Hello, Goodbye

It's New Year's Eve. In some parts of the world it's already New Year's Day. And where am I? Relaxing at home with the family? Off out at a house party or getting cold and wet at a city centre New Year celebration? Nope. I'm working. And found out that I would be working less than a week before Christmas. This pretty much sums up 2012. It's been like that.

Last year, as the last whisps of 2011 melted away and 2012 arrived, I remember feeling quite melancholy. It was a feeling that clung to me for weeks. And not without good reason. When I look back now, as I'm about to close the door on 2012 forever, I can see it's been a year dogged with ongoing issues, few resolutions and lots of goals left unachieved.

The first half of the year, Granny was very poorly. We were all very concerned for her and to that I added the weight of concern for my Dad and cousins. Steve and I made two very long trips to Canterbury to visit as her health deteriorated and finally my last surviving grandparent passed away.

The second half of the year has been plagued with work issues, as my previous employer's contract came to an end and a new (incompetent) contractor came in to take over. There has been much anxiety in the build up to the transfer, which has manifested in people generally being unkind to each other. I've had to say goodbye to some great colleagues (and one very good friend who is bringing in the New Year in Australia). The final culmination of this has been mass redundancies and some really inappropriate and unfair actions by the new employer. This has been the single most stressful thing I have been through with any employer and I hope I never have to repeat anything similar in the future.

Our house is still on the market. It still hasn't sold. It's still causing a disproportionate amount of stress with dickish estate agents and a kitchen roof that continues to leak. We've missed out on a number of opportunities, the worst of which was a house with a turret. Even with the front of the house sinking, it was a bargain and it would have been a beautiful home. I fear I might always regret that as 'the one that got away'.

* * *

However, 2012 has a few things worth remembering it for. I have waited for most of my life to see The Phantom of the Opera and I was not disappointed when Mum and I went to see it in May. It was spectacular and if I had been able to afford to see it again, I would have. I also saw Starlight Express this year. I've wanted to see it since I was about twelve so it's been a long wait.

May was a great month this year; as well as Phantom of the Opera at the Palace Theatre, Mum and I had a trip down to the Big Smoke so I could sing at the Royal Albert Hall with Sing Live and the Night of 1000 Voices. I love the choir. I love singing. And combining that with the trip and having Mum there was a real treat.

Mum, Steve and I holidayed in Cyprus in May as well. We lounged around the hotel pool and the hotel bar and the hotel restaurant and our room and didn't leave the hotel all week. It was almost perfect. But I really must stop eating milky and creamy things: My stomach can't take it!

In August Ann and I went into Manchester for one of those makeover days where they take photos. I was surprised how much I enjoyed it and came away with a bunch of photos that I'm really pleased with. They actually make me look quite normal, and not strange or hideous. Although they do show I have a dent in my forehead. Investigations into the cause of the dent are ongoing. (I suspect Dad might've dropped me on my head as a child.)

One final highlight of the year has been Pinterest. Ah, what joy. And what agony. Pinterest inspired me to make some of my Christmas presents this year. Claire got a handmade bracelet that I was quite pleased with. My Dad received an iPad case made out of a recycled suit jacket. I gave my Mum a scrapbook of our wedding photos - it wasn't quite finished but I think she was really pleased to finally have a wedding album. Ann got a Memory Jar. And my in-laws... I made them a patchwork quilt, which I finished at 2.30am on Christmas Day. It turned out really well and I have a queue of people asking for me to make them one. So Pinterest has been a success in that it has lead me to achievements myself.

* * *

Looking forward to 2013, I'll be graduating from the Open University, achieving my Literature degree. I'll also be going to see Wicked when it tours (another one of my favourite musicals ticked off the list) and I'm hoping to get to see a few more theatre productions this year too. I would love to see Avenue Q, although I'd be surprised if that opportunity rolls around this year. I'm really looking forward to the Les Miserables movie, and Sing Live's first concert of 2013 on the 3rd of Feb at the Bridgewater Hall.

