BULS Supporting Michael Chessum to be VPHE of NUS

Following careful consideration, BULS has decided to support Michael Chessum’s campaign to be VPHE of NUS and we ask Birmingham delegates and Labour students nationally to do the same. We believe that Michael is the most competent candidate, and will achieve the most for students now, and in the future.

He has been the only candidate to continuously fight against the Tories’ fee regime and its further marketisation of our education system. Michael has been instrumental inthe organising of two national demonstrations, mobilising thousands of students across the country. Such demonstrations proved highly successful, gaining the support of Labour Students, and the general student population, nationally.

As Labour students we should be fighting against the current coalition government’s outrageous, and damaging, policies concerning higher education fees and their on-going commitment to severe austerity measures. Education is a public good and, at Birmingham, we believe that education should be universally accessible and publically funded. Michael Chessum is the only candidate for VPHE who we believe shares our values and will fight to defend them.

Furthermore, Michael is the only candidate committed to opposing Theresa May’s regressive and racist visa changes, which will have a detrimental effect on International Students who contribute so much to our higher education institutions and country as a whole.

Michael’s past record shows that he knows when and how to use direct action tactics, whilst his pivotal role in founding NCAFC proves his dedication to fighting the government’s austerity measures.

We need a VP Higher Education that will offer a robust defence against the coalition’s stark attacks on education. We wholeheartedly believe it is time to put factional divides behind us and unite in our support for Chessum, as the candidate most able to deliver.

Catie, Ed, Ellis, Areeq, Alex, Sam and Dan

#godisgove and #torybible

#godisgove and #torybible are to hashtags on twitter which have both appeared in recent days in the wake of Michael Gove’s decision to issue a King James edition of the bible to every state school in England. Now I’m not going to get into the whole inappropriateness of this act (If you know me well enough you’d remember I’m a massive atheist, but, I like to keep my role as BULS’s Vice-Chair totally separate from religion). But here according to LabourList are the top 10 best tweets featuring those hashtags.

Enjoy:

@4harrisons – And Cameron said “let there be growth” but lo! There was no growth

@mattedbrooke – And God said, “why have you eaten from the forbidden tree?” And Adam said, “we inherited this fruit from the labour government”

@ChrisBryantMP – Faith, hope and charity – have now been abolished as they were unproductive

@politic_animal – And on the seventh day he would have liked to have rested, but the government had opted out of the Working Time Directive

@lethandrel – And the lame were made to walk and the blind to see – well, according to the new assessments ….

@johnprescott – Blessed are the coalition for they shall inherit from and blame the last government

@cllr_robbins – Blessed are the freeschoolmakers: for they shall be called the children of Gove

@MatofKilburnia – And Lot’s wife was turned into a pillar of salt, which Gove did putteth in school dinners & lo Jamie Oliver was displeased

@GoodmotherMobbs – And the lepers were ‘cured’; as ATOS found them fit for work

@evilflea – And then He createth all of the beasts and the animals, excepteth the cat, which he did not make up.

Max

Sex education malarkey

I think most of us can agree that sex education has an important role to play in public schools. But to what level of importance would you say it is?

To Conservative MP, Andrea Leadsom, it seems not very. Let’s put this into context. In England and Wales sex education is not a compulsory subject for public schools (I know for one that I personally received nothing at my High School) and that parents are allowed to “opt out” their child if the school does teach it. And you wonder why we have the highest teenage pregnancy rates in Europe.

Anyway, back to Andrea Leadsom. It seems she believes that parents should have to “opt in” their children to sex education classes and that current sex education books are “inappropriate”. This is while a report published by Ofsted last year pointed out that a quarter of schools in England are not providing good enough lessons about sex, relationships and health.  At the same time new research in the last couple of weeks provided information that “81% of 14 to 18-year-olds said their information came from the internet, the television and their friends.” and “one in four pupils do not have any sexual and relationship education in school.“.

Now some may say that abstinence only sex education is the only sound and “moral” way forward. But when we analyse this claim, it’s quite apparent that this argument is not grounded in research and facts. The Council of Scientific Affairs states that ”Current research findings do not support the position that the abstinence-only approach to sexuality education is effective in delaying the onset of intercourse.”.

I have already done a similar post on sex education before. But the point still stands, we need more not less sex education. If we truly want to tackle STDs, teenage pregnancies and yes, even abortions (again look to my previous post and subsequent comments regarding abortions) we need sound and effective sex education with no “opt-outs” for pushy and insecure parents.

So please Leadson, could the education system have some more.

Max

Ignorance Is Not Bliss

There’s been a tsunami wave of comment and opinion about ignorance and what to do about the riots in the last week, most of which has been speculative and, in some cases, downright prejudiced (I am of course referring to David Starkey). However what I want to shed some light on is the ignorance that I see every day surrounding disability and conditions that inflict millions of people.

I was on a bus this week where an elderly lady got on with a walking stick and was clearly unsteady on her feet. When she struggled to find her bus pass and got into bother, the bus driver continued to harass her, demanding that she either produce her card, pay or get off the bus. There was tutting and sighing from other passengers, and I even heard the word ‘drunk’ whispered by several people. It was 10.30 in the morning, and although regrettably some people do start drinking early in the day in areas like mine when they’d be better off doing something constructive, I think this woman would have had a tough job getting plastered this quickly.

The lady was not drunk as it turned out, but she had Huntington’s Disease, as another lady pointed out to me as she helped her with her heavy bags. Huntington’s Disease is an hereditary neurodegenerative disorder affecting muscle control which only begins to take effect in middle age, and leads eventually to dementia and in many cases untimely death. The bus driver in question was not a bad man, and was only in his twenties; he was probably concerned about losing his job if someone got away with not having their pass. However it struck me that this lady, who had a perfectly intelligent and coherent conversation with another passenger before she struggled off the bus, undoubtedly has to put up with this ordeal every time she leaves the house, with people commenting and assuming and speculating whenever she goes shopping or to visit relatives.

Why are we not educated about conditions such as this? Why do people with diseases or conditions that are not self-inflicted have to put up with social stigma and embarrassment every day by people who are not discriminatory, but are completely oblivious to the existence of the disease they cannot escape? It’ll never happen in the current climate of cuts, but I believe we should make our children attend compulsory awareness classes, not in school as the curriculum is already stretched, but outside, perhaps in the summer holidays, alongside first aid and financial management tutorials. Ideally it would inform people of ‘invisible’ conditions such as autism and tackle the taboos surrounding common illnesses like cancer. Perhaps then people’s lives would be less of a struggle and allowances would be made for the disabled by other members of the public. If the classes were to take place at 16 it would probably be more of a benefit for society as a whole than national service or leaving young people on the street; it may also encourage more volunteering, which will go some way towards creating a big society and boost young people’s employability at the same time.

