Mister Clegg

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.

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.

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.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2011/sep/05/politics-live-blog#block-14

And here is the full transcript of Mr. Clegg’s speech.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/09/schools-children-teachers

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 21^st century. Hidden in all the major changes within the Bill are expectations for pupils to read 17^th 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.”

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.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Clegg

Competitive Character Building

Here I was carefully minding my own business, wallowing in a headache that will not disappear, trying to read the newspaper through squinted eyes, darkened with sunglasses, determined that whatever article I felt needed a comment would simply have to wait until the morning.

And then I found Mr. Seldon, Mr Happiness, Mr. I can say anything I like about education because I have managed to get the combination just right at my mega bucks independent school and let’s not forget Mr. Tony Blair’s biographer.

I have been to a couple of meetings where Mr. Seldon has been a guest speaker. He talks sense. He understands the concept of a holistic education, whereby we should not be thinking purely about the academic attainment of our young people but should equally be considering their wellbeing, their “happiness”, their ability to be socially intelligent, emotionally intelligent and so forth. He concurs with ideas that creativity is important and that young people need to have quality leisure time as much as quality learning. He advocates learning outside the classroom. He deplores the league table stringency and strangulation that has happened in our state education system.

He appears to understand something about multiple intelligences and how, within our education system, we should be not be limiting learning to the mere diktat of a tiny and often anachronistic curriculum. He understands this.

“Through no fault of the teachers – the relentless pressure of league tables has dictated schools sacrifice so much of the education of the whole child for the sake of exam grades.” He says.

He talks about the importance of character building, suggesting that schools might learn something from that ever so liberal Mr Baden Powell in offering the sort of resilience training that the Scouting Movement is known for, and apparently is still as popular today. It is rumoured that there are huge waiting lists to get involved in the Scout movement in this country. There is apparently a lack of volunteers to support these young people. So much for Cameron’s Big Society.

And so this is where it starts to go rather sour. This is where Seldon suggests all manner of possibilities for state education that have been introduced in the new Free School that Toby Young is starting in the West of London, soon to be opened by that old Etonian Mr. Boris Johnson. He suggests that the Left are afraid of competitiveness at their peril. He says that competitive sport is vital, that cadet services would be a useful enhancement to any school, that mental and physical challenges where the young people fail will be extremely good for their character building. He also suggests that those students whose home lives are not conducive to their learning should automatically be given boarding places, in state schools.
Has he got any idea how many kids would be institutionalised with this sort of baseline? Has he any idea how detrimental the state system of education and housing and welfare has been on hundreds and thousands of children, crippling them emotionally, disabling them from having an education and housing appropriate to their need?

Now because I like to be contrary, I am going to say something now which may surprise the reader(s). I agree with Mr. Seldon. I think that character building is very important and I think we do not do enough to build and develop the whole child in schools, assuming this is part of what Seldon means by character building. However, I disagree with his proposed means to build character. There are other ways and too many of our schools have refused to consider the viable alternatives to character building.

Why do I disagree?

Well let us take competitive sport first.

I had the fortune or misfortune, whatever way you choose, to be responsible for the netball and football team when I was teaching. I had to juggle with parental expectations, pupils who thought they ought to be in the team because they were brilliant at sports and those poor little sods whose confidence plummeted at the suggestion that they were not good enough or strong enough to get into the team, yet their enthusiasm far outweighed the footy experts. And that is before we have even considered the little ones who didn’t even put themselves forward because they did not want to suffer the indignity of not been chosen.

The whole system, particularly in primary schools, stinks. I have been bombarded by parents who have accused me of being a liberal minded wally for putting certain children on the playing field. I have been screamed at by children who couldn’t believe that I had put a child on the netball pitch who couldn’t catch a ball. I’ve even been yelled at by colleagues who have suggested that my socialist principles have just gone too far. To my shame, I have sometimes conceded to their demands, such lack of will I sometimes have to endure. However, in the main, I stuck to my guns and insisted on every child having an opportunity, irrespective of whether we were going to win the league or not.

Luckily for me, we did, in both competitions but that is an aside and one which surely shows up that nasty little streak of competitiveness within me.

I can also remember the teacher who promised my own child that once he was in Year 6 he would automatically get a game on the football pitch each week, irrespective of the talent available in other lower-age year groups, as he had patiently and freezingly marched up and down the sideline on many a dire Saturday morning when he was younger. Alas, the aforementioned teacher forgot all about this promise when it came to the competition, deciding that my child was too feeble and too incapable of playing the glorious game. I marched in to him assertively and reminded him of his promise, stating that you just couldn’t do that to a child. You could not promise something like that and then tell a child that he was not good enough for a feeble interschool competition. It was soul destroying. It sapped the poor child’s confidence. It belittled him in front of his friends. But this damn teacher would not back down. He needed to win the cup! That was the only thing that was driving him, and it really didn’t matter how mucked up any child got en route.

I suppose this is the sort of character building that Mr. Seldon is talking about. Perhaps he thinks that this dose of reality was the perfect form of character building for my son. Perhaps certain readers do too. But I can think of other ways of building up his resilience.

Young people have to contend with far too many horrible things in their lives, so why should we project more unnecessary disappointments on them?

