Rishis plan for education

[mids2019]

Compulsory maths and English until 18 under Sunak education reforms mol.im/a/11360205 via dailym.ai/android

So ok it's the DM but it seems the PMs plan for secondary education is to produce a baccalaureate type system forcing children to study maths and English to 18 and creating a greater focus
on vocational training.

Seems to me the style of education presented will be focused on the comprehensive sector leaving grammars and the independent to focus on academic variety to link to RG universities.

The idea if forcing students to take maths until 18 seems quite drastic as many arts specialists may not have a great mathematical strength and vice versa. STEM specialist for instance took physics, chemistry and maths at A level will potentially have to take English and those that do for instance doing English, English Lit and History would have add maths.

Do the older more academic universities wantthis necessarily?

the baccalaureate system is in use in lots of other European countries and offered by plenty of private schools. Lots of positives about keeping breadth that way - it’s not the same as adding extra GCSEs or A levels.

Don't worry it won't happen - the government have said before that they wanted everyone to do some maths up to 18 then realised that there aren't enough maths teachers and the amount of funding they'd need to put in to make sure there were, so they back tracked.

I think it'd be great! Appropriate mathematical numeracy is essential in almost all careers, but it won't happen

He'll need to sort out the massive shortfall of maths teachers in Secondary Schools first.

Have you read all of this thread, which covers some of the same ground?

Why are Labour so shit at education policy? www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/4663525-why-are-labour-so-shit-at-education-policy

I was about to say I doubt they'd get it through after the Labour education thread and historically Labour have been better than the Tory's at education.

Neither seem to know how to improve a decimated system now.

I seethe importance of mathematics generally but shouldn't people have a level of numeracy and knowledge for general employment and study in non STEM fields by 16?

I agree with the point about maths teachers and the underinvestment on state education. My fear is this scheme to paper over the cracks?

We had Liz Truss advocate the wholesale return of grammars and now we have Rishi wanting a remodelled education system with a more vocational approach I feel it a challenge to square these two approaches unless there is some form of streaming between the 'non academic' and the 'academic'

One commentator noted our current education secretary left school at 16 to enter employment and this may have given an insight into Rishi's philosophy for national education. However we will still have academic' universities obviously so how will they produce relevant entrance criteria?

The real need is for something approaching the German system where vocational education is given the same status and regard as academic learning.

As someone who has just fallen out with 18yo over English, I think it won't work. Not enough teachers. And more of 'the same' kind of teaching would be pointless.

I agree with whoever stayed it up thread. The country is struggling to get enough Maths teachers for those who under 16 who have to do Maths and those over 16 who want Maths. Some schools do not even have enough Maths teachers. Maths graduates can earn 3 X more in industry.

@viques

I really do see the importance of vocational subjects and I agree that we need to improve the status of these societally. However will we really see a 'Russell Group' of technical colleges fulfilling the national need and what happens to the graduates of the 'Old Russell' group?

45% of the cabinet went Oxbridge (and 60 odd% to private schools) so I presume the cabinet have a favoured view of these institutions

It sounds like a policy which will work with newer working class conservative voters but one thing I thought was missing was praise for the RG groupl widening participation (e.g. Oxbridge have put a lot of effort into this).

I would also feel nervous if I worked in one of the newer universities as the government is putting store on the earning potential of graduated when deciding HE funding.

Yes! Why is this never tabled ?

I wouldn’t want the German system it splits too early.

I don’t mind this, not sure I’d want it - need more info

Not keen on Labour’s plans

I mean, it sounds correct in terms of what employers want/need for the future. And what will benefit the country. How to get from A to B is debatable....

Doing an arts degree at an institution that is not well respected generally has little value in terms of earning potential, so there's a good argument against it churning out too many students of this type.

Technical training being valued would be very helpful.

@motherofthelittlescreamingone

I think there is some merit in that but you do get to thorny questions about determine which degrees are respected. Do we judge this on salary after graduation? If this is the case you may find some well respected traditional degrees come under scrutiny especially in the performing arts.

I think you are quite right about meeting society's needs for varying roles but the question is who should do these jobs and how and when this decision is made.

I think Liz Truss's idea of having all high grade A level students independent of background being offered an Oxbridge interview though misguided did put the aspiration of the working class bright child into the spotlight. I don't see that focus with Rishi.

