Elsewhere...

Over at the Orphans, I've got a post up about the idea of the rich being able to pay for extra places and how spectacularly our politicians failed to have a meaningful debate about the idea. Do go take a look.

The Entitlement Culture (and how to end it)

About this time last year, I thought about writing an article called “The Entitlement Generation” – about all the graduates emerging from universities and claiming they were entitled to a job because they happened to do a degree. The point was not just to point out the hopeless naivety of that position, but to illustrate just how the society they are in make them think that they are entitled to a job by dint of having a degree (often in an irrelevant subjects). However, looking at our society today, it is clear that this sense of entitlement is not just in our students but can be seen across our society.

You only have to look at the response to the Coalition’s cuts – cuts are fine until they cut something that an individual is entitled to. Take the mindless whining about the cut to the playground scheme – the sense of wronged entitlement is palpable. They were entitled to that money and now it isn’t there – who ruddy dare the government take that money away?

The knee-jerk reaction is to just say “oh, do shut up!” No-one is entitled to money from the government – not least because that money actually comes from the taxpayer, rather than from the government. My initial thought is always “do what you want, but don’t expect it to be funded through my taxes!”

Yet this view – while technically being correct, does rather lack an understanding of why people might be tempted to think that they are entitled to funds from the government. It might well be because they have to give so much to the government through their taxes. Actually, no, “give” is not the right word – the government takes taxes – in what feels like ever-increasing amounts.

So why shouldn’t we demand things from the government? We pay for the fucking thing, so why shouldn’t we get some sort of return on our forced investment? You wouldn’t walk into a supermarket and give them a hefty percentage of your salary and then walk out with nothing.

Of course, it isn’t as simple as that. Tax money does go towards some goods – the NHS, schools etc. The problem is that the amount of money the government is taking from us is going up, while the quality of what they provide is at best stagnant, and at worst rapidly deteriorating. If the government was a business reliant on winning money from people it would have gone under a long time ago. It is only because it can demand money from people that it can keep the income coming in. But therein lies the problem. Now, when it is demanding more money from people at the same time as offering those people less. Of course people feel they are entitled to things from the government – they’re still paying for that government after all.

The only way in which we can end this culture of entitlement is by redressing our relationship with the government. If we want to feel that they are entitled to less from the government, then the government needs to take less from them. Ideas like the Big Society don’t cut it. “Your Country Needs You,” says Cameron. Well, frankly my country can fuck off – it has taken enough from me already.

There is a culture of entitlement in this country, and it has been created by our tax-hungry and profligate government. For that culture to change, the government needs to change in a far more radical way than anything being offered by the mainstream political parties. The state needs to get smaller – much smaller – and in doing so return both rights and responsibilities to its people.

Tuition Fees, Hard Choices and Richard Murphy

I'm guessing that the whole tuition fee thing is going to flare up into a row. Ho-hum - that's life, I guess. And I don't have a whole lot more to add. Except when I see this from Richard Murphy:

I guess I should declare lots of interests: I have a degree, largely paid for by the state; I have young sons who may one day go to university (but who knows?). I want to live in a civilised society, where learning is valued for learning’s sake. And where all have equal access to it.

Well, let me in turn declare my interests: I have a degree, paid for in part by the state. I have a postgraduate degree (MA) - paid for by me. And I am embarking on a PhD - again, without state help (at least to begin with). The point here is that I want to do something, so I'm doing my level best to make it happen. And, as it stands, that involves a fuck load of hardwork. I'm not going to bellyache too much, but equally I'm not going to rely on (and wait for) a state to enable me to do what I want (particularly not a state saddled with massive debt)*.

As for the idea that there is going to be a society where "learning is valued for learning's sake" - owing to human plurality, this is an impossibility. Simply ain't going to happen. You are always going to find some who value learning for learning's sake, and some at the other extreme who believe that life experience is more important than the learning that can be gained through education. As a result, you will find some people who may be apathetic about others going to university (and even staying in education for their whole lives) but will be damned if their taxes are going to fund that desire.

