Jump to content
Pat's Guide to Glasgow West End
Pat

Scottish Education

Recommended Posts

Pretty sad to see that the number of females going to college in Scotland has significantly reduced due to Scottish Government Policy, whereby

the number of part-time, weekend and evening courses has been reduced, with funding withdrawn for many.

A Scottish Funding Council report on the issue has highlighted how the move has had a greater impact on females.

The Herald showed that the number of female learners has declined by more than 26% since 2006/07. The number of male students has dropped by 13%.

It's been suggested that the disproportionate decline in women learners follows the Government's decision to prioritise full-time courses for younger students to cut youth unemployment.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/education/thousands-of-women-hit-by-college-cutbacks.19312243?utm_source=headlines&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email%2Balert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'it has been suggested', or as it used to be called, a wild guess.

With young people's unemployment running at 50% in some areas its absolutely critical we do not end up with another forgotten generation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was my wording, samsc. However, it was followed by 'The Hersald showed... '

The significant drop in women going to college worries me. Perhaps because I was a mature student and lone parent who went to Uni via College. I hate to think that women are no longer getting such an opportunity. That's not to say that youth unemployment is not an important issue. Of course it is but then so is child poverty and lack of opportunities for women can only exacerbate this. Women can't go on full time courses because there is a lack of childcare.

Young people have the opportunity to study at school so maybe changes have to be made there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat, that's clearly not the case, what did appear disproportionate was the number of women learners in the first place

'However, The Herald has obtained figures showing that the number of female learners has declined by more than 26% since 2006/07 – from 161,559 to 118,447 – while the number of male students has dropped by 13% – from 111,352 to 96,104. '

Perhaps we are now just looking at a righting of the figures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know that figures can just be righted. I think you need to consider circumstances and the fact is that many women cannot attend full time courses because they are still the main carers. There should be more part-time courses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know that figures can just be righted. I think you need to consider circumstances and the fact is that many women cannot attend full time courses because they are still the main carers. There should be more part-time courses.

There clearly should be a drive to get more men to attend FE/HE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't argue with that, samsc. Just a pity that there has been such a drop, particularly for women attending. I was reading an impassioned letter sent to Mr Salmond today from one of the many teachers who cannot get a permanent post because of the change in policy in favour of newly qualified teachers. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/education/dear-mr-salmond-how-do-teachers-like-me-get-a-job.19339942

It's just sad that there are so many people, who are qualified, and who would love the opportunity to gain qualifications and are being denied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't argue with that, samsc. Just a pity that there has been such a drop, particularly for women attending. I was reading an impassioned letter sent to Mr Salmond today from one of the many teachers who cannot get a permanent post because of the change in policy in favour of newly qualified teachers. http://www.heraldsco...-a-job.19339942

It's just sad that there are so many people, who are qualified, and who would love the opportunity to gain qualifications and are being denied.

The teacher situation is a strange and tragic one and reminds me so much of the 'midwife' situation about 10 years ago, where we were effectively training 1000s of new midwives every year for 10s of posts (one of our friends fell into that category, she now works in a bank). With teaching, is there not expected to be a sizeable drop in teachers in post in the next few years due to so many reaching retirement age at the same time? Albeit, I suspect the biggest retirement occurs in the secondary school level, a level not every teacher wants to teach at, many prefer the primary school stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a lot of teachers, who would previously have retired, are now worried about their pensions so not so many making way to leave jobs for the youngsters. There seems to be something very unfair about a system that closes down opportunities for experienced teachers, e.g. those who graduated five or six years ago, and giving preference to newly qualified teachers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the government got themselves a bit mixed up but had a genuine drive to cut class sizes. Too many places were created to train teachers. The nursery schools could benefit from employing some of them as everything points to the benefits of early years education.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Equal opportunities. Are the poorest students being failed? According to the news tonight when they're talking about entry from poorer students to St Andrew - they are stipulating that they want students with 3 A highers. Apparently there are a lot of those in East Renfrewshire, not so many in Glasgow and even fewer in Edinburgh.

I'm away to listen to the discussion on Scottish Newsnight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks as though Johann Lamont has found something positive to get her teeth into. A 20 year plan for Scottish Education.

It all sounds good. Especially free nursery provision but I wish the politicians would really focus on their plans and ideals and not use every idea as a battering ram.

'In a keynote conference speech she will accuse the SNP of "savaging" colleges to fund free university tuition and demand a renewed focus on lifelong learning, a policy pursued by previous Labour-led administrations.

She will also challenge First Minister Alex Salmond to re-open the budget and discuss ways to provide all two-year-olds with 600 hours of free nursery care. The policy would cost £100 million per year and require cuts to other areas of Government spending'

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/lamont-scotland-needs-a-second-boom-in-education.20855991?utm_source=headlines&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email%2Balert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how it could be provided but seems to me like a priority, samsc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was aware that college budgets had been hit; that was my point. Lamont cannot chunter on about lack of afforability and then introduce a policy of all 2 year olds getting free nursery places.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is so much research showing the long term benefits of early childcare that I think it would be a very wise option. The whole education system does need a shake up and until there is childcare then women are denied equal access. Those on low income are also denied access to further and higher education.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat, every child is guaranteed a nursery place from 3 years old. However, parents need to take responsibility for having children, if you choose to have children, then you need to decide how you will be able to look after them and who does the looking after.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not always an option, samsc. Things change. People lose their income, not to mention their partners. Some may never have had a regular partner, or one willing to take responsibility. Partners can disappear, become ill or die. No planning for all that life throws at you. Well, not unless you happen to be clairvoyant.

