Knowledge gives power (and don't ever forget it) - a comment on criticism of Michaela Community College

****

Michaela Community School is one of those free schools so detested by those who prefer the conformity and straightjacket of a rigidly defined, state education system. Not for such left-wing folk is the idea that variety, difference and new ways of working are urgently needed if we are to transform our education system for the better. So the critics circle and seize on the tiniest levers to have a go at the school.

So it is with a blogger rather grandiosely called "Edsacredprofane" (his name is Peter Ford, or so the blog says). This man clutches at the motto of Michaela Community School to write a bewilderingly indulgent attack on the values of a school he has not visited and, I assume, relies on its website to frame his argument. And what an argument - littered with references to Foucault, to post-modernism and to Marx it twines itself around the schools motto to manufacture a critique of the school itself:

Of course we all have reason. The enlightenment gave us reason. The power of reason enables each individual to escape the circumstances of existence. Only to an extent. As Marx put it “men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please”. Knowledge is power became the byword for the enlightenment. Later thinkers such as Foucault and the post modernists challenged the theory that knowledge is power, or rather, they agreed that knowledge is power but it carried the power of those who seek to oppress us, keep us sub-servient.

Wow! This blogger then indulges in that slightly 'man of the people' shtick that some writers love - describing how he came upon these thoughts while watching a football match at some unspecified East Lancashire ground (he also seemed slightly hung up on making a point about how people in Burnley drink a lot of benedictine - which is interesting but somewhat irrelevant to the ethos of a London free school). And he makes another irrelevant point about how 'some of the poorest' wards can be seen from the stands of that football ground - I'm guessing it's Turf Moor.

So what is the motto that has so offended Ford? It's a simple one - "knowledge is power". It would appear that our blogger doesn't really believe that knowledge is power or rather he thinks that what Michaela Community School thinks is knowledge isn't actually knowledge. Or something like that - it's all very confusing. It seems that the school has observed that it's ethos is founded on the ideas of Ed Hirsch - ideas that are altogether too prescriptive for Ford.

We then get into a Marxist analysis of the Tower of Babel (seriously this is about the motto of a school):

It seems to me that the story is unravelled not by Hirsch or even by scriptural exegetics but by Marxists who would point out that “the tower” was not so much a human project but a structure in which there is a top and a bottom. In other words a hierarchical class structure. Was that God’s point? Was God a proto Marxist?

To be fair to Ford he backs off from this slightly lunatic use of biblical metaphor to return to his main argument (knowledge isn't power). At this point he drops the post-modernist Marxism and return to the enlightenment by misusing Descartes - the point the French thinker was making was that the fact we think about ourselves proves we exist not that thinking is more important than knowledge.

It does seem that the real debate here isn't actually about Michaela's motto but rather about the ideas of Ed Hirsch and in particular the 'common core' and 'cultural literacy' ideas he promoted. And the measure of these ideas' value isn't to be found in Foucault, Marx or even the bible but in the success or otherwise of the school. Indeed there is sufficient of a positive impact from Ed Hirsch's approach to suggest that we'd do better to consider it than dismiss it (especially when the dismissal is based on seemingly random thoughts at a football match).

Indeed I suspect parents - or the ones not steeped in half-baked philosophy - would rather like the idea that Hirsch promotes:

‘Breadth of knowledge is the single factor within human control that contributes most to academic achievement and general cognitive competence. Breadth of knowledge is a far greater factor in achievement than socioeconomic status. The positive correlation between academic ability and socioeconomic status is only half the correlation between academic ability and the possession of general information. That is to say, being ‘smart’ is more dependent on possessing general knowledge than on family background. Imparting broad knowledge to all children is the single most effective way to narrow the gap between demographic groups through schooling’.

We send our children to school so they learn stuff. And while part of the stuff they need to learn is how to ask questions and how to challenge, a great deal of it is passing across a bunch of accepted and established facts about the world - that often maligned 'book-learning'. And parents want their children to leave school with the power to succeed - informed, knowledgeable and excited by the challenges the world throws up. Parents might just get this from Michaela Community School but I fear for the children at a school run on the principles Ford propounds:

...the essence of education is not to accumulate knowledge as a “thing in itself” but to learn how to challenge it; build upon it progressively and avoid creating new power structures even where they seem to have progressive foundations.