Murphy, once again, seems to be missing the point. We need to start asking ourselves harsh questions about further and higher education in this country. What subjects should the state contribute towards, and which should be self-funded? Which courses are essential for our society, and which might be fun but ultimately are non-essential? Of course, this is an area where people will have very different personal opinions and some sort of consensus around this highly contentious issue. But that consensus needs to be reached. Because - ever since Nu Labour decided that as many people as possible should go to university - there has been a massive rise in degrees that achieve little more than debt both for the state and for the individual taking that degree. University is not right for everyone, and not everything needs to or indeed should be taught at university level.

In a sense, I agree with Murphy - I value learning for learning's sake. I'm just not sure that the taxpayer should have to pay for that learning.

*Anyone who does want to help, though, should feel free to use the donate button in the side-bar. Yeah, I know, I'm a shameless whore - but I reckon it is better to ask others for money than demand that the state demand it from others through tax.

Parents Banning Books (And Why It's A Bad Idea)

Looking at the list of books that parents want banning in parts of the US is quite eye-opening. I'd have thought that it would be the typical sort of tomes that parents don't want their kids reading until they are more adult - y'know, stuff by Stephen King and Chuck Palahniuk. However, there are some genuine classics in the list of books that cause consternation. Two really stand out to me as books that not only shouldn't be banned from schools, but should be read while at school:

To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee: Offensive language, racism, unsuited to age group

Well, of course there's offensive language and racism in To Kill A Mockingbird. It's about racism, for God's sake. And that's precisely why it should be taught in schools - to introduce the concept of racism in the classroom, where it can be discussed what it is, why it happens and - crucially - why it is wrong. Pretending racism doesn't exist in schools is not going to stop it existing outside of schools. In fact, quite the opposite is true.

Catcher in the Rye by JD Salinger: Offensive language, sexually explicit, unsuited to age group

Yes, Catcher in the Rye has all those elements to it - which is what makes it such a great novel for teenagers. The fact that it is (relatively) explicit and more than a bit nihilistic is exactly what makes it great. Again, this is a perfect novel for teenagers - mainly because it is about being a teenager, and those feelings of discomfort, alienation and the desperation to get to the perceived freedom of adulthood. Yes, it's a grown-up novel, but it is also about growing up - and therefore the perfect time to read it is when you are growing up.

The whole point of reading books at school is not just to be able to say that you have read books - it's to have read thought-provoking (and therefore often provocative) books and then discussed them with your peers and with a teacher. That way, you can learn from To Kill A Mockingbird why racism is wrong and from Catcher in the Rye that you are not alone in feelings of alienation while being a teenager - and what can be done to deal with those feelings.

It is all very well getting kids to read supposed "classics" - but I remember remarkably little from reading such books as The Grapes of Wrath and plays such as Pericles when I was younger. The books that stick in my mind - the ones that actually taught me stuff - were the edgier ones, like The Bell Jar, Lord of the Flies, Nineteen Eighty-Four and (although I still hate it to this day) Wise Children. I value what I got from those books as they taught me a lot about the real world. Which, surely, should be one of the key aspirations of any education?

The desire of parents to ban certain books from school resides in a desire to protect them, to keep them pure and untainted by the real world. Unfortunately, at some point a kid - if they are going to be able to function in the real world - needs to be exposed to that real world, and made aware of all the negative things in it. What better way to do that than through getting them to read a provocative, well-written book and then discuss it the safety of a classroom?

A-level Results: Clearing Chaos

And so it rumbles on - they're aren't enough places for all those who want to go to university. From The Guardian:

Six students are fighting for each spare university place, figures revealed today.

Which means that there are clearly going to be a lot of disappointed students out there. The question, though, is why should they be disappointed? The answer is twofold. Firstly, there has been an expectation created by the Nu Labour government that everyone who wants to can go to university. Their arbitrary, stick-a-finger-in-the-air-and-come-up-with-a-number, figure of 50% of people attending uni had no meaningful connection with the real world, and now that realisation is sinking in for thousands of students across the country. Fundamentally, and unlike the school system, it isn't open to everyone. It is selective. And as the numbers wanting to go to university continues to go up while funding for universities is going down there is only one way this was ever going to end. Disappointment for some.