Gove Could Learn A Lesson or Two

The papers today report that Education Secretary Michael Gove is asking school leaders to recruit members of the “wider school community” to take over the job of teachers striking on Thursday, the implication being that it is better for parents and governors to take classes for one day then see the school close. Aside from the bad logic that if the main aim is keeping the school open so as not to incovenience working parents, then there won’t be any parents available to teach Henry VIII’s six wives, this policy demonstrates the Big Society is a means of undermining unionised labour as well as a cover for cuts. The only positive thing that could come of this ludicrous suggestion is that parents who do act as supply teacher on 30th June may get some idea of just how difficult a profession teaching really is.

Further to my blog a few weeks back, “Unite Behind the Unions”, Ed Miliband and Ed Balls are still pandering to the right-wing media by warning the unions that striking would be unwise and counter-productive, while Tony Blair on the BBC’s Politics Show today refused to be drawn on any domestic policy issues, except to say that the unions are small ‘c’ conservatives who should learn to ‘modernise’, whatever that means. But then Blair never pretended to be on their side.

I do not dispute the fact that pensions need to be reformed in line with the ageing population and gender equality, while many in the private sector would be dancing all the way to the bank if they had pension schemes like those of some public servants; nevertheless what is going on at present smacks of the 1980s, and the threats of changes to union legislation mooted by Gove are deeply worrying.

No confidence

This is just a quick post before bed (IMF, economists and the wider economy tomorrow, don’t worry). But unless I have been completely mislead, the Universities Minister, David Willetts has suffered a motion of ‘No confidence’ against him in Guild Council today.

Oh no! Not the University of Birmingham Guild of Students (ever so slightly sarcastically) you might say. But, do not underestimate the power of collective action. Moves against Willetts are happening all over the county with even his former University tutor following suit. So here we have it, a year into the Tory-lead Coalition and already two Ministers of suffered votes of ‘No confidence’ from influential organisations (correct me if I’m wrong on that particular point) with Willetts soon to follow.

It seems Vince Cable was right, the Coalition is clearly being too Moaist.

Max

They Just Don’t Get It

I’ve now returned to Birmingham after a week in which the Coalition managed to look incompetent and shambolic as well as cruel. We’ve had Willetts admitting he is content to see poorer students having to settle for a degree at their local sixth form, rather than enjoying the full university experience; Norman Tebbit joining the near-univeral coalition against the NHS transformation; U-turns on defence spending and health to add to the growing list which includes school sports and buildings, forests, and even the Downing Street cat; and of course Nick Clegg. When he hasn’t been complaining that he is the nation’s ‘punchbag’ or facing criticism from his own son, he has been making some interesting comments about social mobility.

I am not going to slam the Deputy Prime Minister for having had a leg-up from his neighbour (a peer of the realm) in order to get an internship at a bank (it had to be a bank), because I challenge anyone reading this – assuming I have a readership – not to have seized the opportunity in the same way if they were in Nick’s position. A Labour party which wants social justice and equality of opportunity from birth should not be blaming someone for a background thay had no control over, and that even includes Cameron who had someone put a word in from Buck House. However, Clegg’s attempts at addressing the age-old problem of the ‘It’s who you know’ culture were embarrassing, coming at the same time this government is slashing Sure Start centres, EMA, univeristy budgets and allowing socially divisive ‘free’ schools to blossom up and down the country.

I spoke to people this week in the valleys who have Masters’ degrees who have spent over a year unemployed – young people with ambition, drive and what should be a promising career ahead of them. I overheard sixth form students on the bus complaining that they had not been accepted for any of their UCAS choices, despite the prediction of 4 As at A-level. I have personally had difficulty finding summer placements when I am not lucky enough to be able to work unpaid for six months in central London. Nick Clegg’s diagnosis was correct, but there is far more to it than setting an example to almost-bankrupt businesses by paying interns at Lib Dem HQ.

We need a new cultural shift in this country, brought about by government, where the disadvantaged are caught as soon as possible and at every stage of their lives are helped to gain the same opportunities as the better off. This should not involve positive discrimination or handouts, but should involve investment in our young people which other European countries manage while they bail out their neighbours, but we seem to think is unaffordable. A national internship scheme or national bursary programme, complementing investment in careers education (which at the moment is dire) to inform young people that they are just as talented and ambitious as the more privileged, and what opportunities are out there for the taking, is desperately needed. The underlying factors, such as affordable transport, need to be subsidised so someone who lives in the middle of nowhere with no ‘contacts’ can get work experience in a city near them.

There are important elections coming up in the devolved nations and local councils in England. Young people should be demanding better from the government and their local councils at the ballot box, and should express their dissatisfaction with the Coalition, which just doesn’t get it.

The Last Chapter for Libraries?

It was reported this week that our dear PM performed yet another U-turn (to add to the ever-growing list, which includes forests, school sports and even getting Larry the Cat) on the proposal to close a local library in his Witney constituency by Oxfordshire County Council, as reported in this week’s Independent on Sunday.

Not only is this flagrant hypocrisy given the closure of libraries on which local communities depend up and down the country, it is also ‘pork-barrelling’ of the lowest kind and an example that we are not in fact “all in this together”. The prospect of libraries being closed by local authorities who are facing savage cuts is deeply depressing – I, like so many other young people, relied on my local library for computer access growing up, but more importantly I was regularly able to borrow up to ten books at a time (some regrettably I forgot to return), discovering chuldren’s favourites like Jacqueline Wilson, Roald Dahl and Mark Twain in the process, alongside history books and encyclopaedias.

Not only is it divisive and running directly against the government’s intentions to mend our apparently ‘broken’ society, it is morally wrong to target the cuts on the poorest, the elderly and most importantly children, who have no vote and no say in how resources are allocated. Priorities have to be made, but library closures cannot even be justified on crude market terms, because they are still being used widely and are a lifeline for so many. It seems that the local lending library could be nearing its epilogue if we do nothing about it, with disastrous consequences for childhood literacy and social mobility.

Luke

Come off it Dave

This is an issue that’s very close to our hearts and many hearts of those in Birmingham University. It was revealed by the Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8274663/Row-over-hike-in-university-vice-chancellors-pay.html)  that the University of Birmingham’s very own Vice-Chancellor, David Eastwood, was, including pension contributions, paid £392,000 last year. That’s right, nearly £400,000 a year! Not only that, this is (I think) twice as much as the Prime Minister is paid and it is also a 11% rise on the year before. 11%!! Now after proposing the new fees system that makes 77% of students worse off (that’s official numbers coming from the Institute of Fiscal Studies after much “number crunching”), he is has the audacity to award this astronomical pay rise. This is in contrary to budget cuts the University has made even long before the Browne Review in the Humanities departments and many of the lower paid staff (correct me if I’m wrong on this one) receiving a 1% pay rise. But with inflation rising this equates to a rather substantial cut.

Now I accept Eastwood can’t stop the imminent cuts coming from the government to the Higher Education budget and I accept Vice-Chancellors should be paid a decent wage (so to speak) for their job. But at least have the grace to truly be “all in this together” and stop this obscene display of out-of-touchness (if you get what I mean) with the rest of the student population at whole. It won’t stop the cuts either way, but the message is blatantly and strikingly clear David Eastwood. Make your choice for 2011.

