Thursday, January 14, 2010

Education: Big vs Little 'E'

The school league tables were released yesterday and this morning's Metro has a story - Private schools rated 'zero' (p16) - first seen in the Standard last night, but now with a reply from an unnamed official.

Dr Martin Stephen, high master of St Paul's, is quoted as saying:
You need to ask how can we be the highest performing school in the country by every measure except by the government one?

He's absolutely right, of course. Metro has a reply from "a spokesman" from "the Department for Education" - would that be DfES (abolished 2007) or the Department for Children, Schools and Families? This anonymous commenter says it is:
a 'fatuous' argument as 'iGCSEs' did not meet National Curriculum requirements
Which seems to be rather circular logic: an education is only an education if the "Department for Education" says it's an Education?

Public Schools are abandoning GCSEs precisely because of the National Curriculum requirements - which the schools don't feel are stringent enough.

I'm not in a position to say whether or not the requirements, and the resulting exams, are being "dumbed down" - but I am inclined to believe that when pass rates go up and the exams are then publically abandoned by schools with centuries of tradition that standards have, quite possibly, slipped.

I'm rather more concerned by the centralised and centralising bureaucracy that the "fatuous" comment implies, however. Why is a non-specialist minister, or a civil servant (perhaps on an 18-month rotation), making policy (or policy administration, or administration policy) decisions about the - only - curriculum which constitutes an Education? Shouldn't the masters of Eton (founded 1440), Harrow (1572), Charterhouse (1611), St Paul's (1509), Winchester (1382) or Rugby (1567) have some say in what they teach? Aren't they the experts? After all, generations of parents have trusted those schools to provide a good all-round education, wheras the National Curriculum is barely 20 years old!

An education is not the same thing as a state-certified Education and, like with healthcare, it's possible (and even desirable) to support the former without accepting every wart and misfeature of the latter.

What makes Ed Balls think that he knows better than a school paid £10k/term by parents who clearly think that represents value for money?

- KoW

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, January 05, 2010

Stabby!

Lord Mandelson has finally broken cover, and talked to the Evening Standard, sticking a knife squarely between the shoulder blades of Labour's election strategy. He's spot on in his comments - Old Labour, the core voters, could never win after 1979. And that core vote has been (literally) dying off for 30 years, and defecting to the BNP ("The Labour Party your grandparents voted for"). It brought to mind a quote (paraphrased) from Full Metal Jacket:
In strategic terms, Brown's cut the country in half... the mainstream media are about to wet their pants and we've heard even Mandelson's going to say the election is now unwinnable

The story mentions rumours of a cabinet resignation, and both Guido and the New Statesman (h/t Iain Dale) have identified the minister as Tessa Jowell.

Iain has commented on this, pointing out that Lord Mandelson is too politically astute to have attacked Labour's election strategy without a clear intention - but what that intention is remains a mystery. I doubt he would act alone, or be fooled into thinking it was Game On if there wasn't support - but I don't put it past him to invent a resignation rumour knowing that the press will pounce on every cabinet minister and ask them awkward questions about their loyalty.

The resignation rumour is probably false - anyone quitting the cabinet at this stage would be an utter disaster, and I expect all sorts of carrots and sticks have been applied to ensure it doesn't happen, no matter how unhappy anyone is. Plus, we've all seen the last episode of The Thick of It, and Malcolm Tucker's solution is probably as good as it gets.

Or perhaps that's the intent - rock the boat and hope it forces an early election? Before the budget, before the tax rises from the last budget (and PBR), before the Tories have prepared, and before No.10 can cock it up any further?

Who knows? But speculating is fun!

- KoW

Labels: , , , , ,