Were you aware that kids stopped learning long division and multiplication a decade ago?
Those lucky bastards, missing possibly the most pointless piece of 'traditional' education this side of French (see earlier post)
Now, at first glance, I was naturally sceptical, being good at maths and wary of terms like 'chunking' made me instantly think 'dumbing down'
Personally I don't think there's a substitute for times tables, and understanding the basics of number systems is key
But long division was always something that eluded me - and my disinterest in it always angered my teachers as I would inevitably get the answer by doing all sorts of unusual things in my head, turns out I was doing these new methods like 'gridding' all along, this is the way the brain breaks it down for you into chunks of manageable equations, far easier in your head than writing down columns with remainders (I always thought that was the single stupidest thing teachers made us do - carry the one? Why?? I can see where it bloody goes, I don't need to write it on the side and add it in later), and probably quicker
I never bothered with long division, once out of primary it was assumed you knew how to do it and I was allowed to do whatever I wanted, and use a 'real' pen!
I digress, some will no doubt mutter that education is falling apart, but I believe long division is outdated bilge anyway - let's face it, do you actually learn 'mathematics' through the use of systematic columns? Nope, you learn a system, you learn how to divide up longer numbers into smaller, manageable sums that you learn through times tables - basically you've only learnt up to 10x10 and then you start breaking down numbers into that - that's not learning, that's a rote system, which I remember thinking back then was a ridiculous way for adults to do numbers
I put this to the test, never bothering with it myself, I went to my parents, one of whom works with numbers, one of whom is rather worse, and asked them 372x612
The result: one took far too long after years of using Excel spreadsheets and calculators, the other just looked rather blankly at me and guessed - in essence the system was forgotten, because once you're out of school, if you aren't using the written column system regularly then you will forget it, therefore it's pointless to learn it
In short, once we got calculators, the Victorian system needed to go - so yay for modernism
Showing posts with label Schools. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Schools. Show all posts
11 September 2010
09 September 2010
Bulldog!!
Watching Gareth Malone's Extraordinary School for Boys on BBC2 tonight, I am reminded of the disgrace that has seen British Bulldog banned by an increasing number of schools (or 'female head teachers') in recent years
For those who don't know, Bulldog is a game where you have to run from one side of the playground to the other without being tagged by the 'bulldogs' who roam the middle, played in primary schools it's pretty harmless, played by adults it's bloody deadly
Fear of injuries (or lawsuits) abound, and in recent years it has been banned by a lot of schools, primary school was less than twenty years ago for me - it was our favourite past-time back then and now it seems to be behind a locked door marked 'dangerous'
Yet, there is scant evidence of costly legal action by opportunist parents and injuries are probably no rarer than in rugby or football - playing on asphalt or concrete, as you do, is where most of the issues arise, if it was played with a bit of supervision on grass it would be as safe as houses
And yet, primary schools, now mostly run by women, elect to outright ban the game I and my fellow boys have played for decades in modern schools rather than introduce a few basic rules
They are denying these boys a rite of passage, and no doubt it's worsening their physical state by banning effectively the only team game they've got without a ball
For those who don't know, Bulldog is a game where you have to run from one side of the playground to the other without being tagged by the 'bulldogs' who roam the middle, played in primary schools it's pretty harmless, played by adults it's bloody deadly
Fear of injuries (or lawsuits) abound, and in recent years it has been banned by a lot of schools, primary school was less than twenty years ago for me - it was our favourite past-time back then and now it seems to be behind a locked door marked 'dangerous'
Yet, there is scant evidence of costly legal action by opportunist parents and injuries are probably no rarer than in rugby or football - playing on asphalt or concrete, as you do, is where most of the issues arise, if it was played with a bit of supervision on grass it would be as safe as houses
And yet, primary schools, now mostly run by women, elect to outright ban the game I and my fellow boys have played for decades in modern schools rather than introduce a few basic rules
They are denying these boys a rite of passage, and no doubt it's worsening their physical state by banning effectively the only team game they've got without a ball
28 August 2010
Oui!
British pupils should give up learning French
If you hadn't noticed, French has gone into massive decline since languages stopped being compulsory at GCSE in 2004, now at nearly half the level it was before
As someone who had to go through the torment of five years of 'teaching' of French, I can only celebrate this and be envious of the lucky youngsters who can actually learn instead
I don't say this as someone who found it 'hard' as the BBC describe - I found it a doddle to get my B, the trouble is I can't actually speak it, or I can a bit, and I'm pretty good at reading it, but I can't work out a thing a Frenchman says
As Paul Noble points out in the article - we aren't taught conversational French, the bit that's actually got a tangible benefit, sitting in a room with 30 people constantly writing out verb forms is a complete waste of time - the only students who were ever any good at speaking French were those who had a French-speaking background, the teachers all loved them of course, 'why can't you all do this?' they'd ask but no-one else stood a chance of being able to converse
Looking back, it's fairly obvious the teaching system was fatally flawed, mostly because you can't teach dozens a language at once, the small groups in the options of Spanish and German spent most of their time in conversation with assistants (who for some reason, were absent in the much bigger French classes) and seemed to be far more advanced than us. That, and my later experience of my friends teaching themselves languages like Spanish and picking it up within months proved to me that every student in Britain had been wasting 5-odd hours a week for five years of their lives
I don't think students are put of by the difficulty of gaining the GCSE (I certainly didn't perceive difficulty levels at the age of 14) , but the fact that they would've done three years of nonsense, whereas virtually all other subjects provide some sort of benefit - like being able to write or do maths, would put them off - if you could actually speak French at the end maybe they would bother - but if memory serves, not a single non-French speaker came out of my GCSE French class being able to communicate in it, it's a joke subject
Then we get onto the point of doing French - it's great for your holidays to the south of France, but what else? Some niche jobs in business and politics require it, but that's about it - and whilst it has been cemented as a language of diplomacy historically, it's now mostly an excuse for French arrogance that only they get their little language on Eurovision and the Olympics
And yes, it is a little language - the BBC points out that it's spoken by 200 million people, although it's only a first language to about 130 of those, this is roughly double the population of the native country, and the vast majority are in western Africa