Max Ramsay, Vice-Chair-elect

Uni’s Not For Me

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12324225

It took me a long time to decide which issue to discuss on my first blog for Birmingham University Labour Students, as there are a myriad of things to be angry and anxious about at the moment thanks to the Con-Dem coalition. I pondered the dismantling of the NHS; the upcoming AV referendum and the scrapping of EMA, however an article which popped up on the BBC News website meant it had to be the tuition fees rise and its ramifications – BULS is, after all, a university society.

The latest development in this sorry saga is today’s latest UCAS admissions figures for 2011 entry, the last year before the trebling of fees in many instances alongside the ten per cent rise in salary of our Vice Chancellor. They reveal the stark reality that – despite what the government assures us – people are being turned off the idea of higher education in large numbers, most of whom will undoubtedly be from less privileged backgrounds. In the year that was supposed to be the ‘boom’ year of applications to beat the raising of the threshold in 2012, the number of applications only rose by five per cent, which in comparison with recent years and predicted trends is a sharp decrease in interest in degree courses.

Most disturbing of all was the plummeting of applications to -2 per cent in December, as the protests raged in central London and the heir to the throne’s wife was nudged with a stick. A brief fillip this may have been, but it demonstrates clearly that sixth-formers and school-leavers are seriously reconsidering their futures, weighing up whether it is really worth that much in debt only to come out jobless at the end of it. Just like the growth statistics, the figures are shocking, but not surprising considering the coalition’s arrogance and dogged determination to see through their most regressive and unpopular policies – which affect the poorest hardest – before the public realise what has hit them.

By Luke Jones, Communications Officer-elect

Adios EMA

And so it has now been confirmed after a final last ditch attempt in the House of Commons this evening, EMA is to be axed. Another broken promise from Cam/Clegg putting another nail in the nearly sealed coffin of the aspirations of the young people in this country. Already, the tripling of tuition fees will mean that those from poorer backgrounds won’t be able to go to university. Now, after the scrapping of EMA, those in this same group who may have been unsure if they could afford the cost of university won’t even be able to afford to stay on and learn at college or sixth form. It’s nothing short of disgraceful that the futures of our younger generation have been shot down in this way in just over 8 months. The good work of the last Labour government undone so quickly and with such little consideration as to the consequences it will have for them, the future of this country.

One of the reasons I’m Labour is that I recognise that the initiatives set up such as EMA and Aimhigher meant that I was able to go to this great university. I honestly don’t think I’d be here without them. I received EMA while I was studying my A-Levels a few years ago. I had no choice but to go to an inner city college 4 miles away from my house. My school’s sixth form closed down while I was there because the demand was so low for it. I was left with the cost of transport to pay, which was about £40 a month. I had the other expenditures such as stationery and food to consider on top of that which soon adds up, trust me! The argument by this government, that somehow this money is being wasted by students, just doesn’t wash with me I’m afraid. There was very little left over for to be spent on ‘social costs’ or whatever else they want to think it is spent on. I understand this may not be the case for everyone receiving EMA but the vast majority of students need this money to stay on and study. For me, and like with so many others, the simple fact was my parents wouldn’t have been able to help me out financially. So to put it bluntly, I would have been a bit buggered. Come the summer, so many will now be.

And on today of all days, the final decision comes: on the same day that the worst 16-17 unemployment figures are released since records began. A staggering 1/3 of young people in this age group are out of work, with the story being far gloomier in certain parts of the country. The shocking reality is that this will only get worse thanks to the abolishment of EMA coupled with the tuition fee rise. More young people will be condemned to the dole queue with such low prospects for the future. This is not how the government should be treating the next set of workers and great contributors to our economy. Labour gave the younger generation like me a leg up but, sadly, today this Tory-led government have decided to push them all back down to the ground.

Oliver Cosentino

Equality and education

First of all I’d like to apologise for not blogging much recently, I’ve been travelling a lot and trying to get all my essays and presentations done for Humboldt, which is taking twice as long because they’re all in German!

During the holidays I’ve been talking to people in Sweden and Germany about schooling. I find it a really easy political topic to engage young people on because it’s a common and recent experience and a lot of us are concerned by the state of flux the system is tumbling into.

New Labour introduced a lot of initiatives and revolutionised the school system in many ways. These changes were not always popular with parents and teachers but the central aim of each one was greater equality. The general coalition push for the re-introduction of grammar schools and the sponsoring of free schools does not have the same aim and will not produce positive results.

Germany has had a 4-tier system in place for several decades, in which 10-year-old children are separated into achievement-based groups and sent to either a Gymnasium, Realschule, Hauptschule or Forderschule. Those who try to sell such systems as meritocracies overlook the real input and output of pupils, and the uncomfortable statistics that show that selection hits the most vulnerable hardest.

The PISA Study (Programme for International Student Assessment) was first carried out by the OECD in 2000 and showed Germany to have a highly unequal and unfair system, with bright non-native speakers of German being relegated to the Forderschule, which is essentially a school for the mentally disabled rather than those of another nationality. As British studies have shown, bright students from poor families lose out in the current system to averagely gifted children from rich families, because the parents themselves are often more highly educated, better informed, and more driven.

In Sweden independent schools set up by groups of parents resorted to television advertising to drum up interest. This was very successful in a many areas, but produced the unfortunate result that state schools had to spend taxpayers’ money on running expensive advertising campaigns in order to be able to compete.

We don’t need to worry about the high achievers, but the children who fall through the cracks. Becoming resigned to a low social strata so early in life is damaging and leads to serious consequences later in life.

Suzy

Hey Burt!

Last week, in a slight moment of procrastination I decided to email one of the local Lib Dem MPs. Lorely Burt had claimed to be wavering on the tuition fee vote so I thought it wouldn’t hurt to try and give her a push. Clearly, I wasted my time as she in the end decided to abstain on the all so crucial vote on Thursday. When I heard the news I wasn’t happy. She said in a letter to the guild of students last week that she did not agree with the proposals. So why could she not do the decent thing? Why could she not honour her promise she made to the NUS, the student population and future generations of children when she felt this way?

Even worse was the other local Lib Dem MP, John Hemming. The man who is not exactly whiter than white has proven this even more so by voting WITH the government to push through the rise of fees to £9000. Now, just a few days before the vote, a group of students from this University decided to occupy and shut down his office in Yardley. And his response, on national radio…  was to blame those individuals for now wanting to vote FOR the rise. When I first heard this, I thought he can’t be serious! But it would once again seem that he was. It is absolutely shameful.

Because I don’t think he ever had any intention of not voting against or even abstaining in the vote. And so to blame his decision on this minority of students, well it just doesn’t wash with me and I’m sure it doesn’t with you. It stinks of deceit and distaste.

