In the dim and distant past of a couple of months ago, I
spent some time following the phone hacking story. I watched the Parliamentary
Select Committee ‘grilling’ of the two Murdoch boyz and am looking forward to a
repeat performance from Tom Watson, assuming that he is going to be given more
flexibility in his delving, assuming he is going to be given the opportunity to
really grill James Murdoch about what he knew and what he sanctioned.
Of course, the Murdoch’s have got it all sewn up. There
is a police investigation so there are certain questions that they can refuse
to answer in case they are accused of prejudicing the aforementioned
investigations or enquiries.
I am still a little confused as to the legal status of
lying to a select committee. Does it count as perjury? Is not parliament part
of the legislative process and therefore lying to such a committee is indeed an
act of perjury?
I hope that Tom Watson will eventually be seen as a
complete hero for the determination and persistence that he has shown in
following his convictions regarding this issue. After all, he is a Capricorn
from West Bromwich and I happen to be the offspring of such a combination.
But it is neither Murdoch or Watson or the other Murdoch
that I wish to discuss today.
It is Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the deputy Prime Minister, the pink Tory, the MP for Sheffield Hallam (for now), ironically born the day before Tom Watson in the same year.
It is Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the deputy Prime Minister, the pink Tory, the MP for Sheffield Hallam (for now), ironically born the day before Tom Watson in the same year.
The reason that I mentioned the Murdoch saga was that
when parliament was recalled to discuss the phone hacking drama, I spent some
time listening to the debate but also paying special attention to Nick Clegg
and his reactions. It was fascinating, and I am sure that many a psychoanalyst has
studied in greater detail than I to identify the different traits and moods that
his body language was emitting.
He had his head down for the majority of the time. His eyes
did not rise to the level of any of the speakers for longer than split seconds.
There were even times when he raised his eyes to heaven as though he was
awaiting some divine intervention to remove him from the excruciating agony of
being in partnership with a man who at best had poor judgments in who he
employed and socialised with, at worst represented the epitome of corrupt
democracy in his relation with the powerful media tycoons. There were even
times when Clegg moved his hands towards his face; a classic shielding – but from
what was he shielding himself?
Going further back in time, I sat here, on my birthday
and listened to the first live debate between the three men hoping to be Prime
Minister. Some could easily argue that Clegg was never in a position to be
outright leader of the country so he could more or less say anything as he was
unlikely to be held accountable.
How short sighted was that Mr Clegg? You should have been
a little more optimistic which may have made you a little more circumspect in
what you said on that April evening in 2010.
People praised the man for his principles. They admired
him for standing his ground. They revelled in his attack on the two main
political parties and condoned him for his stance on true democracy. Those of
us left of centre could see some real potential in this man’s views. They
certainly seemed far left of the alleged socialist party that we had always
supported. Tides seemed to be turning and people were beginning to see that a
vote for the Liberal Democrats was not merely a wasted vote or a tactical one.
There was considerable sense in what he and his party were saying.
The rest, as we know, is history.
I’m not sure what I would have done in his situation. Being serenaded by Ed Balls and Little Willie? Choosing between the two in our monogamous existence of partnership? I’m not sure where I would have gone either.
I’m not sure what I would have done in his situation. Being serenaded by Ed Balls and Little Willie? Choosing between the two in our monogamous existence of partnership? I’m not sure where I would have gone either.
The Labour Party had screwed up. Clegg knew that there
was such general mistrust and disappointment in the country over their mistakes
and their reluctance to be radical (in the socialist and progressive sense of
the word) that it was almost impossible for him to ‘prop up’ a flailing and
failing government. On the other hand, how could he support a party who had
such disregard for equality, no matter how much Cameron played the caring
conservative card?
He sat proudly on the front bench with his Tory
colleagues. The first days in parliament, his body language was far different
than the one I witnessed in July of this year. He was cocksure. He was elated.
His eyes firmly focused on the opposition benches, riling them, ridiculing
them, though of course he would deny such a thing. He was in the most powerful
place that any Liberal leader had been for decades. Of course he was swooning
on it.
Then there came a huge dose of reality; the student
riots, the march for jobs, the unsubtle demotion of Vince Cable for telling it
is at should be regarding News International, the health minister’s onslaught,
Michael Gove – and so the list goes on.
