Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts

Tuesday, 23 November 2010

fees and the student protests

Clive Stafford Smith, of human rights group Reprieve, points out that the margins of debt repayment (starting at £21,000) will deter many from pursuing low-paid but meaningful and important work. Students will have a disincentive for doing something really positive. Do we need more corporate lawyers and bankers?

This is exactly the point I always make in favour of funding higher education from direct tax rather than either fees or graduate tax.

I may also love Lily Cole.


I agree about the later start for sure. If I'd had some more life experience I may have worked harder in the bits between lessons rather than just contenting myself with what I did in lessons and in the library.

Saturday, 17 April 2010

Doctor Who actor Matt Smith barred from children's campaign by BBC

The new Doctor Who actor Matt Smith has been barred from fronting a campaign to show gifted children that it's "cool to be clever" because of the BBC's strict impartiality rules.

shame. it would be very good to have a campaign like that, and Matt Smith could be a very good symbol for it. But there you go, i won't condemn the BBC, like most would.

Friday, 12 March 2010

Newsnight special on education

I didn't get to see all of the programme on wednesday because i was watching the football, but i will watch it again.
Ed Balls was very impressive, as he often is.
More to come later

Wednesday, 24 February 2010

Sex education 'not watered down,' says Ed Balls‏

We live in a de facto secular country, and we need to stop pandering to faith schools. Make the bastards teach the same stuff as everyone else about equal opps sex ed and all that. there's nothing wrong with being gay/straight/bi/alone etc. and those god botherers should have to teach the same stuff according to national rules, not their own values. Why should they get special treatment? They shouldn't. it's wrong

Thursday, 18 February 2010

Swedish schools 'will make little difference'‏

Now, here's a very interesting bit:
""Parents want more smaller schools with smaller classes and that's what they will get if we win the election." "
That's interesting because that involves spending more money on schools. Lots more. Lots and lots more. I'm sure I remember Cameron making a promise about every child having the same educational opportunities as him. That would mean everyone going to Eton or an equivalent. That's one hell of an undertaking.
As is dramatically increasing education spending during a time of massive public spending cuts.
Unless the reason that we'll have smaller classes is that the children of poor parents will be sent off to work. Half joking

Per Thulberg, director general of the Swedish National Agency for Education, told Newsnight: "This competition between schools that was one of the reasons for introducing the new schools, has not led to better results," he said. "
exactly

Saturday, 23 January 2010

education

I'm sure Cameron once said that he wanted all state school pupils to have the same chances and resources as he did at Eton.
That's one hell of a promise. I haven't got a link to a quote, but i'm sure i remember him saying that.
Problem with Cameron and his like are that they are difficult to pin down with promises like that.
And i do like the mydavidcameron.com website, it makes me laugh

What private schools can teach the state sector

If children are bright and able they should succeed, no problems with that. the thing is that some schools get more able pupils and better resources which distorts the whole thing. If you put two equal kids in different schools, one Eton one Shitheap Comp, the one who goes to Eton will do better, and there in lies the problem.

Monday, 23 November 2009

Education

Was going on about education with Julian Ware-Lane here:
"A competitive education system is a problem when schools have control over admissions - schools then have the power to dump worse pupils on other schools e.g. Academy schools exclude and expel far more 'touble' pupils. The local state school then has to deal with these pupils. Then the Gov comes along saying 'look how wonderful our new Academy schools are and how awful the local state school is'. To say nothing of the vast differences in resources.

I agree with Billy about sending lots of people to University being wrong. We've focused too much on degrees so that we have people doing degrees who have no interest in being there but are pressured into it. Now, as with nurses we have too much emphasis being put on having a degree, as if that was the be all and end all in life, which is really isn't.
I think there needs to be a reasonably radical reform of edcation, but one where the minister then leaves it in place for 4 years without interfering"

Tuesday, 27 October 2009

Free school meals for all

Great idea, let's have that.
All state school children get free school meals. Ideally, paid for by taxes on private/public/independent schools.
In fact, i like it so much i'm going to buy it a drink.
I'd personally wager that's the kind of thing we (Labour) need to shore up the core vote which could well be where the election is won and lost

Thursday, 8 October 2009

Cameron on education

Big Government is the problem, apparently.
State schools are going to be like private schools, apparently. But the thing is resources, how can anyone expect state schools to match private schools when the differences in resources are so stark?
Having more 'competition' hasn't worked so far, opening more schools with better resources for less money does not add up

Thursday, 27 August 2009

Student fees

The IPPR has suggested that "Middle class students should be denied loans to cover tuition fees and living costs so that bright poor pupils do not lose out"

As ever, the issue of how to finance public service provision is a hot topic.
They are talking about moving the grants and loans etc. around. I think it's much easier and simpler to do it out of direct taxation. That way, you know how much someone earns and can take the money off them accordingly, which is what they are trying to do in a different way.
The Gov, and the IPPR, seem to be bending over backwards to avoid the issue of direct tax when it's a much simpler way of doing things