Indeed, as I was saying on the dissertation thread until it disappeared, education in the UK has become totally devalued, anyone and everyone can go to University and get a degree in something, that isn't what our ambition should have been, what we should have strived for is that everyone has equal opportunity to access higher education if they have the relevant intelligence and dedication, instead we dumbed down the whole system in the name of making it "fair", which has led to complete degredation of the skills of young people, I'm only 36 and even I despair at the quality of spelling and grammar (not on these boards, I mean in letters/emails) and a total lack of general knolwedge about the wider world.

But then I am sure my Dad's generation said that about the generation that are just hitting their 40's now!

The UK has to become a nation of innovators, engineers, technicians, scientists instead of builders, farmers, fisherman and manufactures - I think we are, slowly and begrudgingly heading in the right direction. Our engineering, architectural, as well as scientific, academic and economic industries are among the best respected the world over. Clients in emerging economies still want British companies to do the job - and there is a reason for that - quality.

I work in one of those industries, and I promote innovation - which British companies are investiing in in the bucket load. I think the future is an exciting one, especially for the UK - we are leading the way in many areas of importance.

Politically, we need to sort ourselves out. I agree. Has that ever not been true?

I do agree that we have made a bit of a mess with the Eduction system in this country... not only have we managed to now pull funding from school building and maintenance programs (Thanks Mr Cameron), but education cuts make it very difficult for teachers to teach, and there is the real worry that we will be losing teachers when we should be getting more of them. I firmly believe Eduction should be protected above just about everything else. Further, IMO, we need to get kids off "media studies" courses and into architecture, science, maths etc more, and we have failed to do that for many years now - but thats my personal soap box issue.

Unfortunately, countries like India and China, and even places like Iran are not making the same mistake - that we need to sort out, but I do believe that our above mentioned industries will see us into a bright and prosperous future.

you know my thoughts on that, so no point covering old ground.


what cuts?



do you think many of the recent graduates that have become teachers are really capable of educating legions of architects, scientists etc..

I don't, most new teachers I have met recently can only teach by using pre-prepared materials and lesson plans, they are not educators nor inspirational.

Point 1 - I'm not complaining about the subsidies in the short term. What we have to be very careful about though is ensuring our economic recovery is not disadvantaged because the price of energy charged to our manufacturing base, and for that matter domestic consumers, is higher than the price charged to our competitors in other countries as a result of our green crusade. Further investment in green technology can only be maintained long term if our economy grows and creates the money for investment. Crusading for the green approach is fine (and Mr Huhne in the current regime is a real champion) but it's not viable to fleece the citizens and businesses for the extra investment cash forever by way of higher energy costs - this will prevent the economy from generating future investment needed and we will fall behind.

Point 2 - I'm not representing the 'deniers' as you put it - I didn't offer my view on climate change so put down your placard. The reference to poor science relates to several gaffes in the lifetime of the IPCC. [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8387737.stmHere's one[/url. Producing scaremongering garbage like that provides plenty of ammo for those who can produce other science that is contrary to the view, and leaves the argument open to those that may be suspicious of vested interest in what is now and will continue to be a multi billion pound industry.

Anyway as I said at the start well done to Hull for getting the nod here - a much needed boost.

The biggest problem education faces in my view is the declining standard of people entering the teaching profession. For the last 30-40 years education has been abysmally handled by successive power bearers. We are now left with the frightening prospect that due to the fact that our education standards are so low the overall level of those hired to teach is not high enough. It's a bad place to be. Whilst having shiny new buildings might help - and if we had the money would be great - it wouldn't address the core problem IMHO.

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.

As per Kosh above. The money is excellent in the teaching profession now. And so it should be for good teachers who have the ability to do the job to the required standard.

Where's the problem then? Just give the jobs to the good applicants. As long as there are enough good people to fill the jobs, what does it matter if you have also have a slew of low quality applicants that have to be rejected? It's a shame they've wasted their own time and yours, but it won't impact on the pupils.

By undervalued, I don't mean underpaid necessarily - I suspect the increases in pay are necessary (painfully so for the government due to the number of teachers) to counterbalance education being a societal and political football, the resultant loss of kudos and professional freedom and increasingly trying working conditions in some schools. But money, by itself, motivates you to a job only so well as you don't get sacked.

back on topic.

Although I think this is good news for the region, A few hundred jobs is better than non. Plus if all is done correctly the knock on effects will create further jobs in the region. I don't believe wind power is the way to go. Doesn't it take 20+ years before a wind turbine actually reduces co2 due to the energy used and omissions output in manufacturing of the turbine, also I dont believe that takes into consideration the transport of the raw materials, transport of the actual turbine and then the installation of the turbine. And then on top the maintenance. All that coupled with the fact they cant run in high wind due to the fact the substations and cabling back to sure cant take the amount of power they produce. Also wind isn't reliable enough.

By the time they become carbon neutral they will probably be in need of replacing or so much maintenance the whole process starts again.

Better options should be further researched. However our dependence one energy whether it be foreign or domestic as a whole should be reduced. Better insulation and building methods as a start such as turf roofs. Them pipes that run deep under ground (don't know what they are called) for hot water and heating should be adopted more. Also as daft as it sound health & safety plays a stupid part, such as having to leave lights on inside abandoned buildings in case some one breaks in.

Also I just don't like the look of the things, however I still have never heard the supposed noise people say they make, even when stood near one when windy whether it be up or down wind of the things.

Still good news for the region and hopefully castle street however I wont hold my breath on the latter.

There are not - that's the point. As a Governor sitting on an appointments panel if you reject an application on the basis that it's a poor one you are rejecting that application for your school only. The unsuccessful candidate is more than likely to find a job at another school sooner or later. The good ones tend to migrate to the best schools. The not so good tend to finish up at the bad. Not always the case but generally true. It's one reason why good schools are good and bad schools are bad. Leadership and teacher quality are the two biggest factors in a school being successful or not. That's why it's possible to have a good school in a not-so-good area and vice versa.

I realise that - it was the point I was making in slightly perverse, overly subtle way.

Basically we all agree that we want and need better teachers. You and Kosh talk about dealing with the poor ones - a fair but underdefined point - or encouraging them to move on, which, without moves to replace them, swaps a quality problem for a quantity one. Long term we need to produce more and better educated potential teachers (a chicken and egg kind of problem) or attract more of the cream to teaching (which'll have a cost elsewhere). The situation might be a disgrace, but it is a predictable outcome of the system and attitudes we have - without changing those, we won't change the situation.

Back on topic - really good news for the city.

I am no expert however back home the system in schools is still run under the following rules
1, you go to school smart
2, you speak when spoken to
3, your disruptive you get hammered
the buildings are functionate and highly equiped however the whole ethos of schooling is different there with a real battle to get results and excel from most kids whereas here there is a growing number of kids whom see school as the bit before the dole queue, thankfully not all...
There is a lot to be proud of in the UK (not the weather or gas prices mind) however in many areas this country is light years behind the USA, OZ and NZ especially in education

but like i say thats my opinion and i am no expert but i doubt there is many teachers go to work planning to be a crap teacher

thats what i was trying to say but you do it so much more legibly

Please take a look at the true carbon footprint and environmental impact of nuclear, from mine to socket. Then come back and tell us that alternative, renewable sources are so bad.

How do you suggest the nuclear industry generates the power to refine the product?