Rishi is not against tax breaks being removed from private schooling but I wonder if the quid pro quo may be some pressure against widening partipation at the older universities (which some are against)

Overall it is a fear of an early split into educational streams that I would be wary of.

I would like clarity on what maths includes. I would love to see a really solid grounding in numeracy, how loans and mortgages work, budgeting, compound interest, pensions, tax, insurance. So many basic life skills that would be useful to young people. Not everyone can do A level maths but everyone needs to know how to manage their money.

The Smith Report into Maths education post-16 concluded that there weren't enough maths teachers to make maths compulsory post 16, however laudable an aim it is.

Currently there are 4 'routes' -
GCSE resit for those who failed maths GCSE (with Functional Maths for those who got a 2 or below)
Core Maths for those on a 4+ who don't want to take Maths A-level but are doing sciences or social sciences which benefit from maths support (particularly if then going onto a science/social science degree)
Maths A-level (the most popular A-level, useful for a lot of things)
Maths and Further Maths A-levels for those wanting to go onto the most mathematical degrees (maths, comp sci, physics, engineering type degrees)

Not sure how he's going to do a British Baccalaureate when education is devolved.

If Maths and English were compulsory to 18 the best way to do it would be to scrap GCSE and forget all about assessing those at 16 - instead maintaining the level 2/level 3 system but with the flexibility to swap up to level 3 at whatever point a student was ready. So those who were very good at maths/English could do A-level standard courses from 14 onwards maybe and those who struggle would never be expected to achieve the level 2 by 16, removing the endless and soul-destroying resit cycle. Instead they would just take a longer, slower approach which encouraged mastery of key areas rather than rushing through a curriculum before you feel solid on the basics. It’s the push to get the GCSE at 16 which is often the cause of a lot of pressure and the resit system just crushes students’ confidence altogether in my experience. If it was seen as normal to sit the level 2 qualification at 18 if needed that could take away a lot of the stress. Hard to timetable etc though.

Despite what so many people think - it isn't compulsory to be in education after 16. So how are they going to make it compulsory to study English and Maths until 18.

@mids2019

I don't disagree - I think there are very difficult questions of benefit too (and of course in some cases the arts students are packed in to subsidise the science students, so funding is thorny too).

I think it would be quite possible to look again at how many courses get funding for U.K. students based on either of graduate salary or numbers of students working in a related field or aligned profession (eg teaching) post graduation. That's probably the way to do it. Ultimately, if many of your graduates end up working in a low paid job AND not using their degree particularly, then there's a case against.

On the vocational front, I think what is needed to "level up" is courses aligned with

• publication of relative earning levels (if it was clear that my sociology degree from an institution that was not well rated was likely to earn me a maximum of 30k, but studying plumbing could earn me twice that, I'd plump for the latter, tbh);
• qualification for funding structures, so that students can study part time or full time, businesses can use their apprentice levies to pay for such courses, in demand courses can be sponsored etc
• if not student halls per se, then the chance to meet and socialise with other young apprentices/vocational students - a lot of emphasis is placed on the student experience in the U.K. as a life stage and it is hard to match this as an apprentice in a small company etc.

Thank goodness the vocational side will have more presence. Children are good at different things

Hmm echoing what someone said earlier, this would only work if students were taught actual skills that they need (mortgages, compound interest etc) rather than simply repeating things from GCSE Maths.

I think it should be rebranded as 'Life skills' or something along the sort.

So students are taught how to write a cover letter, money management, statistics/data handling and so on.

Do you mean some students rather than all?

The focus on STEM subjects and the devaluation of creative arts and humanities degrees is depressing. There is value in both, even if graduates don't earn as much: education should not just about money.

Rishi is definitely putting his own values first; I can't imagine he has much appreciation for the arts.

I saw this in the Times originally, but just read the Daily Mail headline from the OP

"Rishi Sunak's plans to reform education to boost skills as he brings in blue collar Tory ally - setting up potential clash with militant unions"

They really are stretching to drag the teaching unions into this. Militant unions would have a problem with 'boosting skills'?

I mean, there's zero chance of this being implemented anyway, they still haven't managed to successfully get T-levels done and that's been years.