For two MPs who don’t exactly have the largest of majorities, and find themselves not too far away from 3 large universities including our own, I find it ridiculous that they had the audacity to take this action. I wouldn’t mind having a bet that both of them will have a fight to keep their seats at the next election. That is if Hemming hasn’t turned blue by then…

Oliver Cosentino, BULS Member

Two wrongs don’t make a right

Right, I’m not going to really focus directly upon the vote today on  tuition fees, enough has been mentioned upon that area recently. Yes, it is disgrace it passed, but what is arguably a bigger disgrace, is the violence that ensued in the capital today.

If you want to change a government’s opinion and policies, the biggest asset you could ever have to achieve this, is public support. We still have that support (well at least a few weeks ago), with 60% opposing the trebling of fees. But as I was debating (so to speak) with BULS’ Former-Fresher Officer, Dan Harrison on facebook, he pointed out the important point of the the police’s unprovoked and aggressive attacks.

Now, this may well have happened (can’t completely say as I’ve been safe in Brum) and it is certainly something that can not be condoned. But, fighting fire with fire just results in, well….more fire. Two wrongs don’t make a right and most importantly of all, don’t stoop to their level. But, far more importantly. If, the police had acted in this way and the students had continued to protest peacefully, the whole news the next morning would’ve focused upon the police’s violence and public sympathy would have begun to swing behind the students. This would have been in very much the same way public and international sympathy swung behind Martin Luther King’s peaceful demonstrations in the 1960s. But what everyone will remember is the burning of rubbish tips, the first police cavalry charge in around twenty years, the attack on the Treasury building and the Supreme Court and the iconic photo of Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall’s car being attacked on the way to the Royal Variety show.

If anything, if the police where acting inappropriately, this would have aided the student’s cause. What has happened is that the chances of the government reconsidering the hike in tuition fees have now diminished.

Max

Good and bad news

Great news (well, I think it is personally)! Alan Johnson has decided he will now support a graduate tax. Not only does this mean that Labour can no longer be accused of being disarray over higher education funding, but it means we are presenting the true progressive alternative on higher education funding. A tax that charges more the more you earn, rather than the flat rate level of interest under the proposed system and one that isn’t at completely extortionate levels of £9k a year. Hopefully, this could be the stepping stone to the scrapping of fees entirely in the (hopefully not to distant) future.

And now for the bad news. If you’re not aware already, Educational Maintenance Allowance (EMA) and the Aim Higher Programme are both being scrapped. Now whatever your views on the proposals on the trebling of fees, I will admit, however much I disagree with them, it is an arguable position. But, scrapping EMA and Aim Higher!? These are two bastions of social mobility. Yes I know EMA for one isn’t without its flaws, but to completely scrap it is completely indefensible. When the department that runs EMA messed up a few years ago when I was at College, hundreds of thousands of students nationwide struggle to makes ends meet (really need to look that saying up, could be “meat”) when it came to paper, books, etc or even simply making their way into college.

To put the bad news into context. Even Birmingham University’s Vice-Chancellor, Professor David Eastwood, who was on the Browne committee arguing for higher fees, said at a debate last night that scrapping EMA and Aim Higher was a disgraceful decision. It is an area that has had little coverage given the over-hanging shadow of the tuition fees debate, but it is easily just as important.

Max

I told you we were the new party of students

As you may remember, following Vince Cable dropping a potential graduate tax, I claimed that Labour must become the new party of students. Well it seems the students agree. Yougov recently published a poll specifically for students on their voting intentions (http://www.today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/YG-Archives-Pol-ST-Students-261110.pdf) and well, it’s one hell of a swing.

In May the figures were amongst students Lib Dems-45%, Labour-24%, Conservatives-21% and others-10%. As of the survey between the 16th-19th November, the new figures are, Lib Dems-15%(-30%), Labour-42%(+18%), Conservatives-26%(+5%) and others-17%(+7%). So that’s right, the Lib Dems have been pushed into a miserable third place amongst students, -30% in the space of 6 months still shocks me though.

Yougov also asked a poll on government approval, which came to a net approval of -64%. 80% of students thought it was wrong for the Lib Dems to go back on their pledge and also 78% of students oppose the trebling of tuition fees to £9000 a year.

These figures are good for Labour, but we certainly should not take them for granted. And let us hope Labour’s policy review produces a graduate tax so we can retain our place as the new champions for students.

Max

The vast majority

School children at a protest march against the swingeing cuts and rising fees join hands to prevent any more damage being done to a police van that had already almost been tipped over onto other protesters. These girls represent one side of the student protest, and one we can all be proud of.

A more difficult, but very real element is the violence, from those whose anger has been brewing long before any cuts to spending or raising of fees were confirmed. Some young people seem to have joined in partly for the sake of having a go at the police, the everyday face of the state.

Imagine you’d developed a suspicion of authority because your family had been falling through the cracks for decades. Then suddenly EMA arrives, you’re entitled to it, and you decide to go on to 6th form. You feel like maybe things are changing, maybe the government cares about you after all.

Now that it’s being scrapped the damage won’t just be seen in our schools and universities but in our social cohesion, our sense of possibility and social mobility. Dialogue about yobs hijacking middle class protests and disgraceful schoolgirls wreaking havoc is threatening student unity before we’re even getting started.

Our young people need to acknowledge the anger but keep it peaceful, and stay united. We want equal treatment, we should extend it to each other.

Suzy

Gove’s at it again.

The slashing of the Schools Sports Partnerships followed the now familiar structure of this governments cuts announcements. First, we were told that there would be a new dawn for competitive sport in our schools, with ‘Olympics’ style events. Then, they slyly mention that they will cut the £162million that funds the development of sport in our schools. State school teachers, as always under the Tories, are expected to produce more without support.

Under the last Tory government only 1 in 4 kids were getting the minimum level of physical education in the school curriculum. Under Labour, the schools sports partnerships played a vital role in both bringing sport to all and developing competitive sport in this country. Their demise will not only leave many coaches and organisers who having devoted their careers to improving British sport unemployed, but also remove the funding which is essential to its development.

As England goalkeeper David James writes in the Observer today, we lament the gulf in class between our national football side and that of other major nations, but we have just 2,769 Uefa-qualified coaches. Compare that to Spain who have 23,995, Italy 29,420, Germany 34,970 and France 17,588. Grass roots sport, in all areas is gradually growing to the level of our European neighbours, but the Con-Dem coalition’s moves will cut this off before its had a chance to blossom. Their policy makes a mockery of claims about a legacy from the Olympics and our possible World Cup in 2018.

Gove’s sports policy demonstrates exactly what is wrong with the coalition’s education policies generally. Elite sport is not the most valuable role of sport in our country. Sport provides an avenue for many of the most disadvantaged young people in our country to interact, to communicate, and to excel. Good teachers impart values through sport and these can reach those who are forgotten by traditional education. Driven by a business obsessed ideology, this government sees the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Education has economic benefits, but that is not why its important.

