National literacy day

4080

national-literacy-day-

To put into context the worthlessness of marking the UN mandated National Literacy Day, the same institution puts Cuba top of the tree in its ranking of world literacy at 98.8%. Having lived in Havana for a number of months, I can categorically deny the validity of this, based upon the simple fact that a worryingly large number of the people I met were unable even to write their own name. Given that this was the major city, I hold little hope for real rates of literacy in the countryside.

Interestingly though, many of the poorest in Havana were able to speak a plethora of different languages, learnt not in the classroom but on the streets: essential in selling all manner of black market product and disreputable service to tourist so they can get hold of those precious greenbacks. The moral of the story? If you really want your children to learn foreign languages, dump them on the streets of Havana. Perhaps not. But it does go to show that human ingenuity adapts even in a heavily distorted market.

Rather than to simply celebrate literacy and condemn illiteracy, the key point to consider is how it is achieved. It certainly helps if economic development is at a point where literacy is itself as essential to being able to function as having German, French and English as second, third and fourth languages is on the streets of Havana. However, we also need a good and competitive education system, especially for the poorest in our country. The former we have, but the latter we don’t; and this accounts for the embarrassingly high levels of illiteracy among UK adults, because of – not in spite of – government interference.

For a proper understanding of literacy and all matters related to education, you could do no better than to peruse the excellent work coming out of the E.G. West Centre based at the University of Newcastle. They also have blog that can be accessed here.

GCSE reform

4036

gcse-reform

Another year, another set of record-breaking GCSE results, another row over GCSEs. I took mine last year, and it did get boring hearing adults constantly badger on about how my A*s mean nothing and that I might as well have spent my study leave lying on a beach somewhere for all the difference it would have made.

But it is true that GCSEs need reforming. They’re over twenty years old, in which time schools have built up a bank of past papers and a wealth of experience with which they can cater their teaching more towards the exams. This isn’t crafty teaching but faults with the system: with mocks, end of year exams and GCSEs themselves, there’s no time for pupils to explore subjects beyond what is going to be on the paper. Besides, GCSE grades are currently all there is to show for those two years’ work, and in-depth knowledge and good exam technique can’t be differentiated just by marks. Besides, technique is quicker to teach.

The grade boundaries also need to change. Having 98.4% students passing their exams is impressive, but what does it mean? To pass, students must gain grade E or above. An A*-C is ‘good’. In last year’s Edexcel maths exam 36/100 got a C; 9 an E. Get roughly one out of three answers right and you’re ‘good’ at maths; get less than one in ten right and you’ll still pass. Something’s not quite right.

With the government’s plans to raise the compulsory level of education to 18, there is also the question of whether we need GCSEs at all. At the moment they help potential employers and Sixth Forms differentiate between students, everyone does A-Levels or vocational qualifications then employers will use those to differentiate; and if entrance exams work up to Year 11, then why not after it?

Why we love the profit motive: Katine edition

4012

why-we-love-the-profit-motive-katine-edition

I have to admit to being fascinated by this development project that The Guardian is running in Katine, northern Uganda. Over a period of several years they're trying to see how and if it's possible to kick start development: a noble and worthy goal.

The fascination comes in part from my not quite understanding the mindset of those attempting to do the developing. There was one report about how there were not enough desks in the schools: not enough had been delivered by the Government apparently. But, umm, who would assume that in a poor country the Government ought to be delivering school desks? A table is not really all that high technology, a few burly blokes with machetes and a few days work in the woods would knock up something useable wouldn't it? Why this reliance upon the State, some hundreds of miles away over near impassable roads?

Another example is this piece about how a Coke (that's as in cola, not Charlie) is available in every village store but medicines are not. Or rather, medicines are indeed available in private stores, but not in the State run health care centres. The end of the piece is:

The new battle is now not just to get HIV medicines to people with Aids, but to get a consistent, affordable supply of essential drugs to all who need them. That means that governments in the west, as well as in developing countries, need to make money available, and turn their attention to supply systems. It can't be left to Coca-Cola barons. It's too important to leave to the market. Not just for Uganda, or Africa, but for all of us.

Excuse me, but given that the market does indeed get a consistent supply of drugs to those who need them, surely that means that it's too important not to use the market?

Soft' A-Levels

3992

soft-a-levels

The Conservatives’ new exam shake-up plans are all very well and good for gaining support from a public where the general consensus is that exams just aren’t the same as they were in the good old days (and who mostly haven’t sat an exam in over a decade and never will again) but in practice will only cause more problems. Schools pushing pupils into ‘soft’ A-Levels to inflate their league table position will push pupils towards whatever raises their scores, be it maths or media studies. Worse, the plans may pressure pupils into taking ‘hard’ subjects simply because they believe it’s what’s expected of them, rather than because they enjoy them. Ironically this will see further grade inflation with weaker students taking up these subjects, pushing those stronger candidates who would have taken the subject regardless further into the top grades.

