If you have ...

Makes you think, for a moment.

Taken from here

....

Schools and 'Academies'

Mrs Rigby is finding it hard to understand why there is opposition to the proposals to allow schools to become 'Academies' - when the last government thought they were a wonderful idea.

According to the BBC former schools secretary Ed Balls

warned it would produce a two-tier system

Odd that he didn't notice this 'two tier system' when he was schools secretary.

And the Unions?

The NASUWT teachers' union claims the policy will "disenfranchise democratically-elected local councils".

Haven't either of these people noticed that the private sector, which is largely free of local council 'enfranchisement' are quite successful and get good results?

Not, of course, that any possible turnaround would happen overnight, because there's still a little problem of people like these, who are, Mrs Rigby thinks, the ones who need less power and more control and need to be able to follow rules so they become decent adults.

Maybe what's already happened at one school in Grimsby should be used as an example of what can happen, and quite quickly too. And it happened, by the way, under Labour - so Mr Balls should do his homework.

At Havelock Academy attendance has improved from 89.8 per cent to 94.8 per cent in the two years that it has been open and GCSE results of A* to C, including English and maths, have increased from 23 per cent to 41 per cent.

....

The state of education.

Mrs Rigby somehow found herself reading the Wartime Housewife, here is an extract.

... the process of doing papers in English Comprehension, Verbal Reasoning and Mathematics has revealed the vast gaps in his knowledge, of which I had no idea because he never gets any bloody homework. I was astonished to discover that Boy the Elder, who will be 13 in September, could not do long multiplication, long division, percentages or areas and didn’t know his tables.

And earlier Wartime Housewife had been told that 'Boy the Elder'

was doing extremely well, not quite so well in Maths (apparently still at national average though)

Excuse me!

Mrs Rigby recalls multiplying fractions and decimals when she was ten. She might not have known why she was doing them, but she could, and still can - and sometimes it's useful.

If this young man is 'average' for what is now year 8(?) - and has therefore had nine years of full time education - what is it that he and his peers have learned in their daily Maths lessons?

h/t Mr Eugenides

....

Knitting

Harry Hill says that if he was Prime Minister for the day he would

teach knitting in schools

Right, so now you've picked yourself up off the floor and stopped laughing, let's think about it.

What does knitting involve?

• Using pointy things safely.
• Sitting still for a very long time - over some days or even weeks.
• Being able to pick up, and continue, a task where you left off.
• Following instructions - to the letter.
• Using and understanding codes.
• Dexterity.
• Patience.
• Determination.

So, maybe Harry Hill isn't as silly as some might think.

Wouldn't it be good if all children learned these skills before they leave school?

....

Michael Gove eats John Humphrys

John Humphrys opens the interview with a well-prepared attack line, using a quote from leader of Kent County Council, Paul Carter - but was left, so it seemed, almost open-mouthed when he learned that Mr Gove had spoken to Mr Carter - this morning, after he had been interviewed by the BBC - and confirms that Mr Carter was referring to the current funding position (now, at this moment, under Labour), with money being taken away from the state sector and spent on PFI initiatives. The moment would have made wonderful television.

PFI is 'outside' the state sector in terms of organisation and funding - so these schools already take money away from 'state' schools etc etc - in much the same was as the Conservatives' planned new/replacement schools would be. So it would seem that, maybe, the Conservatives idea isn't significantly different, except that it puts parents first - rather than big businesses such as Jarvis and French company Vinci and various consortia. It's worth noting that even Unison doesn't like PFI Schools.

Mr Gove knows the figures too, it was nice to hear them used properly, rather than just being reeled off as a list.

The issue of "Titan Schools" was raised. These schools are much loved by Mr Balls and DCSF, and would see children travelling huge distances to massive, impersonal schools with many, many, thousands of children. Such large schools combined with the distances involved, would, Mrs Rigby thinks, effectively, break the home/parent-school link.

Mr Humphrys managed to say that parents want their children to be educated locally - and people are being 'forced into being activists' because they're unhappy with current results/provision - and tried to turn it against Mr Gove who had quoted these same people**. It was another jaw-dropping moment.

Oh, nearly forgot, you can listen to the broadcast here

h/t Constantly Furious

..........
*
Did you know that the PFI schools (land and buildings) are only rented, some on twenty year leases? Mrs Rigby read about it the other day, but she can't recall where.

**
Mrs Rigby thinks Mr Gove was referring to parents in Kirklees

The Birkenshaw, Birstall and Gomersal Parents' Alliance (BBGPA) was set up amid fears that the closure [of the local school] would leave families without a school in the area, forcing pupils to travel 45 minutes to the nearest one.

[Their] plan to open their own secondary school was blocked by the government.

....

MP rap (song)

First spotted at Dick Puddlecote's place this video can also be seen at Subrosa and Old Holborn.

Take your pick, but do watch it somewhere, and see what some British primary school children are being taught at school. Then take the time to read the comments that have been left on the site you've chosen to visit.

Then think about it.

The song was probably a well-meaning attempt to celebrate the 'history' or 'achievement' of people of only one colour, and in doing so focused on only one local individual who also happens to be a popular MP.

It would be interesting to know how this would work if a school were to try to, say, "celebrate" any other feature that is an inherited characteristic, and over which the individual has no personal control - for example blond hair, blue eyes, pink skin.

Would there be an outcry?

Of course there would, and history tells us that doing that sort of thing can be dangerous.

So, knowing the lessons of history, it's strange to learn that schools and, indeed, any organisation, are allowed encouraged to champion or celebrate the inherited characteristics of one group of people, and do so for a whole calendar month each year, whilst ignoring the fact that in today's Britain we are meant to be all equal - irrespective of race, colour or creed.

....

Educational conditioning?

