(18)

Via Guido Fawkes, are these comments from UK Education Secretary Michael Gove. He is not bashing private (or as we Brits confusingly call them, public schools) but making a point, which I think need to be made, that many of the leftist-leaning people who run important media and related institutions were educated privately:

“Armando Iannucci, David Baddiel, Michael McIntyre, Jack Whitehall, Miles Jupp, Armstrong from Armstrong and Miller and Mitchell from Mitchell and Webb were all privately educated. 2010’s Mercury Music Prize was a battle between privately educated Laura Marling and privately-educated Marcus Mumford. And from Chris Martin of Coldplay to Tom Chaplin of Keane – popular music is populated by public school boys. Indeed when Keane were playing last Sunday on the Andrew Marr show everyone in that studio – the band, the presenter and the other guests – Lib Dem peer Matthew Oakeshott, Radio 3 Presenter Clemency Burton-Hill and Sarah Sands, editor of the London Evening Standard – were all privately educated.

Indeed it’s in the media that the public school stranglehold is strongest. The Chairman of the BBC and its Director-General are public school boys. And it’s not just the Evening Standard which has a privately-educated editor. My old paper The Times is edited by an old boy of St Pauls and its sister paper the Sunday Times by an old Bedfordian. The new editor of the Mail on Sunday is an old Etonian, the editor of the Financial Times is an old Alleynian and the editor of the Guardian is an Old Cranleighan. Indeed the Guardian has been edited by privately educated men for the last sixty years… But then many of our most prominent contemporary radical and activist writers are also privately educated.

George Monbiot of the Guardian was at Stowe, Seumas Milne of the Guardian was at Winchester and perhaps the most radical new voice of all Laurie Penny of the Independent – was educated here at Brighton College. Now I record these achievements not because I wish to either decry the individuals concerned or criticise the schools they attended. Far from it. It is undeniable that the individuals I have named are hugely talented and the schools they attended are premier league institutions.”

Food for thought.

(30)

Andrew Copson asks rhetorically in the pages of the Guardian, "Should we allow faith schools at all?" The general opinion in the comments is that "we" should not.

To be fair to Mr Copson, he probably did not write the subheading and his article talks about state funded faith schools. A proposal to ban state funded faith schools, though clearly intended to ensure that pupils are not exposed to opinions Mr Copson does not like, is less illiberal than a proposal to ban faith schools tout court. (In fact I am in favour of such a ban myself, though my ban would be accompanied by a ban on state funding of all other types of school, and preferably all other types of anything.) Many of the Guardian commenters reject such quibbles and are simply totalitarians. For instance, the second comment by "whitesteps", recommended by 123 people at the time of writing, says,

Of course there shouldn't be faith schools, though such a ban wouldn't go anywhere near far enough.

Religion should be treated as a controlled substance only accessible after a certain age, with the religious indoctrination of small children treated as a form of mental abuse.

I always find the sublime confidence of such people that they will always be the ones to allow or forbid very strange. Given the course of events over my lifetime, perhaps such confidence on the part of "progressives" and tranzis is justified - however there are many still alive who remember a time in Britain when certain religious prohibitions were backed both by force of law, and by the sort of public opinion that leaves offenders with fewer teeth. I used to think that the lesson had been learned by all sides. I used to think that nowadays the principle that freedom of belief must apply to all to protect all was accepted by all. How naive I was.

(7)

Teachers hate legislation. The Association of Teachers and Lecturers is a British teaching union. In 2010 its then president Lesley Ward said:

What was being debated in the 1970s is pretty similar to what is being debated four decades later. I am onto my 15th secretary of state for education and my 29th minister for education. I have lived through, endured, survived, call it what you like, 54 pieces of education legislation since I started teaching. One more and it would be one for each year of my life.

Clearly she wants to get the government out of education and her life. "Trust us and leave us to do our job," she concludes. Good for her!

Then yesterday:

A motion at the [ATL] conference called on ministers to introduce "stringent legislation" to counter the "negative effects some computer games are having on the very young".

I imagine that most teachers have no difficulty holding both of these views. Most people would like government to leave them alone and stop other people from annoying them.

(19)

I get emails occasionally from readers. This one interested me:

“I am a student at the University of Southern California’s M.A. program in occupational therapy. In 2010 our national organization, the American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA), included Social Justice in our code of ethics. About 12 states incorporate by reference AOTA’s code of ethics as part of their licensing requirements, meaning that getting an occupational therapy license and keeping it requires adherence to social justice, which is a set of political values and a political agenda that is today associated with those who are termed left, liberal, or progressive. For example, the code of ethics states that we are to advocate for social justice, which requires an equitable distribution of resources to all individuals and groups. Professors also use the requirement as an excuse to teach "social justice activities" in class.”

Interesting. The email continues:

“This is actually a trend in all the health sciences today. My hope is that this trend can be stopped as it normalizes setting political litmus tests to practice a profession. In 2015 AOTA votes again on the contents of its code of ethics and I will be submitting a motion to remove the social justice requirement. I am working now to educate members on this issue before the 2015 vote.”

“One of the things that makes this a hard road to travel is that if I tell a health science student that social justice is a highly political concept used today to promote a left/liberal/progressive agenda, they easily shrug it off because of the way in which the material is presented to them. They are simply told things like, “social justice is about fairness in receiving society’s resources” or something equally bland and nice-sounding.”

The correspondent, by the name of Alex Duran, asked me to sign a statement with others opposing this. As a Brit, I am not sure whether any signature of support from me would be valid but I am happy to lend my voice to this issue. As the late FA Hayek famously pointed out, “social justice” is one of those question-begging terms that takes as given such ideas as the presumption in favour of equal distribution of wealth by some sort of “distributor”. It is not a neutral term – ideas of socialism and state ownership are baked into it. And while “justice” is a word that might mean something, “social justice” is very different.

I wish this gentleman success. You can visit his website here.. And he has a related item with a large number of comments here.

(11)

The founder of the X-Prize (well known around these parts due to events such as the space ventures side of things) now wants to launch a prize for people with good ideas on how to sort out education. (H/T, Instapundit). I can suggest two quick ideas:

Give the prize immediately to Professor James Tooley.

Or, Give it to me, as I have this brilliant idea - just get the state out of education, full stop.

Simple, really.

(2)

Katharine Birbalsingh is an heroic, principled woman who, against hideous odds, is trying desperately to open a free school - the Michaela Community School - in a part of South London woefully ill-served by state secondary schools. It will provide academic rigour, discipline, a liberal arts curriculum including Latin, uniforms, sporting facilities and extended school hours to children in one of the most deprived parts of London, regardless of race or social class or ability to pay. For those children whose parents can't afford to go private, the school will be a godsend – possibly the single thing that makes all the difference in their life between success and failure.

No, it doesn't. Indeed I'd suggest that these comments are actually counterproductive. They draw attention to the fact that criticism of Katharine Birbalsingh's noble project is based not on reasoned argument but on prejudice and incoherent rage. This is why they're so well worth quoting: because they let the enemy do our work for us.

- Delingpole comments on a comment.

(12)

This evening I attended the E. G. West Memorial Lecture, which was delivered by James Tooley, one of my favourite public intellectuals. The audience was large, and our response was attentive and at the end, enthusiastic.

Tooley started by describing the discoveries of E. G. West concerning the huge contribution to education in nineteenth century Britain made by the private sector, which had pretty much licked the problem of mass literacy and mass numeracy, only for the state then to come crashing in, crowding out the private sector and stealing all of the credit for what the private sector had accomplished.

Tooley then described how he has personally been finding the exact same story unfolding in the Third World right now. There too, the private sector is running state education ragged.

In the course of his lecture, Tooley presented this complete and comprehensive list of exactly what the state should be contributing to the funding, regulation and provision of education:

As often happens with my photos, people who care about such things will quibble about technical adequacy and artistic impression. But, I trust you get Tooley's message.

I realised while listening to Tooley talk that I have been somewhat losing track of what he's been up to lately. So when I got home, I ordered a copy of his book, The Beautiful Tree, which he mentioned in the course of his lecture, and in which I hope to learn many more of the details of what he's been finding out about one of the great success stories of the world now.

During the Q&A after the lecture, Tooley was asked what Britain's politicians should be doing about it all. What reforms ought they to be trying to contrive? Tooley said he expected very little from our politicians, predicting instead that if changes along the lines he would like do come, it will be because of foreign educational enterprises opening branches here, offering a cheap and effective alternative to state education at very little extra cost. That, said Tooley, will be when the good educational stuff starts happening in Britain, again, if it ever does.

LATER: A few more pictures here.

(20)

Recently a friend told me something about kibbutzes (kibbutzim?) in Israel, which got me into speculation mode. My friend had, he told me, met quite a few people in the course of his various globetrottings who, attracted by the aura of idealism and general world-savingness that kibbutzes radiate, had spent time in a kibbutz. Such pilgrims, said my friend, had quite soon left, all of them disgusted by the experience. Far from being havens of a higher form of humanity, kibbutzes are incubators of nastiness and personal backbiting and unpleasantness of all kinds. Kibbutz life, said these people, had cured them of socialism for ever. Which makes me speculate that kibbutzes are, for this reason, a spectacularly good thing, for the people thus inoculated, and for the world, in more ways than I can count in a short blog posting.

The only kind of people said my friend, who live well in kibbutzes are, well, the kind of people who live well in kibbutzes. People who thrive under totalitarian socialism, basically. Good at politics, good at screwing people without appearing too obviously to screw them, in accordance with the rules of rigid egalitarianism. There are lots of rules, to suppress individualism, getting ahead, getting richer, and so on, and the individuals who understand these rules use them ruthlessly to get ahead, and even, if you are flexible about how you measure wealth, to get wealthy.

These "alpha personalities", as my friend described them, stick around, ruling the kibbutz with a rod of egalitarian iron. Many of the people lower down the Greek alphabet, without whom these alphas would presumably be rather helpless, are the transients, some of whom my friend had talked with. Young idealists, for whom life on a kibbutz is some kind of rite of Jewish passage. They arrive, serve their time until they can stand it no longer, and leave, taking with them an education in the realities of egalitarian collectivism that is given to few others in what is basically, still, a moderately free world. They experience such a regime good and hard, in a form that they can contrast with a life outside that kibbutz that is still massively freer, and then leave, taking that knowledge with them.

So, in addition to being one of the great new hubs of technological innovation in the world, the state of Israel, by permitting with its laws (including, presumably, a law which says that kibbutzes may not imprison those who no longer consent to being there), and encouraging with its ideological traditions, master classes in the realities of collectivism, is doing the world another huge favour. Kibbutzes are, you might say, re-education camps for precisely the sort of people who most require such re-education, and at a time in their lives soon enough to make a huge difference, to them and to the world.

I am a huge admirer of that human semi-collectivity called Jews, and pretty much an uncritical supporter of the state of Israel in its ongoing struggle to stay in existence and to flourish. But, and please do not misunderstand this next bit, I sort of agree with some of the more admiring bits in the ravings of the world's many anti-semites, present and past. Jews are rather special. A century ago or so, Jews did have an influence on the world that was far greater than their mere numbers would seem to have allowed. (I am a classical music fan, and the sheer scale of the Jewish presence in that world has been and remains extraordinary.) It did not follow from the super-achievements of Jews that therefore the Jews were evil and should all be murdered, and it does not follow now. But, they were a group of people very much to be reckoned with, and they surely still are, again way beyond their mere numbers in the world.

I therefore now surmise that an ongoing education programme, which turns energetic, adventurous and idealistic young Jews from devotees of collectivism in devotees of something more like the opposite, has got to be one of the very best things now going on in the world.

But, this is pretty much all speculation on my part. The question mark at the end of my heading is no mere afterthought. I admire Israel from afar, but have never been there, nor have I travelled very much in the world. (Maybe if I spent more time in Isreal, I would admire it less.) So I end with all the usual questions which thinking-aloud, but-what-do-I-know?, guess postings of this kind generally do and always should end with. Does any of the above make sense to any of our commentariat? In particular, how do the above speculations strike any readers of this who have pertinent knowledge of the matters I speculate about, of the sort which I do not have, beyond that small item of chat from a friend?

I can well imagine that kibbutzes might indeed do a bit of the good I describe, but be doing a lot more harm in other ways. Also, my friend, being of a strongly anti-collectivist inclination himself, could have been suffering from severe selection error. Maybe the world is full of Jews who have lived in a kibbutz and would like nothing less than to kibbutzise the entire world. But, I like to think not.

(24)

Stretch yourselves. Answer these questions, if you think you're hard enough:

* There were no _________ remarks at the parents' evening. Is the correct word: dissaproving disaproveing dissapproving disapproving?
* A lesson begins at 11:40. The teacher prepares a 10-minute introduction followed by a 15-minute video clip and then a 25-minute activity. At what time does the activity end? Give your answer using the 24-hour clock.
* The children enjoyed the _________ nature of the task. Is the correct word: mathmatical, mathematical, mathemmatical or mathematicall?
* Teachers organised activities for three classes of 24 pupils and four classes of 28 pupils. What was the total number of pupils involved?
* For a science experiment a teacher needed 95 cubic centimetres of vinegar for each pupil. There were 20 pupils in the class. Vinegar comes in 1,000 cubic centimetre bottles. How many bottles of vinegar were needed?

Mr Gove is to publish new requirements for the "basic skills tests" to be completed before embarking on teacher training. Candidates will also be allowed a maximum of two re-sits for each exam.

Oh dear. Is the correct word perthetic, pafetic, or pathetic?

Answer: all three, with knobs on. You might think from this that I am going to urge the Secretary of State for Education to an even more drastic reform than allowing only two re-sits. One re-sit! One re-sit and then euthanasia!

I make no such urgings. It none of it matters. The trouble is, to put in terms that an old D&D-er like the Minister would understand, is that it is a very bad idea to magic missile the orcs while the lich remains undefeated. The least of the problems with state education is that orcs who made a bad INT roll are let into the profession. Orcs can do quite nicely as teachers. A teacher needs to roll for three characteristics:

- knowledge of the subject he or she is to teach,
- the knack of teaching,
- ability to maintain classroom discipline.

Of course it is good to have rolled high in all three, and, to be fair to Mr Gove's latest initiative, he is probably right that a 1 in any of them probably should disqualify the applicant. But a good score in two qualities can usually compensate for one bad roll.

But by Garl Glittergold's holy nugget, I did not mean to get distracted by recommending this tweak or that tweak of Mr Gove's new "tougher" criteria! It's all pointless, I tell you. (Particularly as by Mr Gove's express wish, a person who really had passed the Mathematical Tripos at Cambridge would be refused a bursary to train as a maths teacher, if he or she had only a third class degree. Yes, really, even if they could work out how many bottles of vinegar were needed.)

The point was this. You don't fight the orcs, Gove the Mighty But Deluded. You fight the liches. Give the man his due, allowing for the fact that "Secretary of State for Education" is a useless character class that ought to be deleted from any future editions, he is doing better than any we have had for years. If he survives the liches, he may even take the fight to the Blob itself.

Just leave the orcs alone. Head teachers can fight their own orcs, or hire 'em, you don't have to worry which. It is unbecoming for anyone above fifth level to bash an orc.

(16)

The thing is, when you were ten years old, wouldn't you have loved to have gone down a mine or up a chimney?

- Patrick Crozier has dropped by (to help me buy gold on the internet), and we were talking about how education is probably the most vulnerable of all the big ongoing government spending sprees, in the face of the forthcoming financial meltdown.

(12)

Ever before I wrote this, I was on the lookout for Fixed Quantity Of... theories, and even more since then. Usually these theories are fallacies. Often, changing how something is done, and in particular changing the rules or the overall setting within which something is done can quite dramatically change, for the better or for the worse, both the quantity and the quality of whatever is being argued about.

Here is another such theory/fallacy, the Fixed Quantity of Education fallacy. Toby Young takes aim at it here. He and some friends of his are setting up a "free school". Their critics in the state education sector object, because this new school will suck educational excellence out of their schools and make it available only to a privileged few.

In particular, it is said that this new school will draw middle class children away from state schools, to the educational detriment of these schools. State educators who talk like this sometimes make it sound as if most of the good teaching that goes on in their schools is done by middle class children rather than by educationally expert adults. Perhaps they have a point.

But the amount of satisfactory educating going on is very variable, depending on how relaxed or restrictive are the rules about how it may be done and who may do it. (For instance, if it were forbidden for parents to educate their children at home, that would, I believe, sharply diminish the supply of good education.) Toby Young says that the real reason the detractors of the educational venture he favours are so vocal is that they fear being shown up as bad educators, by a new school that creates a vast new surge of educational excellence, thereby proving that they could be doing this too. No upper limit on the total amount of available education is stopping them, only their own stupid educational ideas and habits. I am sure that he has a point.

(9)

My favourite bit in the Eagleton piece that Natalie links to below is this:

British universities, plundered of resources by the bankers and financiers they educated, ...

Does it not occur to Eagleton that perhaps the British universities that all these wicked bankers and financiers attended educated them rather badly? While at university, Britain's future financial elite were taught to accept a false view of the economic world. Now this elite "plunders" (as in "cuts the government grants of") its educators.

The educators educated the elite. The elite screwed up horribly, and now the educators are getting screwed themselves. The educators are appalled at this terrible ingratitude, this horrible injustice. What have they done to deserve this? I say: quite a lot. You teach financially ruinous ideas. The people you taught them to turn round and ruin you. I say: it serves you right. I say: that's just about the most perfect punishment there could be for what you have been doing.

My only worry is that things are actually not as bad as Eagleton says, and that Britain's universities are in fact not being punished nearly enough for the financial ruin that they did so much to unleash upon the rest of us.

(16)

One can sympathise with Professor Terry Eagleton's view that A C Grayling's private university is odious. All decent folk were shocked when Professor Grayling announced that he was leaving the state education system. If he wasn't going to stick with it, say I, he shouldn't have married it in the first place.

Yes, it must be the case that Grayling, Richard Dawkins, Niall Fergusson and the rest of this bunch who want to set up a private university all solemnly vowed to cleave unto to the Russell Group of Universities, forsaking all others, til death did them part. Nothing else - except possibly the reintroduction, unnoticed by me, of the grand old tradition that all the Clerkes of Oxenforde be obliged to take Holy Orders - explains the outrage in the Guardian comments about them slipping off to canoodle with the proposed New College of the Humanities. Listen to poor cuckolded Eagleton's reaction to the idea of the floozy-college: he speaks of "the nausea which wells to the throat at the thought of this disgustingly elitist outfit."

A disgustingly elitist university. Disgusting, I calls it. Well, we both do.

I lied above. I think this is a splendid development. It is sure to be a learning experience all round. First, a learning experience for the students, at a very reasonable eighteen grand per annum - peanuts compared to the American colleges. Second, a learning experience for Eagleton and all his fellow toilers in the loyal universities. A bit of competition will buck them up. Thirdly it might even be a learning experience for Professors Grayling, Dawkins, Ferguson, Colley, and Cannadine. The first two named are hard atheists and soft socialists and have been very much given to denouncing the divisiveness of faith schools and demanding that any institution in receipt of state money be obliged to stick to the state line. (I have to admit that in a backhanded way Grayling and Dawkins have a point: the stupidest thing the religious schools, which are older, often far older, than state education, ever did was to let themselves be talked into taking the government coin. He who pays the piper calls the tune, fools. In mitigation, the smooth, reasonable bureaucrats who promised that the religious schools' distinctive character would of course be preserved within the state system were difficult men to disbelieve.) Anyway, I think the New Collegians might be about to rediscover the concepts of freedom of association ... freedom of schools to select their pupils as they see fit ... freedom to set their own syllabus ... oh, and freedom to educate for profit.

(33)

Commenting on this Guardian article, someone called "weejonnie" says,

If you want to participate in the gross corporate profits why don't you buy shares in the companies. Decide which ones are making far too much and invest in them.

Or has that gone over the average left-thinking person's head?

(61)

We have recently had a bit of a storm in a thimble about the subject of university degrees and how this apparently fuels the "Enemy Class/hegemony/Nanny State-which-must-be-smashed-by-something" sort of issue. The original subject was nannying government threats about issues concerning diet. Suddenly the issue came up of the sort of folk pushing for this: David Cameron with his Oxford University PPE (Politics, Philosophy and Economics). Regular commenter IanB then constructed what I regard as an unwarranted and extraordinarily broad-brush thesis. He caused so much offence to our editor, Perry de Havilland, that, entirely within Perry's rights as owner of this turf, IanB's subsequent remarks were deleted. Now he has responded, over at the Counting Cats blog. He's clearly upset, or at least, does not, in my view, fully grasp the reasons for the annoyance his remark caused.

This is my take on the matter. There is certainly a "bubble", or malinvestment issue, in higher education in much of the West. I also think that the school leaving age should be reduced. Heck, I also have argued that labour market rules should be eased to make it easier for firms to take on apprentices so that young people can do something productive and lucrative. A lot of graduates are likely to come out of universities feeling bitter and betrayed at having degrees that are of limited market use and yet are saddled with heavy debts. The whole model needs to be rethought, and radically. I have said so in the past and intend to repeat this point from time to time.

But to target liberal arts degrees such as the polymath forms of PPE, Greats, History, in the particular way that IanB does is truly mad.

Consider this paragraph from this comment thread: (February 20, 2011 05:35 PM)

"The PPE degree is entirely sinister. The university system, and the education system beneath it are primarily sinister. We live in a sinister political and social structure, designed by sinister people, for sinister ends. There is no shame in hating that which is evil. That some proportion of PPE graduates do not go on to participate directly in the evil of the State no more disproves the general observation than finding a few good eggs in your local Communist party would exhonerate Communism."

Now that's madness on a motorcycle. "Entirely sinister". "Evil". No ifs, buts, or maybes. No, if a 20-year-old goes to college to study bits of economics, philosophy, politics and maybe history, there is no redemption for them. While Mr "B" might concede that quite a few libertarians/classical liberals have done such degrees - I know around 10 who have - in general, it is "entirely sinister" and should, presumably, be suppressed. Yet I know of people who did this degree, or others like it (I read history), with no end-goal of working in government, or of propping up some "establishment"; in fact many seem to have worked in business or done things very different. The degree may have started out as an entrance exam for government, but that is by no means its only, or even dominant, use these days.