This approach is the very content-free, voyage of discovery approach to education that might be great for a few very bright children but for most it's a recipe for not knowing enough to ask the questions - to make those challenges that Ford thinks are important.

To understand why knowledge gives children power, we should attend a public enquiry and watch as people are given privilege simply because they are 'experts', because they have knowledge that the lay person doesn't have. In the end Michaela Community College understands this and Ford, too wrapped up in his witty cleverness, doesn't. We should wish the school - regardless of its motto - well and hope that it delivers on its mission - for if it does it will be a great school:

We believe all pupils, whatever their background, have a right to access the best that has been said and thought. This includes a variety of writers, from all parts of the world, and thinkers from all the ages. The curriculum at Michaela Community School ensures that pupils are knowledgeable enough about the world around them to transform it in the future. 

 ...

When did telling the truth about Bradford's school performance become an insult?

****

In their frantic efforts to smear free schools in Bradford, Labour woke Gerry Sutcliffe from slumber and got him to ask a question of the Secretary of State, Michael Gove, who replied:

I also stress that for many years the quality of education in Bradford has been appalling, yet it is only when new providers come in to innovate that we hear from Opposition Members. 

And the truth is that, taken in the round, Michael Gove is right. The performance of Bradford's schools, when compared to other local authorities, has been appalling. We shouldn't take any pleasure from this situation, nor should we try to play some sort of game with the information. We should do something to change the situation.

So what does Bradford's most eager politician say (when he can drag himself away from sucking up to trade unions so he can try and get to be an MP):

“I’m saddened, disappointed and thoroughly insulted. Standards are rising significantly and we take action when we are allowed to deal with schools that aren’t performing. We continue to put additional resources into school improvements and in attempts to raise standards."

Hold on there Ralph? Did you say standards are rising significantly? That is simply untrue:

Bradford’s primary schools have recorded the third worst results in England in tests sat by ten and 11-year-olds earlier this year, new figures show. A shocking one in three (32 per cent) of children are failing to achieve the standards expected of them in the Three Rs by the end of their primary education. 

Education standards have not risen at all - let alone significantly. Michael Gove is right - our performance is appalling. This isn't a criticism of teachers but a statement of the truth. And rather than saying you're "insulted" by the revelation of that truth, perhaps actually doing something might be an idea?

Instead what we get is more bureaucracy, more unwanted politicking and an unpleasant campaign against educational innovation in the city - where the Council's leadership does the bidding of the teacher unions rather than serve the interests of children and parents.

Telling the truth about our schools isn't the insult. The insult is not doing the things that might make things better, might give Bradford's children a better start and a better chance in life.

....

What Bradford Council said about Kings Science Academy in September...

****

Risks and weaknesses in financial systems, such as procurement authorisations, payroll and credit card payments were identified by EFA Audit - the governing body has since appointed key personnel, including the appointment of an RO (Responsible Officer), and is in the process of stabilising procedures to enable effective financial management.*

It seems to me that, if there were real problems in current financial management at the school, they would have been mentioned? More to the point, the school was seeking the Council's help and advice and, had Cllr Berry been doing something other than trying to get selected as a Labour parliamentary candidate, he might have noticed! It's clear that the school had some financial management problems that have been addressed - there is no suggestion of wrongdoing.

To suggest that the school isn't accountable - as Cllr Berry did more than once through his Twitter account - is a complete misrepresentation of the situation at the school. And - more to the point - the Council appears to have known about the position all along!

*Quote is from a governance audit conducted by the Council in September.

....

A further comment about Bradford and free schools (and Katherine Birbalsingh)

****

This evening Bradford Council debated free schools. Or rather a motion the Conservative Group submitted on school places. We firmly believe that the opportunities presented by Michael Gove’s liberalisation provide a solution – a blessed breath of fresh air – to the challenge facing Bradford’s education.

On one level the debate was polite, considered and informed – statistics about Bradford’s need for new school places were set before the Council and options for responding to the challenge were examined. But underlying all this was an unspoken disagreement. One captured by Ralph Berry, Labour’s Education Portfolio Holder repeatedly saying, as if to convince himself:

“I am not an ideologue. I am NOT an ideologue...”

