They said 50% should have the opportunity, not that they should actually go to uni, not quite the same thing, I might have the 'opportunity' to be an estate agent, but I wouldn't do it (sorry that's the first thing I thought of :$) A percentage of teachers may not have a degree, the BEd didn't come in until the late 1960s and the first ones through were a bit later than that, they may of course have a degree in another subject other than education, but not all have by any means, they took the teacher training course instead. Teaching should return to its roots as a vocation, not as something done when nothing else is available. Being very good at something doesn't mean you will be good at teaching it to others.

Any system that can rule a large number of pupils out simply because of their home background is not fair, (I know that some pupils do not have a quiet place, or even a table, to work at at home, what chance do they have? It doesn't matter how 'bright' you are if you can't study, in my day schools shut at 3.50, and there were no homework clubs etc. and not every child can stay to such clubs even where they exist)  Truly comprehensive education gives a much better chance to those from impoverished backgrounds, but until the public schools and grammar schools are eliminated and all schools are made to take the whole range of pupils there will always be top and bottom of the league schools.


With the increase in fees, the government will be able to reduce entry to university, whilst protesting that all have an equal chance of going there.

When I get to the end of my research I will have more to say on this issue, but from a different standpoint, so then you will all be able to read it! Watch this space folks!

:-)

Incidentally, now they have softened people up with the idea of 36,000, if they halve it - will people accept that, thinking they have been listened to, whereas in actual fact that was the figure the government was aiming for anyway?