The Word Cloud

We have a tree-planting project in our town. All the schools have nursery beds where the children plant little twiglets. If they survive the depredations of other children (no vandalism so far) they will be re-planted to form a wood entirely grown by the children of the town.

Today I was helping dig one of the beds with a group of children and classroom assistants. I guess the teachers weren't allowed out.
Quite a few of the chidren were clearly new to soil. 'It's all muddy!'
Some seemed new to worms. 'What's that?'
One girl said, 'I'm frightened of worms.'
'Are you?' I asked.
'Yes, like my mum.'
'Could you just move that one for me, so we don't hurt him by mistake?'
She gleefully picked up the earthworm and showed him/her/it to her classmates. Then she gently placed him/her/it in a safe place and picked up another one.
Her friend said, 'She's frightened of worms.'
'Are you still frightened?' I asked.
Yes, like my mum,' she said, curiously stretching out the earthworm she had just picked up. 'This one's NORMOUS!'

We hear a lot, at times such as when the nation’s yoof receives its GSCE results, about the parlous state of the British education system. Results keep rising? Exams must be getting easier. Trouble on the streets? It’s the kids, innit? There have, I’m pretty sure, been blogs about it here, too, although I’m not about to search for them for fear of opening wormcans.

 

And to be honest, that was largely my opinion of the UK’s secondary schools; a collection of soft boiled, policy scrambled, in one ear and out the other sausage machines hell bent on statistical improvements that meant little and proved less. That is, until recently.

 

My daughter is ten years old. And in September and October, that can only mean one thing; it’s time to adopt the air of a forensic educationalist and go on the secondary school trail, in the hope that come mid-October we’ll have seen enough cream of the crop examples of British education that we’ll be scribbling school names on the appropriate form to be submitted to the Local Education Authority. Making what Tony Blair called choices. Making what the rest of us call empty gestures. The dog days of primary school never looked so appealing.

 

But you know what? It’s ok.

 

The much-derided system of selection, once it’s explained, makes sense. It’s not perfect, but then what is? The schools themselves trumpet valedictory results and brandish statistics like peacock feathers, but look beyond the hype and the sometimes brazen, occasionally woefully half-hearted flirting for parents’ admiration slash wallets (depending on state or private) and there are some terrific schools out there. What’s more, the schools that are remembered days afterwards and that resonate with all the family are the ones with the teachers who abound with enthusiasm, reverberate with passion, shine with optimism and excitement about the achievements of their students.

 

The methodologies have ranged from the private young ladies establishment seemingly hell bent on disgorging the next generation of Stepford Wives, to the Blairite new Academy that couldn’t wait to tell us about its data and its punishments for crimes so heinous as leaving a top button undone, to the schools that are charging ahead under banners of genuine inclusivity, thoughtfulness and determination to be the best, not just educationally, but to make a real difference to the citizens of their schools. And this last group are genuinely refreshing and exciting.

 

The amazing thing is that they are so rarely portrayed; that there are learning establishments out there who do more than it says on the tin, who constantly strive and have the results and, more importantly, the ethos and the prevailing atmosphere, to back up their claims.

 

And discovering that has been both a pleasure and an education.

 

 

 

 

I have a dilemma.  I’m not sure whether, or not, to advise my sixteen-year-old son to go to university.   Throughout his school life I portrayed university as a goal to work towards.  However, since the tuition fees proposals, it is no longer an admirable aspiration, but instead becomes the most important financial decision of his life.

 

If the tuition fees are trebled, it is estimated that, on average, students will leave university with debts of about £53,000.    I don’t believe sixteen and seventeen year-olds fully understand the repercussions of debt, so shouldn’t we be warning them of what lies in store?  Certainly when I was younger my barclaycard debt of a grand seemed like a huge burden that I would never shift. 

 

Our most recent conversation on the subject went like this:

 

“Son, it would be really good for you to go to university.”

“Yeah, I’m looking forward to it.”

“But £53,000 is a lot of money.”

“Hmm, perhaps I shouldn’t go then.”

 

I’m not sure how to continue the conversation after this point.  Any suggestions?

Following on from the discussions about Higher Education over the last few days, I was shocked and horrified to hear about the proposal (on Radio 2's Jeremy Vine Show) that extra places could be made available to students able to pay even larger course fees (up to £28,000) up front. In other words, buying themselves a place at Uni.