His own party were weeping. He was caught between the
lure of power and the logic of his colleagues. Simon Hughes, a person who has
had his fair share of media intrusion, looked ghostly and dejected during that
day in July too. He could feel Clegg’s unease but could probably only go so far
in his empathy; feeling empathy rather than acting on it. Obviously I am only
surmising here for I am not party to Hughes’s thoughts or Clegg’s. It is just
an observation, a thought but I felt as though there was a huge amount of
sadness rather than resentment within Hughes and many within the Liberal
Democrat party.
Since then, what has happened? Nick has been on holiday
and perhaps he has had time to reflect on where he is and what he is capable of
doing. He must be concerned about his personal political future. There is a
distinct possibility that he might not retain his seat in Sheffield. There is
huge resentment there for his U-turns and the fact that he is propping up a
dysfunctional and radical government. If he makes another U-turn, will that be
held against him? Will he ever be forgiven?
Sometimes, there is no greater sacrifice than laying own
your own life or your own desires for the greater good, to bastardise a famous
politician who didn’t seem to be too damaged by his trip across the floor from
one political party to another. If Churchill can turn then surely Clegg can
too.
And he has an opportunity, more than one, to make a
stand.
He has the power to put a stop to this coalition. He
could prevent more mess despite his sell-out on fixed terms and status quo of
parliamentary reform.
They sold you a dud Clegg, and you took it.
The lady may not be for turning but you are no lady.
Clegg could choose a range of issues to call a halt to
proceedings; subtle privatisation of the NHS, relations between government and
the media, economic mismanagement, decline of services to those who require it
most, education.
Education, education, education.
It is a popular mantra amongst politicians but when do
they ever listen to the people within education, and we are not talking about
the bureaucrats at the ‘top’ of local authorities? Education could be the
answer to everything, if only these politicians could see further than the end
of their political office but then again, how many politicians do you know who
have the ability to be holistic? It is not one of their greatest traits.
However, it is education that Clegg has chosen to focus
on for his first stance against his colleagues in the cabinet. He has made it
very clear that this Free Schools rubbish is very much the domain of the bluer
part of the government. He is washing his hands of it all. It was not part of
the Liberal Democratic manifesto in 2010, but then again, there were plenty of
things that were not in their manifesto that they are now going along with.
Yesterday, Clegg made a speech about the Free School situation.
He assures the public, and those within his party, that he has managed a certain
amount of compromises from the uncompromisable Gove. He stated that he had
received reassurance that any new Free School would be set up in deprived
areas. He stated that he had received reassurance that any new Free School was
not going to be allowed to work for profit.
Here is the live blog and comments from the Guardian.
And here is the full transcript of Mr. Clegg’s speech.
Too little, too late screamed the NASUWT. Where was Clegg
hiding when Gove first pushed his unwanted and ill-thought Education Bill
forward as a draft? Why start objecting now when 25 schools are about to open
their doors? Well, it is a valid point but let us give him some grace. Let us
hear what he has to say and let us see whether this triggers some other radical
action from the man.
The NUTters have also stated their concerns, though
bizarrely, have linked this to standards. Equality will not be achieved through
Free Schools, so states Christine Blower, and there is no evidence that they
raise standards. Well Christine, let’s concentrate on the equality issue here
for the ‘standards’ come from that.
Yes, Clegg has been slow to act. Yes, it is about
equality. Yes, we need to really think carefully about Clegg’s next steps
because the Education Bill has not yet been passed.
So looking in greater detail at his speech, are there any
underlying issues that could cause him to further reconsider his approval of
the Bill?
Here are a few of my comments from the speech.
“And we do the next generation a
disservice by cursing them with our low expectations.”
We do an even greater disservice to our next generation
by not offering them a proper education that is fit for the 21st
century. Hidden in all the major changes within the Bill are expectations for
pupils to read 17th century texts that have no bearing on their
lives at all. I am all for people studying literature and I am not suggesting
that there is no purpose in studying old texts but young people need to feel as
though they are involved in their learning. Imposed and illogical texts are not
the way to do it. We do a disservice to our next generation by not enabling
them to develop the skills and the attitudes to pursue a life of equality and
consideration and all manner of other values. Our problem is not just about low
expectations. Our problem is that we don’t actually know what our expectations
are, and even when we think we know what our expectations are, they are often
the wrong ones.
“Labour spent vast sums on schools.
And, to be fair to them, some things did get better. Education is clearly an
area where money makes a difference.”
Lots and lots and lots of money but no holistic view.
