General Election

[oafc0000]

Yup, another election within 12 months would be inevitable

 

Suits no one... Would be a total disaster for the country...

[opinions4u]

Most private schools have classes of 13 to 16 on average... Classes of 40 being controlled effectively ? Total fantasy...

Strange how things used to be possible and no longer are.

 

South Korea, one of the most successful education systems in the world, has higher class sizes than the UK - with an average of 32.

 

Class size is NOT the main factor in delivering quality teaching standards.

 

(I believe when you take teaching assistants in to account UK Schools have 1 adult to 12 kids as a typical ratio).

Edited April 14, 2010 by opinions4u

[oafc0000]

Sticking kid in Private school.

 

Sounds like those benefits will be lining the pockets to me.

 

There are three schools of thoughts...

 

1. Only the poor should get anything out of the state
2. Help should be tierd in favour of the poor but a level playing field should generally exist
3. Everyone should be treated equally

 

I am favour of number 2. My family income is high and I am firmly in the middle class category (although I hate defining things by class but it works for this example). I come from a family who lived on the poverty line and I have had to work for anything I have got. Nothing has been given to me on a plate. I find it annoying at times people look at me or people like me and say well we are going to take what you have in taxes and give you nothing in benefits. Why should people not have something to show for the hard work they have put in ? While my friends where drinking cider at the park i was studying for my exams.

 

I enter into the 40% tax band etc and I am fine paying more as I earn more. I am totally supportive of social security etc. All I get out of the government is child benefit and my child gets the £250 trust fund voucher. Things some party's would like to stop as I earn x amount. I think that is unfair as every child should be treated equally by the state. Support for adults should be tired but not for children.

Edited April 14, 2010 by oafc0000

[oafc0000]

Strange how things used to be possible and no longer are.

 

South Korea, one of the most successful education systems in the world, has higher class sizes than the UK - with an average of 32.

 

Class size is NOT the main factor in delivering quality teaching standards.

 

(I believe when you take teaching assistants in to account UK Schools have 1 adult to 12 kids as a typical ratio).

 

 

Education results are miles higher than back when 40 to a class room was a reality... compare todays results to the 90's / 80's / 70's / 60's...

 

Class size is a factor no matter how much you want to bury your head about it. As for teacher assitants, do you really think these are a sub for a real teacher ? Deary me...

 

The Torys are going to put this country back 30 years and its going to it with the backing of most the country... UK is dying

Edited April 14, 2010 by oafc0000

[OldhamSheridan]

 

Education results are miles higher than back when 40 to a class room was a reality... compare todays results to the 80's / 70's / 60's...

 

Class size is a factor no matter how much you want to bury your head about it. As for teacher assitants, do you really think these are a sub for a real teacher ? Deary me...

 

The Torys are going to put this country back 30 years and its going to it with the backing of most the country... UK is dying

 

 

Although I agree with what you are saying there, educational results are a crap way of measuring stuff. The examination boards make their results easy to get otherwise schools don't buy their product. Governments make sure the results get better each year to 'show they are doing well'.

 

I wouldn't think the Conservative's or Labour are significantly going to change the education system. They certainly are unlikely to start dismantling the successful ideas (SureStart). The only thing that might happen is the great big waste of money that is BSF will be ditched by the Tory's (although I know of one school that is signing nigh on irreversible contracts nigh on as we speak, which will cost millions). That and the idea that every kid must go to University will be ditched. Which is good.

 

 

[oafc0000]

Although I agree with what you are saying there, educational results are a crap way of measuring stuff. The examination boards make their results easy to get otherwise schools don't buy their product. Governments make sure the results get better each year to 'show they are doing well'.

 

Sorry just do not buy it... Its a load of rubbish in my opinion...

[oafc0000]

I wouldn't think the Conservative's or Labour are significantly going to change the education system. They certainly are unlikely to start dismantling the successful ideas (SureStart). The only thing that might happen is the great big waste of money that is BSF will be ditched by the Tory's (although I know of one school that is signing nigh on irreversible contracts nigh on as we speak, which will cost millions). That and the idea that every kid must go to University will be ditched. Which is good.

