If we think it makes sense to take the top 25% of pupils at aged 11 and put them into a school just for them so they can reach their potential unhindered by those who learn more slowly, then why don’t we think it makes sense to take the bottom 25% and put them into a school just for them so they can reach their potential unhindered by those who learn more quickly?
If we are to return to a period of educational segregation then let’s make sure all the best teachers and resources are in the schools for the bottom 25%.
If the bottom 25% were given all the advantages of a grammar school with a curriculum tailored to play to their learning strengths such as strong visual memory, creative and practical skills, just think of the impact on crime, employment and mental health.
The IQ test (on which 11+ is based) was designed to identify children who were significantly behind their peers on academic performance (in the bottom 2% of the population) so they could be offered tailored, specific support to enable them to catch up and fulfil their potential. Instead we use it to identify the children who are likely to achieve well in whatever school they attend.
So I say YES! to a grammar school system that gives the bottom 25% the belief that they are special and worth investing in. The other 75% will do just fine in a mixed ability comprehensive. Won’t they?
Of course, if this really were the grammar school system then children would need to be tutored to fail and it would be patently ridiculous to encourage academic failure, yet the grammar school system the Conservative government would like to resurrect does exactly that.
Branding 75% of 11 year olds as failures will hardly encourage success.
Author note: I am firmly for inclusion for all children – schools that value all pupils and adapt the curriculum and setting to accommodate all learners, tend to develop caring and nurturing pupils who understand that everyone has strengths and everyone finds some stuff difficult.
It wasn’t love at first sight, more like a cigarette end down the back of the settee* that smouldered unnoticed for many long hours through the dark night of the Brexit campaign. By dawn, the seat was alight, but even then I could have put it out with a bucket of cold water. However, the flames were fanned by the whoosh of resigning MPs until they caught the flapping curtains and before I knew it the wallpaper was on fire and my bucket of water was as much use as the Parliamentary Labour Party.
(*Damned EU bureaucracy ruining this analogy with their meddling and insistence settees are made of fire retardant materials.)
I tried closing all the doors and windows, denying my new found love of oxygen, but doors and windows have gaps and I live in an old and creaking house with floorboards.
Loving you is far from easy. My friends, family and mainstream media think you are a bad influence and that I have been brainwashed. They think I am fantasist with limited self-control*, that I have been caught up in a tsunami of the lefty unwashed* and that you, like Charles Manson*, expect cultish devotion*.
(*comments made by the Guardian and some of its readers – https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/30/donald-trump-labour-personality-cult-hadley-freeman )
They criticise you for wearing sandals and having the charisma of an ageing labrador* and they think if they point at these faults I will return to my senses. They’ve even tried setting me up on a blind date with a man called Owen who says the same things as you while wearing a crisp white shirt with his sleeves rolled up.
(* the headline of a piece in the Independent recently http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-labour-voters-like-me-want-a-champion-for-british-workers-not-a-sandal-wearing-a7150601.html)
But as long as you wear those sandals without socks and try not to slobber on me I’d still choose you over Owen.
What they don’t realise is I don’t care how you look, or how you sound, although whispering dirty socialist slogans in my ear does send me all a quiver. It’s the fact you live what you say. You believe what you speak and you refuse to evade questions, however loaded they maybe.
Before I met you I was labelled as an idealist as if it were a dirty word. Now, because of you, I know that I am democratic socialist and that I am not alone in believing that there is a better way, one that respects everybody and not just those who have a ruthless streak, inherited power, intellect or money.
Because of you I have learnt about our political history, how neoliberalism was heralded as the end to our ills, but didn’t deliver. How democratic socialism is not a return to the past but a recognition that market forces alone cannot protect the disabled, the poor and ill because some things are not about profit, but about humanity.
It’s funny how others think I have become a blind follower when my eyes have been opened wider than they have ever been before.
However, I feel I must be very clear with you Jeremy. It is your ideas that I am in love with and the fact that despite your age, you remain optimistic about the nature of people, and that you still believe – after years of being ridiculed and misrepresented – that people can be better, do better, and care for one another regardless of differences between them.
If your ideas turn out to be hot air, spin and flim flam just to win my vote, I will dump you quicker than Farage’s escape from Brexit.
Yours adoringly but conditionally,
“As a member, you’ll be a key part of the team. You’ll be eligible to vote in leadership elections, you can help shape party policy, you can attend local meetings and you can even stand as a candidate.” Labour website (prior to 13th July 2016)
On the 3rd July I joined the Labour party. I joined because I wanted to have a say in a potential leadership election because since Corbyn won the leadership election in September 2015 I have found myself agreeing with much of what he proposes such as protecting the NHS from further privatisation, re-nationalising the railways and, most importantly of all, investing in local infrastructure projects as an alternative to austerity.
