Inequality in Britain

[Ladymuck]

Damn...meant to attach this article.

[Loz]

Why do you say that, LM? As far as I know BECTA was only responsible for school IT procurement. That will either fall back to schools or back to the DoE itself.

[Ladymuck]

MitchK Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What an absurd over-reaction.

Perhaps.

I prefer to refer to it as passion though.

[MitchK]

If you really want to help the poor in society, reintroduce grammar schools and increase discipline. There is too much 'let's all go at the pace of the slowest person'.

[Brendan]

Come on Mitch. You know the best way to deal with the poor is to keep them in their place.

[Ladymuck]

*sniggers*

[Ladymuck]

MitchK Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>It's just another

> pointless Quango. Shutting it down doesn't mean

> they're sacking teachers or closing schools.

No, but the fact that frontline services may not be affected does not necessarily make the axing of Becta a good thing either.

As for being pointless, I guess that's a matter of opinion and depends on where one's priorities lie (I recall viewing the Potato Council with derision some years back). Notwithstanding this, following the announcement of their fate, Becta issued a statement to the press stating that the quango "saved schools more money than it cost to run the organisation".

[Loz]

Becta issued a statement to the press stating that the quango "saved schools more money than it cost to run the organisation".

That was their opinion (of themselves). Seems that teacher's and school's views were a little more mixed.

[Ladymuck]

Thanks for the latest article Loz - I hadn't seen it.

To be honest, I took the statement as being a fact. Maybe I shouldn't have.

[Ladymuck]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Why do you say that, LM? As far as I know BECTA

> was only responsible for school IT procurement.

> That will either fall back to schools or back to

> the DoE itself.

Sorry Loz ? I had somehow missed your previous post.

BECTA are involved in more than merely IT procurement.

They have set up various schemes designed to make IT more accessible to people (especially children) from disadvantaged backgrounds. These not only include the poorest, but (e.g.) also children with special physical needs as the packages are customised to particular requirements. Without these programmes such people would suffer further disadvantage. In addition, recent arrangements were made with the aim of providing laptops and broadband to some 200,000 children from low income families with further support for people with disabilities (including those with profound needs) who would otherwise be unable to work with traditional equipment. The impact of these programmes was expected to be far reaching not only in terms of making IT more inclusive but also in terms of (e.g.) increasing parental participation and reducing the digital gap between the wealthy/poor.

I acknowledge that QUANGOs in general have over the years been accused of bureaucratic waste etc., but my interest in the scrapping of BECTA lies in relation to concerns over who would now take over the current and proposed new schemes set up by BECTA. No one knows whether they will be honoured by the schools themselves or the Department for Education ? if at all.

Snippets extracted from various articles:

"Hundreds of millions of pounds have already been saved as a result of the work of a number of education quangos which would not otherwise have been achieved by leaving individual schools to their own devices. The chancellor has failed to recognise that quangos are not all bad. Some of the organisations whose funding has today been slashed are better placed than individual schools on their own to achieve the value for money the government craves." Full article here.

Interestingly,a poll undertaken by The Guardian showed that "teachers have voted Becta as the most valuable organisation among a list of six national bodies (49% voted it the most valuable, compared with just 3.9% for the QCDA). Interestingly, though, when teachers were asked who should be responsible for procuring technology, only 9.6% have so far voted for Becta, while 40.5% voted for independent schools." Full article here.

[MitchK]

Sounds like BECTA was pretty worthless then but just less worthless than some of the other national bodies.

I am amazed you read the Guardian, Ladymuck! I bet your heroes are Shami Chakrabati and George Monbiot. Am I right?

[Ladymuck]

Hmmmm...a sweeping statement if ever I saw one...and you who spoke of an "absurd over-reaction" earlier?

The temerity!

*whacks MitchK over head with rolled-up copy of The Guardian*

[Ladymuck]

The latest report by the Office for Fair Access ("OFFA") states that people from disadvantaged backgrounds still find it difficult to enter the best universities. In particular, it notes "there has been no significant change since the mid-1990s" and that "The wealthiest 20% of youngsters are seven times more likely than the most disadvantaged 40% to get places at England's most selective universities".

MitchK's favourite writer;-) has come up with, what he thinks, may be a solution to the problem.

[DJKillaQueen]

It's not a worthless exercise to give those too poor to have internet or computers at home access to that - that's just common sense.

The point about universities and entry quotas, well that's easy to explain when there is a public schools system that guarantess those able to afford it a much higher quality and level of education. It's a complicated issue though. Every child who wants to learn should get equally high levels of education, so some of the fault has to lie at the general quality of state education. And if we can't bring state schools up to scratch then we should provide a quota of scolarships (state funded) to give the brightest pupils a chance at getting the education they would benefit from most. If more diadvantaged children went to public schools, more of them would get into the best universities.