Jake Lambert, BULS Secretary

More from the Coalition’s prime-time TV critique

I’m beginning to become quite fond of Paul O’Grady now.

Max

A great opportunity turned sour

There’s always someone who takes it too far. I do it far too often, but less said about that the better. The march against the proposed raise in tuition fees to £9000 a year was very well planned and timed for, DC was out of the country in China so Cleggy was taking questions at PMQs instead meaning he would be ridiculed for his U-turn on tuition fees. As for the vast majority of those who went there it was a very successful event, peaceful and making a very good point (would explain further but I’m back home up north and consequently not there, so I wouldn’t know the details).

But, someone always has to spoil the moment, someone has go too far. It is one of the cruel realities of life and the protest today in London was no exception. It was estimated by the NUS that 30k-40k students converged on London today, but it is estimated that mere 1k people were involved in the incident at the Millbank Tower.

Now don’t get me wrong, I can very much sympathise with the idea of smashing CCHQ. This is in very much the same way any Tory might sympathise with the idea of smashing up Labour’s HQ. But, it is certainly something neither side would condone. What happened here today was that a small number have completely ruined what would’ve been a peaceful demonstration, with even one ‘save EMA’ campaigner on the news giving the example of meeting an OAP who was out there on the behalf of her Grandchildren.

Unfortunately, what everyone will remember and what the headline papers will be tomorrow, is the grotesque violence seen at the Millbank Tower. In fact, it was widely regard that those at Millbank Tower, were not students per say but rather a hijacking by various groups such as Anarchists, far-left Socialists and the oh-so subtle SWP.

We all know that one person who doesn’t know the limits. And today, they did it again.

Max

Fees, fees and more fees

Would you pay £9k a year to go to University? I would’ve had serious doubts about coming to Birmingham University if that was the case then. Now many reading this may turn around and say “but didn’t Labour treble tuition fees?”, “didn’t Labour start the Browne report?”. Did we do those things, yes. Am I going to blog here and defend them, absolutely not.

However, it is now irrelevant what happened ten years ago, what matters now is what happens, well, now and in the immediate and long-term future. And what we’re seeing is the trebling of fees (more or less) to create the most expensive state University system in the world!! (Given the likes of the USA’s Universities are in the private not state sector).

Shame, shame on you Cleggy. We all know it’s tempting to say whatever you want when you’re the third party and have no chance of winning power. But given everyone knew that the most likely outcome of the general election was going to be a hung Parliament there was every chance you would have to compromise on this policy. A cast iron guarantee for the abolition of tuition fees was a ridiculously stupid given the context of the election. Don’t worry, I want tuition fees scrapped in the long term as much as any average student (favouring a Graduate tax in the meantime), but don’t even attempt to justify or pitifully dress this hike as “progressive”.

Finally, shame on you the Conservative party for forcing the Lib Dems and more importantly, future students into this. You rightly once opposed tuition fees, where has that once fleeting soul disappeared to?

Max

Will someone please think of the children!!

Since day one, the Coalition’s economic plans have been argued over their fairness and their progressiveness (if that’s even a word). We’re all very familiar with the IFS and their take, but I thought it be more appropriate to focus upon the Coalition’s shifting reasons for their policies “fairness”. To begin with it was the idea that the burden of the cuts were to fall upon the higher earners (though of course it turned out to fall upon more on the poorest, women, the ethnic minorities, etc, but I won’t go into that again), but recently, Cleggy in particular shifted the argument to that this crisis shouldn’t be left for our children and that they shouldn’t bear the brunt. This argument in itself is a reasonable enough, but that of course assumes that your children are NOT effected by the problems caused by the current generation’s problems in the future AND now.

This was something I realised the Coalition was failing (again) upon when a very angry bloke (youngish and I think he was ginger, rather aggressive to about 19 mins in) pointed out the sheer contradiction between this argument and reality on last Thursday’s question time. The IFS worked it out to show that the average family with children will have 6.7% drop in income compared to 2.7% with families with no children, that’s a whole 4%! This is all from cuts in tax credits for poorer families, scrapping child benefits which will hit those whose families are just above the £45k threshold when one parent stays at home, an actual real term drop in investment into schools (due to an increased number of pupils), scrapping the building schools for the future programme and most relevant for us students, raising tuition fees to £7k a year. Cleggy once agreed and respected the IFS, but how times change and how politicians (who supposedly represent “new” politics) often disregard their once respectable views to justify their actions.

Max

Record breaking

Last June, around 48 hours after the announcement of the ’emergency’ budget the well respected Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) slammed the Coalition’s claim that the budget was ‘progressive’. It seems that the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) has smashed all records to be proved false; this time it only took the IFS around about 24 hours to slam the claim, again, that the CSR was regressive.

Many Tories last time around were quick to argue that the IFS is in the pocket of Labour, which is hugely untrue given they were highly critical of Labour’s policies on Child Poverty. And if anything shows how regressive the nature of the CSR is you look no further than Carl Emmerson, acting Director of the IFS: “Our analysis continues to show that, with the notable exception of the richest 2%, the tax and benefit components of the fiscal consolidation are, overall, being implemented in a regressive way.”.

There will come a point in the Coalition’s future where they will no longer able to say “this isn’t our mess” and “there’s no other option” because no, there is always an alternative and at some point in the not too distant future the public will realise that these are not “Labour’s cuts” but rather those chosen by the Coalition at a rate and speed they chose.

Finally, the only slim claim that the reason for the Coalition’s economic policies being fair was also destroyed yesterday. Both DC and Cleggy have argued that it’s not fair to leave the debt onto the next generation. Apart from raising tuition fees to £7k a year it is now revealed that despite the Pupil Premium for the poorest of pupils at primary and secondary schools, 43% of pupils in less deprived parts of the country would be hit by 5% cuts or more. That seems to me like that the debt is being shifted onto the next generation.

Max

Credit where credit is due

“We will agree with the Coalition where we see the merits…” are the words from both Ed Miliband and Harriet Harman over the type of opposition they are hoping to build. And in this instance, we have actually found common ground with the Coalition. It was revealed yesterday that the schools budget is to escape cuts from the spending review. This was a campaign pledge of one of the three main spending protections Labour was going to make during the election. At this, we thank the coalition on this particular issue. Realising and recognising that your wrong on an issue is not a weakness at all and is what the true “new” politics should hold dear.

Max

The new party of students

“I feel sorry for the Lib Dems now as they are completely rendundant”-Dan Harrison on Radio 4. As of an hour ago I couldn’t agree more. Vice Cable has now dropped his graduate tax plans for England. The once cherished held belief of nearly all Lib Dems, the abolition of Tuition fees has all but evaporated. It is now Labour’s job to pick up this mantle and now become the true party of students as we now campaign for a graduate tax (and hopefully one day, in the not too distant future, the abolition of tuition fees).