Besides, while PPE at Oxford may suit Mr. Cameron, he fails to realise that not everyone is suited to, nor wants, the kind of classical education he got. The world works because people, rather than being united by desires of further education and a multi-million pound job, are good at and want different things. I note that none of the top unis are offering me a degree in plumbing (nor do I want one). Need I worry? No: my plumber, Tom, who did not go to Oxbridge or study quantum mechanics, but who is a proud possessor of several vocational qualifications (a big Conservative no-no), knows pipes like the back of his hand. Yes, we need trained scientists and doctors, but we also need people in those ‘less academic’ trades. Besides, we’ve got enough unemployed graduates as it is.

One last word on the ‘hard’/’soft’ debate: does academically undemanding translate as easy? Cameron seems to think so – so, if the results of the next general election swing in their favour, I would like to make them getting the legislation through conditional on one thing: that every single Conservative party member get an A in A-Level Dance. And then post the results on YouTube.

Promises, promises, promises

3993

promises-promises-promises

Over the past decade we have all felt New Labour’s grip tightening around our lives, but perhaps one of the most adversely impacted demographics from their time in power are the young adults who will have to face the New Labour legacy.

Throughout its time in power, New Labour has made a series of empty promises to young people in Britain putting them in an increasingly disadvantaged position. Instead of leaving them free to grow up in a more prosperous society, they are now subject to live with falling standards in youth health, rising youth crime and non-existent community cohesion. Despite Tony Blair’s promise of ‘education, education, education’, young people now find themselves with fewer opportunities than when he came to power.

New Labour’s ‘solutions’ have impacted on the young. They failed in education, so grades have been inflated to spin themselves out of trouble. In failing to maintain cohesive, safe communities they have let many violent offenders go free, while slapping ASBOs on thousands of teenagers in order to be seen to be tough on crime.

Alistair Darling has now announced that the government is going to come to the rescue of thousands of 18-24year old NEETS (Not in Education, Employment or Training) who have been affected by the recession. He plans to ‘create’ jobs and training opportunities for all. Of course, many young people have been affected by the recession, but this is mainly because NEETS are under-trained and inexperienced. This latest promise cannot be realized in the current economic climate and is more about political maneuvering than real and hard facts.

When it comes to the youth – this government’s record is one of failure.

Top-up fees: Just and efficient

3975

top-up-fees-just-and-efficient

David Papineau argues in The Times against lifting the cap on top-up fees, as Lord Mandelson has been suggesting recently. Apparently, he fears that if the government were to do so, “our proudest universities will quickly turn into rich kids’ colleges."

The present, state-subsidised system of university funding is regressive: hard-working taxpayers from all sections of society, two-thirds of whom do not hold a university degree, subsidise the exploits of relatively affluent students. Obtaining a university degree is not a necessity or a trial, it is a fantastic experience that boosts lifetime income by almost 60%. Those who derive the benefit from the education should pay for it – the students themselves.

Papineau protests that if students are made to pay the full cost of their education, “universities will become the preserve of the rich," and that “a system of means-tested bursaries … won’t solve the problem." Well, if government continues to provide low-interest loans covering tuition fees and living costs for all those who can’t afford the education outright, as they intend, then why should the poor be excluded? If a university education is worth what it costs, then given sufficient credit, people will be prepared to pay for it.

Giving universities the flexibility to charge the price they want for an education will also raise standards. Universities will have to compete for their students: striving to excel, saving money where necessary, targeting students with a variety of demands and reacting to a changing marketplace.

The current system is unjust and inefficient. Raising the limit on top-up fees is a good step towards the free-market university education system that would move the burden of cost from taxpayer to consumer, and improve quality across the board.

Labour's static society

3922

labours-static-society

New Labour came into power with a host of promises they were going to fulfil. We have seen them fail in many specific areas; health, industry, education, and so on. But one of the overriding ambitions of New Labour was to increase social mobility. Here, they have failed spectacularly.

New labour pledged to break down the age-old barriers within our education system and labour markets, meaning that that anybody could achieve anything they set their mind to in Britain. But through all the spin and policy mismanagement, that final goal seems to have been forgotten, and we are now in worse situation than in 1997.