This is a comment attached to an article in the Mail

I am writing this comment as a mum of one of the children at Blackminster and the mum who bought this to the attention of the press. It is interesting and comforting to see that other people think what happened is wrong, very wrong and that I now do not feel like I overreacted in my dismay, anger and total amazement at the unbeliebility of the incident.

The school appear to have made light and their letter of apology did nothing to soothe us parents. They seem to think the problem lies with the tme elapsed between the incident and telling the children this was a spoof.

This is not the issue, the issue is that this should never have taken place, Under no circumsytances should be put in this situation. We censor what our children watch and read we hope that they all know the difference between reality and fiction but this needs to be made clear to them. We do not expect or wish to find that they are subjected to this kind of "experiment". - Vikki Woosey

The events that led to this letter being written were very well planned :-

1. Children were told there was a "gun in the school".
2. Alarm bells rang, children were evacuated onto the playing field.
3. 300+ children then watched as a teacher was gunned down by a "crazed hoodie", who then ran into the school building.
4. Children saw LSAs attempt CPR.
(4a. Children didn't see emergency services arrive)
5. Children returned to the building.
6. Children called into an assembly where they were told it wasn't real, it was playacting, it was role play, it was a science lesson.

Blackminster Middle School teaches children aged 10+ to 13+

The headteacher's response :-

'The role play was part of a science lesson where a selection of students and teachers acted out this scenario.

'The problem with a small minority of the pupils was that there was a slight delay in getting them back into the hall to to explain what had just happened.

So it was the children's fault?

Could the 'delay' in 'getting them into the hall' have been because the children were scared or upset and they didn't want to be herded indoors, especially as they'd just seen a gunman running inside?

'Most of them already knew it was a spoof but a couple of them were upset and we have since spoken to them and their parents and apologised to them.

Tsk, it must have been the naughty children's fault for not knowing it was a spoof. See, it was only a couple of them. Most, oooh, that'd be at least 151 children wouldn't it, already knew it wasn't real - so they wouldn't have got the point of the 'exercise' either, would they?

Heck, there are some rotten kids around these days, but there are loads and loads of decent kids too. Grown ups, especially teachers and headteachers, shouldn't try to pass the blame in this way.

Or should they? We'll see why later.

'It was one of the more popular teachers who played the victim, I don't think there would have been as much concern if it was one or two of the others.'

Ah, so this headteacher believes that children as young as 10 wouldn't have minded seeing somebody killed - as long as that person was less popular?

There's so much wrong with this statement that it could easily be the subject of a PhD thesis. Mrs Rigby isn't even going to try unpicking it further.

Maybe the school got the idea for this 'experiment' from here, which was a project from Science Year 2003, and decided to jazz it up a bit, and do their own thing - without truly understanding that they're dealing with children who, no matter how bolshie they may to be, are still children - and in the school's care. These are, after all, the same children who can be killed by a single particle of cigarette smoke at 20 yards.

In 2005, following an inspection, OFSTED inspectors concluded that the overall personal development and well-being of the learners was worthy of a 2 (2 = 'good'). Perhaps they might think otherwise now?

But then, maybe not.

Blackminster Middle School doesn't seem to be alone in experimenting with the thoughts and minds of its' children, because only a couple of weeks ago children at St Kilbride Primary School were 'traumatised' when their teachers decided to play Holocaust with them - and

deputy head teacher Elizabeth McGlynn segregated nine youngsters in Gerry Blair’s P7 class and told them they were being taken away from their families.

The role play was

... designed to give the 11-year-old children an insight into the horrors of the Holocaust as part of a project they are doing about the Second World War.

It worked so well that it

left pupils crying in fear.

These children were later told it was all a game, but their parents weren't amused and wrote letters of complaint to the council - which wrote a nicely 'on target apology :-

“Schools commonly engage in drama-based exercises which encourage children to use their imagination and act out a character. These role play situations are designed to help children understand diversity and develop empathy for the victims of prejudice and are usually very well received by pupils.

“We are sorry that the lesson had this affect on some pupils.

See? Same thing.

Some pupils.

Some pupils obviously didn't have enough diverse empathy for Holocaust victims, they were too busy being scared and upset for themselves - selfish little blighters aren't they?

All this leads nicely to the little boy who climbed a tree in the grounds of Manor School, Melksham. He couldn't get down, and was left there because the school has a policy to

observe the situation from a distance so the child does not get distracted and fall.

A passer by didn't think this was a good idea, so she strolled into the school and got him out of the tree.

Was the school grateful? Were they heck, they contacted the police and accused her of trespass!

Whew.

After all that, is it any real wonder that Truancy hits record high with an increase of 44% during the term of this government.

Schools Minister Vernon Coaker said

'Parents have a clear duty to ensure that their child is in school ...

Why, Mr Coaker, why? Because you 'say so' isn't good enough any more.

What's the point in them going to school? Where's the incentive to those who aren't A* material? Compulsory sex lessons haven't been enough to pull them in through the doors, and too few are being taught to read, write or do maths, and now we learn that primary school teachers are willingly traumatising those in their care - in the name of 'equality, diversity and blimmin drama.

So, come on Mr Coaker, and Mr Balls too, please tell us.

What's the point of school?

Is the point of school these days so that kiddies can learn what it's like to be the playthings of "the authorities" when they practice their own emergency games? It very nearly worked with the swine flu panic.

Here's how this little exercise was planned :-
1) Leaflets delivered to residents outlining emergency procedures in the event of radiation leak - delivered in the evening, after dark.
2) Almost simultaneous loudhailer announcements that water supplies are being cut off.
3) Residents panic.
4) "Authorities" say all is well.
5) "Authorities" say residents over-react.

It didn't go down too well in Portland, but that nice BBC said it was the silly residents' fault, they were mistaken - just like the frightened children.

....

Advanced Science.

