Sunday 29 July 2018

Durability of public schools

Robert  Verkaik`s suggestion that private schools have "managed to hold on to the reins for so long" because everyone wants the "best for their children" is only partially true (Our educational apartheid laid bare, Books, 22.07.18). His book`s reviewer, Alex Renton, being a self-confessed "posh boy", might understand this, but it is unlikely the majority will, especially when "buying access to university" becomes unacceptable because the access for already highly advantaged pupils is achieved through a different, and probably easier route.
    Although the new "more rigorous" GCSEs are compulsory for state schools, they are avoided in the independent sector in favour of Cambridge Assessment`s IGCSE. A-level examinations are also being abandoned in favour of Pre-U examinations, also run by Cambridge Assessment, but set and marked by teachers in the independent sector. Cambridge Assessment is not affiliated to the Joint Council for Qualifications which regulates all other examination boards.
        A Freedom of Information request to the Department of Education for a breakdown of last year`s Pre-U results proved enlightening. History was the most popular Pre-U  examination with independent schools, with 745 pupils entered. Of those, 451 were awarded distinctions, the equivalent of A*/A grades; that`s 60.5% of the entry, compared to 23.4% gaining the same grades at A-level. For English Literature, a massive 74.9% of the entry received the equivalent of A*/A grades at Pre-U, compared to the A-level percentage of 24.8%.
   The Physics figures were 65.8% compared to 29.6%, Maths 67.7% as opposed to 41.8% at A-level. In the less popular subjects the percentages of top grades are even more remarkable; Spanish Pre-U 82.6% compared with A-level`s 34%, and Music 78.6% compared with 19% at A-level.
      Even "posh boys" might have to admit university places are being gained in a rather dubious manner!

Friday 27 July 2018

Glorious World Cup?

I`m not sure many junior league football coaches and referees will agree with the opinion, expressed in last week`s Leader about the recent competition (The summer of Southgate, 20th July, 2018). Their mood is unlikely to have been "lifted by a glorious World Cup", which witnessed a surfeit of fouls, unsporting behaviour and downright cheating, either to gain advantage by winning free-kicks, or by the yellow-carding of an opponent. 
        Such behaviour was not confined to weaker teams in the group stages; even the eventual victors included in their number "divers" and players prone to chasing the referee, shouting profanities. Even, dare I say it, England were not immune from giving the referee a hard time, and it will come as no surprise when the number of referees willing to suffer the inevitable indignity caused by ten year-olds refusing to move back ten yards, or to stop wrestling with each other at corners, declines even further.
         Imitating the world`s "top" players will not be confined to junior leagues, and Match of the Day is bound to be devoting much of its highly paid "analysis" to slow-motion repeats of Premier League simulation. "Glorious"? Perhaps not, and many football fans the world over will rue the 2018 competition for being the one when FIFA allowed the disgraceful antics of far too many of the game`s superstars to take centre stage.

Tuesday 24 July 2018

Schools and exclusions

What did the government expect to happen? If the education system is deprived of funds, if teachers have their workload increased year after year whilst pay is frozen and in real terms reduced, and if the teacher recruitment problem is so great, foreign countries have to be trawled for their educators, the "growing crisis in our education system" is bound to result in more exclusions and suspensions. Add into the mix, years of needless austerity policies cutting benefits in the homes and jobs in the support services, and schools in the more deprived areas are bound to suffer from an increase in violence. How many times did the teaching unions explain to the likes of Gove and Morgan that underfunding allied to the huge numbers of unqualified teachers working in our schools was asking for trouble?
 As the Star editorial rightly states, the common denominator in all this is child poverty, with the simple fact being that a "child`s progress at school cannot be isolated from factors outside it". Oh for a Department of Education which would admit this, and take action to remedy it! As Richard House`s recent letter stated, an inspection service that is not "punitive, bullying and compliance-demanding" is essential, displaying empathy with the teaching staff and pupils, and not judging the schools simply on results. Probably some schools have resorted to exclusions because of concerns about results being affected by the poor behaviour of a minority, but the public school equivalent makes no headlines: entering pupils for IGCSE and Pre-U examinations, run by Cambridge Assessment which is not affiliated to the regulator, the Joint Council for Qualifications, to improve their results when they have every advantage already, is deplorable. 
 Never has a general election been needed so urgently! Never has a Labour manifesto needed to include so many pledges on education!

