IdleRich
IdleRich
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7290308.stm
OK, probably won't work out quite like that but the charitable status thing is a joke that can't continue.
All public schools to close (maybe)
- Thread starter IdleRich
- Start date
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7290308.stm
OK, probably won't work out quite like that but the charitable status thing is a joke that can't continue.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
“A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another: and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the predominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, a priesthood, an aristocracy, or the majority of the existing generation, in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by natural tendency to one over the body.” (Mill, On Liberty, 1859)
Schools out
I know this thread started as being about UK schools,
but it's title and article I read today made me want to chime in ...
One of the biggest problems in our countries is our schools.
All of them.
The whole system they use, molds people for a world that no longer exists, changes daily.
Here in NYC we have chancellor Klein who asked the head of NYC teachers union about her vision for the pace of change in the schools, her reply " sustainable and incremental change".
It would appear the time and chance for 'incremental change' is well past
Our societies need radical reform.
What will make it happen ?
WIll it ever happen ...
It amazes me how *ucked up things are ...
I know this thread started as being about UK schools,
but it's title and article I read today made me want to chime in ...
One of the biggest problems in our countries is our schools.
All of them.
The whole system they use, molds people for a world that no longer exists, changes daily.
Here in NYC we have chancellor Klein who asked the head of NYC teachers union about her vision for the pace of change in the schools, her reply " sustainable and incremental change".
It would appear the time and chance for 'incremental change' is well past
Our societies need radical reform.
What will make it happen ?
WIll it ever happen ...
It amazes me how *ucked up things are ...
comelately
Wild Horses
May as well add my own offshoot, I worked as an admin for an inner city secondary school last year (without a CRB disclosure incidentally), and I didn't really see anybody being 'moulded' or anything that suggested that level of intention. The whole thing was pretty shocking though - I myself went to a public school (on one of the Assisted Places that Labour scrapped in 1997 but I believe are bringing back on the sly) and, although it wasn't even that good actually, I'm pretty glad of it.
Working in admin probably means you focus on particular problems and are unaware of classroom issues (though I have performed classroom observation too), but it's clear that many schools are largely paralysed by the constant flow of new pupils (who often can't speak English) and having to tolerate so much misbehaviour from a child before they can really do anything about it (having administrated quite a few fixed-term exclusions, I know what it takes to get one). Now, unsurprisingly, quite a lot of the misbehaving children have unstable families, learning difficulties etc and one has to be careful about scapegoating them - they have a right to an education, they probably have the right to a lot more than they get. But in all honesty, removing the worst 2-5% of pupils from our mainstream school system would, I believe, free a lot of resources up within education both at an administrative/strategic and teaching level. Where does that leave the 2-5%? A good question, but I put it to you that it probably doesn't leave them in a much worse position than they're in *anyway*. And, regrettable as it is, I don't think you can save everybody and that this is one omelette that isn't going to be made without breaking some eggs.
The issue of having new pupils on a near daily basis is obviously going to affect some areas more than others, and in some areas they do not try and integrate children new to the UK so quickly, but in the school I was in this really did swallow up a lot of time. A new pupil means a ton of administration and special attention in the classroom.
It also probably means they need a free school lunch. Another issue. Forget the quality of the meals (Sodexho in this case, yummy!) for a moment, just managing the system is a nightmare in itself. If you give the children a card, they lose it. What then? Deny them meals? Charge them money? - well we charged 10p actually but even that was basically unenforecable. And checking whether a child is actually entitled to the free school meal involves an unwieldy search on a Crapita database. Unless you're willing to microchip the kiddies (and obviously I wouldn't have anything to do with that), there's really nothing you can do. It's actually reaching the stage where the government is seriously considering just giving free school meals to everybody, just because it takes too much effort to police any system.
There is also the question of 'special educational needs', but this is a much more complex issue and I don't have any firm ideas here. I can definitely see massive advantages in trying to include as many children within the mainstream as possible, but if one analyses it from an utilitarian perspective it isn't clear that these advantages outweigh the disadvantages in many cases.
Basically, what I think it comes down to is this. The UK government is clearly failing in its duty to provide a decent education for the majority of its children. Is it acceptable for the government to more explicitly shirk this responsibility if it means improving 'access' for the majority of children? My inkling is to say that yes it is.
Working in admin probably means you focus on particular problems and are unaware of classroom issues (though I have performed classroom observation too), but it's clear that many schools are largely paralysed by the constant flow of new pupils (who often can't speak English) and having to tolerate so much misbehaviour from a child before they can really do anything about it (having administrated quite a few fixed-term exclusions, I know what it takes to get one). Now, unsurprisingly, quite a lot of the misbehaving children have unstable families, learning difficulties etc and one has to be careful about scapegoating them - they have a right to an education, they probably have the right to a lot more than they get. But in all honesty, removing the worst 2-5% of pupils from our mainstream school system would, I believe, free a lot of resources up within education both at an administrative/strategic and teaching level. Where does that leave the 2-5%? A good question, but I put it to you that it probably doesn't leave them in a much worse position than they're in *anyway*. And, regrettable as it is, I don't think you can save everybody and that this is one omelette that isn't going to be made without breaking some eggs.