 

While I am considering if to send my kid to private school that will be done off my own back. The torys are planning on using public money to set up private schools which will only admit there own little elitist friends. That is the current tory plan in there manifesto.

 

I agree on the target to get 50% of children to University. Only the better children should go and only proper courses should be offered. The current approach is nuts and offers little value. Big fail by labour.

[OldhamSheridan]

Sorry just do not buy it... Its a load of rubbish in my opinion...

 

 

So every year for god knows how long (25 years for A-Levels), the education system and/or childrens intelligence has improved without fail?

 

(meaning that the Tory's were doing a good job in education incidentally)

 

Sorry, that is just not happening in reality.

 

I amongst others see what comes out of the other end, and it is largely :censored:ter every year.

[oafc0000]

So every year for god knows how long (25 years for A-Levels), the education system and/or childrens intelligence has improved without fail?

 

(meaning that the Tory's were doing a good job in education incidentally)

 

Sorry, that is just not happening in reality.

 

I amongst others see what comes out of the other end, and it is largely :censored:ter every year.

 

Its not intelligence that has improved, it is the ability to allow children achieve. My dad is one of the cleverest people I know. He has a calculator mind and can problem solve anything. Born today he would of easily got to University doing a decent subject with a reasonable career. unfortunately he was born in 1959, was forced to leave school at 14 to help provide for the family, and was brought up believing University and such like was not for his sort.

 

GCSE results continue to improve and it is a combination of the following:

 

• more funding
• better social conditions
• equal opportunities
• better teaching methods

 

Since the 60's these things have slowly improved during many different government's with all of the above slowly growing. Results have followed suit.

 

More Kids realise they need to get good grades to move on in life and social conditions allow them to focus on there education. Facilities are better, funding improved etc. The growth of the internet has provided children with a fantastic tool to learn and grow. When I was a kid all I had was a £5 revision booklet my parents could not afford. Now kids have tons of help at the touch of a button for free.

 

The world continues to grow. What evidence do you have for what you are saying. This idea that kids continue to achieve better grades but the end product is poor is rubbish to be frank.

 

The torys will for the first time reverse these trends. Funding will be cut, no doubt.

Edited April 14, 2010 by oafc0000

[OldhamSheridan]

Well I'm not going to quote statistics at you of course as my whole point is that they are meaningless.

 

But I would suggest that these things haven't increased year on year. Every year. For 25 years.

 

 

What stands out to me is that the examination boards have become competitive, which means they HAVE TO PASS their students.

 

It is of no-one's interest to see everyone being passed. It doesn't distinguish between the intelligent and the thick if you do that. So all that has happened is they've shifted the bell curve* to pass more students. As an employer, you want to know who is the better of say ten candidates. If they all have A******+++++++ as their grade for every exam they have ever taken what is the point. You might as well measure their ability to cross the road.

 

I'm all for education (and it is important that it is available to all equally, irrespective of social class/socio-economic status), but this procession is a meaningless farce. I have no idea if teachers are better than before. They gave a toss in my day as they probably do now. I doubt kids are more intelligent or worse. Evolution tends not to go quite that quickly. I have no idea if the education is any better. If it is, I haven't noticed at the business end. All we seem to get is a bunch of educated to pass exams kids who have no idea what to do in a working environment. No idea at all.

 

 

*Or made the questions/examination method easier, whichever you prefer.

Edited April 14, 2010 by OldhamSheridan

[opinions4u]

Education results are miles higher than back when 40 to a class room was a reality... compare todays results to the 90's / 80's / 70's / 60's...

I can compare exams taken by my older kids to exams I took. It's easier to get a higher grade now than it was then.

 

Compare the results - little doubt that marks are higher.

 

Compare the quality of the exam - there's little doubt that it's easier to pass.

 

Class size is a factor no matter how much you want to bury your head about it.