I took it all with a fairly large pinch of salt but then tracked down the original interview that sparked the debate. You can read it here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/may/09/universities-extra-places-richest-students

Today, also reported in the Guardian, Downing Street have apparently distanced themselves from the idea but, and this is the significant point, I believe, "No 10 did not rule out a limited version of the idea appearing in the university white paper, due this summer, but stressed that no proposal would be backed if it reduced social mobility."

I just can't believe that they would even think about a return to the elitism of University places being available to those who can pay. How is is possible that in only 13 years, we have moved from free education to tuition fees of £1000 a year to tution fees of £9000 a year to the possibility that there will be extra places for the rich kids.

We just can't let this happen!

 

Higher education – the debate continues

In my previous blog, Who Needs a University Education? Who Wants it?, which can be found here:

http://writing-community.writersworkshop.co.uk/members/profile/104/blog-view/3796

I concluded that successive government policies, through (1) creating one-size-fits-all ‘universities’ out of existing universities, polytechnics and colleges, (2) adjusting the methods of attaining entry qualifications and thereby vastly increasing the number of eligible students, and (3) introducing student loans instead of grants to finance all this huge growth and then increasing the fees to £9000 – have virtually priced themselves out of the market. The question has to be asked, are they no longer giving value for money? Is it worth it?

This stimulated considerable comment broadly in agreement, although it was pleasing to learn of some others’ experience of the ‘new’ system which had worked out well for them. Certainly some of the polytechnics have managed the transition to university status and served their new student intake well. But at a cost? It seems there is definitely now a gap in the provision of honest-to-goodness practical training in basic skills and thousands of school leavers are being forced through the ‘academic’ sausage machine, not against their wills, necessarily, but against their best interests, because the alternatives no longer exist to the extent that they used to.

The resultant glut of ‘graduates’ on the job market has (1) made it difficult for employers to differentiate between job applicants and (2) reduced the number of job opportunities per ‘graduate’.  At the same time new students are now facing starting their careers with a potential debt of around £30,000.

The previous blog outlined the steps that got us to this point. It’s now apposite to consider what may well be the next steps.

We have already seem employers starting to favour applicants with work experience over the purely academically qualified. This latest hike in fees has caused potential students seriously to reconsider their options. For these reasons, we are very likely to see student numbers starting to decline. So even with the higher fees not all universities are going to be able to make ends meet. We’ve heard, as commented on the other blog, that some converted polys have already had to close. This trend is likely to continue, but because of the unnatural uniformity that has been forced on these places of higher education it will not always be the new that will founder. We could see some long-standing and excellent universities going under through lack of students and hence, fees to keep them going.

Might we eventually end up, not just back to the number of universities we had before the polytechnics were promoted, but with rather less, some of the good ones having gone under in the battle for the reduced numbers of undergraduates who can still afford the fees? Back to where we were in the 19th century when only the rich went to a (comparatively) few universities.

And the inevitable result of fewer and smaller universities? Fewer academics, less research, fewer brilliant minds trained and let loose to invent and innovate, to make great discoveries – in medicine, in food research, energy research, environmental research. This will be a poorer place, and not just fiscally.

My last blog ended by implying that for many it no longer made sense to go to university. I am now saying that something must be done to change that scenario. The trend outlined in the previous blog cannot be allowed to continue as I’ve suggested here that it may well do. Our universities must be retained, strong and viable, to stand alongside industry and commerce to maintain, or some might say, regain our position as a world leader - to keep the country viable for future generations of school-leavers to have genuine practical and appropriate choices about the next stage of their lives and continue the process.

Who Needs a University Education? Who Wants it?

So much changed in higher education throughout the long Labour reign.

Higher education for all sounds great and egalitarian, but actually, it's crazy. Higher education is to enable people with the capacity to benefit from it to reach their full potential. 80% of the ubiquitous 'all' that Labour want to have access to this, do not have that capability. (Maybe that figure is too high. 45 years ago we were told how privileged we were to be able to go to uni. We were in the top 20%, we were told. Well maybe Labour's heart was in the right place and that 20% should have been higher, 30% or even 35% - but nothing even approaching 100%. That's just plain daft.

