Well there is the £4bn from Uni's as a start. And I regard cutting eduction infrastructure as been as big a cut in eduction as any thing - teachers and their pupils need inspiring, functional and appropiate spaces to teach.



Well, graduates have never "taught" architects (not familiar with the scientific world), architects teach architectural students. If they did your point would be spot on. Many Chartered Architects and Engineers also work for Universities in teaching roles. It wouldn't work any other way. Further you are only really let off the leash in this country on Chartership, something that is achieved through experience and study while in the work place - it goes back to what I was saying earlier about "quality" - its why we lead the world. Companies like Fosters, Arups, Atkins are all at the top of the game.

It is true that some of the peripheral knowledge is taught differently, indeed I teach Architects and Engineers the latest software - but even I've got 12 years industry experience as a technician, they wouldn't hire me otherwise.

You are right, although as I've said in my previous post there is possibly a misunderstanding of how knowledge is passed in this country sometimes - we are not talking about GCSE maths when we are talking about the eduction of Engineers and Architects, as a process it's very different.

However, there is a cycle to all of these things - you need the companies for the eduction, you need the eduction for the companies - we have the companies, debatably the eduction is suffering at the moment, although I personally believe that is less to do with the eduction process, more to do with the aspirations of young people in this country, generally speaking. In otherwords, we need to keep building, keep recruiting local were possible, bringing in skill were needed in order to stimulate the whole system.

spoken as someone who has enjoyed the excess of the schools building programme.

Why is it that in my everyday life I come across people from the developing world that happily learn in a mud hut?

We need to get back to having disciplined and inspiring teachers, I spent many of my school years learning in a portakabin, it wasn't detrimental to my learning, the only two subjects that woefully failed me were French and Biology, and that was because my teachers for both were totally uninspiring and made the subject as painful as pullin teeth.

FFS Standee, if you knew what working on BSF was like budget wise, you would never have used the word "enjoyed".



Investment in schools, teachers, materials, matieniance, development and infrastructure, is one of this countries biggest requirements. My views on that have nothing to do with my previous time working on BSF, although I do believe that investment has nothing put positive effects all around, including for those who support the industry such as the building trade. The Tories have raped and pillaged this which will prove to be a huge mistake.



Because culturally that is were we are at. We don't live in the developing world, and I have every respect for how people in that situation get on, it is truly remarkable. But the simple fact is, that is not the UK, people here are use to a standard and when they don't get it, they gosomewere else - the same rule applies world over. Simple.



We need both. We need the teachers, like you say to be disaplined and inspiring, fullly agree, and we need the enviroment (and I'm not just talking new bricks and mortar) for them to do the job they need. I'm a teacher (of sorts), put me in a cramped hot room with poor lighting and equipment and I will do my best, but it will simply not be as good as been a light, fresh and well equipped space.

I also work in a high-technology innovation-led industry and I agree that British companies still do well. How much longer that will be the case is in question. I've been told by many of my customers in the semiconductor industry that there just isn't the number or quality of science and engineering graduates necessary for them to continue to grow or even to replace retiring staff. This is a direct result of the education policies of successive administrations.

Starting at Primary level, the quality of teaching staff has fallen over the years. I have direct experience of this as I was a school governor for many years at my local primary school. You wouldn't believe the poor level of applications for posts - people with very few qualifications, poor academic grades, applications submitted full of spelling and grammar errors - sorting the wheat from the chaff became increasingly difficult. And we were one of the best schools in the county!

Secondary education was admitted to be a mess at the start of New Labour's administration and still in a similar state at the end. Constant tinkering with exams and the introduction of league tables that encouraged schools to stream pupils into easier subjects rather than challenge them to succeed hasn't helped at all. And there is a huge shortfall in quality teachers for subjects such as maths and sciences.

Tertiary education was ruined by the ideological decision to increase the number of pupils studying for a degree from around 10% to 50% - something which simply could not be justified or afforded. As a result we now have tuition fees that ensure anyone studying for a science or engineering degree at a decent university will start their working life massively in debt. Given that science and engineering jobs in this country are generally not that well paid, why would anyone bother?

Top to bottom, education is a mess. And Grove is a low-grade moron who will just make things worse. This is the future of our country, the essential element in our future success and economic growth, and it's not fit for purpose.

Hence my depression.




It's worse now than it's ever been. The current cabinet is a joke - nobody with any brains in the most important posts and a snake-oil merchant as PM. They'll probably only last 4 or 5 years but they can do incalculable damage to the country in that time

I think there are two main factors behind the decline of education. The first is a negative second order consequence of a positive change - intelligent women are now much freer to choose careers (Law, Medicine etc) that were previously the sole domain of men. With more options, naturally fewer 'choose' teaching.

Secondly, education is an area were politicians seem to believe they know more about it than the professionals and their constant tinkering and demand for rigid adherence to curricula (sp?) has led to teaching barely being seen as a profession at all any more. I suspect this arises from the fact everyone has been to school and so develops an opinion, whereas not everybody has served in the military or spent such large amounts of time in hospitals or GP surgeries or courtrooms. Imagine if the SoS for Defence decided the Army only need one NCO rank - the Army would tell him to where to go, I'm sure.
It is sexist, though hopefully not offensively so, but perhaps the lack of aggressive defence of the teaching profession was down the fact that so many teachers were and are women and didn't/don't inspire as much deference in our still somewhat sexist society as an, invariably male, Brigadier General.

Indeed. My point is though is that they themselves have to be educated to a level which allows them to do their jobs effectively. Similar to Kosh I am currently involved in school governance and the standard of the majority of applications for teaching posts is nothing short of a disgrace.

Question Time the other week was from inner London. Gove was on discussing his new plans for the English baccalureate. As you might expect the locally picked audience was not overly sympathetic. Whether or not one agrees with the detail of his proposals is for another debate. What frightened me was the fact that four teachers in the audience all claimed they would find it difficult if not impossible to engage their pupils in the core subjects that the baccalaureate covers. Apparently pupils "wouldn't be interested". FFS teachers are trained, and paid well, to engage children and inspire them to learn. Instead of hand wringing get on and do it or get out would be my message.

Unfortunately teachers are increasing encouraged only to get the maximum number of pupils the highest grades possible in the easiest subjects they can push them into. We have League Tables to thank for that.

There are still good, inspiring teachers out there - my kids have been fortunate enough to attend schools that have some. There are far too many average or poor ones though, and a reluctance to deal with them.

Agreed which is why trying to concentrate more on core subjects and giving pupils a proper grounding is a good thing. That's harder for some teachers though which is why some don't like it.



Agreed.

What is the cause of that disgrace? Do no better potential applicants exist or are they simply not attracted to what has become an undervalued profession.




Nearly half of newly qualified teachers leave the profession within 5 years. Source:
[urlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/nov/16/teaching-problem-schools[/url

Some better applicants exist, but there is a distressingly large majority who really don't seem to be up to the standard that should be expected. And I'm not sure what you mean by an 'undervalued profession'. The rewards available to good teachers are better now than they ever have been. In fact the slew of low-quality applicants is at least in part due to the efforts made to attract all and sundry into the profession and the rewards on offer. In other words the opposite effect to that you suggest.


From my experience the vast majority are people who should never have been teachers in the first place. They've applied for the wrong reasons and don't have the aptitude, skills, or personal qualities required.