It's beyond question that English, Spanish and Mandarin speakers vastly outnumber French speakers, whether first tongue or not, whilst Hindi and Russian are probably spoken by more people, Portuguese is probably a similar number and arguably more important economically
And yet we allow the French language to dominate international bodies simply so a few people in Paris can lean back and smirk as they get a special translation just for them, not bad for a country that lost all its power 200 years ago and left little discernible impact outside parts of Africa and Canada
Why should we help with this French ego stroking? By all means allow kids to learn it, some will need to, but forcing them was making the teaching of it pointless, and keeping out the world's more important languages (which are now soaring in schools) simply because France was near and had a plentiful supply of teachers was foolish economically - even German would be more useful, and it's far easier to learn, sharing a lot of roots with English
If you hadn't noticed, French has gone into massive decline since languages stopped being compulsory at GCSE in 2004, now at nearly half the level it was before
As someone who had to go through the torment of five years of 'teaching' of French, I can only celebrate this and be envious of the lucky youngsters who can actually learn instead
I don't say this as someone who found it 'hard' as the BBC describe - I found it a doddle to get my B, the trouble is I can't actually speak it, or I can a bit, and I'm pretty good at reading it, but I can't work out a thing a Frenchman says
As Paul Noble points out in the article - we aren't taught conversational French, the bit that's actually got a tangible benefit, sitting in a room with 30 people constantly writing out verb forms is a complete waste of time - the only students who were ever any good at speaking French were those who had a French-speaking background, the teachers all loved them of course, 'why can't you all do this?' they'd ask but no-one else stood a chance of being able to converse
Looking back, it's fairly obvious the teaching system was fatally flawed, mostly because you can't teach dozens a language at once, the small groups in the options of Spanish and German spent most of their time in conversation with assistants (who for some reason, were absent in the much bigger French classes) and seemed to be far more advanced than us. That, and my later experience of my friends teaching themselves languages like Spanish and picking it up within months proved to me that every student in Britain had been wasting 5-odd hours a week for five years of their lives
I don't think students are put of by the difficulty of gaining the GCSE (I certainly didn't perceive difficulty levels at the age of 14) , but the fact that they would've done three years of nonsense, whereas virtually all other subjects provide some sort of benefit - like being able to write or do maths, would put them off - if you could actually speak French at the end maybe they would bother - but if memory serves, not a single non-French speaker came out of my GCSE French class being able to communicate in it, it's a joke subject
Then we get onto the point of doing French - it's great for your holidays to the south of France, but what else? Some niche jobs in business and politics require it, but that's about it - and whilst it has been cemented as a language of diplomacy historically, it's now mostly an excuse for French arrogance that only they get their little language on Eurovision and the Olympics
And yes, it is a little language - the BBC points out that it's spoken by 200 million people, although it's only a first language to about 130 of those, this is roughly double the population of the native country, and the vast majority are in western Africa
It's beyond question that English, Spanish and Mandarin speakers vastly outnumber French speakers, whether first tongue or not, whilst Hindi and Russian are probably spoken by more people, Portuguese is probably a similar number and arguably more important economically
And yet we allow the French language to dominate international bodies simply so a few people in Paris can lean back and smirk as they get a special translation just for them, not bad for a country that lost all its power 200 years ago and left little discernible impact outside parts of Africa and Canada
Why should we help with this French ego stroking? By all means allow kids to learn it, some will need to, but forcing them was making the teaching of it pointless, and keeping out the world's more important languages (which are now soaring in schools) simply because France was near and had a plentiful supply of teachers was foolish economically - even German would be more useful, and it's far easier to learn, sharing a lot of roots with English
16 September 2009
Tie update
No doubt because this is a little bit of a hot topic right now, but what a coincidence that this just so happens to be in the news today
Hehe,
But what I'd really like to know is the Mail's point - they don't particularly say it's wrong, nor get much opinion against it, but have an inflammatory headline (why do I ask..)
The only opposition is, as I said earlier, is tradition! - i.e. a load of old bollocks
Boys and girls at St Peters Church of England Aided School in Exeter, Devon, have been told that their normal uniform will be replaced with branded polo shirts.
Hehe,
But what I'd really like to know is the Mail's point - they don't particularly say it's wrong, nor get much opinion against it, but have an inflammatory headline (why do I ask..)
The only opposition is, as I said earlier, is tradition! - i.e. a load of old bollocks
Back to School again
There is a little bit of defence going on in the magazine over Media Studies
Apparently Chemistry is easier
Is it? - I downloaded the pdf they provide and would question this, apparently if I question the intelligence of the students taking it instead I will face a problem with Maths, which has an even lower pass mark...
All true - however, take a look at the pdf, and you would think a statistics nut such as Michael Blastland, who is normally very good, would spot something
Let's take a look:
Media Studies had roughly 68,000 students, pass rate of 65.6% - Chemistry 92,000 pass rate: 93.9%
So, wow, Chemistry is obviously statistically easier according to this data - they are certainly comparable in size
Except for one thing, which a pure look at statistics would never notice (perhaps the whole point of this exercise) - Chemistry is not 'Chemistry' - you need to look at the human factors here, the Chemistry that the vast majority of us study is in fact what is now called 'science' with an uptake of 493,000 and 'additional science' with 397,000 (that's the old double award - which sadly only had 15,000 entrants and a pass rate of over 80%)
And so the pass rate is actually:
Media 65.6%
Additional Science: 62% (approx)
Science: 60% (approx)
Ah...so that's nearly 900 thousand students with a lower pass rate than Media
Now, no prizes for guessing why the single subjects - all studied by roughly 100,000 students, were at the very top?
Yes that's right, individual sciences are only taken by the best students and the best schools (mine didn't even offer it, but then it didn't offer Media either)
So let us add those extra 95,000 or so students (I will assume they all did three, which is why the figures are so close) who didn't do 'pleb science' as I once heard it called
Average students = 94,000
Average pass rate = 93% roughly
Meaning 87,500 students passed, give or take
Meanwhile 896,000 took the other versions of science, with an average pass rate of 61%
That's 546,500 passes
Add 87,500 = 634,000 passes out of 990,000
= 64.04% with even the best and brightest included...