On the 13th July following the NEC ruling on the leadership ballot, the first part of the second sentence in the above quote was removed and I was barred from voting. That decision led me on a quest to understand why my vote was so unwelcome and why I was branded in the press as ‘thug’, ‘blind follower’ and a ‘Corbynista’ (which sounds like I work in corporate coffee chain), when all I wanted to do was choose the best person to make sure these policies I so agreed with would actually have a chance of happening.
What follows is my understanding of why Jeremy Corbyn is the only person who should lead the party in to the next General Election, but also why, with Corbyn as leader, the party is unlikely to win.
Who knew I was a democratic socialist – I certainly didn’t because the Labour party I voted for in 1997 was neoliberal, which according to Wiki is about “reducing state influence on the economy, especially through privatisation and austerity”. As a child of the 70’s and 80’s, I have no memory of a Labour Party with actual left wing policies. By the time I was old enough to vote and sufficiently interested enough to engage, ‘New Labour’ was all there was.
And since then New Labour has been all there is. I now realise that in 1997 all I did was vote for one neoliberal party to replace another. During their time in power, Labour continued to shrink the state through privatisation and it was they who introduced austerity measures widening even further the inequalities in British Society. When the coalition took power in 2010 all they had to do was continue on the same path.
My political apathy suddenly made sense. Since I have been old enough to engage in politics I have known no other political ideology than neoliberalism.
I joined the party less than a month ago and have become politically active in a way that is frankly scary to my husband. He is confused, bemused and, I am sure, wonders if I have somehow slipped between the many worlds of the multiverse and become entangled with a near version of myself – a version that watches Newsnight and listens to Radio 4 political debates, although, to his dismay, this version still does not like football.
Frankly I have scared myself a bit. It is not usual behaviour for me to walk into a supermarket and circle the newspaper carousel like a demented budgie to compare the reporting of news on Corbyn in ‘supposedly’ Left and Right wing press (at least they all agree for once). It is not usual behaviour for me to click on the ‘politics’ tab on the BBC site before I click on the ‘entertainment’ tab. In fact I never clicked on the ‘politics’ tab at all if I am being honest.
Jeremy Corybn does not represent the current ideological view of the majority of the Labour party MPs because despite its tag line of ‘democratic socialist party’ (which appears on the back of Labour membership cards), it hasn’t been a democratic socialist party since its crushing defeat in the general election of 1983.
I can see therefore why Labour MPs want rid of Corbyn because they want to win the next general election. Under Corbyn that will be a tall order because in order for them to win the next general election a paradigm shift will be required and those sort of things don’t happen overnight.
“When enough significant anomalies have accrued against a current paradigm (neo-liberalism has not lead to a fairer society, inequality is growing and social mobility has slowed), the scientific discipline (for scientific read political) is thrown into a state of crisis.”
“During this crisis, new ideas, perhaps ones previously discarded, are tried (hence the constant referral to the 1950’s and 60’s socialism in the press). Eventually a new paradigm is formed, which gains its own new followers (Momentum movement), and an intellectual “battle” takes place between the followers of the new paradigm and the hold-outs of the old paradigm.”
So the Labour party is experiencing a crisis of ideology. Neoliberalism has so obviously failed the vast majority of British people (the oft quoted 99%), but MPs know that if they move towards democratic socialism then it could take years for the electorate to accept this new paradigm and therefore they are unlikely to win the 2020 election.
But do you know what? I accept that fact. I’d rather have a true alternative to neoliberalism in opposition rather than a dose of the same in power in four years’ time. It will take time to show how democratic socialism can reduce some of the excesses of neoliberalist ideology. But right now the party is paralysed by in-fighting and consequently the Conservative government is getting away with some of the worst excesses of free market capitalism – while stirring up racial hatred through its focus on immigration targets to keep the ‘masses’ divided and ineffective.
It is not about whether Jeremy Corbyn is more or less electable than Owen Smith. It is about whether the Labour party is going to embrace its new members, fledgling democratic socialists like me, or stick with the old neoliberal policies.
Whatever it decides, my political awakening cannot be unwoken (although I am glad MPs can un-resign).
Reflections from a Consultant Clinical Psychologist
"Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire." - As W. B. Yeats never said
My views on Teaching & Education
Writer. Believer in the positive power of prison libraries. Managing editor of Forge Literary Magazine. Creative writing teacher.
Medical journalist Jerome Burne investigates...
Moving back to Australia after ten years living overseas
Writing about writing. Mostly.
sexuality, research methods, social justice