Trump`s visit a disgrace!

Forgive me for being childish, but I take grave exception to my prime minister inviting Trump to this country for a state visit (To rage against Trump`s visit is simply childish, 27/04/19). Simon Jenkins may think the awful precedents, like the visits of Ceausescu and Mugabe, justify a similar one by the American president, but all they achieved was to cause embarrassment to Britain, and strengthen those leaders` justification for dictatorship.

    Jenkins can see "no reason for childish protests against a guest invited in Britain`s name", so presumably he doesn`t mind his country being taken down yet another few notches in the opinions of every decent human being on the planet. Rather than taking a stand against climate-change deniers, misogynists, and peace-threatening world leaders, like any modern liberal state, Britain`s prime minister, so devoid of any trade policy of any note, apart of course from selling arms to the Saudis so that the destruction of Yemen can continue, and so desperate for trading allies, chooses yet again to suck-up to the White House.

 Good on Corbyn, Bercow and Cable for refusing to attend the dinner with Trump. Any Tories with an ounce of integrity should do the same! It is not the protests which will "feed the prejudices" of Trump`s supporters but the sight again of the British government "kowtowing to this US administration" (Trump visit: Corbyn refuses dinner, 27/04/19).

Apology for Amritsar needed!

When our prime minister can only express "deep regret" about the Amritsar massacre, when 279 innocent people were gunned down in cold blood by British troops, with more than 1,200 injured, and when an apology is refused because, according to the junior foreign minister, it could have "financial implications", there are clearly serious questions to be asked about this government`s moral compass (Regret but no apology from May on centenary of Amritsar massacre, 11/04/19)! Equally shameful was Mark Field`s comment about "debasing the currency of apologies"; the fact that so many massacres, murders, lootings, rapes and tortures were carried out in the name of the British empire does not mean government apologies should not be forthcoming. On the contrary, such apologies could promote a better understanding of this country`s often disgraceful past, and lead to schools` history teaching including all the details of imperialism.

      As the MP for Birmingham Edgbaston, Preet Kaur Gill, recently said, "By writing people out of our history can we really be surprised that hate crime continues to exist or racism continues to fester?" How can this country claim to be a supporter of international human rights, condemning countries like Brunei for being opposed to the "values of respect, diversity and equality", when it refuses to acknowledge its own culpability for atrocities in its not too distant past?

Gender pay gap unlikely to change!

With "more than a quarter of companies paying women over 20 % less than men", and almost a third of businesses having gender pay gaps "worse than the national average", stating , as Rachel Reeves, chair of the business, energy and business strategy select committee, did that "there is a long way to go" is something of an understatement (Quarter of employers have gender pay gap of more than 20%, 05/04/19). Would it not be better to say that the latest figures show that this policy of transparency is simply not working, and other methods are needed?

      Naming and shaming companies has no effect, and the government`s laissez-faire attitude towards pay is revealed by the 22.9% gender pay gap in the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, up from 8.2% last year, and the 14.5% figure in the Department for Exiting the EU, up from 8.8%. Companies face legal action if they do not submit the details, but there is no requirement to include an action plan for closing the gap, and all the minister for women, Victoria Atkins can say is that these figures need to "settle" before plans to widen this failing scheme come into operation!

         It is not simply that women are being paid too little, but that, as can be seen in the BBC, many men are overpaid, often to obscenely high levels. Legislation is clearly needed to ensure the gender pay gaps are reduced, and the overall pay gap between top and bottom does not exceed a reasonable level. Socialism may not be too popular with American bankers, but government regulations to check the greed of corporations and their top managers would be welcomed by many in the UK (JP Morgan boss: socialism would be a disaster for US, 05/04/19)!

Events in need of commemoration

Two events which cover "thorny issues", but which should be commemorated next year, and would most certainly not "strain relationships" with "other states involved" in the first world war, are the peace treaty and the Amritsar massacre (Row over extending centenary events to cover British atrocities, 02/04/19). Remembering the details of the Versailles settlement would remind all politicians that treating so-called enemies with fairness and respect is the best way to secure future peace, with the Treaty of Vereeniging which ended the Boer War the example to be used, contrasting the sensible assistance for the South African economy in 1902 with the punishment dished out to Germany.

 The Jallianwala Bagh massacre commemoration would do much to amend the distorted view of British history, with its tradition of exceptionalism, and remind everyone that a large proportion of the story of our past consists of seizing and looting colonies, the most awful of atrocities, and a reliance on essential colonial aid when the going turned rough! The exaggeration of differences with our neighbours continues to serve us badly!

Observer letters on grade inflation

Catherine Bennett writes that, unlike their US counterparts, "UK universities are low on dependable side doors", but fails to mention, as do Kynaston and Green in their excellent book on private education, a somewhat dubious but increasingly common  method of getting pupils into our universities  (Americans really pay a bribe for good education? In Britain we`ve got far subtler ways, 17.03.19). Rather than entering pupils for the newly reformed and more rigorous A-levels, examinations described by Ofqual as "national examinations based on content set by the government", schools in the independent sector increasingly prefer Cambridge Assessment`s Pre-U examinations. Set and marked mostly by private school teachers, more lightly regulated than A-levels, without the requirement to follow Ofqual`s "additional rules" which, for example, require comparison with similar qualifications when setting a grade level, and allowed to use pupils` coursework as part of the final assessment, Pre-Us` proportion of A*/A grades is unsurprisingly far higher than that for A-levels. Coursework was seen by Gove as a main reason for public examinations` grade inflation, and recently described by the Ofsted chief inspector to the education select committee as a vehicle for "mark collection"!