That's below PE and just above Business Studies
It is of course, virtually impossible to identify if Media is a doss subject just from the figures - the pass rate does not indicate that it is particularly easy, but it says nothing about the way it is taught, who takes it, and of what use it is - my only experience of it was at A-level where my school mates (none top students) all treated it as a doss (and it looked one) but they then all failed the exam...so I don't know, having never studied it, but regardless I felt it misleading to claim that Chemistry was somehow comparable without factoring in the general science qualifications
But that said, what we can see is that Maths and Science generally have a lower pass rate, as does English (but not Eng.Lit) - which most likely shows that the compulsory subjects are dragged down by the dimwits forced to do them
Instead, to compare Media we must look at it in relation to other optional subjects, and subjects with a similar take-up - such as Music, which has a pass rate of about 77% - from that we can assume that Media is far harder (a much fairer argument than Chemistry, although just as flawed)
But of course, we can prove nothing because we don't know why Media gets such a low pass rate - whether it's hard or easy and the students are just thick - we just can't tell without the variables
I have however found the stats I needed for my earlier post on History!! - History second only to DT and beating it's nearest rivals (Geography) by 20,000 students
---
I also meant to comment on this feature on ties a little while ago but never got round to it
For one, the ideas of 'Superfat' and 'Bonsai' ties was around nearly 2 decades ago, when I was at primary school, even though I have never encountered these particular labels before, so it's not news
A bit like the idiot woman who blamed Chris Moyles (on air for a whole five years) for inventing the use of the word 'gay' as a pejorative (it's somewhere in the archives)
Truth is, kids need to rebel and you'll never get them to all do up the silly things properly, except perhaps at the very poshest private schools
And why shouldn't they rebel? - I took the line that there was no sensible reason to wear one, and I still take it now - there isn't, the concept of 'smart' never appealed to me as a child and it still doesn't - it's a social construct from the 19th century
I do of course, conform for job interviews and the like - because let's face it, 1) I'm a hypocrite and 2) there's also economic benefits to conforming in that instance - there is none in the school environment - you are forced to conform to an arbitrary dress code in a place where you have to go (often against your childish will) - it is fascism incarnate
I don't say that as an anarchist or anything, I'm not saying it's wrong (or right) but I think school is very comparable to the authoritarian state - the whole concept encourages rebellion, not respect (which probably is what makes teachers jobs so horrible, but that's another argument)
So in short, you won't solve the tie problem because they'll rebel in some other way, unless you give them a reason to wear something (such as a lab coat or hard hat) they won't respect it - that's a fairly basic bit of human nature
And let's examine the point of a tie - what is the point of a tie?
from wikipedia:
Meanwhile, fairly obviously it evolved as the lower classes mimicked their betters during the 19th century - the idea of being 'smart' comes from looking as though you aren't working in a mine:
Because it's traditional no doubt...
...in that case fetch me my pantaloons!
Apparently Chemistry is easier
Is it? - I downloaded the pdf they provide and would question this, apparently if I question the intelligence of the students taking it instead I will face a problem with Maths, which has an even lower pass mark...
All true - however, take a look at the pdf, and you would think a statistics nut such as Michael Blastland, who is normally very good, would spot something
Let's take a look:
Media Studies had roughly 68,000 students, pass rate of 65.6% - Chemistry 92,000 pass rate: 93.9%
So, wow, Chemistry is obviously statistically easier according to this data - they are certainly comparable in size
Except for one thing, which a pure look at statistics would never notice (perhaps the whole point of this exercise) - Chemistry is not 'Chemistry' - you need to look at the human factors here, the Chemistry that the vast majority of us study is in fact what is now called 'science' with an uptake of 493,000 and 'additional science' with 397,000 (that's the old double award - which sadly only had 15,000 entrants and a pass rate of over 80%)
And so the pass rate is actually:
Media 65.6%
Additional Science: 62% (approx)
Science: 60% (approx)
Ah...so that's nearly 900 thousand students with a lower pass rate than Media
Now, no prizes for guessing why the single subjects - all studied by roughly 100,000 students, were at the very top?
Yes that's right, individual sciences are only taken by the best students and the best schools (mine didn't even offer it, but then it didn't offer Media either)
So let us add those extra 95,000 or so students (I will assume they all did three, which is why the figures are so close) who didn't do 'pleb science' as I once heard it called
Average students = 94,000
Average pass rate = 93% roughly
Meaning 87,500 students passed, give or take
Meanwhile 896,000 took the other versions of science, with an average pass rate of 61%
That's 546,500 passes
Add 87,500 = 634,000 passes out of 990,000
= 64.04% with even the best and brightest included...
That's below PE and just above Business Studies
It is of course, virtually impossible to identify if Media is a doss subject just from the figures - the pass rate does not indicate that it is particularly easy, but it says nothing about the way it is taught, who takes it, and of what use it is - my only experience of it was at A-level where my school mates (none top students) all treated it as a doss (and it looked one) but they then all failed the exam...so I don't know, having never studied it, but regardless I felt it misleading to claim that Chemistry was somehow comparable without factoring in the general science qualifications
But that said, what we can see is that Maths and Science generally have a lower pass rate, as does English (but not Eng.Lit) - which most likely shows that the compulsory subjects are dragged down by the dimwits forced to do them
Instead, to compare Media we must look at it in relation to other optional subjects, and subjects with a similar take-up - such as Music, which has a pass rate of about 77% - from that we can assume that Media is far harder (a much fairer argument than Chemistry, although just as flawed)
But of course, we can prove nothing because we don't know why Media gets such a low pass rate - whether it's hard or easy and the students are just thick - we just can't tell without the variables
I have however found the stats I needed for my earlier post on History!! - History second only to DT and beating it's nearest rivals (Geography) by 20,000 students
---
I also meant to comment on this feature on ties a little while ago but never got round to it
For one, the ideas of 'Superfat' and 'Bonsai' ties was around nearly 2 decades ago, when I was at primary school, even though I have never encountered these particular labels before, so it's not news
A bit like the idiot woman who blamed Chris Moyles (on air for a whole five years) for inventing the use of the word 'gay' as a pejorative (it's somewhere in the archives)
Truth is, kids need to rebel and you'll never get them to all do up the silly things properly, except perhaps at the very poshest private schools
And why shouldn't they rebel? - I took the line that there was no sensible reason to wear one, and I still take it now - there isn't, the concept of 'smart' never appealed to me as a child and it still doesn't - it's a social construct from the 19th century
I do of course, conform for job interviews and the like - because let's face it, 1) I'm a hypocrite and 2) there's also economic benefits to conforming in that instance - there is none in the school environment - you are forced to conform to an arbitrary dress code in a place where you have to go (often against your childish will) - it is fascism incarnate
I don't say that as an anarchist or anything, I'm not saying it's wrong (or right) but I think school is very comparable to the authoritarian state - the whole concept encourages rebellion, not respect (which probably is what makes teachers jobs so horrible, but that's another argument)
So in short, you won't solve the tie problem because they'll rebel in some other way, unless you give them a reason to wear something (such as a lab coat or hard hat) they won't respect it - that's a fairly basic bit of human nature
And let's examine the point of a tie - what is the point of a tie?
from wikipedia:
The necktie traces back to the time of Thirty Years' War (1618–1648) when Croatian mercenaries from the Military Frontier in French service, wearing their traditional small, knotted neckerchiefs, aroused the interest of the Parisians. Due to the slight difference between the Croatian word for Croats, Hrvati, and the French word, Croates, the garment gained the name "Cravat". The new article of clothing started a fashion craze in Europe where both men and women wore pieces of fabric around their necks. In the late seventeenth century, the men wore lace cravats that took a large amount of time and effort to arrange. These cravats were often tied in place by cravat strings, arranged neatly and tied in a bow.So basically they are a fashion article from the 17th century French - adopted by the vain Georgians like pantaloons and the idiotic powdered wigs
Meanwhile, fairly obviously it evolved as the lower classes mimicked their betters during the 19th century - the idea of being 'smart' comes from looking as though you aren't working in a mine:
The industrial revolution created a need for neckwear that was easy to put on, comfortable and would last an entire workday. The modern necktie, as is still worn by millions of men today, was born. It was long, thin and easy to knot and it didn’t come undone.So why do we still wear these pointless things? It's just an archaic piece of fashion that really should have gone out a century ago - all fashion is pointless to me, so I guess I'm more interested in why we think children 'should' wear them
Because it's traditional no doubt...