While I can't be arsed to go back and check what I typed, I didn't say that class sizes aren't a factor. But quality of teaching and maintenance of discipline are far more important.

 

As for teacher assitants, do you really think these are a sub for a real teacher ? Deary me...

Precisely where did I say this? All I did was repeat a government provided statistic of child/adult ratio. Personally I would abolish all teaching assistants and spend the money saved on training/employing more teachers.

 

The Torys are going to put this country back 30 years and its going to it with the backing of most the country... UK is dying

I have little faith in any political party to deliver on most things. I would go as far as to say a mix of New Labour and political correctness is about the worst thing that has hit secondary education ever. I'm not going to claim for a moment that the Tories will improve things. Because there's little evidence that Cameron is more than an opportunist rather than the principled politician that the country needs to lead it.

 

This idea that kids continue to achieve better grades but the end product is poor is rubbish to be frank.

Havings been closely involve with my firm's recruitment policy in the North West for a period, I have seen first hand what totally unprepared kids our state schools and poorer uniiversities have churned out in the last decade.

 

Interview a school leaver for a job - useless. Interview a university graduate from a former polytechnic - limited. Interview somebody who's worked for McDonalds for 12 months and you'll actually have somebody far better suited for the modern workplace.

 

The examination grades may be better. The quality of individual coming out of the system certainly hasn't improved.

 

While I am considering if to send my kid to private school that will be done off my own back.

Start saving. Now.

 

My biggest guilt in life is that I wasn't able to afford to pay for my older two to go to private school.

 

A massive chunk of my disposable income has given my youngest that opportunity. I've bought houses, cars, holidays, flat-screen tellies, Latics season tickets, one night in a lap-dancing bar, lots of cider, golf equipment etc. There is no doubt for me that the best value for money on a personal level is easily the purchase of a private education for my child. It's a sacrifice. I'm not a higher rate taxpayer. I get no help with the costs from anywhere. But it really is money well spent.

 

It's a major personal sacrifice, but the benefits are already clear to me. I'd have to say that I think Labour is a threat to the future of private schools. (my only regret is that I now can't afford more lap-dancing nights).

Edited April 15, 2010 by opinions4u

[oafc0000]

I can compare exams taken by my older kids to exams I took. It's easier to get a higher grade now than it was then.

 

Compare the results - little doubt that marks are higher.

 

Compare the quality of the exam - there's little doubt that it's easier to pass.

 

 

While I can't be arsed to go back and check what I typed, I didn't say that class sizes aren't a factor. But quality of teaching and maintenance of discipline are far more important.

 

 

Precisely where did I say this? All I did was repeat a government provided statistic of child/adult ratio. Personally I would abolish all teaching assistants and spend the money saved on training/employing more teachers.

 

 

I have little faith in any political party to deliver on most things. I would go as far as to say a mix of New Labour and political correctness is about the worst thing that has hit secondary education ever. I'm not going to claim for a moment that the Tories will improve things. Because there's little evidence that Cameron is more than an opportunist rather than the principled politician that the country needs to lead it.

 

 

Havings been closely involve with my firm's recruitment policy in the North West for a period, I have seen first hand what totally unprepared kids our state schools and poorer uniiversities have churned out in the last decade.

 

Interview a school leaver for a job - useless. Interview a university graduate from a former polytechnic - limited. Interview somebody who's worked for McDonalds for 12 months and you'll actually have somebody far better suited for the modern workplace.

 

The examination grades may be better. The quality of individual coming out of the system certainly hasn't improved.

 

 

Start saving. Now.

 

My biggest guilt in life is that I wasn't able to afford to pay for my older two to go to private school.

 

A massive chunk of my disposable income has given my youngest that opportunity. I've bought houses, cars, holidays, flat-screen tellies, Latics season tickets, one night in a lap-dancing bar, lots of cider, golf equipment etc. There is no doubt for me that the best value for money on a personal level is easily the purchase of a private education for my child. It's a sacrifice. I'm not a higher rate taxpayer. I get no help with the costs from anywhere. But it really is money well spent.

