UK education; what is the REAL problem?

[Isitmebut]

First of all let us first establish that there is a problem, despite a huge investment by the State that more than doubled the education budget from 1997 and borrowed huge amounts of money on ‘the never, never’, to build/improve schools via he Private Finance Initiative (PFI), that will annually eat into the Education budget for decades to come.

“England’s young adults trail the world in literacy and maths”.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-24433320

"Young adults in England have scored among the lowest results in the industrialised world in international literacy and numeracy tests.

A major study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shows how England's 16 to 24-year-olds are falling behind their Asian and European counterparts".

England is 22nd for literacy and 21st for numeracy out of 24 countries.


And just to confirm that our school leavers international test results are not a statistical quirk, and that they are indeed NOT ready to go out in the world to make their mark, for year after year the CBI (and even supermarkets) having been pleading with the government to ensure that our children leave full time education, fit for employment purpose.

“More than four in 10 employers are being forced to provide remedial training in English, maths and IT amid concerns teenagers are leaving school lacking basic skills, it emerged today.”
www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9322525/School-leavers-unable-to-function-in-the-workplace.html


Now while I kind of understood the pro EU Labour’s motives in relaxing the teaching of foreign languages, as it both boosted school leave tables and their objective was to boost inward economic migration, not give our children opportunities to work abroad – but how can we allow millions of children, go out to a world needing an ever more semi skilled and skilled workforce, without even the basics in English and Maths?


The Unemployment figures of under 24 year olds from 2004 on highlight two major points; using the May to July quarters in each year, we can see that in 2004 we already had 580,000 under 24’s unemployed. But during what we was told was an economic boom, by the pre crash 2007 high, that figure had reached 711,000 – and by the 2010 general election, a few years into the recession, Labour passed over to the coalition 921,000 under 24-year olds unemployed – a national scandal.


And by putting the CBI reports, employer anecdotal reports on migrant education skills/motivation, and the international literacy and numeracy league table evidence TOGETHER, we have a failed a whole generation of our children.


And don’t take my word for it, when a troubling report discloses many of our young feel ‘they have nothing to live for’.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25559089

“As many as three quarters of a million young people in the UK may feel that they have nothing to live for, a study for the Prince's Trust charity claims.”


So what ARE the problems, nature, nurture and/or the wrong teaching methods – where the combination of a Labour government and Left Wing educationalist were a toxic mix?


This article a while back by the respected Max Hastings on a report by Miriam Gross, published by the Centre for Policy Studies, makes interesting reading.
www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1296126/Ideologues-illiteracy-MAX-HASTINGS-terrible-damage-wrought-schools-Left-wing-educationalists.html


I may not agree with everything Michael Gove suggests, but what is clear is that for the time spent in full time education, those under 24-year olds education was not working for them and the facts, figures and results PROVES that – so Gove has to both challenge and make changes to the ideological bent of the educational establishment. IMO.

[bakeroony]

flatpack but as Thatcher is often blamed for the decline in British industry e.g. coal-mining, ship-building etc. - jobs the working-class used to fill - doesn't this mean she has in effect created a much larger "underclass" and perpetuated multi-generational unemployment? That isn't good for social mobility.

[Isitmebut]

Bakeroony…to begin with, history homework would suggest that “some people” might not be right; here are a couple of fairly left of neutral sources that indicate British Industry was mullahed long before Thatcher came into power in 1979, it fact it was in decline from the 1960’s.

www.adamsmith.org/blog/politics-government/ten-myths-about-margaret-thatcher-0

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3526917.stm

But this de-industrialising of the west has been a trend in most western countries as the Japanese, Taiwanese and then Chinese could ‘make things’ far cheaper than the west could – although we manufactures far more cars now, than we did in the 1970’s.

Uk manufacturing believe it or not, held up better than most western countries with the exception of Germany, but in more semi and high skilled jobs up ‘ the value chain’ i.e. aero engines, optics and pharmaceuticals.

So IMO this country does our young, or potential employers in medium and high skilled industries, no favours by trying to dumb down educations to ensure no failures, rather than ensure that ALL public school children are pushed to their full potential - with the brightest children placed in an environment to excel – increasing social mobility.