Sunday 22 July 2018

Labour`s pre-election homework

With May`s government continuing to rack up crisis after crisis, rift after rift, it becomes ever clearer that Jeremy Corbyn has a wonderful chance of entering No.10 in the not too distant future. It is not, however, inevitable, especially as the right-wing press will do its utmost to prevent it.
      It was antagonistic enough during the last election, with Corbyn joking about the number of Daily Mail pages devoted to criticising him from every angle, and that was when Labour was thought to have little chance of victory! Now that the chance has increased, imagine what will be thrown Labour`s way in the weeks building up to the election. The deluge of anti-Corbynism which will flow from the Mail and Murdoch press will be unprecedented, which is why Labour must not only be prepared to counter all the allegations, it must, to use an old rugby phrase, "get its retaliation in first".
     One of Blair`s many problems was, that having won the 1997 election, he was too afraid of the press, and unwilling to antagonise it; it led to a refusal to regulate and tax sufficiently. Corbyn is unlikely to make the same mistake, but he and his shadow cabinet colleagues must prepare the ground in advance.
      Make no mistake, Corbyn`s nationalisation pledges will be seen in right wing circles as the return of communism, Stalinism and gulags. Labour`s case for nationalisation of the railways is strong and popular, and if the programme is stretched further, plenty of figures must be made public prior to the media`s attack. In fact, figures are crucial; they must be accurate, and used by all Labour MPs and candidates to show how taxpayers have been ripped off by the privatised companies, and their rich shareholders.
      Labour will be criticised for pledging to borrow too much, so the figures need to be accurate, not only showing how in recent history,Tory governments have borrowed more than Labour ones, but stressing how the present low interest rates make it almost criminal for a British government not to be borrowing to invest.
      The pledge on higher taxes will be seen as an attack on aspiration, or some such nonsense, and inevitably the Laffer Curve will be used to prove the rich actually pay less when the rates go up. Labour must be prepared to challenge this, explaining its origins in the Reagan days, when the president needed an excuse to lower taxes on America`s most wealthy. The media will attempt to show how Labour wants to increase taxes for everyone, so again figures must be learned by everyone about which people will actually pay more income tax, and repeated frequently.
      When it comes to corporation tax increases, the press will try to show how firms will take their business elsewhere as a result; the figures this time must refer to the higher rates of corporation tax imposed in countries enjoying far more economic success. There are plenty of them!
   Labour`s policies on defence will be attacked, and here the tactic could be to emphasise how the first line of any government`s defence should be against illness, disease, and ignorance, which is why the government`s deliberate underfunding of the NHS and schools is so shameful. Not to mention, of course, the understaffing of food safety agencies, and HMRC (again up-to-date figures required!) which makes a lie of Tory promises to check tax avoidance and evasion!
  Unless Brexit policies are clarified, more problems will arise, and more opportunities for the right wing press to attack will be offered. Whatever they are, all Labour supporters must be urged to support them.
     The election is there for the taking, but Tory ability to recover from disaster must not be underestimated. Tories will have the majority of the media behind them, which makes Labour preparations all the more urgent, not forgetting, too, the small matter of getting young people to register! Recent history proves how the lack of figures, or the presentation of inaccurate ones, can ruin a politician`s reputation. No labour politician can afford to relax; they all have plenty of homework to do!

Blaming schools for exclusions

Blaming schools for the "practice of taking children off-roll without formally excluding them", whilst ignoring all the factors which lead schools to resort to such desperate measures, is plainly ridiculous (School exclusions "put children at risk of gang grooming", 15.07.18). Would it not be preferable for the children`s commissioner for England to protest at the way schools are increasingly judged by results, despite the undoubted underfunding, leading to inevitable staffing crises and reduced curricula?
      This is not to minimise the huge problem of gang violence, but analysing data and asking "the government to give advice", when the real solutions lie in proper funding, both for experts working in schools and for more referral units, seem totally inappropriate. Perhaps the commissioner could devote some time to criticising public schools which are increasingly sidelining both GCSE and A-level examinations? Their preference for examinations, often set and marked by teachers in the independent sector, and organised by Cambridge Assessment, looks to have much to do with improving results. A recent FOI request revealed far higher percentages of entrants for Pre-U exams gaining A*/A grades than at A-level, with, for example, 75% of public school entries for English Literature last year gaining A*/A grades, compared to A-level`s 25%. How many state-educated pupils with brilliant A-level results were denied their places in the top universities by devious  practices in the private sector?

Monday 16 July 2018

Public schools and exams (1&2)

Yes, Eleanor Doughty, many do feel aggrieved by public schools, "with their charitable status", "old boys` network", and "often excellent results", but its got nothing to do with the Tory idea of "politics of envy" (Looking confident takes you a long way, 14/07/18). It has far more to do with unfairness. We are now learning more about schools in the public sector entering their pupils for IGCSE and Pre-U examinations, both organised by Cambridge Assessment, which is not a member of the Joint Council for Qualifications which monitors all other exam boards. A recent FOI request revealed Pre-U results with huge percentages of entrants obtaining A/A* grades. 
 Our state-funded universities should be forced to accept only A-level grades as entry qualifications. Why should public school pupils be given even more advantages than pupils from our seriously underfunded state schools? 

