The biggest scandal in UK education for me is the existence of state-funded religious schools. How a relatively secular country like ours has ended up in this situation is absurd (compare to France for example).
Absolutely.
Dis-establishing the CoE and kicking the bishops out of the HoL would be a good start!
The forces of antidisestablismentarianism will prevent that.
The biggest scandal in UK education for me is the existence of state-funded religious schools. How a relatively secular country like ours has ended up in this situation is absurd (compare to France for example).
Absolutely.
Dis-establishing the CoE and kicking the bishops out of the HoL would be a good start!
The forces of antidisestablismentarianism will prevent that.
Nicky Morgan - that well respected education spokesperson.
Former Secretary of State for Education, and was doing a pretty decent job. Interesting to see where Gove goes on this, as he was massively anti selection.
Nicky Morgan - that well respected education spokesperson.
Former Secretary of State for Education, and was doing a pretty decent job. Interesting to see where Gove goes on this, as he was massively anti selection.
Does anybody really care which way Gove goes on this, or indeed on anything?
Nicky Morgan - that well respected education spokesperson.
Former Secretary of State for Education, and was doing a pretty decent job. Interesting to see where Gove goes on this, as he was massively anti selection.
You have won a platinum whoosh, this whoosh only appears every 5,000 posts.
Nicky Morgan - that well respected education spokesperson.
Former Secretary of State for Education, and was doing a pretty decent job. Interesting to see where Gove goes on this, as he was massively anti selection.
You have won a platinum whoosh, this whoosh only appears every 5,000 posts.
I'm far to poor to have inherited the intelligence to give a shit
As someone who went to a grammar (probably should have done better than I did) but left to go to a sixth form at a non-selective school, and who has two children that both attend grammar school, I am sure I have a slightly biased look at things.
However I will try and add my point of view. In an ideal world selective education would not exist, but this is not an ideal world and having looked at the non-selective option where I live I am glad both children got to a grammar. This was simply because the other schools we looked at for each child were simply not good enough (and that was the view of myself, my wife and our children). Until we are able to provide comprehensive education that meets the needs of the most able children and the least able (plus those in between) there will continue to be a push for grammar schools.
I do not know how we provide that, but in every case locally the answers given to questions about how the school works with the most able children we were not adequate, in my view by the non-selective schools. As a parent of children who were towards the top end of attainment at primary level I am selfish at wanting that to continue in secondary education. Realistically that would have been less likely to happen for my children in the local comprehensive options. Neither had tutors to get past the 11+, although we did teach them the elements that their primary school hadn't as the current primary curriculum does not cover it till later in year 6 and did some practise tests with them.
Grammar schools is about selective education and not just in the classrooms. Comprehensives will be left to their own devices while money will be diverted to middle class areas, budgets will be cut and focus will be on getting the elite gig while underspend on teaching will be ignored. How can it be possible to decide at eleven that one kid is deserving of a privileged education while another is not worth the bother. Particularly so close to puberty when children mature at different rates. As far as I know there was/is/will be no mechanism for upgrading a bright late developer into a 1st tier school from a sink version. And how many Tim nice but dims will get the better option because of family connections? I went to a grammar and had a fairly crap time educationally. Best mate, a born leader, went to a 2 Mod and became a teacher in posher schools in Guildford.
I welcome the debate on this topic. I am no great advocate of " Grammar Schools" because I do not believe in labels.
Ultimately every child needs the education that serves their talents.
Ultimately however the child receives an education from an educational system in line with the demands, values and prejudices of the society in which it operates.
The abuse of the educational system by society is at the centre of the challenge. Such abuse has been heightened by the growth in technology and computer sciences which has reduced the options of young people to learn and grow through opportunities in life.
Thus the "rejection" decisions at age 11 today can have far more telling consequences than in the past.
I come from a family of teachers and engineers ranging across grandparents, parents, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, sister in laws, nephews.
