Liberal Burblings

Archive for the ‘Education’ Category

The exam results we are seeing come out at the moment are historic. The children who are getting their exam results this summer are the first set of children to be solely educated under a Labour government. They would have started school aged four (or shortly afterwards) in 1997 and are now sixteen.

That’s the first time that has happened – a full school career under a Labour government.

I know. I am a member of the last generation which was largely (but not entirely) educated under a Labour government. I went to primary school aged five in 1964 when Wilson’s government came to power. I left school in 1977 during Callaghan’s government. Unfortunately, Heath’s pesky Conservative government from 1970 to 1973 ruined everything, but did mean that I enjoyed school during the three-day week including black-outs from 8pm onwards. (So we had early cocoa and I ended up making friends with a boy who happened to have a torch – a useful alliance, that was.) I also ought to mention that I went to a public school for my secondary education, so the link to the Labour government was somewhat indirect perhaps. But then again, I think the Labour government in those days encouraged a generous “Direct grant” system for pupils whose parents could not afford the full fees, from which I benefited (as I also did from a jammy scholarship examination. My benevolent primary school Headmaster helped me out with the first question on longitudes and latitudes – which was nice of him. The lad who I beat into second place never let me forget that.).

Putting aside laughably exaggerated and (initially on their website and in the printed edition) inaccurate “reporting” by the Newbury Weekly News, this week’s story about Trinity School reveals quite a lot about the Conservative controlled West Berkshire Council.

Consultation? Forget it. They’ve just announced a “super head” and are about to axe the governing body without any warning or even a whiff of consultation.

These decisions were announced to an emergency meeting of school’s governing body which was called at four days notice, with no agenda and no disclosure before the meeting of its subject.

And if the governing body don’t like being axed, the Conservative Executive member for Children and Young People, Cllr Barbara Alexander says:

We can do what we like anyhow. It will go through but it might be slightly rocky ride.

Excellent. She’s obviously been taking management tips from Vlad the Impaler.

Andy Burnham, the new Culture Secretary, was on Today this morning. It almost seemed as though someone had set him up…A bizarre initiation ceremony organised by mischievous civil servants to make the minister look like a complete twit.

“Every school child should get five hours of “high quality culture” per week according to new government plans” was the trailer headline.

Andy Burnham was put through the shredder by John Humphrys, who used the simple ruse of asking the questions “When?” and “How?” five hundred times. The mischievous civil servants must have been sniggering into their morning tea.

What in the name of Sam Hill was the Culture Secretary on the radio talking about education? He didn’t have a clue what he was talking about in respect to the National Curriculum.

And what the heck is the government doing giving out Stalinist diktats saying all children should do five hours culture per week? …When they have already given diktats about literacy, numeracy and sport with timings attached?

Actually, it is completely stupid and bonkers.

But what Burnham didn’t properly highlight is that if you look at the national curriculum, there’s already a lot of culture (according to his own examples) in the curriculum. So it’s not an additional five hours. It can’t be. It’s impossible without dropping high priority subjects.

The silly sausage Burnham, when asked for examples, mentioned: creative writing. Creative writing is already in the curriculum the silly numpty! New media was mentioned – it’s already in the curriculum. Art, including the study of famous artists, dance, singing, music…it’s all already in the curriculum. Plus there are school clubs which do things like “broadcasting skills” (Video Club) which the minister mentioned. And many parents arrange extra classes for things like ballet, modern dancing, drama etc

Burnham kept on mentioning his own constituency. Doesn’t he realise that he covers the whole country as a minister? He kept on saying “that’s why we’re doing a pilot”. Well, why make the directive of “5 hours” then until you’ve done the pilot? 5 hours culture on only £15 a pupil a year?! It’s a farce!

Burnham pathetically mentioned visiting a theatre or museum in Liverpool. Well, that’s 5 hours sorted. How about the other 200 hours a year?

Don’t get me wrong. I am all for culture. But giving a directive of “5 hours” on top of everything else is just daft. And getting a new culture secretary, not the Education sercretary (sorry, I am darned if I am going to use the new departmental titles – they’re daft) to explain it?

Poor old Andy Burnham. Lamb to the slaughter.

I think I have found an example of sensationalist reporting in the Guardian. I am not sure, but this report seems to be telling us that texts by the likes of T.S.Eliot and E.M.Forster will be replaced in the A-level English curriculum by the autobiographies of Billie Piper and Sharon Osbourne.

The Telegraph put salacious articles on their Page Three which are called something like “Cornflake Spitters” for the titillation of Retired Colonels.

With the Guardian it’s articles like “Exam board takes cue from Richard and Judy” on page 5 and they would be more aptly called “Muesli Crunchers”.

I assume that the truth is a little less worrying than my, admittedly, exagerrated summary of the Guardian’s article. It would be a great shame to completely exclude either T.S.Eliot or E.M.Forster. “Paradise Lost” is so thick with allusions and beautiful writing that it is a rite of passage to study it. “Passage to India” is one of the most beutiful novels in the English language. But both of those works are the kind of thing you have to be forced to read!

And indeed, reading the BBC’s more measured report of this item, the Exam board specifically says:

There is no definitive list of what’s in and what’s out. But texts clearly need to be of sufficient substance for study at A-level and need to meet the requirements of the specification to allow students to fulfil their potential.

Oh well then, Sharon Osbourne’s auto-biog is a natch for that description.

Nick Clegg has got a new video on You Tube – below. This time it’s about education.

Once again, Nick shows his passion to make sure that children from less well-off families don’t get left behind. He talks about the Netherlands where they give money to schools for children from less well-off families. He emphasises the need to avoid selection:

Greater justice in the way money is administered, getting rid of selection and providing local communities in the way their schools are run – a recipe for a more Liberal education system which gives all children – not just some children – a head start in life.

Nick is obviously putting education right at the centre of his leadership in a way that neither Ming nor Charles did.

It is obvious that he feels passionately about getting the right education for all our children, and is determined to show real action to move this forward.

Couldn’t we draw a line at 11 years old and at least ignore what politicians are doing with their children, regarding schooling, before that age?

I squirmed as Nick Clegg felt compelled by David Dimbleby (on Question Time during the leadership election) to describe the schooling of his very small children. It sounded awful, the poor fellow having to say to what sort of establishment these little tots go.

Now we have the schooling decision of David Cameron and his wife for their four year old daughter splashed over the Daily Mail. It’s not on. So what if DC and his wife were choosy? If the school in question accepted the child – what is the problem?

It is, frankly, disgusting to drag children, who are barely out of nappies, into a debate which is fairly pointless anyway. And I hope that David Cameron’s comments about parents and schools earlier this week weren’t cynically designed by him to draw attention to all this!