R.I.P to over 3,000 Vocational courses

 

Over 3,000 vocational courses are to be cut from schools. Why - because schools have been offering them...to boost their league tables?! So, regardless as to whether or not these courses give students any skills or advantages, they are being offered and created for the wrong reasons - and if they are beneficial to educating students - they are being scrapped for all the wrong reasons still.

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-16813119 - BBC news source.)

 Personally I think these courses are brilliant. As in my other blog 'I NEET a job not a degree' we don't need to push teenagers into being 'academic' when they have so much potential in practical, useful, employable skills.

I have a sneaky theory David Cameron is like those parents you see pulling their children to dance/karate/chess club/reading club etc. by a noose. And he's now imposing his own wants onto the kids of the nation. By all means, every child should have at the very least basic Maths, English and Science secondary education certificates - but last time I checked that is why they are compulsory. I do think a language, and either history and/or geography should now be compulsory to make sure our children do not fall behind internationally. (Everyone I know from another country can speak more than one language, which makes me feel incredibly cheated by my education.) ...but I sat 13 GCSE's, most people sit at least 11...so: 11-6 = FIVE other subjects to study! If they want four of them to be in horse care, because it is unlikely they are going to do amazingly well in the other subjects (or even if they are) - but know their horse care - why shouldn't they be given the opportunity to do so?

In all experiments of education (e.g Jamie's dream school: http://www.channel4.com/search/?q=jamie+oliver+dream+school ) I'm aware of, practical activities engage and excite children - it keeps them in school, enjoying their studies, it shows them that school and learning isn't just reading books and writing essays and sitting exams...(that sentence just made my stomach turn, and I love reading and writing!). These vocational courses and their subjects are crucial to some children that simply are not going to be academics - not because they're not capable (especially with the noose dragging tactic) but because they don't want to. Everyone knows you're more likely to do well in  a subject you enjoy, so as long as the other core subjects are kept compulsory, I see absolutely no reason why these other courses should be taken from students.

When I was at school I chose to do music and drama instead of history, if I had not been given the choice, and had been made to study history, I probably wouldn't of done as well, as at the time I had no interest in history, even though I was very good at it. Imagine a kid that isn't good at any of the academic subjects - but knows their fish husbandry. Students, that want to study these courses, and carry those skills onto college or employment.

Now, this is quite an important part of the debate: further education and employment. I am very sure one of the reasons these courses count as four GCSE's (now some are being changed to only count as one or two), is because that is the minimum requirement to get into college; four GCSE's at grade C or above (courses varying). For very nonacademic students, this is the only gateway to getting to college. I'm not justifying giving up on their other subjects (many colleges have GCSE courses for students lacking in one core subject - and schools run re-sits) students should be made to re-do GCSE's in core subjects if they fail, but at the very least that student can say to themselves - 'I can still go to college to do what I want to do...I'll just have to re-sit my Science GCSE as well.' Instead of - 'I failed my Science GCSE, I have to re-sit it or I can't go to college, whilst all my friends can go...I failed and will always be a failure, what's the point in doing anything?' Confidence in one subject can lead students to have better confidence in other subjects and themselves - in school in general! Why take that opportunity to enjoy learning from a 14 year old?

Of course one of the governments main points of argument is that employers doubt the worth of these qualifications, which is a very good argument for improving the courses - not for scrapping them altogether! Time and effort, probably a lot of tax payers money, teachers and students have put effort, time and money into these courses. What a waste to get rid of a bike that simply needs oiling.

These children should not be getting second-rate teaching, and employers should not be receiving under qualified school leavers. Make the courses better and reputable - don't just scrap over 3,000 of them - because you want your child to read Shakespeare and go to Chess club, when he/she wants to do fish husbandry - and is pretty dam good at it too, (look at what Forest Gump achieved! O.K, he's a fictional character...) why not support our students in what they want to do, instead of grinding the axe of academia and the completely bogus idea we need MORE, uncomfortable, awkward, university students? No, we need more highly skilled practitioners, who can actually do something useful. For a lot of students it just isn't right to push them into college and uni when they'd rather earn money, be productive and independent, not living off their parents and a student loan/government hand outs, so why shouldn't they be given the qualifications in a range of subjects so they can do so?

Forget about league tables (seriously?) and think about what is best, for improving the chances a child has at doing something they enjoy - as well as having all the necessary skills to add up invoices, write their C.V's and an employable skill with a relevant, college worthy qualification.