The Progressive

Kelly's choice

The outrage over Ruth Kelly's decision to send one of her children has echoes going back through the years. Within recent memory Diane Abbott, Harriet Harman and Tony Blair have all faced a similar hue and cry. In the past Labour politicians have had to defend their personal behaviour on other issues - crossing picket lines, green issues, and in one or two cases (Denis Healey's wife springs to mind) private medical treatment. David Cameron came in for something similar over the green-ness of his regular travel arrangements, but by and large it's been Labour politicians who are called to account for allegedly failing to practice what they preach.

In one sense this is slightly surprising. There was certainly a time when democratic socialism had the character of a moral crusade, where no self-respecting Labour politician would have banked with Barclays or bought a News International paper; but that era was comprehensively buried by Tony Blair almost as soon as he became leader. Whether or not we like the fact, the Labour Government has deliberately encouraged private sector involvement in health and education, and you'd have thought we'd all have stopped being surprised by ministers' actions of this sort. Ruth Kelly is availing herself of something that most of her Bolton constituents could not afford, it is true; but as Tony Blair’s spokesperson stated yesterday, the Labour Government is in favour of a "mix of provision" of state and private schooling and that parents have a right to decide on schools regardless of their job. As David Cameron rather magnanimously pointed out, the Labour Government has absolutely no plans to abolish private education, and in the circumstances there's no real reason why a minister (and certainly one facing particularly difficult personal issues) should not avail themselves of it, if that seems appropriate.

Yet we do remain a little surprised; why? Despite all that has been written and said about the convergence of Labour and Conservative policies, we do still think of Labour as being, well, a little more high-minded than its opponents. Even if New Labour's target voter is not so much a blue collar worker in a council house, as Mondeo man or Worcester woman, the fact is that £15,000 a year fees would be far beyond the reach of normal people. There probably are circumstances in this case which make Ruth Kelly's decision acceptable, where in other circumstances it would have been intolerable. But most Labour politicians and activists would still probably prefer to think of themselves as belonging to a party which thinks twice about such things.

Surely the main problem with Ruth Kelly’s actions however, if she really was offered financial support by her LEA, is that she failed to use public funding to support her child’s special educational needs. We don’t know the full details, and there may have been difficulty in accessing funding, but it gives the impression that Ruth Kelly felt the added financial costs of her child’s education was undeserving of public support. It risks undermining efforts by other parents, with children who have substantial learning difficulties, who have been trying to lift mountains to get the extra funding to enable their children to fulfil their full potential no matter what their disability. As Chair of Governors at a special school I know how much extra money this Government has put our way, but funding barriers remain. Children who need extra tuition or support for their learning difficulties should not be portrayed as a burden on society or the taxpayer. It would have given a much needed boost to the movement if Kelly had made a decision to accept public funding to provide the sort of personalised education that the Government has been promising for children with special needs.

Stop the scare mongering!

Yesterday the National Union of Students hosted their National Demonstration against the new £3000 top-up as part of their Admission:Impossible campaign reports BBC Online. Thousands of students, trade unionists, parents and young children marched with banners and placards calling on the government to reverse the policy that has seen 13,000 less students go to university this year.

Bill Rammell MP, the Minister responsible, made himself prominent in the media accusing the NUS of ‘scare mongering’ on the issue of fees and debt citing the re-payment threshold and the small (sic) monthly contributions students will make.

This claim is a deeply unhelpful and loaded - attempting to remove political responsibility from the government’s door. NUS controversially joined with the Government in their information campaign about the new fee regime (see here) and has taken all statistics from UCAS – the most authoritative source in the sector. For NUS to fall silent at this time would be them cheating their 5.2 million members and remove necessary accountability to the government’s policy.

What Bill Rammell MP seems to have over looked is that he had they key to end all ‘scare mongering’ if he was to publicly commit that the government will not lift the current cap on the fees  (a move that has been called inevitable) and tell the likes of Imperial College London that they will not get their fee hike to £11,000.

The ‘wine and cheese’ Vice Chancellor lobby is the one scaring students and progressive people in British politics not the NUS standing up for its members.

Can a policy for the ending of selection in state schools ever be part of a ‘progressive’ agenda?

New Labour’s third term in office (heralded by Tony Blair as a radical, reforming phase of his government) is in danger of running out of impetus, ideas and desire. What the party requires (and Gordon Brown will surely need) are some passion-rousing policies for a fourth term that will unite the movement’s natural supporters and signal a shift towards a more radical and egalitarian agenda. One such initiative would be the abolition of selection by both ability and aptitude in state schools once and for all. Getting rid of selection in England’s schools (there is no selection in Wales or Scotland and it is on the way out in Northern Ireland) would produce an immediate improvement in the overall exam performance of the nation’s children, reduce poverty and inequality in many of our most deprived inner-city areas and overtly and transparently attack privilege that all too often masquerades as excellence.

Progressive politicians must surely be of the view that it is now time to address the archaic and socially exclusive policy of academic selection. A recent DfES statistical comparison of the GCSE and GNVQ results of all grammar school pupils with those of the top 25% (of 'grammar school ability') in comprehensive schools indicated that the comprehensive schools had done slightly better overall. There is also evidence that fully comprehensive systems reduce the gaps in attainment between children of different abilities and between children from different social class backgrounds. Selective systems cost more to run, increase social exclusion and limit choice of schools for parents and pupils. The long - term effects on pupils failed by the system cannot be quantified. It is often forgotten that all primary schools are comprehensive as are all FE institutions.

The familiar claim that grammar schools offer an 'escape from poverty' to clever children otherwise denied real educational opportunity, has relied heavily on highlighting individual successes without establishing how representative they are. In the past, the most academically selective schools were also the most socially selective. The surviving grammar schools are in the main schools for the middle-classes. In England in 2002, the proportion of children eligible for free school meals (an imperfect but commonly used indicator of social disadvantage) was much lower in selective than in non-selective schools in every one of the 36 Local Authorities which retain at least some grammar schools. In the 15 LEAs with around 20% or more of their pupils in grammar schools, the average percentage of children eligible for free school meals in those schools was 1.8% compared with an English average of 18.1%.

Since comprehensive education was introduced, barriers to achievement for many young people have been removed. The annual government statistics of school attainment, examination results, and participation in further and higher education offer clear evidence of a 'levelling-up' over the last 25 years. In some areas of England it is reasonable to regard comprehensive schooling not as a 'failed experiment' but as an experiment which has not yet been tried. Supporters of the progressive movement want selection to be abolished, not grammar schools. The schools themselves would remain pretty much as they are now. They would have the same buildings, the same governors, the same headteachers and staff, the same resources, the same curriculum, uniform and largely the same funding. The only real change will be in the academic profile of the pupils attending the school.

The idea of ‘choice’ in education is all too often ill-defined. Parents can exercise a preference in terms of schools: few can exercise any real choice. A selective system of schooling does not lead to diversity of provision it simply leads to division. Selection is not the creation of choice rather it is the denial of choice for the many. A selective system (be it based on ability or aptitude) does not help promote a diverse system of schooling; it simply helps perpetuate division in society as a whole. Selective schools are not escape routes from poverty, they do not offer good value for money and they do not help raise standards overall? Who knows, perhaps it will be a case of fourth term lucky.