UK Election 2015: education

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I had this idea around the general election, but didn't do it because I never found the time. Basically, I'm going to list some key manifesto pledges from the Tories, labour, Lib Dems, Greens and Kippers; you chose which sounds best. I'll try to define any UK-specific lingo.

First up is education policy. Education was one of the biggest sources of friction in the old coalition days. The government introduced a "free school" program (somewhat similar to charter schools), introduced free school dinners, abolished Labour's policy to rebuild/retrofit every single school in the country and raised the cap on tuition fees to £9000 per annum.

Party 1

No more free schools will be approved and every teacher has to be qualified. (Under current policy, existing free schools can hire anyone the administrators see fit)

Education spending ringfenced in real terms – including sixth-form (ages 16-18) and the early years – and will cap class sizes for 5-7 year olds at 30.

Ensure all primary schools (ages 4-11) also provide childcare to 8pm.

University tuition fees to be cut from £9,000 a year to £6,000

Introduce a new Technical Baccalaureate for vocational subjects. (Non-academic, apprenticeships and the like)

English and maths to be mandatory for 16-18 year olds (they are optional under existing policy; This would seem to put a significant pressure on students time, but no further detail is given)


party 2

Would create 500 new free schools and force through academy status (quasi-privatised) for up to 3,000 schools found by Ofsted (the schools inspector) as failing.

protect funding of education budget for 4-16 year olds, but with no adjustment for inflation. Sixth forms and early years would not be protected.

New baseline tests for four-year-olds within the first few weeks of compulsory schooling would be introduced. Children who “fail” their national curriculum tests would be made to resit them in the first year of secondary school.

30 hours of free childcare for working parents of 3-4 year olds

Party 3

increase education spending by £6bn over the lifetime of the Parliament and increase teacher pay.

Ensure all teachers are qualified

Increased sex education.

Special task force to end child illiteracy by 2025. (I'm not sure how common illiteracy is myself, but this party considered it with including)

Party 4

Return of grammar schools (schools that require a test at the age of eleven) and mandate every town has at least one.

Scrap sex ed for primary schools

Abolish Key Stage 1 SATS (standardised testing taken at age 6-7)

Scrap fees for STEM students, as long as they work in the UK for five years (I don't know how that would be enforced, but eh.)

Party 5

Raise compulsory schooling age to seven.

Abolish tuition fees.

Bring all schools under control of local (elected) authorities, reducing national and private control alike. Publicly-funded Faith schooling to be abolished and remaining grammars to be converted into comprehensives.

Abolish Ofsted, the school inspection body; school league tables and SATS, the standardised testing system for primary schools.

Support for "evening schools"

If there is interest in this poll, I'll do similar ones.

[Intell]

#2.

[Cranberry]

That's a great idea.

I'm kinda torn between one and five, but one seems a bit more sensible in total, so that's it, I guess.

[Torie]

None of the platforms please me too much, and some sort of miss the point. The point is to make sure teachers are qualified, and pay what is necessary to do so, on a sliding scale to reward competence, have national tests and yes, a common core, so we can assess performance, fire incompetent teachers, and provide some degree of school choice.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

This is fantastic idea, CrabCake! Unlike any of these platforms. I hate CommonCore and some of the testing, but I fear Torie comes closer to my opinion than any of these. Had to go with Option 1

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Incidentally, it seems all the parties are allowing a certain amount of discretion with the National Curiculum. In fact one of the main advertised advantages of a "free school" is that you (or the sponsors) can deviate significantly from the Curiculum.

[SNJ1985]

4

[DavidB.]

None of these policies sound really good, way too much government intervention, but I'd go with 4 (UKIP?). My second choice would be 2 (Conservative?).

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Yes as people may have guessed

1 is labour, 2 Tory, 3 Lib Dem, 4 Kipster and 5 Greens.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Academy status is a bit more complex than that: functionally it mostly involves establishing the Head as a virtual dictator and abolishing all oversight on his/her actions. What a wonderful idea that is. Additionally I would like to note that there is a chronic shortage of teachers at present (even for subjects - like the humanities - where traditionally that was regarded as impossible) and that most newly qualified teachers quit within a few years. Education policy is a disaster in this country right now and it is mostly the fault of listening to people obsessed with 'standards': the irony is palpable if very bitter.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

How would the teacher shortage be sorted out? Salary increase? Less regulation?

[TJ in Oregon]

Interesting idea, especially for us Yanks who might not know whom we're voting for at all. Voted 4 though considered 2 also.

[Goldwater]

None of them quite fit, but I went with #2.

[Murica!]

Went with #5 even though it's far from perfect.

