>All children will have to study creative arts or sport until they are 16 under a Labour government because AI makes learning code pointless, Sir Keir Starmer has said.
>In a flagship speech on education which was briefly derailed by climate protesters, Starmer announced plans to shake up the national curriculum to focus more on creative subjects to teach the skills needed to capitalise on modern technology.
>Confidence, communication, teamwork and problem-solving are more important for children than “out-of-date” IT lessons, Starmer said as he set out plans to put speaking clearly and fluently at the heart of the curriculum.
>In a deliberate provocation to the Labour left, Starmer quoted Michael Gove, the Conservative former education secretary, to criticise “the soft bigotry of low expectations” for poorer children.
>“I don’t agree with everything he did in education, clearly, but when he said that — it was an important strike against the class ceiling, an acknowledgement that school standards are the most fundamental front line in the battle for more opportunity,” Starmer said.
>In a personal section, Starmer drew on his own background to say his desire to improve education was “our core purpose and my personal cause”. Citing his parents’ pebble-dashed semi, “with Mum, Dad, four kids, four dogs and a blue Ford Cortina outside” he said that he was able to rise from a working-class background to lead the Crown Prosecution Service.
>Jibing at the Tories that “there is more than a touch of the 1970s about our economic situation right now”, Starmer suggested that journeys such as his were harder today.
>As well as criticising contemporary economic insecurity, he also condemned a “pernicious” assumption that working-class children should lower their ambitions. He said this “class ceiling” was “about a fundamental lack of respect, a snobbery that too often extends into adulthood,” citing his own father, a toolmaker. “Whenever anyone asked that old question ‘what do you do for a living’ — I could see him visibly pull away. He felt looked down upon, disrespected. It chipped away at his esteem.”
>While praising New Labour for having “the best record on education in the history of our country,” he acknowledged that the Blair government “didn’t eradicate the snobbery that looks down on vocational education, didn’t drain the well of disrespect that this creates, and that cost us”.
>Starmer argued that lack of confidence held back poorer children, saying “the inability to speak fluently is one of the biggest barriers to opportunity,” as he said that oracy would become as central to the curriculum as literacy. “Confident speaking gives you a steely core, and an inner belief to make your case in any environment,” he said.
>Starmer also argued that developing digital skills required them to become part of teaching in all subjects rather than hived off to separate lessons, as he stressed that creative skills were vital to make the most of new technology.
>“The old way — learning out-of-date IT, on 20-year-old computers — doesn’t work, but neither does the new fashion, that every kid should be a coder, when artificial intelligence will blow that future away,” he said.
>“All around the world, the best in class are rethinking their curricula, and every one of them is putting greater creativity front and centre, including countries like Estonia and Singapore.” He promised to “get children studying a creative arts subject, or sport, until they are 16”. Labour said the creative subjects would include music, art and drama.
>Starmer’s speech threatened to be derailed soon after it began when two of the young people standing behind him revealed themselves to be climate activists. Unfurling a banner declaring “Green New Deal now,” they accused him of backtracking on plans to spend £28 billion a year on green measures. “Young people want action,” one protester told Starmer. “We need a green new deal right now.”
>Starmer replied: “Will you just let me finish this and then come and talk to you about it?” As they were escorted off stage by venue staff, Starmer then told the audience: “I think they may have missed the fact that the last mission I launched was on clean power by 2030 which is the single most effective way to get the green future that they and many others want.”
>Green New Deal Rising, a movement of 16 to 35-year-olds calling for a ten-year climate plan including a “permanent and progressive windfall tax for polluters,” claimed responsibility for the demonstration.
>Dieudonné Bila, a student who was one of the protesters, said: “I disrupted Keir Starmer’s speech because I desperately want to see a future government committed to protecting people here and all over the world from the climate crisis . . . if Keir Starmer wants the support of young people like us he needs to set out a bold vision for the future that gets to the root causes of the problems we are facing.”
>The group said they had invited Starmer and Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, to meet them to discuss their demands for the party’s manifesto but the Labour Party had not replied.