But there is another reason for the disappointment; no-one really challenges the idea that going to university is a good thing. There seems to be an ongoing mental block around the question "should I really bother with university in the first place?" This question has become even more pertinent now there is a massive cost associated with attending university coupled with the fact that there is no guarantee of employment on the completion of a degree.

This isn't about elitism - rather, it is about challenging the idea that university attendance is a "good" in all situations and for everyone. In fact, it can be argued that it might be better and more profitable for some to go straight to work after leaving school. I mean, I know board members of FTSE 250 company who never bothered with university, and it hasn't held them back. In fact, quite the opposite.

As far as I can see from my university experiences* there are two reasons, and two reasons alone, for going to university. The first is if you need a university degree to go on to do your chosen profession - lawyer, doctor, teacher all spring to mind here. The second is if you absolutely love your subject, and are willing to run up substantial debt in pursuing your love of that subject. Otherwise, what are you missing out on if you don't go to uni? You can still have a social life, you can still make friends - but you can do it while you earn rather than just spend. And you can also help to fight the spurious and unfounded idea propagated by a target-obsessed Nu Labour government that success can only really come on the back of a university degree.

*Postgraduate about to start a PhD, fact fans.

A-level results: The "They're Getting Easier" Cliché

There’s another tradition to the release of the A-level results in this country; the litany of complaints about how A-levels are getting easier. You know the curmudgeonly types who come out with all the gems: “A-levels are getting easier, they weren’t like this in my day, kids today got it easy, never had it so good, I fought a war for them” and so on, ad fucking nauseam. I’m not going to engage with the “debate” about whether A-levels have got easier – not least because assessments of ease are all relative to the individual debating. No, instead I want to point out a couple of things.

Firstly, the idea that A-levels are getting easier is based on the notion that people are getting better grades. That could also be down to teachers getting better at teaching – or at the very least getting better at coaching their students through the examination process. Which, surely, is something to be celebrated.

Yet that isn’t going to convince the “they’ve got it easy” brigade, and it doesn’t entirely convince me. The problem, though, isn’t just about A-levels – the lack of respect for A-level results is a symptom of a wider problem: namely, the nature of education system in this country. Education has ceased, to a large extent, to be about education; instead it is about checking the right boxes and getting the right grades so students can go to university, and schools can get a decent position in league tables.

Don’t believe me? Take English Literature. You can do well in an English Literature A-level without having any passion whatsoever for English Literature. I know; I did so in 1997. All you have to do is read the relevant texts, work out what passages are crucial and rote learn the different interpretations of those passages. Your teacher tells you what is important about the text you’re reading, and how to interpret it. You don’t get to decide for yourself, and you don’t get given the skills to work out why a text is important in its own right by yourself. English Literature is not about cultivating a love of Literature; it is about making sure that you have read certain texts and read certain authors in a passionless, robotic way.

In order to improve education, we need to work out why certain subjects are studied. Take History – why study history? To learn from the mistakes of history seems to be the main reason. Yet with the Beatles becoming a component of some History A-levels, it is difficult to really see what we can learn from History in terms of avoiding damaging repetition. No, for me, History had its value not just in gaining knowledge of what went before, it also provides context for the modern age and, most importantly, how vital it is to question sources – where the sources came from, what agenda the writer might have had, and how those factors impact on the credibility of the source. Basically, it taught me to be discerning when it comes to dealing with different sources. History should be about more – about far more – than just rote learning facts.

It is also telling to consider what is missing from the education system in this country; many crucial subjects just don’t appear to be studied. Home economics would be a good example; when there is constant bleating about obesity, perhaps the education system could take some time out to teach pupils how to cook healthy food. Sure, you might not want to make it an A-level, but it is a damned important life skill. Likewise, many people study science subjects and Maths at A-level. Yet again, this seems more to be about rote learning that engaging critically with the subject. Would it be too much to require students to study philosophy as well? It underpins most other subjects – the sciences, Maths, History… Plus, philosophy should make people question the world, rather than just blandly accept it.

A-levels haven’t necessarily gotten any easier; rather, the education system has changed. Instead of being about educating people and giving them the skills they need for life, it has become about learning facts to pass an exam to check one of life’s boxes. And, as an aside my people, this mindset is becoming increasingly common at undergraduate level at university as well.