...in that case fetch me my pantaloons!
14 September 2009
School daze
According to the Mail, History is 'in danger' with only 30% taking it at GCSE, while 30% don't teach history as a stand-alone subject at key stage three (years 7-9), and one in three primary school children thought Churchill was the first man on the moon
Amazingly even the Independent have taken a negative view, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown writes:
Right, so only 30% take history, pretty bad eh?
Well actually considering it's totally optional that's not a bad figure is it? 30%...
Let's have a look at the top 10 GCSEs (2008), sorry I couldn't find percentages:
1. Maths
2. English
3. English Lit
4. Science
5. Additional Science (that replaced 'double science' we oldies did)
6. DT
7. History
8. Art
9. Geography
10. French
So it's seventh - and five of those above it are compulsory...
So basically it's the second most popular optional subject - hardly dying is it? It's beating French, which became completely optional more recently than history, and even Geography (and gasp...media studies!)
So where exactly is the problem here? I can understand the argument that more people should appreciate their history, but the fact that 30% of kids are choosing to take it is not a bad thing taken in context - it's actually doing very well at GCSE, if the argument is that all kids should do it then take that to the government and the people who made the curriculum - because right now all you're saying is that every optional subject (bar perhaps D.T) is 'dying'...
If it's a shame that so few are taking it then lobby the government to make it compulsory because you believe it is more important than geography and art, but don't try and present a 30% take-up as a failure simply because you believe everyone should study it
Speaking as someone with a GCSE, A-level and even a bachelor's degree in the subject I am a tad biased, I admit - but somewhat oddly you might think, I would not want all kids to do the subject - history, while I may love it, is not as vital as Maths, English and the sciences to our skills or understanding of the world, it's close, but you simply won't get all kids to 'do' history as a proper subject if they aren't into dates, wars and dead people - I'm pretty sure we had under 50% of my year doing when I did it ten years ago, and of that there were probably only a handful of us who really were interested - 100% of kids doing history would just relegate it to the forced battle we already have in English and maths classes, things which we actually need to try and teach the blighters, it's not as important so it wouldn't be worth the bother, frankly
Yes, a basic knowledge of history is a good thing, but you don't need to force kids to learn something they don't see as ever needing (and possibly won't) and you can teach history in far more ways than as a formal subject - we can see history in the sciences - I remember learning about Newton, Faraday, Darwin, Curie, Einstein, Boyle et all and how they discovered things, and likewise English literature basically is history - we all learn bloody Shakespeare! The man was a historian, just put him and Dickens into a bit of context and you're pretty much there, and you can use religion just as easily with the reformation, 'Bloody Mary' and other various religious wars, even geography uses historical case studies (e.g. migration in the industrial revolution, general world trends etc...) - history is all around us!
As for one in three primary schoolchildren kids thought Churchill went to the moon - here is the old story about it
It was a survey of 4-10 year olds (I think - I can't find the actual survey there) and 30% got Churchill wrong - now forgive me but within that age range 30% would approximately represent 2 years - I would hazard a guess that more 4-6 year olds got it wrong than 8-10 year olds - would I expect my 6-year-old nephew to know about Churchill? He might, but I don't expect him to - I would hope he'll know soon, but six is still pretty young, he's still learning writing and numbers...hardly reciting 'we will fight them on the beaches...'
Indeed if I remember the early 90s correctly I'm pretty sure year 6 was very heavy on World War 2 and I can't remember doing it before then - Romans in year 3 or 4, dinosaurs before that, the reformation and Henry VIII was in year 5...
So if they would like this figure to have any real weight how about they just test kids leaving primary school at ages 10-11, rather than asking 4-year olds about Winston Churchill
Jesus wept...
----
In other related news, there's been some backlash from 'the right' with regard to a survey that
Bad lefties ruining our national pride, that sort of stuff
But why exactly should we promote 'patriotism' - or love of one's country? Why in particular, should a science/maths/art teacher be interested in promoting a patriotic view - 'here we have Newton's first law, he was English you know, BE PROUD OF BRITAIN!'
Wouldn't simply allowing children to know Newton was English suffice? There are plenty of reasons to be proud of our country - why do teachers need to tell us to be proud? And does that mean we should view Newton and Darwin as 'better' than Einstein or the Curies? It doesn't seem to fit in the remit of a teacher to me
Certainly the most obvious area for this would be in history - now history to my mind is all about analysis, debate and critical thinking - saying 'the British Empire was excellent' like they did in 1950s O-levels is opinionated rubbish and barely anything to do with understanding history - force-feeding sentiment about our past is not a good thing for historical studies
It is of course, great for the Right in this country, because it's what they want to hear - in reality people should be given the facts and make up their own minds on whether they are proud of their country or not - brainwashing kids into saying 'Britain's great' is not particularly worthwhile - kids get enough nationalism through the press as it is, and younger ones aren't capable of understanding why it's great except that's what they're told - it's like religion, even I came out of school pretty nationalistic and ignorant about this country
And can you blame teachers for avoiding patriotism when they have the fun of teaching the two world wars? - Both were fuelled by blind patriotism and nationalism - and to those who say there's a major difference, I say poppy-cock - both encourage blind loyalty to a nation, nationalism is just the political principle that has been marred by its association with modern far-right groups - in its very essence it simply believes in the nation as a sovereign political entity, patriotism is the love of that nation (in our case anyway) - they're interlinked, how can a child who is told that their country is worth loving more than others not view other countries as lesser and end up with some degree of nationalism?
Of course, they hype it up to say that these teachers are lefties bent on communism and strengthening the EU, when in reality they are probably just being mindful of the fact that telling impressionable young children to be proud of their country just breeds trouble - I am proud of my country, hate the EU and yet would want my children to be wary of unquestioning patriotism - so am I a Marxist?