The issue of having new pupils on a near daily basis is obviously going to affect some areas more than others, and in some areas they do not try and integrate children new to the UK so quickly, but in the school I was in this really did swallow up a lot of time. A new pupil means a ton of administration and special attention in the classroom.
It also probably means they need a free school lunch. Another issue. Forget the quality of the meals (Sodexho in this case, yummy!) for a moment, just managing the system is a nightmare in itself. If you give the children a card, they lose it. What then? Deny them meals? Charge them money? - well we charged 10p actually but even that was basically unenforecable. And checking whether a child is actually entitled to the free school meal involves an unwieldy search on a Crapita database. Unless you're willing to microchip the kiddies (and obviously I wouldn't have anything to do with that), there's really nothing you can do. It's actually reaching the stage where the government is seriously considering just giving free school meals to everybody, just because it takes too much effort to police any system.
There is also the question of 'special educational needs', but this is a much more complex issue and I don't have any firm ideas here. I can definitely see massive advantages in trying to include as many children within the mainstream as possible, but if one analyses it from an utilitarian perspective it isn't clear that these advantages outweigh the disadvantages in many cases.
Basically, what I think it comes down to is this. The UK government is clearly failing in its duty to provide a decent education for the majority of its children. Is it acceptable for the government to more explicitly shirk this responsibility if it means improving 'access' for the majority of children? My inkling is to say that yes it is.
Last edited:
don_quixote
Trent End
oh please, this is anecdotal nonsense.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
While I think "the majority" is an overstatement, there are nonetheless a lot of kids leaving school with little or nothing in the way of meaningful qualifications, and often lacking basic literacy and numeracy skills. It is a documented and widely acknowledged problem.
Last edited:
Interested to read about the "Pre-U" exam now being used instead of A-levels by some private schools:
(blurb from the website)
This seems kind of inevitable: A-levels are now thoroughly debased currency so far as university admissions are concerned. Cambridge seem to have decided that if they want qualifications that certify that someone has actually achieved the pre-requisites for university-level study, they're better off inventing some new ones that are actually fit for the purpose than setting ever-more ridiculous A-level grade requirements (I got two As and a B at A-level, and went to Oxford. I can't imagine they'd let anyone in now with those sorts of grades). It won't do anything for their state/private admissions ratio, but it wouldn't surprise me if the private opinion of a lot of tutors was that this was a bit of a lost cause - something they'd better pay lip-service to improving, but basically can't do anything about.
Cambridge Pre-U is an exciting new post-16 qualification. It prepares students with the skills and knowledge they need to make a success of their subsequent studies at university.
Teachers tell us they want to be able to prepare students for higher education more effectively with exciting syllabuses that are stimulating to teach. Universities tell us they want students who are equipped to benefit from a higher education experience, which calls for an independent and self-directed style of learning.
Teachers tell us they want to be able to prepare students for higher education more effectively with exciting syllabuses that are stimulating to teach. Universities tell us they want students who are equipped to benefit from a higher education experience, which calls for an independent and self-directed style of learning.
(blurb from the website)
This seems kind of inevitable: A-levels are now thoroughly debased currency so far as university admissions are concerned. Cambridge seem to have decided that if they want qualifications that certify that someone has actually achieved the pre-requisites for university-level study, they're better off inventing some new ones that are actually fit for the purpose than setting ever-more ridiculous A-level grade requirements (I got two As and a B at A-level, and went to Oxford. I can't imagine they'd let anyone in now with those sorts of grades). It won't do anything for their state/private admissions ratio, but it wouldn't surprise me if the private opinion of a lot of tutors was that this was a bit of a lost cause - something they'd better pay lip-service to improving, but basically can't do anything about.
comelately
Wild Horses
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2275074,00.html
Okay that's a report from a centre-right group, but my statement isn't particularly controversial or solely dependent on anecdotal evidence for that matter. Incidentally, I've been to 8 or 9 schools and observed a variety of lessons. Some of them good.
Slothrop
Tight but Polite
It seems like Oxbridge get scapegoated for failings that go all the way up the education system, to be honest. Noone wants to rock the boat by suggesting that you can get your kid a better start in life (or at least, better A level grades) by being richer and sending them to a more expensive school and that this is maybe a bad thing, but it's easy to have a crack at the image of Oxbridge admissions tutors as sherry swilling snobs who pour scorn on anyone who didn't go to Eton. Which is particularly fucked up because it then discourages state school pupils who have a chance at getting in from even applying - a friend of mine from undergrad actually had the piss taken out of him by his teachers when he applied.
It's a complex issue - there's more that they could be doing (the establishment in places like that evolves slowly, and any effort to force change would almost certainly rip the guts out of the faculties and cause a lot of collateral damage), there's a lot that they are doing, but there's an awful lot they they basically can't do much about.