>Earlier, Starmer had significantly hardened his criticism of Just Stop Oil’s campaign tactics, which he said “is totally counterproductive”. He told Times Radio: “I can’t wait for them to stop their antics, frankly. They’re interrupting iconic sporting events that are part of our history, tradition and massively looked forward to across the nation. I absolutely condemn the way they go about their tactics. And I have to say it’s riddled with an arrogance that only they have the sort of right to force their argument on other people in this way.”
>After his speech was disrupted by climate activists, Starmer told the audience: “I just think they need to just stop. Particularly this last week, they’ve been interrupting iconic sporting events, causing massive disruption. There’s a huge arrogance involved, that they’re the only people that understand the argument, that their tactics are going to win.”
> All children will have to study creative arts or sport until they are 16 under a Labour government because AI makes learning code pointless, Sir Keir Starmer has said.
So Keir thinks AI makes learning code pointless? Wow, I really don’t know where to start with that.
Making the argument that coding is a less useful skill to learn due to AI but then discussing art as an alternative is frankly ludicrous. I’m interested to know where he gets his advise on the future of AI as currently the arts is the most affected by it.
Moving digital skills into all subjects is a good approach but will require a massive overhaul of the school structure and significant increase in funding for more IT infrastructure in all classrooms + large scale training for all teachers to ensure they actually have digital skills.
None of these are practical solutions and will run into the same issue as Rishi’s maths plan. I’m disappointed if this is the only solution labour has to the education problem in this country.
Hahahaha this is hilarious. If AI makes coding useless, no body shows all the art/music/painting AI have made to Starmer.
Encouraging sports I understand for health, but arts …?
Also how is learning to code pointless ? I am so lost.
This is every bit as stupid as saying compulsary maths until 18. Kids have different interests and only a limited amount of time in school.
There should be way more flexibility in classes too – I couldn’t study languages since I went with science subjects.
Obviously, scientists in one country would never need to be able to speak to ones in other countries though!
If someone wants to do Drama **and** Physics, then bloody let them!
Hardly seems outrageous; I’m pretty sure P.E was already compulsory when I was at school. When did that stop?
As were arts – you had to pick one of art, music or drama.
Anyone who has spent any time coding knows a human will always need to be behind it. Coding is useful whether you learn it for a week or 3 years. It will always be useful. Typical champagne politicians talking out of there ass.
Also can the next generation learn something useful other then all learning trigonometry or tectonic plate movements.
Don’t worry, he’ll be u-turning next week and making it compulsory for people of all ages to be educated to degree level in something that he’s been told is the future.
The man has no agenda other than power.
If it was a case of “P.E or Art” as a core, I’d have loved this.
But why? It’s behind a pay wall so it may say and feel free to enlighten me, but I can think of nothing reasonable to back this up.
Some people are never into sport (me) and some people aren’t into the arts, (I like art but nothing academic or career minded) and I’d bet there are thousands of people in school who feel the exact same way.
What a waste of people’s education. I’ll never get my head round why people let the state dictate so much about OUR education.
Starmer also needs reminding he’s the leader of Labour and to stop posturing for Tory voters.
Meanwhile programmers, particularly those in fintech, make up some of the best paying professionals on the UK.
What the fuck is he on about.
Is it possibly something to do with liberal arts uni campuses somehow being a funnel to the Labour Party?
PE should be mandatory until kids are 18 and should include a variety of different things, some games, running but also things like gym and exercises. It shouldn’t be marked based on performance but based on participation to encourage kids to take part. In countries where PE is mandatory, obesity rates are often lower.
>Keir Starmer promises compulsory arts or sport until 16
When weren’t they?
I’m personally in favor of a funnel type education system and so this does sit well with me. Start broad in primary, slowly chip away giving students choices on their education until you are left with a core set of topics + chosen specialist classes at 16 and then just specialist after that.
Core classes should be English, Maths, History/Sociology/or Philosophy, arts or sports, a science/IT/engineering, a foreign language.
Problem is for that many different classes you need a lot more funding in schools.
Not the kind of amendments our education system needs. Change for the sake of change, to make it look like I’m doing something within the education systems that ‘matters’.
Where did he say this, the damn article is behind a paywall, I’ve found sources saying he thinks more children should study art or sport until they are 16 but not compulsory. On another note fuck that.
Art is meant to be a fun, enjoyable activity. So too is sport.
Then along comes a fucker like Starmer who takes all the fun out of it.