I went to Dartford Technical High School in the 60's. So at that level I failed my 11+. Even then I must have been borderline because I actually travelled past BETHS to go to Wilmington.
It was a solid school giving a solid education. I thoroughly enjoyed my time there. I completed A levels, went to University and trained to be a teacher before moving into banking.
I did not pursue teaching as a career having completed my teaching practices in Folkestone and Dover because I found the social injustices present too depressing and seeing senior teachers around me literally switch off before they stepped through the school gates I determined that was not a future I sought.
Midway through the 70's the bank introduced graduate recruitment accelerated training - the fast track to the top. I will argue it was start of the ultimate collapse of the banking system where industry knowledge became secondary to academic status.
At the time of the financial collapse not one senior banking executive across the high street banks possessed an industry qualification. Fast tracked to the top in any range of industries they ignored the basic cannons of banking.
Starting at the bottom and working my way up the ladder (an opportunity I believe barely exists today - there are too many glass ceilings) it became increasingly apparent just how little those at the top in UK and USA corporations actually knew of the mechanics of their business.
Bereft of practical business and common sense for many their entire decision making process was enshrined in the pieces of paper in front of them and the academic doctrines acquired. It failed them and us.
Any value based system of judging the people and the business practicality of the proposition in front of them did not exist. They had no experience of understanding the practical consequences of their decisions.
At one time I recall working for one newly appointed senior manager, an eminently nice and very intelligent man in his mid 30's who spoke 11 languages who freely admitted it was the first job he had had where he actually had to deliver anything. He was lost.
In the USA I worked across numerous multi disciplined teams of bright young people most happily brandishing their MBA's. They knew less about delivering to their business than one of my former bank customers who ran 3 newsagents in Charlton and Blackheath.
Naturally in medicine, engineering and the sciences there is a need for industry related academic thresholds but acquiring such an academic threshold universally should not be the be all and end all.
Yet the universal academic path to the top continues unabated. In todays society we seem to have determined to railroad children from kindergarten to University as the one way to the top. Indeed we seem to disrespect any who have not followed such a path.
Yet academic achievement does not equate to intelligence, does not equate to common sense, does not equate to business sense, does not equate to management skills, team skills, to sales skills, or necessarily to practical skills.
I have been fortunate to work with one or two "academics" who were blessed with such skills who could master any challenge or problem but they were the exception.
So we desperately need to remove the labelling, the academia related stigma and the political hyperbole from what needs to be a serious debate about the education and opportunities for our young people.
That does not preclude selection. It should however preclude the "status" attached to any such selection. It should address the need to provide further opportunities to progress academically at age any from 11 to 25. It should address the working needs and professional skills needed by society where those who possess more practical talents can work, prosper and share in the values of the society in which we all live.
Elitism in education has come from the elitism that predominates in our society. It has become a self perpetuating vicious circle which needs to be broken.
We need to generate a whole new level of debate if the divisions in society are not to become evermore entrenched.
You do not breakdown such division by dictat (unless by revolution) you break them down by the provision of equal opportunity.
If that is a dialogue Theresa May wishes to start then I suggest it is one that is long overdue.
Comments
https://www.facebook.com/NickyMorgan/
For the brightest providing they are in the catchment areas of all.
No.
However I will try and add my point of view. In an ideal world selective education would not exist, but this is not an ideal world and having looked at the non-selective option where I live I am glad both children got to a grammar. This was simply because the other schools we looked at for each child were simply not good enough (and that was the view of myself, my wife and our children). Until we are able to provide comprehensive education that meets the needs of the most able children and the least able (plus those in between) there will continue to be a push for grammar schools.
I do not know how we provide that, but in every case locally the answers given to questions about how the school works with the most able children we were not adequate, in my view by the non-selective schools. As a parent of children who were towards the top end of attainment at primary level I am selfish at wanting that to continue in secondary education. Realistically that would have been less likely to happen for my children in the local comprehensive options. Neither had tutors to get past the 11+, although we did teach them the elements that their primary school hadn't as the current primary curriculum does not cover it till later in year 6 and did some practise tests with them.
