Well, thats education finished in this country

#1
#2
Oil_Slick said:
:x :x :x :x :x


"…They could be plunged into "special measures" by Ofsted under new rules that place equality on a par with exam results and child safety for the first time.…"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/6911659/Race-rules-could-brand-top-schools-failures.html
Having had a quick Ofsted's literature, it is nicely written!.

I did try to look for some reference to terms such as "literacy" or "numeracy " and obviously did not delve deep enough.

Also quite interesting leaping out from their organisational page that on their board is one man, along with seven women.

Perhaps Equal Opps is something they have not looked at?
 
#3
It all seems to be more smoke and mirrors from the current administration. Presumably, if you mark down these "top schools" (presumably those who turn out reasonably ruly people who can read, write and add up), then other schools may not look so bad. and those who see equality in isolation as a desirable end, can use this as evidence.

Ofsted is, after all, not an inspector of education, but an inspector of schools.
 
#4
As a teacher I have seen this all before. I can safely say that in no other counry has education been so undermined. Children now finish GCSE's with a list of 10+ qualifiactions that are not worth the paper they are written on. They do not help them onto further in depth study as they are general and very basic in content, likewise they do not help the kids onto a trade as they have not got a clue about applying themsolves or knowledge, as what they have learnt is limited.

Sound like a teacher who has had enough ??? Har no. I love teaching.
Thats why I moved to the private school system where this nonsense is not tolerated. Year after year I have seen the government do this, and fought against it. When realising I was a voice but no one listened, I switched and have never looked back.

When will they leave the teaching to teachers and the soldiering to soldiers?
Thanks Gordon !!!
 
#5
cpl199 said:
As a teacher I have seen this all before. I can safely say that in no other counry has education been so undermined. Children now finish GCSE's with a list of 10+ qualifiactions that are not worth the paper they are written on. They do not help them onto further in depth study as they are general and very basic in content, likewise they do not help the kids onto a trade as they have not got a clue about applying themsolves or knowledge, as what they have learnt is limited.

Sound like a teacher who has had enough ??? Har no. I love teaching.
Thats why I moved to the private school system where this nonsense is not tolerated. Year after year I have seen the government do this, and fought against it. When realising I was a voice but no one listened, I switched and have never looked back.

When will they leave the teaching to teachers and the soldiering to soldiers?
Thanks Gordon !!![/quote
]tell me that you don't teach English, please?
 
#6
This pC nonsense and all this equality b0110cks needs stopping.

It acheives nought, prevents forward development and is now merely a vehicle for incompentent morons to earn a crust other than the dole.

We need an education system that recognises the differences between kids, and teaches them accordingly. ie thick kids are tought vocational skills and the academic will be taught more cerebal courses.

Most kids should be getting Cs or Ds, not A*******s. If 95% of kids get an A* it joins means the exam is too fcuking easy.

Not all kids 'need' to go to University, it does not promote upward mobility to have a degree in basket weaving through history.

Special needs kids should be taught alongside the rest of kids, only where the overall performance of the class is not hindered.
 
#7
I read the link and noted the theme of equality in many aspects mentioned. I find it ironic that there has been a gender imbalance in teachers in the primary system -- women have been the overwhelming majority for a long time. In the secondary sector men have now become the minority gender. The report does not consider this imbalance an issue though.

(An incidental fact: the teaching workforce in England and Wales is approximately 2.5 greater than the Army.)
 
#8
I've said it before and I'll say it again:

English Language: They can go down the literature route once they've learnt to actually speak in the first place.

Maths: They should be taught and be able to learn enough to survive, problem solve and handle money prudently.

The Sciences: They should have a grasp of what we are, who we are and why we are.

Geography:... and where we are.

History: Enough said.

A Foreign Language: It doesn't matter which. Any will do, but Chinese, Arabic and Hindi might come in handy.

All of the above should be pummeled in to their brains to 1960s era O Level standard. Anything other than that and it's A Levels at college and on to Uni if they have the aptitude. And any nonsense and it's expulsion and a life of misery with no benefits. Big boys rules from Day 1.

That's it. No Meeja Studies, Mime Theatre, Ethnic Dance et al. If they're interested in that they can do it in their own time at their own expense. Trust me. we'll have a nation of Bright Young Things in six years - and with quals that actually mean something. Will it happen? Not a chance. But if you're reading this Dave, please feel free to make me Minister of Education in your forthcoming cabinet. And whilst you're at it you can make Flashy Chancellor, FJ Defence Supremo, MDN Health Minister and 5A Foreign Secretary.
 
#9
chocolate_frog said:
Not all kids 'need' to go to University, it does not promote upward mobility to have a degree in basket weaving through history.
IMHO all higher education, including university, should be funded by industrial sponsorship. If nobody is willing to sponsor someone's higher education, there there is clearly no point in doing it.

