education and the state
aaaaaaarg....
*breathes*
i should learn not to watch newsnight just before going to bed, it just frustrates and annoys me.
two "debates" tonight:
- one with the curly haired ex-deputy that made such a hit at this year's tory conference and a woman from a pressure group in favour of comprehensives. tory woman really couldn't get her head around the fact that if there are lots of selective schools in the area, any non-selective school is gong to end up with a greater percentage of struggling kids. and slapping them with a label of 'failing' because they have a lower percentage of A-C GCSE grades might not be the best measure of how good they are.
i'd at least have a little respect for the tories if they came out an said "we believe in selection". then you can start having a sensible discussion about what a *good* *unbiased* selection process looks like. and then, what does a good education look like for a kid that is not academically minded. And if a child is sat on an academic/less academic path early, is there opportunity recognise and move if the other track is better for them? do we recognise all the academically minded kids, not just those with rich/pushy parents?
(disclaimer: i don't like michael gove, i prejudge anything he announces as likely to be highly divisive and elitist without ever having the guts to say he believes in selection and elitism. i also haven't read the details of what was announced today which i really should before i bitch more...)
- following fast on their heals was a look at the current university fees protest and they had lined up 3 16 year olds to talk for and against the fees increase. oh god! the two talking against the fees couldn't come up with anything apart from "well, previous years didn't have to pay" which is the most pathetic argument.
what about - it's part of the thin end of the wedge, we've gone from £3k/yr to £9k/yr in a handful of years. at what point are we paying £15k, $20k, more?
what about - we ask people to fund universities through taxation because having a wide mix of skills in the population enables us to "grow the economy", the current big aim. people, including highly educated theoreticians, including professionally trained, including practical/apprentice trained, etc, etc. universities have a place in that.
what about - even if you don't have to pay a loan back until you are earning £21k, it's still a loan that you have to pay back, that counts against your disposable income when you are applying for things like mortgages etc. if we are already saying that people like nurses and teachers can't afford to buy houses, do you really think that people who qualify with £27k of debt, will they really want to do those jobs that might pay them enough that they have to start paying back the debt but not huge amounts more?
and now i've sat here for 40mins ranting at you and half watching a documentary on the rise of bottles water instead of going to bed...
bah...
*rant*
*breathes*
i should learn not to watch newsnight just before going to bed, it just frustrates and annoys me.
two "debates" tonight:
- one with the curly haired ex-deputy that made such a hit at this year's tory conference and a woman from a pressure group in favour of comprehensives. tory woman really couldn't get her head around the fact that if there are lots of selective schools in the area, any non-selective school is gong to end up with a greater percentage of struggling kids. and slapping them with a label of 'failing' because they have a lower percentage of A-C GCSE grades might not be the best measure of how good they are.
i'd at least have a little respect for the tories if they came out an said "we believe in selection". then you can start having a sensible discussion about what a *good* *unbiased* selection process looks like. and then, what does a good education look like for a kid that is not academically minded. And if a child is sat on an academic/less academic path early, is there opportunity recognise and move if the other track is better for them? do we recognise all the academically minded kids, not just those with rich/pushy parents?
(disclaimer: i don't like michael gove, i prejudge anything he announces as likely to be highly divisive and elitist without ever having the guts to say he believes in selection and elitism. i also haven't read the details of what was announced today which i really should before i bitch more...)
- following fast on their heals was a look at the current university fees protest and they had lined up 3 16 year olds to talk for and against the fees increase. oh god! the two talking against the fees couldn't come up with anything apart from "well, previous years didn't have to pay" which is the most pathetic argument.
what about - it's part of the thin end of the wedge, we've gone from £3k/yr to £9k/yr in a handful of years. at what point are we paying £15k, $20k, more?
what about - we ask people to fund universities through taxation because having a wide mix of skills in the population enables us to "grow the economy", the current big aim. people, including highly educated theoreticians, including professionally trained, including practical/apprentice trained, etc, etc. universities have a place in that.
what about - even if you don't have to pay a loan back until you are earning £21k, it's still a loan that you have to pay back, that counts against your disposable income when you are applying for things like mortgages etc. if we are already saying that people like nurses and teachers can't afford to buy houses, do you really think that people who qualify with £27k of debt, will they really want to do those jobs that might pay them enough that they have to start paying back the debt but not huge amounts more?
and now i've sat here for 40mins ranting at you and half watching a documentary on the rise of bottles water instead of going to bed...
bah...
*rant*