I went to a grammar and had a fairly crap time educationally. Best mate, a born leader, went to a 2 Mod and became a teacher in posher schools in Guildford.
Ultimately every child needs the education that serves their talents.
Ultimately however the child receives an education from an educational system in line with the demands, values and prejudices of the society in which it operates.
The abuse of the educational system by society is at the centre of the challenge. Such abuse has been heightened by the growth in technology and computer sciences which has reduced the options of young people to learn and grow through opportunities in life.
Thus the "rejection" decisions at age 11 today can have far more telling consequences than in the past.
I come from a family of teachers and engineers ranging across grandparents, parents, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, sister in laws, nephews.
I went to Dartford Technical High School in the 60's. So at that level I failed my 11+. Even then I must have been borderline because I actually travelled past BETHS to go to Wilmington.
It was a solid school giving a solid education. I thoroughly enjoyed my time there. I completed A levels, went to University and trained to be a teacher before moving into banking.
I did not pursue teaching as a career having completed my teaching practices in Folkestone and Dover because I found the social injustices present too depressing and seeing senior teachers around me literally switch off before they stepped through the school gates I determined that was not a future I sought.
Midway through the 70's the bank introduced graduate recruitment accelerated training - the fast track to the top. I will argue it was start of the ultimate collapse of the banking system where industry knowledge became secondary to academic status.
At the time of the financial collapse not one senior banking executive across the high street banks possessed an industry qualification. Fast tracked to the top in any range of industries they ignored the basic cannons of banking.
Starting at the bottom and working my way up the ladder (an opportunity I believe barely exists today - there are too many glass ceilings) it became increasingly apparent just how little those at the top in UK and USA corporations actually knew of the mechanics of their business.
Bereft of practical business and common sense for many their entire decision making process was enshrined in the pieces of paper in front of them and the academic doctrines acquired. It failed them and us.
Any value based system of judging the people and the business practicality of the proposition in front of them did not exist. They had no experience of understanding the practical consequences of their decisions.
At one time I recall working for one newly appointed senior manager, an eminently nice and very intelligent man in his mid 30's who spoke 11 languages who freely admitted it was the first job he had had where he actually had to deliver anything. He was lost.
In the USA I worked across numerous multi disciplined teams of bright young people most happily brandishing their MBA's. They knew less about delivering to their business than one of my former bank customers who ran 3 newsagents in Charlton and Blackheath.
Naturally in medicine, engineering and the sciences there is a need for industry related academic thresholds but acquiring such an academic threshold universally should not be the be all and end all.
Yet the universal academic path to the top continues unabated. In todays society we seem to have determined to railroad children from kindergarten to University as the one way to the top. Indeed we seem to disrespect any who have not followed such a path.
Yet academic achievement does not equate to intelligence, does not equate to common sense, does not equate to business sense, does not equate to management skills, team skills, to sales skills, or necessarily to practical skills.
I have been fortunate to work with one or two "academics" who were blessed with such skills who could master any challenge or problem but they were the exception.
So we desperately need to remove the labelling, the academia related stigma and the political hyperbole from what needs to be a serious debate about the education and opportunities for our young people.
That does not preclude selection. It should however preclude the "status" attached to any such selection. It should address the need to provide further opportunities to progress academically at age any from 11 to 25. It should address the working needs and professional skills needed by society where those who possess more practical talents can work, prosper and share in the values of the society in which we all live.
Elitism in education has come from the elitism that predominates in our society. It has become a self perpetuating vicious circle which needs to be broken.
We need to generate a whole new level of debate if the divisions in society are not to become evermore entrenched.
You do not breakdown such division by dictat (unless by revolution) you break them down by the provision of equal opportunity.
If that is a dialogue Theresa May wishes to start then I suggest it is one that is long overdue.