At school, British 15-year-olds' maths skills are now more than two whole academic years behind 15-year-olds in China. In the last decade, we have plummeted down the international league tables: from 4th to 16th place in science; and from 8th to 28th in maths. While other countries - particularly Asian nations - have raced ahead we have, in the words of the OECD's Director of Education, "stagnated."
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Thursday, 14 July 2011
Improving Maths and Science education
Another politician, this time Michael Gove, bemoaning the fall in UK maths and science. However, the decline, as measured by the OECD is real enough. The government's review group reports in August. Finland does well in the rankings with a high degree of teaching and curriculum freedom.
Monday, 6 June 2011
potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment
From Council of Europe draft report on the potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment. As they say, it 'sounds like a plan'... I wonder what the final report will read like?
8.2.1. set preventive thresholds for levels of long-term exposure to microwaves in all indoor areas, in accordance with the precautionary principle, not exceeding 0.6 volts per metre, and in the medium term to reduce it to 0.2 volts per metre;
8.2.2. undertake appropriate risk-assessment procedures for all new types of device prior to licensing;
8.2.3. introduce clear labelling indicating the presence of microwaves or electromagnetic fields, the transmitting power or the specific absorption rate (SAR) of the device and any health risks connected with its use;
8.2.4. raise awareness on potential health risks of DECT-type wireless telephones, baby monitors and other domestic appliances which emit continuous pulse waves, if all electrical equipment is left permanently on standby, and recommend the use of wired, fixed telephones at home or, failing that, models which do not permanently emit pulse waves;
8.3. concerning the protection of children:
8.3.1. develop within different ministries (education, environment and health) targeted information campaigns aimed at teachers, parents and children to alert them to the specific risks of early, ill-considered and prolonged use of mobiles and other devices emitting microwaves;
8.3.2. ban all mobile phones, DECT phones or WiFi or WLAN systems from classrooms and schools, as advocated by some regional authorities, medical associations and civil society organisations;
Tuesday, 14 December 2010
Pupil Premium
Up pops an email from Sarah Teather MP spreading the good news of the pupil premium that will give £430 per year to students on free school meals from April next year. This money goes direct to the school and can be used by the Head Teacher to pay for one to one tuition, after-school clubs or breakfast clubs.
I'm a little underwhelmed by the amount. Lets take a look at the sums: at an inner London primary school with 30% free school meal children that means an extra £50,000 per year. This compares to a typical annual school budget of just over £2 million pounds or £5000 per year spent on each child. For comparison the average fee for a private school place for age 5-11 is £8,000 per year. One key indicator that reflects this is that class sizes are half the size in private schools, who are of course very picky about taking children with learning disabilities.
For the individual child on free school meals who receives the benefit of the pupil premium, this means just over £10 will be available to be spent per week over a 39 week school year. This will pay for maybe one hour's one to one tuition or an extra after school club session.
However, it is to increase over the next three years. Judging the government figures it will rise from a total of £625 million in 2011-12 to £2.5 bn in 2014-15. An increase of £625 million each year. So in three year's time there'll be £40 spend per poorest child per school week.
The real elephant in the room remains the gap between state school funding of schools and the private sector fees. I can't see how the pupil premium as it is will bridge the gulf that starts at primary level and widens thereon.
I'm a little underwhelmed by the amount. Lets take a look at the sums: at an inner London primary school with 30% free school meal children that means an extra £50,000 per year. This compares to a typical annual school budget of just over £2 million pounds or £5000 per year spent on each child. For comparison the average fee for a private school place for age 5-11 is £8,000 per year. One key indicator that reflects this is that class sizes are half the size in private schools, who are of course very picky about taking children with learning disabilities.
For the individual child on free school meals who receives the benefit of the pupil premium, this means just over £10 will be available to be spent per week over a 39 week school year. This will pay for maybe one hour's one to one tuition or an extra after school club session.
However, it is to increase over the next three years. Judging the government figures it will rise from a total of £625 million in 2011-12 to £2.5 bn in 2014-15. An increase of £625 million each year. So in three year's time there'll be £40 spend per poorest child per school week.