Jeff Randall has written a damning critique of New Labour's social mobility schemes here. The evidence is clear: social mobility has declined in the last decade. This is in conjunction with a deepening ‘poverty trap’, creating a cycle where families and communities are continually punished by government meddling in the labour market and the welfare state.

By interfering with education, creating low-income quotas for universities, abolishing grammar schools, and ‘dumbing-down’ public exams, the government has only managed to punish high achievers and create false success and disincentives to work for others. This cannot continue. What incentives do students have to study and improve themselves if they know they can pass exams with a minimal score? Such dumbing-down of education soon leads to a dumbing-down of society.

This is an example of what happens to society at large, and to the average family, when governments focus on image, perception and spin, rather than reality.

Social mobility

3878

social-mobility

The report from Alan Milburn makes it clear that there is a lack of social mobility in modern Britain. It is in fact lower than it used to be. The grammar schools used to provide a ladder for talented people from poorer backgrounds, but most of these schools were swept away in a fit of egalitarian enthusiasm which resulted in a levelling down and the closure of opportunities.

There is less social mobility than when Labour took office. The key to social mobility has always been education, but despite an emphasis on "education, education, education," it has largely failed people of disadvantaged backgrounds. The government pressurizes universities to lower admission standards for people from poorer backgrounds, thereby discriminating against talented youngsters who happen to have middle class parents.

This is not the answer, neither a valid nor a fair one. The answer is to raise the standard of state schools so their students can qualify on merit. The way to do this is to forget egalitarianism and to allow a variety of schools to flourish, and enable parents of all backgrounds freely to choose between them, taking the state funding with them. We've published on this before, and will do so again. It has worked brilliantly in Sweden and will do the same here. Roll on a government which will implement it.

Charity, private schools and the public benefit

3877

charity-private-schools-and-the-public-benefit

It's entirely possible to argue with a straight face that private schools damage the nation. I may disagree with you, think your contention that everyone should be forced into the failing State sector absurd, but that would be my opinion, not an objective fact thrown up by the universe to frustrate you.

However, if we were to try and discuss the costs and benefits of there being a private school sector, we would at least agree that parents paying more money to have their children educated, money over and above the taxes they have already paid the State to educate their children, is a public benefit. No? Saving the State billions which it can spend upon other things is indeed a public benefit? Sure, maybe it's one we might need to offset against other things, but it is a benefit?

Not, apparently, if you are the Charities Commission:

David Lyscom, the chief executive of the Independent Schools Council, has tried, without success, to convince Leather that billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money that is saved by schools educating children privately is a “public benefit" in itself.

However, this is not the worst of what the Commission is no doing as it looks at the charitable status of all those private schools. This is:

The commission have not told us what the test we have to pass is.

When a bureaucracy will not tell you what the law is, when they insist that everything is simply to be left to their discretion, then we have left the rule of law far behind. Indeed, I would argue that in this situation we have left the governance methods of a civilised society far behind.

Apologies for my fundamentalism in such matters but just as I'm sure there are both costs and benefits to having a private school system (and on net, benefits) there are also costs and benefits to having a Charities Commission. If such Commission is going to start using Kafka as an operations manual then, on net, we'd be better off without it. Abolish it and force Dame Suzi Leather to work for a living for a change.

New Labour score an F

3871

new-labour-score-an-f

Every year the marking, administration and validity of the SATs examinations seem to turn into a greater fiasco than the previous. This year thousands of papers will be sent back to the examiners due to sloppy marking. There are reports of students losing marks for spelling despite having no mistakes, and examiners taking marks off for undotted ’i’s whilst ignoring similar mistake on other candidates' papers.

The debate regarding the SATs is an ongoing saga in New Labour’s education policy and the lgonger it goes on, the more damaging it will be to young people. The validity of the grading system has been brought into question and people have naturally lost confidence in it. In time the system will become obsolete - how can teachers and schools authorities continue use the results of SATs to rate students and make important decisions on their futures if they cannot be certain the results are accurate?

We need to encourage more choice and diversity within our public examination system, rather than top-down control from the government who have their eyes set on headline statistics, and not the education of young people. A greater degree of privatization and autonomy would allow students to pick examination boards that had the best reputations for accuracy and exams that were tailored to their needs. In turn, employers would seek staff with qualifications from the most reputable and challenging exam boards.

This lack of confidence in our current qualifications system is already being seen with a growing number of candidates and schools opting to take the International Baccalaureate as opposed to the A-Level, which is all-too-often viewed as a ‘dumbed down’ or grade-inflated qualification. Clearly Labour are yet to fulfil their pledge on "education, education, education" – and they won’t as long continue to meddle in the system.