|
|
 |
| |
William Wilkes |
If education was top priority, UCL would not be the choice
The sponsor of the proposed new city academy, University College London, has no experience of running a school, argues William Wilkes
UNIVERSITY College London’s founding father, the philosopher Jeremy Bentham, said the definition of morality is the struggle for “the greatest good for the greatest number”.
Gruesomely, the embalmed corpse of Bentham is on display in a cabinet near the UCL library.
I’m sure if he knew about UCL’s plan for a city academy the great utilitarian would be turning in his box.
Because if you accept the argument that UCL could do a better job of running a school in Camden, you have to conclude that this would create a corrosive two-tier education system in the borough. One school operating with the backing and resources of a world-class university and the rest not? Which school would have the better reputation? Which school would you send your children to?
However, most UCL students don’t subscribe to this view.
The student community at UCL rightly questions the basic premise that the college would be better at running a school than the existing teachers and governors in Camden. Just how can a school run by a governing committee made up of UCL academics (the college envisages that staff will make up the majority of the governors) who have no experience of secondary education be a good idea?
Having studied at UCL for four years, I must say that, with a few notable exceptions, the standard of teaching at the comprehensive school I went to near Leeds is better than that of the teaching at UCL.
No amount of PhDs or professorships can better the instincts and experience of people who have dedicated their adult lives to secondary education in Camden.
Being an expert on the mating patterns of lesser-spotted green parrots in Sri Lanka does not mean you know which teachers would be best at inspiring cynical teenage pupils.
Last Friday’s judicial review was also wide of the mark. In his assessment, Justice Forbes stated that: “throughout the entire process, the councillors conscientiously considered the best way forward for education in Camden.”
Hang on, surely this is wrong? If the council’s number one priority really had been education in Camden it would not have chosen UCL, which has no experience of running a school, as the academy’s sponsor. The council ignored interest from both the Church of England, which runs 147 schools in London, and the education charity Absolute Return for Kids which runs six schools, in favour of UCL, which runs none.
You don’t need a degree in maths to see the holes in Justice Forbes’ argument.
Yet at every turn, the city academy saga has shown that people in positions of influence do not always carefully consider the wider picture before wielding their power.
At least Justice Forbes’ assessment, even if it was a little short-sighted, did show consideration for the other side, a degree of basic decency and respect – standards that have not been met by UCL.
I, like many students, believe that the patronising, domineering and pompous behaviour of UCL’s management in relation to the city academy project is an embarrassment to the college.
Vice-Provost Michael Worton’s comments that to block the academy would be “a recipe for mediocrity” show just how out of touch he is.
If he had taken the time to read, for example, Haverstock School’s latest Ofsted report, he would see that the school “through an outstanding curriculum with a rich range of opportunities to match students’ aspirations and capabilities, promotes a great sense of community”.
Is this really a recipe for mediocrity?
If UCL students took Professor Worton’s approach to research, we would all fail our exams.
Fortunately we don’t. Concerned students have submitted motions opposing the project to the student union.
There appear to be no students championing the project.
Most academics are also opposed.
A former head of department, Professor Mary Fulbrook, in a submission to UCL academic council, described the project as the college “seeking to aggrandise itself... with horrendous practical consequences for thousands of children and their families for now and over many years to come”.
So how are students resisting the plans for the academy?
The High Court ruling came as a surprise to many students and there are no formal plans as yet.
But as second-year Russian studies student Sam Crews told London Student last week: “Students are imaginative and radical and I am sure we will find a way.”
|
 |
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