Spending money on standards in literacy at the expense of other equally
important aspects of living and learning that are going to be so vital for our
next generation. Yes, the Labour Party poured millions into the system but how
much did all of that affect the needy pupil in the middle of a downtrodden
housing estate in a former industrial city? There was ineffectual coordination,
there was no overarching theory behind the influx of money other than to raise
standards, and there was complete conflict between some socially enterprising (or
social engineering policies) and the standards agenda. Of course the Teenage
Pregnancy policy did not work. It did not work because there was no legislation
to enable those of us who had something to offer schools to actually get in
there and make a difference because it was all about standards and only the
enlightened few could see the connection between the two.
“Ours is now one of the most unequal
school systems in the world. In the UK your background has more of an impact on
how well you do at school than in nearly any other developed country.”
Earlier in the speech, Clegg stated that “we allow
ourselves to believe some basic assumptions as if they are facts of life” and
therefore there is nothing that we can do about them. There are good schools
and there are bad schools. Fact. Clegg says that we should not take this as
fact. We should do something about it.
So, if our school system is the most unequal in the
world, what precisely is this Bill doing to further inequality? Is it all down
to the system of schooling or are there other contributing factors like housing
and health and support for young families who haven’t got a clue how to cope?
Free schools are NOT the answer, not even if they are
established in areas of deprivation. Unless, of course, the schools are free
from ALL constraints and can adopt progressive policies of embracing creativity
and individuality, of trying to transform lives through a holistic view that incorporates
social, moral, spiritual and personal education AS WELL AS concentrating on the
basic necessities of literacy and numeracy. This is the ONLY thing that is
going to make a difference, together with an all out attack on private
education but that is another issue.
“And, when the best schools are
concentrated in some communities but not others, poorer families get the raw
deal.”
Yes they do. FACT. And what precisely is the likes of
Toby Young’s school going to do to solve this sort of problem? Clegg continues
to say that any new Free School is going to be set up in deprived areas but
what is the point unless, as I say, there is real autonomy for school leaders
to follow their vision and offer something completely radical in comparison
with what is on offer through the straitjacket currently imposed on our
schools, that has been in force for so long that our future leaders are
completely and utterly indoctrinated into one way of thinking about education.
“We know that there are a host of tried-and-tested
methods for raising attainment. Investing in teachers' training and
professional development.
Smaller class sizes. More pastoral support, outside the classroom. Or more intensive, individual tuition.”
Smaller class sizes. More pastoral support, outside the classroom. Or more intensive, individual tuition.”
No we
haven’t! We have NOT tried everything and when interventions such as pastoral
support have been established, it is always the first to be cut, and it has
been full of complicated red tape. Ask any manager who has tried to develop a
role for a learning mentor, for instance. And when has any school had the time
and resources to truly look at individual learning, which incidentally Mr.
Clegg is quite different to individual learning.
“The same report [from the Sutton
Trust] found that when children are older, they benefit from sitting down with
teachers to plan and monitor their own progress. They do better if they are
given specific, personalised feedback.”
Yes, and once more, when have schools been given the
opportunity to involve pupils in planning their learning rather than have it
imposed upon them in recent years, in recent decades even? And what is the
coalition doing to enable this successful innovation to happen in EVERY school?
Hell, you’ve even got the evidence that it works, together with engaging pupils
in after school activities.
“Over time, schools themselves will
become responsible for the budgets for excluded pupils. They will be expected
to commission the alternative education they receive.”
How much time, I wonder? It is indeed good that there is
someone to be held accountable for the education of the excluded. Having
witnessed an imposed mass exodus from not one but several schools who have
become academies in one local authority, I am delighted to hear of such possibilities,
but we have already lost a few thousand disaffected young people. Action is
needed NOW.
“And we're offering all schools the
chance to take on Academy status, either individually or as part of a chain.
Where they have full control over their curriculums, staffing and budgets.”
I know this is a naive question but why does it need a
school to take on Academy status to get full freedom? Why do you have to be an
academy to have “full control” over all the issues that Clegg mentions? Surely
this should be an entitlement for every school manager, whereby THEY choose
what support they receive from the local authority and not have it imposed upon
them as a slapped wrist. Perhaps, if there had been more liberty in the past,
with accountability of course, then there would be no need for academies and
free schools and all other initiatives that veil the fact that schools are
stymied and therefore the pupils within in it are not free to learn properly.
“Sarah Teather is bringing forward a
radical set of reforms which will ensure local councils can help knock heads
together to get a better deal for disabled and disadvantaged children.”