The sooner children (and their parents) realise that there is no such thing as a highly paid low skilled job, maybe they will decide to focus on their own futures and work much harder at school, to increase their OWN options.

It is the States job to provide an excellent education for all to ensure our children are ready for as many medium to high skilled jobs as possible, but if for whatever reason children don’t make an effort and become an unequal/long term unemployed statistic, that is NOT the States fault – but the State should ensure that IF the child’s own penny drops, and through self help further education is required, we are there to provide it.

Keep blaming Thatcher for junior being a self certified numbnuts, can’t go on for another 25-years, surely.

[Solopower1]

Isitme - who in this country is 'trying to dumb down education'?

And, even if the govt did try to 'ensure no failures' (which it doesn't, unfortunately - or this thread wouldn't exist, as everyone would be successful), why do you think this and 'pushing children to their full potential' are mutually exclusive? Or are you saying that some children have no potential for success?

Whatever you are saying, I don't like it. I think we can construct an education system that values everybody and I think we can live in a society that values hard work. (But probably not while celebrities get paid mega bucks for looking pretty).

The only thing I do agree with you about is that we can't go on blaming Thatcher. She didn't do it alone, after all, and in any case, we have to move on.

[Solopower1]

Oh, and I agree that we would probably need to pay higher taxes if we want a great education system. Or stamp down on tax avoidance at least.

[Isitmebut]

Solopower1….I was talking about the Labour government's grade erosion, that I witnessed first hand via my own children going through the State system over 7-years apart – and highlighted by the right wing press for years.

And to prove my view is not a baseless ideological rant.
www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/labour-admits-great-crime-on-education-tristram-hunt-says-his-party-encouraged-schools-to-aim-too-low--and-pupils-paid-the-price-9053693.html

[Isitmebut]

Oh, and the education budget was already more than doubled under Labour to ‘achieve’ that grade erosion and buildings bought on the multi decade and expensive ‘never never’ using private finance, via the Private Finance Initiatives, that will come out of the education budget annually over that period.

Money was NOT the problem, and for a similar higher tax pact with the people as in Denmark, the UK government would have to be proven to be able to run a lean and efficient State, and that was not the case.

[somedizzywhore1804]

Apologies if this had been covered but a few people have mentioned that teachers need to have higher standards of qualifications.... I'm a secondary English teacher and trained in 2007. One of the entry requirements was at least a 2:1 in a subject related to the one you wanted to teach.... Has that changed?

[Solopower1]

Isitmebut, there is so much wrong with that article, I don't know where to start.

'Tristram Hunt, ... suggested that schools had been forced to place too much emphasis on pupils getting the threshold C grade for the purposes of league tables, and that ministers should have created a "no limits" system which encouraged teachers and pupils to go further. ...

Mr Hunt said that he wanted to see more aspiration in the education system, adding: "The great crime was an awful lot of effort being put on kids getting a C at GCSE, then not going further. There should be no limits – the system should be saying how far can this child go?" '

This is so stupid! Firstly, how could 'the great crime' of placing emphasis on pupils at least getting a C harm anyone?? If we want a better system for everyone, surely it is vital to raise standards for the borderline pupils at the lower levels? How does that prevent anyone from trying for higher grades? What teacher would be content with a child getting a C when s/he could get a B? Most teachers take huge pride in getting the highest results possible, as, apart from anything else, it reflects well on their teaching.

Teachers do sometimes have low expectations of their pupils, and that is a problem, but most are capable of exercising their professional judgement, and most of the time, most of them get it right, ime.

What this article demonstrates, again, is how important it is to stop politicians of any colour from using education to gain brownie points for their own party. And, from what I can see, a large part of the 'problem' appears to be the league tables and govt-imposed targets.

You can't accept on face value everything you read - not even in the Independent.

[Isitmebut]

Solopower1…Labour’s Tristan Hunt is basically saying that under their uninterrupted 13-years in power, standards were not raised nearly enough. And based on the end NATIONAL results, who of us here could even try and argue with him?

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10362061/OECD-English-school-leavers-among-least-literate-and-numerate-in-the-developed-world.html



But based on the more doubling of the Education budget, money was NOT the problem, so the problem has to have been the teaching methods and/or other government changes, as this authoritative study found.

