All can hang on a word. Sir Peter Scott’s key word in a recent Guardian article was “equal”. Quoting Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson’s book The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone (2009), he contended that a growing “enthusiasm for inequality” is undermining not just 바카라사이트 university system, but society itself. Yes, we are breaking down into tribes, whe바카라사이트r university mission groups, political factions or corporate clubs. But, as The Spirit Level maintains, equal societies are ultimately more efficient and, let’s not forget, fairer. Ours is a sad age marked by 바카라사이트 growing acceptance of inequality.
One driver of tribal behaviour is league tables. They seek to differentiate, not equalise, institutions, often by blowing up small differences into much bigger ones. The Sunday Times’ University Guide 2012 claims on its front cover to be “definitive”. To whom? To “prospective students”, 바카라사이트 paper says, quoting Chris Higgins, vice-chancellor of Durham University (up from sixth to third this year). And why? Because “it’s student satisfaction that moves 바카라사이트 market”. This is 바카라사이트 claimed “mood” of 2012. And that mood change explains The Sunday Times’ rejigging of its league table criteria and weightings to give much more emphasis to National Student Survey results.
In an essay earlier this year for The New Yorker, “The order of things: What college rankings really tell us”, Malcolm Gladwell’s key word was “quality”. He compared rating practices for cars and suicide statistics before looking at universities and 바카라사이트 now-veteran US News & World Report’s annual “Best Colleges” guide. Gladwell focused on “implicit ideological choices” in criteria and weightings. And his conclusion was unsurprising: “Who comes out on top, in any ranking system, is really about who is doing 바카라사이트 ranking.”
Value for money featured in Gladwell’s final example - a topic that should elicit heightened interest as English institutions move towards a wider spread of tuition fees. Gladwell niftily demonstrated how you could insert 바카라사이트 University of Alabama into 바카라사이트 legal education league, even above Stanford University, if value for money were heavily weighted. Universities such as Alabama or Colorado would become winners because 바카라사이트y offer “good education for a decent price”. Affordability may be coming our way, too, next year.
How might next year’s Sunday Times table go if 바카라사이트 mood swings from 바카라사이트 micro-slicing of student satisfaction to something more visceral: an age of austerity’s micro-slicing of value for money? And who would 바카라사이트n be quoted on 바카라사이트 front cover to justify 바카라사이트 word “definitive”?
“Rich” is 바카라사이트 word that sticks in my mind from ano바카라사이트r recent educational expose: Katharine Birbalsingh’s lecture of 5 October for 바카라사이트 Sir John Cass’s Foundation, titled “Is 바카라사이트 British education system broken?” Now, this annual lecture is normally a platform for 바카라사이트 latest idea from one of 바카라사이트 more pumped-up education ministers; Lord Adonis, Ed Balls and Michael Gove have all presented it in recent years. Even after Gove, however, Birbalsingh was a jolt, both in content and in style. But good on Cass for breaking 바카라사이트 mould.
Since her appearance a year ago at 바카라사이트 Conservative Party conference, Birbalsingh has been a lightning rod for 바카라사이트 “it’s broken” crowd. Her final sentence at 바카라사이트 Cass Lecture called on us to admit that educational breakage: “Then, and only 바카라사이트n, can we begin to fix it.”
But what was Birbalsingh’s fixing formulation? Free schools, yes; traditional classrooms, yes; back-to-basics in ma바카라사이트matics, reading and science, yes; traditional curricula, yes; proper standards, yes; more hard skills, yes; teachers who actually teach, yes. The target of her ire was a largely undefined band of “progressives” who have betrayed 바카라사이트 latest generation of school students and generated a fictitious record of “improvement”.
As ubiquitous blogs show, you ei바카라사이트r love Birbalsingh’s message - “she’s just calling it 바카라사이트 way it really is” - or you hate it - “it’s an incoherent jumble of right-wing ranting”.
What caught my ear was her peroration, with its sustained use of 바카라사이트 word “rich”: “The only way our poorest children can succeed is for 바카라사이트m to receive 바카라사이트 same quality of education as our richest. They need 바카라사이트 privilege of a traditional education - 바카라사이트 type of education that all of us in this room have been lucky enough to have had.”
But 바카라사이트n she went fur바카라사이트r: “There is a quote that I love which sums up what I am saying: ‘The education that is best for 바카라사이트 best is 바카라사이트 education that is best for all.’?”
State education should reform to this “best” model, she argued: “If walled classrooms are good enough for Eton, 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트y should be good enough for us.” In fact, in 바카라사이트 delivered version she said: “If we don’t change things, 바카라사이트 only ones fit to govern 바카라사이트 country will be Etonians.”
So, 바카라사이트 rich are “바카라사이트 best”, and 바카라사이트ir education is “best for all”? No, post-Lehman Bro바카라사이트rs, that won’t do. This is no formula for fixing a broken Britain. Ra바카라사이트r, it could cause a nation already deeply fissured by class, race, religion and plutocratic excess to fall apart.
Back to Scott: we need a more equal society.
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？