"With our plans, if you want to become a teacher – and get funding for it – you need a 2:2 or higher. And we will also make sure we get some of the best graduates into teaching by offering to pay off their student loan. As long as you've got a first or 2:1 in maths or a rigorous science subject from a good university, you can apply."
1. Nobody with a third-class degree will be accepted onto teacher-training courses. I'm fine with that.
2. Nobody from former polytechnics will be accepted.
Oh dear. That's all my students. It implies that anybody studying at a former poly is thick. Only… some subjects were and are specialities of ex-polys. They weren't lesser universities, as they're treated now, but specialist institutions.
Many people attend such institutions because they can't or don't want to move away. They have family commitments, or jobs (part-time students are much more common in ex-polys). Staying at home is also a logical response to poverty - not everyone has Cameron's money to support their kids. Likewise, we specialise in second-chance education for mature students, whereas Cameron's vision of education is one of lithe young 18-year olds playing croquet (for some) and surly poor and ethnic students learning the rudiments of plumbing in dour Northern towns (for the rest of us). There's no vision of education as liberation or empowerment here - instead it's a means of entrenching privilege. Sure, a few outstanding poor students will be plucked from Skid Row to prove that the system works, but there sure ain't any commitment to raising the sky for everybody.
It's perfectly possible to end up at a low-entry institution thanks to poor quality schooling or personal failings. I did rather badly at A-level and got into my university (Bangor) via the Clearing system, then finished by first degree top of the year (3 prizes too). Some people blossom late: Cameron will condemn you to the mistakes of your teenage years.
What the hell does Cameron define as a 'good' university? I suspect it's very easy to get high degree results from rich kids with all the resources in the world, who've been trained to assume that they can do whatever they want if they work hard enough and who've always been treated as golden children. It's harder to motivate and equip students who have children, a job, a difficult educational background and still manage to study. I'm hugely more proud of those of my students who've struggled against huge disadvantages and gained a 2.2 than I am of those who stroll in, do no work and get a 2.1.
But no. For the Conservatives, a 'good' university is one with a rowing club, lots of privately-educated students and a good deal of prestige.
The Tory plan (explained in this article) is that the division between polytechnics and universities will be reinstated. On the face of it, that's fine. The polytechnics specialised in high-quality teaching, often of vocational and science-based courses. Many of them did these better than the universities: my own institution was nationally famous for the range and quality of its languages teaching. Then in 1992, they were forced to become universities, and started to look like 2nd-class cousins - judged for the quality of their research output despite never having been funded or encouraged to pursue research before, judged for their 'low' grade intake, despite having a commitment to their local communities and widening participation.
The Tories don't want to reinstate the potentially useful division of labour between universities and polytechnics. Instead, they want a two-tier system in which rich posh kids go to prestigious places to become leaders of society, and the rest go to their local community college to become call-centre drones and mobile phone salemen. Yet again, Ritzer's McDonaldisation thesis is proved accurate.
Cameron's plan is nothing more than thinly-disguised class war.
Now that Kate's instituted it, I nominate David Cameron as Wanker of the Week 2.
7 comments:
Jolly great post, that one.
Fair enough Vole, but he's not saying you can't be a teacher if you went to an ex-poly. He's saying they'll pay off the student loans of maths & science grads who want to be teachers & who have first or 2.1 degrees (as long as said degree is not from an ex-poly).
That does effectively bar most people though - student debts are now £15-20,000 and getting into teaching is the only way to pay them off quickly unless you become a merchant banker! If you do want to be a teacher and went to a poly, you'll start life £20,000 poorer than your university colleagues - no mortgage for a few more years, no marriage perhaps, no kids, less freedom to choose between potential employers. It's also, as you note, an attack on humanities teaching- after all, we want obedient drones teaching kids to work in call centres rather than producing independent thinkers.
It struck me that the no-poly's rule will fall apart in court. After all, every degree is validated by the QAA and is technically equivalent (I know, I know, but that's the position). So a rejected poly student has a strong case of discrimination. Will they really claim that a First in maths from Oxford Brookes isn't as acceptable as a 2.2 from Aberystwyth?
It's also an English policy - teacher training is devolved to Scotland and Wales. Even if the Tories do better there, they aren't going to be able to impose this on the Celts.
Of the week? Could be of the decade if he gets elected! Aside from issues already raised I have two major problems with this policy.
1) I (as you allude to above) feel it is dangerous and unhelpful to focus on quantitative 'maths and science graduates' as the future of our teaching elite - especially as it is painfully obvious (evidenced by reading the paper most days/many of your blogs entries) that a 'tick a box' mentality is exactly what is wrong with our society/political system as it stands. In my view quantitative research more often than not provides simplified solutions to simplified problems - i.e 'one size fits all' models that do not appreciate or cater for the complexity of real world issues.
2) Just because a teacher may be academically very gifted does not mean they will be a good teacher. I have seen some of my 'academic idols' (for want of better words) present and whilst their books are brilliant they are poor at communicating complex ideas in an engaging way or so that they are easily understandable and easy for students to relate to.
Hope the above makes sense/is expressed clearly - am very much suffering from PhD write up brain melt! :-(
Yeah, I don't know what they've got against ex-polys, if they're short of maths and science teachers they'd be better off being more inclusive. I'm all for them restricting the grade requirement though. Either this will end up being watered down (and the restrictions based on degrees from "good" universities will be dropped), or this is one half of a policy announcement, with the other half being that they want to turn the UK into some sort of high tech centre of innovation, attract more business / industry here, assuming their ed policies succeed in turning our workforce into suitably trained maths & science drones.
Good points: some of the brightest people I know are terrible teachers. I'm the other way round. Thick, but sympathetic.
As to turning the UK into a sci-tech wonderland: Harold Wilson announced that in 1964. We're still waiting. And in any case, India produces more computing graduates than the US - we'd be playing catch-up.
On the grades requirement: fine, though a 2.1 is now the average degree. Not many people manage 3rds, so the exclusion isn't that effective.
Excellent post. My first thought was that the plans would never stand up if legally challenged. As far as i understand, all degrees are equal (obviously some are more equal than others in reality.) If Tim 'nasty but dim' gets his way a 2:1 from a redbrick will be worth more than a first from a new university, despite both being marked to exactly the same criteria. Disgusting. His plan would effectively cut the throat of already ailing new universities.
Post a Comment