In any event, if we are worried about Big Government, nanny statism and the whole prevailing Precautionary Principle mindset - and we are - then it seems a bit arse-about-face to focus on the subjects that future politicians/civil servants choose to study, since how can we predict that learning a course A rather than B is going to turn out a certain mindset we approve or disapprove of? Sounds a bit like hubris to me. (Hubris, of course, is a word that comes from those poncey Greeks).

Rather, would it not make rather more sense to cut governments down to size and worry about what the Davids, Johns or Nigels will study later on, if at all? Who is to say that in a private education world, or homeschooling one, that there will not be quite a lot of demand for polymath arts-type exams, as well as others? Let a thousand flowers bloom how they may, I say.

A historical point: In the early 19th Century, many of the leading political figures of the day - Robert Peel (double-first at Oxford), W E Gladstone, etc, were classical liberals in their broad philosophy of government, and a grounding in the Classics, and understanding of the lessons of Ancient Rome and Greece, proved useful. Ditto the US Founding Fathers. They all did those dead languages about times long ago, no doubt to the bemusement of some. The writings and speeches of Cato and Cicero, or Seneca and Tacitus, were part of their mental DNA. Of course, some of this could have been self-taught, but without those fusty old universities, might not have been made nearly so widespread.

Anyway, I see that IanB has no desire to return to these comment threads, which is a pity, since he is more or less one of the good guys with whom I agree more often than not, especially on things such as the nanny state. But I feel that I need to state these points for the record lest he gets it into his head that he is some sort of wronged party here. Anyway, if he wants to chat to me about this over a beer or three, he's got my email address.

Update: IanB has complained of my quoting him out of context, such as the paragraph containing all that use of the word "sinister". Well, it was certainly eye-catching, and I was not going to reprint the whole thread.. I copied and pasted it because, as I replied to him in a private email, that was a paragraph that clearly summed up how he felt about these things. He's a first-class writer; if you use words like "sinister", or "evil", to describe a fucking exam, then naturally, some folk are going to pick on it. We can do all we can with nuance and emphasis, but that paragraph was pretty plain in its meaning. Of course, we all write or say things we meant had come out a bit differently. I certainly have.

Another update: BTW, I have re-calculated in my head the number of people whom I would call classical liberals/non-idiotarian Tories/even a few more sensible lefties, who have done liberal arts degrees at the more swanky universities in the UK (I have not included all the various folk in the US, as this would be a very big number). I come up with about 100 people. (The figure includes recently graduated students, as well as one or two people who are sadly no longer with us, or getting on a bit, and who played big roles in the libertarian movement, such as Chris Tame, or in the more conventional conservative/liberal side further back, such as Anthony Flew, Roger Scruton, Michael Oakeshott, Isiah Berlin, Kenneth Minogue, Shirley Robin Letwin, etc).

Now, IanB might still claim that this is a tiny percentage, no significance, as is his wont. Then again, I would argue that this shows that the so-called "Enemy Class" is being quite effectively infiltrated by a fairly determined, if relatively small, number of folk on "our side". I mean, take the think tanks: Adam Smith Institute, Institute of Economic Affairs, Taxpayers Alliance, Policy Exchange, Cobden Centre, Centre for Policy Studies.....Hardly a tiny, insignificant part of UK political/economic intellectual life. Many of them were founded, staffed and backed by people who did the sort of degrees that IanB largely writes off as "gatekeeper" exams. If they are "gatekeeper" exams, then it would appear that they are not quite performing as intended. In fact, the gate has a bloody great hole in it.

(6)

How about adding some math lessons to plot statistically the chance of an Arab suicide bomber and a gay socialist vegetarian pacifist wearing a Che Guevara tee shirt and no sense of irony all ending up on the same bus in London?

State education is beyond parody.

- Perry de Havilland commenting here

(7)

I'm against the rise in student fees... 'cos it ain't fuckin' high enough

- Thaddeus Tremayne

(6)

An ex-Marxist deputy head teacher called Katharine Birbalsingh got a standing ovation at the Conservative conference.

Among the things she said were:

"If you keep telling teachers that they're racist for trying to discipline black boys and if you keep telling heads that they're racist for trying to exclude black boys, in the end, the schools stop reprimanding these children."

"When I give them past exam papers to do from 1998, they groan and beg for a 2005 or 6 paper, because they know it'll be easier. The idea of benchmarking children and letting them know how they compare to their peers is considered so poisonous by us teachers that we don't ever do it."

The management at her school were not happy and sent her home to await their judgement. It should be noted that she had only worked at this school for a few weeks, so most of the experiences she related referred to her previous schools.

It turns out that the "executive head" (not sure what that means) who sent Ms Birbalsingh home was quite happy with some other forms of political activity. Dr Irene Bishop allowed St Saviour’s and St Olave’s School, of which she is also head or executive head or whatever, to be used as the backdrop for the launch of Labour’s 2001 election campaign. I remember Matthew Parris describing the occasion in the Times as "breathtakingly, toe-curlingly, hog-whimperingly tasteless".

Ms Birbalsingh is now back at work. But it also turns out that she is also Miss Snuffleupagus of To Miss With Love, a very fine education blog. I cannot link to it because at some time over the last few days it was taken down.

Laban Tall grabbed a bit of it via Google Cache:

The girls push open some doors at the top of the staircase and draw back quickly.

'Nah... we can't go down that way.'

I frown. 'What do you mean, we can't go down that way?' They are visibly frightened.

So I push past them, enter onto the staircase landing and find a bunch of boys half way down the stairs, sitting on chairs, gambling with paper money and cards. We are in the middle of lesson time. The girls are uncomfortable. They have clearly been briefed to make sure they avoid such scenes. And these boys are not happy either to be interrupted.

'Come on girls!' I shout. 'Let's go!' And I motion for them to follow me down the stairs towards the boys. The girls follow me, reluctantly.

These boys don't know me of course. I have no clout in this school. So I know I cannot inspire fear. 'Sorry boys!' I sing. 'Coming through!'

The boys look up at me, almost growling. As we approach, one of them puts his foot up on the chair, on top of the money, and blocks our way. I step over his leg. 'Thank you boys!' I smile. The girls follow sheepishly. As we continue now on the other side, moving down the stairs, I call back up, grinning. 'Boys... I'm sure you're not meant to be doing that right now! Better watch someone doesn't catch you!'

And off we go. Phew. I can almost hear the girls' relief.

(15)

The A-Level pass rate has risen for the 28th successive year.

Debasing the coinage. It's what governments do.

(18)

Toby Young is a hate figure for lefty educationalists (i.e. 99% of them) because he is a leading figure in setting up one of these "free schools", deregulated state schools on the Swedish model that the coalition government hopes to introduce. In this article he carefully debunks five of the scare stories the left has spread about the free schools.

Though like all of us I am sure he has faults, Toby Young is a Good Thing. Free schools are not free and not perfect but are, or will be, a broadly Good Thing. The dissemination of true information in place of false is a Good Thing. Mr Young's fivefold debunking is well worth reading if you wish to be better informed about the nearest thing to a Good Thing that has hit British state education in years.

It is sad that in almost every case I would have preferred the myth to be true. Here is why I wish Mr Young's five debunked myths were not bunk after all.

Myth No. 1. “Money for free schools will come from ‘the extremely wasteful Building Schools For The Future’ budget.” Suzanne Moore, Mail on Sunday, July 11, 2010

I gather there has been some sort of row about this, which I would research if I didn't have toenails to cut. Government money, like all money, is fungible. So long as you bear in mind that it all ultimately "comes from" - as in "is extracted by force from" - the taxpayer, you can think of it as coming from whatever government budget heading makes you happy. I would have been made happier by thinking it came from a notoriously wasteful budget.

Myth No. 2. “Free schools will have to find their pupils from somewhere, preferably poached from existing local schools, shrinking their budgets and possibly leading to a spiral of decline …” Fiona Millar, The Guardian, June 18, 2010

What the hell is wrong with poaching pupils from existing schools anyway? The very word "poaching" reveals a mindset that regards the children as the property of the schools. They are not. It would do most of the local schools ("local" being next to meaningless in this context other than as a means to arouse feelings of protectiveness; every school is located somewhere) a power of good to be put in fear of losing their pupils. They might have to take desperate measures to keep them; possibly even going so far as to provide an education. And if the dear, sweet local schools cannot or will not do that then let the spiral of decline commence, though a vertical downwards arrow of decline would be better.

Myth No. 3. “It’s freedom, in our view, to reduce the vision for 21st century schools to children being educated in a run-down flat over an off licence …” Chris Keates, General Secretary of the NASUWT, April 9, 2010

So long as they are educated, who cares where? The NASUWT is the least worst of all the teachers' unions but even so I suspect that the real objection here is that young people emerging from run down flats to take up a scholarship at Oxford or Cambridge might suggest that the all money put into shiny school facilities does very little good.

(Mind you in debunking this one Toby Young twists the knife with delicacy: "Chris Keats also said in the same speech that the Conservatives’ Free Schools policy would favour the “pushy and privileged”. How? By enabling them to educate their children in run-down flats above off licenses? This is typical of the double-think at the heart of most Free School critiques. They are going to be run by a bunch of religious nutters in nissan huts at the bottom of their gardens and, at the same time, siphon off all the most motivated learners, thereby depriving neighbouring comprehensives of a vital resource.")

Myth No. 4. Free Schools are a “vanity project for yummy mummies in West London”. Tristram Hunt, The Today Programme, May 18, 2010

Nothing could be a better omen of a project's success than to have its fortunes linked to the vanity of a group famed for its (a) vanity and (b) success at getting what it wants.

Myth No. 5. “[P]ushy parents can set up a bijou academy free of any sane inclusive admissions policy …” Steve Pound MP, The Ealing Gazette, June 29, 2010

Toby Young says, "Not true. The admissions policies of Free Schools will have to be fully inclusive..." Oh, dear. Oh, damn. This was the most depressing debunking of all. I can't put it any better than one of Mr Young's commenters, sevendeuce, who says,

However, I can't help feeling that you are allowing a very large cuckoo into the nest by accepting the existing admissions codes.

The failing schools that parents want to escape from are not failing because of their buildings, Heads or teachers. They are failing because of the presence of disruptive, unmotivated and sometimes violent pupils - often with disruptive, unmotivated and violent parents.

If you end up with exactly the same cohort of children from the locality as is present in the state schools, I'm just not sure you will see that much improvement.

You may be hoping to attract better teachers through freedom to pay more. That's fair enough, but will the better teachers come if they are going to face the same disruptive kids as in the local Comp? I suspect not, unless the pay differential is huge. I think they will do what they do now, move to an independant school or elite state school.

It may be you are stuck with the Admission Code and have no choice. Then the only hope is to have a rigorous exclusion policy, with no appeals panels. Then perhaps the worst of the worst will be removed within a matter of days and their influence minimised.

(21)

Great was the lamentation among the staff of the General Teaching Council when Michael Gove, Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Education, decided to abolish it. Less great was the lamentation from pretty much anyone else. Teachers did not seem bothered.

In case you were wondering the GTC is...

Don't go away! Sex! Nazis! Nazi sex! Oh, all right, no Nazi sex. But there are evil Australians, so keep reading.

... the GTC is an official body that regulates teachers. When talking to teachers it described itself as in some sense belonging to them; the equivalent of the British Medial Association or the Law Society. (Alas for teachers' bank balances, it was not nearly as good at conspiring against the public as these two bodies are.) When talking to government it downplayed that aspect and up-played its aspect as a government-appointed regulator.

Anyway Mr Gove has said he will abolish it. A bloke called Martin Dean, co-chair of the Public and Commercial Services Union at the GTC, defended it in this Guardian article.

I was particularly struck by one of the arguments he used to bolster his claim that the GTC was a worthwhile body. He writes,

Gove should have been aware that the GTC has identified over 10,000 people who were teaching but not qualified, and has taken action to facilitate their removal from classrooms. We are still called upon by employers to clarify overseas-trained teachers' professional qualifications, and we contact headteachers to inform them if one of their staff is not suitably qualified.

In other words the GTC tracked down ten thousand teachers against whom no complaint had been made and forced their schools to sack them, caring nothing for the disruption that caused to the education of the children they were teaching. Ten thousand people who were peacefully doing their jobs had their jobs taken away from them because they did not have the right pieces of paper. In most cases it was not even that these were unqualified teachers (not that I would care, but some people do); in fact most of them were qualified teachers, just not qualified in Britain. What the GTC has heroically put a stop to is the tradition, beneficial to school and teacher alike, of young teachers from Australia and New Zealand doing a few years in Britain before going home.

Consider again that these words were put forward by a member of the GTC in an effort to make people like it more.

Well done, Mr Gove. Now if you could just drop your own magical thinking and credentialism (he has proposed to "increase the status of teachers" by forbidding the profession to those with only a Third class degree*), you might turn out to be quite a useful education minister, in so far as such a thing can exist.

*CORRECTION: Commenter rosscoe says "I don't think he's said that people with a third can't be teachers just that the tax payer won't pay for their training."

(4)

Sam Bowman, whom I mentioned in my previous posting below about the IEA, responded by emailing me further proof that he is taking his Cobden Centre duties seriously:

The Cobden Centre Education Network is a new network of students in the UK interested in libertarian and classical liberal economics, especially the Austrian school. Working with the Cobden Centre it aims to connect libertarian and classical liberal students across the UK and help them develop their interests and involvement in classical liberalism and libertarianism.

This summer, the Cobden Centre Education Network will be hosting a series of seminars studying Murray Rothbard’s Man, Economy and State, a seminal work in Austrian economics that lays the foundation for further study of the Austrian school. The seminars will take place twice a month at the Institute for Economic Affairs in London, and Cobden Centre board members and fellows will join us for some sessions. Electronic copies of all reading materials and a study guide will be provided.

As well as being a unique opportunity to develop a comprehensive knowledge of the Austrian school, this will give Education Network members a chance to meet some of Britain’s foremost libertarian and classical liberal thinkers.

If you are interested in joining the Cobden Centre Education Network, please email Sam (sam @ cobden centre (all one word) dot org - I trust that will deter at least some spammers - BM) with your name, contact email address, and university and course if you are currently in education. Please also state if you are available to attend events during the summer in London.

Outstanding. And good on the IEA for lending them the place to do this.

Badgering politicians is worth a go, because you can get lucky, and because even if they don't listen, someone else might, especially in an age when letters can double up as internet postings. But politicians will mostly just do their thing, which is fire fighting the fires on their desks within the limits set by public opinion, or by what they suppose to be public opinion, and within the limits that they all set amongst themselves. What matters is the long-term intellectual struggle, that is, the process of creating the limits within which politicians and other decision makers will operate in the future. The above enterprise is a fine example of how you go about doing that.

In the age of social media, blogs, emails and so on, it is tempting to suppose that personal contact is a bit superfluous. But I suspect that the most lasting impact of such novelties is creating and strengthening old fashioned face-to-face contacts, between people who might otherwise never have been introduced.

I wonder if there is an upper age limit.

(14)

I thought that this quote, by a commenter called "Berlinerkerl" in response to a Guardian article that really was called "Arm our children with media studies", was too good to be left languishing in the "more than 50 comments" bilge tanks of a Comment Is Free article.

In his detailed study of Bill and Ben the Flowerpot Men, Jones (2001) draws our attention to the mass of early post-modernist contradictions running throughout the series. Whilst Bill and Ben live in an idealised, hedonistic, not to say nihilistic world, they only come out to play when the Man Who Works in the Garden, the authority figure par excellence, goes to have his dinner. Whilst the Class Oppressor is therefore an absent figure, he nevertheless should not be ignored. Class Oppression is, indeed, a recurring theme, as every time Slowcoach the Tortoise appears, the Flowerpot Men dance on his back, as Marxist critics such as Stalin (1995, p786) have pointed out.

That the Flowerpot Men are invariably awoken by the Little Weed is a clear pointer to a drug-addicted subculture. The language used by the Flowerpot Men harks back to the Theatre of the Absurd - Smith (1997, pp 129-150) draws parallels with Ubu Roi.

Bee-bop-flobbalob :-)

Another commenter called Pressman56 suggested instead that instead of arming our children with media studies we arm them with Kalashnikovs.

(21)

According to "Messenger", a guest poster at Bishop Hill blog, they - in the form of the Climate Change Schools Project - are "bringing climate change to the heart of the national curriculum."

So far the the Climate Change Lead Schools network only consists of 80 schools from across the North East. But fear not, says the Project's website, "They are helping to pave the way for what is hoped will become a national programme of positive climate change education and action, led by our young people."

I have a feeling that the words "led by our young people" are strictly conditional on said leadership being in one particular direction.

The "Climate Cops" activity that so angered Messenger, in which children "book" their friends or parents for crimes against climate, has already reached beyond the area of the North East in which the "Lead Schools" were situated. I saw a leaflet about it in my local library. Creepy website here. It is sponsored by nPower, the gas and electricity company - another example of how big energy corporations, far from opposing climate change activism, frequently pay for it.

(13)

On the BBC's morning news show, was a short spot about unruly school pupils. One of the issues that was raised by the presenter was the fact that in a lot of schools, headteachers do not really have a very strong idea of what goes on in the classroom. A bit later in the show, a female headteacher was asked about this and she said something to the effect of "Well, I am on the road a lot and out of the school attending conferences and so on, but I have children of my own".

Nice.

(7)

Mental hospitals in this case.

I sometimes get stick on Samizdata for pointing out that the demands of practical politics in a media democracy mean that it is pointless to try the public statements of politiicans against an ideological touchstone, and unreasonable to believe that they believe everything they say from day to day. But I do greatly resent two consequences of populist pandering: first, the willingness to distort the facts to flatter or inflame public delusions and foster moral panics; second, the blithe adoption of policy that is logically or strategically utterly incoherent, suggesting they have no understanding whatsoever of what they are doing. Today brings an example of the latter:

The Conservatives' planning system would remove potential obstacles to the development of new schools by curtailing the power of local authorities in this area, according to the document.

The leaked planning policy says "for the [education] policy to be successful it is essential that unnecessary bureaucracy is not permitted to stifle the creation of new community schools".

Fine. Perfectly sensible. Get the monopoly producer interest out of the way. That is entirely consistent with an implicit aim of Tory education policy (definitely not publicly advertised as such) of permitting competition between schools. But..

Under the policy, as well as planning decisions on new schools being taken by the secretary of state for children, schools and families, anyone would be able to turn an existing building into a school without the need for planning permission.

Which might be good, but the madness is starting to creep in. If any building can be converted into a school ad lib (excellent), then what "planning decisions" could there be for the Secretary of State to take? And how does that accord with a general claim to be in favour of decentralisation?

And when an existing school closed, that land would not be allowed to be used for any other purpose without the agreement of the schools secretary.

Straightjacket for Mr Neill, please. That is just crazy.

"Let us establish a ratchet/racket whereby the proportion of land and other property occupied by schools is calculated to increase, regardless of demand. Let us destroy much of the advantage of the freeing up of planning, by making it clear to investors that they may be stuck with the change of use. Let us put future Secretaries of State in the position where they are directly politically responsible for the closure of any school, and therefore likely to be under pressure to resist it from concentrated interest groups, and constantly preoccupied with campaigns over particular cases. Cottage Hospitals, you say? What are they?"

(15)

A few weeks ago, I pointed out that if the allocation of scarce resources that have competing uses is no longer the province of voluntary market exchange, but state control, it gives all manner of power, sometimes life and death power, to state functionaries. I wrote about the issue of healthcare, but we have had another example here in socialist Britain, in the form of our state education system.

At present, parents who send their children to state schools must send them to a school that operates in a "catchment area". Parents who want to send their children to a school in a different catchment area cannot do so, except in exceptional circumstances. And much to the comical horror of our educational establishment, some parents have told lies about where they life so they can send their children to the highest-performing schools. The performance figures of school pupils are now published and, while a crude measure of performance in some ways, give parents at least some idea of where the best schools are. And so naturally, parents like to choose the best schools.

Of course, if we scrapped the state schooling system, and gave generous tax breaks or vouchers worth several thousand pounds to any parent with children, they could directly shop around for the best schools, and the whole nonsense of catchment area allocation would disappear. New education entrepreneurs would spring up. The catchment area mentality is partly drawn from a classic piece of egalitarian zero-sum thinking, which goes a bit like this: there are only so many good teachers to go around, and it is wrong that some children should be better schooled than others because of some unjust inequality in the spending power of their parents. But leaving aside the fact that I deny it is unjust for parents to spend as much as they want on their children's schooling, the fact is that if you give far more choice to parents, competition will drive up the overall standard of schooling, and this, in my view, will disproportionately benefit youngsters from the poorest backgrounds. It is poor children who most need the kind of competition and drive of a school that has to worry about keeping its "customers". Let's face it, children from middle class schools will always be able to have some of the benefits of private tuition, etc.

I know that one objection to vouchers is that the state could, presumably, dictate certain standards for any school receiving voucher cash, and might use that power as a way of interfering with education another way. Fair point. To reduce the dangers of that happening, any voucher scheme or tax break system for schools should be accompanied by the obliteration of the current education bureaucracy. This is desirable on a number of grounds, not least for the cuts to state spending. It is, however, folly to imagine that a perfect free market system would be on the table any time soon, but as an intermediary step, greater parental choice, which would be of particularly great value to parents on low or moderate incomes, would be an enormous benefit to society, not just in educational terms, but also as a way of reinforcing the power of parents and of families generally. As some readers might remember me saying before, any such reform should also be accompanied by a reduction in the school leaving age.

But the present system of allocating school places by a rigid geographical formula, and policing it in the current way, is simply unendurable. It is also worth considering something else: in UK society, many of the big spending decisions that people make, either as individuals or as parents, are not mediated through the voluntary exchange of a market, but via the "tax-now and we might give you something in return" route of the state. On education and health - two of the most important issues for us - the role of the private sector is squeezed to the margins. One would have thought that the great growth in the prosperity of the West would have made the involvement of the state in such large areas less necessary than it might have appeared to someone in say, the late 1940s, but judging by this story about schools and catchment areas, the statist mindset is as strong as it was in the era of Clement Attlee.