The real elephant in the room remains the gap between state school funding of schools and the private sector fees. I can't see how the pupil premium as it is will bridge the gulf that starts at primary level and widens thereon.
Thursday, 9 December 2010
Tuition fees
Martin Luther King spoke of the 'fierce urgency of now' when fighting for freedom and warned against the 'tranquillizing drug of gradualism'. I'm bemused by the rush of this government into drastic changes in many policy areas where sudden change threatens to rip apart the consent necessary for peaceful civil society. Where is the rush to change the behaviour of bankers and international speculators whose derivatives sunk the world economy? Their banking levy rate is being adjusted downwards in case, horror of horrors, it actually raises too much money from the speculative financial sector who caused this sudden retrenchment of the state.
But let's celebrate – tuition fee reform plans will allow students to have a free university education, provided they earn less than a £21,000 salary for the next 30 years. Then the government will write the outstanding loan off, so that you can start planning for your retirement the following decade.
The doubling of student tuition (or course) fees to up to £9,000 per year will not make much difference to the 7% of privately educated students who presently make up 15% of those at university. Their parents have been paying on average of £10,000 each year for their education. The children of the very rich, whose family wealth has ballooned in the last ten years, are largely immune to high fees. The more they pay the better the chance of an 'exceptional return' on their investment. The most expensive public schools skew the result. Half of the students at Westminster School (£30,000 per year) get into Oxbridge. That's an advantage worth paying for. The golden ticket of an expensive education will give them a high chance of becoming an MP – one in three of whom were educated privately. (Nearly half of Conservative MPs were privately educated.) Privately educated students are also disproportionately represented at the higher levels in journalism, the legal profession and the military.
Of course, there is no reason why the 22 of the 29 members of the cabinet who have assets and investments worth more than £1 million should not appreciate the extra burden that increased tuition fees will place on students from middle income families who graduate into jobs earning little more than the £21,000 repayment threshold.
Once this earnings threshold is crossed, the debtor must pay back at a rate of inflation (the higher RPI measure) plus 3%. Repayments for a graduate earning an average of £30,000 per year with a total loan of £40,000 will be £70 per month. Under the Browne proposals the payment depends 'only on the income of the borrower, it is independent of the interest rate and the size of debt outstanding.' After 30 years £11,000 of the loan would be repaid. The rest of the loan would then be written off. Psychologically it will be very strange for a person of 50 to still carry a debt of £30,000 around their neck from 30 years ago. They might feel a bit ashamed that they haven't managed to pay back their debt. If only they'd become a banker...
Why should 100% of the tuition fees be charged to solely to the individual? The skills gained from the degree are not the property of the student. They are employed to achieve a greater earnings potential which is taxed at a higher rate if they earn a high salary. The company they work for gets the benefit of a skilled employee who earns a profit for them. Are we happy to be a society that has taken selfishness to a new level as if neither society nor their employers benefits from their education?
When was it decided that we can't keep 40% of a generation in higher education without them paying for it, yet we can afford to keep 100% (or more accurately 93%) of the same generation in school up to the age of 18? What does it say about a society when it won't give all it's young people access to higher education. Does it fear an educated citizenry? Maths graduates who won't waste their money buying lottery tickets. History graduates that can spot the next illegal war. Economists who know that a Robin Hood tax on city financial transactions would raise enough to provide free education and a lot more besides.
This education in individual accounting opens the door to personal 'profit and loss accounts' for citizens, tracked by your NI number, where what you are able to take out of a system (for example, in terms of health care or social security) is defined by how much you've paid in over your lifetime.
Welcome to a selfish, individualistic, highly unequal, profit and loss society. Higher education - not so much 'know thyself' as 'know thy economic worth'.
But let's celebrate – tuition fee reform plans will allow students to have a free university education, provided they earn less than a £21,000 salary for the next 30 years. Then the government will write the outstanding loan off, so that you can start planning for your retirement the following decade.