It's not that I mind British patriotism, I am proud of my country - but I can make up my own mind, and I don't think everything this country has done is great - surely telling children to be unquestioningly proud for reasons they can't question yet is just brainwashing, and I would be a hypocrite to suggest pushing my point of view on children when I oppose religion for doing the exact same thing
Give them the facts, this doesn't mean that you have to teach that Britain is bad - nor does that survey indicate anything of the sort, it just means letting them make up their own minds about our history
---
I have read lots on this new ISA vetting agency - and let's face it, I agree with pretty much everyone in this country, and would only echo the press with my views on it, it's Orwellian and pretty sickening
But what I will ask is this: Is this a step towards needing a licence to have children?
You are being vetted based on pretty limited contact with kids, even to the point where other parents are being vetted for being near your kids - surely the next logical step is to vet all parents - probably one of the biggest risk areas for abuse?
Answers on a postcard...
Amazingly even the Independent have taken a negative view, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown writes:
History may soon become extinct in our secondary schools, go the way of domestic science and handwriting classes, only less missed and less lamented than either. A major new study by the Historical Association and teacher training experts found that three out of 10 comprehensives no longer bother to teach the subject, which isn't part of the core curriculum after the age of 13. Only 30 per cent do GCSE history.
Right, so only 30% take history, pretty bad eh?
Well actually considering it's totally optional that's not a bad figure is it? 30%...
Let's have a look at the top 10 GCSEs (2008), sorry I couldn't find percentages:
1. Maths
2. English
3. English Lit
4. Science
5. Additional Science (that replaced 'double science' we oldies did)
6. DT
7. History
8. Art
9. Geography
10. French
So it's seventh - and five of those above it are compulsory...
So basically it's the second most popular optional subject - hardly dying is it? It's beating French, which became completely optional more recently than history, and even Geography (and gasp...media studies!)
So where exactly is the problem here? I can understand the argument that more people should appreciate their history, but the fact that 30% of kids are choosing to take it is not a bad thing taken in context - it's actually doing very well at GCSE, if the argument is that all kids should do it then take that to the government and the people who made the curriculum - because right now all you're saying is that every optional subject (bar perhaps D.T) is 'dying'...
If it's a shame that so few are taking it then lobby the government to make it compulsory because you believe it is more important than geography and art, but don't try and present a 30% take-up as a failure simply because you believe everyone should study it
Speaking as someone with a GCSE, A-level and even a bachelor's degree in the subject I am a tad biased, I admit - but somewhat oddly you might think, I would not want all kids to do the subject - history, while I may love it, is not as vital as Maths, English and the sciences to our skills or understanding of the world, it's close, but you simply won't get all kids to 'do' history as a proper subject if they aren't into dates, wars and dead people - I'm pretty sure we had under 50% of my year doing when I did it ten years ago, and of that there were probably only a handful of us who really were interested - 100% of kids doing history would just relegate it to the forced battle we already have in English and maths classes, things which we actually need to try and teach the blighters, it's not as important so it wouldn't be worth the bother, frankly
Yes, a basic knowledge of history is a good thing, but you don't need to force kids to learn something they don't see as ever needing (and possibly won't) and you can teach history in far more ways than as a formal subject - we can see history in the sciences - I remember learning about Newton, Faraday, Darwin, Curie, Einstein, Boyle et all and how they discovered things, and likewise English literature basically is history - we all learn bloody Shakespeare! The man was a historian, just put him and Dickens into a bit of context and you're pretty much there, and you can use religion just as easily with the reformation, 'Bloody Mary' and other various religious wars, even geography uses historical case studies (e.g. migration in the industrial revolution, general world trends etc...) - history is all around us!
As for one in three primary schoolchildren kids thought Churchill went to the moon - here is the old story about it
It was a survey of 4-10 year olds (I think - I can't find the actual survey there) and 30% got Churchill wrong - now forgive me but within that age range 30% would approximately represent 2 years - I would hazard a guess that more 4-6 year olds got it wrong than 8-10 year olds - would I expect my 6-year-old nephew to know about Churchill? He might, but I don't expect him to - I would hope he'll know soon, but six is still pretty young, he's still learning writing and numbers...hardly reciting 'we will fight them on the beaches...'
Indeed if I remember the early 90s correctly I'm pretty sure year 6 was very heavy on World War 2 and I can't remember doing it before then - Romans in year 3 or 4, dinosaurs before that, the reformation and Henry VIII was in year 5...
So if they would like this figure to have any real weight how about they just test kids leaving primary school at ages 10-11, rather than asking 4-year olds about Winston Churchill
Jesus wept...
----
In other related news, there's been some backlash from 'the right' with regard to a survey that
'found three-quarters of teachers believed it was their duty to warn pupils about the danger of patriotism ' (Mail)Intriguing, here you can read the lovely Melanie Philips' take on it, and it's even doing the rounds in the blogosphere, here's Cranmer's take (see: Sat 12 Sept 09)
Bad lefties ruining our national pride, that sort of stuff
But why exactly should we promote 'patriotism' - or love of one's country? Why in particular, should a science/maths/art teacher be interested in promoting a patriotic view - 'here we have Newton's first law, he was English you know, BE PROUD OF BRITAIN!'
Wouldn't simply allowing children to know Newton was English suffice? There are plenty of reasons to be proud of our country - why do teachers need to tell us to be proud? And does that mean we should view Newton and Darwin as 'better' than Einstein or the Curies? It doesn't seem to fit in the remit of a teacher to me
Certainly the most obvious area for this would be in history - now history to my mind is all about analysis, debate and critical thinking - saying 'the British Empire was excellent' like they did in 1950s O-levels is opinionated rubbish and barely anything to do with understanding history - force-feeding sentiment about our past is not a good thing for historical studies
It is of course, great for the Right in this country, because it's what they want to hear - in reality people should be given the facts and make up their own minds on whether they are proud of their country or not - brainwashing kids into saying 'Britain's great' is not particularly worthwhile - kids get enough nationalism through the press as it is, and younger ones aren't capable of understanding why it's great except that's what they're told - it's like religion, even I came out of school pretty nationalistic and ignorant about this country
And can you blame teachers for avoiding patriotism when they have the fun of teaching the two world wars? - Both were fuelled by blind patriotism and nationalism - and to those who say there's a major difference, I say poppy-cock - both encourage blind loyalty to a nation, nationalism is just the political principle that has been marred by its association with modern far-right groups - in its very essence it simply believes in the nation as a sovereign political entity, patriotism is the love of that nation (in our case anyway) - they're interlinked, how can a child who is told that their country is worth loving more than others not view other countries as lesser and end up with some degree of nationalism?
Of course, they hype it up to say that these teachers are lefties bent on communism and strengthening the EU, when in reality they are probably just being mindful of the fact that telling impressionable young children to be proud of their country just breeds trouble - I am proud of my country, hate the EU and yet would want my children to be wary of unquestioning patriotism - so am I a Marxist?