So bemoaning the apparent increasing ease of A-levels is to miss the fact that there is something fundamentally wrong with our education system; that through years of Labour misrule, our schools have become about box-ticking and targets, rather than education.

Besides, those taking A-levels do deserve praise if they’ve done well. After all, someone with straight A grades has done better than someone who has got straight D grades. They have achieved something and to piss on that achievement because the system is flawed seems unfair. Not least because the pupils taking the exams aren’t responsible for the system, politicians are. And since we vote for the politicians, we are also responsible for it. Spouting the “they’re getting easier” cliché is just a way to hide from the problems that are actually crippling our education system.

A-level Results: When A Grades Aren't Enough

This seems to be an addition to the sob stories that always emerge around the time of A-level results - the clever kid who didn't get in:

A pupil who gained three A* and three A grades at A-level has been left without an offer from a single UK university.

Ben Scheffer, 18, had his dreams of studying economics dashed by Oxford, London School of Economics, University College London, Bristol and Warwick.

Well, those do appear to be pretty good universities - in fact, very good, so they probably can take their pick of people with good results. Nonetheless, three A* and three A grades does seem to be above the norm, even in this day and age.

So why didn't he get in? The article suggests various reasons, like the fact that he took the German equivalent of GCSEs rather than GCSEs. I suspect the real reason is this one though:

He also said: "I didn't write the best personal statement, to be fair, it just wasn't special. And it's a really hard course to get into."

Yup, it was probably the personal statement wot lost it for this chap. When everyone is getting excellent grades, you need to be able to differentiate yourself from the others. The personal statement seems to be an ideal way in which to do that. If you don't do that right... well... this sort of thing happens.

Which may be the way good universities work moving forward - if A-levels cease to be a useful measure with which to differentiate applicants, they will look at other methods - like personal statements, extra-curricular activities, sporting achievements and so on. Hell, Oxford and Cambridge - who have always had their pick of the people with the best results - have been doing this for decades. With fewer university places available and seemingly more and more people wanting to apply, other universities will start doing this, and those applying to the best universities in the country should consider what else they have to offer on top of excellent grades.

Religious Education Today

The BBC brings us news of yet another area in which the state school system is failing:

Religious education is "inadequate" in one in five secondary schools in England, according to watchdog Ofsted.

Since “education” and “inadequate” have become largely synonymous since Nu Labour decided to shaft the state school system, it’s worth clarifying what exactly the problem is with religious education:

Its study suggested many teachers were unsure of what they were trying to achieve in the subject.

Which does raise the interesting question of what should religious education look to achieve today? Indeed, should there be any sort of religious education in state schools in this day and age?

To the latter question, I think the answer is yes – despite being a committed atheist. While it sometimes pains me to admit it, religion is still important to many people in society today, so in order to understand what religion is (and maybe even help to combat religious intolerance at the same time), religious education is important – and part of that education should also involve a discussion of atheism. There may even be a chance within this to debate questions of morality when discussing religion.

But what there is no place for whatsoever in religious education is promotion of any one religion. Religious education should not promote Christianity, or Islam, or any other religion. If pupils decide to follow a religion, then that is their choice. Religious education should be explicitly about educating kids, not promoting one religion and critiquing the others*.

To me, this is not controversial at all – but I suspect that to many religious groups it will be very problematic. But ultimately, if you want to educate kids about religion today, you have to reflect the fact that Britain today is a multicultural society where people choose to follow a number of different faiths – and some choose people not to follow any sort of religion at all.

*Which is exactly what my experience of religious education was.

BNP Teachers

There is something about this story that I find very troubling – and it doesn’t take a genius to work out what it is:

Teachers in England should not be banned from membership of the British National Party or any group which may promote racism, a review has concluded.

While I have no children, I can understand how many people might feel uncomfortable about having a racist teaching their children. That said, I do think that people shouldn’t be excluded from teaching based on political beliefs, even if those political are (as in the case of the BNP) utterly repugnant.