Max

A-levels and beyond

This coming Thursday will see the first A-level results to feature the newly added A* grade. I noticed in the Observer the other day (sorry Sean but I don’t choose what newspaper we get while at home) that if the A* grade had been in place last year the Independent Schools Council (ISC) said 16.5% of Private school A-level entries would achieved an A* compared to a mere 5% with state school candidates.

Now, don’t get me wrong, there are certainly a fair few BULS members from Private Schools so I state my opinion with the greatest degree of respect (and caution), but given that the Private sector receives a mere 7% of all the pupils this is clearly is a disproportionate imbalance. This clearly noticeable at Birmingham Uni where I have yet to meet a substantial number of students from non-grammar state schools. This all leads into background of the pupil given that bright children from the poorest homes are seven times less likely to go to a top university than their richer peers, according to the Office for Fair Access (Offa), an education watchdog.

Now don’t get me wrong, Labour in 13 years did have some great achievements with education, but redressing the balance between the private and state sectors is something we did not do enough of. It’s just a matter of time now to see what difference the new A* grade makes.

Max

153, jellyfish, Trident, dolphins and a seal

Firstly, apologies for the lack of blogging recently. Been away in north Wales for the past week surrounded by a seal, dolphins (yes you heard me actual dolphins in north Wales!) and what seemed to be the world’s largest gathering of jellyfish, but that unfortunately is a different story.

Moving on swiftly, Education Secretary Michael Gove promised one of the greatest revolutionary reforms to the education system of all time. This was hoped to be achieved through the expansion of the academy programme which was started by Tony Blair’s Labour government. The Academy school programme was initially targeted at underperforming areas, now I don’t know if they were successful or not, but it seemed a good….ish idea at the time.

But now Gove has began rushing through legislation to allow any school the right to become an academy, independent from the local council (even though they already hold a large degree of autonomy). Gove claimed that around a 1100 schools had already signed up to become academies within a week, however, it was recently revealed a mere 153 have done so since the coalition took office. 153! Ed Balls has accused Gove of railroading the bill given only a mere 10% of the claimed schools have applied. Personally, I’m really not well aware of the pros and cons of the academy programme, but for a coalition that is supposed to represent “new” politics, it certainly shows a lot of the “old” brand by preventing Parliament from doing their job of proper scrutiny of bills.

Moving on again, it has been revealed that there is an apparent schism between the MoD and the Treasury over who should foot the bill for the renewal of Trident. The renewal of Trident is predicted to cost around £20 billion, the MoD budget is £40 billion and there is a large budget deficit, already you can see a slight problem. Personally, I’d love to see the back of Trident, but in the name of compromise here’s an idea that will kill two birds with one stone. How about keeping Trident but not renewing until the deficit is well and truly dealt with? Britain’s nuclear defence system is still very capable of wiping out numerous major cities across the globe, a slight upgrade that would increase the range of the submarines and the blast radius of the missiles a bit would surely not go to miss if its lifespan is prolonged. Just a thought.

Max

Before we miss the sparkly bandwagon…

Stephanie Meyer`s Twilight Saga, heaven knows, gets its fair bit of exposure. Precisely because of this I want to give it some space on our own venerable blog. The amount of impressionable people worldwide hopelessly in love with its characters or  ideas make it worth taking seriously.

The “twilight is sexist” debate can be argued convincingly from either side. While Bella replaces her absent mother in exclusively performing traditionally female chores for her father, suffers from a lack of professional ambition in terms of a career outside the home, is perpetually in need of rescuing and puts up with an emotionally abusive boyfriend who also supervises her every move 24/7, bruises her during sex and prevents her from seeing her friends; there is plenty of objectification of the male characters to counterbalance it, from lingering descriptions of male beauty in the books to many many minutes dedicated to the sight of muscly topless men in the films. By the fourth book Bella is strong enough to stand up for herself, and becomes a protector instead of a victim, albeit mainly in the role of a wife and mother. Also the author, screenplay writer and director are all women, the audience is predominantly female and there is some attempt at a reversal of the Adam and Eve story in terms of who is tempting whom into sexual maturity.

So much for gender.

What I`m concerned with is the heteronormativity of it all.

In the world of Twilight borderline inter-species sexuality, necrophilia, paedophilia and sado-masochism are allowable and more or less practised. Nothing is off limits but the same sex. Werewolves undergo a process of “imprinting” when they find their soulmate, and whenever it is discussed the subject is represented as “he” and the object as “she”. Vampires never seem to bite a human of the same gender, and following in the footsteps of Buffy there is a certain devotion developed towards to the one who changed you. There is no exploration of sexual identity, all the characters are introduced in ready-made boy-girl pairings, in fact there is no possibility, in this world of societal outcasts, counter-culture and misunderstood teenagers, of any LGBT experience.

Suzy

‘Skin-deep’ localism

This frankly is rightly so, if you decentralise administration too much of any governmental department it will lead down the road of blatant inequality on the part (in this case schools) of the ones using the service. This is very much similar to the NHS checklist, where the Tories quite frankly oppose a measure (theoretically at least) that grants a minimum standard to all patients who are admitted. Now this is the same again, some schools will be put in the most ridiculous locations and so degrading the minimum standard which should be guaranteed to everyone, not just to help a small privileged few.

It has recently been revealed that if they won the general election, the Conservatives would in effect; treat new schools like major infrastructure projects. But Schools Minister Vernon Coaker said, “With no planning restrictions schools will be able to open in pre-fabricated buildings and rented office blocks, as they do in Sweden, without the sort of decent facilities all children should have like places to play and do sport outside.”.

Max

Teachers are for all students, not just for high achievers

As a recent school finisher with two teachers for parents I would like to take issue with recently announced Conservative plans to limit PGCE funding to those with a second class degree or higher on two particular points:

1. Academic achievement is no indication of charisma, sensitivity or ability to engage with young people.

2. Teachers are hugely important as role models, and as such must have a certain amount in common with students or at least an understanding of pupils’ different backgrounds. As people from predominantly privileged and caucasian backgrounds are more likely than others to receive an upper second or first from a Russell Group university, make teaching a “prestigious” occupation by limiting funding will not encourage mutual understanding between teachers and pupils. Male teachers particularly may serve as father figures in areas with few male role models, and can be treated as confidants by pupils.

Borderline students who are uncertain of their desire to enter further education, observing a dichotomy between unemployed, low achieving adults in the community, and high achieving Russell Group graduates at school, may fail to identify with either, wishing to become employable but uncertain as to how this is to be done without getting  three As at A level, as the evident message will be: “go to one of the top 20 universities, or don’t bother at all”.

3. Another way to increase the prestige of teaching without limiting applicants to a certain demographic is to raise wages and increase schools funding, as Labour have already done and the Conservatives are threatening to reverse.

Suzy, BULS Guild Council Rep

And the results are in….

In a recent blog from our friends at BUCF the issue of top up fees was introduced.

“Take students for example, you have brought in top up fees and now left the average student crippling under the weight of £20’000 odd worth of debt and the worst graduate prospects since the World War Two…. Why would an average student consider voting Labour based on what your government has done??”