We are used to all manner of choices in our lives in the West, whether it be our choice of holiday, spouse or computer system. Is it really such a massive leap to hope that parental choice of school will soon be as unremarkable as any other choice we make in our lives?

(15)

"By the end of that summer, I had concluded that the population cannot be divided into an intellectual class and a nonintellectual class; instead, I concluded, everyone is to some extent an intellectual. The college professor is an intellectual who, it is hoped, applies his intellect to his teaching and research. The skillful auto mechanic is an intellectual who uses logic to eliminate various possible causes of an engine's failure in order to narrow it down to the actual cause. Everyone is an intellectual. Compulsory schooling has robbed millions of people of the knowledge of their intellectual birthright."

David Henderson, reflecting on how he learned to be less dismissive of folks who had not been to university. I am glad to say that I have never suffered from that form of snobbery: having a smart-as-hell dad who could have gone down the academic route but who chose a different path does help, of course, in providing a firewall against striking superior attitudes.

The way things are going, not going to university will be a badge of pride.

(8)

"In Soviet Russia, tractor production figures were always on the rise. In modern Britain we have our own equivalent: the annual increase in exam passes and improvement in grades, celebrated just as enthusiastically by the governments of Margaret Thatcher and John Major as by those of New Labour. It is all built on a lie."

Stephen Pollard.

I agree with some of Mr Pollard's analysis, although I do not detect any support by him for the idea that the problem is more profound than whether schools adopt "progressive" or "traditional" methods. The whole notion that compulsory education might itself be a problem is not even addressed, nor does he touch on the idea of home schooling. And Stephen P. just takes it as read that however crap schooling may be, that the model of sending children to these places between the age of X and Y is broadly okay, it is just that the structure is a bit wonky and the teachers are all ideologues, etc. The problem goes a bit deeper than that.

(24)

Sheila Lawlor, director of the think tank Politeia, is concerned that the status of teachers is low and that too few people apply to become teachers. She regrets that in Britain it is rather easy to get a place in a teaching course whereas elsewhere in Europe the entry qualifications are strict. In an article for the Times entitled Get higher grades from teachers first, she writes:

Would raising entry standards at least to those of comparable European countries help to improve matters? Or would, as one union threatened some time ago, a GCSE Grade B in maths mean that applications to the profession collapse? Probably more terrifying for the Government than bad teachers is the prospect of no teachers. Yet far from threatening the supply of teachers, higher and tougher entry standards bring greater competition for places. In France five candidates compete for each job. Here the highest entry levels set for medical school go along with the most sought after university places.

This is an interesting argument. Well, not exactly argument, since having raised the question of whether making it harder to become a teacher might not reduce the supply of teachers as common sense and two and a half centuries of observed economics might lead one to expect, she simply asserts that the converse is true: "Higher and tougher entry standards bring greater competition for places."

I think the bit that is meant to be the argument is the next sentence, saying that in France - where, as the article has said earlier, the status of teachers is high, and the qualifications required to become a teacher are also high, there are many people who want to be teachers.

Back in 1974 the physicist Richard Feynman gave a lecture in which he described the beliefs of certain primitive tribes:

In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they've arranged to imitate things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land.

See, the tribe of the French get the cargo. Let us do as the French do and surely the cargo will flow to us!

Ms Lawlor, like the cargo cultists, is persuaded that by imitating some of the forms (runways, men with headphones, high entry qualifications for teaching) associated with a desired state of affairs (free goodies from the gods, high status of teachers) one can cause that state of affairs to come about.

To be fair to Ms Lawlor, economists do speak of certain goods for which demand, contrary to the usual way of things, goes up as the price goes up. I think they are either called Veblen goods or Giffen goods but trying to nail down which might apply here is giffen me a headache. I will concede that just possibly increasing the entry qualifications for teaching might conjure down a little status from the sky. Perhaps one or two easily-led souls might be induced to apply for a teaching course as a result. But compared to the numbers put off from doing so by the frequent unpleasantness and occasional danger involved in teaching in a British state school, this is very minor magic indeed.

Sorry. No airplanes land.

(8)

When I did education blogging I wrote a lot about something I called sovietisation. This referred to the baleful impact upon education of our present government's mania for setting targets (often involving exam results) and then rewarding institutions according to how well they could fake reaching these targets. In this connection, see this posting by David Hepworth. It is based on a story that has already seen the light of day in Times Higher Education, although I couldn't get further with the link in Hepworth's posting than that.

This comment on Hepworth's piece by a certain Rob Spence deserves, I think, slightly wider circulation:

I work in a university that's in what is coyly termed the same "sector" as London Met - i.e. the widening access, non- "traditional" student sector. There's a real tension between the government's agenda to have 50% of people taking a degree, and the absolute imperative, driven by the funding model, to retain students. So on the one hand we are accepting students with at best a mediocre academic record, whose motivation is not study but lifestyle, and on the other we are being penalised financially if we fail to retain them. No-one can be surprised if these utterly apathetic students drift away, but the system insists that every student who decides, for probably very good reasons, that they don't want to carry on, represents a failure on the part of the university, which then gets its funding reduced.

You are right, it looks as if they are cooking the books, but it's actually quite difficult to keep track of non-appearing students, because whereas in the past we could just withdraw them, now we are expected to keep them on the books.

There are quite a few "ghost" students who register, but never turn up - we had one last year who registered, collected her student loan, and disappeared to Ibiza.

Quantifying success, eh? It can really get you into trouble. Especially if you are the government. You define success, but you end up trampling all over it.

You define educational success as, say, vast numbers of people going on to university who don't really want to go on to university. But by the time the policy has worked its evil way, the thing being measured has done a cartwheel. In this case, the thing that the government pays for, people turning up at a university, is measured. But people vanishing soon afterwards is something that it is in nobody's interests to notice. The university wants to hang on to the government's money. The government wants to be able to boast about how swimmingly everything is going and how much it is helping. Only a few malcontents grumble, in things like blog comment threads, but if they get serious and loud about their grumbling, they too will find their interests seriously suffering, as they well know.

With enterprises that are responsible to themselves and to a gang of people in their immediate vicinity, people who are basically taking their own chances at their own expense, a mess like the one described so well by Rob Spence eventually gets corrected, because it costs too many people too much to persist with it. They change the definition of success to one that works better. Or they replace the boss, or even all the bosses. If all that fails, they shut the enterprise down and everyone goes their separate ways. Which is often acrimonious, because quite a few people may still be getting what they want for a price they can live with, but at least the badness for those who are not so happy with things stops. But when the government's success measurements cause havoc, everyone is all too liable still to conspire to say that all is well.

What makes sovietisation so uniquely itself is the way that everyone knows the story - what is going wrong and why it is going wrong - but nobody has any interest in telling the story like it really is, up to and including the Minister for whatever it is being deranged, for he/she too depends on all those statistically encoded lies to tell the world that he/she is doing a great job instead of merely a very average or worse job. The Prime Minister likewise, come to that.

The answer is to denationalise everything. Not easy, I know. But necessary if you want this kind of nonsense to be kept within bounds.

(24)

I would not recommend spending major chunks of one's only life helping to clean up the intellectual mess inflicted by post-modernism, but occasionally keeping tabs on the mess, and on those heroic souls who are part of this noble cleansing project, can be fun. In this spirit, I recommend this.

To start with I was merely going to do a(n) SQOTD, but the list of bits I found I wanted to recycle here from this conversation soon outgrew that plan.

Bit one, from David Thompson, in connection with a response to a posting he did about art bollocks (Thompson's italics are here emboldened):

One postmodernist commenter took exception to my criticism - first by accusing me of arguing things I clearly wasn’t arguing, then by saying I was holding “entrenched positions” in which “aesthetic values” (in scare quotes), “scientific reality/clarity” (again, in scare quotes) and my own “reliance on logical consistency” (ditto) were obstacles to comprehension. Specifically, they were obstacles to comprehending Shvarts’ alleged (but oddly unspecified) “arguments of power, control [and] dominance.” The tone was, of course, condescending and self-satisfied. I’m guessing the commenter in question didn’t pause to consider the possibility that one might find pomo bafflegab objectionable precisely because it represents the “power, control [and] dominance” of what amounts to a priestly caste.

Bit two, also from Thompson (the Windschuttle essay he refers to is here):

In the essay linked above, Keith Windschuttle names various academics and educational advisors who claim that truth and reality are “authoritarian weapons” and that disinterested scholarship is merely “an ideological position” favoured by “traditionalists and the political right.” This presents a rather handy excuse to dismiss political dissent without having to engage with inconvenient arguments. Presumably, if you prefer arguments that are comprehensible and open to scrutiny, this signals some reactionary tendency and deep moral failing. On the other hand, if you sneer at such bourgeois trifles, you’re radical, clever and very, very sexy. (Though I wonder what mathematicians and structural engineers would make of this claim. Is there such a thing as a rightwing calculation, or a rightwing bridge - I mean a bridge that’s rightwing because it doesn’t promptly collapse?)

This reminds me of a very funny bit in this book where John O'Farrell (his subtitle is: “Eighteen Miserable Years in the Life of a Labour Supporter, 1979-1997” - here's hoping you ain't seen nothing yet mate), recalled that certain leftwing university radicals of his acquaintance used to regard smiling as rightwing.

Since Stephen Hicks is the grandee being interviewed here, let Hicks have bit three:

The function of language is to express one's thoughts. If you think truth is possible, then you work hard to understand the world clearly and completely. But if you doubt that truth is possible, that has psycho-epistemological consequences: you come to believe that the world is at best fuzzy and your mind incapable of grasping it - you come to believe deep down that all is fractured and disjointed - and your writing will tend to the fuzzy, the fractured, and the disjointed. And in consequence you will come to be suspicious of clarity in others. Clarity, from this perspective, must be an over-simplifying.

It's tempting to dismiss postmodernism as being such obvious and such obviously self-destructive intellectual junk as not to be worth bothering with. Just hold your nose and walk on by, don't complain about it, it only encourages them, etc. But postmodernism has had, and continues to have, a hideously destructive effect on the study of the humanities in universities (somewhat less so on anything with pretensions towards being in any way scientific), and it will only go away if the next few generations of scholars can be persuaded to treat it with the contempt that it deserves. So keep it up, Hicks, and thank you, Thompson, for talking with him so interestingly.

(50)

Some time ago, I asked here, non-rhetorically: What use is handwriting?, and I got a lot of very useful answers, such as that techies can communicate very well if they can hand-write, in ways that just wouldn't work with any gadget more complicated than a pencil or felt-tip pen. By attaching labels to hastily sketched diagrams or graphs, for instance.

Now, for similarly pedagogical reasons I ask: What use is algebra? I refer to the most primitive sort of algebra, where you merely tiptoe into the swamp of abstraction and say things like: if a is 2 and b is 4, then what is a plus 2b? What is the specific value of writing out algebraic equations with small letters in them, and then either substituting particular values for those letters, or else deducing some of those values? Why go into letters, if all you then do is get out of them again, which seems to be the rule when you first start out at algebra.

I'm guessing – guessing because it is decades since I myself did any of this – that there is value to an equation, as a generalisation, quite lacking in the mere specifics of what happens in the particular case when a is 2 and b is 4. An equation specifies a general relationship, and one that is often worth understanding, and impossible to understand without this on-the-face-of-it peculiar and regressive diversion out of arithmetic and back into mere letters. But can the commentariat rephrase, correct, expand on that?

Ideally, they would do this in a way that might convince a twelve-year-old whose ambition is to get rich - perhaps by being a Something in The City (assuming there still is a City for him to be a Something in when he reaches his twenties) - and who now gets up before 6am every morning to do a paper round. By the time I get around to teaching him things like algebra, he is tired. What's the point of this?, he asks. I would like to be able to give him some better answers than I have managed so far. I both like and admire this boy, and would really like him to do well.

We meet every Tuesday night, so my next chance to pass on such things will be tomorrow evening.

UPDATE Tuesday lunchtime: Many thanks for all the comments, most useful. Lots to pass on and to think about, and not just this evening.

(29)

The BBC, anticipating the upcoming school holidays in the UK - lasting several weeks - has a news item up about the soaring cost of providing facilities for children to give them something to do. The story does not address the crucial question of why the cost is soaring. Is it increased regulation of child-care staff, or what? But beyond that, there clearly is a problem here, particularly for youngsters who are entering their teens and quickly find themselves getting bored after the first flush of pleasure of having free time wears off. When I was a kid, I was incredibly lucky to be brought up in a part of the world where I could help my parents run our family farm. At the age of 13 or 14 I was allowed to drive some of the farm machinery during the annual harvest. Under current UK health and safety regulations, all this would be made illegal, I suspect. I was paid an actual weekly wage based on the hours I worked on the farm. I remember thinking how cool that was. Many of my mates at school had summer jobs of various kinds, played some sports, went biking up to the coast, etc.

It seems to me that in part of the discussion about what "should be done" about feral kids armed with knives, there ought to be a recognition that one of the main problems that young people face in and outside school is boredom. And that can be cured, possibly, by working. We have to overcome our strange squeamishness over the employment of minors in actual jobs. I think that the rules and regulatory burdens should be relaxed so that apprenticeships become much easier for an employer to provide. I think some, if not all, of the young tearaways who are so worrying policymakers might actually feel proud of having a job, of earning money, of being able to brag about this to their lazier friends.

And please, dear commenters, do not tell me that all this is optimistic pie-in-the-sky speculation. We have a significant problem in the UK of young people who are a, being forced to stay in school well beyond the age at which they wish and can learn anything, and b, denied the opportunity to work, and c, becoming attracted to the fake charms of gangs and violence. By rejecting our horror of teen-labour, we might help to fix some of these problems.

(10)

My thanks to Shane Greer for alerting me to what, on the face of it, seems like very good news, from Northern Ireland:

The education minister has said she is very disappointed by grammar schools planning to set up a company to run independent entrance exams.

I was not disappointed at all, when I read that. If there is one thing that really, really needs to be got out of the clutches of the state, it is school examinations. Schools and parents and children need to be able to choose the best exams to take, and employers need to be able to choose which exam results they will take seriously. That way, exam results will change to suit the needs of the times, but will continue to be a meaningful test of educational excellence.

More than 30 schools have said the tests in English and maths, will be held over either two or three days.

The Association for Quality Education said the exams would be held in venues across Northern Ireland.

So far so good. But this is where the report becomes less pleasing:

However, Caitríona Ruane accused the schools of being elitist ...

Ah yes, elitist. What kind of a vicious school wants to teach only those pupils whom it wants to teach, and to teach them really well? Monstrous.

... and said they could face legal action from parents.

Parents, that is, demanding better exams results. At present, the government pays for all such litigation. An independent exam system will have to pay the costs of resisting all such legal challenges for itself.

Now comes the really scary bit, the bit that got me putting this here, rather than only, say, here:

"They have a choice, people always have a choice," the minister said.

"What I would say to them is think very carefully before you go down the route of bringing boards of governors into situations were they may find themselves spending their time in court."

This is the language of the Mafia.

What is happening here is that the state has made something, in this case exam results, so complicated and legally challengeable that only the state can easily afford all the litigation involved in supplying such a service. Then, they impose "progressive" and "radical" change, i.e. they wreck the state system. At which point, some people and some institutions try to make an independent go of replacing the formerly adequate (albeit ruinously expensive for the mere taxpayer) state service with one that they have devised themselves. And, legally, they can go it alone. They can do this. But the laws they have then to obey are so complicated that it will cost them an arm and a leg.

Back door abolition of whatever it is the politicians want abolished, in other words. Nationalise part of something. Throw money and laws at all of it, thereby herding everyone into the arms of the state system, on purely cost grounds. Then shut down whatever bits of the state system they always had in mind to destroy, and defy the "private" sector to respond, in an impossible legal environment that only the state can afford to function in.

Only very wealthy institutions can afford in their turn to defy such arrangements. Politicians duly denounce them as: very wealthy. If the private sector decides to charge quite a lot for the now very expensive service that they provide, they are accused of charging a lot. And the politicians use those excuses to pass yet more laws, if they prove to be necessary, turning difficulty into impossibility. There's a lot of it about.

The overall result in this case, Shane Greer fears, will be the destruction of the really quite good top end of the Northern Ireland education system.

(21)

As a child, I was indifferent at team sports - especially rugby union - and my preference was and is for individualistic games like golf, tennis, squash, martial arts (Bujinkan and fencing), or the odd game of poker (I guess some card games like Bridge count as a team game of sorts). One exception to the Pearce Crapness at Team Games was cricket. I loved playing it, unless some sadist of a captain put me on the boundary at point on a chilly afternoon with no prospect of a bat or bowl. I do not play much any more. My fielding was one of the best parts of my game: I once took a flying catch off a batsman who was beginning to rack up a big score and the catch was the pivotal point in the game. Our lot won. There is also the sensual pleasure of hitting a cover drive on the 'sweet spot' of the bat. You get a similar tingle down the spine when you do that in other sports, such as baseball. But cricket was my great team sporting love if only for the entirely selfish reason that I was just about competent at it.

I was reminded of all this by this excellent piece in the Daily Telegraph today. Like the author of that piece, I played cricket at a state school; cricket is being taught and played less in the public sector education system, to the detriment of the national game. Personally, as an advocate of private schooling and of reducing, not raising, the school-leaving age, I would not want to moan if the sport is taught less if that is what the parents, and just as importantly, the pupils, want (some kids hate team sports so much it has scarred their memories of schooling for life). But I would like to think that in a genuine private sector school system, where parents can use their consumer power to drive up standards, that the Greatest Game Known to Man would flourish a bit more.

I would be interested to know what fellow cricket nuts and Samizdata conspirators, Brian Micklethwait and Michael Jennings, have to think about this. Brian recently linked to this book, which looks very much worth a read.

(45)

Libby Purves writes in The Times about an astonishing piece of micromanagement in the British state education system (to which over 90% of children are subjected from 5 to 16). She rightly picks on the most horrific element.

... Michael Gove, the Shadow Education Secretary, instead of tossing his hat in the air and singing “Let my people go!”, proved that he is well in training to be a modern minister (aka an annoying, bossy pest) by criticising the decision to abandon the compulsory 30-song list. “This Government,” he thundered, “is so paralysed by political correctness and terminally afflicted by dithering that it cannot even decide on a simple thing like the songs children should learn.”

There's a lot of this. Shadow ministers continually criticise the government for "not doing enough" on this or that, or for insufficiently oppressive use of its draconian legislation, rather than offering an alternative policy involving some presumption in favour of liberty.

Unlike some of my colleagues, I do not mistake the public utterances of politicians as a direct expression of their personal beliefs. They are doing this in order to foster the impression that the Government is incompetent in the mind of the public, not as an adumbration of any particular policy of their own. The real horror is that the opposition has done expensive research and hard intellectual work to come up with this approach. They do not offer the public freedom, and not just because the public no longer finds liberty attractive. They know the message would not get through. In fact, for most people in Britain - and a very average most-person is the undecided voter a democratic politician must address - liberty is no longer intelligible.

Does the word "liberty" appear in the national curriculum, I wonder? ...

Not here. But ... a Google site: search at www.curriculumonline.gov.uk brings up just two items.

The first is, a rather icky, PC, citizenship teacher's guide to the internet:

This unique and invaluable resource is a guide to the best of a huge collection of Citizenship resources available on the Internet. Fifty nine sites are included and each site is evaluated in terms of its content, usefulness, links and suitability. Sites included: ActionAid Schools and youth groups anti-slavery Central Bureau for International Education and Training Council for Education in World Citizenship Global Citizenship Global Dimension The Institute for Citizenship Montage Plus QCA Subjects Citizenship Hampshire Citizenship Project United Nations Home Page Knowledge and understanding about becoming informed citizens Campaign for Freedom of Information European Citizens' Rights The Citizenship Foundation Commonwealth Secretariat Council of Europe Education in Human Rights Network Europarl Explore Parliament The Hansard Society ippr Local Government Information Unit Local Government Association WEB SITE: Oxfam's Cool Planet Save the Children's Fund Scottish Human Rights Trust Department for International Development Understanding Global Issues Developing Skills of Enquire and Communication The Bar Human Rights Committee The Commission for Racial Equality : The Council of Europe Portal The British Institute of Human Rights The Runnymede Trust PICT Developing Skills of Participation and Responsible Action Amnesty International UK The Anne Frank Educational Trust UK The British Youth Council The Centre for Alleviating Social Problems Trough Values Education CEDC Community Education and Development Centre Community Learning Scotland Development Education Association Democracy 88 The Global Caf?? Age Concern Centre for Citizenship Studies in Education Human Rights Unit The Institute for Global Ethics NSPCC Kid's Zone : Liberty Peace Child Schools Council The Howard League The Human Rights Centre of The University of Essex Changemakers Windows on the World Worldaware This book comes with a disk that you can run through you web browser so that you just have to point and click to be connected to sites without having to type the address (you will need Internet access on your computer)

Not a huge variety of viewpoint there, though at least the "Liberty" referred to is the organisation of that name, which (in its soft-left way) definitely understands the meaning of the term.

The second is rather more sinister - a published standard lesson product, entitled "Why Obey the State":

Product Details
Description: Information about obedience to the state, with activities, for KS3 and KS4.
Publisher: Pearson Publishing (Publication date-15th Nov 2002)
Covers: Lesson
Teaching subject: Citizenship
Key Stage: Key stage 3 [11-14], Key stage 4 [14-16]
[...] Resource Information
Product type: Drill and practice
[...] Education Information
Covers: Lesson
Who is the resource for? Learner
General keywords: state, obey, democracy, intervention, liberty
National curriculum keywords: Citizenship and PSHE (Responsibilities - general information)

I wish I were making this up.

(11)

Tony Blair's support for City Academies - schools with some private sector funding and management - was a move in the right direction, albeit a small one. Now it seems that the Brown government is trying to water that down. Mick Fealty has a perceptive blog posting talking about the war of ideas being fought between Ed Balls, Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, and Lord Adonis, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Schools and Learners.

