Lib Dems are wrong about school league tables…

The Lib Dem’s plans to divide league tables up so middle class dominated schools are ‘shown up’ more when they are ‘failing’ is hardly going to help improve the quality of state education. I oppose league tables anyway: they encourage schools to use selection and exclusionary practices so that they ‘look’ better, but when in reality there are substantial issues of inequality and discrimination. These policies will not help the state sector improve, it will just lead to more schools preventing children taking GCSE’s (etc.) because of their class status, race, gender or whatever. It will just increase the inequalities within the school system, that are cleverly hidden under the existing league tables.

It promotes a ‘you’ and ‘them’ attitude, with the BBC describing the proposals as the equivalent to football league divisions. It will, as many have rightly claimed, lead to labelling of schools – as schools will be categorised into ‘poor’ vs. ‘rich’ schools. This will only further undermine the attempts to try to reduce the discrimination in university applications – universities would be able to use these tables to judge with even more detail what ‘type’ of school you came from.

Separate league tables will create more divisions between the schools, where schools within the ‘poor’ and ‘rich’ league tables start competing more with each other to be the ‘best’. This whole market ethos is so wrong when we are talking about education. There should be a move to creating a more universal standard of education, not a move to segregate schools that are supposed to have a certain ‘background’. It will not help improve the state education quality, it will just add to the already existent discrimination and elitism that exists in the schooling system.

For once, the Lib Dems are actually incorrect when talking about equality and education, these proposals will not help with the much-needed improvement of the state system – it will only further inequality and exclusionary practices.

The Tories have it wrong about (higher) education…

So, apparently all those who have done ‘soft’ subjects, according to the Tories, are misguided. Why is it that the Tories seem to equate the ‘quality’ of your education to how ‘hard’ a subject is? Why do they never take into account that actually some people want to do subjects that may not be as privileged in society as maths or science? In a society that encourages so much individualism it seems rather hypocritical to bash people down who choose to enter so-called ‘soft’ subjects. I have friends who obtained three As at A-level and went on to do subjects such as media studies, are the Tories going to call them misguided? As misguided to them is equated to the level of ‘intellect’, which they measure in educational qualifications.

Whilst more working class students are entering higher education, it is worrying that there is still such a wide gap between the rich and the poorer students in higher education. It is encouraging that there have been improvements but it is less encouraging to consider what changes the Tories would undertake (or wouldn’t undertake) if they took power. There obviously needs to be a wide scale reform of the state schools, Tory gimmicks such as allowing companies to take over and run the schools as profit machines will do nothing to raise the standard of schooling, nor will scrapping Sure Start, for example. Nor will the Tories botched approach of promoting only certain types of studies as ‘acceptable’. It is so elitist it is untrue. Bryne Tofferings is an example of the Tory approach, he can’t believe that the government would even consider each subject in its own merit and rather a ‘good’ degree is one that is ‘hard’. However, instead, I take the view that a ‘good’ degree is one where the individual undertaking it enjoys it, and are not just pressured by the government or whoever to do it because it is the ‘best’ or ‘desired’. The beauty of liberalism is that people should have the choice in deciding things such as what educational path they want to take without feeling stigmatised, the Tories once again show how hypocritical their civil liberty rhetoric is.

Another thing that annoys me is the rhetoric around university places, as there is the belief that consistently increasingly the target will somehow equal participation when in fact if you don’t change the structure and the culture of many educational practices (that includes the reform of the state schools mentioned before) then the gap between the rich and poor will just increase and increase… This is one of the key issues that the Labour government have failed to tackle during their tenure.

Furthermore, the fact that there are more women who enter higher education but then when they graduate they (usually) have to experience the  pay gap (and general discrimination) shows how to increase social mobility there needs to be more substantial change to society to tackle discriminatory views, that hinder the progression of many people in society. I am mindful of the argument that it is because girls do ‘softer’ subjects, but as stated, I find the classification of so-called ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ subjects misconceived, as each subject offers a different type of challenge. Where is the ability to have choice, individuality and liberty if you are pushed some ‘ideal’ education by the state?

Education matters. However, pushing this elitist view that it is only certain subjects/education that really count, stigmatises students and further constrains their/our liberty and creativity.