Skip to main content

Beware UKIP education policies

Imagine a National Health Service that had selection criteria on the basis  'we will only treat certain people we regard as worth saving'.  Now imagine a state school system based on the premise that only advantaged children will go to the 'good' schools.  Now take a look at this statement:

'Existing schools will be allowed to apply to become grammar schools and select according to ability and aptitude. Selection ages will be flexible and determined by the school in consultation with the local authority.'

The result of such a strategy would be to entrench a two tier system in our state schools. The 'good' schools will select on 'academic ability'. We have of course been here before in the old system of  Grammar and Secondary Modern Schools. Some might argue that it is as good idea because it ensures a good education for the brightest pupils. It will condemn those deemed less academically gifted to second rate schools.

You will note that the policy as stated doesn't say 'we will ensure that ALL pupils have the opportunity for education at the highest standards. It simply wants to restore the old system. It does say that selection ages will be flexible. But does anyone doubt that most selection will take place at 11? Of course it will, because that is the age at which most pupils move to secondary education.

It is extraordinarily silly to take a day in the life of a child at aged 11 and on that date determine their 'aptitude'.  Children develop at different rates not just in intellectual ability and understanding but in maturity. That is what was so wrong-headed about selection at 11.

New statistics released by Buckinghamshire Grammar Schools, the body which represents the county’s 13 selective schools is very instructive. It shows that only 16% of children from Aylesbury Vale – Bucks’ poorest district – passed the test, compared to 37% in the Chilterns – the county’s richest. There was a 64% pass rate for children in private education and only 4% for children on free school meals. Do we really think this reflects their true learning potential? Or do we suppose it reflects a pre-existing social and economic advantage?  I know which of these is likely to be the answer.

To push for Grammar Schools and selection on grounds of 'ability' will simply entrench  inequality of opportunities. It entrenches unfairness which affects the life chances of a generation.

So whose policy does this article give. You might assume it gives the Conservative Party policy. It doesn't. It gives UKIPs policy on secondary education.

It is often difficult to pin UKIP down on policy details. This one however is entrenched on the UKIP website under the heading 'What a UKIP government will do.'

UKIP will entrench the unfairness that exists in educational opportunities for our children and thus their life chances.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

No evidence for vaccine link with autism

Public health bodies are worried that an alarming drop in childhood vaccinations is leading to a resurgence of diseases in childhood that we had all but eradicated.  Misinformation and scare stories about the harmful effects of vaccines abound on the internet and in social media.  Where they are based on 'science', it is highly selective, and often reliance is placed on falsehoods.  Conspiracy theories also abound - cover-ups, deception, lies. As a result, too many parents are shunning vaccinations for their children.  So, what does the published, peer-reviewed literature tell us about vaccincations? Are they safe and effective, or are there long term harmful effects?  A new report now provides some of the answers. New evidence published in the Cochrane Library today finds MMR, MMRV, and MMR+V vaccines are effective and that they are not associated with increased risk of autism. Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (also known as chickenpox) are infectious diseases cau