Furthermore, it's a class issue. Many high income families have both parents working with mothers returning to work long before their child reaches the age of 3. They have that option as they can afford to pay for childcare.

Child poverty is on the increase. Lack of childcare is a major contributory factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should not write universal benefits policy for people who chose to have children with no regular partner or for those unwilling to take responsibility. We can deal with and support the unfortunate life events that can impact people through other benefit mechanisms. Lamont's 'all two year old get a free nursery place' is just another middle class benefit.

Its not a class thing but an affordability thing. If both parents are working and they chose to pay for private childcare, great, they have taken responsibility for their own child rearing decisions. If a decision is agreed that one parent stays at home and looks after the children, great, again they have taken responsibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We should not write universal benefits policy for people who chose to have children with no regular partner or for those unwilling to take responsibility. We can deal with and support the unfortunate life events that can impact people through other benefit mechanisms. Lamont's 'all two year old get a free nursery place' is just another middle class benefit.

Its not a class thing but an affordability thing. If both parents are working and they chose to pay for private childcare, great, they have taken responsibility for their own child rearing decisions. If a decision is agreed that one parent stays at home and looks after the children, great, again they have taken responsibility.

A partner can be regular one minute and not the next, samsc, and if you find yourself in the labour ward then you'll hear plenty of cases about how contraceptives failed to work. For example there are many bonnie babies born after a bout of the 'flu when interacting antibiotics prevented the pill being absorbed. Not everyone is going to opt for a termination.

I don't know how your analysis of class works but for me high income does not equate with a low position on the class scale.

If one parent stays at home to watch the kids and if both are high earners and can afford to pay for private childcare, education, or whatever the hell else then that's their own business and entirely up to them. However, I don't reckon that they are somehow morally superior to a struggling lone parent.

Perhaps I am biased, or maybe have just seen the other side of the coin, as a lone parent raising two children. I managed my fair share of part time jobs and studied straight for six years but I had a load of help from my mother and aunts. It's different now when grannies tend to be working.

So let me get this right - in your view:

Anyone not in a well paid job should not have children - because they can't afford them

Anyone who has an unplanned child is irresponsible

You really think that there are benefits that support people who face unfortunate life events.

I'm sorry but the 'feckless' poor argument only convinces those firmly inside their cocoons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn't agree more Pat. Sam, you have a very narrow view of it all. Look at what's happened since the financial crash of 2008. Hundreds of thousands of people in Britain, millions worldwide, have lost their jobs, sometimes well paid, steady jobs that they had been in a long time. As the number of available jobs fall and the number of available workers rises, it becomes increasingly difficult to find work. It's not as black and white as you make out. When Borders Books in Glasgow closed we had 3 couples lose their jobs at the same time as both partners worked in the store. Thankfully only one of those couples had kids, but the other 2 couples didn't find it any easier because they were childless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A partner can be regular one minute and not the next, samsc, and if you find yourself in the labour ward then you'll hear plenty of cases about how contraceptives failed to work. For example there are many bonnie babies born after a bout of the 'flu when interacting antibiotics prevented the pill being absorbed. Not everyone is going to opt for a termination.

I don't know how your analysis of class works but for me high income does not equate with a low position on the class scale.

If one parent stays at home to watch the kids and if both are high earners and can afford to pay for private childcare, education, or whatever the hell else then that's their own business and entirely up to them. However, I don't reckon that they are somehow morally superior to a struggling lone parent.

Perhaps I am biased, or maybe have just seen the other side of the coin, as a lone parent raising two children. I managed my fair share of part time jobs and studied straight for six years but I had a load of help from my mother and aunts. It's different now when grannies tend to be working.

So let me get this right - in your view:

Anyone not in a well paid job should not have children - because they can't afford them

Anyone who has an unplanned child is irresponsible

You really think that there are benefits that support people who face unfortunate life events.

I'm sorry but the 'feckless' poor argument only convinces those firmly inside their cocoons.

Now that's just hyperbole Pat. My initial point was we shouldn't be introducing free nursery education for all 2 year olds particularly on the back of a rant about affordability.

I recognise people's circumstances change, I have both been made redundant and had a period as a single parent. My point is if you decide to have children you be responsible for them, and if that means one parent has to stay at home then one parent should stay at home. Now if your circumstances change, then the benefits system is there to support you through those times of change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very often there isn't a spare parent to stay at home, samsc. as you seem to know from your experience.

At the end of the day, whether or not people view parents as responsible or irresponsible or making the wrong choices , is neither here nor there as far as children, who have no choice, are concerned.

Unlike many other countries there has never been any great emphasis on pre-school childcare provision in this country. I think it is a big mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...