“TA’s; Teaching Assistants impair pupil performance.”
www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6022071
“Pupils who receive intensive help from teaching assistants make less progress than their classmates, damning research into a key Labour education policy has concluded.

The more attention students receive from support staff, the worse their attainment in the core subjects of English, maths and science, a government-funded five-year study has found.

Despite massive investment in swelling the numbers of support staff, there is still no evidence they help pupils achieve better results, the study by London University’s Institute of Education has found.”

[tess73]

my 2p worth (based on primary school experience only)

1. teachers aren't paid anywhere near enough. My dh would be a fantastic teacher, but no way could we live on a teacher's salary
   
2. classes need to be divided more on ability - how on earth can a teacher teach 30 kids at once, with the massive difference in abilities, with a handful of special needs. Just a few kids take 80% of the teacher's time and attention.
   
3. class ratios are too high for the different levels. the teacher teaches the lesson, 80% are left to get on with it as best they can whilst she sits and coaches the least able.
   
4. lack of sport & drama due to lack of time on the curriculum / facilities / specialist teachers.
   
   so private schools can meet these issues by a) paying teachers more, b) smaller classes and screen out the high maintenance kids, c) facilities, specialist teachers.

[Solopower1]

Isitmebut - I'm not trying to be difficult, really I'm not, but this TES article is another one that needs to be read from the depths of a salt mine.

For example: 'Pupils who receive intensive help from teaching assistants make less progress than their classmates, damning research into a key Labour education policy has concluded.'

And 'The more attention students receive from support staff, the worse their attainment in the core subjects of English, maths and science, a government-funded five-year study has found.'

Well the pupils who receive extra help are usually the ones who need it, ie they might be struggling to keep up or have specific needs. So it's not surprising that they make less progress.

Really, this article is ridiculous! Read the sensible comments from teachers and TAs below it. Or ask any teacher.

[Solopower1]

Money is at least part of the problem. Some children are poor. They don't have enough to eat or anywhere to do their homework. Unless we tackle social deprivation and inequality, anything we try to do to improve the education system is sabotaged from the start.

[Isitmebut]

Solopower1….IMO on many issues, there seems to be an inability to understand that that within a global economic village, making numerous excuses for the poor performance within the UK is NOT a zero sum game – as there are no winners and our economic decline is assured.

So we can all post about micro issues, individual teacher anecdotes, but the international results/comparisons set the benchmark, and as a WHOLE the UK results aren’t working for the majority of our children.

Seriously, can you not look at the comparison table and not find several countries below, that are above us in literacy/numeracy results, have LESS or similar “food to eat, or anywhere to do their homework ?

1. Netherlands
   
2. Finland
   
3. Japan
   
4. Flanders (Belgium)
   
5. South Korea
   
6. Austria
   
7. Estonia
   
8. Sweden
   
9. Czech Republic
   
10. Slovak Republic
    
11. Germany
    
12. Denmark
    
13. Norway
    
14. Australia
    
15. Poland
    
16. Canada
    
17. Cyprus
    
18. Northern Ireland
    
19. France
    
20. Ireland
    
21. England
    
22. Spain
    
23. Italy
    
24. United States
    
    In 1997 with our economy (and others) coming out of the early 1990’s recession, money (and huge potential increases in the national debt) WAS THERE “to tackle social deprivation and inequality”, but there were no joined up policy thinking back then to address those problems e.g. get the growing unemployed back to work and ensure a tight labour market inched up low pay rates.
    
    But instead, the combination of bad spending and a mass immigration policy that diluted the workforce and lowered pay rates, had the opposite results – AND INCREASED CLASS SIZES.
    www.taxpayersalliance.com/economics/2009/09/new-book-reveals-the-total-cost-of-gordon-browns-mishandling-of-the-economy-as-3-trillion-or-3000000.html
    
    FYI in my opinion the public sector ‘front line’ i.e. teachers, police, fireman and nurses, can not be paid enough, and in return standards must be expected to slowly improve; but over the past 15-years they hardly benefited from the remuneration explosion within the public sector.
    
