Cause & effect
Anastasia De Waal, 29 May 2009
This week the Conservatives have uncovered statistics showing that the richest 10% of young people in England are almost twice as likely to go to university as the poorest 10%, despite the annual £2.3bn spent in publicly-funded measures to widen access to higher education.
David Willetts, shadow universities secretary, asserted that “Going to university should be about academic ability, not where you were born.” The director-general of the Russell Group, Wendy Piatt, identified what she sees as being the main hurdle: “The biggest obstacle to widening participation is educational underachievement.” Common sense, but how can such problems be resolved? Mr Willetts suggests the Conservatives would encourage universities to offer places to disadvantaged pupils with lower grades, and then coach them for the year preceding entry to the courses: perhaps one way of addressing Ms Piatt’s concerns.
Turning to schools, another headline this week reports that parent Mrinal Patel has been charged with fraud for using a false address in an attempt to secure a place for her five-year-old son at a leading state school in Harrow. If found guilty, she could face a fine of £5, 000 or up to a year in prison. The case must be set against the 162 places withdrawn by almost 50 schools this year on similar suspicions: she is not alone in her desperation. The important question is perhaps not whether or not Mrs Patel is guilty, but why so many parents are prepared – arguably compelled – to risk so much in the quest for a place in certain schools.
The key perhaps to both dilemmas is to raise the standards of education, rather than simply lowering the entry standards: for university and schools too. The government may not be able to change where children live, or alter their home lives, but it can change their education. The Conservatives’ plan leaves it too late: the playing field cannot be levelled at 17. Mrinal Patel’s predicament points to one of the key factors in underachievement: unsatisfactory primary provision. If some of the money spent on access programmes were redirected to improving educational opportunities at an early age, the dichotomy between ‘good’ – currently oversubscribed – schools, and ‘bad’ schools would diminish. Educational horizons would be broadened early enough for children to fully explore what those horizons might offer. As dentists are fond of saying: prevention is better than cure.
By Helen Cowen
David Willetts, shadow universities secretary, asserted that “Going to university should be about academic ability, not where you were born.” he is right of course, and that is exactly why “the richest 10% of young people are almost twice as likely to go to University as the poorest 10%”. This is because the young people are not themselves “rich”, it is their parents who are “rich”. They are rich because most of them are High Achievers. And they tend to produce High Achieving offspring – with notable exceptions, no doubt. So, it is no suprise that High Achieving parents tend to produce children who are more likely to go to University. It has nothing to do with how much money they have – if it was about money, then throwing taxpayer’s money, eg 2.3 Billion, at the problem would solve it. But it doesn’t solve it, does it ? And it never will.
To be quite blunt, having debauched secondary education in the name of equality, the despicable left are now taking the cudgels to the tertiary sector. I am shocked that Willets should be going along with this. His proposed year’s coaching is not only too late, it is utterly inadequate. Worse, it props up the revolting system from which poor Mrs Patel so justly recoils. It is time to reintroduce selection – fast. The High Master of St Paul’s, Martin Stephen, suggests that 13 might be a better moment of decision than 11. Others have concerns about the notion of basing selection purely upon a sequence of exams. Fair enough: continuous assessment in tandem with psychometric testing at the primary level should offer a wealth of information on which to make a judgement. Selection might equally be diversified – recognising not merely general intelligence but biases or strengths. But getting rid of it entirely; hurling pupils into the vast, unfocussed, purposeless turmoil of the mammoth comprehensive; removing all power of discipline; adding to the mulch a crowd of children once catered for in specialist schools; topping it off with a stream of non-anglophone immigrants – this has been Labour’s prescription for success. It has been a near criminal failure – like most of their “experiments”. The bully, the pusher and lately the cut-throat have thrived in this abominable socialist swamp. It is time it was drained.
“The key perhaps to both dilemmas is to raise the standards of education, rather than simply lowering the entry standards: for university and schools too. ”
One is tempted to utter, “No sh*t, Sherlock!”
Isn’t it the more general case that – so eager for self-aggrandisation and personal virtue – social policy has become ruled by a general sentimentality which does no one good but its self-congratulatory guardians?
(1) Let us go back to what education aspires to do: Namely, equip young people to live as good a life as possible later on.
(2) Let us interpret this: Surely, it means to provide a vision of choices and opportunities that are open and provide the skills to successfully engage with those opportunities?
(3) Let us interpret this: Surely, it means that the standards ought to be what are necessary to successfully engage with the opportunities to which the students are drawn. It also suggests that the system should not tolerate behaviour which would later see that pupil ostracise themselves from society, damaging or negating their capability to succeed, if continuing to exhibit it.
(4) Let us therefore recognise key characteristics of a “caring” system: That the different levels of abilities of students means it would be unkind (vindictive even) to set levels of standards either knowingly higher or lower than that which the pupils could achieve. Moreover, strong discipline is potentially important as part of the socialisation process alongside the academic process.
Thus, (1) discrimination in education (rather than making university nigh compulsory), (2) the potential to attain high standards, and (3) strong discipline become necessary.
The lefties view that these are somehow ‘fascist’ concepts is only borne from sentimentality and warped, self-centred priorities.