It's teachers' conference time, and they want to boycott exams. Just like the old days, isn't it?
Research from Durham University suggests that the value of GCSEs has fallen by around one grade in the last ten years (ie a B is now a C) and that for A-levels maths (maths is easy to measure objectively), it has slipped by 3.5 grades in 20 years (ie a D score in 1989 now gets you an A).
Likewise, despite getting better and better grades on UK exams, the performance of UK kids is actually falling on international exams like PIRLS. The universities too are voicing increasing skepticism at the value of A-level grades, and employers too.
UK kids are falling on international exams because it's harder for schools to teach to the exam, as they do with GCSE and A-levels. Gordon Brown's fixation on targets – specifically, kids getting 5 A*-C grades has focused the whole of the education system on achieving just that, and nothing more. (Hence today's stories that kids don't read for pleasure any more – they just learn how to analyze key passages from the set texts.) Teachers' and heads' pay and pensions depend on hitting the target. So they don't enter kids they think might fail, they focus on turning Ds into Cs and not on the needs of A or F pupils, they work out the easy subjects for their kids, they spoon-feed kids with answer grids and the like. It gets the grades, but doesn't educate the kids. Worst of all, the exam boards want happy customers, and happy customers are schools which get lots of A*-C passes, so they have an incentive to inflate the grade system too. Targets have corrupted the whole system.
The teachers' proposed boycott of exams will do nothing to change this. Exams at 7 and 11 provide extremely useful information – not just about how well the kids are doing, but about how well the teachers are performing. And they resent that oversight, because they believe their own spin about their 'professionalism'. But we all need to be monitored. Of course, the multiplicity of exams has made the 'cram-a-kid' culture more intense. But the way to solve that is to simplify the tests, not to abolish them and the information that they deliver to education managers. The tests were conceived, under the Thatcher administration, as simple pencil-and-paper tests, but they have developed under Gordon Brown into a full-blown targets exercise, raising the stakes for teachers and pupils alike. There's a lot wrong with education, but the teachers' solution is self-centred.
Dr Butler's new book, The Rotten State of Britain, can be bought here.
This week Cambridge University confirmed that from next year, three A-Grades at A-Level (the exams British school children take at 18) would no longer be enough for a student to be admitted. In future, students will need at least one A* and two As to be considered for a place.
There have been predictable complaints about this, with some arguing that such an admissions procedure will discriminate against students from state schools. But what did the government expect when they introduced the A* grade? If universities weren't meant to use it to distinguish between students, then what was the point?
Moreover, it's not exactly the university's fault if demanding a top grade means only people educated in the private sector can get in (though that is clearly an overstatement). On the contrary, it's the state schools, and by extension the politicians who believe they can run them, that deserve to be the targets of criticism.
It is also politicians who have debased the exam system and made the introduction of an A* necessary. As the Telegraph says, "Last summer, more than a quarter of A-level exams sat in England, Wales and Northern Ireland were awarded an A grade and the rate has more than doubled in 20 years." Grade inflation is not that different from monetary inflation – by increasing supply for political reasons, government agencies have decreased value. It seems they just can't help themselves.
The other thing that irritates me about this story is the implication that lies behind it, that requiring excellence (if that's what an A* means) is some kind of unjust discrimination. It isn't. Rewarding achievement and success is the way the world works, and rightly so. That's all Cambridge are doing.
As their time in power draws to a close, many are looking back on the New Labour years wondering whether they lived up to the expectations people had back in 1997. The consensus is ‘no’: they have been a government that has failed to deliver in health, welfare, defence, and public life, but no more so than in education. There has been no progression from the days of ‘Education Education Education’.
The subject of university fees threatened to divide the government back in 2004 and is now back on the agenda. A new survey finds that two-thirds of vice-chancellors think that tuition fees need to be raised above the present £3,500 cap, and 10% felt that a cap should be abolished all together.
In order to provide the best quality education universities clearly need higher funds. By capping the fees they can charge, the government is both depriving them of resources and stifling any competitive element out of the market, resulting in a poorer overall output.
There is clearly the issue that intelligent students from poorer backgrounds should have the same opportunities as the middle-classes. This is a valid point, and certainly education should be one of the more meritocratic aspects of life. However, it would be foolish to think that universities only want wealthy students irrespective of their aptitude. If the government didn’t keep tuition fees artificially low, universities and trusts would be more willing to give grants and aid to those unable but deserving of university places.
Furthermore government targets to get more and more students through university are counterproductive. As with most top-down government targets, they are inefficient and ill thought out. The inevitable impact of simply churning thousands of students through university is the fall in the value of a British education – and you don’t need a degree to work that one out!
