Tuesday, 24 November 2009

Because The Kids Just Aren’t Getting Dumb Enough Quickly Enough For Some…

Setting and streaming should be abolished in state schools amid fears weaker pupils are being left behind, ministers have been told.
Well, just fantastic
All children should be taught in mixed-ability classes to boost standards and self-esteem among all students, according to a report.
You know, if you stopped a few people in the street and asked them what the problem with children was, I very much doubt ‘low self esteem’ would be high on the list.

Indeed, most of them have far too much (totally unwarranted) self esteem…
Researchers said that setting pupils was often done purely for the “benefit of teachers”.
You mean so they don’t have to teach three different ways in the same lesson? How surprising!
The study, by Teach First, which recruits top graduates as trainee teachers in tough inner-city schools, also called for a shake-up of admissions to stop the best comprehensives being filled with bright, middle-class children.
Because that would be terrible, wouldn’t it? Bright children in schools? Madness!
Don’t ask why. It just would
It said schools should introduce a system of “fair banding” in which all children are given an entrance test and equal numbers of bright, average and poor-performing pupils are given places.
And presumably placed in the same classes. Otherwise, schools would simply band within themselves.

They do get something right though:
In a further conclusion, it called for the scrapping of league tables amid claims teachers are routinely forced to enter pupils for easier courses to boost their ranking.
Well, of course they do.
But the recommendations sparked anger among head teachers and educationalists who said it would be a recipe for “mediocrity” .
Mediocrity is what we’ve got now. What we’d get if we were insane enough to accept these recommendations is anyone’s guess…
Ralph Tabberer, the Government’s former director general of schools, said little time was spent protecting “scholarship, genuinely high quality study and its importance."
True enough. And if this bunch get their way, there will be even less time spent.

What did they base this study on, then?
In the latest study, Teach First collected views from 500 graduates who spent two years working in schools in deprived communities.
Ah. It’s a totally self-selecting sample, then. Only people who have already drunk the Teach First kool-aid are being consulted on this.

So, who are Teach First? Well, their website says they are:
…an independent charity launched in 2002…
And their mission statement says they are dedicated to:
… a powerful social change initiative aimed at tackling educational disadvantage in challenging schools around the UK…
So, where are they getting their money from?

Would you believe only half comes from other than governmental sources?
Approximately half of Teach First's annual budget is raised from private sources through one-off and sustainable grants from businesses, charitable foundations and individual giving.
The main culprits here are the Training and Development Agency and the Department for Children, Schools and Families.

Oddly, their website shows that their corporate supporters are precisely the sort of businesses you’d think would run a mile from socialist claptrap.

So, what gives?

10 comments:

Stu said...

Errr, is that the same as the report from just 2 days ago which said 'focus on under performing pupils damages the most able'? It seems to use all the same words but come to a very different conclusion.

:-/

captainff said...

teachers are routinely forced to enter pupils

*snigger*

TDK said...

Oddly, their website shows that their corporate supporters are precisely the sort of businesses you’d think would run a mile from socialist claptrap.

So, what gives?


No surprise. Big business loves central planning. Their names are James Taggart, Wesley Mouch, Lee Hunsacker, Eugene Lawson, Cuffy Meigs et al

JuliaM said...

"Errr, is that the same as the report from just 2 days ago which said 'focus on under performing pupils damages the most able'? It seems to use all the same words but come to a very different conclusion. "

Yup, it appears to be.

"No surprise. Big business loves central planning."

And yet, just this morning, the M&S boss is decrying the lack of learning in school leavers.

Wonder if M&S gives money to these people?

Umbongo said...

As TDK notes "big business loves central planning". The same fascists (I use the word to describe those who subscribe to the corporatist state beloved of Mussolini) have also piled into the MMGW bollocks. I suggest you read the weekly back page of the Telegraph Business Section (paid for in whole or in part by the Carbon Trust) to see which business leaders would be quite at home in East Germany.

Oldrightie said...

An educated electorate is the last thing the Bilderbergers want. They would ask too many questions.

Hogday said...

I think I see the plan

JuliaM said...

"I think I see the plan"

Oh, good grief! How can you reject someone on the basis that they might get bored and leave? They might equally walk under a bus the day after their training commences...

David Gillies said...

Mixed-ability teaching is probably more damaging to children than being regularly buggered by a Catholic priest. The authors of this 'report' deserve having their fingers smashed with lump hammers just to stop them committing anything so wicked to paper again.

Sue said...

Another addition for the Fake Charity site?

I've always believed that separating mixed ability children is good for kids that live in deprived areas. How else are they to prove they excel and get lifted out of the mediocrity of the rest of them?