Everybody's different; we don't all have university minds; how could we? But plans went ahead to increase places at uni and soon that reached capacity so the old polytechnics (that did a great job, incidentally, giving exactly the right level of further education to the sort of students who benefited from attending them) were reclassified as universities to provide more places. They became neither fish not foul - looked down on by 'real' universities and their students, and no longer providing the best possible education to the students they were originally benefiting.

Now there were plenty of 'university' places, but not enough students to fill them. Answer: change the examination system. Don’t reduce the academic standards. Oh, dear me, no! Hmm… But introduce a modular system where students can gradually build up enough points to qualify for a place at Uni. And, lo and behold, suddenly lots more of our students were of a standard to gain university entrance – an amazing and very convenient coincidence, so all the newly created  places could be filled.

But, oh dear, so many students; how can we cope? cried the universities and pseudo-universities. We must have more staff, more facilities. Gosh, this is all costing an awful lot more than we expected, cried the government. Answer: substitute student loans for student grants – get it all back again, eventually. Not too much; something manageable. A brief reprieve.

Costs shot up, student numbers continue to rise. If we are to maintain the standards of teaching in our government set charters, you have to allow us more resources, cry the uni’s, again. Sorry, no can do, plead the new coalition. Got to make stringent cut-backs  to get us out of the hole Labour left us in. But, tell you what, you can raise your fees from £3000 to around £4500 – that should do it for most of you. And to save us having to legislate again, we’ll put in a ceiling of, say, £9000 to cover the odd case where more is needed. And it will hardly cost us anything because Labour changed grants into loans – the bastards.

Right, thanks. We can increase our fees to £4,500, say the uni’s. Great. But hang on, did you say the ceiling is £9000? You did? Terrific, we’ll have that! And, surprise, surprise, the majority of fees go up to the full £9000.

What’s the result of all these changes? A glut of ‘graduates’ on the job market – some genuine, some a bit iffy. Employers no longer knowing what they’re getting when they take on a ‘graduate’. Could be somebody in the top 20%. Could just as easily be someone from the next  30%, or maybe lower. So they are putting much more store on work experience than mere, apparent academic qualifications.

The question is, is it worth it? A 30-odd thousand pound debt, with no guarantee of a job after four years of study and a degree that half the country now holds? What’s the alternative?

Get a good general education at school. Get good A-levels, or whatever they’re called these days, to show you are of university calibre. Then find a job that gives vocational training. After four years, you’ll have four years’ worth of savings in the bank, four years’ worth of work experience and with luck, a relevant qualification. And a job!

It’s beginning to look like a no-brainer to me.

In my next blog I extrapolate this trend and considered where it may lead. You can find it here, if you wish:

http://writing-community.writersworkshop.co.uk/my_profile/blog-view/blog_3798.htm

 

Okay folks, I know this is going to be hard to believe, but this is an actual extract from a sex education manual for women written in the early 1960's, by a woman! Read it and weep. With laughter.

'When retiring to the bedroom, prepare yourself as promptly as possible. While feminine hygiene is of the upmost importance, your tired husband does not want to queue for the bathroom as he would have to do for his train. But remember to look your best when going to bed. Try to acheive a look that is welcoming without being obvious. If you need to apply face cream or hair rollers wait until he is asleep as this can be shocking to a man last thing at night.

When it comes to the possibility of intimate relations with your husband, it is important to remember your marriage vows and in particular your commitment to obey him. If he feels the need to sleep immediately, then so be it. In all things, be led by your husband's wishes: do not pressurise him in any way to stimulate intimacy. Should your husband suggest congress humbly agree while all the while being mindful that a man's satisfaction is more important than a woman's. When he reaches his moment of fulfillment, a small moan from yourself is encouraging to him and quite sufficient to indicate any enjoyment that you may have had.

Should your husband suggest any of the more unusual practices, be obedient and uncomplaining, but register any reluctance by remaining silent. It is likely that your husband will then fall promptly asleep so adjust your clothing, freshen up and apply your night time face and hair care products.

 You may then set the alarm so that you can arise shortly before him in the morning. This will enable you to have his morning cup of tea ready for him when he awakes.'

 I kid you not, folks. This is bona-fide. Those poor, poor women who swallowed this nonsense. It explains a great deal about that lost generation.

An article I wrote for my school's magazine about the education standards in my country. I might be very out-spoken here but to change it I first have to accept the mistakes we make, shouldn't I?
It goes like this.

I Don’t Agree!

