• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>The economist >Let us hope
【24h】

Let us hope

机译：让我们希望

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

In 1861, a national education commission proposed that the state should provide a "sound and cheap" elementary education for the masses. You'd think that Britain might have managed that in a century and a half, but it's arguable. A quarter of all children leave primary school unable to read and write, the oecd blames low British productivity on the badly educated workers at the bottom of the pile, and since 1997 spending on education has gone up in real terms by 45%, without much to show for it. That's at least in part because when Labour came to power in 1997, it thought the answer was to stop fiddling with the system and focus on "standards, not structures". Schools were to be examined and ranked relentlessly, advisers to be sent to un-derperforming schools, and teachers to be trained and given "continuous professional development", but the way the system was organised was to be left largely alone. Since then, the government has come to realise that it was busy digging a money pit; unreformed institutions can soak up any amount of cash and have very little to show for it. And now, belatedly, it is attempting structural change.
机译：1861年，国家教育委员会提议，国家应为群众提供“便宜又好听的”基础教育。您可能会认为英国可能已经在一个半世纪中解决了这一问题，但这是有争议的。四分之一的孩子离开小学时无法读写，OECD将英国生产力低下归咎于受教育程度低的工人，而自1997年以来，教育支出实际增长了45％，实际上没有增加多少展示它。这至少部分是因为工党在1997年上台时认为，答案是停止摆弄制度，而只关注“标准，而不是结构”。要对学校进行无休止的检查和排名，将顾问送到表现不佳的学校，对教师进行培训并给予“持续的专业发展”，但是该系统的组织方式在很大程度上应该被搁置。从那时起，政府开始意识到自己正忙着挖一个钱坑。未改革的机构可以吸收任何数量的现金，而且几乎没有现金可支配。而现在，迟来的是，它正在尝试进行结构性改变。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号