It's not that I mind British patriotism, I am proud of my country - but I can make up my own mind, and I don't think everything this country has done is great - surely telling children to be unquestioningly proud for reasons they can't question yet is just brainwashing, and I would be a hypocrite to suggest pushing my point of view on children when I oppose religion for doing the exact same thing
Give them the facts, this doesn't mean that you have to teach that Britain is bad - nor does that survey indicate anything of the sort, it just means letting them make up their own minds about our history
---
I have read lots on this new ISA vetting agency - and let's face it, I agree with pretty much everyone in this country, and would only echo the press with my views on it, it's Orwellian and pretty sickening
But what I will ask is this: Is this a step towards needing a licence to have children?
You are being vetted based on pretty limited contact with kids, even to the point where other parents are being vetted for being near your kids - surely the next logical step is to vet all parents - probably one of the biggest risk areas for abuse?
Answers on a postcard...
24 August 2009
Some musings
While I was at the Times reading for that last post, I found a few articles that piqued my interest
First Dominic Lawson argues to stop the segregation of men and women in sport - somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but centred on the gender issue of South African 800m winner, Caster Semenya - wherein lies the problem of 'females' who have extra chromosomes or genetic conditions that give them extra testosterone (not to say that Semenya actually has anything, but it raises the issue)
It is somewhat of a grey area - are they really women? Quite a dilemma, and I think he's right that in true meritocratic style we should let women try to get in men's teams - why not? We'd get the best performers regardless of sex
But oh no, men's natural advantage (which they don't have...) would be a handicap to the women, and they would unfairly be kept down
Now I do happen to think women should be able to play sports, segregation is the only way you'll achieve that - however I wish the feminists would shut up about giving female sports equal coverage, they are not going to be able to match the men in sports simply because men have more muscle - it's not a competitor, nor is it equal and they have been given a chance to do the same things at a lower level, they shouldn't be whinging for equal television and news coverage
You never hear men complaining they are under-represented in the shopping industry...
---
Then there's this, a review of a show called '16: too young to vote?'
It's not much of a debate starter, as it's just a bland review of a BBC3 show, despite being linked from the politics page, but it's always a good question
Should they vote? Part of me knows that 16 year-olds are a fair bit more immature than even 18-year-olds, some are better than others, but generally they're still children
But that said, maybe I'm getting old and will probably soon start thinking 21 year-olds are too immature, and after that 25-year olds, 30 year-olds - considering I have always viewed this derision by the older generations as arrogant I don't really think maturity is a valid concern
The same goes for intelligence - the capabilities of our brain and behaviour don't bar anyone else from voting so why should they suffer? I know some right idiots who are well over 18
Then it must come down to where we draw the line - we have to say where the child becomes an adult, clearly a 5-year-old doesn't have an informed opinion, although it's somewhat strange logic when you think most voters don't have an informed opinion anyway - but regardless, they couldn't care for themselves
An adult is 18 - this is where you can do anything you want, buy alcohol, see any film you wish, marry without consent, and now you can even buy fags, and with Labour's new rules on leaving education it's becoming increasingly clear that adulthood is 18, not 16 - you can hold a job, but it's likely to be a part-time one while you remain in education under the newest laws
But nevertheless you are a taxpayer, with enough responsibility to hold a job, clearly you have a case for some political engagement
And some 16 year-olds are very into it, you couldn't really deny them the vote on maturity grounds - and again, a hell of a lot of adults don't care, so if there's some who really do care then why not let them vote?
The situation also barely affects people - it will matter to a minority of people, assuming this government takes the maximum five years then they have a 60% chance of being either 15 or above 18 (as I was, I got to vote at 19) - but I suppose more regularly it would be half of them, but two years out of a lifetime is hardly a huge issue - but then...I keep asking myself 'why not?' - I see no harm in it, just a few more wasted votes in the pot
But then, I think those under 18 get more political representation anyway - they get the youth parliament, who actually get to sit in parliament on occasion, once they're over the 18 mark their representation will turn to zilch as they realise politics is monopolised by those over 30 and the 'youth' vote is meaningless
So, my view: I have no problem lowering the voting age, but frankly the kids are better off sticking with it at 18
First Dominic Lawson argues to stop the segregation of men and women in sport - somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but centred on the gender issue of South African 800m winner, Caster Semenya - wherein lies the problem of 'females' who have extra chromosomes or genetic conditions that give them extra testosterone (not to say that Semenya actually has anything, but it raises the issue)
It is somewhat of a grey area - are they really women? Quite a dilemma, and I think he's right that in true meritocratic style we should let women try to get in men's teams - why not? We'd get the best performers regardless of sex
But oh no, men's natural advantage (which they don't have...) would be a handicap to the women, and they would unfairly be kept down
Now I do happen to think women should be able to play sports, segregation is the only way you'll achieve that - however I wish the feminists would shut up about giving female sports equal coverage, they are not going to be able to match the men in sports simply because men have more muscle - it's not a competitor, nor is it equal and they have been given a chance to do the same things at a lower level, they shouldn't be whinging for equal television and news coverage
You never hear men complaining they are under-represented in the shopping industry...
---
Then there's this, a review of a show called '16: too young to vote?'
It's not much of a debate starter, as it's just a bland review of a BBC3 show, despite being linked from the politics page, but it's always a good question
Should they vote? Part of me knows that 16 year-olds are a fair bit more immature than even 18-year-olds, some are better than others, but generally they're still children
But that said, maybe I'm getting old and will probably soon start thinking 21 year-olds are too immature, and after that 25-year olds, 30 year-olds - considering I have always viewed this derision by the older generations as arrogant I don't really think maturity is a valid concern
The same goes for intelligence - the capabilities of our brain and behaviour don't bar anyone else from voting so why should they suffer? I know some right idiots who are well over 18
Then it must come down to where we draw the line - we have to say where the child becomes an adult, clearly a 5-year-old doesn't have an informed opinion, although it's somewhat strange logic when you think most voters don't have an informed opinion anyway - but regardless, they couldn't care for themselves
An adult is 18 - this is where you can do anything you want, buy alcohol, see any film you wish, marry without consent, and now you can even buy fags, and with Labour's new rules on leaving education it's becoming increasingly clear that adulthood is 18, not 16 - you can hold a job, but it's likely to be a part-time one while you remain in education under the newest laws
But nevertheless you are a taxpayer, with enough responsibility to hold a job, clearly you have a case for some political engagement
And some 16 year-olds are very into it, you couldn't really deny them the vote on maturity grounds - and again, a hell of a lot of adults don't care, so if there's some who really do care then why not let them vote?