    So as Labour’s Treasury Minister Liam Byrne helpfully explained to his coalition successor within a note he left, “there’s no money left” – so having squandered the best political and economic chance for probably a century to solve England’s social problems, and we will have a national debt close to £1,500,000,000,000 by 2015 – throwing more money after either unreformed or bad ideas, is NO LONGER an option.

[motherstongue]

Solopower - as a teacher trainer in Scotland, what do you think of the Curriculum for excellence? Do you think it offers as wide an education as the previous qualifications? I'm just interested as, as a lay person (parent) looking in, I see the amount of subjects many schools offer now for Nationals being fewer than kids could do before. Why would that be the case? Why would we want to narrow their education?

[SarfEasticated]

I work in a big multinational company and we employ lots of young graduates. Their written English is often poorly spelt, vocabulary limited and general knowledge sketchy but they are amazingly self-assured and very good at thinking creatively and strategically. Our educations were vastly different (mine was late 70s early 80s traditional and 'academic') but they have a confidence and self reliance that friends of my generation just don't have. Academic achievement doesn't always mean success in the workplace.

[TeacakeEater]

I predict CfE will result in worse outcomes for the brightest in Scotland, 6 subjects at 15/16 is poor.

[Solopower1]

Motherstongue, I think the CfE does offer a wide education, and so far, so good, imo. It has potential. The thing is, a good teacher can make anything work, but if the teachers aren't on board, it will sink without a trace. That's what Gove doesn't do, imo. He doesn't carry the teachers with him. He doesn't consult them. It's all tory ideology.

But, Isitmebut, I hear you cry - does it give Results? Will it make us win at Maths and English? My honest opinion is probably not. And my other honest opinion is that there are some things that might be more important for a happy, well-adjusted child in a compassionate society. The private schools and the focus on exam results gave us - the bankers! We wouldn't want that to happen again, now would we?

Motherstongue, this looks like a good website:
www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Education/Schools/curriculum/ACE/cfeinaction

[TeacakeEater]

Have Scottish teachers been "carried along" with CfE Solopower?

[Solopower1]

There are problems with the international tables, Isitmebut, as they don't always compare like with like. Lists of countries don't mean much until we look at what and who they are testing and how.

I'm not saying exam results aren't important, btw. I just think it's a mistake to focus on them exclusively and ignore all the really fantastic things that teachers are doing in the classroom, and the wonderful education so many of our children are actually getting. But we must never stop working to make it better.

[Solopower1]

I don't know, Teacake. Some of them have, definitely. Others hate it, I think. But I imagine most of them just carry on doing the things they do well, and adapting as they go along. You have to be flexible as a teacher, and you have to give new initiatives a go - but it takes time for something to bed in.

[TeacakeEater]

I'm sure a lot of it will settle down/ bed in. But I think it's poor to have only six subjects maximum at National 5 in many schools.

[Solopower1]

Yes, I agree. I hope this will change. But I have high hopes for the cross-curricular approach.

[motherstongue]

Thanks for your response Solo. Our local school and our nearest RC school both only offer 6 subjects at nationals. This has resulted in my friends DD (who is very able/academic) studying maths, English & Spanish (all compulsory) with 3 other choices, of which she has chosen the 3 sciences. She had to fight tooth and nail to be allowed the 3 sciences and this is to the detriment of any humanity. My own conclusions are that we are allowing our kids to miss out on a more all rounded education at the expense of good results in 6 subjects. I can't understand how the majority of teachers can be behind this change! I find it all too sad that kids can't just learn for learning sake it all has to be about getting a "C" or above. Limiting the subjects at higher/A level I can fully understand but not at Nationals/GCSE level.

[Solopower1]

Motherstongue, most teachers feel under pressure to produce higher grades, as that is what they think parents and pupils want. We do all want higher results - that's what this thread is about. A lot of us feel under siege from both the govt and the media and would do anything to try to boost results - even if it results in more restricted choices.

Maybe we have to go a little way down this road before we feel confident enough to be more flexible. But I agree it is a pity for your friend's daughter. It's unfortunate for the young people who are the first ones to go through any change like this.

[TeacakeEater]

Motherstongue, our local school is having 6 National 5s as the maximum, and the comment is always made about only needing 5 Highers for university. The idea of a broad education for its own sake is met with bemusement. It has made me seriously consider a private school.