what the poor did better under grammar schools and comprehensive eduction has failed them – I guess the author knows little of education or history

I don’t think its about the poor – but my Dad reckons did better at a technical school than he would ever have done in a comprehensive being forced to learn French – went on to become an electrician in the merchant navy.

Whereas my mum reckons she was driven to achieve her best by going to Grammar school, went on to work in a bank then a few decades in civil service.

Comprehensive schools have different courses for different people you know.

Steve Bell nails it again….

anagallis_arvensis – Member

I meant A levels are one hoop. Its what i get my pupils to.jump through. If they do well they have anotber one to get tbrough at uni. Uni’s seem to want me to train them to get through both. I’ll need it explained to me too how having a Scottish higher in modern sthdies makes it easier for a pupil to suceed in uni life?

For the first- it’s not about expecting school qualifications to make students ready to pass university- it’s about wanting students to be better prepared to start university (and work- business leaders have similar comments to make about the fitness of school qualifications, though that’s not my field)

As CaptJon says, it’s not 2 different hoops. Universities obviously set their entrance requirements based on the current school system, and schools obviously tailor their students to make entrance requirements, and that’s self perpetuating without really being productive. It doesn’t preclude altering courses though. It’s really not a dig at teachers or schools, it’s a comment on the courses that teachers and schools are required to teach.

For the second point- there’s a correlation between academically specialised students and non-academic “success”. A major reason for dropping out of university is not adapting to the environment, bottom line is we lose too many capable students because they’re not happy. And we find that the broader students are less likely to have these issues.

Obviously there’s room for different theories why this is, and there are too many other contributing factors to call it science. But it’s not a reach to say that a broad student will have had a broader learning experience and so may interact better with others outside their chosen field or their past experience.

Modern Studies was just an example, since it’s sometimes looked down on by academics… But maybe a good one. If you come and do one of our languages courses, the A-level expectation is english, one foreign language, preferably two. Makes sense. But stick you in a room with 30 other students from all around the world and it’ll be useful to know a bit about different cultures, ideologies, maybe politics.

Course, you don’t have to have a qualification in a subject to know about it!

Modern Studies was just an example, since it’s sometimes looked down on by academics… But maybe a good one. If you come and do one of our languages courses, the A-level expectation is english, one foreign language, preferably two. Makes sense. But stick you in a room with 30 other students from all around the world and it’ll be useful to know a bit about different cultures, ideologies, maybe politics.

I’ve just started teaching my tutor group in preparation for AS General Studies. They’re all pretty disinterested because “universities don’t accept it”. To me, it seems like an ideal qualification to get them to know a bit about different cultures, ideologies and politics.

Any of the uni people know why it isn’t accepted in the points offers of so many universities?

We don’t exclude it, but our admissions policy allows for departments to exclude it on a case-by-case basis. Which is worse, probably!

Outside my field, I can ask a tame admissions tutor if you like when I’m next in? I think the answer will be “other courses are a higher priority” Victim of the 3 As structure I reckon. But I agree it could be valuable.

Does Steve Bell publish in VIz?

Thread resurrection!

An interesting article to counter the Torygraph, etc

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/12/michael-gove-not-bungler-but-idealogue

I thought he’d be loved by the Torygraph? Or is Gove a bit too Daily Mail, and populist for their liking?

Though what it’s pointing out: that everything he does is fueled by right wing dogma, that he makes up policy on the hoof, as he goes along, and that he’s completely incompetent ****-wit is all bang on. But its the last few paragraphs that are the most worrying…

Now a leaked memo from Gove’s department has revealed that ministers are considering “reclassifying academies to the private sector”, allowing them to be profit-making, to deal with the impact of the runaway costs of the academy and free school programme.

No doubt Gove and his supporters are convinced that marketisation and privatisation are the route to transforming English schools for the better, though it must help that a whole “educational services industry” is also gagging to benefit.

Another grauniad article from a posh, privileged lefty. Where do they get them all from 😆

ministers are considering “reclassifying academies to the private sector”, allowing them to be profit-making

I saw that and agree – most worrying aspect of the whole situation.

double prost

The best bit (only good bit?) of the article is the funny debate that follows – makes STW seem grown up!! 😉

I wonder just how much benefit the papers get from the debates (sic) attached to articles? IMO dilutes the “quality” of the original journalism (although perhaps not in this case. But The Guardian seems guilty of dumbing down a lot of its material through headlines, unnecessary rudeness (choice of language, personal abuse) etc. I wonder if that is the cause of, or a reaction to, its poor circulation figures.

Gove can be criticised easily enough without a broadsheet feeling the need to add **** (see above) to its coverage (even in cartoons).

But The Guardian seems guilty of dumbing down a lot of its material through headlines, unnecessary rudeness (choice of language, personal abuse) etc. I wonder if that is the cause of, or a reaction to, its poor circulation figures.

show me 1 free online news site that doesnt

obvious lefty bias aside id say the guardian was now worse than most and a lot better than others

the tory mantra of privatise, privatise meant that selling off education was always the longterm goal