The doubling of student tuition (or course) fees to up to £9,000 per year will not make much difference to the 7% of privately educated students who presently make up 15% of those at university. Their parents have been paying on average of £10,000 each year for their education. The children of the very rich, whose family wealth has ballooned in the last ten years, are largely immune to high fees. The more they pay the better the chance of an 'exceptional return' on their investment. The most expensive public schools skew the result. Half of the students at Westminster School (£30,000 per year) get into Oxbridge. That's an advantage worth paying for. The golden ticket of an expensive education will give them a high chance of becoming an MP – one in three of whom were educated privately. (Nearly half of Conservative MPs were privately educated.) Privately educated students are also disproportionately represented at the higher levels in journalism, the legal profession and the military.
Of course, there is no reason why the 22 of the 29 members of the cabinet who have assets and investments worth more than £1 million should not appreciate the extra burden that increased tuition fees will place on students from middle income families who graduate into jobs earning little more than the £21,000 repayment threshold.
Once this earnings threshold is crossed, the debtor must pay back at a rate of inflation (the higher RPI measure) plus 3%. Repayments for a graduate earning an average of £30,000 per year with a total loan of £40,000 will be £70 per month. Under the Browne proposals the payment depends 'only on the income of the borrower, it is independent of the interest rate and the size of debt outstanding.' After 30 years £11,000 of the loan would be repaid. The rest of the loan would then be written off. Psychologically it will be very strange for a person of 50 to still carry a debt of £30,000 around their neck from 30 years ago. They might feel a bit ashamed that they haven't managed to pay back their debt. If only they'd become a banker...
Why should 100% of the tuition fees be charged to solely to the individual? The skills gained from the degree are not the property of the student. They are employed to achieve a greater earnings potential which is taxed at a higher rate if they earn a high salary. The company they work for gets the benefit of a skilled employee who earns a profit for them. Are we happy to be a society that has taken selfishness to a new level as if neither society nor their employers benefits from their education?
When was it decided that we can't keep 40% of a generation in higher education without them paying for it, yet we can afford to keep 100% (or more accurately 93%) of the same generation in school up to the age of 18? What does it say about a society when it won't give all it's young people access to higher education. Does it fear an educated citizenry? Maths graduates who won't waste their money buying lottery tickets. History graduates that can spot the next illegal war. Economists who know that a Robin Hood tax on city financial transactions would raise enough to provide free education and a lot more besides.
This education in individual accounting opens the door to personal 'profit and loss accounts' for citizens, tracked by your NI number, where what you are able to take out of a system (for example, in terms of health care or social security) is defined by how much you've paid in over your lifetime.
Welcome to a selfish, individualistic, highly unequal, profit and loss society. Higher education - not so much 'know thyself' as 'know thy economic worth'.
Dear Nick Clegg
Dear Nick Clegg,
I'm dreaming of a Robin Hood (Financial Transaction Tax) £4bn raised at 0.1%
on derivatives trades, I'm dreaming of higher council tax on properties banded E-H raising £2bn. And I believe in a social contract where the state provides a free education.
I'm dreaming of a Robin Hood (Financial Transaction Tax) £4bn raised at 0.1%
on derivatives trades, I'm dreaming of higher council tax on properties banded E-H raising £2bn. And I believe in a social contract where the state provides a free education.
Wednesday, 13 October 2010
Free Education ! (at the point of access)
The Browne review on higher education funding promises free education with no upfront fees at the point of access. A kind of buy now pay later approach which reminds me of a credit card with a 0% interest rate for a year or so - but then watch out.
What slice of income will be taken out of the monthly pay of a graduate earning £21,000 who is repaying a £40,000 debt? How hard will it be to make ends meet from month to month, let alone start thinking about buying a place to live, or even marrying another graduate and doubling the household debt? I'm thinking here of graduates who can't go to the bank of mum and dad for extra funding. The middle of the middle class gets 'kippered' to use the word that Nigel Lawson used when deciding not to press ahead with tuition fees during the last conservative government.
