What the parties say about education

The Times last week showed pictures of Brown, Cameron and Clegg with children- whilst they spend plenty of time having their pictures taken with children, they seem to spend little time discussing policy which will directly effect children and young people. Talk of proportional representation, coalition governments and gossip about the party leaders has tended to dominate the headlines, leaving little space for the policies we want to hear about. So I’ve taken to the three main party’s websites to see what they’ve got to say about education…

I've noticed across the three main party's manifestos there are promises to restore discipline in schools,increase apprenticeships, raise standards, the list goes on. Whilst this all sounds grand, and I’m not questioning that need for these policies, there's a disappointing absence of any mention of children enjoying school. These points all centre on money and targets. My main concern as I've read through the manifestos is the seemingly inescapable focus on quantitative education, turning our children into figures, planning our countries future on numbers, not quality of life. But that's a discussion for another day!

Besides this, my primary interest was in the pledge made by the Liberal Democrats to provide free university eduction.....To make my mind up about how I feel about free university education I've decided to make a pro and con list- simple.

Pros

• create a better educated country with better business prospects
• increase the UK's reputation overseas as an educated nation
• free students from financial worries
• allow all people to feel financially able to pursue the career they wish creating a greater equality and decreasing the gap between rich and poor
• less pressure on parents to be able to financially support their children through university
  

Cons

• devaluing the degree
• people aiming for jobs that now need degrees will soon require an MA
• individuals who don't necessarily want to stay in education will do so to pass time
• there will have to be cuts in other budget areas to cover the cost
• it reinforces the concept that an academic classroom education is required to get a good job and negates the efforts made to give students alternative options to academia
  

Well, the pros and cons list didn't work too well as I came out with an equal number. Damn. So I've done some more thinking.

It's a wonderful idea in principle, but my main concern is that it would devalue degree standard education even further. Shouldn’t young people be willing to make an investment in their own future by taking the (available to all) student loan option? The student loan, if nothing else, encourages graduates to aim for higher jobs, whereas a free university education would not provide graduates with an incentive to find higher paid jobs, but it would force all those who are motivated to attain high levels of education and high skilled careers to continue into post graduate education.

I think that some of the points on my pros list aren't necessarily as positive as they initially seem; parents saving for their children, young people understanding finances and being willing to make a financial investment in their own life- surely these are positive things in many respects.
Which leads me to conclude that like so many other educational policies, free university education has also been driven by finance and targets rather than choice and quality of life for young people in the UK.

“If it is about style and PR, count me out.” In his opening speech of the second of the Prime Ministerial debates, Gordon Brown hits the nail on the head. He alludes to a society which expects nothing less than airbrushed perfection. The media is dominated by slick reality TV, where contestants are revamped into clones of some perceived ideal. But Brown insists this election campaign is not about reality TV. It’s about reality. He implores us to lay aside those deeply instilled expectations we may have for contestants vying for our vote – whitened teeth, tanned skin, extended hair – and to judge on substance, not appearance. The cheek.

But he’s right, isn’t he? We are so conditioned to the reality TV format that we do genuinely seem to be confusing it with the seriousness of the debates. The surge in popularity for Clegg mirrors SuBo’s rise to popularity. Support for the underdog: this really is reality TV politics. Just like John Sergeant’s incredible run on Strictly Come Dancing, or Jedward’s unprecedented success in a supposed ‘singing’ competition, or the Rage Against The Machine Christmas number 1 - once again we are resisting any apparent arrogance in the contestants as well as demonstrating a preference for voting against the perceived authority of the Cowell-like moguls.

Had SuBo been a little more fashionably and socially aware, I dare say she would not have been such a success story. I am no music expert, but her voice can hardly be described as exquisite. And this is my point. It was not her voice – for which she is reputed – which propelled her to fame, but the patronising sympathy of a nation who, out of shame and embarrassment at its prejudice, swept from condescendingly sniggering at her to sycophantically buying her record.

Similarly, were Brown and Cameron a little more persuasive and likeable, it’s hard to believe Clegg would be so popular. Clegg, like SuBo and Jedward and Sergeant, all challenge the format, be it of reality TV or of politics, which is becoming stale, boring and repetitive. But in all cases, their success is not a testament to their individual talent or genius, but the result of an audience or electorate which is eager for a bit of intrigue and excitement.

I look forward to seeing if substance really does hold out over the appearance of something new and exciting.

The issues we care about

By Luke, Tagd climate ambassador

In the run-up to the general election, the voices of young people are drowned out in the storm surrounding the contest to occupy No. 10 as many of us (myself included) will not be old enough to vote on May 6th – more about this later!

The issue that most concerns me is the current global environmental crisis. Attending UNICEF’s Children’s Climate Forum in Copenhagen in December and having the opportunity to get involved with the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s youth advisory board has impressed upon me the need for leadership on climate change at the level of governments.

The meeting of world leaders in Copenhagen at the end of last year provided a woefully inadequate mandate for international action, and the world is looking forward to more positive outcomes at a similar conference in Mexico at the end of 2010. However, there is a mountain to be climbed before this can be achieved, and the importance of countries like the UK in this process should not be underestimated.

We have, in recent decades, been at the forefront of trying new renewable energy technologies and creating tough national climate legislation to reduce emissions. We are one of the leading nations on the issue of climate change within the EU, a group of countries that plays a vital role in global negotiations by mediating the often heated debates between poorer and richer countries.

So apart from continuing the legacy of striving to reduce the UK’s carbon footprint, a new government must also increase the part that the UK plays in pushing for a fair, ambitious and binding deal in Mexico at the end of this year. Scientists predict catastrophe if we can’t start to reduce global emissions by the end of this decade, so the potential effect that a new government, sitting in power for at least half of that decade, could have on this problem is huge. Children around the world are already bearing the brunt of global warming: a government that is weak on climate change is a government that is blind to the needs of our present and future wellbeing.

Secondly, whoever is in charge after May 6th must recognise the economic opportunities that come with reducing our emissions, and must fully embrace and support the flourishing of a low-carbon economy. As we emerge from economic turmoil, thousands of young people are finding themselves without the jobs they desire or have trained for. The government must work tirelessly to ensure that all young people are able to find employment and that they are given the suitable training to maximise their job prospects. Supporting a low-carbon economy provides a perfect way to do this: by showing teenagers at an early stage the opportunities that exist already or will exist in a few years, from cavity wall insulators to wind turbine engineers, a government can improve the hopes of loads of young people and also ease the transition that is needed to meet our emissions targets.

Obviously these aren’t the only important issues that face our country today. However, these are the ones that I care about most, and I fear that they risk being lost in the clamour for political power.

Finally, in the last couple of months I’ve realised that there is something else that annoys me greatly: the voting age! I’ll be 18 on June 29th, and I find it insulting and absurd that I and so many of my peers, whilst being able to join the armed forces and face death for our country, whilst being eligible to pay taxes, and whilst facing the nightmare of possible unemployment, are not considered competent to choose a political party who will send us to war, take our money or provide us with jobs. A general election affords us an opportunity to do something about this absurd situation – to lower the voting age, so that more young people get engaged with politics and have our voices heard on the issues we care about.