I'm renewing my 2012 New Year's Resolution to read 12 books (I only managed 6, with 2 still on the go) but I think I might have to aim for 13 books as it's 2013.2013 will also see the first draft of the novel that I've started at least three times, and I'm determined to keep a diary. Writing has to be a focus of the year, if for no other reason than it's necessary for my degree, so I'm relaunching my writing blog tomorrow. I'm not setting a goal of blogging every day, but I want to make sure there is regular content, and if I'm writing everyday that should be easy... Should... Be... Easy. Famous last words.

I really want to spend a bit more time with friends this year; I feel like I've hardly seen Ann or Claire and I'd really like to meet up with some old friends that I haven't seen for a while. I'm already dreaming up a visit to Ally and Rich in Londonium, and maybe lunch or dinner out with Jo Jo from First Choice. And who knows what else I might manage to do.

So I'm making 2013 a year of friendship and achievement! 13 might be unlucky for some, but it's never steered me wrong. Hello 2013. Goodbye 2012.

NaBloPoMo Day 7 - Open University

Day 7 already and still going strong. I am very proud of myself. :-)

Today I'd like to dedicate my blog to some wonderful and helpful people that I encountered. You see, last night I received one of the regular email newsletters from the Open University. I have been studying with them since 2002 (yep... Almost a decade) and working towards a degree in Literature. I have only one course left to do.

The email that I received last night had a section about next year's course fees, which increase from £700 for a 60 point course, to £2,500. Why the price hike? It's all due to changes to the way that universities are funded. When the changes come in next September, the Open University stands to lose £90m in funding from the government. In place of the funding, they have had to increase their fees. However, unlike the current fee and loans system, from next September, part-time students will be eligible for a student loan to cover the course fees.

Of course, even the lower fee is quite an item, so money being tight I chose to postpone my final course until next year... Until I got that email I mentioned. Panic! You see, I started a degree in 1997, which I had to abandon for personal reasons so I was unsure whether I would be eligible for a loan to cover the fees for next year. At the same time, registration for my final course for this year's intake had closed, so I was facing a fee I believed I couldn't possibly pay next year on the one hand, and a course I couldn't get on to for this year on the other. Talk about being between a rock and a hard place.

The good news is that it was all stress for nothing. Raj at Student Finance for England assures me that I am eligible for the loan for next year. So hooray! However is also spoke with Lynn and Elaine at the OU, both of whom were very helpful indeed. As it happens, had I needed to, they would have placed me on the intake for this year. All three folks offered me reassurance and excellent customer service, for which I am very grateful.

So after all that, am I against the tuition fee changes? No. I believe in a free education system but that's not possible at the momeny. However, the changes will make higher education much more accessible to those from lower income backgrounds and it is fairer because those who graduate and end up earning more will pay back more while those who earn less will pay less. At the end of the day, whether you come from privilege or from a council estate is irrelevant; where you end up is what will matter. It's not a perfect system but it's an improvement.

A Fee Too Far?

Students protest in London (BBC News)

I feel fortunate that I am not an MP today, and even more fortunate that, way-back-when actually governing seemed like a distant pipe-dream, I didn't sign any sort of pledge to abolish tuition fees. I'm sure it seemed like a good idea at the time but some Liberal Democrats are learning the hard way that photo opportunities (like the tutition fee pledge) sometimes come back to haunt you. Today, our nation's Liberal Democrat parliamentary representatives will face one of the most politically challenging decisions of their careers when they face a vote on proposed changes to higher education funding.

Under the new scheme, the cap on tuition fees would be increased to £9,000 per year (up from around £3,200). This is to offset changes under the deficit reduction plan that will see cuts of at least 40% to university funding. Essentially, the weight of responsibility for university funding will be shifted from the taxpayer to the graduate. While this might seem frightening (particularly when you consider a typical degree will take three years, incurring up to £27,000 of debt for the graduate before they have even taken a job), plans have been put in place to try and alleviate the burden. First and foremost, under the proposed scheme, students will not have to pay anything up front, thereby maintaining the accessibility of university education. Secondly, no graduate will pay a penny until they are earning £21,000 per annum (with this threshold increasing annually according to the rate of inflation). Once graduates do start paying back their fees, they will pay only 9% per month. While this might seem alot, it ensures that higher earners will pay more back, and will pay more quickly than those on lower incomes. Finally, the debt will be written off after 30 years so no-one will be lumbered with the burden indefinitely.

