Nick, Stephen and Neil
I’m not really an Observer fan, have yet to find a Sunday paper that I click with completely, but I generally buy it for Nick Cohen’s insightful articles. But today’s edition was a real let down - a muddled piece on education, with no clear thesis and a conclusion that appeared to implicitly support grammar schools - at least if you go by the title: “Long live grammars”.
He starts well, taking as his starting point the slightly odd debate on selection at the Professional Association of Teachers conference (well, what would you expect of a trade union pledged never to strike?), and moving on to rehearse the statistics about the relative social mobility of the 1958 and 1970 cohorts. (BTW, I’ve never understood why there wasn’t a 1982 cohort and a 1994 cohort, and why we aren’t preparing for the 2006 cohort - they’re so useful for all sorts of things, and policy formulation, not least education, labour force and teenage pregnancy policy, still relies on findings from studying them. I’d be much gratified if someone could enlighten me on this.)
Back to Nick. So far, so good. And, indeed, I don’t disagree with anything he’s saying until, with a jolt, I’ve reached the end without finding the advocacy of grammar schools promised by the title, that I was so looking forward to vehemently disagreeing with. Is this just an example of sexing up headlines by subeditors at the Observer? The drink-soaked trots have a variety of examples from today’s Observer here, so it could be. I hope so.
There are some implicit threats implied in the article, not least in the highlighting that Tony Blair’s Downing Street Policy Unit are actively considering the problem. I suppose I should get less paranoid, but since when have education reforms coming from number 10 meant good things for those of us who care about equality and social justice? Having said that, though I’m still cross about the watering-down of Tomlinson and I’m not sure about the whole Academy programme, I do like one academy-ish idea - schools selecting by banding, where there is a committment to taking a certain number of children from each band. I used to be an advocate of children going to their nearest school, and that still appears to work in Oxford, but I don’t see how how that would combat the moving to get in the catchment area that is gerrymandering the idea of a “local” school.
And so to Stephen - Pollard that is, who I don’t normally read but came across earlier today. Was slightly surprised to find him through Bloggers for Labour, as after reading a few posts he seems not Labour at all for me, but maybe that’s a symptom of the sad breadth of my party these days.
It is precicely because educational opportunities which are currently the preserve of the better off should be based not on wealth but merit that the grammar schools debate is so important. And it is those who believe in selection by ability, rather than the cheque book, who are the real progressives.
No, the real progressives are those of us who don’t believe in selection at all, Stephen, not by ability nor by cheque book, but who value the potential of every child. This is not a defence of the status quo, which, through the failure of some authorities to implement the comprehensive changes, the underfunding of Thatcher’s years and yes, some trendy and discredited teaching ideas, failed a generation of young people. I know, I was at school in the 1980s, and my generation were failed. But we are turnign that tide now - through literacy hours and numeracy hours and preparation time and better pay for teachers and many other great differences a Labour government makes. It’s not fast enough, and we still have a disgraceful number leaving with no qualifications, but I cannot accept that the way to solve this is a bridge out for the few whilst thousands of young people are consigned to the rubbish heap at 11. We can do better than that.
Finally, to Neil - Harding, at Brighton Regency Labour, undoubtedly proper Labour, though with odd views on PR. To be fair to Stephen and to Nick, Neil, I don’t think that either said that SureStart and Working Families Tax Credits were “slowing the process of redistribution” - Nick’s prose is tortuous, but his point is that they merely slow down the widening of the gap between rich and poor.
But I love this idea, Neil - I’ll suggest it to college next time I visit:
The best and simplest solution I have heard is that every state school in the country (around 3000) gets a place at Oxbridge for their brightest pupil. This would mean that middle class parents would no longer have the incentive to concentrate their children in a few schools. They would have to take an interest in all schools as the best way of getting their children to the top universities. This would mean all children will benefit.
There’s more to come on this topic - gotta run now.