Chantal Mouffe argues that the "populist left" has gained ground by "drawing a frontier between the people and the oligarchy", with Jon Trickett adding that failure to "take seriously the widespread feeling of disruption and alienation" plays into the right`s hands (How radical left populism was reborn, 13th July, 2018). There is a difference, however, between the right`s tactic of "feeding off people`s fears", and what Labour is doing, which is adopting policies to correct unpalatable activity; sadly, still more are needed
     In education, for example, the new "rigorous" GCSE exams must be taken in state schools, but not in the independent sector, where the easier IGCSE is allowed. Similarly, many public schools, and some high-performing state schools, are opting out of A-levels, preferring Pre-U examinations, which, like IGCSEs, are organised by Cambridge Assessment. These exams are mostly set and marked by public school teachers, and unsurprisingly perhaps, have much higher percentages of A*/A grades. Cambridge Assessment is not a member of the Joint Council for Qualifications, the body which represents all of the other awarding bodies, and which ensures standards between the exam boards are fair and comparable.
 Is it any wonder social mobility is in decline, and places in the so-called "top" universities are dominated by entrants from independent schools? When success in education is being manoeuvred to favour the few, the left must unite to ensure the return of equality of opportunity.

Saturday 14 July 2018

Shame on Oxbridge!

Shame on Oxbridge (A degree of separation, 07/07/18)! How many students like the brilliant Michael Donkor have the Oxbridge colleges rejected because their A-level grades, gained in underfunded state comprehensives, didn`t quite match those achieved by the over-privileged 7%? How many did they put off from applying with their outmoded admissions procedure, unsympathetic interviews, and their obvious preference for white, upper-middle class students? The sooner a government has the courage to limit universities to accepting only 7% of their intake from public schools, the better!

Thursday 12 July 2018

Guardian letter on Pre-U results

With the independent sector continuing to use IGCSEs, it is little wonder that concerns have been reignited "among some heads that the state-private divide will widen" (Opinion: The saga of the IGCSE: if it`s good enough for Eton, why not for my local school? 10/07/18). "Competing equally for the best university places" is clearly a government policy that is dead in the water.
        A-levels are also being sidelined by many public and high-achieving state schools which opt instead for Pre-U examinations. These are set and marked by teachers in the independent sector, are not regulated like other exams by the Joint Council for Qualifications, and, like IGCSEs, are run by Cambridge Assessment; they first came to light with last year`s cheating scandal (Winchester college suspends teacher over exam cheating claims, 28/08/17).
      A Freedom Of Information request revealed that History was the most popular Pre-U  examination last year with independent schools; of the 745 entered, 451 were awarded distinctions, the equivalent of A*/A grades; that`s 60.5% of the entry, compared to 23.4% gaining the same grades at A-level. For English Literature, a massive 74.9% of the entry received the equivalent of A*/A grades at Pre-U, compared to the A-level percentage of 24.8%.
   The Physics figures were 65.8% compared to 29.6%, Maths 67.7% as opposed to 41.8% at A-level. In the less popular subjects the percentages of top grades are even more remarkable; Spanish Pre-U 82.6% compared with A-level`s 34%, and Music 78.6% compared with 19% at A-level.
      Looks like IGCSEs are not the only "easier exams" being taken by private schools "to boost their chances of top grades and places at the best universities". 

Friday 6 July 2018

Austerity still ticking Tory boxes

Brexit has, as Helen Lewis rightly says, "poisoned our politics", but, sadly, it hasn`t led to the Tory party "immolating everything it supposedly stood for" (Out of the Ordinary, 29th June, 2018). Austerity, despite its subservience to the need to "buy off" the DUP, is still being used as the excuse to shrink the state. Even when Theresa May wants us to believe in Tory generosity and compassion because she is allowing a £20m cash injection for the NHS, her mendacity does not end with the "Brexit dividend". Apparently, it led to Hammond telling cabinet "colleagues" that extra funding for all other departments was now out of the question. But £20bn extra for any public service does not mean that the same amount has to be raised by additional borrowing or taxation.
             That £20bn will go into generating extra economic activity, and by creating more jobs, increasing incomes, and paying contractors, tax revenue of the government will increase. The current average amount of tax received by the government is, according to economists, 35% of GDP, which means the government actually only needs approximately an extra £13bn. When the so-called multiplier effect is taken into consideration, that figure is even further reduced, with people`s increased spending adding more in taxation to the Treasury`s coffers.
       This is hardly rocket science, but governments fail to inform the electorate of the true figures, fearing damage to their reputation for benevolence. Our Brexit-besotted media might be suffering from austerity-amnesia, but the Tories` belief in austerity most certainly has not been sacrificed! Brexit grabs the headlines, but privatisation, landlordism, de-regulation, academisation, selection and CEO pay ratios of 130:1 are all far from suffering immolation; they, along with austerity, are still ticking Tory boxes.