 

It's a major personal sacrifice, but the benefits are already clear to me. I'd have to say that I think Labour is a threat to the future of private schools. (my only regret is that I now can't afford more lap-dancing nights).

 

You keep saying exams are easier yet all independent analysis including a number of TV documentaries have shown the exams today are just as hard. Where there has been a shift is now there is more course work going towards final grades which some people criticise. I am a big fan of exams but I recognise the need for course work as well as that is how most people work. You research, you learn and then you implement. You can't just know everything.

 

Schools are still churning out lots of pupils with poor grades but the number obtaining better grades has gone up. The poor students from university are no doubt pupils who did mickey mouse degrees.

 

Your example where you say someone from McDonald is more suited to a job than someone from University gave me a chuckle. I don't know what jobs you are recrutiing for but I find it hard to accept unless you are recruiting for jobs that would not require a degree. I went to Manchester Met and I know the upsides and downsides of that place. Its nowhere near as bad as you think, in fact, some of the facilities are the best in the north west, aka the business school for example.

Edited April 15, 2010 by oafc0000

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

You keep saying exams are easier yet all independent analysis including a number of TV documentaries have shown the exams today are just as hard. Where there has been a shift is now there is more course work going towards final grades which some people criticise. I am a big fan of exams but I recognise the need for course work as well as that is how most people work. You research, you learn and then you implement. You can't just know everything.

 

Schools are still churning out lots of pupils with poor grades but the number obtaining better grades has gone up. The poor students from university are no doubt pupils who did mickey mouse degrees.

 

Your example where you say someone from McDonald is more suited to a job than someone from University gave me a chuckle. I don't know what jobs you are recrutiing for but I find it hard to accept unless you are recruiting for jobs that would not require a degree. I went to Manchester Met and I know the upsides and downsides of that place. Its nowhere near as bad as you think, in fact, some of the facilities are the best in the north west, aka the business school for example.

 

And another thing.

 

Your former polytechnics are more inclined towards practical courses. Everyone knows about the bad examples, but property management, for instance, will be more valuable in an estate agents or other property company than, say, philosophy.

 

Also, I notice that OldhamSheridan left school at the same time as me. I honestly think the teaching is far better now than it was back then. I had some really shabby teachers in both schools that I went to. My English teachers especially were just plain unprofessional. You just won't survive long in the profession these days if you're that bad.

 

I reckon the kids are also more attuned to the project of passing exams, which is marginally better than the brighter kids failing exams because of poor coaching, which is what happened a lot up until the late 1990s.

[leeslover]

And another thing.

 

Your former polytechnics are more inclined towards practical courses. Everyone knows about the bad examples, but property management, for instance, will be more valuable in an estate agents or other property company than, say, philosophy.

 

Also, I notice that OldhamSheridan left school at the same time as me. I honestly think the teaching is far better now than it was back then. I had some really shabby teachers in both schools that I went to. My English teachers especially were just plain unprofessional. You just won't survive long in the profession these days if you're that bad.

 

I reckon the kids are also more attuned to the project of passing exams, which is marginally better than the brighter kids failing exams because of poor coaching, which is what happened a lot up until the late 1990s.

Obviously I knew anyway that you are largely engaging in this thread to try and wind me up

 

Anyone who can't admit that the exam boards simply up the pass rates every year is in a fantasy land. They make a decison how many percent get A, how many get B. They up it every year, that's why more people pass.

 

I remember when I was doing my GCSE's I was good enough at Maths (and lazy enough) to work out that I was going to get an A without needing to learn 3 modules of the course. At the same time I saw a 10 years old O-level exam in a newspaper, and I could barely have touched it. Far more people passed in my year than did 10 years before me. These things combined tell me that the exams had become much easier to pass.

[jimsleftfoot]

Its not intelligence that has improved, it is the ability to allow children achieve.