Happily, having never made any election promise pertaining to tutition fees, I feel secure in stating for posterity that I am in favour of the new proposals and that, if I were an MP today, I would vote accordingly. While I baulk at the thought of students accumulating debt to the tune of almost thirty grand, I acknowledge that present circumstances prohibit even the status quo, never mind abolishing fees altogether. Present circumstances include the fact that we are in coalition and must compromise with our Conservative colleagues, allowing them to meet some of their election pledges at the same time as meeting some of our own. We have, and will continue to achieve some of our manifesto policies, but abolishing tuition fees was never going to be possible in a coalition, either with the Conservatives or with Labour. Furthermore, the previous government has left the country with a much greater deficit than even the most pessimistic estimates predicted. As a result, cuts have had to be deeper and more immediate than we believed was the case during the election period. (Welcome to the world of Labour lies.) Either way, the simple truth at the end of the day is that there are more important spending priorities, including health and schools, than ensuring a free university education for anyone that wants it. I would, of course, prefer not to increase tuition fees at all and would love to be in a position to guarantee free higher education to all but, facing budget cuts, universities have to be allowed to charge students higher fees. If they are not allowed to do so, it will not be a reduced uptake for students from poorer backgrounds that we face, or a generation of students in a debt crisis; it will be a generation of students fighting for a greatly reduced number of university places and this benefits no-one.

In addition, there is the greater debate of whether it is right for the taxpayer to fully fund higher education. I have found very few people that believe the taxpayer should shoulder the burden alone, but most of the people I have discussed it with are cautious about increasing fees to the proposed £9k. It seems therefore that the problem is not the fees themselves but the number. £9,000 is still a lot of money to most people, especially multiplied three times. Generally, however, I have found a lot of support for the new proposals, especially when people come to understand that those who earn less will pay less. Most people seem convinced that higher education should not be pervue of the taxpayer.

This debate fundamentally differs in England than in Scotland where there is a cultural tradition of free education. I know my Dad is very much against tuition fees, but I haven't discussed with enough Scots to get a reasonable grasp of public feeling north of the border.

Either way, the choice in government today is simple: increase the cap on tuition fees and ensure funding security for universities, or maintain the status quo on tuition fees and doom thousands of youngsters to a future where there is no university place for them at all. There is no question of whether we should abolish tuition fees or not, because it is not achievable in coalition. Faced with these choices, I believe the proposals are progressive and I therefore support them. I believe that students will be better off in the long-run and that the policy has greatly benefitted from the influence of the Liberal Democrats in government. Without this influence, the cap would probably have been lifted altogether and I doubt that any of the measures to ensure accessibility for students from poorer backgrounds would have been part of the policy.

Of course, if I were an MP today, I may well have got there by signing a pledge or campaigning on the principle of abolishing tuition fees, in which case my views are quite different. For those who have made promises, particularly by signing pledges, the situation is very much more complex. It is clear that some MPs will feel bound to vote against the proposals, regardless of any merits. I personally feel that an MP's duty is first, to their constituents and second to the government as a whole. MP's are there to represent the people that elected them so if a candidate stated that they would oppose any increase in tuition fees, in simple terms, they risk betraying their electorate if they vote in favour of the proposals. There is a question about whether this individual policy was crucial in each individual campaign and how many constituents realistically support the abolition of tuition fees, as politics is anything but simple, so it will therefore be a matter of conscience for some Liberal Democrat MPs and I leave it to them to determine how best to represent their constituency. However, I would personally discourage abstention as 'the cowards way out'.

My final concern is how the Liberal Democrat party will be perceived after this crucial vote. In coalition with the Conservatives, I always feared that we would come off worse. It is harder for our credibility to survive compromise with the defense "it would've been worse without us" than it is for the Conservatives, who will convince right wing supporters that their more moderate policies are all our doing. I would like to think that four years down the line people will be better off and recognise our influence in bringing that prosperity. It is particularly difficult to think positively in a firestorm of negative media coverage and also difficult to think positively when the future of the nation is hurling missiles and injuring police in violent protests. How representative of voter feeling these protests are remains to be seen. After all, Labour promised not to introduce tuition fees and did, and pledged not to increase them and did, and they survived in government for over a decade. I think as long as we can maintain our identity as Liberal Democrats and ride out media interest without being seen to be weak, we will get-by.