"So what?" I hear you say. Well it turns out that Mr Balls is not just unworried about Britain's tax burden, he is also blinded to the problem of centralised, top-down state control of education. Apparently, one of Mr Ball's colleagues says that the man is "entirely ideological. He has a strong belief in the role of local authorities in the delivery of services. He is a big state man."

Lord Adonis on the other hand is a believer in school freedom and wants sponsors to keep having their say on how City Academies run. I fear, however, that the government may well make another balls-up here. While Baroness Thatcher's reforms have largely stuck, the glue behind Mr Blair's few good ones is so weak.

(92)

I am not sneering; I am genuinely asking.

For the last few months I have been education blogging. I've never been much good at working out site stats, and things are made harder by my education blog sharing its numbers, or all the ones that I see, with my personal blog. But, going only by how the comment rate has gone from zero to detectable, my education blog is now showing occasional but definite signs of life. I reckon that education blogging is rather like teaching. To begin with you often achieve very little, but if you stick at it, good things may eventually start happening.

In connection with my education blog, and in connection with the helping out that I am now doing once a week at one of the supplementary schools run by the think tank Civitas, I find myself asking: what is the point of learning maths? I entirely accept that there is a point, in fact many points. It's just that I don't know much about what these points are. Some of the boys at the supplementary school - two in particular spring to mind - strike me as showing real mathematical talent, at any rate compared to the others. What can I say to them that might encourage them - and encourage their parents to encourage them - to get every bit as far in maths as they can? What use is maths? For lots of people, especially for lots of teachers and lots of children, that is surely a question worth knowing answers to.

I don't need to be convinced about the usefulness of arithmetic. People cheating you out of change in a shop, or loading you with debt obligations that you did not understand when you made the deal - working out floor areas and carpet costs – getting enough nails and screws and planks when you are DIYing about the house - just generally keeping track of work. I get all that. And, I find, I'm pretty good at teaching arithmetic to young boys and girls, partly because I do indeed understand how important it is.

But what about the kind of maths that really is maths, as opposed to mere arithmetic, with lots of complicated sorts of squiggles? What about infinite series, irrational numbers, non-Euclidian geometry, that kind of thing? I, sort of, vaguely, know that such things have all manner of practical and technological applications. But what are they? What practical use is the kind of maths you do at university? I hit my maths ceiling with a loud bump at school, half way through doing A levels and just when all the truly mathematical stuff got seriously started, and I never learned much even about what the practical uses of it all were, let alone how to do it.

I also get that maths has huge aesthetic appeal, and that it is worth studying and experiencing for the pure fun and the pure beauty of it all, just like the symphonies of Beethoven or the plays of Euripides.

But what are its real world applications? Please note that I am not asking how to teach maths, although I cannot of course stop people who want to comment about that doing so, and although I am interested in that also. No, here, I am specifically asking: why learn maths?

Occasional Samizdatista Michael Jennings works as a Something in the City, analysing things like technological trends. Not at all coincidentally he has a PhD in maths. He is the ideal sort of person to answer such questions, and he and I have fixed to record a conversation about the usefulness of mathematics later this week. But I am sure that a Samizdata comment thread on this subject would help us both, if only by helping me to ask some slightly smarter questions.

(12)

I was rather surprised to find my own alma mater, CMU, listed at number five on the ugly list referenced by the previous article. So surprised in fact that I wonder if any of the list is valid. If the rest of the photos were as carefully selected to back up the story as his closeup of a small section of Wean Hall in the rain...

Wean Hall is far from the best looking building on the CMU campus but as you can see it is no where near as bad as the photo in the article made it look. I might add that my office was on the back side of this building, facing the parking lot and the old Bureau of Mines.

Photo: copyright Dale Amon, All Rights Reserved

I will let the campus speak for itself. It may not be in the top ten most beautiful, but it most certainly is not among the ten ugliest.

Photo: copyright Dale Amon, All Rights Reserved

Photo: copyright Dale Amon, All Rights Reserved

Photo: copyright Dale Amon, All Rights Reserved

Photo: copyright Dale Amon, All Rights Reserved

Photo: copyright Dale Amon, All Rights Reserved

We definitely have the prettiest robots!
Photo: copyright Dale Amon, All Rights Reserved

Photo: copyright Dale Amon, All Rights Reserved

Photo: copyright Dale Amon, All Rights Reserved

Photo: copyright Dale Amon, All Rights Reserved

(27)

Here is a list of the 20 most ugly university campuses in the USA. I do not disagree with the choices. I have to say that back home, one of the worst was the University of Brighton, where I studied; the only mitigating factor was the lovely Sussex countryside. Other graduates of Brit universities may disagree. Go on, put up your votes for the worst, or for that matter, the nicest (it has to be pretty much any of the old Cambridge colleges).

(Hat tip: Stephen Hicks).

Random question: is there a correlation, or even a cause-effect relationship, between the aesthetic crapness of a place of learning and the amount of learning that actually goes on?

(30)

Here is an interesting profile of Deborah Ross, the American entrepreneur who also manages to home-school her children. Naturally, the thought does occur to me, in the light of the recent controversy kicked up by the Archbishop of Canterbury's thick-headed remarks about sharia law, whether parents with strong religious views who want to indoctrinate their kids, against their children's will, might bring the idea of home-schooling into disrepute. Personally, I think the benefits of letting parents play a much more hands-on role in schooling outweigh some of the disadvantages, particularly if children have the ability at a certain age to choose how they want to be schooled (the issue of giving children more freedom is still a very controversial one, even among liberals). The key change that must come, in my view, is an end to compulsory schooling or at the very least, a sharp reduction in the existing school age, rather than raising it ever further. I am also in favour of hacking away regulations to make it easier for companies to take on youngsters as apprentices. Many young folk are bored senseless at school and would be far less disruptive if they could learn a trade and generate the pride that comes with a paying job, while keeping up with academic subjects at a later date if they want (this might also reduce youth crime a bit).

Children are naturally inquisitive and rebellious against authority - thank goodness - so my reservations about some of the people who want to school their kids at home are not very large, although I do not dismiss them lightly. I sometimes hear in discussions about home-schooling the old canard about how children educated this way are less well 'socialised' than their supposedly more fortunate, state or private-school peers. I doubt this: having myself suffered the joys of state schooling, with all the charms of bullying and indifferent teaching that went with it, the idea of encouraging a possibly more individualistic culture as a result of home schooling is to be welcomed (my education experience was not all bad: I got a good degree in the end, so must have done something right). Many people who have been subjected to more than 11 years of compulsory education in a boarding school or some state school never recover their self-confidence as adults. In any event, the whole point here is that education should not have to follow one 'ideal' system at all. As a libertarian, I say let education evolve where it will. Does that mean that Walmart or Barclays Bank should be able to run schools? Yes, why the heck not? I look forward to reading headlines like this: "Education Ltd, Britain's largest listed schooling company, launched a daring bid for Lycee France, the Paris-listed school chain which has boasted the highest examination result tests for the last five years. The deal, if it goes through, would produce a group to rival that of School Corp, America's largest education chain by market cap."

Anyway, I strongly recommend people read the whole article. This Wikipedia entry is also a pretty interesting overview with loads of links for different approaches around the world to homeschooling.

(4)

A headline in the Australian newspaper struck my eye just now: 'Teachers warm to merit pay'. A deeper reading of the story reveals a few caveats, but the fact that Australian education unions are willing to concede anything at all to the principle still struck me as the most surprising thing to me. I thought we'd see peace in the Middle East, cold fusion and spending cuts long before seeing education unions in Australia concede the principle of merit pay.

(35)

One of the briefing notes that I get from a stockbroking company has this to say:

I see from the headlines that this Government seems to be reverting to type over the treatment of fee paying schools. When times get tough, "lets put a bit of trendy legislation through attacking those nasty ‘rich’ people" in a desperate attempt to divert attention away from the state of the economy. The definition of ‘charity’ used to be ‘for the public good’; it would be difficult to find a better description of that than educating a seriously large section of the ‘public’ (even if you are Middle Class you are still part of the Public), to a much higher level then the average at absolutely no cost to the Exchequer, and with money that has already been taxed at 40%.

The definition of ‘charity’ (where Public Schools are concerned), now appears to exclusively mean ‘benefiting those in poverty’ which, were it applied universally, would put virtually every charity in existence in a bit of a quandary. The problem with this type of legislation, is that it is almost impossible to defend against because it will always be the majority ganging up on the few (remember fox hunting?), especially when the few are perceived as the privileged minority. The UK establishment seems to be doing its normal reaction to success, which is not to lambaste the failures but to drag down the achievers.

The circular refers to this story. Now, ideological purists for classical liberalism might well argue that charitable tax breaks are a problem, since they immediately beg the question of who gets to decide who is entitled to the tax break and why. Far better, of course, to get rid of the taxes in the first place and let people spend as they wish; part of the case for low, flat taxes of course is that it will remove the need for a vast stage-army of accountants, lawyers, "tax planners" and the like who earn a high living on what is essentially paper-shuffling rather than genuine wealth creation. But, but... we live in the world we have, not Galt's Gulch. Hence the current attack on tax breaks and government interference in private schools should be seen for what it is; an attempt to further undermine any semblance of independent education in the UK.

Of course, Samizdata regulars will know that for real radicalism about education, we need to embrace the notion of removing compulsory schooling across the board, but I'll discuss that again in the future, no doubt.

(17)

In some of the recent understandable moans about the sheer awfulness of Britain's state-controlled rail network - please don't try and tell me it has much to do with laissez faire capitalism - several commentators have complained about the dearth of people entering the fields of engineering. Jeff Randall in today's Daily Telegraph does so. Various reasons are given for this lack of talent: the education system, an anti-science, anti-technology culture, etc. While some of these factors have a part to play in this, I do not think these explanations get to the core of the issue. If railway engineers do not earn large salaries and the job is not seen to be worth the hassle compared with say, becoming a hedge fund manager in London's West End, it is not a surprise to see what will happen. If or when the remuneration for being a new Brunel rivals or even exceeds that of being a Goldman Sachs derivatives dealer, we will get more engineers, and of higher quality. It is that simple.

Or maybe one problem is that railways, perhaps because of the problems now facing the UK industry, are seen as just plain dull. As Randall says, confessing to being a railway engineer may not always be a great move at a dinner party, or for that matter, on a hot date. I am not sure how one changes that.

(10)

From our special correspondent:

"Party boss Ed "bulging eyes" Balls told a respectful yet cheerful gathering of tractor workers in Omsk that the 10-year plan to increase tractor production by 1000% between now and 2018 was achievable. "Men," he said, his voice quavering slightly as the chill Siberian wind blasted through, "we can and will produce more tractors, of higher quality, over the next 10 years. Britain needs tractors. Tractors need Britain. It is true that despite our heroic efforts, and the massive, Soviet resources spent by Comrade Gordon, that tractor production continues to lag. But let us not be downhearted. We know that tractor production in the past has been held up by the capitalist sympathisers, wreckers and revisionists working for the late traitor, A. Blair. We can and will do better over the next 10 years."

At least, that is what I thought he said. Maybe it was education instead.......

For some sanity on how to get the state out of education, check out this website.

Update: related thoughts on home schooling and education by David Friedman (son of the great Milton).

Another update: Fabian Tassano has been a tireless campaigner against the odious idea of keeping people in school until the age of 18. His new book is also very good.

(50)

Recently I have been teaching a small boy the ancient art of handwriting. Make the small Ts bigger! Careful with those zeros, they're looking like sixes! Well done, it looks very neat! Yes I know it's hard, but keep going! And so on. Thank goodness for pencils. But there is a problem here. Is handwriting really that important any more? It was in a comment on that posting from fellow Samizdatista Michael Jennings that the handwriting question recently presented itself to me.

Oh, I am sure that educational experts can correlate handwriting with achievement later on, just as in former times Latin went with being clever. But the fact remains that even highly-educated adults, and perhaps especially highly-educated adults, now hardly make any use of handwriting. We sign our signatures. If we are very pre-computer (as I still am in lots of ways) we write hand-written shopping and to-do lists, but more and more, people surely use electronic organisers for such things, if they use anything at all. And I find that the only stuff I remember now is stuff that I have blogged, because blog postings remain legible and are properly and accessibly stored, unlike my hand-written lists. If we are adolescents or young adults, we still use handwriting to take exams, in great intellectually sterilised halls, into which no information may be taken other than in one's head. But is knowledge retention now the skill that really matters? Surely knowing how to use computers to acquire knowledge is at least as important.

Recently a friend told me of her worry about her young sons neglecting their homework, but instead becoming utterly engrossed in some immensely complicated and long-drawn-out computer game. My hunch is that they are learning at least as much while obsessing for hour after hour about this game as they would if snatched away from their computer and forced to trudge through yet more school work for a few more tedious minutes each day. But is that right?

I do not need persuading that reading remains an absolutely essential skill, with typing, in one form or another, having become almost as valuable. But: what use now is handwriting? I do not ask this in a sneering, it's-useless way, as a merely rhetorical question. Maybe handwriting really does still have crucially important uses. If the teaching of handwriting is every bit as valuable as it ever was, I would love to be told this, and told why, so that I can proceed with my own current teaching duties with renewed enthusiasm? But, is it?

(9)

Further to my recent post about new measures from our Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. Foreign readers may be surprised that we have a department for children schools and families (sic). I, on the other hand, am alarmed: even the name indicates the totalitarian intent of the New British state.

Prompted by a clip on TV news, I have now found the full text of Ed Balls's speech given to the Fabian Society yesterday. Didn't the resolution to announce new policy to parliament, not outside bodies - in this case a para-Party body - last a long time? It bears close reading:

Excerpt I:

Our ambition must be that all of our young people will continue in education or training.

That is what our Bill sets out to achieve - new rights for young people to take up opportunities for education and training, and the support they need to take up these opportunities; alongside new responsibilities for all young people - and a new partnership between young people and parents, schools and colleges, local government and employers. ....
But it is important to make clear that this is not a Bill to force young people to stay on at school or college full-time. They will be able to participate in a wide range of different ways through:

* full-time education, for example, at school or college
* work-based learning, such as an apprenticeship
* or one day a week part-time education or training, if they are employed, self-employed or volunteering more than 20 hours a week.

But the Education and Skills Bill is a bill of responsibilities as well as a bill of rights.

Because if young people fail to take up these opportunities, there will be a system of enforcement - very much a last resort - but necessary to strike the right balance between new rights and new responsibilities.

Phew - not necessarily locked up in schools then, but on probation otherwise (as will of course any employers be - they'll have to have enhanced CRB checks, of course). This is enlightening as to what Mr Brown means when he talks about a Bill of Rights and Duties, "building upon existing rights and freedoms but not diluting them - but also make more explicit the responsibilities that implicitly accompany rights...". It confirms what many listeners will have guessed: you have the right and freedom to do exactly what the big G tells you to. This is the traditional line of Calvinism and Islam, is it not?

Don't you love that "our young people"? Völkisch, nicht wahr?

Excerpt II:

The second building block [after mucking around with exams and the curriculum some more - GH] is advice and guidance - so that young people know and understand what is out there, and can be confident that they can make choices that will work for them.

First, this means local authorities taking clear responsibility for advice and guidance as part of the integrated support they offer to young people – making sure that youth services, Connexions and others who provide personal support to young people come together in a coherent way.

Second, clear new national standards for advice and guidance.

Last week my colleague Beverley Hughes set out clearly what we expect of local authorities as they take responsibility for the services provided by Connexions.

Third, a new local area prospectus available online, already available from this September in every area - setting out the full range of opportunities available, so that young people can see the choices available to them clearly in one place.

So not only will whether you do something state-approved be checked, but what you do will be subject to state advice and monitoring and made from a menu provided by the state. For the uninitiated Connexions is a formerly semi-independent, and notionally voluntary, database surveillance scheme for teenagers set up under the Learning and Skills Act 2000.

(23)

Exciting news for British schoolchildren. Early leavers 'will not be jailed' (PA). Except of course they will be under control orders, in effect; incarcerated and enslaved part-time. "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance," ran the old slogan. This policy is pretty clear evidence that what's offerred to many in the state school system is not education. If you have to force people to take something, then it is not plausiible that it is of use to them. There is no problem selling education and training to those who want it. Even very poor parents in London often find money for extra lessons or private day-schooling on top of the taxes they pay to imprison other people's children. The prison function of the system reduces its value to others.

Put aside for the moment whether it should be paid for from taxes or not. How much more cost-effective would state education be if it were voluntary, and the classes were full of eager participants and even the grumpiest teenagers present were those whose parents or peers had persuaded them it was worthwhile? How much better would the curriculum be if it had to attract an audience by being interesting or useful, rather than prescribed by bureaucrats? How much better would teachers feel about their work if it didn't include the roles of commissar, bureaucrat and gaoler?

Teenagers who refuse to stay in education until they are 18 will not face jail, Schools Secretary Ed Balls insisted ahead of new legislation to raise the leaving age.

The reform - hailed as one of the biggest in education for half a century - will be included in the first Queen's Speech of Gordon Brown's premiership on Tuesday.

Mr Balls said the legislation, which will raise the age to 17 by 2013 and 18 by 2015, will be backed by a "robust regime" of support and sanctions including spot fines and court action.

Since if you are at school you are barred from employment without the permission of the authorities, I imagine they will pay the fines with the proceeds of robbery and prostitution. Well done, Balls!

(0)

Where is the Israel boycott? The University and College Union (UCU) does not know how to deal with the calls for a boycott and have received legal advice that the action would be illegal. The legal advice noted that the boycott would contravene discrimination legislation and that it did not meet the aims and objects of the union. There is a fitting irony that the boycott demanded is defined as discriminatory under the politically correct legislation advanced by the New Left. Moreover, it does not appear to meet the union's legal reason for existence which is, of course, pursuing the interests of its members.

Sally Hunt, general secretary of the UCU, insisted the majority of the union's 120,000 members would neither support a boycott call nor regard it as a priority. She said last night: "I hope this decision will allow all to move forwards and focus on what is our primary objective, the representation of our members."

However, Sue Blackwell, a member of the union's executive and of the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine, said of the decision: "It is quite ridiculous. It is cowardice. It is outrageous and an attack on academic freedom."

This is the stupidity of the Left. Bound by laws that they passed, they now howl in frustration since they find their own freedoms circumscribed. These laws were designed to silence their enemies, not themselves. Even more galling is the long march of infiltration designed to provide an organised platform for their sectarian ways falling before the legal demands of British law. They fall back upon their own odious shibboleth of an academic freedom that they do not espouse for others. The shrill hysteria of the disappointed pervades Amjad Barham's article, who is rather vocal for a man who has been silenced:

By resorting to bullying, censorship and intimidation, however, the Israel lobby in the US and UK, supported by the Israeli government and academic establishment, is declaring its definitive loss of confidence in its own ability to rationally refute the case for an academic boycott against Israel.

By muzzling debate and free discussion on the boycott, the lobby and its supporters within the UCU are suppressing academic freedom in the most crude manner. They are proving once again that they were never concerned about the alleged "infringement" of the boycott on academic freedom; rather, their only concern has always been how to shield Israel's unique form of apartheid from scrutiny and censure. Their aim has been to protect the Israeli academy from damning accusations of complicity in maintaining Israel's oppression of all Palestinians, academics and students included...

Needless to say, the boycott campaign will not only continue, but is likely to gain public support among western academics in particular; the true face of the anti-boycott camp has been exposed as a McCarthyist front that unabashedly violates the most revered values of academic freedom and open debate.

They have every right to debate, boycott and protest in print, academia and in politics. They just will not be able to use the vehicle of UCU for their demands since this is probably illegal. We really need to educate the Palestinian sympathisers about the rule of law. It might make their campaigns more intelligent.

(16)

James Porter, the headmaster of a private school, has been convicted over the death of a three year old child who fell from some playground steps and died. The implications of this monstrous and truly idiotic ruling are that soon visits to the playground will become a thing of the past unless the students are wearing safety helmets and body armour and are supervised by a team of lawyers at all times.

It is a tragedy that a young child died after jumping down a few stairs but that is just the way life is... sometimes it ends in premature death for no good reason other that children are wont to act like children. That is sad but it is also not just no one's fault, it is entirely acceptable as life has its casualties and to blame this teacher is truly, truly monstrous.

Of course it cannot have helped that James Porter made the supremely sensible but very politically politically incorrect statement that "[Children] need to learn how to move in any given situation in a way that will protect them from injury. If they don’t have that facility, if we simply wrap them in cotton wool, they will never learn that lesson.”

But never mind that everyone seems to agree that there was nothing unusually unsafe or in any way exceptional about this particular flight of steps, this man has been found guilty under some preposterous health and safety regulations regardless. We seem to be heading down the enervating and idiotic path blazed by the United States in which every mishaps has to be someone else's fault regardless of common sense or natural justice. Appalling.

(41)

Now I am always quick to say nasty things about the British state and the state's educational system in particular, but this article is really strange (as in 'has little relation to reality' type strange).

So waiting for the Dolphin swim at Discovery Cove in Orlando, my daughter Nikki and I were seated with a Brit family - mom, daughter and son. After small talk about the great value of the pound vs the dollar etc, I mentioned that Churchill was one of my heroes. The son, no more than 16 countered that he really liked Hitler, and his sister Gandhi. I was stunned and sickened. [...] In speaking privately with his mother after my discussion, she stated that this is the new curriculum in the British schools to combat "prejudice" against Germans. They teach the children not to "judge" Hitler.

Sorry but much as I might slag off the state and all it's works, this is preposterous. In fact of all the screwed up things I have heard about the goings on in British schools, I have never heard of anything even close to this. I suppose it shows the dangers of deriving your views of the situation in some other country on a casual conversation with a single group of strangers.

(22)

The plans by the state to extend the period of educational conscription in Britain could well be the issue that helps radicalise future generations in a most useful way, at least if you see the world the way I do.

