Whereby the two major parties announce very similar policies and then slag off the other party's policy.
In the Red Corner: "Labour is promising to help up to 130,000 of the "brightest" young people from poorer families with getting to college and university. Prime Minister Gordon Brown said they would get a "structured package of support" from 2012, to help break the "glass ceiling of social mobility".
The BBC allow the Tories the feeble rejoinder: "The Conservatives have questioned why Labour has not done more to improve social mobility after 12 years in power."
In the Blue Corner: "... Mr Cameron emphasised the importance of teaching to children's education and how to get more good teachers into the classroom. This would include raising the required standard of entry and setting up a scheme - called Teach Now - to encourage people who had succeeded in other professions to go into education. The student loan repayment scheme would apply only to graduates getting a first-class or upper second-class degree, Mr Cameron said. He told an audience at a school in south-east London he would make teaching "the new noble profession".
The ever impartial BBC places much more weight on Labour's counter-attack: "Mr Balls [speaking for the Labour government]: "The fact is that teaching has been transformed from a demoralised profession in 1997 to the number one choice for graduates today. To attract top professionals to make a career change into teaching we are already working with over 400 leading employers, focusing on key subjects like maths and science. And to put teaching on the same footing as high-status professions like doctors and lawyers we are introducing a new Licence to Practise with a right for all teachers to get ongoing training and career development. It's time the Tories backed these reforms."
Now, if forced to choose, I'd vaguely prefer the Tory idea, but don't policies have the same aim - to improve educational standards? The Tories would do it by improving the quality of teachers, whereas Labour's policies focus on "130,000 of the brightest young people". Wouldn't those young people benefit just as much from the Tories' plans?
Answers on a postcard.
A grim document
6 hours ago
6 comments:
I don't understand what the hell Cameron is doing (as normal).
He's talking about raising the entry level, then about getting more people from other professions to come into teaching. Sorry, Dave, but when you raise the barrier to entry one of the first effects is that people who are already in established jobs don't easily move into it.
And I'm really not convinced by "people who get 1sts and 2nds" as mattering that much. Bjarne Stroustrup, the inventor of the C++ programming language wrote a book on the subject and it was a lousy book. I've met geeks who ran workshops who knew their subject but couldn't communicate it well.
Good teachers are more born than created. That doesn't mean that some training doesn't help, but the danger is that you shut out good teachers in favour of people who can pass exams.
I've seen this with doctors where my car mechanic has a better mind for diagnosing problems and thinking laterally and holistically than my GP has, but because of the cost and qualifications required to study to be a GP, upper-class exam-takers get the jobs and throw random solutions at you.
Labour's proposal is, as usual, daft. They really can't get their minds around the fact that what young people do is separate from what their parents do. Why should somebody who comes from a poor family necessarily need financial help to go to university more than somebody from a well-off family? It is the same woolly thinking that led to the ridiculous Education Maintenance Allowance that buys CDs and video games for sixth formers from poor families.
"whereas Labour's policies focus on "130,000 of the brightest young people". "
Isn't that what used to be called selection? Didn't it lead to all kinds of "wickedness" like Grammar Schools?
Just wondering.
"And to put teaching on the same footing as high-status professions like doctors and lawyers we are introducing a new Licence to Practise with a right for all teachers to get ongoing training and career development."
Just a thought, but do we really want/need teachers to be on the same footing as doctors and lawyers?
Indeed, an expert in a particular subject may not be a good teacher. However,it is necessary for a good teacher both to have command of the subject in question and to be confident in his limitations. There is no shame in referring a pupil to another teacher or a textbook when a teacher is asked a question beyond his understanding, but much harm is done when inadequate teachers teach falsehood as truth.
OC, agreed, on closer inspection the Tory plans are awful, but in substance, promised benefits or all-round-pointlessness, not much that different to Labour's.
AC1, agreed, up to a point. I don't think anybody should get taxpayer help to go to uni, otherwise we'd have to subsidise things less able to pay for their own education, like trainee hairdressers, people doing martial arts courses with a view to becoming a trainer, people doing an HGV licence, a plumbing course etc etc. And seeing as it's pointless for everybody to subsidise everybody else, it's better to leave everybody to their own devices.
Anon, no no no, grammars were a relic of the Victorian era and socially divisive, totally evil. What Labour mean is something much more modern (cont. Labour Manifesto, page 94).
RA, I'm not bothered either way.
Anon 2, also agreed. I'd rather they didn't teach my kids that "Britain is a crowded island" and about the dangers of "climate change".
Post a Comment