18 comments
>All children will have to study creative arts or sport until they are 16 under a Labour government because AI makes learning code pointless, Sir Keir Starmer has said.
>In a flagship speech on education which was briefly derailed by climate protesters, Starmer announced plans to shake up the national curriculum to focus more on creative subjects to teach the skills needed to capitalise on modern technology.
>Confidence, communication, teamwork and problem-solving are more important for children than “out-of-date” IT lessons, Starmer said as he set out plans to put speaking clearly and fluently at the heart of the curriculum.
>In a deliberate provocation to the Labour left, Starmer quoted Michael Gove, the Conservative former education secretary, to criticise “the soft bigotry of low expectations” for poorer children.
>“I don’t agree with everything he did in education, clearly, but when he said that — it was an important strike against the class ceiling, an acknowledgement that school standards are the most fundamental front line in the battle for more opportunity,” Starmer said.
>In a personal section, Starmer drew on his own background to say his desire to improve education was “our core purpose and my personal cause”. Citing his parents’ pebble-dashed semi, “with Mum, Dad, four kids, four dogs and a blue Ford Cortina outside” he said that he was able to rise from a working-class background to lead the Crown Prosecution Service.
>Jibing at the Tories that “there is more than a touch of the 1970s about our economic situation right now”, Starmer suggested that journeys such as his were harder today.
>As well as criticising contemporary economic insecurity, he also condemned a “pernicious” assumption that working-class children should lower their ambitions. He said this “class ceiling” was “about a fundamental lack of respect, a snobbery that too often extends into adulthood,” citing his own father, a toolmaker. “Whenever anyone asked that old question ‘what do you do for a living’ — I could see him visibly pull away. He felt looked down upon, disrespected. It chipped away at his esteem.”
>While praising New Labour for having “the best record on education in the history of our country,” he acknowledged that the Blair government “didn’t eradicate the snobbery that looks down on vocational education, didn’t drain the well of disrespect that this creates, and that cost us”.
>Starmer argued that lack of confidence held back poorer children, saying “the inability to speak fluently is one of the biggest barriers to opportunity,” as he said that oracy would become as central to the curriculum as literacy. “Confident speaking gives you a steely core, and an inner belief to make your case in any environment,” he said.
>Starmer also argued that developing digital skills required them to become part of teaching in all subjects rather than hived off to separate lessons, as he stressed that creative skills were vital to make the most of new technology.
>“The old way — learning out-of-date IT, on 20-year-old computers — doesn’t work, but neither does the new fashion, that every kid should be a coder, when artificial intelligence will blow that future away,” he said.
>“All around the world, the best in class are rethinking their curricula, and every one of them is putting greater creativity front and centre, including countries like Estonia and Singapore.” He promised to “get children studying a creative arts subject, or sport, until they are 16”. Labour said the creative subjects would include music, art and drama.
>Starmer’s speech threatened to be derailed soon after it began when two of the young people standing behind him revealed themselves to be climate activists. Unfurling a banner declaring “Green New Deal now,” they accused him of backtracking on plans to spend £28 billion a year on green measures. “Young people want action,” one protester told Starmer. “We need a green new deal right now.”
>Starmer replied: “Will you just let me finish this and then come and talk to you about it?” As they were escorted off stage by venue staff, Starmer then told the audience: “I think they may have missed the fact that the last mission I launched was on clean power by 2030 which is the single most effective way to get the green future that they and many others want.”
>Green New Deal Rising, a movement of 16 to 35-year-olds calling for a ten-year climate plan including a “permanent and progressive windfall tax for polluters,” claimed responsibility for the demonstration.
>Dieudonné Bila, a student who was one of the protesters, said: “I disrupted Keir Starmer’s speech because I desperately want to see a future government committed to protecting people here and all over the world from the climate crisis . . . if Keir Starmer wants the support of young people like us he needs to set out a bold vision for the future that gets to the root causes of the problems we are facing.”
>The group said they had invited Starmer and Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, to meet them to discuss their demands for the party’s manifesto but the Labour Party had not replied.
>Earlier, Starmer had significantly hardened his criticism of Just Stop Oil’s campaign tactics, which he said “is totally counterproductive”. He told Times Radio: “I can’t wait for them to stop their antics, frankly. They’re interrupting iconic sporting events that are part of our history, tradition and massively looked forward to across the nation. I absolutely condemn the way they go about their tactics. And I have to say it’s riddled with an arrogance that only they have the sort of right to force their argument on other people in this way.”