In a statement about Science and Maths A-level exams, Sylvia McNamara, from the QCDA, the body responsible for the development of the curriculum and qualifications in England, said

"This summer A-level students will sit the new style exams, which demand a more broader understanding ...

Sylvia McNamara is a very important person, in a high powered job. She is Executive Director for Policy Implementation at Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency (QCDA), her background :-

... having worked at Birmingham City Council as Director of Education and prior to that as a lecturer in special educational needs at the universities of Nottingham Trent and Leicester.

She's obviously the best person the implement policy decisions across the whole curriculum, including those for bright, able, gifted and talented young people - because they too have been recognised as having special educational needs.

If your child is gifted or talented, talk to their teacher, the school's Leading Teacher for Gifted and Talented Education or the headteacher about the support available. You may also find it helpful to talk to your local authority's Gifted and Talented lead ...

Good for you Sylvia for remembering this, well done for making sure clever kids are catered for.

Let's look at the "more broader" Science Diploma Sylvia is so proud of. It should be good, because 

Schools Minister Jim Knight [...] asked the science community, employers and higher education experts to come together to ensure the new Advanced level Science diploma is of the highest possible quality.

These experts must have had lots of meetings, because they managed to produce all these documents

* Initial Scope 09-08
* Draft Themes 10-08
* Draft Themes Annex
* Draft Themes Summary
* Secondary Research Report - January 2009
* Market View Report - January 2009
* Market View Annex - February 2009
* Student Voice Report - March 2009
* Consultation Findings - March 2009
* Criteria Consultation Interim Report - May 2009
* Criteria Consultation Report - June 2009
* Employer Voice Report
* Advanced Level LoL*** - Final Draft for Consultation - February 2010

This diploma will

... be phased in over two years with the Foundation and Higher level being introduced in September 2011, and the Advanced Science diploma now being introduced in September 2012.

It's going to be so difficult that at age 16

* the Foundation level is equivalent to 5 GCSEs at grades D to G
* the Higher level is equivalent to 7 GCSEs at grades A* to C

Crikey, that sounds tough. Imagine the rigour. Imagine the challenges students will have to face to be able to complete assignments and pass tests in only one subject that is equal to all those GCSE passes - and to be able to do all that whilst also studying at least English and Maths and two other subjects to ensure 'breadth' of study. Anybody studying this syllabus must be incredibly bright, and so incredibly focused on learning that they won't mind having their noses glued to books for the two years needed to get through this syllabus.

Imagine how proudly superior these students will feel when they realise they've got a longer list of qualifications than those of their peers who have studied Biology, Chemistry and Physics as single subjects, and who are only awarded one GCSE pass for each. Imagine, too, what this amazing qualification will do to the league tables - every school will be eager to take it up.

It gets even better, because in the sixth form

* the Advanced level is equivalent to 3.5 A levels

Fantastic! It's amazing! Only the most able, the brightest will be able to stand the pace, after all, very few these days manage to do more than 3 subjects at A-level, not even Oxbridge expects that much. The students following this course will be scientific world leaders, so let's hope loads of teenagers sign up to study this diploma.

Ah, you're thinking, it isn't often Mrs Rigby is thrilled by innovative learning opportunities, so why does she sound so pleased?

Well, she's delighted to think the government, via QCDA, has at long last realised that academic rigour is, errm, de rigueur - that it's fashionable, it's common sense, it's the 'in thing' to do.

Mrs R knows that, by the time they reach (now compulsory) 6th form, every single student will have been through 12 years of full-time education and, in the state sector, every scrap of learning will have been dictated and micro-managed by the government and its agencies.

Mrs R knows that every single state school (in England) will have complied with the ruling that makes Science a key subject, a compulsory subject - so no individual student will have been able to avoid either lessons or (in England) assessment at the end of each 'Key Stage', and their results will have been written down on a list.

So it's interesting that the "Diploma in Science" site needs to ask this challenging question

"What is science?"

***
Oh, by the way, LoL in this context is not the internet acronym, it refers to "Level of Learning"

....

A* rejections.

In an article that details how some high achieving applicants are, this year, being rejected by all five of their choices it is claimed that this may be because they attend Private Schools :

In some cases, pupils predicted to get three A*s at A-level – along with a string of perfect GCSE results – are being turned down from all five of their choices.

In response ...

A spokesman for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, denied that private school pupils faced discrimination.

“Although admissions are rightly a matter for individual institutions, the Government is committed to ensuring that entry to university is determined by aptitude, potential and merit, not where a student was educated,” ...

Maybe they hadn't read this

Universities have been given the green light to vary the A-level grades expected from applicants depending on the schools they attend.

....

Universities feel the pinch.

Comments arising from this article perhaps indicate a good reason for raising university entrance standards.

Dodo Broad wrote:

Its law of supply and demand. When you increase the demand and reduce the supply at the same time, the standard has to go up. Hard to explain that to Labour.

Matt Wats wrote (Bold added by Mrs R) :

Dodo Broad i have to disagree. as other wise the most reliable cars and computers and everything else wouldn't be mass produced (usually by the Japanese Chinese or Germans). No to increase quality you must increase both supply and demand resulting in high quality yet cheap products. That is why China is overtaking us. If we return back to the only the elite of the elite are aloud to become eliter then we will simply end up with a great divide of not class but intelligence one that will be greater then any social class ever was.
No we must make everyone reach there full potential not just elite of the elite. I accept that this means not everybody should go to uni many should do good quality apprenticeships or go straight into work But Still many people should be able to go to uni not just the tip top cherry on top cream of the crop.

It would seem that "Mat Watts" might have missed a few lessons on the way through our education system, resulting in a failure to master the complexities of using a dictionary, a lack of awareness of the best practices of either punctuation or capital letters, and an ignorance of tautology.