“Here is a Government that has toyed with the idea of lowering the voting age to 16 in order to promote a greater sense of citizenship amongst our young people. Yet it proposes to extend compulsory education or training to 18, to compel the already disaffected to, in their perception, prolong the agony.”

She said that making teenagers “conscripts” was likely to “reinforce failure, leading to even greater disaffection. Enforcement could lead to mass truancy, further disruption to other learners and staff, maybe even needless criminalisation if ‘enforcement measures’ are imposed,

I am also delighted to see someone in the mainstream media making the self-evident point that state education is indeed conscription. The absurdity of trying to teach children who are determined to not be taught is evident at sinkhole schools across the country so why the state thinks digging the same hole deeper is going to solve anything is not obvious to me. Still, never interrupt the enemy when he is making a mistake as there is a clear upside to all this. What the government intends to do will engender disaffection and hostility to the impositions of the state at an early age, and without doubt mischievous political activists will fan the flames by pointing out to the internet savvy blog reading schoolyard conscripts of the future that they are not wrong to feel angry and they are not wrong to refuse to cooperate. Excellent.

(13)

A told-you-so moment. Us Samizdatistas have been exercised by the new charities law in Britain for a little while. See me here, and Perry here, for example.

Tush, said critics, there is no clear intention:

No where does it suggest that the state wishes to 'harness' charities. Indeed, a central theme of the report is concern that charities accepting money from the state start to lose independence. This is, IMO, as much the fault of the charity as the state.

And some people who should know better welcomed it, and wanted more. For example in this spectacularly badly timed article in the Independent on Friday, Baroness Helena Kennedy QC - who has a good record of skepticism of the state in her own field of criminal law - writes:

More recently this has led the newly formed Office of the Third Sector to actively promote an enhanced role for the voluntary sector, not just in service provision, but as the "voice" of a disenfranchised citizenry that needs to be empowered to talk directly to Government. But to flourish in this role we need a legislative framework and guidance that recognises the unique role that the sector is playing in articulating people's views and promoting political debate.

"Guidance" forsooth!

Guidance is the poisoned fang of the state. And just today some teeth are bared in a political cause. Alan Johnson, the Education Secretary, and a Labour deputy-leadership candidate, has given the Daily Telegraph an interview.

Mr Johnson said he wants private schools to take pupils on secondment from local state schools, open their science labs to comprehensives and offer many more bursaries to poor families.
“Private schools need to do more to earn their charitable status,” he says. “It’s not enough just to lend their playing fields, it’s about the science lab, it’s about teachers - there are excellent Maths teachers in private schools. Let them give a bit of their expertise to the state sector.”

An interesting operational definition of "give". Was not the Government celebrating the abolition of the slave trade only a little earlier this year? Apparently the Department for Education and Skills is going to make suggestions, to the supposedly independent Charity Commission* that they impose such things on schools that are charities. If the commission, so decides, then it is not as if the schools have the option of foregoing the tax breaks. Their assets were effectively nationalised under the ultimate control of the commission in 2006.* And the board of the commission? Well it is appointed by ministers and members are deemed civil servants. Of the nine commissioners and non-executive directors - The Nine? - two have had careers in organisations beyond the shadow of the state. I wonder whether how amenable they will be to departmental suggestion?

Meanwhile anyone holding a position in any of Mr Johnson's rivals, for the deputy leadership of a party that hates private education more than it loves tax-and-spend, may wish to sell.

-

* It is little noticed that the 2006 Charities Act as well as changing the functions of the Charity Commissioners, actually abolished them, transferring the role to an entirely new para-statal body, the Charity Commission, which just happens to have a very similar name, and whose officers are referred to by the same name as the former commissioners.

(42)

Australian students have been force-fed a diet of a certain version of Australian history, the 'black-armband' school of Australian history, which paints the entire colonial period of Australian history as a moral disaster. Now in evidence before the Australian Senate, history teachers have admitted that this is provoking resistance from students, who feel pride in their country.

HIGH school students resent being made to feel guilty during their study of Australia's indigenous past and dislike studying national history in general.

The History Teachers Association called yesterday for a rethink of the type of Australian history being taught in schools and the way in which it is taught.

History Teachers Association of NSW executive officer Louise Zarmati said her experience teaching in western Sydney was that students were resistant to learning about Australian politics and, in particular, indigenous history.

"This is a somewhat delicate subject but they don't like the indigenous part of Australian history," she told a hearing of the Senate inquiry into the academic standards of school education in Sydney yesterday.

"The feedback I get is they're not prepared to wear the guilt. They find it's something that's too personal, too much of a personal confrontation for them.

Since the students are not responsible for decisions made in the late 18th and early 19th century they are quite right to reject the 'guilt' being pushed on them by teachers. And it is nice to see that attempts by education authorities to politicise the classroom are rebounding on them.

(27)

I would like to suggest that Jonathan's "Missing the point over grammar schools" below, itself misses the point. I am as in favour of grammar schools as anyone. But I do not think Cameron's decision is any more than another piece of political pragmatism (read my comment on Jonathan's piece for the rationale.)

I agree the new Tory policy does nothing significant for education. But I suspect Jonathan's policy prescription - compromise vis-a-vis properly voluntary schooling it may be, is doomed. Introducing vouchers now would be worthless and the Tories are sensible, therefore, not to tie themselves to that. Not least they would risk discrediting vouchers: vouchers could be a move in the right direction, but not yet.

This is why. Here is a sensible lefty, Jenni Russell, reporting in the Guardian's bloggish Comment is Free:

[A] father with an 18 year-old daughter at one of London's famous public schools is shocked by her fear of anything beyond her narrow syllabus. She pleads with him not to tell her anything he knows about history or classics or literature, because she understands by now that knowing anything beyond the points on the examiners' mark schemes will jeopardise her chances of getting top grades. She has learned that education is not about discovery, but the dutiful repetition of precisely what you have been told.

However good the school, however motivated the pupil, there is no choice to be had. There is a chemin-de-fer, directions predetermined, signals to be passed at the prescribed speed. No entry to university at 16, Mr Brown. No ignoring unutterably tedious and repetitious schoolwork and passing the exams at the end on the basis of your own reading. Step off the lockstep elevator once, and you are out for ever. (Mr Fry, the University regrets that we require a clean Criminal Records Bureau certificate.)

All Britain's education is under the supervision of a suffocating bureaucracy, that serves itself and its conception of proper development. There is small choice in rotten apples; the sadly pocked sharecrop goes to uniform damp barrells.

Who is to blame? The conservative defenders of both grammar schools and 'family values', that is who; and the utilitarian industrialists who now complain workers can't read or count. It was they who sought to save the population from indoctrination by radical Local Education Authorities, so delivered the entire population into the hands of pseudo-progressive educationalists by creating the National Curriculum; they who worried that universities could not be trusted to set sufficiently 'practical' exams, and did the same with syllabuses.

My modest proposal for English education:

Scrap the National Curriculum. Do not replace it. Scrap league tables and DoE "Key stage" testing. Do not replace them. Scrap rules on school admissions and allow schools to exclude or expel pupils as they choose. Scrap the QCA. Do not replace it. Scrap the Teacher Registration Regulations. Do not replace them. Scrap the office of the Access Regulator. Do not replace him. Wait five years, continuing to run and fund schools otherwise the same, which means a mix of Local Authority, central government, voluntary aided, and private schools. Only then, when people have got used to making their own decisions again, consider vouchers.

(17)

A lot of people are getting hot under the collar, and with some reason, about the decision by David Cameron to pour scorn on grammar schools. Grammars, since the 1944 Education Act, have selected pupils by a rigorous examination at the age of 11 - hence it is known as the Eleven-Plus exam, and an often make-or-break test in a person's life. In the late 60s, the-then Labour government began a move to scrap grammars and replace them with so-called comprehensive schools, adopting a fiercely egalitarian policy. The collapse of grammars accelerated, ironically, when Margaret Thatcher was an education minister in the government led by Edward Heath. There are now only a few grammars left.

Cameron dislikes grammars, he claims, because they do nothing to advance the interests of bright, working class kids. He may have half a point in that for many people, the 11-plus can be an arbitrary point to decide a pupil's future. Unfortunately for Cameron, however, his stated hostility to grammars only reinforces the image of him being an upper class toff who is determined to kick the ladder of upward mobility away from the unwashed proles underneath (his recent daft idea of hammering cheap flights with tax conveyed much the same patronising, bugger-the-plebs message).

But the Tories, in wrestling with education policy, are missing the point, as they often do. The fundamental problem is that education between the age of 5 to 18 is compulsory, a fact that ignores the fact that many youngsters are bored by school much earlier and should be allowed to work and if need be, pick up their education at a later date (it amazes me that some people find this idea so incredible). The Tories are also ignoring the need to focus on choice. Rather than schools selecting pupils, by exam or some other criteria, we need a genuine and broad market for education, in which parents and their children choose the school instead. I have my reservations about vouchers - they can give the state a potential lever over private schools - but a radical boost to parental/pupil choice of school is a reform that urgently needs to be put in place.

David Cameron: what is the point of this man?

(40)

There is demand. There is supply. There is planned 'diversity'. If anyone told the teachers that multi-culturalism was dead, they forgot to listen. For they have come up with latest revision in government plans to revive language teaching: teach them gypsy. Since English Romanies talk in English or an Anglicised version of Romany (Romanglish?), will they teach the pure version which has very few speakers in this country.

In a move designed to promote tolerance towards gipsy communities, schools will be encouraged to teach the language, culture and traditions practised by about 45,000 people in Britain.

The Government-backed initiative comes just days after ministers told schools they had a legal duty to promote greater race relations by celebrating cultural diversity across the curriculum.

Since race and culture are not synonymous, and multiculturalism has promoted actions described as racist to increase, we can look on at another "legal duty" achieving the opposite outcome to that intended.

Ginny Harrison White, the president of the National Association of Teachers of Travellers, said the project would "go some way to increasing knowledge of gipsy communities and help break down barriers of prejudice".

Gypsies will have the teaching of their language taken over by the state. Parents, interested in their children's education, will choose more economically useful options. So Somali, the language of a failed state, will not be taken up with fervour either. And those who do partially learn, the blighted, will understand that they can insult gypsies better.

If you wanted to escape the crap system by educating your children yourself, the baleful eye of the state has turned your way.

The guidance says that education must be suitable for a child's age, ability and any special needs. Resources and materials should be provided. In a further development, adults must play an active role in children's education, rather than leaving them to complete work-sheets all day.

The guidance says that councils should intervene if they have concerns over standards of education. They can then ask parents to submit projects, assessment, books and field trip diaries to satisfy local authority inspectors.

Parents failing to meet official requirements may be taken to court and issued with a school attendance order - forcing children to attend a state school.

The draft proposals, which are out to consultation until the end of July, have been broadly welcomed by home education groups, who hailed the decision not to make registration compulsory.

With the thin end, home education will become a postcode lottery, and the level of intrusion will be dependent upon the attitude of the local authority inspectors. One can imagine that Departments of Education, which are ignorant or unsympathetic of home-schooling, will use their powers to 'discover' failures, force parents to send their children back to state sinkholes and stamp out a practice that they deem an ideological competitor. This is the road that could lead to registration and prohibition.

(29)

It is no secret that I am opposed to conscription of any sort, be it military, judicial or educational. I am all for having armies, juries and schools, but not ones which depend on forcing the unwilling to become chattels of the state. Not only do I think it is morally indefensible, it produces strange results when people are compelled to do things they never agreed to do.

Most people can be convinced that getting an education is a good thing, but to force who cannot see that to attend a school just means that they will disrupt the education of those who are willing to be there. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. Moreover, state schools seem to bring out the most control obsessed aspects of people who run such places.

Pupils at a new £46 million flagship school will not be allowed break times and will have no playground to run around on, leading to fears for their behaviour and health. [...] But parents, educational experts and health campaigners believe banning teenagers from letting off steam during the school day will increase their risk of becoming obese, and could damage their attention spans during lessons. [...] Dr Alan McMurdo, the principal of the academy, said: "Research has shown that if children concentrate on lessons throughout the day, then their work improves. "We are not intending to have any play time. Pupils won't need to let off steam because they will not be bored."

So children are going to be dragooned into coming to this place under threat of law but "Pupils won't need to let off steam because they will not be bored". Might I suggest arrogance and stupidity in equal measure. Might I suggest that they will indeed be bored and the way they will let of steam will be to trash this nice new school and run wild in classes... I sure as hell would.

(33)

Nikki Giovanni found one of her Creative Writing students a trial.

"And every class I'm saying, 'Mr. Cho, take off your (sun)-glasses please, take your hat off please. Mr. Cho, that's not a poem. Can you work on it please,'" Giovanni recalled. "And then I finally realized that something is not wrong with me, something is wrong with him, and I said to him, 'I'm not a good teacher for you.'"

One day, she arrived and found her class of about 70 students had dwindled to fewer than 10. When she asked a student after class about it, he confessed that "everybody's scared of (Cho)." Giovanni later had him removed from her class after she threatened to resign.

In reality his memories of school were of humiliation, but imagine if, from the age of twelve onwards, or from even earlier if your imagination can stretch that far, school had been an option he could choose if he wanted it.

What if Cho's concepts of "school" and "college" had been formed by classes like the Karate class described by Brian Micklethwait?

What struck me, so to speak, about these "martial arts" classes was that although the children present may have supposed that all there were learning was how to be more violent, what they were really learning was no less than civilisation itself.

The children were all told to get changed into their Karate kit in an orderly fashion, and to put their regular clothes in sensible little heaps. They all lined up the way he said. They all turned up on time. They left the place impeccably clean when they'd finished, all helping to make sure that all was ship-shape and properly closed-up when they left.

Were these children being "coerced"? Certainly not. They didn't have to be there, any more than The Man had to teach them Karate if he didn't want to. If they wanted out, then out they could go, with no blots on their copybooks or markings-down on their CVs.

Having reached the age of twenty-three, Cho was no longer forced to be taught - but his teachers were still forced to teach him and his fellow students to associate with him. True, there were a few last ways out from his menacing presence; the students could jeopardise their education by skipping class and the teacher could jeopardise her career by threatening to resign. Unfortunately by the time these sanctions were employed Cho had already got away with too much.

I sometimes think that practically every problem, inefficiency and cruelty of our education system has at its root compulsion. People who are forced into each other's society tend not to behave well to each other. Wherever the doors are locked, be the locks visible or invisible, those inside seem to revert to the hierarchy of the baboon troop. There is still room for free will: most do no worse than learn a few habits of obsequiousness or sullenness that can be shaken off. Cho was not forced to become a mass-murderer. (In fact I see his own claim to the contrary in his video as a sort of twisted acknowledgement of this fact; the thought that "I don't have to do this" had to be actively denied.) No, he was not forced to pull the trigger - but force did play too large a part in his life. Imagine if the doors had been open for the bullied Cho Seung-hui to walk away, or if the adult Cho Seung-hui had been shown the door at the first sign of discourtesy. Imagine this was the case not just for Cho Seung-hui on certain pivotal occasions but for everyone on all occasions. Then, I think, he would have learned differently.

(19)

The other day I pulled a couple of quotations from this book, which I mostly liked although it has some annoying parts too. What got me wondering is why so-called US "liberal" academics are capable of writing penetrating and thoughtful pieces on certain areas of life but also clearly dumb as stumps on economics. Take this passage from Professor Hanley on page 72 and 73 of the book, where he defends racial quotas in universities:

"Suppose that a white male applicant loses out on a college place to a black male applicant, even though his SAT score was higher... I think the sense of unfairness here springs instead from the intuition that since the white student didn't do anything wrong, and since his score was higher, he deserves the place ahead of the black student."

"To which I say, bullcrap."

This professor has a nice line in reasoned argument. Let's go on.

"This is once again simply ignoring structural discrimination, if it's not just plainly racist."

Define "structural discrimination", Professor. What is it? How can a person be discriminated against where no actual conscious human being has decided that Fred is going to get a fairer deal in a college admission than John? Structurual discrimination is a sort of catch-all expression that in fact simply says that over a long period of time, certain racial groups have underperformed in certain ways and that there might be factors that should be corrected. But for how long does the impact of this "structural discrimination" last? 10 years? 20? 100? What sort of empirical evidence does Prof. Hanley think will be needed to show that this is over and we can revert to the idea of treating people equally before the law, like those fuddy-duddies such as James Madison said should be the case? The Professor does not say, although he swears a lot and thinks that people who disagree with him are idiots. I guess he is so struck by his own moral grandeur that he cannot imagine anyone decent disagreeing. What a jerk.

He goes on:

"If we're granting that the white student is a beneficiary of structural discrimination, then we can't say that he is more deserving (of a college place). Desert is a matter of what you've done with what you've got. We have no prior reason to think that the white applicant has done more - so we have no reason to think that he has been unfairly done by."

So presumably the honest thing for such a professor would be to give up the pretence of holding SAT or other education tests at all. Why not say this: "White folk are beneficiaries of former discrimination in their favour, even if the folk today are not to be blamed for what their ancestors did. As a result, no matter whether the white college applicant is a clever, conscientious person, he or she should be wiling to let people from racial groups we think are the victims of ancestral discrimination take first place in the queue. And if you disagree with that judgement, then you are an evil person and quite possibly a Republican."

I take back what I said about this book and its author a day or so ago. He is not as smart or as funny as he first appeared (well, we all make mistakes). He is, in fact, a thug with a fancy academic title. Sadly, there are a lot of them.

(43)

A gentleman by the name of Fabian Tassano is justifiably angry about the raising of the compulsory school-leaving age to 18 years. Quite so. Arguably - and I do argue - the school-leaving age should be cut. Many teenagers, including the brightest, are bored stiff at school and their boredom leads to many of the disciplinary problems we see around us. Better, perhaps, to let teenagers work, discover the value of money, and then pick up their education when some of that youthful energy has already been channelled into a payslip. This has been the argument from a number of liberal educationalists, such as Prof. James Tooley, for years. Such a view horrifies the power-freaks in the political establishment who would probably like us all to stay in education until the age of 30, but the trend towards an ever-higher school/college-leaving age cannot go on.

Reading some history, it does seem as though we live in an age when in some ways, youngsters seem to stay young for much longer than used to be the case. By the time my old man was 18, he had already become an officer cadet in the RAF and by the age of 21, was navigating fast jet aircraft. One of my great uncles joined the naval academy at Dartmouth by the age of 15. The average age of many pilots in WW2 was 21. Now, if you believe the educationalists of today, a person aged 18 is not fit to put in charge of an electric toothbrush, and yet at the same time, things like the age of sexual consent have been reduced. So in some ways people are thought to be more mature, in other ways, less so.

I am a bit miffed that Tassano moans that Samizdata has had nothing to say on this issue. Had he been reading this blog in January, he would have seen that we were on the case, thanks to Alice Bachini. Pay attention, Fabian.

(25)

If you think that lower class yobbery is a problem in this country, as most seem to think it is, then is electing an upper class yob to be the Prime Minister the best next step in the right direction?

Perhaps it is. Perhaps a man who can look louts in the eye and say: "I know exactly what you are because I used to be exactly like you, the only difference being that I at least paid some of the bills for the havoc and misery I caused, and, being rich and lucky, I had the chance to learn a few manners, turn over a new leaf, get a job and make something of myself. You are not so lucky. Shape up now or face a future of utter misery, which I and my rich and well-connected friends will now do our considerable best to make worse for you." It takes one to catch one, in other words. And perhaps something similar applies to dealing with foreign despots and thugs.

As with everything involving what sort of Prime Minister Mr Cameron may choose to be, we shall just have to wait and see. Meanwhile, the fact that he is now thought by millions to be the best we can now do as our nation's senior politician is hideous proof of the failure of mass state education. Could not the great middle/working class come up with anybody? Well, John Major I suppose, and now Gordon Brown. As a long lost friend from my better-spent youth used to say: Dear oh lor!

My thanks to Clive Davis, who writes about Cameron's Bullingdon Club past, and who links to this description of Bullingdon Club yobbery by Libby Purves, and to this diary item (scroll down a bit) by Christina Odone, who says:

They were excessive (dinners routinely ended with the trashing of the restaurant in which they were held) and exclusive - no grammar school or state school boys, no Jews were allowed (though a rather dashing Iranian did squeak through the election process in my time).

My first impression of this preposterous club was when, as an Oxford undergraduate, I was accosted in the middle of Tom Quad, in Christ Church, by a third year in his cups. He tried to grope me and then, when I shoved him away, he doubled up and was sick in the ancient fountain.

This poor impression was little improved when I grew more familiar with the all-male club: initiation rites climaxed with drunken carousing that spilt over in the street and college quad; humiliation of "outsiders" was encouraged; acts of vandalism routine.

It was more Bacchanalian feast than Brideshead Revisited, and I wondered what kind of a future lay in store for 20-year-olds who thought nothing of wrecking a Michelin-starred restaurant after having spent £1,000 a head there.

Well, a pretty good one, of course. (And I wonder just who that "dashing" Iranian was?) "We've all done things we regret," Mr Cameron now says. But actually, not all of us, in fact hardly any of us, were this appalling. The fear now is that if and when Mr Cameron enters Number Ten, this open thuggery will be replaced not by anything resembling true decency or genuine political wisdom, but by thuggery on a far grander scale, legally sanctioned, and covered in and disguised by an expert layer of smarm.

(19)

Meet the new Soviet, same as the old Soviet:

Teenagers will learn about the threat to the environment from climate change and what they can do about it, under reforms to geography teaching.

They will be encouraged to recycle consumer goods and to question whether they really need another imported pair of trainers. Other topics to be studied include the Asian tsunami and Hurricane Katrina.

Alan Johnson, the Education Secretary, said: “With rising sea temperatures, melting ice-caps and frequent reminders about our carbon footprints, we should all be thinking about what we can do to preserve the planet. Children are the key to changing society’s attitudes to the environment. Not only are they passionate about saving the planet but children also have a big influence over their own families’ lifestyles.”

In due course, and perhaps even early course, children will be encouraged to rat their parents out to the authorities for 'unGreen' behaviour. Such is the pattern for the legitimisation of ruling class ideologies;indoctrinate the young and persuade them of the need to meekly accept poverty, austerity and political control for the sake of 'saving the planet'.