Because, surely, the idea of a teacher is to teach – not to act as political spokespeople for various parties. The point shouldn’t be to ban those who hold particular views from teaching, but rather to ensure that teachers educate and inform, rather than proselytise and promote their own political views. And that includes all political beliefs, ladies and gents – not just those nationalist, socialist and racist views of the BNP. Just as we should separate church and state, so we should aspire to separate politics from the class room.

Hysteria at the Conspiracy

There’s a wonderful piece up at Liberal Conspiracy about the supposed Tory education plans. The title – sadly – has been changed, but we can still marvel at the numerous spurious assertions, blind panic and utter nonsense within it. So much so that I think we need to break it down into smaller chunks of idiocy so we can savour this brain-dead Nu Labour prattle properly.

And so it begins:

An article in yesterday’s Independent highlighted the failings in the Conservative school policy. Personally I think it was a rubbish idea to start with. Allowing parents, charities and trusts to run schools?

Well, yes. Why not? At the moment we trust transient elected officials and unthinking bureaucrats to run our schools. Where’s the evidence that devolving power closer to the end user wouldn’t make things better?

It sounds to me just like an idea to privatise the school system, an idea which allows any idiot with a ton of money to influence and indoctrinate youngsters with their own opinions.

Yes and no. Mainly no. First of all, a lot of people with money are actually quite intelligent (hence them having money). But even if you did have an idiot running a school, I don’t think that school would last for long. Mainly because it would go out of business because parents wouldn’t want their kids being taught to be idiots. See, with increased localism, there could also be increased choice about where parents could send their kids to be schooled. As opposed to now, where it is often nothing to do with choice, but rather arbitrary boundaries based on location.

Obviously that is still the case today, but in small isolated specialist schools which provide top quality education for the highest fee payers. Imagine if that was the only choice for your kids (minus the massive bill of course)?

But it wouldn’t be the only choice. In fact, there would be more choice than ever, because parents would be far more empowered to decide where they want to send their kids. Rather than at the moment, when the decision – unless their child is bright enough to get a scholarship or rich enough to pay the fees – is entirely out of their hands.

The wonders of a central education system mean that every child has access to the same basic education and whilst it may vary regionally, what is taught is practically the same.

Sorry, but to quote Jeremy Bentham, this truly is "nonsense upon stilts". Even the internal logic of the sentence makes, well, no sense. See, everyone knows that the standard of education in this country varies massively from area to area, and with that variety in educational quality comes an inevitable difference in what is taught. A school trying to cope with serious disorder problems will end teaching things at a different pace and in a different way to a school where there is no disorder problems.

Furthermore, you have to factor in the human element to teaching. It is more than possible that a teacher – by dint of being crap or just willfully obtuse – might end up teaching completely the wrong thing. It happened to me – our Biology teacher (and bear in mind this was a top public school) taught us the wrong GCSE Biology syllabus. This was something which only became clear when we sat the exam. A centralised syallbus is not the same thing as a centralised education system – education is not uniform throughout the country in terms of content or delivery.

And anyway, how would people not trained in education be able to make the right choices about curriculum?

What, you mean people like Ed Balls?

And this is one of the big problems I have with this whole argument. It is predicated on the assumption that government knows best. The people can’t make the right choice about education, only the government can. The people can’t make the right choice about which schools their kids should attend. Only the government can. And only government sanctioned teachers can actually be effective educators.

Jeremy Bentham’s quote springs back into my mind. I can see no evidence that elected politicians are anymore capable than parents of making the right choices for their kids. And when we are talking about ministers of the calibre of Ed Balls, well, frankly I wouldn’t trust him to lace his own shoes without trying to stab someone in the back and further his career. I certainly wouldn’t trust him to make crucial choices about the education of other people’s kids

This whole process (if it went ahead, which I very much hope it doesn’t) would have to be closely followed by government inspectors and the cost involved in shutting down the public schools would be colossal.

Yes, if the government literally closed down the schools and left them derelict, then it would cost a lot. Of course, that would be a one-off cost, closely followed by savings of billions of pounds. And I reckon an astute government would allow for a transition of state schools into the private sector, thus minimising disruption and cost.

For a Tory government promising to cut spending and reducing the deficit, how does the party justify this?