Impoverished Learning? Who Are They Kidding?

Yesterday it was reported that Professor Robin Alexander, in the Cambridge University Primary Review, has concluded that primary education in this country is 'too narrow'. The study covers education in England over the last 40 years and the interim report concludes that targeting and testing has lead to an overemphasis on 'the basics', ignoring other subjects such as History, Geography and Science. The government has responded saying the report is an insult and 'flies in the face of international evidence'. The report goes on to suggest that primary school education should be restructured around 12 aims in three categories: the needs of the individual; the individual in the wider world; and learning, knowing and doing. These aims would then be achieved (the report proposes) through teaching in 8 'domains': arts and creativity; citizenship and ethics; faith and belief; language, oracy and literacy; mathematics; physical and emotional health; place and time (geography and history); science and technology.

As an individual I have had the benefit of an exceptionally good education, but also a bad one. The first primary school I attended was well below par. After over two years of primary school education I could barely write and didn't know any times tables and tragically there were, I believe, other children in my class that were at an even lower eductional level! The school did not, as far as I can recall, have a set or structured programme of teaching. All our work was 'project' driven, spending our valuable time writing short fictional nonsense and stories about tadpoles (I have some of my old school work to prove it), most of which I'm certain this was of questionable educational value. Fortunately, my parents recognised early on that the education I was receiving was sub-standard and they moved me to Heathcote Primary School in Danbury. Heathcote had a set structure of learning which taught separate subjects including art, science, maths, english and computing. I was even taught French although it never stuck, probably because I was already so far behind my intake.

I started out two years behind the rest of my year knowing very little, but, thanks to a wonderful school and faculty (in particular Mrs Willis and Mrs Frasier - English and Maths - occupy a particular soft spot in my memory), by the time I left I was at a stage where I could breeze through the first year of high school in Scotland with little effort, while everyone else caught up with me! As a result, I am the first person to recognise the value of a good education versus the danger of a poor one. I believe primary schools should teach separate subjects and that kids should sit exams to get used to this as a testing method before it really matters. I also believe in a varied education, incorporating a wide spectrum of experience. However, I am not convinced that the Cambridge Review is taking the right approach.

As I review the aims the Review hopes to achieve in Primary Education and the 'domains' through which they propose to achieve them I wonder how much a school should actually be responsible for. Under the group of aims related to 'the individual in the wider world' there are subject aims such as 'encouraging respect and reciprocity' and 'local, national and global citizenship'. True, these are things which should (and I believe are already) encouraged in our primary schools, but surely it is the responsibility of the parents to instill this? I also question the practicality of a teaching a curriculum on this basis: how does the study propose to measure how well 'empowerment' and 'autonomy' are being taught in a school?

I completely agree that children have an entitlement to be given a broad ranging primary education but it is essential to remember that primary education provides a foundation on which an individual will build the rest of their knowledge and experience. It is imperitive that skills such as literacy and numeracy are well established because these are basic life skills that can be expanded upon later in the individuals' education and are essential throughout life. I know too many adults that lack the basic ability to construct a conherant sentance and are unable to perform basic calculations such as percentage and area. My 12 year old nephew has just progressed beyond primary education into high school and has, I believe, an excellent grounding in the basics so I understand when the government labels this study 'insulting'. The Cambridge Review seems to imply a stilted and stunted education system where all that is taught is literacy and numeracy, as if there is no mention of any other subject area. This is simply not the case. Of course these skills are emphasised because they are targetted and measured. They are targetted and measured because they are important! When taught well, these skills can be embedded into all the other subjects that can be and are taught in our schools.

Finally, it is also important to remember that it's all very well to discuss how education should or shouldn't be conducted but at the end of the day, it is more important to remember that if a change is made for the worse, it will impact on the lives of thousands of children around the country. It is not acceptable to tinker and experiment with a child's primary education - it could limit their potential for life if it doesn't work. Any change to education should be viewed, at best with caution and suspicion. We should be wary about sweeping away a system which does appear to be giving our children a good start - the government points out that "English children were recently recognised as being the highest achieving in maths and science among European countries."(quoted on news.bbc.co.uk) so we must be doing something right! I believe there are bigger priorities in education than the limits of the Cambridge Review can identify.