Blair speech at Brighton

[Dom Tuk]

Heard bits on the radio while driving to work. He mentioned how...(paraphrased)..its a monumental injustice that a good education is available to only the privileged few in the country who can afford it.....

Surely that must have made a few squirm in their seats. How many of our MPs (labour or otherwise, see its not a rant at Blair) have children in private education. Where do the Blair kids go to school, state or private?

[jno]

sort of halfway I think, grant aided or something. How nice of him to notice after how many years in power? 'Give me another 20 years and I may do something about it.' (That's a rant at Blair.)

[Slow Ride]

Just want to take this opportunity to make a point about state schools. It's not just the money. State schools don't work because they are slaves to the National Curriculum and OFSTED and all the other state bodies that Blair has created to give the illusion that he is improving academic standards. All lessons in state schools are designed with the feared OFSTED inspection in mind. (OFSTED can swoop on a school within a notice period of just two days.) Teachers at state schools are now civil servants following rules and dealing with an ever-increasing amount of paper work;  teaching is a surprisingly small amount of a teacher's overall workload. At private schools, however, teachers are free from the influence of needless rules and can teach any subject in a manner of their choosing. Teachers at private schools are free to teach with creativity and inspiration. That's why private schools get better results - it's not just the money.

[ursula62]

His children go to church schools funded by the state - I believe the boys go to Brompton Oratory School (?). These schools are allowed to select part of their pupil base from outside the area. Despite not living in the catchment area for the school, the Blair children were granted places and some local people feel this was at the expense of local children who do live in the area.

[andy hughes]

Just to echo the sentiments offered by Slow Ride - as regulars will know, this is something of a soap box of mine.

I voted for Labour in their first successful election on the basis of their education promises - which they have singularly failed to ddeliver. The notion of Ruth Kelly being a suitable Secretary of State for Education on the basis of her 'experience' with four children under the age of six is as sensible as suggesting that I can advise on prescription proceedures for opticians on the basis that I am myopic!

Education was, is, and will always be, a 'vote winner' - we all have opinions on education, because we've all been to school. The simple fact is that the National Curriculum, whilst being admirable in concept, is strangling the basic necessititees of primary education - literacy and numeracy (ironically, a supposed 'plus' in the System) because there is insufficient time for it to be delivered properly. The impact of this slap-dash and ever-evolving policy is felt throughout the school system, and on into wider society, as adult literacy and numeracy continues to plunge well below acceptable levels, with little chance of improvement.

Vote for me and I'll sort out (insert your own particular bugbear here - education / transport / anti-social behavior / defence etc.) is the clarion call of all politicians - ineffective and hollow as it is common and frequent.

Education is the fabric of our society - it is far too important to be left to politicians - it should be in the hands of experienced educationalists and caring people - Ms. Kelly, and indeed mr. Blair, are neither.

[january_bug]

Slow Ride - do you work in education?  Only my Dad does, and I think he'd disagree.  Although you're entitled to your thoughts.  :-)

[Slow Ride]

january_bug

I am a teacher. I teach history at a state school. Would your Dad seriously argue that all the paperwork improves teaching quality? I doubt it. More time form filling equals less time teaching. Moreover, standards are not the same as quality. Eton and Harrow would fail an OFSTED inspection. The emphasis of the National Curriculum is standardization; subjects must be taught in way such that they demonstrate that state-stipulated criteria are being met. No room for flair or creativity, but plenty of room for mind-control. This is why the retention rate in teaching is so poor and the government has to spend lots of money on advertising campaigns that attempt to lure people into the profession. If the government would let teachers get on with the business of teaching, there would be an improvement in academic quality, people wouldn't leave the profession and the taxpayer would save money.

[january_bug]

I just meant that I think my Dad would disagree with the demonisation of those civil servants who support teachers in their roles.  The paperwork is a hindrance at times, that cannot be denied. 

However, it is still possible for teachers to teach with flair.  It's all a matter of interpretation.  Perhaps many NQTs are just too scared to express themselves in the way they teach. 