*Yawns.*

See above.

By the time these “gradual” changes have been put into place, the Conservatives will probably be voted out of office anyway, if they get in in the first place. There is widespread opposition when one local school is closed, could you imagine the uproar when these plans become publically known?

Except the schools wouldn’t be closing – they would be moved out of government control and more choice would be given to parents, if this sort of reform was done right. So I reckon you would have parental joy, rather than wrath.

This is certainly a point to campaign about in the upcoming elections and certainly something I’ll be asking my local Tory candidate before I shut the door in his face next time.

You know, I’ve been disappointed by the lack of canvassing recently. I want politicians to come and knock on my door. And if a Tory does so, maybe I will quiz them about their education policies. Maybe I’ll just pretend to be French so they fuck off out of my face. I just don’t know. Guess I’ll make that choice when it happens. But I do know that if some dozy fucking Labour yoof knocked on the door and starting spouting this sort of utter shite at me, they would learn very quickly about my thoughts on the Iraq War and the decimation of the economy under Nu Labour. With added profanities. And only when I had finished my splendid rant would the door be slammed in their faces with an order that they “cock off out of my life forever.”

See, I dislike the Tories, I really do. But I hate the Labour Party a whole lot more.

The results of the system in Sweden haven’t been too rosy either. The head of Sweden’s school inspectors last week said that the system hadn’t significantly improved results in their country anyway, so why on earth do the Tories want to implement it here?

Dunno, maybe because it fits in with their tenuously expressed ideas about localism? Maybe because result not significantly improving is also not a sign that they have significantly declined? Possibly because they think the results will improve after the transition period? Lots of ideas. Maybe you should ask your Tory candidate next he/she/it knocks on your door.

As someone still in education this worries me and will worry parents of young children, teachers and union representatives.

Love it. A sixteen year old kid still in school knows how parents, teachers and union reps will respond. I wonder where he gets this knowledge from. Perhaps he’s been indoctrinated to be pro-state education by an education system run by… well, the state.

Typical Tories of course, deny the whole thing.

Yes, because Labour would never deny something inconvenient for themselves now, would they?

According to the spiel at the bottom of the article, the author is 16 years old and has a “big interest in politics”. Great. However, at the risk of being a patronising old curmudgeon, I’d argue that this kid still has a lot to learn about politics. The first lesson can be the need to think for himself, rather than regurgitating the hackneyed, moronic Labour toss about why radical education reform is automatically a bad idea.

The Tory "Elitist" Education Policy

Go and read Bella Gerens on Cameron's latest education wibblings. She pretty much nails the deep flaws within the Tory education policy. So there isn't that much to add. However, I will emphasise a couple of points.

Firstly, this idea that Cameron has of teacher hiring being "brazenly elitist" is nonsense in two key ways. Firstly, any selection procedure is by definition elitist. That's the point of selection in employment; you want to create an elite of people who work for you; an elite based on those willing and able to do the job. Secondly, selecting people on the basis of degree results is no way to get the best people into teaching. You want people who can teach science, so you get people who have a great degree result in science, right? Wrong. Because, in my experience, people with a first or a 2:1 in science or maths seldom make the best communicators. And you know what? Teaching tends to go better if the person doing it can communicate.

But there is a wider issue here. Getting decent teachers isn't just about raising standards - particularly if you already can't find decent teachers. No, you actually have to make the job worth doing. Now, teaching isn't ever going to be the best paid job in the world. Likewise, it is always going to be high-pressure and stressful at times. The reason why talented people go into teaching isn't because of the money or because it is an easy job; they are attracted to teaching because of the less tangible rewards involved.

So make the job rewarding. Remove the endless, pointless targets. Give teachers the freedom and the chance to inspire children. Change the education system so it isn't about rote learning, and instead focussed on educating people about the world and how they can make their way in that world. Make education about teaching children, not indoctrinating them so they can pass increasing devalued exams. Understand that education takes place in a classroom, not in a government department in London that is completely disconnected from where the teaching actually happens.