'Global warming' does indeed present a grave threat; as a tool of political power it is a threat to freedom, prosperity, trade, progress and all the health, wealth and happiness that those things make possible and if anyone has been inclined to regard the whole 'climate change' nostrum as a joke, then I humbly suggest that this is a mistake. Our masters are clearly taking it very seriously indeed and we have a momentous battle on our hands if we intend to stop them from going down the path that they already begun to forge.

This is a battle we must win - for the sake of the children.

Update: the Libertarian Alliance is also calling foul on this exercise in political propaganda for children.

(22)

We are coming into the final stretch of the college basketball season and it seems a good time to make the following observation.

The only category of education that presently has its accomplishments tested on a competitive basis (that being sports) is also the only category of education that is motivating and developing disadvantaged students to achieve their highest personal potential at what they are being taught.

Does it surprise anyone that the only part of education where student achievement can not be rigged (better/best football team, etc.) is also the only part of education that is producing marketable graduates from the disadvantaged communities? Or that it accomplishes this with less need for quotas and reduced expectations than any other category of education? In many cases these kids are able to move straight into national and international professional careers straight from high school. And when they do attend college, the academic education they receive is a by-product of their athletic educations.

And is it any surprise that a very disproportionate share of disadvantaged students gravitate to the only service of the education industry that is intractably merit judged and race indifferent at every single level of education from Pee Wee league to NCAA?

What better model could we ask for when we look to improve the motivation and education of disadvantaged students in other categories of learning?

(51)

Greetings Samizdatistas, greetings Commentariat. Long time no see. I expect Brian would have blogged about this were his education blog still going (I for one would love to see it back) but instead the task has roused me from the sweet repose of my "resting contributor" coffin. Here goes.

On the face of it, the idea of raising the school leaving age to eighteen might seem reasonable, especially given that the British government still plans to permit either schooling or "vocational training" when it bans young people from full-time work. After all, the idea apparently works fine in Canada. They simply enforce the law by taking away young people's driving licenses if they attempt to work for a living. Clearly it is the working teenagers we need to worry about when it comes to youth crime, truancy and so on. Work is bad for you, and encourages bad behaviour! Young people should be writing essays, not mending cars!

But underneath the face of it, I have a few questions:

1. Does "approved training scheme" mean "what the government likes" or does it mean something more sensible and informed?
2. How much will it cost to approve all post-16 on-the-job training schemes?
3. Since when did working for a living exclude learning useful things? Why is it assumed that jobs and learning are mutually exclusive? Is this because all entry-level work is exploitative labour nowadays?
4. If this is the case, why does it not apply to graduates with arts degrees working in burger bars and so on? Is it acceptable to be exploited as long as you have wasted five years of your life acquiring thousands of pounds worth of debt, for some reason? Why?
5. What will 16 year olds without private financial support be expected to live on if they are banned from honest work? Will they be expected to acquire early student loans? Join a homeless shelter? Or merely become heroin salespeople?

Just wondering.

(17)

The Executive Committee of the Exeter University Evangelical Christian Union has today (5JAN) issued proceedings in the High Court seeking a Judicial Review of the decision to suspend the Christian Union from the Guild of Students; such acts by the Guild violating the rights of association of religious bodies and representing religious animus. The Court will be asked to quash the decision to suspend. The committee has also instructed Paul Diamond, a leading Civil Rights Barrister to represent them.

The action was taken after the students advised both the Guild and the university authorities that it had failed to support their right as Christians to the freedoms of speech, belief and association.

The 50-year-old Christian Union (CU) at Exeter University is currently suspended from the official list of student societies on campus, has had its Student Union bank account frozen, and has been banned from free use of Student Guild premises, or advertising events within Guild facilities, because the Student Guild claims the CU constitution and activities do not conform to its Equal Opportunties Policies, which have only recently been introduced.

That's the Christian Union point of view. Here is the Exeter Students' Guild point of view. It appears what's wrong with the Christian Union (though there seems to be a side dispute about what it is called) is it expects members to be Christians - and this is written down somewhere.

I find it very difficult to believe that the Student Friends of Palestine welcomes applications from hardcore Zionists, or that the change-ringing group offers opportunities for extended bongo solos, or that their Amnesty branch is really open to those who think the Uzbek government is a bit wishy-washy and needs positive reinforcement in the form of fedexed floral tributesfrom the society to its president in order to hold the line on law-and-order. It is just those bodies have not recorded such obvious facts in their constitutions.

Clubs don't and shouldn't appeal to everyone. That's the whole point of them. They provide social opportunities through giving scope for people to get together with people with whom they know they'll have something in common. That's why traditionally they were so much a part of student life, as escape from the non-discriminatory potluck of faculty and accomodation. If Exeter Students' Guild doesn't get that, then why is it offering subsidy to societies at all?

Update: A notice that is rather strangely hidden away, but dated the same as the threat of action above, says that privileges have now been 'restored'. Though nobody seems to have changed their mind about anything, there is to be a "consultation process" instead. Does this mean the Christians are expected to be persuaded not to be Christians? [Is this consultation going to involve lions?] Or is the question being postponed in the hope that it might go away, or that a new set of officers might have a better idea? All very odd.

(24)

A couple of years after the University of Cambridge rejected government (in the shape of one of its agencies plus the recently 'reformed' charity commission) 'guidelines' for the control of universities (i.e. giving great power for the Chief Executive and a board of management with a majority of non-academics upon it) the University of Oxford has now done the same: first by a meeting of the academics and then by postal ballot.

Oddly enough many 'conservatives' think this is a bad thing. Lord Butler (a former civil servant who now, for some reason, is master of University College at Oxford), John Redwood MP and the Daily Telegraph newspaper have all campaigned in favour of the "reforms".

Their arguments are two fold.

Firstly they say that universities should carry out the changes or the government will force them to. This is clearly the argument of cowards "bend over or the bully will just make you do so".

However, there is a second line of argument. It is claimed that the changes will help the university be run "like a business".

Either something is a business or it is not. If it is a business its objective should be to make money and it should be under the control of its owners (or those they appoint).

Claiming to "run something like a business" is one of the great fallacies of our time. Bringing in people who have worked in private companies into government departments or charitable activities does not make these things run better - it just inflates the administration bill.

Government departments are just as hopeless (if not more hopeless) when run by ex-businessmen than they are when run by life long civil servants (it is not the poor quality of the people who work in a government department that is the problem, it is the fact that it is a government department - regardless of who works there).

Charitable activities do not work better with professional managers - they worked better when the people who gave the money ran things themselves. For example, (to steal an incident from Reclaiming the American Dream 1965) a lawyer should not spend his time selling flags in a car park for a charity - he should (pro-bono) being doing the legal work of the charity. The great class of administrators hired via advertisements in the Guardian newspaper, just like people in national and local government agencies, are the curse of charities - they see their role as seeking after government grants and organising political campaigns, not helping the poor, the old and the sick with their own hands.

A college is not a business, it is a community of scholars who seek after knowledge - for its own sake. Students should only go to a college (and both Oxford and Cambridge should be based on the individual communities of scholars, the colleges - there should be as little 'university structure' as possible) if they respect the academics there - both respect the knowledge they have gained and their ability to explain this knowledge (for example Newton would pass the first test, but he was not really interested in explaining things to students).

The fact that undergraduates do not tend to know much about the academics at the colleges they go to before they arrive does not refute this - it shows how far on the wrong path we have gone. Nor is this is a matter just of Oxford and Cambridge, even if one considers United Kingdom alone many universities were run as voluntary institutions. Such great universities as Edinburgh and Glasgow may have had the reputation as being more "practical" that Oxford and Cambridge, but their academics were at least as committed to seeking after knowledge for its own sake (indeed the Scottish academics may have been more committed than the English - as, before the 19th century, Oxford and Cambridge tried to suppress the development of other universities in England and some of their academics may have been more interested in a comfortable life than in the pursuit of truth). Nor did the founding of voluntary institutions stop - indeed the last such institution to be granted formal 'university' status before the government funding principle that came with World War II was the University of Nottingham in 1938, and many of the institutions that became universities in the era of government funding had their origins in voluntary (civil) interaction.

"But it is the duty of a university to prepare the next generation of people for the economy" - no it is not. This is nothing to do with a university. If people just want job training (i.e. are not interested in knowledge for its own sake) they should not go to a university.

The much quoted fact that wealthy countries tend to have more university graduates (as a proportion of the population) than poor countries is a relevant as the fact that wealthy countries tend to have a higher proportion of the population owning BMW cars. More people being able to go to university is an effect, not a cause, of wealth - to put it in terms of economics, university education is a consumption good it is not "investment". Or to put it in more traditional terms, university education is (for the student, not the academic - who is, or rather should be, a seeker after truth for its own sake) part of becoming a more civilized human being - it should have nothing to do with getting a better job.

The tendency for more and more occupations to be graduates only is not a good thing, it is a bad thing. Both because it prevents non-graduates (who may be far more interested and suitable) from progressing in these occupations, and because it totally misunderstands what a university education is for. Indeed as recently as just before World War II such American industries as banking and the railroads were rather hostile to employing 'college boys' because (rightly or wrongly) people in these industries believed that a university education gave people too abstract habits of mind for concrete occupations.

Technical training (whether in law, medicine, chemistry or whatever) should be a matter for the relevant cultural institutions (the Inns of Court, the old teaching hospitals, the chemical companies - and charitable trusts devoted to such training). All these subjects are fit things for universities - but only as taught as ends-in-themselves (the understanding of existing knowledge and the seeking after of new knowledge), not in the light of "how to make someone better at the job".

"But why on Earth should the taxpayer fund academics who are obsessed with the study and teaching of their abstract subjects and students who want to study with them for a few years?"

Quite correct, there should be no taxpayers money involved at all.

Universities should be financed by the fees paid by students (which should go directly to the college - not to the government as is the case in the United Kingdom), charitable gifts given to colleges, and income from property owned by them.

This money should be as decentralized as possible. For example, any money from a business venture of an academic (say a science based business run by an academic) should go solely to the person concerned (as was up to very recently the case at Cambridge) - not to the college, and certainly not to the university. And fees should go to the college (to the community of scholars) not to the university (any university structure should be paid for by strictly voluntary funds from the colleges).

Indeed there is a case (made by Adam Smith and others) that for their activities as teachers (as opposed to their living expenses as fellows of a collage) academics should be paid directly by the students. For example the great Newton would still have been maintained by his college - but students would not have had to pay fees for lectures which he was not interested in giving and was no good at giving (he simply read from his text, explained nothing and refused to reply to questions).

A charitable activity (such as maintaining Newton and other scholars) is an activity that brings no money profit (there may indeed be a lot of "mental profit") to the person or persons who pay for it. 'Reforms' to charity law that seek to bring such charitable activities as the funding of research and education under government control, as part of the 'target culture', must be resisted or civilization is lost.

"You are living in the past" - actually both freedom and state control can be found in the past (it is a matter of when and where one looks). Civilization may be valued in the future or it may not - but it will be a matter of the beliefs of human beings and how they act on those beliefs (not what the date is).

"This is all politically impossible" - everything decent is described as "politically impossible". Whether academics are true to their calling, or choose to live as part of a pretend "business" (actually a government controlled organization) is up to them. But if they wish to live as free people they must reject the poisoned chalice that government funding has proved to be.

There is all the difference in the world between say the gift of land from a King (the income from which going to the community of scholars) and an annual payment of cash. In the early years such money may seem to have come without strings and allowed scholars to set up institutions based on new ideas (such as the University of Keele) which would have taken a lot of hard work to raise voluntarily - but, in the end, becoming dependent on money taken by the threat of violence (tax money) by the government is bound to destroy all academic independence and to undermine all the liberal (in the old sense) principles of education and culture.

(18)

A couple of days ago the Congregation of the University of Oxford voted to give outside professional managers more power over the university (it is not a done deal yet - but the plan is now well under way).

The vote showed how things are done in modern Britain. Half way through the debate a letter from the government was produced (by some ex top Civil Servants who are now Oxford dons) and read out - basically the message of the letter was simple, the government has not pushed ahead with 'reform' of the university because it expected the people there to "reform" the place, but if they do not do so... So change will be "voluntary" in the sense of an "offer you can not refuse".

Scholars have been living in Oxford for a long time, perhaps there really were some there in the time of Alfred the Great (as the old stories say). First on an informal basis and then (in the 13th century) in organized 'colleges' - communities of scholars who ran their own affairs.

There has always been some government involvement in Oxford. Grants of property (as capital) by various Kings to start up some of the colleges (although private individuals financed the creation of others). Parliament (under the influence of various monarchs) laying down rules concerning religious practices. Even sometimes changing the structure of the university (as with the reform measure of Gladstone).

However, the basic structure of Oxford remained. Colleges as groups of self governing scholars. I can remember when the only non academic staff at Oxford were the cooks, cleaners and the men who guarded the gates of the colleges (who also kept important records).

I am not an Oxford man (I am semi-literate dyslexic - and, besides my politics are rather different from those of most of the scholars there), but the changes over recent years have saddened me.

"Why should not Oxford enter the modern world, and why should there not businessmen be in charge rather than head-in-the-clouds academics".

I support businessmen running their own business enterprises. But professional 'mangers' (whether in business or government) who own nothing and have no long term connection with the thing they are in charge of (and no love for it) are often not a good thing.

The 'modern world' is too often just endless form filling and 'targets' - vast expense to achieve nothing (indeed to achieve less than nothing - to destroy all beauty and tradition).

The trouble at Oxford really goes back to government subsidies. When, after World War II, government started to pick up some of the bill for the year on year current expenses of the universities (not just Oxford all of the universities, bar the University of Buckingham, are in this position) the door was open to government control (for all the empty talk of 'academic freedom').

I might not like some of the academic developments at Oxford over the years (such as the Logical Positivism that hit the place in the 1930's and almost took over philosophy at Oxford after World War II, or the going along with the spread of the economic ideas of Lord Keynes from Cambridge), but that was up to the scholars at the various Oxford colleges. Even at the peak of leftist (for want of a better word) dominance, there were still anti-leftist scholars to be found in some colleges (Oriel for example).

The modern centralized and managerial system that is being enforced on Oxford and the other universities is not a system where dissent will prosper. Nor is it an environment where the eccentric scholar (of whatever political opinions, or none) will prosper.

Such people where once the glory of Oxford (as they were of Cambridge and indeed of British higher education in general). An academic is really neither a 'teacher' or a 'researcher' they are thinkers. They are people who need time and freedom to think. Then (when they feel the need) they share their thoughts with others, by speech or writings.

I may not agree with some of their thoughts. And many of their thoughts (on subjects that are not familar to me) are beyond my understanding (so it is not a question of whether I agree with them or not). But that is what such people are 'for' and that is why so many people donated money and land to to the colleges over the centuries - to give these scholars freedom to work (without the need to earn a living).

The 'modern' view, that academics are there to fill in forms, publish X number of articles a year (in the 'correct' journals) and fill lots of other targets denies the spirit of places like Oxford.

Nor will the tide of full time managers really make things more 'efficient' (although there will be plenty of documents with the word 'efficiency' in them). It will just mean (has already meant) vast expense and a lot of unhappy people - academics filling in forms and working to targets (rather than doing the work they love) and students lost in vast webs of bureaucracy.

(14)

'Clovis Sangrail' points out that the 'dumbing down' of educational standards is politically and ideologically motivated.

In the most spineless demonstration of inadequate journalism we get the following report from the Times Higher Education Supplement.

"Hefce report questions value of costly initiatives and argues for open entry to university, writes Claire Sanders. Universities would need to scrap entry requirements to make any real headway in admitting students from a broader range of backgrounds, according to a highly controversial report commissioned by funding chiefs.

The review of widening access raises doubts about whether policies to reduce inequality through education can ever work and will fuel the debate over why the participation of disadvantaged groups in higher education has stalled despite billions of pounds being ploughed into the area.

A review team led by Stephen Gorard of York University argues that in the near future discrimination based on school qualification could seem as "unnatural as discrimination by sex, class, ethnicity, sexuality, disability and age do now". Instead, a "threshold level" could be introduced, equivalent to perhaps two A levels, and places to specific institutions could be allocated according to students' location, disciplinary specialisation or randomly.

Professor Gorard, who led the team from York, the Higher Education Academy and the Institute for Access Studies, said: "As research indicates that qualifications are largely a proxy for class and income, then why use them as a means of rationing higher education? The Open University has operated an open-access scheme for years that has clearly not damaged standards."

This is either ignorance so vast that it clearly indicates the man should not be employed by York or else a deliberately misleading set of statements driven by a political agenda. Firstly, as any half-arsed tyro knows, evidence of association is not evidence for causation. Thus, in particular, we do not know that [high] class and income cause qualifications, indeed the reverse causation might hold: qualifications make people rich. Secondly, even if the causative link might be asserted, where does this leave the universities? In order to widen access they should accept those with poor education, because they have been discriminated against. Ignoring issues about positive discrimination this can only be true up to a point-or should they accept the innumerate to do mathematics and the illiterate to study English? "No, no, don't be ridiculous" Professor Gorard would say, "two A levels rule that out. Look at the Open University".

Well, I do look at the Open University. Ignoring the fact that in my subject an Open University degree is not taken to be evidence of high ability, the OU (as I am sure Gorard knows) has a requirement for a Foundation Year. And this is intended to make up for the absence of standard academic qualifications at a reasonable level.

Why do I get the feeling that Professor Gorard (a former teacher of maths and computer science who is quoted as saying on his appointment "I want to help build a centre of excellence for research on the effectiveness and equity of education systems.") views equity as meaning "without regard to proven ability"?

I do not argue that wealth or class (whatever that means these days) does not help a child, I am sure it does. My problem is that opening the Universities to anyone with 2 Es at A level does not redress the balance. This is just another way to hide the rolling avalanche of failure that is (the average of) state education in the UK. It is not the (semi-private) universities' job to fix the inadequacies of the pre-18 education system. If we attempt to do so, then we do so at the cost of miserably failing to train the top 10%. In a few years we have lost our research base and then we are stuffed. No industry, no educated 'elite', nothing to give us an economic edge in anything.

This is the route that the USA has partially gone down, and they only stem the rot by recruiting able PhD students from overseas.

Reposted from 'Canker'

(22)

There is an article in the Times Higher Education Supplement that claims not only are radical Islamists trying to recruit at UK universities, the universities are doing little to combat it (a claim they naturally deny).

I do not know who is correct, but as Shiraz Maher claims the universities are not on top of this problem and he was a former member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, I am inclined to think the worst.

(0)

One doesn't expect much good news from Africa, and Kenya may be notorious as among the most corruptly governed countries in the world, but this is what I call a public service.

A strange note in the commentary which I take to be a sign of a global, not just an African, problem:

People are so into their daily lives, running here and there, they don't have time to read. In fact they only read when they need to sit for an examination. We hardly have anyone reading for pastime or for knowledge.

But being an outdoor librarian seems like a good job to me.

(38)

Human beings are a strange lot. Despite being blessed (theoretically at least) with the powers of critical analysis they are nonetheless wont to form an unquestioning consensus around an idea that makes little sense and produces consistently awful outcomes. In fact, the awfulness of the outcomes seems to be directly proportionate to the dogmatic insistence that there cannot possibly be any other way of doing things.

I can think of no clearer example of this than compulsory education: a bad idea which is (by and large) badly implemented by the state in the form of day-prisons which act as a factory for producing unacceptably large numbers of witless, traumatised, ignorant, semi-literate teenagers and not an insignificant number of violent, anti-social thugs.

Nor is this a secret shame. Indeed, it is the subject of much national hand-wringing about 'what to do'. And yet, if I dare to suggest that the whole idea of incarcerating children for at least 10 years and then indoctrinating them with the things that politicians think they should know about is both counterproductive and immoral and bound to produce very little except awful outcomes, the reaction I get is rather similar to the one I imagine I would get if I were to demand that all pregnant women be injected with rabies.

Still, the best way to deal with a 'truth-that-dare-not-speak-its-name' is to speak it; often and boldly. That is why we need press releases like this one from the Libertarian Alliance:

"State schooling is an instrument of ruling class control. It is a means by which ideologies of obedience are imposed on the young.

State schools have always encouraged intellectual passivity and trust in the authorities. In the past generation, they have begun also to celebrate illiteracy, innumeracy and a general ignorance of the world. Add to this endemic bullying and temptations to unwise experimenting with sex and recreational drugs, and we have in state schooling a comprehensive absence of what used to be meant by education.

Rising truancy levels are to be welcomed. They show that increasing numbers of the young are withdrawing from the process of mass brainwashing. The young may not yet be expressing positive discontent with the corporatist police state New Labour and the Conservatives have made for us. But they are beginning to vote with their feet.

While the Libertarian Alliance does not encourage breaches of the criminal law, even if the law happens to be pointless or malevolent, we do look forward to a time when state schooling will be as dead an institution as the workhouse and the debtor's prison."

And when that day comes, human beings (being a somewhat strange lot) will be disinclined to recall or even believe in a time when there was a consensus around state education.

(12)

On page 31 of the August edition of the BBC History magazine, Mervyn Benford writes that, in Britain, "it was the demands of industrialisation that made the government educate the masses" an interesting statement considering that the industrial revolution occurred before even the tiny government subsidy to education in 1833. Benford goes on to write that, in 1862, "just 1 in 20 children went to school" - an absurd statement of the sort that E.G. West exposed more than forty years ago in Education and the State.

An historian should not say to themselves "I will pretend that every child who has not been to school for X number of years, without a break, has never been to school". This is 'history' as in "first there was darkness, but then the state moved into the darkness and said let there be light". As Ludwig Von Mises (and many other people) have pointed out, it is not the most stupid students or the most lazy (not always the same people of course) who become collectivists - on the contrary it is often intelligent and hardworking students (whether children or adults), people who seek out knowledge.

For the wells of knowledge have been poisoned. The above is one example, but it is one example from a legion. A child or an adult who seeks knowledge from the media or the 'education system' is betrayed.