As it happened, the same year that my son was prevented from joining the football team, his grandfather died. I wonder which one built his character more. I wonder which one was more difficult to contend with? I wish he had not had to endure either.

So I have suggested why I do not think competitive sport is a good idea, and I have merely scratched the surface of this debate. So what would I suggest instead?

Seldon is right in some respects when mentioning Baden Powell but can we please lose the allegiance to God and the Queen, and the uniform? If we strip the organisation of its ritualistic barriers and get down to the nitty gritty of what the organisation should be about, then yes, there is certainly place for activities that are challenging and conducive to team work that should be happening in our schools. But they should be happening anyway. Any decent primary school teacher should be making their activities exciting and challenging. Every decent school leader should be instructing their teachers to ensure that there are abundant times outside of the classroom to explore local parks, if there are any, or certainly their local environment.

Again, as a dib, dib, dib trained person, I took plenty of my Baden Powell activities into the classroom. Nowadays though, I would probably go further, inviting the children to come up with challenges that they can develop for themselves, rather than have me direct them.

Of course, one of the best ways of developing the individual child, including his character, is allow him or her to learn what they want in the way they want, with the possibility of enabling them to share their learning with others, becoming a leader and a learner simultaneously, opting to listen and learn from their peers’ particular interest too.

But that takes a lot of planning and requires the teacher to stop directing and become an enabler and a facilitator; some of them find that tricky.

There is also creativity. How often do we enable our young people to develop their creative side, something that is particularly personal to them? Not every child can be a perfect artist or musician but that does not stop them trying or wishing to create something. Who says that one piece of art is better than another? It is all subjective. And those who cannot draw can use their creativity in another way; writing, photography, singing, film-making. Don’t you think that these activities could be character building too?

But we are overseeing another way of developing resilience and character, one that many a school would not consider.

Let us look east.

I wish to goodness someone had suggested meditation, philosophy and the study of certain eastern writings when I was a youngster. Maybe I might be more resilient to life’s difficulties now had I had this ingrained within me, had I had the opportunity to find another way to develop my mind, my soul and my confidence in myself.

Perhaps yoga or Tai Chi could offer the same character building as the disappointment of not being chosen for the school football team. Who knows?

I may have been a scout but I wasn’t a very good one. I hated doing all those badges and felt that I could never match up to the ones who did. I was never a brilliant sportsperson and as soon as I lost my place in the netball team, that was me and sport finished. I could play a couple of musical instruments but I could never play in the way that I really wanted, improvising and being able to play a tune that I had heard on the radio immediately. I was bright enough at school but was never going to be as successful academically as others, including my sister. Competition and comparison never did me any good. In fact, I don’t need to look very far to see the lasting damage that its powerful revoltingness has left me with. What resilience did I manage to achieve through these constant comparisons and never being the ‘best’?

It does not work. It does not develop character whereas learning to believe in my ability to take photographs or write might have been more beneficial. Finding my own voice earlier might have helped but I had an O level and A Level syllabus to deal with. The only person who ever spoke to me about philosophy was a PE teacher who never actually taught me in a formal lesson. If only I had listened to him more often, then perhaps my own character building might have been more successful.

Seldon is right. School is far more than the conventional and sometimes tedious lessons we prepare for our children because we have a National Curriculum to comply with. School is a place where all sorts of learning could and should take place. I refer to my previous blog about allowing local communities to use the premises so that young people have somewhere to go after hours.

Seldon is wrong, however, to suggest that the only way we can character build is through some sort of army camp or competition. It did me no good. It did my child no good and I am absolutely confident that we are not alone.

Toby Young – let’s just get this over and done with. Toby Young may be introducing these elements into his school for other reasons and not for the alleged altruistic reasons that Seldon suggests, i.e. a character building activity.  I suspect may be introducing such measures because he has a serious chip on his shoulder that he did not go to Eton, and he wants to offer his kids this wonderful form of confidence. I suspect that he likes the regimentation of ‘character building’ and may end up adopting a similar style to Sir Michael Wilshaw of the Mossbourne Academy, whereby all pupils chant together daily “Yes we are all individuals” “Yes we will achieve our best as long as our best is 27 A star GCSEs”. Indoctrination, brainwashing.

I suspect Toby Young wants character building brought in so that his pupils succeed academically and not because he particularly concerned about the individual children involved, but I could of course be being unfair.

Toby Young and his Etonian antics is not the answer to character building, and I suspect that Seldon probably knows that too. There is far more to character building than failing to get into the school rugger team. There is far more to developing resilience than ramming a shed load of failure on a child’s back. And where do the perpetual successes learn resilience? If they succeed at everything, how are they ever to develop humility? How will they cope when someone tells them that they are wrong? How will they cope with the competition when their intellect or physical prowess is not as brilliant as they had been led to believe?

Perhaps we ought to be looking far more carefully at how we really develop resilience through meditation, through emptying our minds, through appreciating the value of oneself than any of these measures could possibly provide.

Perhaps we ought to be looking at shared values and the vital virtues that all should have or certainly strive for because that is going to make for a more contented world where hopefully resilience becomes a natural acceptance of disappointments in life without it shrouding people completely.

Surely Mr. Seldon could go along with that.