We will need some sort of contract so that people cannot get sponsored by one firm, then get a job with another immediately, but that should not be insoluble. There will also have to be tax breaks to compensate firms for funding education in this way.

Universities, colleges etc will then have to fund themselves entirely from fees. There will still be some public funding for higher education because the state sector will also have to sponsor its future employees.
 
#10
Mobat said:
chocolate_frog said:
Not all kids 'need' to go to University, it does not promote upward mobility to have a degree in basket weaving through history.
IMHO all higher education, including university, should be funded by industrial sponsorship. If nobody is willing to sponsor someone's higher education, there there is clearly no point in doing it.

We will need some sort of contract so that people cannot get sponsored by one firm, then get a job with another immediately, but that should not be insoluble. There will also have to be tax breaks to compensate firms for funding education in this way.

Universities, colleges etc will then have to fund themselves entirely from fees. There will still be some public funding for higher education because the state sector will also have to sponsor its future employees.
Disagree. That could lead to the crazy scenarios I have seen in the legal world... where the person can't get qualled because a firm wont pick them up, but at the same time the firm wouldn't pick them up because of lack of the aforementioned qual!!!

I feel a better system would involvle the government taking in to account the quallifications of the pot student, and their ability to pay.

Ie a very intelligent poorer student would not be billed but a thick rich kid would be charged full whack.
 
#11
Mobat said:
chocolate_frog said:
Not all kids 'need' to go to University, it does not promote upward mobility to have a degree in basket weaving through history.
IMHO all higher education, including university, should be funded by industrial sponsorship. If nobody is willing to sponsor someone's higher education, there there is clearly no point in doing it.

We will need some sort of contract so that people cannot get sponsored by one firm, then get a job with another immediately, but that should not be insoluble. There will also have to be tax breaks to compensate firms for funding education in this way.

Universities, colleges etc will then have to fund themselves entirely from fees. There will still be some public funding for higher education because the state sector will also have to sponsor its future employees.
What about academics? Around half of my friends are staying at uni (I've been trying to convince them to do otherwise, but it's what they actually want to do) for good, and to be honest, once you've been there for 10 or so years, I for one wouldn't give you a job doing anything useful.
Can we please remember that universities are for abstract research and the general advancement of human knowledge (even if it doesn't seem to have an immediate and profit-gaining application), and teaching school-leavers the skills to work in industry is just a sideline, if not the job of the industry in question?
 

cpunk

LE
Moderator
#12
This is simply alarmist horsesh1t. I'm chairman of governors at a 'difficult' inner city school in an area of high social deprivation and I've been through two OFSTED inspections in this role. OFSTED inspectors are overwhelmingly interested in standards, 'contextual value added' and the safeguarding of the children. 'Equality' in this context is really about educational outcomes: if clever children, or girls, or Indonesian midgets aren't achieving their targets, then something is wrong with the educational provision in a school and it needs to be sorted out, which is what OFSTED are supposed to be there for.
 
#13
R.D.D. said:
Mobat said:
chocolate_frog said:
Not all kids 'need' to go to University, it does not promote upward mobility to have a degree in basket weaving through history.
IMHO all higher education, including university, should be funded by industrial sponsorship. If nobody is willing to sponsor someone's higher education, there there is clearly no point in doing it.

We will need some sort of contract so that people cannot get sponsored by one firm, then get a job with another immediately, but that should not be insoluble. There will also have to be tax breaks to compensate firms for funding education in this way.

Universities, colleges etc will then have to fund themselves entirely from fees. There will still be some public funding for higher education because the state sector will also have to sponsor its future employees.
What about academics? Around half of my friends are staying at uni (I've been trying to convince them to do otherwise, but it's what they actually want to do) for good, and to be honest, once you've been there for 10 or so years, I for one wouldn't give you a job doing anything useful.
Can we please remember that universities are for abstract research and the general advancement of human knowledge (even if it doesn't seem to have an immediate and profit-gaining application), and teaching school-leavers the skills to work in industry is just a sideline, if not the job of the industry in question?
Fair point, so we can have some public funding tied to research and some of that funding will be spent sponsoring future researchers. IMHO a clear cut distinction between what is being spent on research and what on education would be useful.
 
#14
Volunteer said:
I read the link and noted the theme of equality in many aspects mentioned. I find it ironic that there has been a gender imbalance in teachers in the primary system -- women have been the overwhelming majority for a long time. In the secondary sector men have now become the minority gender. The report does not consider this imbalance an issue though.

(An incidental fact: the teaching workforce in England and Wales is approximately 2.5 greater than the Army.)
Surely you mean the number of teachers are 2.5 greater than the Army. The ones who work are a differant kettle of fish.
 