 

I don’t agree because that’s what I usually do. I know people who do that are usually labeled as stubborn but do not call me one as I have every logic to prove my answers right (unless it’s a mathematics question).

Without wasting any more time, I would like to get onto the point why I picked up my pen, which is I do not approve of the education system in our country. How often we hear, countries with good literacy rates are economically well-off, have less crime (of any type) rates, are technologically advancing, meaning thereby that every good aspect of the current situation is directly or indirectly related to the education system in the country.

My question is, aren’t there schools and colleges, or least of all, education in our country? The answer is simple, there are but not so many and not good enough to suffice the education needs of the country. And these state-owned schools hardly provide the conditions needed by students.

This being the case, my point now is that even the so-called good learning institutions are not schools, these are information-feeders. The blame does not lie to any particular school, it lays on the whole society, the same society we are a part of. We study to get better grade and good earnings, that’s all what we study for.

This idea has to change, if we are to succeed. Our focus should be on to educate ourselves, and not on studying-for-a-living idea. All those billionaires and rich people out there were neither born-rich nor they studied for living, instead they had innovative ideas which they put in use to get to where they are now.

I quote you a confusing incident, few days ago my cousin came to my house to do some RESEARCH (as he said, it’s too strong a word, don’t you think?). I asked him what he was going to research about and he replied, “I have to copy-paste some information needed for my social studies’ project.” I had already begun to get confused by now, so I asked him few more questions like if everyone else in his class had done it the same way for which the answer I got was that no one had done it in his class, and why he was doing it when no one else had was to get more marks than his peers. Oh dear! Did you notice two odd things here? Making marks as his primary objective he did an assignment that not even the teacher was going to read (I mean, imagine yourself, s/he is not going to read an 8 pages long copy-pasted material). Don’t you feel like asking here, whether why the teacher give such an assignment in which neither her efforts nor the child’s knowledge was put in use? We are dumbfounded, right?

But why are we asking these questions, if we are, now when we studied the same way in our schools as he is? This is quite unfortunate and surprisingly we never complained about it because all we cared about all along was to get better grades.

Pick any western country, do they study to get good wages or salaries? No, they study to enjoy what they are being taught and to apply it in their lives and not just in their jobs. Why every parent here wants or expects straight A*’s from their children whereas the western parents are happy with straight C’s with one or two B’s. What is our excuse, they their education standard is quite tough, this is wrong, what could be tougher than this. The point is they want their children to live a life of a human being and not of robots. Imagine, you screw up in a test, how enraged your parents will be if they get to see it, not all, but some will surely restrict you to your studies and no more fun, at least our country’s parents will.

Another general example is that our elders will never accept, or some might, that some students are naturally more genius than others, instead they will argue that s/he only studies more that, that’s why s/he is excelling.

We are taught some things and are made to learn others. Education should be in a way which is more practical, you need to show more than what you are telling. This way, undoubtedly, no one will, ever forget what s/he is being taught. I remember my environmental management’s classes. When you hear this subject’s title, don’t you think it would include practicals to teach us more effectively? And believe me, I studied the subject for three years and we did no practical!

This has to change! This is the only way I will sum it up because change is necessary as we stand on the stance where it’s either ‘Now or Never’. Lastly, I would like to beg for your forgiveness, if in some way I offended you or in case if you do not agree with me. You can hunt me down here at school, I am not going anywhere but I am sure you do agree with me!

 

I have a dear friend called Wendy. Wendy is ace. She is a silversmith and she is ultimately web savvy. She has been saying to me for ages get into Twitter it will help with your work.

I have tried and tried and tried, I have tweeted (is the past tense of a tweet a twat?) have followed people and have tried to engage in this rather strange web 2.0 application(as I am reliably informed it is).

I am envolved in Educational research and having had conversations with peers some have raved about the benefits of interacting with Twitter and how it has enhanced their research and also teaching, others are not that fussed.

I have seen a couple of interesting things come up but even the supposed proffesional academics can't resist from time to time telling the world they are in Asda or drinking wine!

Does any one have any success with Twitter?
Am I using it wrong?
My Tweets always seem so lame, does anyone else suffer web impotence?

Answers on a postcard!

Hello fellow writers,

Please find my website on following link :
http://www.filedby.com/author/s_p_h_patel/939868/

Also the direct link is www.blacksandcastle.com (Doors to open soon).

S.P.H. Patel.