The fact that some state schools, no doubt fearful of an Ofsted inspection being over-critical of results, are also by-passing A-levels in this way, suggests that Pre-U exams are an easier option, just like Cambridge Assessment`s IGCSEs. If these exams do not constitute a "dependable side door", I don`t know what does!

Professor Beer of Universities UK is right to warn against politicians "confusing grade inflation with student and teaching improvement" in British universities (Top universities told: cut first-class degrees or be fined, 24.03.19). Tory secretaries of state for education have a habit of questioning any signs of examination results` improvement with a knee-jerk reaction to the right, raising suspicions about the real value of the grades. Michael Gove in 2010 did just that; clearly worried that GCSE and A-level results in state schools were equalling, and in some cases, surpassing those achieved in the private sector, he made changes to the methods of assessment  to increase their "rigour".

       Anyone with any experience in education would have been able to predict the effects of the government`s higher education policy, especially the increases both of unconditional offers and first-class degrees, with universities desperate to get "bums on seats", but ignoring teaching improvements and "students working harder than ever" is typical of Tory myopia. Why is there no indignation from Hinds about the grade inflation which is so obviously apparent in the examinations most private schools now prefer to GCSE and A-levels? 
Cambridge Assessment’s IGCSE and Pre-U examinations both allow pupils’ coursework, which the head of Ofqual recently described to the education select committee as a vehicle for “mark collection”. Could private schools’ increasing preference for Pre-U examinations, rather than A-levels, have something to do with them being more lightly regulated, having no requirement to follow Ofqual’s “additional rules” which, for example, require comparison with similar qualifications when setting a grade level, and being largely set and marked by teachers in the independent sector? 
Defenders of this two-tiered system will claim the high ability of the Pre-U entrants as the reason, but the British public have been fed the right-wing propaganda that private school pupils are brighter for long enough. If they really have more ability, why enter them for the easier option in the first place?

Private schools playing the system

Zoe Williams could have strengthened her argument about the quality of students entering Oxbridge by mentioning the increased use by private schools of Pre-U examinations instead of the newly-reformed and more rigorous A-Levels (The US admissions scandal: have any mediocre students ever ended up at Oxbridge? 13/03/19) Sadly, the number of "cavalier and uninspiring students" may have been increased because of these lightly-regulated examinations, marked and set mostly by independent school teachers, allowed to include coursework as part of their final assessment, and with a much higher proportion than A-levels of A*/A grades, which Oxbridge require. Goodness knows how many state school pupils with real ability and potential have been denied a place by students following the Toby Young/Boris Johnson routes!

The fact, as John Harris says, that "Etonians and the alumni of other "top" private schools are still at the core of British right-wing politics" is proof of the "breezy confidence" which an education in the independent sector guarantees (Britain`s Brexit crisis is rooted in the power of our public schools, 18/03/19). It is strange, then, that the schools themselves do not possess the confidence to use the same public examinations, newly reformed and now more rigorous than previously, as state schools do. The preference to enter their year 11 pupils for Cambridge Assessment`s IGCSE and year 13s for the same awarding body`s Pre-U examinations, which use coursework as part of their final assessment, is increasing. The head of Eton admitted to the education select committee late in 2017 that seven of his staff were involved in the marking or setting of Pre-U exams!

 One would have thought, with all the advantages like "tiny class sizes" private schools possess, and without the problems caused by government underfunding which hinder the education of thousands of state school pupils aiming for university places, private schools would have relished the possibility of their A-level results being far superior to those of the rest. Instead they increasingly opt for what are widely regarded as easier options. The answer has to be something Harris ignored, immediate legislation making the highly regulated A-levels and BTECs the only entry qualifications for British universities.

According to Michael Pyke, "the 7% who attend private schools account for around 30% of A-level grades" (Letters, 21/03/19). Does he mean actual A-levels, the highly-regulated examinations described by Ofqual as "national qualifications based on content set by the government", or does he include in his calculations the ones set by Cambridge Assessment? These Pre-U examinations, mostly marked and set by teachers in the independent sector, including some from Eton, are more lightly regulated, allow pupils` coursework to be included in the final assessment, and unsurprisingly have a higher proportion of A*/A grades.

  I can`t be the only Guardian reader who would like to know the answer!

Tories` arrogance evident in education policies

Education secretaries of state, as your editorial states, are indeed "transient beings who move on before the extent of their incompetence is fully revealed", and Hinds`s refusal is not only an example of typical Tory cowardice, but also an acknowledgment that his tenure will be short-lived (Editorial, 08/03/19). Having no idea or willingness of how to tackle the teacher recruitment crisis, and no moral compass to admit the effects of underfunding, Hinds will rightly be never taking up more than one sentence in any Education History text-book.

   What is particularly galling about Tory education policies since 2010 has been the idea that imposing "a rigidly structured curriculum, certain kinds of learning and precisely defined bodies of knowledge " is the key to "shaping young minds". Strangely, those "young minds" do not belong to children whose parents are rich enough to pay for schools in the independent sector, where the inspection system is nothing like as rigorous as the one Ofsted imposes on the state sector. In private schools there is more freedom to teach what is thought suitable, and crucially permission to move away from GCSE and A-levels to examinations which have far more A*/A grades per entry, and are allowed to include coursework as part of the assessment process. Their alternative to A-levels, like the option preferred to GCSE, is run by Cambridge Assessment, and the exams set and marked mostly by teachers in the private sector, and with less regulations than everyone else`s traditional route to university.

       Labour`s manifesto will probably include introducing VAT on school fees and tightening up the rules for charitable status eligibility, but they could add independent schools to Ofsted`s remit, and insist all rules applying to state schools have to be followed in the private sector as well. A-levels and BTecs should be the only qualifications acceptable for UK university entrance!