#15
chocolate_frog said:
Mobat said:
chocolate_frog said:
Not all kids 'need' to go to University, it does not promote upward mobility to have a degree in basket weaving through history.
IMHO all higher education, including university, should be funded by industrial sponsorship. If nobody is willing to sponsor someone's higher education, there there is clearly no point in doing it.

We will need some sort of contract so that people cannot get sponsored by one firm, then get a job with another immediately, but that should not be insoluble. There will also have to be tax breaks to compensate firms for funding education in this way.

Universities, colleges etc will then have to fund themselves entirely from fees. There will still be some public funding for higher education because the state sector will also have to sponsor its future employees.
Disagree. That could lead to the crazy scenarios I have seen in the legal world... where the person can't get qualled because a firm wont pick them up, but at the same time the firm wouldn't pick them up because of lack of the aforementioned qual!!!

I feel a better system would involvle the government taking in to account the quallifications of the pot student, and their ability to pay.

Ie a very intelligent poorer student would not be billed but a thick rich kid would be charged full whack.
I have not seen these crazy scenarios myself, so I cannot really comment. However, these kind of situations are often a result of people trying to inflate their salary by reducing the competition.

Sponsorship has existed in the past effectively, including sandwich courses and completely in house apprenticeships.

Your proposal does not address the issue of the value of the qualification, which IMHO is the main problem. If you can suggest an alternative way of ensuring that only valuable courses are funded, I will be interested.
 
#16
chocolate_frog said:
This pC nonsense and all this equality b0110cks needs stopping.

It acheives nought, prevents forward development and is now merely a vehicle for incompentent morons to earn a crust other than the dole.

We need an education system that recognises the differences between kids, and teaches them accordingly. ie thick kids are tought vocational skills and the academic will be taught more cerebal courses.

Most kids should be getting Cs or Ds, not A*******s. If 95% of kids get an A* it joins means the exam is too fcuking easy.

Not all kids 'need' to go to University, it does not promote upward mobility to have a degree in basket weaving through history.

Special needs kids should be taught alongside the rest of kids, only where the overall performance of the class is not hindered.
I agree Choc!

I will go as far down the PC Line as far as attempting to give every schoolchild the best possible opportunity to learn something useful to the child and to society.

I will NEVER agree equality, as the only result of that is to demotivate the efforts of every individual who makes an effort.

I believe it is the right of a child to an education commensurate with ability and needs, and think it atrocious that children of limited ability are strained with learning and getting confused by many subjects, when their best needs might be served with more lasting benefit to them if they simply left schooling able to read, write, communicate with others and with basic numeracy skills.

I am sad to say I have rejected several graduates looking for employment on the basis of their lack of ability to perform basic functions as in the last couple of lines above.
 
#17
cpunk said:
This is simply alarmist horsesh1t. I'm chairman of governors at a 'difficult' inner city school in an area of high social deprivation and I've been through two OFSTED inspections in this role. OFSTED inspectors are overwhelmingly interested in standards, 'contextual value added' and the safeguarding of the children. 'Equality' in this context is really about educational outcomes: if clever children, or girls, or Indonesian midgets aren't achieving their targets, then something is wrong with the educational provision in a school and it needs to be sorted out, which is what OFSTED are supposed to be there for.
I agree (I have a similar (although not as grand) connection with a local school). The Ofsted Inspectors focussed on standards in teaching and the application of the curriculum and ensuring that core subjects were taught at every opportunity. They were looking for success in teaching, not success in 'ticking boxes' per se.
 
#19
The new rules by Ofsted has caused a number of problems for school and a certain amount of headless chicken syndrome. I have heard of one school having a bad report because they did not have a high enough fences round it and children could be lifted over it (child safety).

In my own area we have had police stopped from entering schools because they do not have CRBs. Police do not have CRB checks and it required the interjection of the chief constable to solve the problem. We have had school nurses refused entry to school when they are attending pre arranged appointments (the nurse was known to the school and is a regular visitor).

We have had a head teachers meeting held at a school for a group of heads within a cluster (all known to the school) but due to not having the CRB with them (you should not carry your CRB with you) they had to have badges to indicate that they could not be left with children.

One inspection was stopped because the inspection team was shown into the heads office without being checked. The fact that they were expected, you get a number of days notice did not matter.

Ofsted had cause a climate of fear particularly around the reception staff in school. A lot of the inspection time is looking at the paper trail not looking at teaching. Having a good paper trail is more important than having god teaching.
 

cpunk

LE
Moderator
#20
BarkingSpider said:
I agree (I have a similar (although not as grand) connection with a local school). The Ofsted Inspectors focussed on standards in teaching and the application of the curriculum and ensuring that core subjects were taught at every opportunity. They were looking for success in teaching, not success in 'ticking boxes' per se.
Nobody's listening, they're all grinding through the gears on the outrage bus.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads