Clarke's Education Proposals

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Amidst all the attempted vote-grabbing action between the Tories and Labour, something good finally emerged.

When Charles Clarke outlined his education proposals I couldn't quite believe the party had passed them. Offering assistance to state comprehensives and leaving grammar and private schools to fend for themselves more is the first step to improving our system. Although our right wing media is denouncing the move as prejudice and even "Stalinist" (Source: Daily Express), this is the most "real Labour" Labour policy for some time.

It is what must be done. Alienating the elitist schools so that parents will choose the state instead is the best policy as far as I see it. A more radical move would be met with a lot of discontent from all corners of the country. This way, those in the state system will also see that the state is tending for what it is meant to tend to and anyone who wants to go another route can do so, but it will be too much hassle for what it's worth.

If Labour are re-elected and this policy goes through, and then Gordon Brown takes over the party, then who knows. With Brown, Prescott and Clarke at the forefront of the party, maybe old Labour values will return.

[guerrillaradio]

I think you're living on a different planet to me mate...

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Yet another annoyingly useless and time wasting post.

Why don't you just post a proper debating reply rather than junk like that. You'll get a lot more credit.

[h&s]

Some of what you said has been suggested sounds good, but if you look further into "Labour's" education suggestions you will see we will be fucked (again) if they get back into power.
They can't stop going on about "choice" being best for the people, which quite frankly is a load of bullshit.
Letting people choose which school their children go to just means that certain schools will get all of the kids and funding, while others will get nothing giving the government another excuse to cut public spending, and leading to a two-tier system.
The "choice" policy is being promoted by both parties, and it comes from a centre-right think-tank.

[Misodoctakleidist]

What's being suggested is a continuation of Thatcher's education policy.

The richer school will be able to attract the best staff, since they can control their own budgets, they will also get the most pupils and thus more money. Schools will be able to choose which students they want which will inevitably favour the middle class due to unfair selection procedures which already exist in some schools. The aim the the changes to attract middle class pupils away from private education into the state system, the reason we have free education is to benifit those who can't afford private education, the poor will lose out. Poorer families wont be able to "choose" and many will be forced to attend sub standard schools which have sufered from declining attendence resulting in less funding causing a decline in standards and so on.

In my opinion educating the middle class in state schools is a waste of public money.

[h&s]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 01:02 PM
In my opinion educating the middle class in state schools is a waste of public money.
Why?
If the middle class get educated privately, it just creates a larger class gap than there already is. We want a classless society, remember.

[Misodoctakleidist]

This has nothing to do with making society classless.

The point of state education is to provide for people who can't afford it, the pland being proposed benifit only thr middle class and leave the poor with sub-standard education.

[T_SP]

I can't wait, Clarke's statement and I quote " The schools that perform badly will be shut down" Yeah! Cause that'll work, not more funding just shut the Fucker down, H&S is RIGHT it will cause a 'two tier' system where the poor will be shit on and the rich will get the best, Labour at it's finest! [End Sarcasm]

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Whoever said educationg the middle classes is wrong is a complete fool and hypocrit. Switch "middle" with "working" and hey presto, your a fatcat capitalist. Same shit, different toilet.

You say "the point of state education is to provide for people who can't afford it". No my friend, I don't know where you heard that. The point of state education is to try and give every child born an equal platform and equal education. You're saying a child should be put in a worse position due to the circumstances he/she is born into.

Wait a minute, I find myself arguing the same things to the capitalist idiots in opposing ideologies! It still counts when you bait for inequality in the opposite direction.

I know the proposals aren't perfect. Let's face it, this Labour government won't produce perfect proposals. But I think the move to alienate those elitist schools which are not needed and are dysfunctional in society is a great move.

[Misodoctakleidist]

I think you missed my point, I wasn't suggesting the the middle class be barred from state education.

I object to the way labour are courting the middle class at the expense of the working class who really need state education. If the middle class can afford private education then why try to get them into the state system.

[T_SP]

The whole point about this is that Schools who need real financial help are gonna get shut down WTF!!!!
Oh and Brown's proposals seem good don't they?!?! But not only is he gonna axe 100,000 civil service jobs ( Way to help the working class Brown) he's gonna plough all those savins where? Straight into 'security' i.e keeping troops in Iraq!! And as the Butler enquiry proves the Government went to war on flimsy JIC info! We know the real reasons I just wish the Labour party could be honest about it!!!

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Why try to get them into the state system?!?!?

What are you talking about. Can you not answer that question??

Because leaving them in the private systems will further increase the gap between rich and poor and working and middle. Getting the middle classes into the state system introduces a more level playing field for all children of all classes to start from.

I cannot BELIEVE you even asked that question. It's disgraceful.