It's so easy to focus on things like grammar these days, so James Wolfe wrote :

Matt Wats: Based on the simple criteria of expecting potential university students to have a good grasp of basic grammar and to know the difference between 'their', 'they're' and 'there' we could exclude you from admission this year. Don't tell me - you're already at 'Uni' trying to reach your full potential!

Actually Mrs R thinks they're all missing the point, irrespective of their use of English, and are missing it quite widely too.

One of the things we Rigbys were told at pre-University chats was that Universities have to tell government how many students they will take on each course. Failure to meet these numbers results in penalties, and so does exceeding the number. This is pointed out in an earlier Times article which explains that taking too many students is a heinous crime, so much so that  :-

Universities will be fined about £10 million for recruiting too many students last year [2009], and the full-time undergraduate intake could stall this year for the first time in recent memory.

It isn't clear where these whopping 'fines' end up - but obviously the money will be taken from university coffers and moved to somewhere else. (Have we heard that sort of accounting mentioned somewhere else?) The threat of something so dreadful is obviously an incentive to behave properly :

Lord Mandelson told peers that tighter budgets would act as a "spur” to universities to find other sources of money and “focus minds” on teaching and research quality.

Lord Mandelson the unelected is, by the way, the Universities Secretary so presumably higher up the academic political pecking order than Mr Ed Balls who is Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. It is he and his department that have, for the second year running, made the decision to reduce student numbers half way through the admission process - clearly unaware of the problems such a sudden change would cause.

Last year, as a result of those funding reductions and government imposed cuts in student numbers, some 160,000 school leavers failed to secure a place on a degree course. Almost nobody picked up on the problems these 160,000 would cause for those leaving school in 2010, not even when, early in the 'season' they applied for, and secured, places on courses starting September 2010.

The application season opened mid September 2009 and closed on 22nd January. There are various other deadlines that need to be complied with, effectively setting everything in stone. That was fine, until 1st February 2010, when government decided for the second year running,to take away even more funding whilst at the same time ordering universities to further reduce student numbers.

Almost nobody added the new A* A-level grade into the logistical nightmare that is the admissions system. Schools can't reliably predict A* grades because they've never seen them before, which means that Universities have no idea whether their applicants will, or will not, "make the grade" and the students/candidates themselves don't really know what's happening - because they've never done anything like this before and they trust the grown-ups.

Some universities took the decision to ignore the A* grade when making their offers, and that decision may well be their undoing - because they've suddenly been told to reduce the number of students, again, know they will be fined (lose even more money) if they either take too few or too many students and, frankly, it looks as if government can move the goal posts at any time - but articles such as the one under discussion blame the whole sorry mess on the Universities themselves.

Call me cynical, but in the past 13 years there has been an inexorable rise in student numbers - anybody could go to university and get a degree - it's almost a right, not something to be tested or earned.

While at university students are 'employed', even during their holidays - so with fewer student places available, and fewer jobs to apply for, it's likely that unemployment figures will rise later this year.

Such a rise in unemployment numbers will be awful for whoever is in government.

..........

In Scotland, in the meantime, there are worries about that 'massive English cuts' will affect funding via the Barnett Formula

Speaking to The Journal, Ms Manji [NUS Scotland Women’s Officer] said: “Many of the cuts to funding in England and Wales will mean reductions for the Scottish Government’s budgets and so they are very worrying indeed.”

Similar predictions have come from across the Scottish higher education sector, where some fear there could be consequences under the Barnett formula.

The formula is used to calculate the amount of funds distributed to the home nations and takes into account factors from across the United Kingdom, including budget cuts in England.

It must be very reassuring to know that

Universities Scotland has not shared the concerns voiced by the NUS, stating instead that the country's higher education budget seems to be safe at this point in time.

A spokesperson said: “Universities Scotland welcomes the fact that higher education is recognised as a priority in Scotland as demonstrated by the fact the Scottish Government protected the level of funding for the sector in its draft budget for 2010/11.”

.

Deutsch, Francais, Espanol, Portugues, Italiano?

The greatest gift a child can have is that of communication, which enables them to understand and interact with those around the. Communication is either verbal or visual, which would include the written word.

In 2002 government decided to remove the requirement to learn a foreign language up to age 16 - which meant that no child in a state school was being forced to take a GCSE in any language other than English. In 2006 schools were worried that take-up of language learning had reached the point of no return.

In 2007 it was announced by then Education Minister Alan Johnson that

all children should learn a language from the age of seven.

and

This should happen by 2010, as part of the next curriculum overhaul.

Later that year £50million was poured into language teaching for Primary Schools but only a year later, in 2008, researchers discovered that oral tests were too stressful for teenagers - so testing was diluted and in February 2009 Estelle Morris said the decision to take the  'compulsory' out of language learning had been because it helped get truants back into schools

In September 2009 and despite the £millions spent and the 2007 announcement.

The National Centre for Languages (Cilt) points to a worrying decline in the take-up of modern languages (and wanted) languages to be treated as strategically significant subjects in the same way that science and maths have been championed.

but

The government said a review of modern languages was currently under way.

"Underway" - two years after being announced they were still talking about it! Alan Johnson's "by 2010" seems to have been ignored, resulting in the latest announcement in the Mail that 60% of GCSE pupils are not learning a foreign language.

It says so on the BBC too, which maintains a consistency of sources, because all but the last reference were taken from the there. Their headline is "Fewer schools hit language target" and they say

Ministers want schools to have "between 50% and 90%" of pupils taking a modern foreign language at GCSE.

But a survey for The National Centre for Languages (Cilt) suggests only 40% of state schools meet this target - and that the trend is downwards.

Reassuringly, according to BBC :-

The government says the proportion of pupils taking languages has stabilised.

