We don't need no (State in our) education

OFSTED reported last week that one in three British state schools is 'inadequate'. In terms of apsiration, this statement doesn't exactly reach for the stars. 'Inadequate'? They have fallen short, not of 'excellence' but of 'adequacy'. I often hear that children should not be made to feel inadequate. But there's really no need. According to OFSTED the state system is making a pretty good fist of it.

If it were 1 in 100, 1 in 50 or even 1 in 10, parents might be forgiven for thinking that state education was worth chancing their arm with. But if you have a 1 in 3 chance of condemning your child to claw their way through a system that was 'inadequate', well - you wouldn't be surprised if parents voted with their feet.

Problem is, they can't really. Opting out of state education is expensive. But need it be?

We would do better to look at Sweden, where the government has trialled 'vouchers' for education. Parents are given the cash, they decide what to do with it; they can go public, or they can try private. The Conservatives flirted with such an idea, but I'm not sure what their policy on it now is.

Howls of derision always arise from teaching unions, of course, who decry any attempt to 'privatise' education. Translation: they don't want parents to choose where to send their child. They (and the British left) want to keep children in their place - in the arms of the state. Great for the 2 out of 3 that, presumably, have education that is 'adequate' or better. Not so rosy for the 33.3% who are left. Opponents of parental choice seem to have co-opted the Jesuits' maxim: "Give me the child and I will show you the man". I went to a Jesuit (state) school, so I know a thing or two about that ;)

Labour have had 12 years to make good on their promise of "education, education and education". They have failed. Millions of school leavers will enter the job market with inadequate skills. Why? Government sets the policy, teachers implement it. At least 1 out of these is to blame. It's no pretty obvious that Government diktats have a lot to do with it: what should be taught, when, and to meet which politically-motivated target. Exam grades at GCSE and A Level keep going relentlessly upwards, while employers, universities and businesses keep complaining about illiterate and inumerate 18 year-olds. It's partly because grade inflation is the result of government targets. Much easier to give examinees an easy ride through coursework, resits and guided questions than to really raise standards.

Not that British teaching philosophy has helped. In many countries, like Slovakia you need a masters degree to teach languages or science; not here. In Japan being a physics teacher requires many years experience in industry; here just a bachelors degree and a teaching qualification will do it. Talk about poverty of aspiration.