Education can be a hot potato in politics, and temperatures are rising yet again with indications that Andy Burnham wishes to put practical and academic education on an equal footing, focusing on relevance to today’s world and its exigencies.
Thank goodness some people are still asking: what is education for? No one should be allowed near education policy until they have written a 3000 word essay answering this question.
So much truth here and one hopes that Burnham et al will listen. It is a far harder row to hoe to redesign a whole system not to mention to fund it as it must be particularly when other objectives seem to be at the forefront of political minds.
Education is meant to be a leading out of innate interest and knowledge. What I would caution against however is any mimicry of the USA system which in theory allows easy entrance and exit to further education with a portfolio of courses taken. There they have a pile ‘em high, teach them cheap philosophy in many colleges and universities which does no one any favours. Judicious use of IT, AI and technology may have great use in tailoring education to individual needs. There’s a lot to do it seems.
Some excellent observations. BUT what is missing is the impact that AI (so-called) is going to - and - should have, on educating future generations. It can teach subjects to match/discover/develop individual inclinations AND simultaneously carry out long term, nuanced assessments. This leads to the elimination of standardised exams and, critically, leaves the teacher to do the important stuff - to nurture the child, to develop aptitudes, curiosity, interaction, collaborative, contemplative, philosophical skills. The entire teaching profession has to change very quickly - I'm sure the educational establishment is going to get in the way
Thank you for an excellent piece. Education has been a political football for far too long. It was more for the aggrandising of political parties than for the public. Trying to educate young adults who don't want to be there was soul destroying. Education has been narrowed down to the subjects that politicians think makes them look good. What about the arts that bring so much (or did) money into the country yet they have been dismissed to the alter of mathematics, too narrow a curriculum. Education being expensive now and many people are excluded because of it. Such a shame.
We all hope for a similar change in the attitude of government towards the education system. Smaller classes are essential, a maximum of 20 pupils with better paid teachers and assistants. Most private have classes of not more than 10. My university course at Regents Street Polytechnic had classes of 30. The seminars had classes of 10 because the students were the lecturers. I visited Magdalen College, Oxford in 1960 as part of the exchange system they had with the Working Mens College in Camden Town. The seminars were one to one and the student was required to have a ten page essay as the basis of the discussion. At that time only 10% of the population made it to university. Wilson’s attempts to widen the intake were met with “more means worse” from the academic world. My brother took five years apprenticeship to become a motor mechanic. My son managed it in two years before going to Sheffield university to study for an honours degree in engineering.
Thank goodness some people are still asking: what is education for? No one should be allowed near education policy until they have written a 3000 word essay answering this question.
So much truth here and one hopes that Burnham et al will listen. It is a far harder row to hoe to redesign a whole system not to mention to fund it as it must be particularly when other objectives seem to be at the forefront of political minds.
Education is meant to be a leading out of innate interest and knowledge. What I would caution against however is any mimicry of the USA system which in theory allows easy entrance and exit to further education with a portfolio of courses taken. There they have a pile ‘em high, teach them cheap philosophy in many colleges and universities which does no one any favours. Judicious use of IT, AI and technology may have great use in tailoring education to individual needs. There’s a lot to do it seems.
Some excellent observations. BUT what is missing is the impact that AI (so-called) is going to - and - should have, on educating future generations. It can teach subjects to match/discover/develop individual inclinations AND simultaneously carry out long term, nuanced assessments. This leads to the elimination of standardised exams and, critically, leaves the teacher to do the important stuff - to nurture the child, to develop aptitudes, curiosity, interaction, collaborative, contemplative, philosophical skills. The entire teaching profession has to change very quickly - I'm sure the educational establishment is going to get in the way
Thank you for an excellent piece. Education has been a political football for far too long. It was more for the aggrandising of political parties than for the public. Trying to educate young adults who don't want to be there was soul destroying. Education has been narrowed down to the subjects that politicians think makes them look good. What about the arts that bring so much (or did) money into the country yet they have been dismissed to the alter of mathematics, too narrow a curriculum. Education being expensive now and many people are excluded because of it. Such a shame.
We all hope for a similar change in the attitude of government towards the education system. Smaller classes are essential, a maximum of 20 pupils with better paid teachers and assistants. Most private have classes of not more than 10. My university course at Regents Street Polytechnic had classes of 30. The seminars had classes of 10 because the students were the lecturers. I visited Magdalen College, Oxford in 1960 as part of the exchange system they had with the Working Mens College in Camden Town. The seminars were one to one and the student was required to have a ten page essay as the basis of the discussion. At that time only 10% of the population made it to university. Wilson’s attempts to widen the intake were met with “more means worse” from the academic world. My brother took five years apprenticeship to become a motor mechanic. My son managed it in two years before going to Sheffield university to study for an honours degree in engineering.