[Misodoctakleidist]

SoM, as i've already explained; it doesn't create a more level playing field, it does just the opposite.

This policies being proposed are a continuation of the education policies of the last 20 years in which time the performance gap between the middle and working class in GCSE's has been steadily widening.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

But even worse than that gap is the gap that is increasing between the classes due to the gap between private and state.

The GCSE results that get published usually include the results of private schools too so that has to be considered when makign a point like your last one.

[Misodoctakleidist]

There are two sets of league tables, one includes private schools the other doesn't. You're quite right in asserting that private schools get better results, my school was in the top 10 comprehensives but not even in the top 50 private schools. Regardless of this the gap in achievement between working and middle class students is widening even if private schools are excluded, I had a books with some interesting statistics in but unfortunately I don't have it any more so i won't be able to cite them.

The policies being proposed are giving "market forced" control over education with "good" schools receiving even more money than they do currently and "bad" schools being shut down. The barometer for performance of course being league tables.

The result of this is that schools pay more attention to their "good" students and convince their "bad" students not to take exams (so as not to bring down the school's average). It has been quite conclusively proven that teachers favour middle class pupils and write off working class pupils as "trouble makers" regardless of their actual actions of abilities, an interesting study on this is the one done by Howard Becker.

Another result of the pressure of "market forces" on schools is that (middle class) parents send their kids to schools who perform well in the league tables, for financial reasons this is much more difficult for working class parents. The "good" schools gets more money since it has more pupils and becomes stronger, all the working class pupils are stuck in the "bad" school which then suffers to to lack of funds neglecting them of a decent education, thus; the situation perpetuated it's self. In places like London there are already parents who are moving house just to get their kids into their school of choice, obviously this is much easier for middle class parents.

There's also the problem of entrance exams; these already exist in some schools and will no doubt spread signifcantly if these new rules are introduced, needless to say such exams - set by the schools themselves - favour middle class kids giving them another advantage in getting into a "good" school.

Private schools are a problem but what's the point of creating a sitatuion where the middle class can get a good education in private or state school and the working class are mostly left with sub-standard education?

[Reuben]

im sorry but this is not a real labour proposal. A real labour proposal would be to create a fully comprehensive system such as that which was promised by Labour in the 1970s. By definition a comprehensive system cannot co-exist with a parallell system of widespread selection. This is because if a huge proportion of schools enjoy the right to pick and choose their students on the basis of ability, behavioural character or whatever, the intake which is left to the comprehensives is by definition not comprehensive! Thus a truly comprehensive system must be universal.

A real labour proposal would therefore seek to abolish slection and consequent privilege. In fact these proposals ncrease the potentaial for selection insofar as the city academies in to which the government hopes to transform a number of comprehensives are allowed to select up to ten per cent of their students!!!

This is not therefore a real labour proposal but the left side of a 2 pronged attack on a comprehensive system which is already undermined.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Firstly I apologise for not replying. I simply forgot about this post.

What you say, on the whole, Misodoctakleidist, is quite accurate. But most of these things, I think you'll agree, delve from societal problems, rather than problems within the schools.

Becker's labelling theory, which luckily I am very familiar with, is I feel quite weak. Though very true, Becker failed to point out that this is not just to do with schools. This type of labelling goes on through the whole of society.

Again, though I find it quite difficult to disagree with the majority of your points, I think you've strayed from the point. Which was that this is a step and a significant one. A journey of a thousand miles always starts with one step, and the journey towards equality in the education system is indeed a thousand mile one.

I think where we disagree is whether or not the government should act against middle class pupils or private schools and I find it very difficult to understand why you think it should be against middle class pupils instead of the private system.

As for the entry exams, I am unaware of how you think their existence will spread with the enforcement of the proposals. Of course, entrance exams are absurd. They will always be culturally biased and the group with the most "cultural capital" will always succeed: obviously the middle classes. I just fail to see where you get the idea that the proposals will lead ot more entrance exams.


Basically, everyone knows that schools and the education system need more work than anything else in society. Whenever a policy comes up, it will always have major weaknesses, but I feel that alienating the private system can only be a good start. Then, the state system is also being worked on at the same time and although I agree that abolishing "bad" schools is a bad idea, it goes hand in hand with a good one. These "bad" schools will apparently be replaced with "foundation schools" (NB: VERY VERY different theory to "foundation hospitals" so don't get confused) which will help the "bad" pupils from these "bad" schools develop from a lower level which is what they would need.

I'm not denying the flaws in the proposals. They are many. But I disagree that the middle class children should be targeted for maltreatment like you seem to be suggesting. It is not their fault what family they are born into. However it is someones fault that the private system exsists and flourishes: therefore, it should be targeted.