Originally Posted by chiefmissile

Hi,

My wife is a teacher here in the UK and we have family who are teachers in Canada. The main reason for Canada being so low down in the table is not the quality of teaching, but the fact that the Canadian system has no regulatory body like OFSTED, HMI inspectors, in addition they do not undertake SATS, these points alone put Canada down the pecking order, not the quality of teaching. The quality of teaching in Canada is second to none, with most Canadian teachers having better qualifications than most UK teachers. To be a teacher in Canada you need a 5 year degree not 4 like here in the UK. The kids love going to school in Canada because its fun and not regulated by red tape. The focus is on the kids learning and not focused on the school stats. The pecking order table is solely based on the fact that there are more regulatory bodies and monitoring systems that provide more feedback for stats in UK schools, not the quality of the teaching. The Canadian system is better because it dose not put young kids under unnecessary stress by having to complete SATS for kids of 6&7 years old. My rant is soley based on Primary schools in Canada and not secondary.

Regards

Andrew

Originally Posted by bats

It could all be down to the amount of chocolate eaten

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20356613

No wonder I'm feeling dim, it's ages since I had any choccie.

Originally Posted by clay

Think you will find the extra year is spent doing some waste of time social studies type course, as are all canadian degrees... wasting a year hey... we live in canada and come from the UK, I would say the education is at best the same as the UK... certainly not second to none here..lol... our daughter was counting to 20 in Spanish , as they had this class in day care, where as here they seem to just play outside a lot... so no I would definately disagree that canada is second to none....

Originally Posted by Shard

Well, "second to none" is pushing it a bit, but no more so than assuming a fourth year in uni is a "social studies" type course, or extrapolating from your daughter's positive reception experience to the whole of Canadian primary.

First year uni in Canada is often "general studies" and the general thing about it is a selection Maths, Sciences, English to bring the high school student up to university level (broadly speaking, raising their standard to A level). So by the end of university, Canadian students and Brit students are at a comparable undergrad level. It is interesting that the IB which is now becoming more popular in the UK is more in line with North American generalist secondary education.

Originally Posted by Oink

Because we're adopting their system of mass higher education on a pay-as-you-go model. As we abandon rationing, we need a model equivalent to a high school diploma with internal assessment and where its a matter of simply putting your time in rather than reaching a certain standard. Then with differentiated fees we can discriminate but just be up front about it.

Originally Posted by Shard

Oink, the point you mean to make is being lost amongst all the cliches. Are you suggesting higher education should revert to the bright and the privileged? Want to have another go, want to lock red antlers, perchance?

Originally Posted by Oink

Do fool yourself, it always has been. One only has to look at the percentage of fee paying to state pupils in Oxbridge. At least when the more prestigious institutions are able to charge their 'market rate' they'll be no pretence, it'll just come down to wealth. At least its a bit more honest than the confidence trick of 'equality of opportunity' they have played for the last sixty or so years.

Originally Posted by Shard

Baby? Bathwater? Yes, higher education for all as propagated by Labour was a con, and there is need for consolidation in the university sector, but suggesting that universities should revert to only educating an elite is short-sighted IMO. This may be the case for Oxbridge, but there are another 28 decent universities in the S30 for which decent and well rounded secondary education (in the form of an IB for example) is a good starting point for higher study.

Originally Posted by Oink

I didn't say it was desirable but is the practical reality of mass higher education in a democratic capitalist system. You will end up with a pyramid of privilege, where cost equates to prestige, where there they will be easy and cheap access at the bottom and difficult and expensive at the top. The heady days of the middle class entitlement of quality and subsidized university education have long since passed.