Which in itself is part of the point - the only reason why the Tories are proposing a way to find better teachers is to improve education. But education isn't just about the teachers, in the same way that it isn't just about the school or the facilities. Socrates used to teach in the marketplace, for God's sake. No, great teaching is at the heart of good education - and a more elitist teacher selection process is not a guarantee, or even the best way, to get that.

A-levels and Monkeys

It is that time of year again; oh yes, those claims that A-levels are getting easier are being rehearsed and shouted up to the rafters once more. The favourite quote I've read so far this year is this one:

One director of A-levels, based in the North West, told researchers: "You could train a monkey to do the questions today."

Really? You could train a monkey to do the questions? Really? I doubt that, somehow. Monkeys are good at many things - including flinging their poo at each other - but I think it is a bit much to argue that they could sit an A-level exam. In fact, this claim is so bloody stupid that it makes me wonder about the sort of person who would make it. Is this man - with his Plant of the Apes style view of our monkey brethren - actually fit to be a director of A-levels? And besides, surely a director of A-levels should be able to do something about those exams if he thinks they are too easy?

Anyway, the problem isn't that A-levels are getting any easier*. The flaw seems to be with the exams themselves. They seemed to have stopped testing understanding of a subject, and instead demand rote learning. So it isn't the fault of the 25% of students who will get "A" grades this year - they've done what the subjects require, and have committed a lot of things to memory. And it isn't the fault of teachers - they've figured out how these exams work, and have given their students the required knowledge to go away and pass those exams. No, the failure is within the education system itself. A system that now favours teaching only so targets can be attained, and that the rote learning of information rather than the understanding of a subject. And a system that does very little to prepare students for real life.

So to summarise - congratulations to those who do well at A-level. You worked hard, and you have the grades to prove it. To those of you in charge of this country's "education" system - you might want to think about the flaws in A-levels, and what they show you about the education system as a whole in this country. And finally, a monkey couldn't do the questions on an A-level paper. And it probably wouldn't want to, anyway. It has better life skills to learn. Including learning how to fling its excrement at its family, friends and any gawpers passing by its cage in the zoo.

*Although A-levels were at their most difficult in the year 1997. When your humble author took four, and got three "A" grades and a "B", fact fans. 

Unindependent Schools

Lord, our would-be Stalinist government is looking for other independent bodies they can stick the knife into with that relish that comes only when those toads in government get the chance to be totalitarian. The economy may be in free fall, but forget that. The government has got the chance to shit all over Independent schools.

According to The Telegraph:

Independent schools are to be made to open their doors to more children from poor homes under guidelines announced to stop them being run as "exclusive clubs"… Schools failing to meet the regulations could have bank accounts frozen, trustees suspended, buildings seized or even be closed down under a range of sanctions.”

I went to an Independent school. I fucking hated it. But that doesn’t mean that I support the government’s attempts to fuck them up as much as possible.

See, Independent schools are elitist. In my experience, they are also racist, sexist and an unpleasant environment to be in. You could ask why on earth anyone would want to send their kids to them. The answer is simple – because the state system is even shittier.

And such is the class envy of Brown and the other shaved chimps who serve in his government that they can’t leave the Independent schools to be, well, independent. They have to intervene, they have to try to drag those institutions down to the same level as the schools that they (nominally) run. They don’t respect the choice of those who want to spend a small fucking fortune by sending their kids to a public school, because choice is irrelevant to them. They want the homogenised society where everyone is equal. In this case – equally mired in the unmitigated shite of the state school system.

This is the very definition of socialism: everyone is equal – equally miserable. Any school that does not conform to the government’s demands should be shut down.

I want public schools to become a thing of the past. But unlike this government, I want people to be able to chose not to send their kids to a public school because the state school system is of equivalent quality to the private school system. That’s the difference between my way of thinking and the Nu Labour way of thinking. I want people to have the choice between the very best of education in the country. They want people to have no choice but to accept the very worst of education in this country.