Yes, Dr John Dunford is right that "The government should trust school leaders more, hold them to account intelligently, have clearer priorities and take fewer, better planned initiatives," and yes, they should also show more regard to the views of parents. But Dr Dunford is quite wrong to see the moves from the city to the classroom as a sign of the lessening moral regard young people have for banking jobs. People are leaving the city because they have lost their jobs, and not applying because there aren't any to get.
To be fair to fair to him, Dr Dunford does spend all his time around teachers and as such it will be hard for him to understand being sacked; we all know useless teachers are just moved on to other schools.
Dr Dunford is also right to criticize the so-called ‘Tesco Model’ of Ed Balls as explained as Whitehall being the company headquarters with teachers as the branch managers and shelf-fillers. However, the Tesco analogy is a bad one, as state education would be run better by Tesco than it is at present: at least it would be customer driven and bad teachers would be shown the door.
Given that Dr Dunford’s job is to look after the interests of ASCL members, one cannot expect much better from him. I would welcome the day when children are taught at an equivalent level of service we get at supermarkets, with competition for customers equivalent to that between the likes of Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Lidl, Co-op Waitrose, Whole Foods and Morrisons.
In the newspapers of late there has been a fair amount written about the gonvernment's concern over homeschooling. The familiar wheels of social engineering are starting to turn in Westminster, as there is talk of yet another review of homeschooling and the possibility of introducing more rigid curriculum for home-educated students.
There is no evidence to back up this particular scare. In fact, there is not a great deal of research on homeschooling in general, yet if the government were to look at what is available, they would see that homeschooling families could teach them a thing or two about education.
Paula Rothermel of Durham University has shown that home-educated children outscore their school counterparts, with those from lower socio-economic groups outperforming their middle class peers; while the Cambridge University Primary Review concludes that: “Studies of homeschooling children show clear and substantial evidence of high (and above average) performance". The review goes on to describe a study in the U.S. in which the average home-educated student is one grade higher than an average public or private schooled student in grades one to four until by the eighth grade an average home-educated student is four grades higher than their public or private counterpart.
Of course, there are many other reasons why parents choose homeschooling. However, given that this government can only judge by test results it is necessary to defend our freedom on the same point. Unfortunately the ideology of this government seems intent on interfering in the running of some very successful families. One would think they would focus their attention on teaching the children whose parents still let the state teach them.
With the inevitable 2010 election looking like a likely win for the Tories, what will the conservative plan for prosperity be? The Timessays “he [Cameron] needs a crystal clear message about how a Conservative government will spread opportunity and benefit ordinary working-class voters." Some of these measures include cutting employers’ national insurance in order to reduce unemployment as well as introducing a Swedish-influenced market system to the educational sector.
Cutting taxes for employers will allow them to hire more workers, lowering unemployment while passing some of the savings on to the employees through reduced taxes out of their payroll. As for the market-based education system, this has been long in the works of conservative thought.
Britain’s system of state run education has been missing the bar because it is far too centralized to meet the needs of every family and unfortunately, the poorest families are suffering the most. Giving low-income families, and the rest of the population included, the option to choose schools for their children will not increase taxes to provide better education, it will only increase fairness to the system and induce more schools to advance their programs if they hope to obtain students (and therefore more government tuition). If markets can teach us (and hopefully politicians) one thing, it is that people respond to incentives. But more importantly, that it does not matter whether those people are corporate executives or school administrators.
(To view some Adam Smith Institute reports on education, click here).
The price of holidays rise during school holidays for one simple reason: demand rises! Many families think about this rationally and take their children on holidays during times when it is more affordable but this obviously results in the child missing days at school. Now local education authorities are fining the parents for removing their children from schools without permission during term times.
Most parents of school children pay their council and income taxes and therefore contribute financially to their education but according to government they give up all rights in having any control over how their children are taught, what they are taught and when and where they can attend school. Parents want the best for their children at all times, admittedly putting them into the state education is going against the grain a little, but after paying all the taxes, what other choices are left. Being able to take their children on holiday, when it is financially suitable should not be something that is dictated to parents by the state. Children miss school in their early years through illness and accidents and yet this does not seem to hinder them in progressing through the education factory.
How best to regulate this? A solution could be to allow schools to test children at the end of each academic year to see if they have learned what they were supposed to (and been taught it well enough) during the previous months. If they fail, keep them back a year; if many of them fail, fire the teacher. Simplicity that allows a rational approach to a child’s education, allowing both parents and schools to see how well children are progressing against their own year group. And if they are doing well, why not take them on holiday, if they’re doing really well, take the teacher along!
Princeton University has announced its lowest tuition and fees increase since 1966. The prestigious American institution’s cost raised only 2.9% this year to $47,020. Many other privately funded American institutions are headed in the same direction.