It seems somewhat complacent, with the numbers appearing to stabilise at below the set target, and it doesn't exactly need rocket science qualifications to work out why the 'popularity' of foreign languages has declined so rapidly.

The curriculum is designed to make sure everybody is a winner - which means that more and more children are going through the state system without ever having to challenge themselves to do something difficult - they don't even have to learn to tie a tie, the excuse being that they might strangle themselves. They don't really have to learn to spell English - in case it represses their sense of self-expression - so learning to read, write, spell and speak a foreign language would be impossibly difficult especially as it might mean sitting still for a few minutes, which we were told only a few days ago hindered boys' learning.

So schoolchildren are, currently, left with a mere three years - between the ages of 11 and 13 - in which to learn a foreign language, which is when the hormones tend to be doing their worst.

Educational provision in Britain seems to be based on the idea that if children don't want to do something they shouldn't have to - nothing should be absolutely compulsory, not really, or the children might be unhappy.

Once a child has passed the age of asking 'why' questions it can be too late to inspire or challenge them, so when they enter their tumultuous, rebellious, sleepy, teenage years they've never faced a challenge, never managed to do more than they could-without-trying, never taken a risk (because it's too dangerous and somebody might sue) and, unfortunately, probably never achieved anything much either.

It's terribly sad to think we have a generation of children locked into a education system that gives them very little more than the basics. That, in turn, leads to a disillusioned adult population who can honestly tell their offspring that there's no point in bothering to work too hard at school, and there's no need either because there's no need to go to work in order to maintain a comfortable lifestyle. So a circular pattern is developing resulting in a high proportion of school leavers being functionally illiterate and innumerate - and it's not easy to learn anything if you can't read.

There's no reasonable explanation for this other than apathy and lethargy. Ability levels aren't likely to have gone down in such a short time, but aspiration and the 'need' to learn seems to be disappearing from the national psyche with the result that too many youngsters don't see the need to learn - they don't see the need to learn anything other than what suits their immediate needs, and are able to roll out a list of excuses for failure that would do social or probation workers proud.

Let's wind back the years a bit.

In the past everybody in secondary school, whether it was the secondary modern, grammar or comprehensive, learned French. If it was hard to learn to write the language then teachers at least tried to make sure children could make themselves understood. Statistically this doesn't seem to make sense because French is way down the list of the 'most widely spoken' first languages, but this was for historical reasons dating back to the Conquest when the Court spoke French and because, geographically, France is our closest European neighbour. French is, also thanks to history, closest to English in pronunciation and spelling, while Breton, Cornish and Welsh are themselves very similar.

German is often the next choice - where there is a choice - and for historical reasons too, but

For the most popular foreign languages at GCSE, French and German, take-up declined in England by 45% and 46% respectively between 1997 and 2008.

Even accounting for USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand there are fewer people worldwide who speak English as a first language than those who speak Spanish, which is the 'second' language of USA. Next, after English, is Portuguese which is also widely spoken in South America - don't forget that Brazilians speak Portuguese.

This ties in quite neatly with UK foreign holiday statistics for 2009, and travel stats from 2008, which give Spain the top slot. So we have most British people choosing to take holidays in a country where the language is not one they will have learned at school, but that in itself isn't a problem, not for holidaymakers.

A huge majority of young people who go abroad for holidays will be taken to easy to reach, low-budget, resorts. The reality is that only the wealthiest can afford to travel to distant countries, and package holidays, whether by air or sea, are the cheapest way to travel. But, package holidays reps for British-based companies are usually English, and all resort staff can speak English - because almost all European countries teach English to age 16, it's compulsory. So, with most people choosing beach holidays and rarely doing more than relaxing in the sun for a few days, it's hardly surprising that, although 'foreign travel' may be more common than it was only a few decades ago, the need to communicate with those speaking a different language has diminished.

Communicating in a foreign language doesn't include asking for "payella" in a loud voice, and "pizza" no longer counts as a foreign word.

Let's go back to the the September 2009 report

The University of the West of England is to stop courses in French, Spanish and Chinese this year because they received only 39 applicants.

And Queen's University Belfast is planning to close its German department.

and

The UK will be held back as it seeks to emerge from recession unless it boosts the number of language graduates, campaigners say.

There is a link, and it is a link to future employability that seems to have escaped our policymakers - who have the responsibility of ensuring that our workforce is suitably qualified.

Mr Brown got it wrong when he said, "British jobs for British workers." He didn't ever exactly backtrack, he never does that, but it was quickly pointed out that no employer is allowed to choose only British personnel or those whose first language is English, in the same way that no other EU employer is allowed to discriminate on grounds of nationality or first language.

But employers can, and do, select their workforce on grounds of suitability and employability - which is where British people are beginning to realise that they fail the test. Increasing numbers of British employers are based outside UK - just look at our power suppliers. It doesn't matter too much for those on the ground, but it means that moving up the ladder is impossible because managers need to be "European".

Within the EU - Commission and Agencies - it is now a precondition that employees must speak a second European language fluently, and in fact part of the oral interview will be carried out in the language chosen by the interviewee. This applies to clerical staff as well as administrators, experts and specialists.

• Which languages will I need to speak to apply?

You will need to know at least two of the 23 official languages of the European Union:

• You should have at least a thorough knowledge of your main language, which must be one of these 23 official EU languages.

• You should have at least a satisfactory knowledge of your second language, which must be different from your main language and will usually have to be chosen from English, French or German (some competitions (interviews), in particular for linguists, may specify different language requirements). In present cases, you will be required to tackle the competition (interview) in your second language.

So, thanks to a series of failures and disjointed policies, 60% of British school leavers, no matter how bright or clever they might be, will find themselves unemployable within the EU organisation - and that includes the Agencies based here in Britain.