 

Spot on, my fiance works in one of the most deprived schools in Manchester and you should see what they are doing. It's bloody amazing if you ask me and its the reason why they have recently got a great report from Ofsted. It's all about making a difference to a child development, no matter what intelligence they have and showing that they can achieve. Many schools are now also looking at alternatives for kids who are not expected to get C's at GCSE, to give them a lesser qualification (level 1) which they can build up to higer levels after secondary school.

 

It's a world away from the 90's when I was at school which in turn was a world away from the 50's when my dad was.

[jimsleftfoot]

And another thing.

 

I reckon the kids are also more attuned to the project of passing exams, which is marginally better than the brighter kids failing exams because of poor coaching, which is what happened a lot up until the late 1990s.

 

Yeah it's called "assessment for learning". It's about developing kids analysis skills in order for them to do better at answering exams and coursework and is a very big thing at the moment.

 

I thankfully had a very good History A'level teacher who beleived in doing a similar thing as I never got that sort of coaching at Secondary School.

Edited April 15, 2010 by jimsleftfoot

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Obviously I knew anyway that you are largely engaging in this thread to try and wind me up

 

Anyone who can't admit that the exam boards simply up the pass rates every year is in a fantasy land. They make a decison how many percent get A, how many get B. They up it every year, that's why more people pass.

 

I remember when I was doing my GCSE's I was good enough at Maths (and lazy enough) to work out that I was going to get an A without needing to learn 3 modules of the course. At the same time I saw a 10 years old O-level exam in a newspaper, and I could barely have touched it. Far more people passed in my year than did 10 years before me. These things combined tell me that the exams had become much easier to pass.

 

No. The teaching is better and the kids are better. Deal with it.

[OldhamSheridan]

No. The teaching is better and the kids are better. Deal with it.

 

 

I love the blindness to try and win a point which is clearly incorrect just so you can push the 'Vote Labour' thing to a bunch of people that mostly don't give a toss.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

I love the blindness to try and win a point which is clearly incorrect just so you can push the 'Vote Labour' thing to a bunch of people that mostly don't give a toss.

 

We obviously see things differently. I'm saying that Labour's educational reforms have been a good thing for pupils, teachers, university students and everyone in the education system, and thereby the country, citing exam results, university entrance and graduation, class sizes, and professionalism in teaching.

 

On the other hand, your basic argument is that you were the last person in England and Wales to do a difficult exam. You've got teachers down for a bunch of no marks, kids down as thick and lazy and university education down as not worth the bother for all but the elite. You have failed to cite anything in support of your argument, save some vague narcissistic impression.

 

I am blind and you can see. Sure yeah right.

[rudemedic]

I'm not sure I share your analysis of the data. Mainly because you're wrong.

 

 

 

Why don't you just vote for whomsoever you wish, based on a total misreading of the facts and some rather quaint personal inventions? Goon.

 

I'm wrong am I? Have a look at this link http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0708chap3.pdf scroll down to page 16 and then study the graph (you can even read the data above if you want too). What does it show about firearms? Your stats about firearms being a steady 1% of all violent offences doesn't prove squat bar stats can be manipulated to suit their purpose. Incidentally this is a home office website and I found it by googling british crime survey and following some links.

[garcon]

We will begin to see the true effect of the latest round of higher education budget cuts at the start of the next academic year.

 

Labour talks in vague terms of opportunity for all and a University place for every British student who wants one and can make the grade.

 

Yet the truth is worryingly different. Universities have the number of undergraduate places dictated to them and are then told their funding for these places will be cut, thus leaving the universities to find ways of funding the gap themselves, with one very simple, very straightforward result. British students are turned away in favour of higher paying foreign students.

 

That's aside from the huge cuts in government research investment, meaning more and more university research is commercially funded, and the effective death of the pursuit of knowledge for the sake of knowledge.

[OldhamSheridan]

We obviously see things differently. I'm saying that Labour's educational reforms have been a good thing for pupils, teachers, university students and everyone in the education system, and thereby the country, citing exam results, university entrance and graduation, class sizes, and professionalism in teaching.

