bemused
Well-Known Member
I’m sure the fine posters of Urban can give me some well-considered points of view on this topic, I’m sure are someone distorted and ill-informed by my own bias.
I recently had a slightly heated conversation with a friend of mine regarding student fees for university vs spending more on secondary education. The assumption being that cash is finite, and we can’t fund both.
My point was that university student fees are so high on the political agenda because university students vote. But, by the very fact they are at university they are already towards the top of the educational pile. So they are already better placed to reap the rewards of a first-class education.
Whereas rather giving more funding to university students dumping the resources into primary and secondary education would improve outcomes for children who don’t reach the standard to go onto university education but rather leave school with almost no worthwhile qualifications and poor opportunities.
A report last year claimed that almost half of children leaving primary school don’t meet the basic attainment levels. The number of children obtaining five good GCSEs is still relatively low and there are significant deltas between the average and those children who have other challenges such as language, deprivation, learning difficulties etc.
I left school with about 7 CSEs after attending an appalling school (and being lazy) and didn’t go to University. Years later working for BT it dawned on me that having a shit education wasn’t a good idea – ten years later after access classes, night school and about £60k of my own money I acquired my master's degree. I’ve no doubt of the transformational nature of education.
However, I think if we only have one pot of money I’d rather we spent in primary and secondary education because we simply get more bang for our buck there.
I’d be interested in teachers perspectives because I’m well aware that I have a strong observational bias.
I recently had a slightly heated conversation with a friend of mine regarding student fees for university vs spending more on secondary education. The assumption being that cash is finite, and we can’t fund both.
My point was that university student fees are so high on the political agenda because university students vote. But, by the very fact they are at university they are already towards the top of the educational pile. So they are already better placed to reap the rewards of a first-class education.
Whereas rather giving more funding to university students dumping the resources into primary and secondary education would improve outcomes for children who don’t reach the standard to go onto university education but rather leave school with almost no worthwhile qualifications and poor opportunities.
A report last year claimed that almost half of children leaving primary school don’t meet the basic attainment levels. The number of children obtaining five good GCSEs is still relatively low and there are significant deltas between the average and those children who have other challenges such as language, deprivation, learning difficulties etc.
I left school with about 7 CSEs after attending an appalling school (and being lazy) and didn’t go to University. Years later working for BT it dawned on me that having a shit education wasn’t a good idea – ten years later after access classes, night school and about £60k of my own money I acquired my master's degree. I’ve no doubt of the transformational nature of education.
However, I think if we only have one pot of money I’d rather we spent in primary and secondary education because we simply get more bang for our buck there.
I’d be interested in teachers perspectives because I’m well aware that I have a strong observational bias.