This means that EU policies will, increasingly, be made by those who have no natural interest in Britain because it is not their country of birth. That's quite a sweeping statement, but it's human nature - if there isn't anybody truly capable of speaking up for Britain then we will not have a voice and this, in turn, will lead to ever more disenchantment with the EU and distrust of policy decisions.

So what can be done about it? Not much if government is allowed to continue making one-size-fits-all policies, and not much if children are allowed to take the easy route through the education system. It should be a case of the grown-ups knowing what's best, but the grown-ups in charge of decision making have proven themselves to be abject failures - all talk, excuses, empty policies and empty promises, and no action - a fine example to follow.

Schools, that in many cases are struggling to maintain some semblance of order and discipline, aren't going to encourage their students to choose something 'difficult' because it'll affect their league table score, and they won't let children try in case they don't do very well. Compulsion is a rude word in the state sector - because it upsets the children.

If a recalcitrant teenager is given the opportunity to avoid something they either don't understand or don't want to understand they'll take that option - and so won't learn something as apparently unnecessary and incomprehensible as Spanish, German, Portuguese or French. They simply won't bother, there's no need, not ever - they know, because in today's Britain it's the children who have been 'empowered' to make their own decisions.

The downward spiral will continue - if few schoolchildren are learning a foreign language then few adults will be able to speak foreign languages, and few of those will want to be teachers, there's better money and less stress in other sectors of employment.

It's interesting to work out the logic behind this disastrous chain of events - but this government has done it all on it's own - they can no longer lay the blame at the door of the Tories.

Children (students) in state schools who will be taking their GCSEs in 2010 will be the seventh successive year group whose secondary education has been dictated by the current government's curriculum policies, although it's unlikely that they will be in power when the results are published.

New rules forcing them to remain in full time education until age 18 (even though they can marry at age 16) will not hide the decline in standards and outcomes - but no doubt a Labour Opposition spokesperson will point out the differences, pointing at the 'elite toffs' of the private sector who have been educated by those who job is to make children learn and make them achieve.

Disjointed policies appear to have ensured that British (and specifically English) adults are incapable of working outside this country because they seem to have ignored the facts of nature  and failed to understand that child-centred learning can often fail the adult the child will become.

Completing a circle in education?

A trail somehow led me to a post on Fausty's blog about the "The deliberate dumbing down of the world" - it's about education and I highly recommend you take a look for yourself.

I suppose it's hardly surprising that we Rigbys have talked about the state of UK state education more than once, and not only because there are junior members of the family.

We, and the rest of our generation, went through the 'old system' where there was competition to get into the top or, perversely, the bottom, class. There was competition to get into sports teams, competition to get into the choir and so on. If you weren't good enough at something or other you were never chosen for the top team or the top club, but it didn't ever mean you were completely left out, because there were always plenty of other things to do that you were good at.

When we were at school we knew it was hard to get into a top university, and no matter how much money you'd got you still had to pass a very tough entrance exam that only two or three of the very highest performers in the school would sit each year. We were realistic, so we, and most of our friends, set our sights a bit lower down the list of possible places to study when we left school - if that was what we wanted to do. Some decided that more book learning wasn't for them and went off to do apprenticeships or vocational courses at the local college. We and our friends never really thought we were getting 'second best', because we had a fairly healthy dose of being realististic about our prospects.

When we look at what's happening now there are many things we can't understand about the system, but will look at just two in this post.

First. How, with so much money being thrown at education and with a carefully-constructed-by-experts, curriculum, can there be such a high percentage (almost 50%) of school leavers (age16) who fail to reach the standard set by government of in Maths and English. Secondly, we wonder how it's possible for 50% of school leavers to be capable of studying hard enough to be awarded a Bachelor's Degree - something that is meant to indicate a high level of both learning and ability, when there has to be an element of choice in taking up further study, and not all of the 50% who pass Maths and English GCSE will want to go to "Uni".

Education in Britain was once a fairly haphazard affair, funded by either family money or charity. Some children of industrialists, landowners, senior military officers etc were sent away to boarding school where they were not only 'educated' they were also socialised - they learned how to behave in a certain way. Children of working families were expected to earn something as soon as possible, to help make ends meet. They were incredibly lucky if they could go once a week to a Dame School or a Sunday School - where they learned the rudiments of reading, writing, arithmetic and, naturally, religion.

There were the "Grammar Schools" too, often endowed by some philanthropist or other who thought it would be a good idea to put their wealth to good use - it was a sort of payback to their hard-working employees. Children who were chosen to attend these schools (because they were clever) were often the ones who, in later life, ended up one step higher up the ladder than their peers. This opportunity didn't mean they could sit back and relax, they had to work hard to get and keep their place on that ladder because if they were slackers others would be given a nudge upwards - it was competitive, like in a running race.

One thing all children had was a form of discipline, for some it was the school of hard knocks - learn a skill, quickly, or die. For others it was a seemingly easy life - but still often quite brutal if contemporary literature is anything to go by, and one that took them away from their family when they were young.

Now, having had that badly presented mini-history lesson, let's get back to something we Rigbys think. ... We Rigbys think that if people aren't properly literate and properly numerate they can't properly challenge, or question, decisions made on their behalf - and this is how I've tenuously managed to tie this lot in with Fausty's blog piece.

Challenging and questioning decisions was something employers were worried about when Forster's Education Act was passed in 1870. They were worried that if the whole population became literate and numerate there would be nobody willing to be factory workers, road sweepers, 'night soil' collectors, crop planters and harvesters or pickers - because, you see, once you can read you can also choose what to read. Books, newspapers and magazines can be entertaining, but can also help you learn about all sorts of things, things your employer might not want you to learn.