Young Labour, and Labour Students, will always be the fiercest critics of the regressive nature of higher education funding. While it is clear that free education is not on the table under a Labour or Tory government, the top up fee system is a perpetuant of societal inequality.

It is Labour Party members in NUS driving forward the campaign for a fairer funding system. It is a Labour MP (Paul Farrelly) who tabled this Early Day Motion.

The EDM calls for a full review of higher education funding that

“should encompass full consideration of both student support and tuition fees, should aim to ensure that students are supported according to their needs while they study, and that their contribution to the costs of higher education should reflect its true benefits after graduation; considers that the review must recognise that unmanageable levels of debt are bad for both the borrower and the lender, act as a barrier to wider participation in higher education and should be avoided wherever possible; and further believes that it must examine the proper balance of contributions between the state, individuals and employers to ensure that the future funding of higher education is fair for all.”

And it is Labour MPs who are rallying behind this EDM, fighting for a fairer deal for students.

The EDM has 76 signatories

Labour: 49
Liberal Democrat:23
DUP: 1
Independant: 1

Conservative: 2

If your MPs aren’t willing to work with the student movement to demand fairer higher education funding then don’t try and tell us that the average student has any reason to vote Conservative.
Hollie Jones, BULS member

80% of teachers are against the return of corpral punishment

So why does the BBC seem obsessed with the idea that 20% of them do, to the extent that it was the top story on The One Show tonight and pride of place on the BBC website? Normally I love you, but today it’s bad BBC. You’ve got it the wrong bloody way round.

Youth Parliament debate on the BBC

The National Youth Parliament held a debate in the House of Lords last month, and it was broadcast on BBC Parliament and you can catch it on iPlayer here. The debate was used to decide which three of six motions would constitute their national campaigns for the year. The first of these to be discussed is a campaign to abolish tuition fees.

The speeches and debate are very good and I found them interesting, but I am really quite concerned by some of the mis-information they seem to have come across. One speaker seems to think that she won’t be able to go to university because her parents can’t afford to take out a loan to pay her tution fees. Another quotes tuition fees as being £3000 per term (which they are not yet, at least.) Nobody stands up to correct them. This is really worrying.

Fees aren’t paid back until AFTER you graduate and are earning. Loans are given sperately of loans and living costs. Your parents are expected to top up your living loan to the maximum available; everyone gets between 75 and 100%, and your parents are expected to pay the difference between what you get and the maximum, which is income assessed and somewhere between £0 and £1500. That is all. Your parents don’t pay a penny towards your tuition, and nor do you until you graduate. I am really, really worried that these young people think they’re going to be paying up front.

Anyway, it’s not the tuition fee they should be scared of; £3000 a year is peanuts compared to the University of Birmingham’s new halls, which cost up to an utterly disgusting £5975 per annum. I believe it’s everyday living costs that are the real access issue, not tuition fees. Yes, tuition fees are massive, and yes they are scary and deter far too many people; but you only pay them back when you can afford to. It’s the cost of living that is the real, unreported problem; a student loan is simply not enough. The scare stories about not being able to afford uni are misplaced; much as I hate tuition fees, I’ll worry about them when I come to paying them; right now I’m much more concerned about keeping a roof over my head and food in my cupboard in the short term. Tuition fees do not affect student, only graduates. The cost of living, rent and the woefully inadequate student loan- this is what matters to students.

I love the enthusiasm of the Youth Parliament, and I think their campaign for youth concessions on public transport is fantastic, but it seems an education campaign is needed on what the finanicial issues of student life really are, for the benefit of all prospective students.

“BULS gets more with Marley”

The BULS blog continues to confound expectations.  January was its best month ever reaching 3,222 visits.  That means it beat its previous best in December of 2,648.  In a statement to the press, having reached the landmark early in the morning, a weary eyed Tom Marley (BULS chair) said; “Under my leadership the blog has gone from strength to strength.”  In, what analysts will view as aggressive dominance, Mr. Marley exclaimed; “I will be working my committee hard to ensure they deliver a February of above 4000 visits.” 

Mr. Marley brushed off any rumours of a leadership challenge, dismissing them as petty Guild gossip.  Sources have revealed that John Ritchie may make a shock return at the clubs next AGM in order to oust the current leadership. 

Editoral Note: Admittedly most of the hits are probably praguetory.

I’ll have a BA with that

Right.  Before the Tories beat me to it, and perhaps some comrades may disagree with what I am about to say, I wanted to say how AMAZING I think McQualifications are.  Fantastic.

This is a report that McDonalds, Flybe and Network Rail are soon to be delivering proper qualifications.  Something like A levels in catering management is planned; food selling with a bit of HR and marketing.  I understand that Network Rail are planning much more advanced engineering qualifications, perhaps at a Masters level.

Now, this isn’t dumbing down by any means.  They’re intended to be quite difficult things to achieve.  Although adding a new dimension to learning, as business offers its own way of skilling its workers, it is a positive move.  It’ll mean that people who want to work or who don’t want to study can still get skilled while on the job.   And all of these jobs are in places where, historically, people went who might not be immediately attractive to employees elsewhere.

I look forward to seeing how this impacts the other education institutions of the world.  As business is clearly saying that it can provide better employees on its own than in partnership with established education providers, this will make the fees debate and the ‘traditional’ academic debate more nuanced than ever before.  Fascinating times…

School of… what?

The Guardian reported the other day that the Daily Mail is enquiring into sponsoring an academy.

I have never been too hot on the academy idea and this is not improving my confidence.

Compassionate Conservatism?

What really gets to me about Tory policy is the lack of humanity behind it all. Take, for example, today’s suggestion that the one-in-five pupils who don’t reach minimum standards on leaving primary school be help back a year. Aside from the logistical issues (lack of space, facilities, teachers, what if they fail again, etc) burns the question- how the hell would it make the child feel? Being very publically branded as a “failure” in such a way, being held back while their friends go on to secondary school without them, is not going to do wonders for a child’s self esteem. The last year of primary education is already trememdously stressful for a lot of children, with the mad rush for SATs and the anxiety of changing schools, and I can’t see how added pressure is going to help. Taking a year out for extra tuition and catch-up might sound good in theory, but in reality I can only see it creating a whole load more children disillusioned with a school system that doesn’t work for them. There must surely be more sensible and humane ways to go about helping those who fall behind.

Since I seem to be on a  bit of a rant, I’ll drawn on a couple of old topics that show an equal lack of human understanding, to illustrate my point- firstly, obviously, grammar schools. I see nothing wrong with educating children in classes according to ability, but why on Earth is there a need to segregate them into different schools? It’s the whole “failure” mentality all over again, branding children and families very plainly by their uniforms and school runs into different classes of people. The second is that blog of mine which sparked a bit of controversy, about Tory plans to pay couples to stay together. They just don’t seem to get it. Relationships are hugely complex human issues, not business decisions. Education is a human right of everyone, and should not be used as a tool to create social divides. Children can be really bloody harsh, and will probably tease the hell out of anyone held back a year at school. I could go on and on with examples of cold heaarted Tory policy but this blog is probably long enough already…

Congratulations and Comiserations

 Today the A-Level pass rate rose again-congratulations to those who got their grades, and comiserations to those who didn’t. I have no time for those who think the exams have got easier- if they were ever harder than the papers  I surrendered six months of social life to two years ago then it’s a wonder anyone bothered taking them.