[Mr. Smith]

#1 easily.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

What is the difference between grammars and comprehensives?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

What is the difference between grammars and comprehensives?

Comprehensive schools don't select their students based on aptitude (although normally do internally stream their students into high-achieving sets to low-achieving sets), grammar schools do. For full disclosure, I went to a grammar, so at the age of 11, I did such a test. It's writing, maths and "verbal and non-verbal reasoning" (logic tests, essentially)

Of course, one unintended consequence of mandating each area opens a new grammar school would that a lot of building would be required.

[DavidB.]

It seems so strange to me that no selection takes place at that age in many countries. In the Netherlands, when you're 12, you take a national test which largely decides on what level you're going to do your "high school". Until you're, say, 17 (depending on your level), you take classes with people who are on the same level. The highest level is called gymnasium, where students learn Ancient Greek and Latin for six years as well (I did this) - this is probably comparable to the British grammar schools until they were phased out. I think it's a good thing to select this early, although people should be able to switch levels if they turn out to be "smarter"/"less smart", and I'm definitely in favor of reintroducing grammar schools in Britain (they are now an "endangered species" of schools, right?).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Grammar Schools only exist in parts of the country now, and for 'parts' read: wealthy areas with Tory dominated LEAs. But what people who drone on about 'bringing back grammar schools' always conveniently overlook is that the grammar schools were only half of the system: the secondary moderns were as integral to it as the grammar schools. And isn't it strange that we never hear clamour for their return. And of course the post-1944 system never worked in parts of the country anyway: a lot of remote rural areas transitioned over to comprehensives at remarkably early dates for entirely practical reasons.

[DavidB.]

Grammar Schools only exist in parts of the country now, and for 'parts' read: wealthy areas with Tory dominated LEAs. But what people who drone on about 'bringing back grammar schools' always conveniently overlook is that the grammar schools were only half of the system: the secondary moderns were as integral to it as the grammar schools. And isn't it strange that we never hear clamour for their return. And of course the post-1944 system never worked in parts of the country anyway: a lot of remote rural areas transitioned over to comprehensives at remarkably early dates for entirely practical reasons.

Why is that?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Why is that?

Because no one likes the idea of their kids being written off at the age of twelve.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

It seems so strange to me that no selection takes place at that age in many countries. In the Netherlands, when you're 12, you take a national test which largely decides on what level you're going to do your "high school". Until you're, say, 17 (depending on your level), you take classes with people who are on the same level. The highest level is called gymnasium, where students learn Ancient Greek and Latin for six years as well (I did this) - this is probably comparable to the British grammar schools until they were phased out. I think it's a good thing to select this early, although people should be able to switch levels if they turn out to be "smarter"/"less smart", and I'm definitely in favor of reintroducing grammar schools in Britain (they are now an "endangered species" of schools, right?).

In practice, most comprehensives are streamed in the majority of classes, which to me seems a more flexible approach (I.e. It doesn't write off students at the age of eleven and allows them to be "promoted", it keeps the high achievers on their toes, it adapts better to students who are very good at say maths and lousy at humanities, it is subject to slightly less manipulation by parents etc.)

[DavidB.]

Because no one likes the idea of their kids being written off at the age of twelve.

I'm starting to understand the political and societal implications of the grammar school idea and its implications in terms of class, which are obviously different and more polarized than in a less class-based society like the Netherlands.

In practice, most comprehensives are streamed in the majority of classes, which to me seems a more flexible approach (I.e. It doesn't write off students at the age of eleven and allows them to be "promoted", it keeps the high achievers on their toes, it adapts better to students who are very good at say maths and lousy at humanities, it is subject to slightly less manipulation by parents etc.)

Does this mean that one can be on a different level in different courses, or does it mean that students are generally on the same level in each course but can go "up" or "down" while staying in the same school? In the latter case, it's the same in the Netherlands: we have different levels, but most schools (apart from the "low level only" schools and the "gymnasium/grammar school only" schools) offer two or three levels. Students take all courses on the same level, but can go up and (especially...) down.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I think normally students are are assessed into higher or lower streams depending on their test scores at the end of the year, kinda like the premiership league. Obviously I'm biased as I'm from London, so I am familiar with giant schools offering many, many streams (my siblings go to a local comprehensive with about eight different maths streams, four science and English levels, three levels for foreign languages etc); but I imagine small towns have less of a capacity to do this.

I wonder how the pillarised nature of the Netherlands contrasts with the English experience of class in relation to education?

[ElectionsGuy]

4? I guess? All of them look terrible, and I can't in my right mind vote for a policy that includes a baseline test for 4 year olds. That's insane.