Employers also wanted to be sure their workforce was capable of working hard, for long hours - not easy if you've had your nose buried in a book instead of going to sleep. One sop to employers was the decision to organise long school summer holidays - to make sure harvests were gathered and hops were picked. These weeks weren't ever intended to be used as an excuse to spend a fortnight burning on a beach in Benidorm.

So where's my thought pattern going? I'm trying to point out that it wasn't until 1870 that educational provision was 'organised' in this country.

The 1870 Act meant that children had to go to school, there was no choice and no excuse, and were expected to achieve a recognised level of attainment before their 13th birthday. At 13 they could leave school irrespective of achievement and join the workforce, unless a charity was able to help them out and let them study a bit longer by providing their education.

Local school boards set their own attainment targets, here's an example of what they were expected to achieve to reach the top "Standard VI". (taken from Wikipedia)

Children had to be able to do :-

Reading	To read with fluency and expression.
Writing	A short theme or letter, or an easy paraphrase.
Arithmetic	Proportion and fractions (vulgar and decimal).

Remember that children had to be able to add, subtract, multiply and divide using many different number bases all at the same time -because Britain used the old sort of LSD - pounds, shillings and pence - as well as farthings and halfpennies, florins, half crowns and guineas.

Back then things were measured in acres, miles, rods, poles, perches, chains, furlongs, yards, feet and inches - including fractions of inches, not like today's easy decimal number, and calculations were generally done either mentally or on paper because pocket calculators hadn't been invented.

In case some of you think that standard is too low then take a look at what they had to do to achieve "Standard III" :-

Reading	A short paragraph from a more advanced reading book.
Writing	A sentence slowly dictated once by a few words at a time, from the same book.
Arithmetic	Long division and compound rules (money).

These weren't 'age' standards, they were terminal qualifications - a bit like grade school in the States, but back then children could leave school at 10 provided they achieved standard VI, otherwise they had to stay there until the age of 13. If you think about it, this gave an incentive to learn, because it meant they could leave school and begin to either make their own way in the world or contribute towards the family finances - and get more to eat.

Were these terrible times, or was education a way out of poverty?

Life was hard then, much harder than many of us could imagine. At school little children were forced to learn difficult things - but you know, if the Rigby forebears are anything to go by, they were proud of their achievements, and the results of their learning are a delight to behold, because they weren't only taught to read, write and do maths. Things were terribly sexist - girls were also taught how to cook and to sew. One of Mrs R's female ancestors made, by hand, a truly astonishingly intricately detailed Christening Gown that's still in use today and one of her male ancestors made some lovely pieces of furniture, which are also in use - unlike some of the modern mass-produced flatpack tat that's only a few years old.

We know from research that at least one of the forebears left home at the tender age of 13 to work as a live-in maid, another went off to be an apprentice to a cabbie and lived in crowded accommodation that would be condemned as unfit by modern social workers - but he survived and went to fight the Boers.

Life was tough, life was hard, yet these two people were proud of what they achieved, and to the end of their lives they loved reading and wrote using the most exquisitely executed copperplate script, with never a spelling mistake - we know because we've seen it.

This, then, is the sort of education that was provided to grandparents, great-grandparents or possibly great, great-grandparents of those alive today - they were given the most basic of learning skills, those of literacy and numeracy, as well as life skills.

Prior to that, from marriage records dated as recently as 1880, few Rigby brides or grooms could sign their name. (Remember, it was the children who went to school from 1870, not the grown-ups - they were working too hard to make sure nobody starved.) These adults proudly made an X on the marriage register - two strokes to show it was a deliberate action rather than a slip of the pen, which is why it's still used on ballot forms.

Can it be that these people were more literate and numerate than their descendants? Well, no, maybe not, because there are statistics and graphs that say so - although they're international stats referring only to literacy. (At the moment Mrs R can't find one that only relates to UK so it'll have to do, otherwise this post will continue to languish in the drafts folder, and it's been there long enough!)


The graph has been drawn using data from UNESCO.

Okay, now you've relaxed by looking at a picture, let's get back to the writing. ...

It wasn't until fairly recently that a UK government decided to get itself deeply involved in education, and in 1988 drew up a prescriptive curriculum that would apply to all state schools. Government also created a national body to set and oversee terminal exams - taking this role away from universities. But they couldn't tell the private sector what to do, because it was, errm, private, not state, run.

To begin with the National Curriculum was a fairly sketchy sort of thing involving just Maths and English, but it's evolved over time to become a mighty beast, with teachers being told not only what to teach but also how to teach - and they can be subjected to intense criticism if their observed and assessed teaching fails to match the proscribed pattern specifically designed to ensure 'students' are interested. It's also designed to guarantee outcome/achievement.

So, when you take all the man hours involved in putting together this approach to both learning and teaching, it seems very odd to read a (now quite old) news item reporting that Tesco's boss, Terry Leahy, criticised school outcomes as being "woefully low".

Unfortunately for Mr Leahy and his fellow supermarket bosses it's a bit of a joke (round here at least) about the, ahem, 'required qualifications' of some checkout staff - especially the ones who get confused if a customer hands them £21.27 to pay for something costing £16.27. (Hint - you get a fiver change!) But joking aside, we Rigbys think that if Mr Leahy believes standards are low then there must indeed be something to worry about.

We thought his comments needed a bit more investigating and at the time we looked and read and talked quite a bit - but we didn't come to any serious conclusions except that "they" (whoever they may be) want too much out of schools, and are ignoring the most basic of skills in a rush to be seen to be trying to sort out the social ills of the country such as teenage pregnancies, obesity, drug abuse and those most evil things - smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol, and all via the National Curriculum. Doing all this dilutes the time left for things like history and geography, which some children hate, but are still important to know how to relate to the rest of the world.

Here's a story.