 As a science student I was getting ready to moan about the predicted dip in people taking science and maths- but this year the numbers actually rose! That’s put me in a good mood. Let’s hope the trend continues…

 Finally a warm welcome to all those who confirmed a place at the University of Birmingham today. See you at the Fresher’s stall! 🙂

Random statistics: Education

Percentage of Tory MPs who attended private school: 59%

Percentage of Labour MPs who attended private school: 18%

Percentage of UK population who attended private school: 7%

Conservatives: In Touch…

(Figures correct as of December 2005, courteousy of Sutton Trust http://www.suttontrust.com/reports/PoliticiansBackgrounds_09-Dec-05.pdf)

Are you “gifted”?

Watching the special schools edition of Question Time the other night, my blood predictably approached boiling point a few times, but what really made me angry was a comment from Douglas Murray. Described variously as “Britain’s only neo-conservative”, and the “Right’s Michael Moore”, he suggested that a university education should be the preserve of the “gifted”. Hats off to Davina McCall for her response- “Well hang on, I’m not “gifted”, but I would still have liked the choice to go to university.”

Talking about educating the “gifted” and leaving everyone else out in the cold is elitist bollocks. If you want an education, if you want to work hard for qualifications, if you want to expand your mind, why the hell shouldn’t you be allowed to?
It’s like saying that only those who are already physically fit should be allowed to go to the gym, because everyone else might get out of breath. Grr.

Education, selection, marketisation…

Jacob Hunt Stewart, Honorary member of BULS, Treasurer of West Midlands Young Labour and former Youth and Student Officer of Selly Oak CLP writes his first guest blog – on the marketisation of education.

In 1997 our Labour Government came into power with a commitment to ‘education, education, education,’ and a lot has been done for education; a massive increase in the numbers going into higher and further education, improved exam results at GCSE and A-level and a building and refurbishment program which will improve the facilities of schools across the country. Despite these achievements there are still challenges ahead; children from a wealthier background are still getting better results than those from a poorer.

We’ve seen a number of attempts to rectify this problem, from the introduction of specialist status for schools, to academies and now trust schools. However they aren’t working, indeed a number of the new flagship academies have received poor OFSTED results and others are said to be rejecting pupils because of their poor academic expectations, the very pupils the academies were designed to help. The result of these failures has been that children from less wealthy backgrounds, the working class, are suffering, being left behind.

Surely this situation tells us something about education; firstly that education should be run by the state, not by private business or wealthy donors to schools. It is not the role of schools to specifically train pupils to work for Microsoft or some other big multi-nationals; it is the role of schools to educate, to prepare children for the wider world.

Secondly it tells us that our education system should not be about competition. Cooperation in education imparts much more on schools, their pupils and the local community in which schools operate, whereas competition will always create losers, predominantly in areas of educational disadvantage. League tables engender an atmosphere of competition among local schools which instead of cooperating and working together turn to competition, aiming to attract children from more advantaged backgrounds to improve their position in the table.

This competition is apparent not just in academies but across the educational spectrum, with some religious schools using interviews pertaining to be a check that the pupil is religious to assess the class of the parents and therefore whether the pupil is likely to perform well. Other schools discourage children and parents from disadvantaged backgrounds by making the uniform very expensive, a barrier to children from a poorer background.

Similar behaviour is not just apparent but institutionalised across the education system in a number of other ways. The introduction of specialisation allows schools with specialist status to select 10% of its pupils on aptitude, in other words the opportunity to select 10% of pupils who are going to perform well and ensure good results for the school. These powers are rarely used but there presence represents the Governments pursuit of an education system based on competition rather than cooperation.

The final and perhaps most obvious way in which competition is institutionalised in our education system is that we still have 164 grammar schools in England. They come in different forms, in Kent and Buckinghamshire they exist in a complete grammar system of grammars and secondary moderns, whilst in places like Birmingham and London they offer a different choice to the local comprehensives*. In both cases they ensure that education is a competition. The market which this turns education into can only be detrimental towards the poorest and most disadvantaged in society, they will invariably be left in the schools which lose out in the market which our education system is turning into.

It is time for us to forget the idea of a market in education, to stop selection at 11 and to ensure that education stays out of the hands of private business. The government has started to head in the right direction with its new code on admissions; it must expand on this and ensure that every child receives the same opportunity, not leaving them to a postcode lottery of good and bad schools in an educational market, aiming for cooperation not competition.

* It’s questionable whether a comprehensive can actually be called a comprehensive when it doesn’t actually take in all the local children, with some of them being creamed off by the local grammars.

“Setting” the real education agenda

The IPPR recently suggested that national testing at ages 11 and 14 should be scrapped and replaced with a system that concentrates less on training pupils to pass a test and more on improving their reading, writing and maths skills.  They go on to recommend a system whereby pupils who are at risk of leaving primary school with deficient skills in the 3Rs should undergo a more intensive program of teaching and support.

My personal educational experiences, along with perhaps my own limited experience as a school governor lead me to sympathise with this view.  There is little doubt that we must have some assessment structures in our education system to allow school pupils to aim for qualifications and to take those on to future employment or tertiary education, but spending time training pupils to pass tests at such a young age is ridiculous.  I was probably one of the last generations to escape large-scale national testing, and almost all of the tests I did before university were in the last 3 years of my secondary schooling – my overriding memory of study in those years was not of useful learning, but of exam preparation, and working out how best to get the best mark in exams.  My techniques never left me throughout my university education and I feel I perhaps had a less conducive education overall because of it.  To imagine that this system is infiltrating the early key stages and much younger primary school children is truly frightening.

I have no problem with the idea of personalised learning that has been proposed in the recent 2020 vision report, which seems to effectively promote the idea of “setting,” whereby students are taught in classes of similar ability.  I am encouraged that this government proposal has attracted the support of the Tories.  It must be ensured, however, that “setting” does not conflict with the overwhelming need for the secondary education system to be a comprehensive one.  The continued use of grammar schools is divisive and does not have widespread public support, despite the almost-arbitrary selection of polling data by right-wing think tanks like the CPS.  I suppose the comprehensive debate is one for another post, but as long as we have socially divisive systems like the eleven plus, and as long as there is a danger of the system of “setting” going down the slippery slope towards and beyond “streaming” (where pupils stay in similar ability groups for all lessons, not being sorted by ability for each subject), then we have a danger of our education system widening many of the social disparities that this government has narrowed in recent years.

John Ritchie is Chair of BULS