You’re not the first to wonder at Stephen’s presence on the list. I was satisfied back in May that he was backing Labour. He’s fairly pro-Blair, would call himself ‘progressive’, and hates the current Tory party. There have been anti-Labour comments too, but he is an interesting read and I think he does represent a certain constituency of Labour voters.
What do other people think?
Like Antonia says, if Pollard is Labour (and I really doubt he is), then “that’s a symptom of the sad breadth of my party these days”.
If you look at Pollard’s CV, I think his time at the Daily Express and Adam Smith Institute has had a big effect on him.
However, I say leave him in there, as it is sometimes good to have a closet Tory to rail against!
Antonia, here is a quote from the Nick Cohen article, included in Pollard’s piece;
“All the efforts by New Labour to redistribute wealth, all the Sure Start schemes and working families’ tax credits, have merely slowed the process”.
As for my odd views on PR, they are shared by over 100 Labour MPs.
We realise two things about PR, that we need to foster in the Labour Party.
1. We have a moral duty to majority government not minority government! Most other democracies have realised this and have more equal societies as a result.
2. We are not frightened of the electorate. We know the majority do support progressive views and PR will turn these views into seats, unlike the russian roulette we have at the moment that delivered 18 years of Thatcherism and has destroyed democracy in the Labour party-marginalising the left and working class support.
Last, glad you liked the idea on Oxbridge. Sadly can’t claim it as my own! It was some academic writing ages ago in the paper that Pollard, Norm’s blog and Harry’s Place hate so much -The Guardian.
Antonia - in your post you don’t actually make any clear case against selection. You just say that you are against it but offer no reasons. You say that you think there are problems with the current system and you provide some evidence for that but you simply state that you ‘cannot accept’ the proposal of Mr. Pollard. This is shockingly lazy reasoning to find from one who would be a legislator for our country. It gives the distinct impression that your opinins are derived from unreflective tastes rather than from thinking hard or clearly.
You imply, more than a little tendentiously, that selection means ‘thousands of young people are consigned to the rubbish heap at 11′ but, again, you provide no justification or argument for this. You might be right. But you give us nothing to go on. Can selection only take the form of a 1950s division between grammars and secondary moderns? Are there really no other systems at all in the world? And in any case aren’t schools already selective - following the random lines of geography or income (where those who can afford to go private) rather than the needs or potential of any individual pupil. In what other area of life would one accept that one was simply given what the powers that be decide and which they allocate on a postcode lottery without even beginning to ask what you might need. My son is very keen on philosophy and classics but he can’t go to the school that teaches it because he lives two streets in the wrong direction. While he goes to the school with a great reputation for sport and theatre his friends from two streets away who are made keen on football can’t go to that school. What is just or egalitarian about this? It is merely bureaucraticaly convenient and abstractly appealing to people who don’t want to think but to say what prejudice tells them is the nice, kind, liberal thing to say.
In what other area of life would one not select on various criteria? Universities are selective for specialism and ability. All employers are selective. I am selective everytime I order a beer, hire a lawyer or vote for an MP.
Surely the question concerns not whether to select or not but the criteria and process of selection?
Sorry not to get back to you sooner - having a long day at work, will post replies this evening.
James W, as I said earlier, the state system that I would prefer would be one of fully comprehensive schools whose intake was decided by banding - so yes, some selection, but only to ensure that the intake reflected all abilities, including gifted and talented children and those with special educational needs. I used to support allocation by postcode, so children went to their nearest school, and that wouldn’t necessarily be lost under the system I’ve suggested - someone like Jo, growing up in farthest west Wales, would still get on the school bus with everyone from her village to the local school in Aberaeron - but it might remove the problems associated with better-off families moving into the catchment area of supposed “better” schools.
James W asks
Can selection only take the form of a 1950s division between grammars and secondary moderns?
