Last night I attended an Intelligence Squared debate in London on the subject: "All schools, state as well as private, should be allowed to select their own pupils".
Lord Tebbit, one of the speakers, said that when he did National Service after the war, this was a time when the literacy of every young man was tested. He said that 95% of the young men called for National Service were found to be literate - and that despite the enormous dislocation to education that resulted from the war. This compares with some 20% of the present population who are now said by the government to be "functionally illiterate".
He was using this statistic to support his argument that the reduction of selection since the war had damaged state education. I would be glad to obtain chapter and verse on this. If the figure stands up well, it is very important since it indicates more clearly than any other fact one is likely to discover that the quality of state education has been on a declining path.
In this case it would fit in with my main contention on education, that state education has been a disaster for Britain and has deteriorated more the longer it has gone on. In the 1940s, there were plenty of genuinely independent church secondary schools and many primary schools had not been in the hands of governnent for very long.
Lord Tebbit went on to suggest that all state schools should be denationalised and handed over, I think he said, to charitable trusts. Most of the vast bureaucratic superstructure of local authority and central government would be removed. There would be vouchers which would be worth more for those children with difficulties. This, he suggested, would transform our low standards of education as schools competed for custom and parents could genuinely make choices.
The motion was clearly carried. Before the debate, there were 339 votes for, 200 against and 152 abstentions. After the debate, there were 451 for, 202 against and 48 abstentions.
For myself, I regard the argument over selection and, in particular, grammar schools as a distraction from the most important point about education: that nationalisation of education has been a disaster and should be reversed.
Posted by James Bartholomew • Indexed in Education
Comments (4)
TrackBack (0)
Comments
What about the pupils no school wants?
Posted by: Purple Scorpion at February 28, 2008 12:12 PM
Purple Scorpion: Trust me - if the money comes with the pupil and if the school has to provide something parents deem suitable, then there won't be unwanted pupils nor pupils that don't want to be there.
James- as usual, you're entirely correct. The grammar/comprehensive school 'debate' is a distraction from the fact that the problem is a state-imposed and run system. Arguing about exactly which state-imposed system is best, completely misses the point that the problem is the central imposition of the system. Let everyone make their own decisions.
Posted by: HJHJ at March 1, 2008 09:58 PM
John,
"without which no pupil may leave school".
How about changing "school" to "education"? Otherwise you rule out education other than at school which has been proved to work very well for many children.
As another commentator has pointed out when citing E.G. West, literacy rates were higher when many children were educated at home.
Posted by: Carlotta at March 2, 2008 11:59 PM
Warning: file(http://63.247.138.2/~bartholo/randomquotes.dump) [function.file]: failed to open stream: No route to host in /home/bartholo/public_html/archives/2008/02/95_of_the_young.php on line 308
Warning: implode() [function.implode]: Bad arguments. in /home/bartholo/public_html/archives/2008/02/95_of_the_young.php on line 308
According to the late Prof. E. G. West (Education and Govt. Failure, published by the Institute of Economic Affairs and available free by PDF) 90% of the population were literate before the 1870 Education Act, the vehicle by which the government introduced free school education for all and effectively destroyed the very cheap and able private schools (mostly run by religious groups) that had previously been the sole source of formal education for nearly all.
I agree that education should be taken out of the hands of incompetent government whose role should be reduced to setting a School Leaving Certificate (a certificate of competence to deal with the adult world NOT of academic prowess) to be completed by the age of 14 or 15 and without which no pupil may leave school (at present any pupil can leave school at 16 with no qualification whatever) and to providing the means, probably through a voucher system, to do so. Thereafter, young people should be free to learn whatever they wish from teachers (not school teachers) and be paid to do so. No school is capable of providing an education that meets the needs of each individual pupil. Therefore there is no real choice of education to be had in current secondary schooling.
These ideas are expounded in Chance of a Lifetime:how the other half loses by Jonathan Langdale and John Harrison (Best Global Publishing 2007). More may be learnt about the book by visiting www.wotnoschool.com
Posted by: John Harrison at February 27, 2008 05:51 PM