Of course the one known issue that would directly affect the quality of education are smaller class sizes at all levels of primary and secondary education. This is a matter of cost and comes down to a working compromise which is drawn in the wrong place at the moment, despite promises of education being at the top of the uk government's agenda. It seems that politicians get more kudos from the more tangible and immediate rewards from the creation of new buildings than from genuine longer term investment.

In my opinion the drive to get more children into higher education has definitely pushed down standards, despite claims to the contrary. It is hard to know whether this is, on the whole, better or worse. My personal experience as an employer of graduate engineers is that it is now impossible to rely on someone having a degree (or an MSc) as being a reliable indicator of ability. It used to be, but with the exception of Oxford, Cambridge and some other establishments with well run specialist departments, a long interview and the quality of A-level results is a better guide. I could expand at length and with details on this problem! One of the outcomes is that you may soon need a degree to get a job stacking shelves at a local supermarket because the system has just created a new hierarchy of employability. It may be argued, with some validity, that employing youths (18-21) in nice campus environment with the opportunity to learn is better for all, but I am just pointing out one of the negative consequences. Of course it keeps down what would otherwise be high unemployment figures, but maybe this is a rather cynical view. Universities should be places where people are taught how to learn independently, but I don't see much evidence of this. Even at Oxford and Cambridge it is really the selection of entrants who already have this ability (or are quick to pick up the necessity of having it) that make them successful, although a high staff/student ratio and a tutorial system helps too. Generally I would like to see more discipline instilled and the quality of degrees re-evaluated so that hard degrees are really rated more highly. Many science and engineering courses have higher number of foreign students than British students because kids here are taking the easier options and also because the university makes money from the foreign students. Regular tutorials with 2 or 3 students only are very good because they allow two way discussions, a personal relationship and incentive to attend (you are definitely missed if you don't attend). But all this costs money.

At secondary education level there has been too much emphasis on passing exams to the detriment of proper education by mind-broadening discussions that can interest the students. Kids are chasing numbers of GCSE's, A-levels and grades, which is OK but there should be limits to how much of this is done at the expense of a broader education. We need to find a way of assessing the advantages of this broader education and then schools would have an incentive to be more balanced. The pressures on kids at A-level, especially those wanting to get into a good university, is huge, unacceptable and can be damaging. It is also hard for the teachers who can find such methods of teaching boring and unrewarding.

Then there is also the problem of getting some kids interested in education at all. A lot depends on the environment they are brought up in before the age of 5. I have no ideas here. This may be more of a social engineering problem than an educational one.

Generally we need to get a balance between teaching kids "interesting" things, and getting the enthusiasm that helps so much, and having a more disciplined approach that teaches them what society wants them to know. Some kids respond more to one than the other so I expect one rule won't work for all.