When our little Rigbys were small we used to take them to all sorts of places, including farms and zoos. Once we were lucky enough to see a lamb being born. It led to a lot of questions. The odd thing was that when they got older they seemed to have forgotten almost everything they had learned then, couldn't even remember seeing a brand new lamb let alone how it got inside the ewe in the first place! We can't imagine that our children are particularly strange or unusual, it's just that they unconsciously filed away some of the things they saw, and some of the things they learned on our days out, because that knowledge was irrelevant to their lives at the time and more important things came along.

So we thought it was a bit strange that all the educational specialists - who should know about child psychology and child development - want little children to learn about sexuality, contraception and so on when they're only half way through primary school, when they could probably better spend their time reading and writing and getting a bit of general knowledge, so they don't have to wait until taking their GCSE Science before they learn that you can use a telescope to look at the moon. (edit : and note James Higham's piece reporting that the in UK an exam board warded C grades in one [Science] paper to pupils getting just 20 per cent of questions correct)  If the primaries concentrated on these basics then maybe, just maybe, the 'students' would do a bit of learning on their own, on the side, when they're not at school, and maybe, just maybe, they might end up with better GCSE results.

Another aside - Mrs R wonders who wrote the Wikipedia entry about Education in England, because in the box on the right hand side there's nothing about GCSEs and nothing about AS or A levels, merely "Secondary Diploma" or "post Secondary Diploma" - the former of which Mrs R had thought was a vocational qualification for the less academic rather than the 'gold standard' of achievement at age 18 - but maybe she's wrong, because things do seem to be being changed while she isn't looking!

What Mrs R isn't wrong about is something written in both Bishop Hill's and StraightShooter's blogs about charities linked with education in India. It would seem that the poorest of the poor are willing to make themselves even poorer by paying for their children's education,they do it because :-

... a survey of state schools found that "in only half was there any teaching activity at all"

And what happens next, in India? - [Oxfam] charity had then concluded that universal state provision was the correct way forward.

Hmm, it's interesting to note that as long ago as 2005 the Times was reporting that same sort of thing was going on in Africa. :-

Poor African children benefit more from independent schools than government ones for a fraction of the cost, says James Tooley. Why are aid groups and pop stars against them?

Take a little while to read the whole article, go on, I dare you!

Then compare it and the India stuff with what's happening in UK, where government seems to be using schools attended by other politicians as a political weapon - calling anybody whose parents had chosen to send them to Eton "toffs". Yet many of those name-calling politicians have themselves benefitted from private education (there's a list somewhere or other) and are ensuring their offspring do the same. (edit: The list is here)

It seems that some in government might not like to be seen to like private schools, even though they use them themselves, because the latest ploy is to give private schools a set of targets to achieve (or else be failed/closed by Ofsted) - including equality of outcome in sport and after school activities - presumably to make sure more white boys become excellent 100 metre sprinters, more short kids have a go at pole vaulting or high jump and maybe more girls get to do boxing. Who knows what it's all about, I'm just guessing because I haven't seen these targets listed anywhere.

Anyhow, I reckon it'll just mean more lists for the statisticians to moan about. Targets of that sort suggest that children can be forced into a certain role or activity to suit the grown-ups who decided the quota, but kids aren't like that. Children like to make their own choices and, irrespective of their physical or ethnic profile, will all too happily ignore what the grown-ups want them to do outside the classroom. Maybe somebody ought to tell the bean counters about horses and water.

Here in Britain we have state sector 'students' failing to meet literacy and numeracy targets at 16, but these same 'students' are to be taught about sexuality, contraceptives and parenting.

To get rid of the NEET section of the 16-18 population they're all being forced to stay in full time education until they're old enough to vote, even if they can't read and don't want to be at school or sixth form college.

At 18 50% of them are expected to go off to university and earn a degree that will saddle them with a debt of at least £21k (before interest) - a debt owed to just one state-run company, a company that sets it's own repayment terms and has first claim on a wage-earner's salary.

Add to this sorry mix a dose of dependence on government for almost everything, from advice about what to have for breakfast to what to do with your spare time, and we suddenly end up with a new population of adults that's almost incapable of independent thought and action - and they know no different because they think it's always been done that way, and they know they're right because they know more than the wrinklies.

Is this, perhaps, a worldwide phenomenon, as Fausty's blog suggests? Mrs R hopes not, even though she could, with a bit of effort, find out what's happening - because she can read, and because she wants to read.

Funny thing is that those old industrialists in 1870 might have got it right - but it wasn't they who ended up with a proportion of the British population that doesn't want to do menial things, it took over 100 years for that to happen and we now have to import workers who are willing to clean our toilets, pick our fruit and dig up our vegetables - and it doesn't seem to be because we have a well-educated population either, it might even be because some don't value education.

Maybe we're seeing the education system almost completing a circle too, with provision dependent on personal wealth or charity - but this time it's government that gives the money to the charities and dictates the terms, not well-meaning philanthropists.

.....

... and a complete aside, does anybody have any idea who invented the term sheeple?

Did you read the one about ...

... the Mummies and Daddies who go to, and stay at, University with their children?

No, not a joke, it's for real. Look here!

Not only do Mummies and Daddies make sure their children have packed their toothbrushes and teddy bears, iPods and televisions, they also

... [sleep] on the floor in halls of residence for several days to help their youngsters 'settle in' ...

In some universities it's got so bad that they have ...

... had to persuade 'helicopter' parents - who hover over their children's lives - to leave their sons or daughters so they can experience independent living.

So when they've reached the tender age of eighteen - adulthood - old enough to vote in a general election or go to Afghanistan and get killed - some Mummies and Daddies don't think their little darlings are old enough to go and live in a safe, supervised, hall of residence.

Or maybe the parents have forgotten how embarrassed they were of their own parents or maybe the parents themselves aren't mature enough to allow their own children to, well, to grow up and become adults.

Odd sort of country we live in, isn't it?