Education, education, education. Three things the current Conservative Party seems not to like very much.
Here in Monmouth, we are unfortunate enough to be saddled with a Member of Parliament, David Davies, who shoulders a chip so large that it carries an EU health warning. In a recent exchange with a Minister of State for Education, he asked what steps were being taken to reduce red tape for employers. A pretty standard question, you may think, and fairly uncontroversial. An equally bland response came forth. Then Davies follow up revealed his true colours:
"I thank the Minister very much for that. Does he agree that, to many people, high-quality vocational courses will offer a far better route to gainful employment than a meaningless degree somewhere?" (1)
A meaningless degree? Meaningless to whom? To which degrees was Davies referring? The one he took? Sadly not. For Davies did not attend University, and has never wasted an opportunity to deride those who do. Instead, he worked for the family firm. One can only imagine the intensity of that particular interview. "What is your name?" "Davies." "Welcome aboard."
If this was the singular, isolated case of Davies showing his dislike for education, he could (at a push) be forgiven. Unfortunately, it's not. Back in February, Davies criticised students as being bone idle - a ridiculous generalisation, and, as I have pointed out, not one based on any personal experience. Such knee-jerk reactions do not enhance anyone's reputation, but given that he made his comments within the Monmouth Constituency, it's doubly embarrassing.
Back in 2007, Davies blundered his way into a debate on education inspections with characteristic thought and consideration:
"I saw that it is schools in the independent sector which will face snap inspections, to ensure compliance with Charity Commission regulations. The state sector will continue to receive ample warning of any effort to uncover their failings."
This, according to Davies, was unfair, given that:
"The majority of parents who educate their children independently do so at great personal sacrifice often because their local state schools are not performing well." (2)
Which schools was he thinking of? Maybe Monmouth Comprehensive, judged by it's most recent inspection to be:
If this was the singular, isolated case of Davies showing his dislike for education, he could (at a push) be forgiven. Unfortunately, it's not. Back in February, Davies criticised students as being bone idle - a ridiculous generalisation, and, as I have pointed out, not one based on any personal experience. Such knee-jerk reactions do not enhance anyone's reputation, but given that he made his comments within the Monmouth Constituency, it's doubly embarrassing.
Back in 2007, Davies blundered his way into a debate on education inspections with characteristic thought and consideration:
"I saw that it is schools in the independent sector which will face snap inspections, to ensure compliance with Charity Commission regulations. The state sector will continue to receive ample warning of any effort to uncover their failings."
This, according to Davies, was unfair, given that:
"The majority of parents who educate their children independently do so at great personal sacrifice often because their local state schools are not performing well." (2)
Which schools was he thinking of? Maybe Monmouth Comprehensive, judged by it's most recent inspection to be:
"... a very good school with outstanding features in the standards it achieves, the quality of education it provides and in the effectiveness of its leadership and management. A particular strength is the innovative approach it adopts in all areas but especially in devising stimulating and effective learning experiences. Inspectors’ judgements match the school’s self-evaluation grades in all seven key questions." (3)
Perhaps he was referring to Chepstow School (another Comprehensive in his constituency) where over three quarters of "lazy" students managed to achieve 'A' level grade C or better last year, higher that the national average?
If not those two schools, what about another in his constituency, King Henry VIII school in Abergavenny? Unfortunately for the ignorant Davies, inspectors who stayed for a whole week:
"...found that pupils at key stage 3 'had made significant progress' since the last inspection in 1999. In national curriculum tests, they found that 'the proportion of pupils achieving the expected level or higher in all three core subjects is well above national averages'. GCSE results for pupils gaining 5 or more passes 'are above the national average' ." (4)
Or maybe none of the above. Perhaps, in keeping with many of Davies utterances, he hadn't bothered thinking before opening his mouth. If students in his constituency had been as lazy as he in doing their homework, then the inspectors may have had reason to complain.
Another interesting point here is an assumption Davies seems to make about independent schools. If they are superior to these excellent state schools, then surely they have nothing to fear from snap inspections? Another confused and muddle-headed idea is that parents who educate their children privately are the only ones to make sacrifices. Rather than deride the parents of children at state schools, he should be praising those people in Monmouth who work exceedingly hard in helping their children achieve more than ever before.
Monmouth's students are not lazy. They, along with many of their compatriots across the country, are working harder than ever before, achieving more than ever before and are rightly lauded for it. Apart from by Davies, of course, who seems to dislike education, students, parents and schools, unless they are private. Monmouth's students deserve everything they have worked hard to achieve. What they do not deserve is a series of ignorant rants by an unthinking and unintelligent M.P.
No comments:
Post a Comment