The situation also barely affects people - it will matter to a minority of people, assuming this government takes the maximum five years then they have a 60% chance of being either 15 or above 18 (as I was, I got to vote at 19) - but I suppose more regularly it would be half of them, but two years out of a lifetime is hardly a huge issue - but then...I keep asking myself 'why not?' - I see no harm in it, just a few more wasted votes in the pot
But then, I think those under 18 get more political representation anyway - they get the youth parliament, who actually get to sit in parliament on occasion, once they're over the 18 mark their representation will turn to zilch as they realise politics is monopolised by those over 30 and the 'youth' vote is meaningless
So, my view: I have no problem lowering the voting age, but frankly the kids are better off sticking with it at 18
10 August 2009
Equality and 'equality' are not the same thing
Hear the news that Mandy wants to give poorer students a two-grade advantage? - in essence those from bad schools or under performing areas will be given an advantage over their privately educated (or even grammar school educated...) peers
A scheme used by some universities (like Leeds) is based on achieving a higher than average score - i.e. therefore you are the pick of your school and could do better in a top school
It's a reasonable idea - but it has flaws, for starters just because you are a good performer at a bad school does not mean you match up to AAA students at private schools (or especially grammar schools), nor is it a solid fact that a bad school or being 'poor' will affect your achievement - I'm clever, poor, went to a private school (on the AP scheme I might add, which already puts me in the top 10% of applicants) and was lazy, so I got Bs - I could've got As, but when you only revise for the subject you might get a C in it kind of limits your potential - my point is that I had potential beyond what I got, why not give lazy, intelligent people a leg up? Start doing it by intelligence tests, because that's basically what they're doing, just for poor people
In effect they are undermining their own standardised testing system - flawed as it is, but saying, 'oh it's because you're deprived' (based on very broad statistics) and then lowering expectations, it's just asking for trouble - maybe they were just lazy, like me? Now they have an advantage - and of course, now what you will get is people abusing the postcode lottery to go to bad schools
I'll stop short of expecting degree standards to sink any further because of this - at least in important areas like medicine - they will get wheedled out at some stage if they can't handle it, but it's certainly opening the door for this sort of thing
I can understand the logic - there is an issue to address, a better background does quite clearly provide an advantage against those with talent who are poorer - but this social engineering is just an acceptance of the status quo
It is a misguided attempt to make the stats look 'right' - a good healthy number of working class people in the best degrees and jobs - only that doesn't address the real social issues at the root of this: the bad schools, it's just accepting them and lowering the standards for all concerned
It will make the equality nuts in government very happy, but they are just dressing up the situation - hiding behind their feel-good figures while the education system rots - this should only be a short term measure to help those who are suffering now - the long term aim should be to provide good education to all, not tolerate poor education, that will help no-one in the long run
(nicely balanced article from the Beeb if you ask me...will it show up in certain people's comprehensive review of BBC bias? We shall see)
---------
Meanwhile, Mark Easton has again gone for the jugular with Hattie's mad ravings
He points out the alarming misuse of statistics, as witnessed by the ONS - this has nothing to do with my views, or Easton's, on equality, but the way in which the government manipulate figures to promote an agenda and basically lie to us - think what you want about the feminist argument, but the figures being used by the government are outright lies and it's criminal - frankly I would still care if it was the other way round, or about harmless things like soil types or some other drudgery
You know, I can understand a government trying to bury bad news with fudged statistics - governments can't admit wrong - they should, because we'd benefit, but that's the sad reality of it - this however, is just lying to make a situation look worse and get away with your own crazy ideas
---
Oh and Janet Street Porter has gone feminist
Attacks on women are always personal...attacks on the fat, lazy, idiotic, northern-loudmouth who is Prescott are completely valid politically, however
p.s. Minette Marrin at the Times says it better than I ever could
A scheme used by some universities (like Leeds) is based on achieving a higher than average score - i.e. therefore you are the pick of your school and could do better in a top school
It's a reasonable idea - but it has flaws, for starters just because you are a good performer at a bad school does not mean you match up to AAA students at private schools (or especially grammar schools), nor is it a solid fact that a bad school or being 'poor' will affect your achievement - I'm clever, poor, went to a private school (on the AP scheme I might add, which already puts me in the top 10% of applicants) and was lazy, so I got Bs - I could've got As, but when you only revise for the subject you might get a C in it kind of limits your potential - my point is that I had potential beyond what I got, why not give lazy, intelligent people a leg up? Start doing it by intelligence tests, because that's basically what they're doing, just for poor people
In effect they are undermining their own standardised testing system - flawed as it is, but saying, 'oh it's because you're deprived' (based on very broad statistics) and then lowering expectations, it's just asking for trouble - maybe they were just lazy, like me? Now they have an advantage - and of course, now what you will get is people abusing the postcode lottery to go to bad schools
I'll stop short of expecting degree standards to sink any further because of this - at least in important areas like medicine - they will get wheedled out at some stage if they can't handle it, but it's certainly opening the door for this sort of thing
I can understand the logic - there is an issue to address, a better background does quite clearly provide an advantage against those with talent who are poorer - but this social engineering is just an acceptance of the status quo
It is a misguided attempt to make the stats look 'right' - a good healthy number of working class people in the best degrees and jobs - only that doesn't address the real social issues at the root of this: the bad schools, it's just accepting them and lowering the standards for all concerned
It will make the equality nuts in government very happy, but they are just dressing up the situation - hiding behind their feel-good figures while the education system rots - this should only be a short term measure to help those who are suffering now - the long term aim should be to provide good education to all, not tolerate poor education, that will help no-one in the long run
(nicely balanced article from the Beeb if you ask me...will it show up in certain people's comprehensive review of BBC bias? We shall see)
---------
Meanwhile, Mark Easton has again gone for the jugular with Hattie's mad ravings
He points out the alarming misuse of statistics, as witnessed by the ONS - this has nothing to do with my views, or Easton's, on equality, but the way in which the government manipulate figures to promote an agenda and basically lie to us - think what you want about the feminist argument, but the figures being used by the government are outright lies and it's criminal - frankly I would still care if it was the other way round, or about harmless things like soil types or some other drudgery
You know, I can understand a government trying to bury bad news with fudged statistics - governments can't admit wrong - they should, because we'd benefit, but that's the sad reality of it - this however, is just lying to make a situation look worse and get away with your own crazy ideas
---
Oh and Janet Street Porter has gone feminist
Attacks on women are always personal...attacks on the fat, lazy, idiotic, northern-loudmouth who is Prescott are completely valid politically, however
p.s. Minette Marrin at the Times says it better than I ever could
29 July 2009
Is it obvious?
