Education Reform

[Chris]

Pardon the weighty thread title, all I really want to talk about is yesterday's annoucements from Labour of its decidedly Soviet-sounding 'Five Year Plan' to reform our schools.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3875073.stm

Are city academies a good idea?
Should we let just anybody with a big bank balance gain influence over a school?
Is Labour's policy of allowing a degree of 'selection by aptitude' a tacit admission that it thinks the Comprehensive education system has been a disastrous failure?

etc.

Your views please.

[Damien]

I dont know why they are harking on about 'choice' most people will choice the school nearest to them. They should be trying to make schools better everywhere, instead this is going to leave a system where the best schools fill up fast and then theres the crappy school instead. wouldn't this mean a two tier system? that sounds very tory not at all labour

Why dont they try to focus their efforts on recruiting more quality teachers? that is what quality of education comes down to, the skill of the teachers not choice or building style or subjects or whatever the buzz word is.

I really fail to see how this would help

[Macca371]

I am all for the different tier schooling. Not so much tiers, but schools which study particular genres, i.e. academic or vocational. This is kinda similar to the 'comprehensive or grammar' approach which happened in the mid-late 20th Century, but under my desired system, there would be differences.

I think that students, after leaving primary school, should go on to a high school which best suits their area of skill.

I feel that it is right that people go to a school to learn things which better suit their skills. I am 16 myself, and I am a bit of an advanced student who finds quite a lot of the work easy. I could be learning more things earlier, but my progress is hindered because many find it difficult to learn the current aspects of the curricula so time is spent helping them to learn. This is not just me - many many people in my year and thousands upon thousands across the country get this - a hindered education because many simply don't understand the current curriculum.

If those students who excel particularly in academics are placed in a school with academic resources then their potential can be reached.

Similarly, those who excel at sports can join a sports school at 12.

Those with good drawing skills can enter an art school.

Under my system, subjects become less generalised and more specific earlier. Why is GCSE Maths compulsory for all when 60% won't need it? This is wasting time which could be spent on developing their own particular skill area. The country needs more vocational students.

There would be no privatisasion or money involved in the system. 'Rich kids' will not all go to academic schools, as one would presume. The system would be without private involvement so rich parents couldn't use their money to put their children in the best education.

I also think that we should all convert to the 'Baccalauréat' system of school qualifications. It's kinda like a GCSE and A-level combined.