In our motion we had innocently suggested that, rather than dealing merely with what turned up as a result of the free schools idea, Bradford Council might actively seek to promote new schools, might seek out the very best managers and leaders in education. For Cllr Berry this was too much and he started burbling about “Birbalsingh” and the “IT Free School”. I think he believes we all read the Guardian like he does!

Now Cllr Berry isn’t a teacher, he’s never led a school. He’s a social worker come Labour Councillor who too often blurs the ground between these two roles to the extent that we are unsure whether he is making a political point or expressing a professional opinion. Ralph knows his stuff! He can wax lyrical in fluent educationalist jargon and the gist of this is that he believes people like Katherine Birbalsingh to be tantamount to devils.

The only route to educational salvation is through the goodly direction of a local education authority. Without the Council, what would happen? Who would decide who goes to which school and how the buses run!

So back to what Cllr Berry called “Birbalsingh’s IT Free school”. I was curious since I’d seen reports on Ms Birbalsingh’s intention to set up a free school but knew little of her intentions. So here’s what she says;

The Michaela Community School combines tradition and innovation. It attempts to give inner-city youth a taste of the private sector, where knowledge is taught, benchmarking is common, and high expectations of behaviour and dress are the norm. But the Michaela Community School also recognises it is in the inner city. So there will be an extended day where children will be required to complete their homework, where there will be classes analysing media culture, something that is extremely destructive to our inner-city youth.

Not a mention of IT! But the truth about what Ralph doesn’t like is in that phrase “a taste of the private sector”. For the Cllr Berrys of this world the private sector in education – the world’s best schools – is simply not to be considered as a model for children’s education. And those schools focus on what we might call “traditional” subjects – you know, the one’s you and I learned when we were at school. English, Maths, Sciences, Geography, History and modern language or two. The essence of a ‘liberal arts’ education.

The sort of education that people are prepared to pay thousands of pounds each year to buy – delivered free to ordinary children from an inner city community. What could be a problem with that? Indeed, in Bradford, the idea of free schools has been grasped. Here’s the list (there may be more):

Dixons City Free Primary

Dixons City Free Secondary

One in a Million Free School

Kings Science Academy

Rainbow Primary

Bradford Girl’s Grammar School

Bradford Christian School

Netherleigh & Rossefield School

Bradford District Free School

The Council should wake up and take note of these innovations – this is the future of education in the City, these are the challenges to years of underperformance by the existing schools. And this is a faster, more assured and more effective way of meeting the future needs of the City than the bureaucratic, hand-wringing, jargon-loaded system Cllr Berry (and the Council’s professional leadership) promote.

We should note that, despite panels, boards, meetings, strategies, press briefings and hours of expensive officer time, these creative and innovative schools are the only ones addressing Bradford’s need for new school places – places in good schools.

So to answer Cllr Berry’s ignorant assertion – yes, I’d be delighted if a successful, effective and exciting educational leader like Katherine Birbalsingh came to Bradford to set up a school.

....

Mike Baker - mouthpiece of the educational establishment. And wrong about free schools, academies and education authorities

****

Mike Baker – this chap:

Mike Baker is an award-winning freelance journalist, broadcaster, conference facilitator, and education consultant. He was the BBC's education editor for nearly 20 years and is now education columnist for BBC News Online and The Guardian and a presenter at Teachers TV. He has twice been awarded National Education Journalist of the Year.

Knows his education onions one supposes? Or has he won those awards through the simple expedient of regurgitating the press releases of producer interests? Whatever is the case, he seems to lack a clear understanding of how choice drives markets and to be wedded to the teacher unions and local government position that the liberalisation of education access will not drive up standards.

Writing in the Guardian (where else), Mr Baker talks nonsense:

Now, of course, ministers insist they are not running schools, but are creating a market in which consumer satisfaction determines which will flourish and which will have to change their ways. But markets need regulation to ensure that standards are met and to prevent a few big players creating a monopoly by forcing out smaller providers. The question the government is avoiding, at least in public, is whether Westminster can effectively provide that regulation once it is responsible for several thousand schools.

Now, dear reader, you have noticed the contradiction in this glib, knowing statement? The bit about a few big players forcing out smaller providers? You have noticed that, right now, the big semi-monopoly is in fact the 'local education authority' Mike Baker is so keen to defend! If our learned journalist is right, the local council holds all the cards – after all, they still run most of the schools!

However – and despite the evidence of how local council interference damages the efforts of schools to raise standards – Mike Baker thinks such bureaucracies are needed:

...policy advisers are worried about how to tackle coasting schools, a topic that increasingly figures in ministerial speeches. In his conference speech, the prime minister referred to schools in "affluent" Sussex, Cambridgeshire and Hampshire being outperformed by some inner-city counterparts. Cameron's advisers now recognise that some external agency may be needed to prompt coasting schools into raising their game.

Note the used of unnamed sources, hints and suggestions to substantiate Mr Baker’s point – shadowy faces lurking somewhere in Downing Street or the Department for Education (or perhaps in the journalist's fertile mind). Old mates who Mike has bought a coffee or a beer in exchange for a bit of gossip about the development of policy.

Truth be told, the revolution in schools will succeed in addressing those ‘coasting’ schools (and the too large number of failing ones too). The “external agency” is there – it’s called “parents exercising choice” and will be backed up by entrepreneurial individuals and groups who create the schools those parents demand. And existing schools will have to respond or close.

I spent this morning with folk from the Rainbow Schools – a free school initiative in Bradford. They’ve opened this term – getting there despite obstruction from bureaucrats and negative, borderline racist attitudes from some local Labour politicians. Without the free school idea – without the chance to break out – the parents of children at that school would still be beating their head against Bradford’s sclerotic education service.

It is pertinent to note that, for the past two years, all Bradford Council’s education effort has been directed to bringing the education service back in-house. That is all – just a bureaucratic concern with little or no interest in or consideration of the desperate need to raise standards, especially in primary schools.

Mike Baker, for all his expertise and experience is serving the vested interests of education. His writing barely acknowledges the children being educated in the schools and, except dismissively, fails entirely to recognise the role that parents can take in transforming education. Mr Baker repeats the nonsense that we have to plan school places, monitor school performance, manage and fuss over “education delivery”:

...and ensuring there are neither too many nor too few school places to meet fluctuating demographic demand. But how can local authorities reduce expensive surplus places if they have no control over whether academies will expand or free schools open?

This is the language of the planner – Whitehall knows best, how will it work without the bureaucrats! It is what makes our education system – despite the efforts of many teachers and most parents – underperforming next to most of our international comparators. It is the very attitude that free schools were created to break up.

To answer the question I posed, Mike Baker considers himself an expert but is really a creature of education vested interest. Just a mouthpiece for nameless ‘advisors’, teacher union representatives and the expensive panjandrums of local education authorities.

...

A Liberal democrat politician being liberal - on schools! Will wonders never cease?

****

Listening to the Radio while sitting in the traffic up Manchester Road out of Bradford and the presenter announces the next guest. It is Lord Willis - Phil Willis, former head teacher and Liberal Democrat MP for Harrogate. Phil is going to talk about 'free schools' - my heart sinks. A Liberal Democrat peer who used to be a teacher - grief this won't be good now will it!

And Phil starts saying something like "I only half agree with Nick Clegg." Flecks of rage-induced spittle begin to form on my lips, the eyes start to swivel - Nick Clegg has given one of his most cardhousian of speeches:

Yes to greater diversity, yes to more choice for parents, but no to running schools for profit, not in our state funded education sector.'

And this ex-MP only half agrees with him.

But then it changes. Far from wanting to carry on the state-directed, local council apparachik managed system that is so damaging children, Lord Willis pointed out that, while 24 free schools is great, what we really need in 300 free schools. And, as the Swedes discovered, you can only achieve this by allowing schools to be run for profit. Good Lord, I exclaimed!

And the argument went on as Phil pointed out that loads of businesses - for profit businesses - make money from the public sector without anyone batting an eyelid (bar the occasional neanderthal nutter in Unison). Why should it be so different for schools. Here was a liberal being liberal - almost unheard of these days. Here was a man who understood schools (having been the head teacher of a large Leeds comprehensive), who had pointed out how the doubling of spending on schools had hardly raised standards at all. A man who observed that eleven-year-olds were arriving at big school unable to read, write or add up - not just the odd one or two but whole classes filled with semi-literates.

Nick Clegg - desperate to appease the social democrats in his party - is wrong on schools. Wrong to talk about directing where the next lot of free schools should be, wrong to try and apply some form of social gerrymandering just to avoid Labour's sad little accusation that these schools are "only for middle-class kids" and wrong to rule out running schools for profit.

And, you know what the saddest bit of Lord Willis's interview was? Even sadder than the ignorant presenter's suggestion that profit-making equated to fee-paying. Sadder than that same presenter's complete misrepresentation of the policy - failing entirely to recognise the role of the pupil premium that would make educating poor kids more profitable. Sadder than the BBC's obsession with giving airtime to educational flat-earthers like Fiona Miller.

The saddest bit was that Lord Willis believed the policy would fail because his party wouldn't recognise how profit-making would transform educational delivery for the better.

I hope - for the sake of the children living in poverty - that Lord Willis is wrong. But I fear he isn't.

....

The 'Free School' genie is out of the bottle...

****

I received a briefing note from Bradford Council's Strategic Director, Children's Services on the matter of academies and free schools. The note simply set out how the governance status of existing schools is changing - there will be at least 15 academies in the District soon - and listed the proposals for free schools (there are nine so far).

Now Bradford's a big place - getting on for half-a-million people - so these numbers still represent a minority of schools but, it seems to me that the advent of free schools and the simpler academy process represent a very profound change in the City's educational landscape. And I'm inclined to agree with Michael Gove on how important this agenda is to parents and children - the most profound and welcome change in education since the destruction of the grammar school system that started in the 1960s (a destruction that still continues today - as parents in Reading are discovering).

Add to this the significant changes in the management of admissions - allowing, in effect, successful schools to expand - we have a welcome shift away from the dominating monolith of the local education authority:

With pupil numbers determining school funding levels, ministers believe liberalising admissions policies will stymie what they view as attempts by local authorities to keep underperforming schools going by preventing popular schools taking on more pupils.

The genie is out of the bottle - and will start weaving the magic of freedom and choice around our schools. I for one am pleased.

....

Seems unions are good for teachers but bad for pupils

****

Over recent times I’ve banged on a bit about teachers unions and specifically about a feeling I had that the power and influence of these unions was compromising efforts to raise educational attainment. At the heart of my concern was that the funding and support for opponents of ‘free schools’, academies and other reforms to education was coming predominantly from these unions.

Commenting on the Government's plans to set up Free Schools, Christine Blower, General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers, the largest teachers' union said;

"The Government's commitment to 'free schools' will create chaos at local level. Groups setting up their own schools irrespective of local planning needs would be a retrograde step that will lead to planning gridlock and social division.”

Now I’m not planning here to dissect the confused opinions of Ms Blower – or indeed of other teacher union leaders – but to explore the impact of unions on education itself. And, in this exploration, the events unfolding in Wisconsin where the Governor wishes to end union collective bargaining rights have provided some help.

Let’s start with the case for collective bargaining in education as put by the New York Times’ pet Nobel Laureate, Paul Krugman:

And in low-tax, low-spending Texas, the kids are not all right. The high school graduation rate, at just 61.3 percent, puts Texas 43rd out of 50 in state rankings. Nationally, the state ranks fifth in child poverty; it leads in the percentage of children without health insurance. And only 78 percent of Texas children are in excellent or very good health, significantly below the national average.

Now much of Mr Krugman’s argument is a familiar one to us in that it is centred on sustaining levels of public spending rather than on defending collective bargaining. But, of course, for left-wingers like Mr Krugman such things go hand in hand. Here in the UK, of course, in that peculiarly totalitarian manner beloved of the last Labour government and continued by the current regime, teachers pay and conditions are set by Parliament on the recommendation of the School Teachers Review Body. In effect ‘collective bargaining’ is nationalised with the unions engaged through the review body in determining pay for every teacher from Berwick to Penzance.

To return to Mr Krugman’s argument – or more specifically the statistics he marshals to support his contention that places with union collective bargaining agreements and high spending outperform places with lower taxes and no union collective bargaining agreements. It seems that the great brain of Mr Krugman has tripped over something called Simpson’s Paradox and, as a result, his comparison is almost wholly a false one. As you can read at the Iowahawk blog:

“...white students in Texas perform better than white students in Wisconsin, black students in Texas perform better than black students in Wisconsin, Hispanic students in Texas perform better than Hispanic students in Wisconsin. In 18 separate ethnicity-controlled comparisons, the only one where Wisconsin students performed better than their peers in Texas was 4th grade science for Hispanic students (statistically insignificant), and this was reversed by 8th grade. Further, Texas students exceeded the national average for their ethnic cohort in all 18 comparisons; Wisconsinites were below the national average in 8, above average in 8.”

So despite spending less money on schools and not working hand-in-glove with teacher unions in the running of those schools, Texas has at least as good results – mostly better – than heavily unionised Wisconsin. This doesn’t say that collective bargaining is a bad thing but that it does no discernable good for education. 

However, there a little bit of a further twist to all this which starts with Caroline Hoxby, Professor of Economics at Stamford University who says:

“I find that teachers’ unions increase school inputs but reduce productivity sufficiently to have a negative overall effect on student performance.”

So teacher unions do their proximate job really well – if you define that job as being to represent the interests of teachers – in that they succeed in getting more cash into the budget. But in doing so these unions are damaging the overall education system. It seems that my suspicion that teachers’ unions damage education has some academic foundation.

What Prof. Hoxby goes on to say is that the unionised system is very poor at:

1.       Rewarding the best teachers and keeping them in the classroom

2.       Getting rid of poor and underperforming teachers

3.       Identifying the best teachers in the first place

Central to this argument is the idea that teachers – like everyone else – will respond to incentives. At present teachers join unions because it is in their interests to do so – unions have the dominant say over pay and are good at getting the resources needed to ensure this situation continues. However, it is in the interests of education to pay teachers on the basis of outcomes, to reward them for actually raising student attainment. This does not suit the unions – or the tidiness of bureaucracy – as it undermines their power. So teachers are paid an agreed amount regardless of whether they are any good at the job.

And the findings don’t just play out in the USA – here’s a study from India:

This paper examines the relationship between teacher unionization, student achievement and teachers’ pay using a cross-section of data from private schools in India. We use differences in student mark across subjects to identify within-pupil variation in achievement and find that union membership of the teacher appears to strongly reduce pupil achievement. We find no evidence this could be due to the unobservables not controlled for by this procedure. A school fixed effects equation of teacher pay shows that union membership substantially raises pay and in this case too we find that remaining unobservables are unlikely to explain this outcome. We thus have in this data clear evidence that unions raise cost and reduce student achievement.

So it does seem that unions are good for teachers but bad for pupils.

....

How the search for 'fairness' must end - for the sake of the children!

****

If we believe it to be "unfair" that the privately educated dominate the best universities, secure the best jobs and influence the wider social and cultural agenda then we need to do something about it. However, the very way to address the problem is itself castigated by the same critics as ‘unfair’. Obviously this is something of a dilemma for these caring, sharing folk – but only because they pursue the crock of gold at the end of the fairness rainbow.

Britain’s state schools are not – in the round – very good. For sure there are some good schools, indeed some exceptional schools and incredible teachers. But the truth is painful – nearly half our young people leave school after eleven years or more of education (that’s around 10,000 hours of teaching) without the sort of literacy and numeracy skills needed to get anywhere in today’s world or work.

And this failure covers up how we fail brighter children – the ones who could get top grades and places at leading universities but don’t because the system lets them down. Or the middling sort – the children who are ‘OK’, will get 5 or 6 GCSEs and satisfy the school’s need to a tick in the achievement box but could do so much better.

So why aren’t we crying out more loudly for change? Why has it become such a political ‘no-no’ to say that, just maybe, some academic selection might be a good thing? Why can’t we point to success elsewhere – from African elementary education, through the intense systems of Korea and Taiwan to the Charter Schools springing up in poor parts of the USA? And why do teachers, unions, local authorities and educationalists not hang their head in shame at the way they have failed – and continue to fail – so many young people?

The answer lies in those dreadful words – “it’s not fair”. We can’t have selection because it’s not ‘fair’ on the children who don’t get selected. We have to maintain the bureaucratic distribution of money and the centralised allocation of places in order that the system is “fair”. And we have to make it incredibly hard to deal with bad school management and poor teaching because otherwise it wouldn’t be ‘fair’ on those wonderful public servants in our “education system”.

So it’s ‘not fair” to have schools freed from the local council’s oversight – those free schools would take pupils from other schools (presumably ones less popular with parents) and that’s not fair now is it! And this reallocation won’t be fair because mythic “pushy middle class parents” will get all the advantages. Opposition to changing the system is wholly couched in the language of fairness, in the identification of putative ‘losers’ rather than in recognising that a changed system might just provide more winners.

No system is fair – however clever its designers are and regardless of the extent of their commitment to achieving “equality” and “fairness”. And because any system will produce unfairness and inequality, it makes no sense at all to choose the approach that has the greatest “fairness” if that comes with the huge “unfairness” of dumping most poor kids into the work of work without the basic skills they need to succeed.

It does make sense to choose the most effective system – the one that produces the most winners and the highest standards. And such a system will be selective, it will be self-managed (by which I mean not bureaucratically directed) and it will contain a very wide choice of schools, curricula and management styles. Not every child will succeed, not every school will be a good one and there will be constant cries that it’s all unfair. But we’ll see most young people better equipped for work, more children from modest backgrounds getting into top universities and the social mobility once again a reality rather than something in the past.

Much is said and done ‘for the children’ – it is the cry of nannying fussbuckets everywhere. Well just maybe these folks can direct their campaigning effort to our schools. For there is no doubt that breaking up local education authorities, promoting school independence and free schools, and removing the malign influence of teacher unions is the right thing to do “for the children”.

....

For heaven's sake leave us alone! A comment on choice, freedom and independence.

It struck me yesterday (while listening to the righteous discuss licensing and other matters at Council) that the idea of free choice, of personal responsibility and our autonomy as individual persons is a minority viewpoint among the political class. By way of example:

1. We debated whether the Director of Children’s Services should be consulted when the private sector wished to develop a children’s home. By the end of the debate I was convinced that the Director of Children’s Services should have no such right – by all means that individual can make representations in the same manner as any other person, put granting the developer's primary competitor (and also supplier) an privileged position is wrong. Yet we voted for such a privilege – it’s for the children, you see.

2. During this debate the matter of free schools arose - mostly so the Labour speaker could get over a pretty lame political point. And when the matter of planning leniency for new schools was mentioned a ripple of applause went round the chamber. I was shocked to see Conservative Councillors applauding an attack on the extension of choice and the reduction of bureaucracy.

3. In a different debate – one on ‘child poverty’ – the Labour speaker again mentioned free schools and academies. And her problem was that these schools reduced the Council’s budget – after all the money goes to the schools not the bureaucrats. Independence, autonomy and freedom were attacked because it meant the Council bureaucrats could not direct and control .

4. So much for debates at Council and onto a wider debate – this time the NHS. A doctor speaks and the gist of her comment is that patients don’t want choice and only ask for it when service is poor. This was compounded – according to the doctor – by the choice being between private and public providers. As I understand her view it was that we shouldn't get choice in healthcare because the public sector aren’t as good at it as the private sector! And the private sector is nasty because it makes a profit. This from someone who profits from the NHS to the tune of £100,000 or more.

5. And then we have the ‘drinking is bad’ debate – the lies and nonsense intended to reduce the access to drink for poor people. The underlying context of this is that old-fashioned middle class busybody view that the poor aren’t bright enough to make their own decisions about their own lives – they must be nudged, shoved and browbeaten into following the strictures of their public sector masters. I guess that talking strangely, listening to cacophonous base-heavy music and appearing on Jeremy Kyle’s daytime show provides the basis for this argument. Well it won’t do – if they want to wreck their lives with drink, fags and drugs that’s (most of the time) their business, innit!

I will not despair but will carry on making the sensible, usually evidence-based arguments that freedom, choice and independence – autonomy as is explained by Anna Raccoon – are the best route to a civilised, happy and successful society. When we’re free we work harder, we play better and we work out means to deal with out differences – all without the need for a political master race to direct our every childish action.

I do not understand why the political class so despise freedom – or rather freedom for other people to make their own successes and failures. And why appeals to authoritarian and draconian reactions – be it on immigration, crime or the economy – get such popular support. Maybe wiser heads might help?

....