narrow statistics. The advent of League Tables pushes schools to achieve certain benchmarks; these are not necessarily aimed at higher achieving students. The important thing is for the government to sweep away as much red tape as possible and let the teachers teach. There is obviously a need to monitor standards and progress, and students of all ability levels need to be encouraged and given the best teaching and opportunities available.
The problem with finger pointing is that it has a very negative effect on teachers’ morale. It is an inescapable truth that demographics has a significant effect on the personality and ability of a school intake.
Teachers with more challenging students should be encouraged in their efforts rather than pigeon-holed as failing.
We need to encourage our teachers rather than setting them absolute goals that more often than not push them into the middle ground – the more gifted can be left to their own devices because they will pass the ‘C’ boundary and the lower achieving students receive more help to get them to that benchmark. This is an inevitable outcome of the league table system.
Here’s my take on this recent story that appeared in the national media
Summer-born need exam score boost
http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/news/education-22469216
Are there really people sitting around thinking up this nonsense? Can you imagine the arguments? When would the cut off date be? How would it be quantified? Some things in the world are not perfect; there are probably only a limited number of parents who think about the academic year when producing children!
There is no doubt that somebody born on September 1st is likely to be at an advantage in comparison to a child born on August 31st however grade inflation is a ridiculous, divisive answer.
It would be fair to cite birth dates as a mitigating circumstance but grade changing is an unworkable answer. If younger children are struggling they should be helped and encouraged by their teachers. Do we tell younger students they don’t have to try so hard and older ones that their hard work will be less well rewarded.
Does an argument based on such spurious evidence as this carry any weight?
“More than 60% of September-born pupils achieve five A* to C grades, compared with less than 54%”
Is it me or is that not virtually the same?
“August-born students are also around two percentage points less likely to go to university when they leave school, one percentage point less likely to attend a leading university and one percentage point less likely to complete a degree.”
1%? 2%?
We are also told younger children, “… are more likely to start smoking younger than their relatively older peers.”
Give me strength!!!.
FOLLOW NEVIL ON TWITTER @webtutornet / @kandctutors
Here’s my take on the following education story that appeared on the BBC website…
GCSE change unpredictable results
The government’s overhaul of GCSEs in England could see exam results varying more than normal for several years, the exams regulator Ofqual warns.
< http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/news/education-22448963 >
I agree entirely that the current system allows schools to ‘play the system’
and any way of stopping this should be encouraged. I also believe that some weight should be given to English Language and Maths instead of them being lost in ‘the best eight’.
However, the whole system remains FLAWED. It needs to be simplified so that there is only one exam per subject at compulsory level without multiple boards setting exams. There also needs to be more focus on vocational qualifications for the less academically able. We are still stuck in a results driven culture; top grades mean top students, low grades mean lowly students. The focus should be teaching the right stuff not the grades!
I am pleased that the modular system is being phased out and that extending questions are coming back into the frame. A ‘test’ should be testing; only then can you differentiate between students. Not everybody can excel – many have talents that are beyond the academic. They should not be seen as failing if results are poor they just need to be steered in a different direction.
It will be interesting to see these changes unfold, but they go nowhere near far enough.
Kensington & Chelsea Tutors Blog 