>After his speech was disrupted by climate activists, Starmer told the audience: “I just think they need to just stop. Particularly this last week, they’ve been interrupting iconic sporting events, causing massive disruption. There’s a huge arrogance involved, that they’re the only people that understand the argument, that their tactics are going to win.”
> All children will have to study creative arts or sport until they are 16 under a Labour government because AI makes learning code pointless, Sir Keir Starmer has said.
So Keir thinks AI makes learning code pointless? Wow, I really don’t know where to start with that.
Making the argument that coding is a less useful skill to learn due to AI but then discussing art as an alternative is frankly ludicrous. I’m interested to know where he gets his advise on the future of AI as currently the arts is the most affected by it.
Moving digital skills into all subjects is a good approach but will require a massive overhaul of the school structure and significant increase in funding for more IT infrastructure in all classrooms + large scale training for all teachers to ensure they actually have digital skills.
None of these are practical solutions and will run into the same issue as Rishi’s maths plan. I’m disappointed if this is the only solution labour has to the education problem in this country.
Hahahaha this is hilarious. If AI makes coding useless, no body shows all the art/music/painting AI have made to Starmer.
Encouraging sports I understand for health, but arts …?
Also how is learning to code pointless ? I am so lost.
This is every bit as stupid as saying compulsary maths until 18. Kids have different interests and only a limited amount of time in school.
There should be way more flexibility in classes too – I couldn’t study languages since I went with science subjects.
Obviously, scientists in one country would never need to be able to speak to ones in other countries though!
If someone wants to do Drama **and** Physics, then bloody let them!
Hardly seems outrageous; I’m pretty sure P.E was already compulsory when I was at school. When did that stop?
As were arts – you had to pick one of art, music or drama.
Anyone who has spent any time coding knows a human will always need to be behind it. Coding is useful whether you learn it for a week or 3 years. It will always be useful. Typical champagne politicians talking out of there ass.
Also can the next generation learn something useful other then all learning trigonometry or tectonic plate movements.
Don’t worry, he’ll be u-turning next week and making it compulsory for people of all ages to be educated to degree level in something that he’s been told is the future.
The man has no agenda other than power.
If it was a case of “P.E or Art” as a core, I’d have loved this.
But why? It’s behind a pay wall so it may say and feel free to enlighten me, but I can think of nothing reasonable to back this up.
Some people are never into sport (me) and some people aren’t into the arts, (I like art but nothing academic or career minded) and I’d bet there are thousands of people in school who feel the exact same way.
What a waste of people’s education. I’ll never get my head round why people let the state dictate so much about OUR education.
Starmer also needs reminding he’s the leader of Labour and to stop posturing for Tory voters.
Meanwhile programmers, particularly those in fintech, make up some of the best paying professionals on the UK.
What the fuck is he on about.
Is it possibly something to do with liberal arts uni campuses somehow being a funnel to the Labour Party?
PE should be mandatory until kids are 18 and should include a variety of different things, some games, running but also things like gym and exercises. It shouldn’t be marked based on performance but based on participation to encourage kids to take part. In countries where PE is mandatory, obesity rates are often lower.
>Keir Starmer promises compulsory arts or sport until 16
When weren’t they?
I’m personally in favor of a funnel type education system and so this does sit well with me. Start broad in primary, slowly chip away giving students choices on their education until you are left with a core set of topics + chosen specialist classes at 16 and then just specialist after that.
Core classes should be English, Maths, History/Sociology/or Philosophy, arts or sports, a science/IT/engineering, a foreign language.
Problem is for that many different classes you need a lot more funding in schools.
Not the kind of amendments our education system needs. Change for the sake of change, to make it look like I’m doing something within the education systems that ‘matters’.
Where did he say this, the damn article is behind a paywall, I’ve found sources saying he thinks more children should study art or sport until they are 16 but not compulsory. On another note fuck that.
Art is meant to be a fun, enjoyable activity. So too is sport.
Then along comes a fucker like Starmer who takes all the fun out of it.
Can’t someone tell him to shut the fuck up?