Unfortunate language here! Knocking heads can cause all
manner of disabilities. And is Nick surreptitiously saying that there is an
intention to knock ‘heads’ i.e. head teachers into doing something that is
detrimental to the needs of the school and the individual pupils within it,
disabled, disaffected or not.
“Let me be clear what I want to see
from free schools. I want them to be available to the whole community - open to
all children and not just the privileged few. I want them to be part of a
school system that releases opportunity, rather than entrenching it. They must
not be the preserve of the privileged few - creaming off the best pupils while
leaving the rest to fend for themselves. Causing problems for and draining
resources from other nearby schools. So let me give you my assurance: I would
never tolerate that.”
But Nick, that is precisely what you have tolerated. Quid Pro Quo, Carpe Deum, Ergo Propter Hoc – yes, I
have no idea about Latin either!
Can you not see that this is precisely what is happening right now. There’s plenty of mention of
oversubscription to Young’s little innovative school but how much research has
been done on the impact to schools within the area where the frilly little
middle classes push off to get what they deserve. What is going to happen to
other schools? I know Toby Young would argue that if they were offering what
they should have been offering then there would be no need for his popular new
school but it is not as simple as that.
“That's why I am pleased that half
of the first wave will be in deprived areas. And the vast majority in areas
where they desperately need school places.”
Yes, and I wonder how many of those first half of schools
set up in deprived areas are actually faith schools rather than schools that
are available for all to attend.
“ We are inching towards
inserting the profit motive into our school system. Again, let me reassure you:
yes to greater diversity; yes to more choice for parents; But no to running
schools for profit, not in our state-funded education sector.”
Well, that’s good news. But note the language. No profit
in state-funded education. I wonder what will happen when these free schools
realise that they can actually make some money and start charging parents for
their services. I wonder how quickly they will be able to convert away from
state funding. I know that is highly unlikely, but I am reticent to believe that
Clegg has this one won. Gove is ruthless, and I am sure that he will find some
way of enabling the Free Schools to retain any money that they manage to create
for themselves. There will be clauses. I just hope that other schools within
the state system that are innovative enough to engage with local and national
businesses will be afforded the same opportunities for retaining well-earned
monies or carefully agreed sponsorship.
He then continues to discuss the role of parents and how
it is important to have a working relationship between parents and teachers as
teachers cannot be accountable for all ills in the child.
“Because a teacher can't make sure
that children take time at home to get a proper breakfast that sees them
through until lunch. They can listen to a child read at school - but they can't
do an extra fifteen minutes at home in the evening. A teacher can't turn the TV
off when it's time for homework. Or make sure children get to bed on time so
they don't come to school tired. Teachers tell me what a huge difference these
little things can make. They also know that they can't do them. But they know
that parents can.”
Mr. Clegg, please can I inform you that as a teacher, I
was not allowed to hear my children read as much as I wanted because my head
teacher insisted that it wasn’t my job. I had a literacy hour to stick to and a
numeracy nearly hour to religiously and laboriously undertake. Some parents
cannot do this, which is why I decided to ignore my stupid head teacher and
actually listen to my children read as often as I could, which meant that I
made a choice not to eat in the middle of the day – just listen to Biff and
bloody Chip. Of course parents make a difference. But here is something that
hasn’t been considered. How about not having homework? How about enabling young
people of all ages to relax occasionally? How about preventing them from being
put off their own learning? How about thinking about something more innovative
than spellings and phonics for homework? How much ore might that engage parents
in their childrens’ learning, if the ideas were coming from the children
themselves?
Just a thought.
I am now going to have to finish because I have gone on
and on and on, and for that I apologise but I am passionate about this.
This speech, whilst in parts impressive, strike me as the
voice from a puppet, which is mildly ironic considering Gove’s physical
attributes (!) are often compared to a ventriloquist’s dummy. Well, the roles
have turned. Clegg, he is pulling your strings man! He will give you your
little concessions because his hold on power to some extent depends on being a
little bit nice to you. You can have your non-profit stuff and your schools in
deprived areas (as long as they play the game) but ultimately this Education
Bill is full of rot.
Clegg has to really think about whether he can cope with
the appeasement offered to him on this and other issues. Shirley Williams has
been put in her place and been told that her views are not that of the Liberal
Democrats supporting the Health Bill. Was this the right thing to do? Can Clegg
really allow all the issues that he raised in this speech to go unnoticed and
untackled once more?
Time to think long and hard Clegg. Time to get that
metaphorical coffin in your mind, for the sake of so many.
No comments:
Post a Comment