Demonising OFSTED (and I bet too the LEAs) will not make life easier for teachers, only harder.  I'm sure it's hard enough to control a room of 30 children and to teach and inspire them, without trying to do it with a chip on ones shoulder. 

I wasn't meaning to imply that you don't know your stuff... you clearly do.  Just perhaps spare a thought for the people who work VERY hard to implement the policies and to do so in a way that it best for the pupils, who are the most important people in all of this process. 

[Dom Tuk]

Just what is it that you are trying to say here January bug. You agree that slow ride is making valid points about the decay in our state school system, a point that has been raised in many a forum, newspapers and proper television debates, and yet you make it out as if slow ride is blaming the civil servants for implementing govt policies. I will allow slow ride to respond in his/her time, but dont you think your infallible support for this present govts policies and your indefatigible defense of everything labour is at times clouding your judgement and responses. You state that your father who is a teacher will find fault with the post but do not go any further into explaining why you think so. There is no demonisation of civil servants, they only obey their political masters of the day. I do, as i am a civil servant albeit in a different department. The objectives of OFSTED change according to the whims and flavours of the political masters. A point being the current topic of banning junk food in schools, a pitiable attempt to control 6 hrs of a childs diet.

I must at this time also qualify my response by saying that you are entitled to your opinion and i will to my last breath defend your right to say it and will always read it to see if my beliefs have been erroneous and can be rightly challenged. Just bear in mind that every leader around the world had millions of followers who defended his/her rule. the same goes for saddam/pol pot and present rulers of this world. they all sadly thought they were right, maybe i do and you do too.

[january_bug]

At what point did I state that my father is a teacher?

I admit I am a bit off topic here, I just don't like to see people who work in education all tarred with the same brush.  I suppose I was jumping to a defence before an attack was actually launched.  Slow Ride - you caught the brunt of that, and I apoligse.  I was never meaning to attack you.  I just get so tired of hearing education sl.agged off when my Dad works 13 hours a day to try and improve it.  I'm sure you feel just as riled when people sl.a.g off teachers, when you know you yourself are a good one.  Sorry if I was a bit lairy!

I am tired of explaining my political views and of trying to get across to you that I am not a Labour supporter, I have never voted Labour and I am not in love with Tony Blair.  Trying to get that through to you Dom Tuk is like trying to get blood out of a stone.  Why do you persist in labelling me?  I can at least understand that your views are well thought out and that you have your reasons for thinking them.  Why do you insist upon being like this?  I can almost feel the venom coming through in the letters you put onto the screen.  For the last time, I am neither stupid nor naive.  I might not have a 100% perfect understanding of politics in this country, but I'm more politically aware than 75% of other 22 year olds (I would like to think), yet you address me as if I am some dumb eight year old at times.  Please stop it. 

[Dom Tuk]

January bug.....if your last paragraph in your last post is how you think i percieve you...then i will never respond to your post again. Not for a moment did i wish to label you or refer to you in the way you have percieved it. My apologies if it has caused you hurt, but believe me i do not wish to cause harm.

[january_bug]

Well please then lets agree to be two people who will be very wary of labelling and assuming when it comes to political views, especially of the "regulars" in news.  I know I've been guilty of it in the past, but I'm learning to wait for people to expressly state things, just to be sure. 

I know others are older and wiser than me, and often better informed.  I just feel that I'm not a total political retard, and hope that the less patronising and presumptuous (if that's the right word!) side of posts will become the more common, in future. 

Dom Tuk, you and I disagree a lot, but we have a good old debate.  I really don't want to stop that!

PS - In the interests of not being petty, I should explain something.  My Dad works in educartion, but he's not a teacher.  He works for an LEAs.  He was formerly an Educational Advisor but now his job title is something I can hardly remember cos it's long.  But his job is to do with implementing policies and also to help failing schools pass OFSTED inspections so that the pupils receive a better education and so that the teachers are free to go back to doing what they do best (where there are good teachers in the school, and there invariably are, but sometimes there are bad teachers too!) without the beady eye of the inspectors. 

My Dad used to do ocassional OFSTED inspecting.  Not because he's a *.****** who wanted to make teachers' lives harder, but because he passionately cares about educating the children of this country and wants to ensure that they each get the best chances in life. 