I withhold judgement on the final shape of the plans, because Vince Cable urged me to do so by an email, but societally it will lead to even more compliant graduates who will be desperate to hold onto their jobs. Corporate creatures to whom the thought of going on a demonstration or protest where they might get into trouble would be out of the question. Here lies an answer to why students have not been motivated to protest more against the great recession. They're too busy working at jobs while still at university. Someone doing a humanities degree with a few hours of tutorials and lectures each week has plenty of 'flexibility' to do the low paid service jobs this economy excels in creating. Now that's value for money.
What slice of income will be taken out of the monthly pay of a graduate earning £21,000 who is repaying a £40,000 debt? How hard will it be to make ends meet from month to month, let alone start thinking about buying a place to live, or even marrying another graduate and doubling the household debt? I'm thinking here of graduates who can't go to the bank of mum and dad for extra funding. The middle of the middle class gets 'kippered' to use the word that Nigel Lawson used when deciding not to press ahead with tuition fees during the last conservative government.
I withhold judgement on the final shape of the plans, because Vince Cable urged me to do so by an email, but societally it will lead to even more compliant graduates who will be desperate to hold onto their jobs. Corporate creatures to whom the thought of going on a demonstration or protest where they might get into trouble would be out of the question. Here lies an answer to why students have not been motivated to protest more against the great recession. They're too busy working at jobs while still at university. Someone doing a humanities degree with a few hours of tutorials and lectures each week has plenty of 'flexibility' to do the low paid service jobs this economy excels in creating. Now that's value for money.
Wednesday, 9 September 2009
The future of UK education? A warning from the US
From Greg Palast:
This is educational eugenics: Identify the nation's loser class early on. Trap them, then train them cheap. Someone has to care for the privileged. No society can have winners without lots and lots of losers.
Wednesday, 20 May 2009
Four-year-old failed for wanting his Daddy
Now, trying to get our four-year-old into a 'chance' vacancy at a mostly girls private prep school which we can't afford. Welcome to Fantasy Island. A detached Victorian house just off the south circular, the school photographs in reception show a school body that is 95% white with a dash of light brown. Definitely not representative of south London.
The other parents arrive. Two dads in identikit grey suits, six mothers. All have little girls, most in uniforms of Dulwich College's kindergarten. Another part of the private school archipelago.
The receptionist has a nervy busy-ness about her and tells me that 'no, you won't be able to stay in the classroom during the assessment.' I'm to leave the school, have a coffee, then come back.
We take our children into the classroom. Three kids are upset at the thought of being left in unfamiliar surroundings. One girl was taken out of the room by her mother who I heard outside telling her repeatedly in a low voice to 'stop crying, you're in school'. The horse had refused to jump the fence.
Once he settles down in the classroom, I leave my son playing with Lego in the company of one of the five teachers doing the 'literacy, numeracy and sociability' assessment.
In total sixteen children are being assessed for one place in Year 1. Each parent pays £50 for the assessment, so the school, a charity like all independent schools, gets £800 for a few hours work. The chosen child gets a place for which her lucky parents will pay £10,000 per year.
Half an hour later I get a call from the receptionist saying that they weren't able to complete the assessment because my son got upset and wanted his daddy.
'It must be very disappointing for you,' says the receptionist when I arrive.
'Not at all,' I say, taken aback. 'I think testing at this age is invidious.' I'm angry that at the age of four, my son has been sorted into a box marked failure; chucked from the conveyor belt because he didn't comply. I'm annoyed that they take him out of the assessment seemingly at the first sign of distress and call it off. I'm angry that I'm complicit in a sorting exercise for children who maybe should be spending time playing rather than being measured.
My son brightens as soon as he sees me. His red face and tears go away and he's chatty as usual. The ordeal is over for now, but we still need to find a school.
Thursday, 14 May 2009
Manners and money makyth man
Reading the Telegraph newspaper this week to find out the excesses of the the rotten political elite, I find the Court and Social pages excellent reading. How reassuring it is to see that amongst those awarded exhibitions to Winchester College is a young Amschel Nathaniel De Rothschild. It's comforting that in these troubled times the Rothschilds can still scrape together the fees.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)