Bye, Bye Grammar Schools

Is this yet another lurch to the left? Well, it is being packaged that way. It is another cynical attempt by the Cameronies to steal the clothes of the left to try to win over left of centre voters at the same time as hoping that the right wing voters will stick with them as there is nowhere else to go. Whether it proves to be successful or not remains to be seen - Blair did the same thing from the opposite side of the political spectrum, and it certainly worked for him. Of course I think it is cynical, deceitful and not worthy of the Conservative party, but I have banged on about this for long enough and don't plan on having another go at Cameron*. What struck me about this story is this piece of rhetoric:

"We must break free from the belief that academic selection is any longer the way to transform the life chances of bright poor kids. This is a widespread belief, but we just have to recognise that there is overwhelming evidence that such academic selection entrenches advantage, it does not spread it."

My gut reaction is academic selection is a good way to transform the lives of poor bright kids, but I actually think there is a far wider issue at stake here. Our education system is deeply, deeply flawed. We have catch all classes where success is based on rote learning and a very narrow selection of subjects designed to force as many people into university, regardless of suitability. If you see the point of education as preparing people to go into the outside world then our education system is failing the vast majority of pupils in this country. Education is not a pathway to success, and success often occurs in spite of the education system.

Fundamentally in this country we need to reconsider how we quantify and assess success in education. The formulaic, assembly line approach to comprehensive education in this country is just plain fatuous when you think about it. As part of being a liberal democracy we accept that everyone is an individual. Yet our approach to education treats everyone as the same. We need to accept that people are different, with different capabilities, and are most likely going to follow different paths in life. Education should not only acknowledge this individuality, it needs to embrace it.

Our education system develops rote learning skills, and simply assesses success through grades achieved in exams. The reality is that success in life is not simply based on the skills needed to get a good grade in a GCSE or an A-level. Other areas, such as emotional intelligence, practical capability and lateral reasoning, are equally as important to be successful in life as the narrow academic skills used in an exam room. But these areas are neglected in our education system, partly owing to the pressures of schools getting a good place in the league tables.

We need to accept that some people will thrive in the more cerebral atmosphere of university whilst others will not. Some people will thrive in an atmosphere where practical skills are key, others will not. And some people will have the emotional stability and strength to deal with high pressure and emotionally draining environment, others won't. The simple fact is we do need some sort of selection in place, so children are educated in the best possible way given their skills and their intelligence. Sure, mistakes will probably be made and some people may end up having the wrong focus. But a targeted approach to education is going to be more successful that the "one size fits all" approach we have at the moment. The problem lies not with selection, but rather with the narrow academic parameters of selection laid down by the flawed values of our education system.

Selection is a part of life, and children should be made aware of this and should be equipped to deal with this when they leave school. Because as soon as children grow up and venture into that cliched, but unavoidable, arena of the real world, they will see that selection based on academic intelligence, practical capability and emotional intelligence is not only common, but actually the norm.

*For the moment, I am sure my ire against Hug A Husky Cameron will rise again soon.

Veils

Because it is one of the stories of the day, the Moai and I have been having a bit of a debate about the decision to let schools ban veils. And in spite of agreeing with a lot of the arguments for banning veils in schools I cannot agree with the decision.

I completely agree that veils can represent a more fundamentalist side to Islam. I agree that they make security and identification very difficult (see here for a topical example). I agree that they also make communication and integration very difficult. And I know that some of our leading educational organisations have already taken action to ban the niqab and the burka. But I still do not think they should be banned.

It is different to asking a motorcyclist to remove his helmet when they come into a building for identification purposes. And it is different to asking someone not to a cross. Because Muslim women wear the niqab and the burka for religious reasons. Because of their faith, they do not feel they have a choice.

And this is fundamentally about freedom of expression rather than more pragmatic and practical considerations. I think those who wear the niqab or the burka should know that it does make communication and integration more difficult. They should also be aware that in our traditionally Anglo-Saxon, Christian culture there will be prejudice and stigma attached to wearing a veil. But you know what? If you make them aware of the above and the strength of their religious convictions is still strong enough to make them want to wear a veil then they should be allowed to do so.

The simple fact is that we do live in a multi-cultural society where there are disparate religions and other beliefs that may appear alien to the traditional British values (whatever they maybe) but unless you are willing to embrace the barmy far right, neo-Nazi politics of the BNP then multi-culturalism is here to stay. So rather than banning people for adhering to the rules of their religions, let’s try to find ways around the problems and issues that may arise.