All an elite should be, as it is in France, is the group at the top of their field who are best at what they do. The saddest thing about British culture at the moment is the horror of 'elitism'. In education this effectively translates into a horror of excellence.
At the college where I worked in Cardiff, I was obliged to coach my two Oxbridge entrants on the quiet, for fear of making the other students feel 'less valued'.
When I headed an Eng Dept in a College in the East End the exorbitantly expensive consultants (brought in to pre-inspect the college before the real Ofsted inspection) trounced my approach and my lessons as marked by 'draconian discipline and public discussion/of marks and grades which has allowed a competitive, elitist ethos to develop.' Damn right - which is why grade averages in English went up 30% while I was there.
You say Even if you have the talent, and are prepared to put in the work, if your face doesn't fit, or if you don't know the right people, you don't get to join..
I'm proof that this isn't the case. No one's face could fit less than mine - mixed race, female, single parent family on benefits, council estate, criminal siblings - but got into grammar school (and had the option of an scholarship place at a top public school which I didn't take up) simply on the basis of academic merit. Blairites bleat on about widen access/participation in education and yet they and their predecessors destroyed the very system that made this possible.
The biggest difference between me and the teenagers I teach is that I grew up in a home full of books, and half of them have no books in their home at all (the kids brought up by the demented rules of orthodox Sharia law aren't allowed to have any book in the home but the Khoran - we have to provide them with lockers to keep their college books in).
The tragedy is that rather than developing an egalitarian system by encouraging excellence by rewarding hard work and genuine achievement we are now working in a system where all must have prizes, all must feel valued, and standards are 'raised' by widening the goal posts. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the change in the way the A level system has been wrecked and the marking standards lowered since Curriculum 2000 was introduced.
Sorry for not getting back to you on this one sooner.
What you say about elitism in education is spot on, and I imagine the words elitism and egalitarianism in the teaching profession you are likely to land a very hot potato in the lap. I am frankly appalled at the PC nonsense spouted - it doesn't work in athletics or science or even the arts and the same is true in education. The point I did want to make though is that elitism in education shouldn't mean that the less academically gifted be abandoned - rather that resources should be used more efficiently such as through vocational training - refusing to acknowledge differences in ability actually works against this goal.
Just to be clear - my comment mainly referred to elitism in general and in society. It is often the case that there are glass ceilings for people in public life and politics - unless they are truly exceptional, whilst others get ahead by knowing the right people and having the right background. Other professions are different - and will tend to promote talent and ditch the dross - this is where elitism works better - the issue is not whether we should have elites, but rather how they are selected - and I wanted to say that the more meritocratic a system is, the more we should rely on and encourage elitism - the less so, the more egalitarianism is required.
So going back to education, I think it is fair to say that there are differences across the system - where families with money can send their kids to the best schools who give them the improved facilities and (perhaps?) a more elitist ethos (good thing - as discussed) that gives them more chance to access the best universities and the best jobs. Thus an equally talented kid in a state school has to work that bit harder against a system run by wooly hand-wringing lefties who don't like the fact he or she wants to do better than everyone else. It is here where I think an egalitarian approach would be most appropriate - to level up the playing field a bit by accounting for different standards people face - does that make sense?
It makes perfect sense. I think we are pretty much in agreement:)
The sad thing is that the way the system works now is that the weakest ones are written off with meaningless qualifications like GNVQs and Key Skills and the strongest ones have nothing to work for.
You picked an ideal day to reply - A level result day.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A bit of a rant
At the college where I worked in Cardiff, I was obliged to coach my two Oxbridge entrants on the quiet, for fear of making the other students feel 'less valued'.
When I headed an Eng Dept in a College in the East End the exorbitantly expensive consultants (brought in to pre-inspect the college before the real Ofsted inspection) trounced my approach and my lessons as marked by 'draconian discipline and public discussion/of marks and grades which has allowed a competitive, elitist ethos to develop.' Damn right - which is why grade averages in English went up 30% while I was there.
You say Even if you have the talent, and are prepared to put in the work, if your face doesn't fit, or if you don't know the right people, you don't get to join..
I'm proof that this isn't the case. No one's face could fit less than mine - mixed race, female, single parent family on benefits, council estate, criminal siblings - but got into grammar school (and had the option of an scholarship place at a top public school which I didn't take up) simply on the basis of academic merit. Blairites bleat on about widen access/participation in education and yet they and their predecessors destroyed the very system that made this possible.
The biggest difference between me and the teenagers I teach is that I grew up in a home full of books, and half of them have no books in their home at all (the kids brought up by the demented rules of orthodox Sharia law aren't allowed to have any book in the home but the Khoran - we have to provide them with lockers to keep their college books in).
The tragedy is that rather than developing an egalitarian system by encouraging excellence by rewarding hard work and genuine achievement we are now working in a system where all must have prizes, all must feel valued, and standards are 'raised' by widening the goal posts. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the change in the way the A level system has been wrecked and the marking standards lowered since Curriculum 2000 was introduced.
Re: A bit of a rant
What you say about elitism in education is spot on, and I imagine the words elitism and egalitarianism in the teaching profession you are likely to land a very hot potato in the lap. I am frankly appalled at the PC nonsense spouted - it doesn't work in athletics or science or even the arts and the same is true in education. The point I did want to make though is that elitism in education shouldn't mean that the less academically gifted be abandoned - rather that resources should be used more efficiently such as through vocational training - refusing to acknowledge differences in ability actually works against this goal.
Just to be clear - my comment mainly referred to elitism in general and in society. It is often the case that there are glass ceilings for people in public life and politics - unless they are truly exceptional, whilst others get ahead by knowing the right people and having the right background. Other professions are different - and will tend to promote talent and ditch the dross - this is where elitism works better - the issue is not whether we should have elites, but rather how they are selected - and I wanted to say that the more meritocratic a system is, the more we should rely on and encourage elitism - the less so, the more egalitarianism is required.
So going back to education, I think it is fair to say that there are differences across the system - where families with money can send their kids to the best schools who give them the improved facilities and (perhaps?) a more elitist ethos (good thing - as discussed) that gives them more chance to access the best universities and the best jobs. Thus an equally talented kid in a state school has to work that bit harder against a system run by wooly hand-wringing lefties who don't like the fact he or she wants to do better than everyone else. It is here where I think an egalitarian approach would be most appropriate - to level up the playing field a bit by accounting for different standards people face - does that make sense?
Re: A bit of a rant
The sad thing is that the way the system works now is that the weakest ones are written off with meaningless qualifications like GNVQs and Key Skills and the strongest ones have nothing to work for.
You picked an ideal day to reply - A level result day.