(20)

Overseas readers often scoff at my pessimism about the state we are in in Britain. Scoff may be the wrong word. Scoffing is now under close supervision:

David Ashley, headmaster of Greenslade primary, says that pupils who bring in packed lunches “are allowed chocolate on a biscuit but not a Mars bar”. If such sweeties are spotted, parents are called in for a quiet word.

At Charlton Manor primary, the head, Tim Baker, says: “Children get stickers for healthy boxes . . . If a child brings in a chocolate bar, we take it out of the lunchbox and give it back to the parent at the end of the day.” Pupils give each other away, he confides: “They say, ‘Miss, he’s got sweets in his box’.”

Perhaps the scariest thing about the article from which that comes is the vaguely approving tone. Here is information about what is being done, no questioning that it needs and should have government attention.

(19)

So I need to try hard to make this particular grammatical error far fewer often. I must write "less" on less occasions, and "fewer" fewer infrequently. It's the fewest I can do. But realising precisely when to use "less" and when to use "fewer" remains fewer than obvious to me. Personally I blame my primary school teachers. If they'd wasted fewer time teaching me gorgeous italic handwriting (which is fewer than usefewer in this digital age) then I might have picked up more of the key rules of grammar instead. But one can't improve one's English unfewer one's mistakes are identified. That's why I've been much too carefewer on countfewer occasions in the past. Sorry, it's all been mindfewer thoughtfewerness on my part. Bfewer you all for pointing out my linguistic reckfewerness. I recognise now that my writing has been fewer than perfect, and I've learnt my feweron. But don't expect less mistakes overnight. Quite frankly I still couldn't care fewer.

- diamond geezer

(42)

You know that this will result in less safety for the child, greater tyranny from 'experts' interfering in family life for any number of arbitrary reasons relating to targets 'not met' and could present the death-knell for home-schooling:

Changes being introduced since Victoria Climbie's death from abuse include a £224 million database tracking all 12 million children in England and Wales from birth. The Government expects the programme to be operating within two years.

But critics say the electronic files will undermine family privacy and destroy the confidentiality of medical, social work and legal records.

Doctors, schools and the police will have to alert the database to a wide range of "concerns". Two warning flags on a child's record could start an investigation.

There will also be a system of targets and performance indicators for children's development. Children's services have been told to work together to make sure that targets are met.

This is the age of the database and the state loves them. Why does it love them? Because it reverses the roles of ruler and ruled in all matters. Dr. Eileen Munro of the London school of Economics begins to understand:

"They include consuming five portions of fruit and veg a day, which I am baffled how they will measure," she said. "The country is moving from 'parents are free to bring children up as they think best as long as they are not abusive or neglectful' to a more coercive 'parents must bring children up to conform to the state's views of what is best'."

How long before our children wear electronic tags for security and the monitoring of best practice, attendance at a state recognised school, and ironing out the anarchy that we used to call 'play'?

(22)

The Libertarian Alliance is highlighting the disgraceful way Belgium has been trying to intimidate people who hold politically incorrect views. Put an article up that the powers-that-be do not like and they will order you to take it down or face prosecution. But then what can you expect from a country which simply bans established political parties they dislike?

Support the right to home school your children? Advocate the right to self-defence? Want to express your views about Islamic culture? Prepare to be criminalised by the Belgian state.

(25)

I had not heard about the Seattle Public Schools fiasco until I read about it on Natalie Solent's blog. If, like me, you have not been keeping up with statist nonsense out of the Pacific North-West of the United States, the Seattle Public Schools administration defined cultural racism thusly:

Those aspects of society that overtly and covertly attribute value and normality to white people and Whiteness, and devalue, stereotype, and label people of color as “other”, different, less than, or render them invisible. Examples of these norms include defining white skin tones as nude or flesh colored, having a future time orientation, emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology, defining one form of English as standard, and identifying only Whites as great writers or composers...

Natalie Solent made the point:

The policy decision that "emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology" constituted racism came to my ear like a little echo of the draft European Constitution: an attempt to build in a left-wing position without going to the trouble of arguing for it. Under this definition pretty any student daring to defend Republican ideas could have been accused of racism. And that was the idea. It was all about power.

Part of the point of Samizdata.net is to counteract nonsense like this. on the sidebar it says what we are about:

A blog for people with a critically rational individualist perspective. We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

It is true that we have a long way to travel, but every day has its own task.

(8)

While reading about the Seattle Public Schools fiasco, I also spotted this op-ed by Andrew Coulson, who made a very good point about public education in general.

But this is still a free country. Thanks to our (ostensibly racist) regard for individual liberty, Seattle Public Schools board members and officials are free to adopt whatever definitions of racism they choose. It is inherently divisive, however, for an official government school system to promote one ideology over another.

Unfortunately, it is also unavoidable.

Whenever there is a single official school system for which everyone is compelled to pay, it results in endless battles over the content of that schooling. This pattern holds true across nations and across time. Think of our own recurrent battles over school prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, the teaching of human origins, the selection and banning of textbooks and library books, dress codes, history standards, sex education, etc. Similar battles are fought over wearing Islamic headscarves in French public schools and over the National Curriculum in England.

There is an alternative: cultural détente through school choice.

Historically, societies have suffered far less conflict when families have been able to get the sort of education they deemed best for their own children without having to foist their preferences on their neighbors.

Some people fear that unfettered school choice would Balkanize our nation. Their concern is commendable but precisely backward. The chief source of education-related tensions is not diversity; it is compulsion. Why is there no cultural warfare over the diverse teachings of non-government schools? Because no one is forced to attend or pay for an independent school that violates their convictions.

Read the whole thing.

(11)

With a monopolistic provider, divided into a number of exam boards, and facing the requirement of meeting the targets set by the government, the A-level is no longer perceived as the de facto 'gold standard'. Now that the anecdotal tales of remedial lessons in grammar for first year students, and bullet point answers, private schools are searching for alternatives:

One of the most damning criticisms is that pupils can gain top grades in the exams by providing only "bite-sized" paragraphs of information or bullet points.

A grade has risen to 22.8 per cent, up from 11.9 per cent in 1991.

Some questions even tell candidates what they should mention in their answer. For instance, an English literature A-level question from a 2003 paper, in which pupils are asked to comment on a passage in Othello, goes on to say "in the course of your answer, look closely at the language, tone and imagery of the dialogue and comment on what the passage suggests about attitudes to Othello."

A group of private schools and Cambridge Universities International Examinations are constructing a new exam, the Pre-U, based upon stronger syllabi and ensuring academic rigour through the teaching of essay techniques. The centralised state sector is unable to innovate and set up a new examination system due to the demands of the government for greater control over the education system. They can prevent students stuck with state schooling from participating in dangerous 'improvements':

While the Pre-U will be available to state schools, they will effectively be barred from taking it up because it is unlikely to be included on the Government's list of accredited qualifications.

Some state schools already complain bitterly that they cannot offer international GCSEs, which many believe are superior to normal GCSEs because they do not include coursework.

However, this new examination has stirred the civil servants to lift a pencil:

The criticism has led the Government to consider including tougher questions in A-level papers as part of its secondary education reforms, from 2008.

(8)

The frankly shocking discovery that this blog is being used as an educational aid for A-Level politics students is proof, if proof were ever needed, that state education is failing our children.

- Guido Fawkes yesterday (knowing that no-one will agree)

(69)

Tony Blair's weak and rather feeble effort to give a tincture of independence to state schools - arguably none, in reality - was only pushed through in the House of Commons last night because of support from the Conservatives, as this BBC report and others have stated. Dozens of Labour MPs, outraged at the very idea of schools loosening any controls from the State, rebelled. The Labour Party, having kept its mouth tightly shut in some ways while Blair sought to pass himself off as a pale Tory, is getting increasingly stroppy. The Iraq war clearly has had something to do with it, but there seems to be a sort of natural life cycle with Prime Ministers. As the years go by, and enemies are made, MPs passed over for promotion, the groupings of malcontents increases. It seems rather odd that Blair should suffer such a blow from his backbenchers on what is in fact hardly a radical education bill.

The irony of course is that Blair continues to be fixated by the career and achievements of Margaret Thatcher, a true radical in some ways with some significant achievements to her credit. Blair talks a good game on radicalism, as they say in sport, but delivery is often way short. His achievement, if we can call it that, has been a sustained and deep assault on the network of checks and balances that constrain State power, in particular, his determined assault on the English Common Law.

My bet is that Gordon Brown will be Prime Minister in 12 months from now. Any takers?

(57)

We have had over thirty years of comprehensives and eight years of Blair's "education, education, education". The result? According to The Guardian:

New research funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and conducted by Michael Shayer, professor of applied psychology at King's College, University of London, concludes that 11- and 12-year-old children in year 7 are "now on average between two and three years behind where they were 15 years ago", in terms of cognitive and conceptual development.

"It's a staggering result," admits Shayer, whose findings will be published next year in the British Journal of Educational Psychology. "Before the project started, I rather expected to find that children had improved developmentally. This would have been in line with the Flynn effect on intelligence tests, which shows that children's IQ levels improve at such a steady rate that the norm of 100 has to be recalibrated every 15 years or so. But the figures just don't lie. We had a sample of over 10,000 children and the results have been checked, rechecked and peer reviewed."

Astonishing.

(11)

I have been trying to get myself all worked up about how the UK Education Minister, Ruth Kelly, approved the appointment of a convicted sex offender to a job in a state school. All very terrible, she is obviously an ass, blah-blah. But nearly every commentary on this shabby business seems to be missing a wider point. What on earth is a politician doing approving or blocking the appointment of a teacher in the first place? There are tens of thousands of teachers, supply teachers and assistants. How on earth is a politician, or even a reasonably competent personnel manager, expected to keep track of all these folk?

The centralisation of our state education system has brought this sort of problem to pass. We need to return to the point where individual schools hire and fire teachers, and where parents have the freedom to put their children into a school or pull them out if they are not satisfied. It is not exactly rocket science.

(22)

I am not a great fan of Max Hastings but he does have a rather good article in the Guardian that makes points which should be obvious to everyone except state apparatchiks. He decries educational utilitarianism and Labour's lack of realism about the dominance of western culture and the relevance of British history in view of that undeniable dominance.

However I think he rather misses the point that this attitude has been a significant element for quite some time under governments of both parties. Perhaps what makes this government more alarming is their taste for depreciating any sense of cultural identity for English people and, most importantly, failing to provide any historical context for the modern world. To have a broad grasp of history is to have an understanding of the present and future possibilities and it would appear that is not seen as helpful for the broad masses of people who the state would rather see concentrate on mere technical skills.

I wonder if there are some in Whitehall who really do think that ideally as few British people as possible should know there was not always a socialist 'National Health Service'? If people do not know of a past without something they are perhaps less likely to imagine a future without it either. Perhaps none would really see things in quite such totalitarian terms yet it is not hard to see the attraction of such a view if you do not want people even discussing things which might reduce your power and influence by questioning certain axioms.

It is often my experience that the very notion that most regulatory planning is a quite modern imposition strikes a lot of people as bizarre. They think that without politically driven planning, everything would be chaos, and that must always have been true, right? Yet before the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, which was the single most destructive abridgement of British liberty ever, people owned property with several rights that are unimaginable today. Civilization would not end if such conditions prevailed again tomorrow (far from it) yet the meta-contextual reality is that in 2005, most people quite literally cannot imagine a world without planning regulations and that makes it rather hard to have a discussion about the issue if you take a radical perspective (i.e. the mainstream perspective of about one hundred years ago).

Perhaps just as Orwell wrote about 'newspeak' and posited a totalitarian state which wanted to abridge the language to make even conceiving of dissent impossible, there may be some amongst the political class who like the idea of most people receiving nothing more than technical training as the less people know of radically different world views that are never the less relevant to western culture, the less likely they are to imagine society functioning just fine without a great many of the state institutions taken for granted today. What would happen if people start imagining a world which works just fine without much of the regulatory statism that the state wants you to accept as inevitable and natural?

Creating a non-statist meta-context in which such things can even be discussed is something I have often banged on about. By this I mean establishing frames of reference within which one develops and expresses opinions that are broader than those generally found in the mainstream media or academia today. This matters because the meta-context within which most discussions and analysis take place tends to define the basic range of views that are likely to emerge: for example, if the only method for effecting changes people can imagine involves force backed democratic political processes, their views will tend to develop with that underpinning assumption in mind.

I would be curious to know if people like education minister Charles Clarke really think about that sort of thing. I am quite willing to believe that rather than an sinister overarching world view designed to make us all technically trained drones monitored with panoptic surveillance and ubiquitous state enforced database monitoring, we are just seeing the results of dreary political hacks looking for ways to eliminate things they are too limited to see a use for themselves. Stupidity rather than malevolence is generally a more reliable explanation of wickedness than conspiracy theories... and yet when you take the broader view of this apparent dislike of non-technical education within the context of widespread abridgement of civil liberties by both main political parties, well, it makes you wonder.

(23)

I keep banging on about this subject since it is, in my eyes, a prime example of how the state is not pulling its share of the deal in coercing the citizenry to pay for schooling and for coercing children to spend the ages of 5 to 16 or more in school. Latest official data suggest that standards of literacy and numeracy among schoolchildren are not up to scratch.

Schools are not doing enough to improve the literacy and numeracy skills of those pupils who start their secondary education with low standards in English and mathematics," a report from Ofsted said.

The findings were released on the same day the National Audit Office, the government's spending watchdog, said more employers need to invest time and money in teaching staff basic skills such as maths and English.

Tony Blair is locked in conflict with his Labour backbench MPs over his education reforms. From a superficial reading, one would get the impression that Blair wanted to drastically open up the amount of choice available to parents as to where their offspring are educated. In practice, nothing so drastic seems to be on the cards and yet the slightest hint of increased choice seems to send socialists into a frenzy.

The other night, the Institute of Economic Affairs held an evening to honour the late, great Arthur Seldon, who among other reforms made the idea of school vouchers one of his pet issues. It is fair to say that we are as yet a million miles from achieving the kind of choice in education that Arthur wanted to bring about.

(56)

A few weeks ago I linked to a speech given by the head of a private schools organisation, in which said individual fretted about the decline in the teaching of certain subjects such as physics and foreign languages. Responses were interesting. One or two commenters thought the system is pretty good. (Yes, seriously). One fellow even claimed to be "genuinely bowled over" by how good it was. More common responses were on the lines that in a free market, if there is a shortage of folk with engineering or linguistic abilities, then sooner or later supply would come through, if not from the UK's own workforce, then from overseas forms of supply. Up to a point I agree. As a free marketeer, it would be perverse for me to bleat about "shortages" or X and Y and then not realise that one person's shortage is another person's entrepreneurial opportunity.

The difficulty, of course, is that we don't have a fully free market system of education in this country, but one in which the incentive impact of price signals and salary levels gets blunted by a predominantly state-run system, with its national programmes, bureaucracies and state-mandated certificates and qualifications. This means that if there is a shortage of say, physics teachers, it may take a while for the shortage to be made up. Learning physics to a high standard can take even the brightest students quite a while. And if the supply of teachers in certain fields drops off, it can take several years to make up the gap easily, though modern technology possibly can help disseminate information more effectively than the chalk-and-blackboard approach of the past.

If, on the other hand, the scarcity of physics teachers changes slowly, then a more market-driven schooling system can react to that more nimbly. People who work in industry but who may want a less stressful life might be interested in teaching science part-time, for example. Among the greying populations of the industrialised world, there might be a potentially big pool of people who might like to teach the young but on a part-time basis.

A story here points to continued worries about what is happening with science education in this country, especially in the field of physics. I am not of course saying that the existing system can be made better by tweaking a few courses here and there. A move towards a genuine market in education is what is required over the long term.

For those who think of schooling in a post-Prussian statist mindset, you can blow out some collectivist cobwebs here and also here

(18)

Something extremely interesting has just been reported on Newsnight.

David Cameron has apparently been saying for some time now (but I missed it until now) that he is against "opposition for opposition's sake" and that the Conservatives may well be voting for the Government's latest education reforms. David Cameron is and has for some time been the Conservative spokesman on education, and he seems to be handling the Conservative response to these proposals.

Yesterday I did a posting concerning Cameron, and the consensus among the Samizdata commentariat was that nobody knew what Cameron stood for, or what any of his ideas might be. But I think what we have here is an idea of great importance. Maybe not an especially original one, and long overdue, but extremely potent mevertheless.

The Conservative Opposition has spent the last decade opposing everything that the Government has done, a process which I particularly associate with William Hague, but which his successors have not fundamentally altered. And since the Government has been relentlessly "triangulating" � i.e. stealing whichever Conservative policies they think are popular or which they think will eventually prove popular because they think that they will in the meantime work � this has meant the Conservatives suffering from a permanent, yet self-imposed, philosophical incoherence.

One moment the Conservatives would be saying that something or other that the Government was talking about should be more market-oriented. A moment later, some other Government initiative that was more market-oriented would be complained about. Complained about, as Cameron has apparently said, for the sake of complaining. One moment the Government was being not tough enough on terrorists, the next moment too tough, for doing pretty much what the Conservatives had just said they should do in another context. This is not opposition, so much as opposition-ism. It says: whatever they do is wrong! Never mind why. Never mind what we would do, or what we really think of it. Denounce it! We just scrape up whatever mud we can find on the floor and chuck it at them. No wonder the Conservatives have won parliamentary battle after parliamentary battle, but have been slaughtered again and again in the electoral war.

What would the Conservatives do, if they were the Government? For the last ten years, they have offered no sort of answer. And for this reason, there has been, in the competitive sense, no opposition, because no alternative Government that it made sense to even consider voting for. All anyone knew about the Conservatives was that they did not like the Government. Big surprise. But that is not a policy; it is a mere emotion. It has condemned the Conservatives to relentless irrelevance and unending public ridicule.

Now, if this "Cameron doctrine" is what it appears to be, and more to the point, if it goes into action right across the board, with David Cameron imposing it across the board in his capacity as Conservative Leader, New Labour will finally face what you might call a New Nightmare.

Take these education reforms. Blair says they are intended to make schools more independent and self-governed, and less controlled by local authorities. This is very Conservative friendly stuff, and not at all Labour friendly. There is a good chance that the massed ranks of Labour MPs will not vote for these reforms in nearly sufficient numbers, but that a more unified Conservative Party will see the reforms through nevertheless. This will split the Labour Party from top to bottom. We are doing Conservative policy! And with Conservative help! And in spite of our core beliefs!

Repeat that procedure every time Blair presents one of his reforms, but oppose ferociously when they resort to old fashioned, Old Labour, collectivism, and suddenly it is a new Parliamentary ball game.

It gets worse for Labour. In the electorate as a whole, the question will start to be asked: if we already have a Government that does Conservative things, despite its own supporters, and if that is what that nice Mr Blair thinks should be done, then does it not make sense to vote for the real thing, and vote in a real Conservative Government?

This is a tactical switch that the Conservatives should, from the purely political and competitive point of view, have done years ago. Finally, they have done it.

Or then again, maybe they have not. Cameron might not win the Conservative Leadership. Davies might go back to crass oppositionism. Cameron may win, but it may turn out that "opposition for opposition's sake" was just a nice sounding phrase to win him the job, and he will then forget about it and carry on with the mud slinging.

But, this might just be a political turning point.

(79)

This may not be the most exciting story of the day, but it caught my eye as an example of how, despite its fine words, the present government has allowed our education system to crumble:

Britain will slide rapidly towards Third World status unless the Government reverses the "unsupportable" decline in maths, science, engineering and modern languages in the state sector, head teachers of leading independent schools warned yesterday.

Jonathan Shephard, the general secretary of the Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference, representing leading boys' and co-educational secondary schools, urged the Government to work more closely with the private sector.

"Despite improvements in state results, the decline in mathematics, engineering and modern languages is unsupportable and has to be reversed," he said. "Otherwise we are heading rapidly towards Third World status."

India and China were turning out tens of thousands of engineers, scientists and mathematicians but in Britain the number of first-year graduates studying chemistry had fallen from 4,000 in 1997 to 2,700 in 2005, he said.

Superficially, it may be a smart move to make it easier for parents to send their children to private schools. My only problem is that if the current Labour government were to embark on such a course, it would demand, as part of such a deal, greater control over what is left of the non-state education system. (That remains a key drawback of education vouchers). Do we really want the half-educated dolts and knaves running this government to get their hands on Eton, Harrow or Winchester?

Update: a commenter disputes whether British state schools are so lousy. Perhaps he should study this OECD report, which contains damning data on illiteracy in Britain. I should also remind readers of the terrific work being done by Professor James Tooley to debunk the shibboleths of statist thinking on education.

Update 2: Here is another link to a site about literacy issues in Britain and other countries. If you scroll down there are dozens of stories, from as recently as September 2005, expressing employers' concerns about the skills of the students they take on. A couple of commenters persist in claiming that our state education system is better than it has ever been. If so, why the company complaints? I presume that CEOs are not making this stuff up.

(14)

Friday's Guardian carried a scary piece, headed:

Extremist groups active inside UK universities, report claims

So? What do you expect? I was getting ready to say. Of course students like to try on new ideas and they suck up stuff from all sorts of weirdos from the Hare Krishna, to the Federation of Conservative Students (RIP), to the Department of Gender Studies. Some of my best friends are "extremists". A university that's a tepid-bed of moderation is scarcely worthy of the name.

Then my eye hit the scary bit. The second paragraph reads:

Yesterday the education secretary, Ruth Kelly, ordered vice-chancellors to clamp down on student extremists in the wake of the July terror attacks in London.

I may have had very little administrative contact with my own universities, but I am fairly sure it wasn't part of the vice-chancellors' job description to tell students what they can say and what they can think. And I knew the current administration had taken the first steps to control by seizing admissions procedures, but I definitely missed the bit where universities ceased to be independent institutions, and Mrs Secretary of State Kelly could order vice-chancellors what to tell the student body what it may say and think.