Unpublished: From Cameron and penalties, to Buck House, and more

Actually, Mr Cameron, as history should have taught you, "England and penalty shoot-outs" do "go together" (Quote of the day, 05/07/18). What "don`t go together" are prime ministerial leadership and referendums, something apparently, even the most expensive education in the country did not teach you.

Now that we have an approved word for "rude or obnoxious persons", can Guardian letter writers feel free to use it when writing about the people responsible for the callous austerity cuts, the underfunding of all public services, under-investment in all areas of the UK except London, and the refusal to end tax avoidance and evasion (Dyer cuts through Brexit bluster, 30/06/18)?

As the public is coughing up an extra £30.4m for the Queen to refurbish Buckingham Palace, would it not be a good idea to let the public see, without charge, the "10,000 works of art" being "decanted" whilst the work is in progress" (Palace refit to see 10,000 artworks moved for safekeeping, 28/06/18)? Rather than relocate them to other "parts of the palace or other parts of the royal palaces estate", how about sending them out to other parts of the country, or are they all regarded as too unsafe?


Your editorial states that "in their different ways, both Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn have tried to ignore the half of the country that voted to remain in the European Union", but this is as misleading as the Brexiters` propaganda (The weekend pro-Europe demo should give MPs courage to set the terms, 26/07/18).Taking into account the 72.2% turnout at the referendum, the fact is that only 37% of those eligible to vote supported leaving, with 35% against, hardly "half of the country"!
     What the figures above do reveal, however, is that there is a strong case to be made for a second vote, and that politicians, mostly Tories and their right-wing media friends, are totally ignoring the wishes of the 28% who chose not to vote. Isn`t democracy meant to be governments ruling on behalf of all of the people, not just a random 37%, and especially not merely the ones who voted for the party elected to govern?

First we have Philip Green, whose greed and corporate chicanery allowed the BHS pension fund to build up a deficit of £571m, who is a known tax avoider, and whose behaviour meant the loss of 11000 jobs, claiming that "serious and potentially irreparable harm" might be done to his reputation if publication in full of a watchdog`s report goes ahead (Green seeks to gag critical report on BHS scandal, 22/06/18)!
 Then there`s the news that resident of Monaco, Lewis Hamilton, is actually "very patriotic" and proud to be a Brit", so proud, as the Panama Papers revealed, he had to use an Isle of Man scheme to buy his £16.5m private plane in order to avoid paying VAT (Passionate fan Hamilton looks to England for his inspiration, 22/06/18).
     It`s clearly not only Tory politicians who are taking  us for mugs!

Looking forward to reading expert analysis and discussion about the north-south investment gap, with Labour`s decision not to support the government`s plans for a third Heathrow runway, and Lisa Nandy`s revelations to the House of Commons about ministers being warned of "impending chaos" on the Northern rail network two years ago, I was disappointed to find that there was no mention in my newspaper of the subject at all. There were, however, two pages devoted to Royal Ascot! 
Can we leave the playing of the "race card" to right-wing politicians, please?

Monday 2 July 2018

Investing £20bn in NHS is cheaper than we think

Prime Minister, Theresa May really did "make much fanfare about a 3.4% funding boost" for the NHS, trying to get the public to believe in the myth that is "Tory compassion". Not only did she want us convinced the NHS funding crisis would be solved, when the truth is that a 5% increase at least is necessary for the UK to "keep up with other modern societies", but also that extra borrowing, or the much more likely extra taxation would be needed for the government to be able to afford the £20bn.
     This is, quite simply, a con!.If £20bn is to be invested in any public service, much of the initial sum gets back to the government via taxation. Much of the £20bn will be spent on new jobs, extra pay or new contracts, and all of these will involve the payment of taxation which, of course, goes back to the Treasury. Apparently, according to tax expert, Richard Murphy, the average amount of tax received by the government is 35% of GDP, so when the government "invests" £20bn, all it really needs is approximately £13bn.
     Even that figure is too high, because of what economists call "the multiplier effect"; this refers to the extra money spent as a result of the new jobs, increased pay and contracts, which in turn generates more income for the government through direct and indirect taxes.
       The Labour party should be pointing all of this out to the public, as they must know the mainstream media will side with the government. Funding the NHS to the tune of an extra 5% annually is far more manageable to a rich country like the UK, when the extra taxation thereby generated is taken into account.
  The Tories have been conning us about the affordability of public services for too long!