Well, yes - surely the necessary accompaniment of grammar schools has to be something that is a secondary modern in practice even if not in name - because it would have to cater for children that failed the eleven plus? And in what way is failing an exam that your parents and school may have been preparing you for for months not throwing you on the dustbin at eleven?
I’m also not hugely fond of a a system of specialist / faith / academy schools, so, as someone who enjoyed a classical education, I sympathise with your son’s plight. London dwellers, I take it? Come and move to a provincial city, it’s all much less fraught.
Bloggers for Labour, I don’t doubt that Stephen’s sincere in his support for Labour - it just makes me sad that he, with his views, thinks that Labour is the way to advance them.
Neil, as regards PR, whatever. It was a throwaway comment, I just don’t understand the overriding importance of constitutional reform to some party members. It’s not an issue that I’m passionate about either way, although saying that 100 Labour MPs share them is not the greatest argument - over 100 Labour MPs supported the war, etc. etc. I do hate the Welsh system though - if you can, please explain to me why it is right that the voters of Llanelli reject Helen Mary Jones in the constituency, but then she gets in through the back door on the bloody regional list? I’d support AV+ for single member constituencies - that would make every vote count, wouldn’t it?
Oh, and sorry mate, but what “have merely slowed the process” is referring to is the “Britain is becoming an aristocracy of wealth” at the start of the previous paragraph.
Antonia, I know electoral reform seems boring (and it is to most people) but it is essential to stop our democracy ending up like the US.
You have got a little confused by AV+. I’m not sure whether you actually mean that or AV, which keeps the same constituencies as now, but is not proportional.
AV is better than FPTP because it at least ensures 50% support for an MP in a constituency, but is still open to boundary manipulation/gerrymandering.
AV+ is like a semi-AMS and is better still because it is a bit more proportional than AV because it allows 15% of the seats elected on a regional list basis. I don’t like that it is a ‘closed list’ which is why Helen Mary Jones can lose but still be elected in Wales where they use ‘closed list’ AMS.
A ‘closed list’ means the party selects the list, I prefer an ‘open list’ which is selected by voters or better still cellular constituencies. I promise I won’t mention PR for a while, so you can save your yawns. Cheers.
No, Neil, I meant AV, you’re right. I like the idea of 1, 2 , 3 etc preferences on the current constituency boundaries.
Re the system you suggest, I don’t see why, when a Labour person should beat a Liberal in (e.g.) Oxford East by about 900 votes, but despite his rejection by the electorate of his constituency, the Liberal is still elected on some sort of top-up system, and can then spend the next four years being the “Liberal MP for Oxford East”, undermining the actual MP elected for the area, as happens across Wales currently.
Antonia the system you advocate would have given Margaret Thatcher even bigger majorities in the 1980s and would now allow Blair to get away with even more than he does at the moment.
What your comments seem to suggest with regards “making every vote count” is that you would want multi-member STV constituencies (as in the Northern Ireland Assembly, councils and MEPs). That’s a nice idea on paper but unworkable in practice - I’m still waiting for STV advocates to tell me how to split my home county (Surrey) into a 5/6 arrangement that makes sense (the clear natural arrangement is an East/West 4/7 based on local authorities with no real room for manoeuvre due to local ties) and doesn’t have a seat stretching from Oxted to Farnham!
Antonia, the Liberal only gets elected under a ‘closed list’ system where the party chooses.
I prefer an ‘open list’ or cellular sytem where the liberal could only get elected (albeit over a bigger area) by getting at least the same number of votes as a single constituency MP. Usually they get a lot more votes to get elected.
Also AMS list MPs are not as bad as people think. Here is a viewpoint.
“I was able to take a regional view and
look at things in a slightly more
strategic way than a constituency
Member who was focusing entirely on
things that were going on in their
constituency. So when I was talking
about rural issues or transport issues, I
was able to take a strategic view across
my region.’– Delyth Evans (Labour’s
only List AM 2000-2003) reporting to the
Richard Commisson.
Hope that is helpful.