Labour is destroying education in Britain

Labour’s schools policy, and especially its enthusiasm for allocating places by lottery, is based on an implicit assumption which is wholly false, and the result is that Labour’s social engineering threatens utterly to destroy the very “good schools” that they keep talking about.
They seem to assume that good schools come about by chance, and that pupils therefore need to be “shared out” between good and bad schools in a way that avoids “social segregation”, and especially in a way that denies the best places to pushy middle-class parents with sharp elbows.  This way, disadvantaged children from poorer homes will have the same chance of going to a good school as middle-class children.
But good schools don’t just happen.  A good school starts with a good admissions policy.  Socialist idealists may hate the idea, but some children are actually brighter than others.  Even worse (from the socialist point of view), intelligence is heritable, and intelligence is likely to lead to a successful career.  Therefore successful middle-class parents are likely to have bright children.  (The usual caveat: of course children from poorer homes can be equally bright — and clever working class kids used to have a ladder to success: it was called a grammar school.  But generally and on average, middle-class children with high-achieving parents are more likely to be bright).
And those same middle-class children are more likely to come from homes where learning and education are understood and valued, where there are books on the shelf, where mothers read to toddlers, where family holidays may include the arts as well as arcade games, where parents support the school’s discipline rather than seeking to undermine it.
So schools with a selective admissions policy have the potential to be good schools.  Of course they need good teachers, and good discipline, and good management as well.  But these factors work together.  If a school is above average, it will attract good pupils and good teachers, and the process becomes self-reinforcing.  That is not to say that schools catering to poorer or less able children have to be bad: but they have to try harder.
This Labour government which has set out on its great social engineering project is the same one which has debauched our exam system, so that universities and employers no longer believe in pupils’ qualifications.  A couple of years back Gordon Brown got very exercised about a girl with five straight A’s denied a place at Oxford.  But far too many now get straight A’s for Oxford to take them all. 
It is this Labour government which has created a testing culture which has wrung the life out of liberal education.  It is the same Labour government which has demoralised teachers by burying them under tick-boxes and red-tape and risk assessments, and by denying them the tools and sanctions of discipline, and insisting on readmitting pupils expelled for outrageous and violent disruption.
The effect of admission lotteries will be to destroy the very foundation of good schools.  It is a truism that socialism is about levelling down.  Here is a case in point.  It is a truism that socialists hate élitism.  But élitism is simply a pejorative term for excellence.  Sadly, they hate that too.  And without excellence in education, Britain and its economy face a bleak future in this era of globalisation.

This entry was posted in Education. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Labour is destroying education in Britain

  1. asquith says:

    Roger, while much of intelligence is hereditary, a significant amount is determined by environment. No serious scientist or sociologist has ever tried to deny this. I went to a sink school on an estate, and most of the children left without qualifications (I myself was one of the very few successes, so I have no axe to grind).

    If you took the average child from my school and sent him to Eton, he would do enormously better. Conversely, many people who do well at private schools are not actually all that intelligent, and would sink without trace at schools like mine.

    This is why we need things like the pupil premium so that children from poor backgrounds can overcome the disadvantages of their environment. A capitalist society (which I support just as much as you do) needs social mobility, or it will just become an ossified (and inefficient) system of class privilige.

  2. Roger Helmer says:

    Dear Asquith, If you read carefully what I said, I stressed that I was talking “on average”. I explicitly stated that bright kids can come from disadvantaged backgrounds, and I am happy to admit the converse — that middle-class kids can be stupid. I also agree that intelligence is only partly heritable. But the fact remains that bright people tend to become middle-class (if they weren’t to start with), which is why you will find higher average intelligence (and brighter kids) among better off people. I also agree with you that bright kids from working class backgrounds (my own mother was very working class, by the way) need help. We should be condemning both the socialists and the trendy academic educationalists for doing away with the grammar schools which provided a grand highway to achievement to bright kids from poorer homes.

  3. You are so right about the Labour ruining education. Now they are about to ruin the Public Schools too.
    Here in Wisbech, Camnbs, we have but one huge Comprehensive in Freshstart. The discipline has improved. Boys no longer, I understand, fight in lessons and ride bicycles up and down the corridors during lessons (honest). 80% of pupils did not pass one GCSE.
    Adolescents need one thing: love and understanding. I have been a teacher all my life. They want to be known by name. They want to know who to admire and who to admire. They want to be led into a life long hobby or calling. If they are not trusted, loved and understood, then they will not blossom.
    That is why the Conservative party’s ideas about Swedish small schools are so very important.
    I am with Asquith on this one. There are very very few children who have not got a hope. I reckon I have met a handful. But there are LOADS who just give up.
    In a small school giving up is very difficult to do. And the teachers love it too if they are treated with respect and love.
    Perhaps that is why Faith Schools are, on the whole, so much better than State ones?
    There is no use pussy footing round a subject so important as this one.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s