A libertarian inclined blog for teachers and learners of all ages. Comments, emails and links to other educational stuff welcome.
Headteacher job london on Teacher as hero
Tony on Exam results in South Africa are bad but the exams themselves may actually be quite good
suresh on Police academy
MBA Lady on How to learn how easy a language will be to learn
Jack Courtney on "There aren't very many jobs for teenagers ..."
MBA Lady on "There aren't very many jobs for teenagers ..."
Kim Ramsey on Higher paid teachers – bigger classes – better results
Procerin Reviews on Higher paid teachers – bigger classes – better results
Mia on How Chinese soldiers are trained to keep their heads up
Logic Prevails on How Chinese soldiers are trained to keep their heads up
Most recent entries
- Category error!
- The SATs fiasco makes the cover of Private Eye
- Summer holiday
- Grilled Balls
- Party talk
- Lowest bidder
- Another teaching blog
- “Parents should not rely on SATs …”
- Let the feral kids get jobs
- Rock and roll cricketers?
- The many degrees of Robert Mugabe
- Making the students love ID cards
- The genetics of autism
- Meeting a celeb at a posh school doesn’t count
A don's life
children are people
Dare to Know
Educating Outside The Box
Ewan McIntosh's edu.blogs.com
Green House by the Sea
It Shouldn't Happen to a Teacher
kitchen table math, the sequel
Life WIthout School
school of everything
Stay at home dad
The ARCH Blog
The Core Knowledge Blog
The DeHavilland Blog
To Miss with Love
A-Z Home's Cool
Educational Heretics Press
E.G. West Centre
Independent Schools Council
New Model School Company
Reading Reform Foundation
Ruth Miskin Literacy
South West Surrey Home Education
The Supplementary Schools Project
Mainstream Media education sections
Bits from books
Bloggers and blogging
How the mind works
Learning by doing
The private sector
Other Blogs I write for
Category archive: Grammar schools
I am always on the lookout for evidence concerning the quality of British state education. Has British state education got better in the last few decades, or worse, or has it just flatlined? On the face of this, this article by Jenny McCartney puts a powerful case to the effect that it has got worse.
Oxford wants £1.25 billion. That is the target of the biggest fundraising drive in the university’s history, announced last week.
This sum would, the university said, enable it to “sustain and enhance” its reputation and provide “security in a world of uncertain state funding and growing global competition”.
It didn’t mention directly what is almost certainly one of its biggest ambitions: to use the loot to slip away from the ever-tightening squeeze of the Government.
Our Government, like some town hall functionary of limited comprehension but relentless ambition, has long regarded the clever clogs at Oxford with the deepest suspicion. It has rightly suspected that, with Oxford’s fabled reputation for independent thinking, the university might not be suitably subservient to the New Labour mania for centrally imposed targets.
It also realised that Oxford was internationally recognised as a centre of academic excellence, and that its intake could therefore be read as an objective judgment on the comparative merits of Britain’s state and independent schools. Since Oxford now admits roughly equal numbers of students from independent and state schools, the implicit judgment - that the much smaller independent sector punches far above its academic weight - could not be permitted to stand.
The point being that it used to be a significantly higher proportion than fifty percent.
In the early 1970s, roughly 70 per cent of Oxford admissions were from the state sector. The uncomfortable truth for the Government is not that Oxford admissions tutors have mysteriously grown more snobbish since the 1970s, but that the quality of state-provided education has dramatically declined.
I wonder. As McCartney herself acknowledges, the size of the private sector has expanded. She accounts for that expansion purely by saying that the quality of the alternative to the private sector - the state sector - has declined. But what if the demand for private sector education has grown not because the state sector has got worse but simply because the number of people able to afford its fees has grown? What if the number of Oxford-ready pupils it churns out has increased, simply because more have been ready to pay them?
I can imagine lots of people responding to the above question by insisting that state education has got worse, so all that McCartney says makes sense. I agree that it makes sense, and personally I think it probably is true, to some extent. But the point is, the reasons why you think that state education has got worse is not that Oxford now picks a higher proportion of its intake from the private sector than it used to. State education has got worse, because, well, it has.
It may also be true that the government doesn’t like the way that Oxford now picks more of its intake from the private sector, because it fears that this will be interpreted as evidence of state sector decline. It may even believe that it is evidence of such decline, and it may indeed want such evidence suppressed. And Oxford might dislike that attempt at suppression and indeed want to buy its way out of it. But the government might be wrong.
Andrew Neil, here:
Those who regret the demise of the grammars pose this question: if you destroy the centres of educational excellence for bright kids from ordinary backgrounds, but keep those which are reserved largely for children who have well-off parents, why would you be surprised if public school kids started grabbing all the glittering prizes once more?
Makes sense. He’s talking about this.
From this highly recommendable piece about a political odyssey:
I had the good fortune of attending a Grammar school for two years after passing the 11+. As a young adult, the ‘debate’ surrounding Grammars disgusted me. My school (Colchester Grammar) had certainly not been a haven for rich boys whose family could afford “tutors”. Amongst all my classmates I was unquestionably the most affluent, being the son of a successful barrister. My friends were almost universally drawn from the working class, with one or two hailing from the lower middle classes. I do not think I knew of one boy at that school who was ‘privileged’.
What people objected to, it seems, was not that this ‘free’ schooling system existed, but rather that it meant someone, somewhere out there was getting a better education than someone else. This was not a cry for equality of opportunity, this was a demand that no child aspire to or achieve better than anyone else his age. The gifted should remain amongst the rest, to be held back to ensure that they did not get too far ahead or somehow to drag their classmates towards better academic achievement. Anyone who has attended a school in which they have exceeded the academic capability of their classmates knows that this is a patent fallacy. Roald Dahl’s “Matilda” has special significance for those of us who have, we know what it feels like to be kept in a system for arbitrary reasons, which limits your liberty and traps you within the confines of what is deemed to be ‘average’.
When I teach, I am trying to be a rabid inegalitarian. I’m trying to help the child I am teaching to get way out in front of the pack.