I know no-one attacked my Dad personally, so the defence is perhaps, again, unecessary, but many people may read this thread, without posting, and mistakenly confuse the principals of OSTED, government policy, and the inspectors themselves.  That's why I say what I say! 

Rant over. :-)

[january_bug]

The starred word was bar steward.  Not that it matters, any word is used.  In fact, although I went to an excellent school myself, some of the teachers were not nice people.  One once said "All OFSTED inspectors are evil d1ckheads".  I said "Cheers for that.  My Dad's one".  He said, "Well sorry, not going to change my mind anyway." (obviously in a fairly sneery tone!). 

My point is that OFSTED might suck, but some of the people that are involved in it, are involved in it for the right reasons. 

[Gevs1966]

Once again in this Country everyone is laying the blame firmly at the door of the government/politicians. When are people going to start taking responsibility for their own lives and for those of their children. Education for the large part begins and ends at home. Myself, my sister and almost all of my friends were educated in literacy and numeracy to a very good standard at home before we even started school. My parents took the responsibility early on to make sure that we had the best start when it came to education. They made if enjoyable and consequently when we started school we probably had a head start on other pupils. This in turn leads to more enjoyment at school as you are doing well early on and as we all know children love to get praise and therefore seek more by carrying on the standard set.

As the children get older it is then the parents responsibility to ensure things like homework are completed to the best of a childs ability and to be there for help when needed.

I agree that schools in this country could be better but to achieve this demands the efforts of the school, teachers, parents and children together to make it work instead of just blaming politicians or beauracracy!

Unfortunately though there is to much of a blame culture here and that doesn't help anyone, especially the kids!

[january_bug]

Gevs1966 - I haven't had a chance to read all of your post, but I take great exception to your use at the beginning of the word "everyone".  If you had read this thread, and others in "news" you'd see that I have repeatedly said that people need to take responsibility.  We're not ALL blaming the government. 

[Slow Ride]

january_bug

Rest assured I was not blaming civil servants. I used to work as a civil servant (I worked as a government economist). However, if somebody had said to me when I was working as a civil servant that economic policy was poor, I would have agreed with them, and I certainly wouldn't have taken it personally. You see, there is an important distinction to be made between policy design and policy implementation. Civil servants implement policy, much in the same way a soldier carries out orders. Despite what some in the upper echelons of the civil service might have you believe, civil servants do not make policy; their job is to implement policy in a way that minimizes the damage of a poor policy and maximizes the benefits of good one.

I'm sure your father is doing a fantastic job of the cumbersome mess the Blairite policy-makers handed him. The full force of my disapproval is squarely directed at the policy-makers.

I'd just like to make a general point here about standards. There is a lot of talk of what is �best� for the pupils. But who knows what's best for pupils? Well, I would say the pupils themselves - it is after all their lives we're talking about. But, given that many of them do not have the maturity of mind to understand the likely impact that decisions will have on their future, I think it would be teachers who know what's best for pupils. On the other hand, a minister or civil servant is not well placed to know what is best for pupils; unless they have worked as teachers, they have neither the knowledge nor the experience to understand how a young person's mind develops.

CNTD

[Slow Ride]

Now we come to another question: what do we mean by best? This, of course, is a value judgement; there are many competing ideas of what is best.  Looking at the outcomes of the current education policy, however, I am sure that it would not match even the loosest definition of what is best.

Thanks to current education policy, teachers in state schools are forced to plan lessons with the aim of pleasing the inspector rather than inspiring and educating pupils. Schools are now factories; working to targets, and controlled by a new breed of managerial class, they are forced to churn out an ever-increasing number of A-grades. (Interestingly, despite the increasing number of A-grade results, illiteracy and indiscipline in this country are at an all time high while cultural awareness is at an all time low.) Young people now struggle to find a rewarding and meaningful job or win a place at a top university because there are too many A-grade students chasing too few good opportunities. Consequently, graduates now do jobs that school leavers once did. All of this is the result of the government�s education policy, which has cynically manipulated targets to give the illusion of an improvement in national academic attainment. Clearly, this is not what is best for pupils.