British government's neo-Marxist education policy punishes excellence

By Simon Heffer



When I went up to Cambridge University almost 30 years ago, I didn't think I was going to spend three years in a laboratory staffed by social engineers. I thought I was about to have the privilege of getting a world-class education, with no hidden agenda. Happily, the university's vice-chancellor, Alison Richard, takes the same view, and this week, thanks to some welcome and outspoken remarks on this subject, she has entered into a confrontation with the Government over its neo-Marxist education policy.

I can think of few greater hypocrisies than Labour criticising our old and great universities for taking, in its view, too few people from "disadvantaged" backgrounds. Every time someone from a public or grammar [selective] school gets into Oxbridge, the Leftists (many of whom went to one of these universities from just such a school) wince at the "inequality" that has been perpetuated. They cannot bear to acknowledge the truth: that more people from "their" comprehensive schools would get to Oxbridge, beating the competition in a fair fight, if "their" comprehensive schools were better.

Thanks to the determination of Labour to stick to Marxist educational practices in these schools, with their emphasis on anti-elitism and their fear of stretching pupils, children who go through them have at least one hand tied behind their back from day one. Some are lucky to live in areas served by one of our 164 grammar schools, but with all the main political parties now opposed to these magnificent institutions, that lifeline will not be made available to a wider clientele. This is sad, not least because if there were grammar schools in every town, everywhere - even the meanest council estate - would be in a catchment area.

Having put these obstacles in the way of children whose parents cannot afford to have them privately educated, or to live in a grammar-school catchment area, the Government compounds the nightmare. It has in many cases made an education at the best universities financially beyond the reach of students from poor families.

My college at Cambridge is currently raising funds to offer financial help to those from poor families who feel they cannot afford the education they have earned by merit, so low is the family income above which one qualifies for no state help.

As Labour wastes money on poor universities with vacuous degree courses in order to boast that more people get into higher education, some students are too intimidated by the size of the debt they would have to incur to take up places at Oxbridge. In fact, because of subsidised college rents, Oxbridge can be less expensive than other universities. However, some students feel their only option is to attend a university near home, cutting costs by living with their parents. How a government that brings about this situation can turn round and lecture Oxbridge on elitism is beyond me.

Cambridge has a point only if it continues to be a university for very bright undergraduates who can benefit from the teaching of often brilliant dons who work there doing research. Admitting people on a quota system based on social class can only drag down Cambridge's standards, driving quality elsewhere, and ultimately harming the future of the country. There is no snobbery about class at Cambridge. There is a desire to give the best education to those best equipped to benefit from it.

If the state schools could produce more suitable candidates, and if the funding system enabled them to afford to go to such a university, there wouldn't be a problem. That one exists is not Cambridge's fault. It is the Government's. And until its education policy ceases to serve the outdated ideological obsession of the Left, and starts instead to serve the best interests of our children, that will remain the case.

Source





Some Australian schools still using discredited literacy teaching method

With predictable results

OUTDATED methods for teaching children to read were the cause of Queensland's dismal performance in national tests, a literacy expert claims. Smart State students came seventh out of eight states and territories in the first national literacy and numeracy tests, released last Friday. Only the Northern Territory, where absenteeism and social disadvantage rates are highest, fared worse.

Private literacy consultant Carol Christensen blamed the state's dire literacy test scores on Education Queensland bureaucrats who were obsessed with "whole language" reading philosophies. Ms Christensen, who co-ordinates school reading programs based on the rival phonics method of reading, said it was time the bureaucrats stopped "covering their butts" and start worrying about their students. "You wouldn't believe the amount of (Queensland) children in Years 9 and 10 who can't read simple, three-letter words," Ms Christensen said. "It breaks your heart. "(The department's) practices are the cause of the misery of our children, compromising their whole life opportunities."

Education Minister Rod Welford downplayed the claims, saying academic opinion on the best reading techniques was diverse. "There are a number of academics with varying views," he said. "(Ms Christensen) has one perspective and Professor Ken Rowe, who wrote the national literacy inquiry report, has expressed another that encapsulates world's best practice."

He said the Government was spending $35 million over four years to target literacy blackspots and millions more in one-to-one tuition for struggling Years 5 and 6 students. "Every (Queensland) teacher is being brought up to speed on how to teach literacy and numeracy successfully and effectively," he said.

While he admitted to being surprised at the gap between the state's results and performance in NSW and Victoria, he was confident recently introduced measures would lift future performances. The national test results released last week showed Queensland students in all year levels tested were below average competency in reading, writing, spelling, punctuation and grammar.

Source