 

On the other hand, your basic argument is that you were the last person in England and Wales to do a difficult exam. You've got teachers down for a bunch of no marks, kids down as thick and lazy and university education down as not worth the bother for all but the elite. You have failed to cite anything in support of your argument, save some vague narcissistic impression.

 

I am blind and you can see. Sure yeah right.

 

 

Personally I think the education system has been vastly overspent upon, but it does give benefits as someone has to be here doing a trade to pay for me when I am elderly. It is a good cause, but we do get very giddy at throwing money at it, whilst screaming "won't someone please think of the children'. They are each only ONE person in the populace and such overspending is mis-placed in the big scheme of things. But, most people have families so it does feed into their own selfish interests and therefore wins votes.

 

I am far from the last person to do a hard exam in the system. That passed at GCSE level years before me. Mine aren't worth the paper they are written on. A-Level's hadn't quite gone at that stage as they have now.

 

As for your ramblings at the end. Yes, I believe in University education for the elite. That would be the elite in intelligence and application as it should be. Not time for a bunch of workshy middle-lower workers who really have no need for the education themselves, and isn't required when they get out at the other end.

 

The teachers, as I've mentioned, I figure are no different today as yesteryear. They were applied professionals when I was younger and are today. Kids are no different today as yesteryear.

 

I'd cite statistics, but they are the same ones you are using, it's just their integrity that is at question and therefore your interpretation of them.

[rudemedic]

I would of thought common sense would prove this... Less children more time per child... Why do you think private Schools do so well etc?

 

So in a 30 minute lesson having 5 less children means the teacher gets to spend 0.2 minutes (or 12 seconds) longer per child- I can't really see that making a big difference. If you are teaching to the whole class (like dictation) does it matter if there are 30 or 50 kids in it? Private schools do well because one of the things known about intelligence is that some of it is hereditary so those people who can afford to send their kids to private schools, who are probably more intelligent than average themselves, give their kids a leg up no matter what school they go to. Private schools do well because they can attract the better teachers as there is on average less unruliness in a private school, 3 or 4 of the teachers at my old school had doctorates I doubt many state schools have that many even if they are twice the size.

 

Incidentally your point about class size in private schools well I'll be damned your figure plucked from your head that they have on average a class size of 13-16 must be true. Well I can tell you from my own personal experience of private schools that is nonsense. At A-level (bearing in mind I did the 3 sciences and maths- which wasn't all that popular) 3 of my classes had class sizes more in the region of 18-20, I'll admit one did have 8 but that was Maths and it was spilt on ability and you needed an A* at GCSE or done a weird pseduo as level type thing to qualify. At GCSE level (so after 1997) my private school had class sizes of 20-25. At primary level one of my classes had 30 kids in it and I'd take the whole class versus some smaller primary state school with 15 in it every time. I'm sure others on this board who went to private schools will probably say the same about their class size.

 

Incidentally I think exams have gotten easier in some subjects and harder in others but if you give kids one chance to shine and they do well don't blame the exams for getting easy blame the system. Plus I had a bit of a nightmare in one of my a-level papers taken in lower 6th I was able to redo it 6 months later and got 100% not because I knew more but I had a better day- you let kids redo the modular exams without consequences and obviously the results are going to get better.

[jimsleftfoot]

So in a 30 minute lesson having 5 less children means the teacher gets to spend 0.2 minutes (or 12 seconds) longer per child- I can't really see that making a big difference.

 

It does make a difference but not in the way you think. E.g. you have a class with 30 chairs but have 33 students in it? Anyone see the problem? The more students you have the less likely they will be disruptive, smaller groups are a lot easier to handle. The less students you have the less marking you have to do, which means that you can spend more time on each pupil, preparing for classes etc.

 

 

[Matt]

I love the blindness to try and win a point which is clearly incorrect just so you can push the 'Vote Labour' thing to a bunch of people that mostly don't give a toss.