Out of all other American institutions Princeton has made the most earnest effort to provide affordable education to their admitted students. In 2001 Princeton developed the most progressive need-based aid program in the United States, including an unprecedented “no loan" policy. This policy “offers every aid recipient a financial aid package that replaces loans with grant aid (scholarships) that students do not pay back." So for an underprivileged American student, it is a godsend to receive an acceptance letter from the school.
Although it appears to be a great model for other American universities to follow, it is a tough feat to accomplish. Princeton can afford to provide all of that aid because they have extravagant funds to pull from. Princeton has the fifth largest endowment out of all American universities, hovering around $10 billion. Back to the lowering rates overall, since privately funded institutions are becoming less expensive, wouldn’t it make sense for state funded schools to become even cheaper? Unfortunately this is not the case. “State universities are expected to hike tuition to make up for cuts from state governments."
So what does this mean for the future of American university education? Well, successful private institutions can afford to lower their rates and even provide many of their students with full grants, while the state funded ones are forced to increase their rates.
Affordable education in the private sector is quite the proposition.
So, Ed Balls has backed yet another brainless scheme, this time relating to child obesity. This latest plan is to ban fast food and takeaway restaurants from within 400m of every school, youth centre or park. As soon as I read about this proposed scheme the impracticalities of it became apparent.
Firstly, having only left sixth form this year, I would like to think I understand the psyche of the average school student better than Ed Balls. My school had a national ‘Healthy School Status’: as such there was an abundance of reasonably priced salads, fruit, nut-bars and low-fat yoghurts. But every day there were still hoards of my peers walking down the road to every type of takeaway restaurant imaginable. Clearly, forcing healthy food onto young people does not work. In fact, from my experience, it only created resentment towards our school canteen as we were being forced further away to find the choice of foods we wanted.
Quite apart from that though, the idiocy of this scheme is laughable. I am trying to think how far I would have to travel from my house to find an area which is at least 400m from a park, youth centre or school: it’s quite a way! And what would happen if a new youth centre was opened in a high street – would all the takeaway shops have to close their doors immediately?
According to the Federation of Small Businesses, this industry is worth £20bn a year, and Balls' scheme could significantly damage small firms. In the current economic climate, the government should be encouraging businesses and entrepreneurs rather than working to ensure their demise. This is yet another example of a poorly planned top-down scheme with little consideration for people, businesses or local issues. By all means let schools educate children about the dangers of obesity (although perhaps teaching them to read and write properly should be the priority). But then allow them or their parents to make their own free choices.
Apprenticeship schemes can be beneficial to the labour market, and in turn the economy as a whole. If run efficiently and led by firms they can produce highly skilled young people with a higher degree of specialisation in their field. This helps promote high quality domestic industries.
The reason these schemes tend to work is that firms know that they are investing in high quality staff who can be nurtured to suit their needs, creating a reliable and efficient workforce. So when the quality of the apprenticeship schemes becomes questionable, the entire system is undermined. This is the problem with the governments interference by proposing a quota of 400,000 places to be on offer by 2020.
By producing such a quota, the government is effectively artificially boosting the supply within the market for apprentices, consequently devaluing the benefits they bring to firms and the economy. By ensuring that there are always places available on these schemes, the government is disincentivizing young apprentices, making the market less competitive. The government needs to be aware of possible unintended consequences that could harm the long-term interests industry.
As this article says, these targets are facing some stiff opposition and may not actually come into play. Let's hope so. Apprentice schemes should be left in the hands of the private sector. Ultimately, they know that if they invest in young employees, educating and training them, they will reap the rewards later on.
It's teachers' conference time, and they want to boycott exams. Just like the old days, isn't it?
This week Cambridge University confirmed that from next year, three A-Grades at A-Level (the exams British school children take at 18) would no longer be enough for a student to be admitted. In future, students will need at least one A* and two As to be considered for a place.
As their time in power draws to a close, many are looking back on the New Labour years wondering whether they lived up to the expectations people had back in 1997. The consensus is ‘no’: they have been a government that has failed to deliver in health, welfare, defence, and public life, but no more so than in education. There has been no progression from the days of ‘Education Education Education’.
Yes, Dr John Dunford is 
In the newspapers of late there has been a fair amount 
With the inevitable 2010 election looking like a likely win for the Tories, what will the conservative plan for prosperity be? The Times 
The price of holidays rise during school holidays for one simple reason: demand rises! Many families think about this rationally and take their children on holidays during times when it is more affordable but this obviously results in the child missing days at school. Now local education authorities are 
Princeton University has 
So, Ed Balls has backed yet another 
Apprenticeship schemes can be beneficial to the labour market, and in turn the economy as a whole. If run efficiently and led by firms they can produce highly skilled young people with a higher degree of specialisation in their field. This helps promote high quality domestic industries.