Even the state school system isn't uniform, grammar schools, independent schools, comprehensives, academies and so on. And yes there has been a general dumbing down of state education while the public school system sticks to more traditional standards of education. I wonder how many children are turfed out of public school unable to read, write, or add up properly.

[Ladymuck]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Every child who wants to learn should get equally high

> levels of education, so some of the fault has to

> lie at the general quality of state education.

Absolutely DJKQ. And given that the better educated a person the greater the likelihood of them obtaining employment, securing a higher wage, paying taxes, and generally contributing more to society, it seems strange that this unfairness should persist. In these days and times it cannot be right for children to be deprived of the best education simply because they are not from privileged backgrounds.

[DJKillaQueen]

And in theory it should be an easy problem to solve but the Labour government had been disatrous for quality education, more obsessed with targets, league tables and I'd say fudge (the belief that all children are equal) than delivering the best education tailored to the individual child. You only have to look at some of the degree courses out there to know something is going wrong and indeed some universities have gone back to entrance exams because they have no way of determining which applicants are best, because the levels of literacy have dropped by so much.

Similarly children that would do far better in vocational and practical apprenticeships have to wait until they leave school, having failed miserably, before being given the kind of training that engages them. Why can't those apprenticeships start at 14 for them like they used to?

Worse still, young school leavers are paid ?30 in they go to college and the colleges are paid if they take them. The result is that some courses are filled with young people that are not interested in anything but the ?30 and colleges that are too scared to fail them because of the money they'll lose in turn. I KNOW this is going on. How on earth can any of that be good for employers or the young people themselves. Labour cared more about the numbers of people in higher education than it did about the quality of that education, not to mention the amount of extra paperwork burdened on teachers whose primary aim is to teach not fill out monitoring form after monitoring form.

[Ladymuck]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Worse still, young school leavers are paid ?30 in

> they go to college and the colleges are paid if

> they take them. The result is that some courses

> are filled with young people that are not

> interested in anything but the ?30 and colleges

> that are too scared to fail them because of the

> money they'll lose in turn. I KNOW this is going

> on.

Blimey - really? Do you work in the education sector?

[DJKillaQueen]

I have some very good friends that do and they tell me this is common practise in some of the colleges they have worked in.

[Ladymuck]

If it's true, then that is an unacceptable waste of time/resources. But one thing doesn't stack up. You say that:

"The result is that some courses are filled with young people that are not interested in anything but the ?30 and colleges that are too scared to fail them because of the money they'll lose in turn."

I am assuming by this that the students actually complete the course - which, frankly seems like a lot of effort for ?30. Sounds a bit odd to me. I presume also that this sum is paid only upon completion of course?.

[Loz]

I think DJKQ is referring to the EMA Scheme, which gives eligible students ?30 a week.

[Ladymuck]

Ah! Per week! Thanks Loz!

[Ladymuck]

Sorry DJKQ, I interpreted the ?30 as a one-off payment. Still an unsatisfactory situation though, assuming that what you are saying is true.

[DJKillaQueen]

Yes it's ?30 per week. Obviously there is a drop out rate too but pupils who should fail are being allowed to pass in order to keep not only the funding going but I assume the ofstead stats up. The other thing that my friends complain about is that often many of these pupils are sent to them by the youth employment services, like 'connections' for example. There isn't always any effort to match young people up with things they are either genuinely capable of or interested in...so long as they are put into 'education' or training somehow. So that has in parts becomes a means to get people off unemployment figures rather than actively helping them into future suitable employment.

I know a lot of young people going through this system in my local area and the ones that want to learn tell me they are in classes with 'yobs' who don't want to learn anything (so they don't get anywhere) and then others tell me that they are sent on placements that are so far away it takes them 2 hours to get there and the placemnts anyway are not related to what they are interested in or working towards. One young lad who wants to do mechanics and has been trying to find some training or way into that was sent on a placement in a baby nursery for example, to change nappies!

It begs the question, that for all the good intent of government to provide incentives, agencies and resources, if they have any real idea of what is going on at ground level. There is no point spending this money if those running these services worry more about satisfying government targets than delivering meaningful training/ education in order to deliver a workforce that employers can actually use.

[Ladymuck]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It begs the question, that for all the good intent

> of government to provide incentives, agencies and

> resources, if they have any real idea of what is

> going on at ground level. There is no point

> spending this money if those running these

> services worry more about satisfying government

> targets than delivering meaningful training/

> education in order to deliver a workforce that

> employers can actually use.

Yes, I remember reading an article on this a couple of months ago (can't find the article though). But basically, the article demonstrated how, far from raising standards - which presumably is what government targets are aimed at - targets can have a damaging effect not only on the quality of the education itself, but on the education system too.

[Ladymuck]

Found it! (A bit more than a couple of months old though - how time flies)!

The targets culture in schools is missing the point.