Looking over this report on the widening social gap which has been doing the rounds of late, I can't help feeling there's a very obvious answer to the issue
It does seem to be a noticeable trend that those educated during or prior to the 70s are from a wider section of society than those in their thirties - i.e. educated in the 80s - more or less consistent with the removal of Grammar schools
I don't claim this is the only factor, I am merely noticing a rather obvious correlation between the decline of Grammar schools and the increase in privilege in the professional classes - it may be nothing to do with it, but I think it's hard to ignore when it was such an important change in schooling
I can understand some of the arguments against them, even if I don't agree - but it's pretty clear that all forcing the poor and bright into comprehensives did was worsen their chances and left the opportunities to only the wealthy...the Grammar school system may not have been perfect but simply removing them made it worse if you ask me
I never got the chance to go to Grammar school, I only had the option of my two local comps - fortunately I was eligible for the Grammar school replacement - the Assisted Places Scheme, which basically gave those who would pass the 11+ a subsidised or free entry to independent schools
Had I been a year younger I would not have been eligible for this, because Tony Blair scrapped it because it was 'elitist' (this...from a Fettes man) - so I would have gone to one of those comps
Now I'm not knocking state education as a whole, there are many excellent comps - just none of them happened to be where I lived, I would've been sent to one of the underachieving pits where my local friends went, none of whom did A-levels or went to university, only one teacher was ever murdered though..
It does sound elitist, I admit - but the government are insistent on giving the poorest of us better chances, I don't see how forcing us to go to the local comps did that - unless of course the removal of both Grammar schools and the AP scheme meant that state education considerably improved - and I'm not aware that it did?
From the few socialists that I've met they seem to think that the complete removal of private schools and total use of state education would somehow create a better system - it's a pipedream, and the rich would still use their influence to play the postcode lottery, go abroad, or hire tutors - you can never remove the influence of the wealthy, unless we head down the communist route...
All that happened was the brightest were sent to the comps, while the richest got the best education - in principle maybe it was unfair to pay for the brightest to go to 'posh' schools, but the reality was it was a much more effective system than some grandiose dream about brilliant state education - all that has happened is the rich now get more opportunities while the rest of us form part of the mediocre average
Basically the government want more people from poor backgrounds to have the best they can achieve, i.e. on merit - and yet to classify people by their intelligence (a fairly big part of 'merit' if you ask me) is 'elitist' - seems a bit of a conundrum to me - they would rather just get more poor people in, regardless of talent, to fill their quotas - seems like another form of discrimination to me, just as bad as the rich paying for their kids achievements
Two things stand out to me: Firstly look at the last two Tory Prime Ministers: both Grammar school educated and with working-class origins, now compare that to the current Tory leader and his band of Eton educated cronies, from a demographic coincidentally educated mostly in the late 70s and 80s - maybe it's nothing to do with it, but I always find it quite a striking comparison (and I didn't even need to swing at Labour's last two)
Then, on a more personal note, and I can give no evidence of this, note my school's performance after my year group - it dipped considerably and the few long-term teachers I occasionally see whinge no end about falling standards - I accept that this may well be down to the growing class sizes in the school's pursuit of money, and also the fact that my teachers are old and naturally regard everything as being worse now - but I choose to see the decline as having a link to the removal of academic qualification and the allowing of all those whose parents merely pay up, in
I don't claim it's a valid study, I may well be wrong, but that's my life experience and I'll stick to it until otherwise proved
At the risk of being labelled a Tory elitist I'm going to say this - Grammar schools anyone?As an example, the report shows that doctors and lawyers who are in their late-30s today are drawn from a more affluent slice of society than their colleagues in their 50s.
Why should this be the case? Why should the gap be widening
It does seem to be a noticeable trend that those educated during or prior to the 70s are from a wider section of society than those in their thirties - i.e. educated in the 80s - more or less consistent with the removal of Grammar schools
I don't claim this is the only factor, I am merely noticing a rather obvious correlation between the decline of Grammar schools and the increase in privilege in the professional classes - it may be nothing to do with it, but I think it's hard to ignore when it was such an important change in schooling
I can understand some of the arguments against them, even if I don't agree - but it's pretty clear that all forcing the poor and bright into comprehensives did was worsen their chances and left the opportunities to only the wealthy...the Grammar school system may not have been perfect but simply removing them made it worse if you ask me
I never got the chance to go to Grammar school, I only had the option of my two local comps - fortunately I was eligible for the Grammar school replacement - the Assisted Places Scheme, which basically gave those who would pass the 11+ a subsidised or free entry to independent schools
Had I been a year younger I would not have been eligible for this, because Tony Blair scrapped it because it was 'elitist' (this...from a Fettes man) - so I would have gone to one of those comps
Now I'm not knocking state education as a whole, there are many excellent comps - just none of them happened to be where I lived, I would've been sent to one of the underachieving pits where my local friends went, none of whom did A-levels or went to university, only one teacher was ever murdered though..
It does sound elitist, I admit - but the government are insistent on giving the poorest of us better chances, I don't see how forcing us to go to the local comps did that - unless of course the removal of both Grammar schools and the AP scheme meant that state education considerably improved - and I'm not aware that it did?
From the few socialists that I've met they seem to think that the complete removal of private schools and total use of state education would somehow create a better system - it's a pipedream, and the rich would still use their influence to play the postcode lottery, go abroad, or hire tutors - you can never remove the influence of the wealthy, unless we head down the communist route...
All that happened was the brightest were sent to the comps, while the richest got the best education - in principle maybe it was unfair to pay for the brightest to go to 'posh' schools, but the reality was it was a much more effective system than some grandiose dream about brilliant state education - all that has happened is the rich now get more opportunities while the rest of us form part of the mediocre average
Basically the government want more people from poor backgrounds to have the best they can achieve, i.e. on merit - and yet to classify people by their intelligence (a fairly big part of 'merit' if you ask me) is 'elitist' - seems a bit of a conundrum to me - they would rather just get more poor people in, regardless of talent, to fill their quotas - seems like another form of discrimination to me, just as bad as the rich paying for their kids achievements
Two things stand out to me: Firstly look at the last two Tory Prime Ministers: both Grammar school educated and with working-class origins, now compare that to the current Tory leader and his band of Eton educated cronies, from a demographic coincidentally educated mostly in the late 70s and 80s - maybe it's nothing to do with it, but I always find it quite a striking comparison (and I didn't even need to swing at Labour's last two)
Then, on a more personal note, and I can give no evidence of this, note my school's performance after my year group - it dipped considerably and the few long-term teachers I occasionally see whinge no end about falling standards - I accept that this may well be down to the growing class sizes in the school's pursuit of money, and also the fact that my teachers are old and naturally regard everything as being worse now - but I choose to see the decline as having a link to the removal of academic qualification and the allowing of all those whose parents merely pay up, in
I don't claim it's a valid study, I may well be wrong, but that's my life experience and I'll stick to it until otherwise proved
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
