Sitting in the pub yesterday I noticed the silent TV indicate ‘Breaking News’. That title is so over-used nowadays that I no longer anticipate World War III or a reduction in tobacco tax. And sure enough this item was only about the lottery. There was the obligatory thumbs-up sign and then six numbers in differently coloured balls.
Then it moved on to an item about schools. You could tell it was about schools because there was film of two girls with satchels walking through some gates bearing a sign saying ‘School.’ (Obviously they’d found film of a black girl and white girl together).
Then it moved back to the lottery, then schools again. What the hell was going on? I discovered later that it was one item about the ballot system Brighton plans to use to allocate over-subscribed places in its schools.
The issue perfectly illustrates any number of my betes noires. I’ve already indicated one – the trivialisation of important issues with idiotic, superficial reporting.
Then there’s spin, as for example with the use of the word ‘lottery’. The press uses it because it relates the issue to something all us poor simpletons can understand; opponents use it because it demonstrates a lack of seriousness; which is why those proposing the idea like to use the word ‘ballot’. It is obviously not a ballot, by the way, because a ballot is concerned with choice.
Moreover, in the arguments I’ve heard about this system, people find it difficult to stick to the point. I heard some Tory fulminating about it, who was unable to avoid banging on about how comprehensive education was a mistake. And his Labour opposite number segueing in one sentence from defending a crude but practical way of allocating children to limited school places to ‘breaking the cycle of deprivation.’
Next are all the unsubstantiated generalisations. ‘Rich, middle class parents are buying houses near to the best schools.’ ‘Good schools will suffer from an influx of disruptive pupils.’
And then you get the special interest groups. Estate agents – for God’s sake! – warn of falling house prices. And environmentalists are worried that more car travel might be created.
What about all the questions left begging? Why are the ‘best schools’ in more affluent areas in the first place? If it is true that children from ‘poorer’ backgrounds are more likely to be ‘disruptive’, then why is that so?
So, what do I think?
Ø I am in favour of selective education, and the right of parents to choose independent education. The former is a dead duck and the latter out of the question for most people. So ignore this point.
Then it moved on to an item about schools. You could tell it was about schools because there was film of two girls with satchels walking through some gates bearing a sign saying ‘School.’ (Obviously they’d found film of a black girl and white girl together).
Then it moved back to the lottery, then schools again. What the hell was going on? I discovered later that it was one item about the ballot system Brighton plans to use to allocate over-subscribed places in its schools.
The issue perfectly illustrates any number of my betes noires. I’ve already indicated one – the trivialisation of important issues with idiotic, superficial reporting.
Then there’s spin, as for example with the use of the word ‘lottery’. The press uses it because it relates the issue to something all us poor simpletons can understand; opponents use it because it demonstrates a lack of seriousness; which is why those proposing the idea like to use the word ‘ballot’. It is obviously not a ballot, by the way, because a ballot is concerned with choice.
Moreover, in the arguments I’ve heard about this system, people find it difficult to stick to the point. I heard some Tory fulminating about it, who was unable to avoid banging on about how comprehensive education was a mistake. And his Labour opposite number segueing in one sentence from defending a crude but practical way of allocating children to limited school places to ‘breaking the cycle of deprivation.’
Next are all the unsubstantiated generalisations. ‘Rich, middle class parents are buying houses near to the best schools.’ ‘Good schools will suffer from an influx of disruptive pupils.’
And then you get the special interest groups. Estate agents – for God’s sake! – warn of falling house prices. And environmentalists are worried that more car travel might be created.
What about all the questions left begging? Why are the ‘best schools’ in more affluent areas in the first place? If it is true that children from ‘poorer’ backgrounds are more likely to be ‘disruptive’, then why is that so?
So, what do I think?
Ø I am in favour of selective education, and the right of parents to choose independent education. The former is a dead duck and the latter out of the question for most people. So ignore this point.
Ø If this is simply a question of allocating children to schools, children should go to their nearest school. This criterion is absolute and not a matter for parental choice. If this means a school is over-subscribed, then it’s the next nearest. Only if there is space after the distance factor has been used, should parents be able to send their children further afield.
Ø Allow for other factors – special needs, special talents, etc.
Ø If parents wish to move into an area to be near a ‘good’ school (whatever that means), good for them.
Ø If this whole argument is about variations in educational standards, we should be a bit more hard-headed
Ø I do not believe there is such a gulf between ‘rich’ and ‘deprived’. That is just left-wing scaremongering and sociological over-simplification.
Ø People are not created by their environment. It is people who create their environment. Any other philosophy is degrading to human beings, and absolves them of responsibility.
Ø Responsible individuals should not suffer because others are irresponsible. In other words, if there are parents out there who don’t give a damn about the future of their children and who bring them up to share that attitude, then others should not see their own children thrown into the same bear-pit.
Ø If you think my thinking is reactionary and that all children are equally capable of being modelled into honours graduates, then let teachers prove it, without half-baked, starry-eyed experiments in social engineering.
PS This blog is good fun:
1 comment:
Sadly your link doesn't work... but if you fix it I'll visit. However, the OverheardLines phrase makes me think of a website I sometimes visit to amuse myself, though my sense of humour may be a tad different to yours... www.overheardinnewyork.com
Post a Comment