The excitable self-promoting report by erstwhile history professor Anthony Glees (who seems interestingly close to the security establishment) was picked up in a number of places, but I haven't heard suggestions elsewhere that Kelly is doing any such thing. Let us hope that this is just a mistaken presumption on the part of the journalists involved that all-powerful ministers can order anything... not a PR prelude to the Government "discovering" it does not have such a power and that it is vital it gets it quick "for national security".

(8)

The FT paper edition for 20th/21st August has feature on some of its writers sitting some of this years' A-level exams. Though a stock sort of piece, this much the best of its type I've read and is full of insights, most provided by the examiners they involved in the exercise.

For example, here's Matthew Lumby of the QCA:

A lot of people think that in an essay question you are just judged on content and style when in fact the markers will be looking for a number of specific things.

What else is there?

(79)

American journalist, Cathy Young, wades into the Intelligent Design (ID) versus Darwinian evolution controversy. It is an issue that appears to be causing more of a ruckus in Jefferson's Republic than in Britain, which until recently, was pleasingly unruffled by attempts by religious folk to roll back the achievements of science (I have not a clue what Islamists think of evolution). Champions of ID seem, at any rate in the United States, to be coming from the so-called conservative side of the political divide. As Young points out, though, it is by no means clear why conservatives should take this stance:

In some ways, evolutionary theory is more compatible with conservative ideas than with leftist ones. Indeed, proponents of applying evolutionary theory to human social structures tend to be viewed by the left with suspicion, particularly on biological explanations for sex roles. As several commentators have pointed out, it's conservatives who reject the notion that complex organization requires deliberate central planning -- in economics. Why should biology be different?

Exactly. The Hayekian idea of spontaneous order is similar in some ways. It is arguable that Darwin's appreciation of the emergence of complex systems may have been influenced by the writings of the Scottish Englightenment, such as Adam Smith and his famous idea of the "invisible hand". It is entirely possible to believe in the existence, or indeed entertain the possibility of a Supreme Being and yet still sign up to Darwin's theory and the subsequent development thereof. An atheist would presumably find it very hard to support ID, I would have thought. Here is a link to lots of stuff about this issue here, from a broadly pro-evolution perspective.

Should ID be taught in schools? Well, as a taxpayer, I object to what I think is a bogus theory being taught with money seized from my wallet. If parents want to teach religious ideas to their children, I have few objections. My only caveat is that parents do not have an unfettered right to indoctrinate their offspring, although given the rebellious instincts of most kids, this is pretty hard to do over an extended period of time in a vigorous, pro-science, pro-reason culture.

(14)

Australia is not famous for higher education. Indeed, "Australia" and "Higher education" would strike most people as an oxymoron in the "French Military Victory" class.

Needless to say, the Australian Government has long tried to nudge Australia's university system towards some sort of quality, and has permitted private Universities to be established. In addition, the government has encouraged students from overseas to pay their way through Australian universities, as a way for universities here to raise money.

Recently, the government has also allowed Australians to enter universities by paying their own way.

This move towards a more financially sustainable education system has not been well received by many members of the Australian academic ecosystem. One of whom has put together a rather amusing parody website which takes a humorous potshot at trends in Australian university education.

Underling the parody is the normal assumtion that anything in the private sector must be inferior, and that any private qualification must obviously be worthless as it can be bought.

But the site has caused a bit of a flurry of attention in various educational quarters in Australia, and one consultant has been tracking the progress of this satirical site.

This recalls to me the time, long ago now, when I was studying like a demon in order to obtain the Cisco Certified Network Associate (CCNA) qualification, back in the dark days when networking involved lots of wires. As it was, I was dating a university student at the time and she was appalled that I had to acheive an 85% score to pass and obtain the qualification. She was doing sociology or something of that ilk in a Melbourne university and told me smugly that she only needed to score 55% to pass. Easy for her, but who do you think knew their subject better? After all, Cisco had a real stake in me being proficient in knowing how to use their product.

Thanks to Professor John Kersey for alerting us to these sites.

(4)

Harry Phibbs is one of those people who is not nearly as much of an ass as he often pretends to be. In fact, often pretending to be an ass is just about the only assinine thing about him.

Here he is, pictured at that Globalization Institute launch that everyone who was anyone was at, talking about I have no idea who, but almost certainly saying that they ought to be horsewhipped.

But he is and has long been an excellent writer. Here is his excellent description, at the SAU blog, of what it is like being a school governor (while remaining Harry Phibbs of course). I particularly liked this bit of reminiscence:

School governors are entitled, indeed encouraged, to visit the school once a term or so. They also have a chance to report on their visit. I once caused consternation at a primary school in St John's Wood where I was a governor a few years ago. Reporting on a visit I had made to the school, I named a Bosnian child who had recently arrived at the school. He was unable to speak English but was very good at sums. Essentially his entire time at school was being wasted. For most lessons he stared blankly unable to understand what was going on. In the maths lesson however he managed to correctly complete a whole sheet of sums within seconds which kept the rest of the class going for the whole lesson. Of course he should have been given harder sums and special help to learn English. "We are letting him down", I declared. Later it was proposed by one of the teachers that reports of governor's visits should be restricted to general comments as it was "inappropriate" to make comments which should be made by school inspectors.

But I was backed up by the other governors who agreed there was little point in having school visits if specific criticisms could not be made. I never found out if the boy was given harder sums to add up.

Harry also writes about the beneficial effects of Jamie Oliver on school meals, and gives chapter and verse of how much money is spent on each pupil, and who by. (Clue: bureaucracy.)

Read, as we bloggers so often say, the whole thing.

(18)

I am watching a news report on Newsnight, broadcast by the BBC, about private education in Nigeria. The report is the work of Professor James Tooley, who I think is one of the most interesting public intellectuals in the world.

Tooley has been roaming the world in recent years, finding cheap, successful, private schools, which are everywhere outperforming the shoddy state provided schools. Nigeria is no different.

It is one thing to see white blokes in suits saying at some pro free market conference that the private sector is better than the public sector. Watching Nigerian parents explaining the same thing, to a BBC news camera, is something else again.

So why, Tooley is asking, is everyone in denial? There is no global crisis in education. The private sector is supplying higher standards at a fraction of the cost.

Now we are in white blokes discussing it all mode, and Professor Keith Lewin of Sussex University is explaining that what Tooley has spent the last decade scrutinising with his own eyes is all a figment of his, Tooley's, imagination.

Tooley has the advantage over Lewin. He has been there. He has seen it. He has found schools which, until he and his colleagues found them, nobody not directly involved with the schools in question knew existed. This is market success, says Tooley, and we should celebrate it.

Tooley's report showed an incandescently eloquent private sector teacher in action. And he also showed a state school teacher in a state school classroom, a classroom filled with state school pupils who were busy trying teaching one another, while he, the state school teacher, was fast asleep at his desk.

Lewin says that this is all a tragedy, because he sees state failure. The state is, or should be, the educator of last resort. Market success is important to Lewin only because as far as he is concerned market success equals state failure, and state failure is bad bad bad. Lewin refers to "his colleagues in Africa", who agree with him and do not agree with Tooley.

Those, I would guess, would be the state education bureaucrats who, time and time again, do not even realise that there is a thriving educational private sector in their own country, pretty much right under their noses. The government bureaucrats whom Lewin (I suspect) spends most of his African research time communing with, have little idea about this ferment of private education. Insofar as they do know of it, they do not want to know of it, because it makes them feel irrelevant. This is because they are irrelevant. And if they are irrelevant then so is the living that Professor Keith Lewin of Sussex University makes helping to prepare all this state bureaucrats for their careers in state education.

Now Lewin is talking gibberish about why Britain nationalised its schools in 1870. What we have just seen, says Lewin, invites the withdrawal of the state from the provision of all public services. Well, yes.

The thing about Tooley is not just what he says. It is also the sincerity and enthusiasm with which he says it. He will never convert the Lewins of this world. But he does seriously contest what they say, and, just like the numerous private schools which he has found the world over � in Africa, in China, in India, in Pakistan, in fact everywhere he looks � he does it with a fraction of the resources that the Lewin side of this debate now commands.

For more about all this, read this Sunday Times article by Tooley, which I would never have found out about had it not been for the BBC.

The BBC, outrageously biased, rampant supplier of last resort of rampantly pro-capitalist propaganda.

(20)

As a general rule, whenever you hear or read that teaching unions are 'angry' then you can pretty much bet all your wordly worth that something good and positive is happening in the education sector.

I have yet to encounter an exception to this rule:

Teachers' unions reacted angrily today after the Government vowed to press ahead with plans for 200 privately-sponsored city academies.

This hardly means that the (long overdue) commodification of education is upon us but then these public sector mafiosi possess bloodhound levels of sensitivty that enable them to pick up on even the faintest whiff of threat to their vested interests.

I wholly expect that even if these academies do start sprouting up around the country, the curriculum will still be politically-mandated and the sponsors will (in common with everyone else in the productive, non-looting sector) have to navigate their way through a miasmic swamp of diktats, edicts and regulations on their way to getting something resembling decent results.

But, for all that, they do seem to me to represent the first few, tottering, tentative, baby steps towards the long-term goal of levering the state out of the education business. Good.

(31)

For me, this was the biggest news yesterday. Synthetic phonics is now thoroughly established as a serious educational policy option.

"Synthetic phonics" is a somewhat jargonic way of saying the sensible teaching of reading, based on the idea that despite all the deviations (in English especially) from the rules, letters stand for noises, and the way to read is to work out what the noise must be from the letters. To say that this is how to learn reading is to miss the point. The point is: this is reading. Seeing the letters "e l e p h a n t" next to a picture of an elephant (which is precisely what I did see this morning when channel hopping � in a TV show supposedly helping children to read) and guessing that therefore this assemblage of baffling squiggles must mean elephant is not reading. Reading means seeing those letters on their own, and knowing that they mean elephant.

A good way to get to grips with the background to this story is to read the latest newsletter from the Reading Reform Foundation, who have been agitating on behalf of synthetic phonics for many years now.

At the heart of this argument is not the value of phonics as such. Even the most diehard look-and-say people now concede that phonics is part of the story. But, say the RRF people, too many teachers � teachers who have only been following or agreeing with the guidance they have been getting from the government � believe in a mixed approach. In other words, says the RRF, they confuse children by urging them to combine reading with guessing. Should some version of phonics merely be included in the government's literacy strategy (it already is), in among picture books, stuff about "word shape", and so on, or should literacy be based entirely on phonics, properly done? The latter, says the RRF. Personally I find the RRF argument thoroughly convincing.

At lot of what is happening here is not really an argument about what works best (synthetic phonics has been proved to work best), so much as an elaborate exercise in giving a whole generation of fools a soft landing. Too sudden a switch from the wrong methods to the right ones would reveal at once how bad the wrong methods were, and make an awful lot of experts look very inexpert indeed. So, although they must surely now know that they are losing, these people are still digging their heals in and fighting every inch of the way.

Kudos to the government, for, better late than never, taking all this on board, to use an unlovely Blairite phrase. For this is classic Blairism. Once again, New Labour (this kind of thing being the New bit) are cherry picking one of the better things that some Conservatives have been saying, and ramming it down the throats of their own natural (Old Labour) supporters, who will put up with anything rather than have too serious a fight with their own front bench and thus let the Conservatives back in.

My favourite moment in all the media reportage yesterday about all this came when a newsreader (I think BBC but am not sure) was reading the phrase "synthetic phonics" out. Exhausted by the effort of reading "synthetic", she then stumbled over "phonics", and had to stop, and try it again. Eventually she got it right. Maybe it would have helped if she had had a picture to help her.

Well, no, it would not. She should simply have read it better.

(47)

I quote at a bit of length because only when you quote at a bit of length do you get the real flavour of stories like this one:

A new anti-yob task force is to be set up to tackle the culture of disrespect and unruly behaviour in schools, ministers have said.

Otherwise known as a committee. This announcement will only add to the culture of disrespect. Disrespect of ministers.

The group, made up of teachers and heads who are experts in school discipline, will advise the Government on how to improve standards of behaviour.

One key part of their work will be to make sure parents take responsibility for the way their children behave, the Department for Education and Skills said.

But "taking responsibility" will not quite do it, will it? This would only work if parents actually changed the way their children behaved. This is a euphemism that communicates the underlying lack of confidence here. These people already know that none of this is going to work. If they thought that parents really could, and really would, make their children behave better, then this is what they would have said.

The group's work will include:

- Considering a new national code of behaviour setting out minimum standards expected from pupils, parents and schools

Expect away. But how will this make any difference? They've already worked out that they want pupils to behave better, and everyone pretty much knows what this means. What will they do when these expectations are unfulfilled?

- Looking at what new powers head teachers may need to tackle violent pupils

People have looked for decades at this one, and the one crucial power that all teachers need is the right to chuck out pupils who are disruptive.

- Writing a detailed report recommending potential new policies by the end of October

Oh goodee. A detailed report. That will really please the teaching profession.

The move follows Tony Blair's pledge to address the growing issue of "disrespect" in society and fears that violence and disruption in schools are on the rise.

Announcing the formation of the group, the new schools minister Jacqui Smith said: "A culture of respect, good behaviour and firm discipline must be the norm in all schools, all of the time.

"The Government has provided schools with powers, training, and support to deal with disruptive behaviour.

Which just might suggest - might it not? � that more of the same is not going to work any better.

"But we know that the real work is done on the front line by heads and teachers.

"We cannot simply legislate bad behaviour out of the classroom.

Well, you could try, I suppose. But legislation would mean sending people who disobeyed the law to prison. But legislation as in "here is what we really really want now everyone please do that" is indeed useless.

"It has to be delivered on the ground by teachers with the full backing of parents."

You can already see the excuses being lined up for when this policy fails. Blame the parents. And, inevitable, blame the teachers.

This is prayer talk, which will lead nowhere. Which might be why they are tackling this Prime Ministerial whim good an early in the electoral cycle, so that when all this nonsense fails ignominiously, there will be plenty of time for this failure to be forgotten about before the next election looms.

At the root of the problem of bad behaviour in schools is the fact that these are institutions which demand compulsory attendance. That is what turns schools into the "front line". If, at work, you behaved one tenth as badly as the more malevolent kind of adolescent at the more unruly sort of state school, you would be out on your ear. To hell with any social duty on anyone else's part to look after you. Until the kind of people who are responsible for stories like the above abandon their self-imposed duty to look after absolutely everyone, and to fine-tune every nuance of everyone's behaviour, by announcing, in absurd detail, what they want that to be and then just hoping it happens, they will never get anything resembling the behaviour they actually want.

I mean, shops who are subjected to customers whom they take against just get a couple of extremely big men in uniforms to escort them to the door. They do not waste their time blaming the parents or setting up committees � sorry, task forces � to make detailed recommendations, or for that matter demanding for themselves any new and draconian powers. They have all the powers they need.

In other words, the way to actually get good behaviour, whatever exactly you reckon that to be, is for you to consort with people who behave as you want them to. If they behave as you do not want them to, then seek other company, either by going somewhere else or, if it is your property, by telling them to go somewhere else.

Property. Key word there. Key concept. Clearly defined property rights are the foundation not just of a thriving economy but of civil order, of civilisation itself. One of the basic troubles with state schools is that it is not clear whose property they are.

Allow everyone, including teachers, and parents, and, I would say, including pupils, to follow these alternative rules, the rules of property and of consent, and an amazing number of now utterly intractable problems associated with education, whatever you think that is, will just melt away. The good stuff � that is say, whatever stuff those directly involved in it consider to be good stuff � will thrive. And the bad stuff � ditto � will vanish. Educational achievement will skyrocket. Costs � if costs are a problem, as they are for many � will plummet.

It really is that simple. The trouble is that to apply such simplicities to education would involve an entire class of meddlers and looker-afterers and minders and advisers and inspectors, to say nothing of detailed-recommendation-mongers and concern-arousers and general wafflers, having to change their whole way of thinking.

I live in hope, but not in expectation.

(80)

One of the regular contributors to the Libertarian Alliance Forum posted this salutary tale concerning his local state school.

I felt that it deserved a wider audience.

Yesterday my wife went to register our oldest child at the local 'gubmint' school here in the Atlanta 'burbs. It will be his first year in the public school system.

To prove that we live in the catchment area, she had with her an electricity bill with our address on it. There was a printed notice posted in the registration area. It listed the only forms of identification that would be accepted. At the bottom of the notice was printed "NO ACCEPTIONS!"

My wife found this illiteracy in a supposed place of learning to be very disconcerting, but carried on with the process.

Next, she was handed a slew of forms to complete and sign. One of the forms was a waiver for field trips. This form explained that "our student's will attend a number of field trips..."

That was it. Glaring spelling mistakes on professionally printed notices, moronic misuse of an apostrophe on a form that must surely have been reviewed by the principal. A sickening feeling came over her and she had to make her excuses and leave, explaining that she would fill in the forms later.

The received wisdom of our day holds that only the state can be relied upon to provide children with a proper education. I wonder how long that canard can hold fast in the face of all the glaring evidence to the contrary?

(36)

It seems a bit odd that the construction industry is going on a spending campaign to persuade smart young graduates to go into the trade. I am surprised that young people really need persuading. In this age of job offshoring, redundancies in the City and suchlike, it actually makes a lot of sense to get a skill in an area that cannot be easily outsourced. Many people in the construction, plumbing and electrical trades seem to be well off, far more so in fact than some young graduate toiling away in an office job. And thanks to new British regulations designed to prevent homeowners from performing any DIY activity more complex than install a shelf or rewire a plug - for their own good! - demand for construction and home maintenance professionals looks set to go on rising into the distance.

Anyone with a supposedly "secure" job ought to think about adding another, non-outsourceable, skill. One thing I always notice about British plumbers, for example, is that they all drive Jaguars or Mercedes. It is not rocket science to figure out why.

(14)

One of the more depressing discoveries I made from my first year or two of education blogging (Brian's Education Blog still not working sorry blah blah) was the inexorable spread of cheating in Britain's schools and colleges. The BBC reported yesterday that a diktat has just been emitted by a committee you will probably not have heard of until now, called JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee), saying that this must stop and here is how blah blah:

A rise in the number of students in the UK, including undergraduates from overseas, is likely to mean increased plagiarism, a report has said.

Colleges and universities are being sent guidelines written by experts in the higher education technology organisation, Jisc.

The authors say: "student plagiarism in the UK is common and is probably becoming more so".

JISC makes much of the presence of foreign students in large numbers, but presumably phrases this more delicately than the BBC's report does, in its first paragraph above, with verbiage more like the following:

A "holistic" approach is needed which establishes "underlying cultures and beliefs", "placing academic issues at the centre of the discussions".

When you are saying that foreigners are cheats, words like "holistic" come in very handy, I should imagine.

However, another reasons why academic cheating is on the up-and-up is diktats from national committees, demanding that British schools (where most British students are still incubated despite all those dodgy foreigners) must do better and better, and get better and better marks, and better and better exam results. This is the process I call sovietisation, and the rot afflicts everyone in the entire education system, up to and including the Secretary of State him (now her) self. Simply, the politicians want the educational numbers to look better than they are, and they cheat.

Time was when the teaching profession was pretty much left to its own devices by London, but those days are long gone. And time was when, if you cheated, you had to make sure your teacher did not catch you at it. Nowadays, your teacher is liable to be the one helping you to cheat, so you can get through your exams, and he can tell London that he is doing a good job. And London will believe it, because London wants to believe it. I think the Soviet vibe here is clear enough. Steel production figures anyone?

Sending out yet another instruction saying that you jolly well must not cheat has a distinctly Gorbachevian air. It amounts to begging that our top-down command-and-control education system must please, please, not behave like what it is. There will be quotas, but no quota fiddling. Dream on.

See in particular, this posting, where I noted how continuous assessment encourages cheating, because it involves asking teachers themselves to tell the higher-ups how well they, the teachers (and the higher-ups), are doing. Exams at least get someone else to say how well things are going, and are more likely to be honest. Although of course the politicians put pressure on those to dumb them down too.

David Gillies responded to that posting of mine, with a comment which I copied over to Samizdata. Gillies noted, you may recall, that there is another reason why foreigners equals cheating. Foreigners equals money, and British colleges do not want to lose it by telling said foreigners that they have done badly in their exams. There is a lot of this about just now, and the less corrupt educational exporters must now be very afraid.

Perhaps there will now be yet another Initiative, demanding that each school and college must set in motion an Anti-Cheating Plan. The more obedient ones will comply, as best they can.

Others will say that they have done this, but their Anti-Cheating Plan will only be observable when the inspectors come calling.

They will, that is to say, cheat.

(59)

I am aware of the arguments in favour of home-schooling. The educational standards tend to be higher. Children are usually brought up as reasonable human beings and not part of a pack of savages. In principle, home schooling allows for an upbringing that is tailored to each child. The conscription of children in schools is removed.

And then something like this comes along.

There are two benefits of even the most useless schools. Children meet other children their own age, which is useful if one is not intent on becoming a hermit.

Of course there is plenty of unreported abuse that occurs in full view. In some schools abuse is ignored or even inflicted. But most basically of all, a 12 year-old child turning up weighing 35 pounds with burn marks and bruises in rags might be noticed. So having children turn up somewhere where their disappearance or injury will be noticed is a valuable function of schools. Perhaps they need to open twice a month for roll-call and then let them go home?

(4)

The New Labour administration has provided a worthy example of how governments mess up systems of accreditation, especially those established by themselves. Since these are designed to mirror the political biases and triumphs of their founders, rather than provide an objective appraisal of developments, governments begin to tinker with the tables when they produce the wrong results.

One example of this is the education league tables where the government has recently introduced the recording of vocational qualifications in order to offset the academic predominance of private and grammar schools. This has the additional consequence of downgrading academic performance even amongst state schools which are run on an adequate basis.

Under the new system, a distinction in a certificate in cake decorating is worth 55 points � more than a GCSE grade A in physics.

And a City and Guilds progression award in bakery was worth more than five GCSEs at grade C.

The public sector professionals thought this was a terrific wheeze.

But John Dunford, general secretary of the Secondary Heads' Association, said the added complexity gave parents a better picture.

"In the past the tables have been too simplistic.

"The new tables give parents a broader view of the achievements of schools," he said.

The more complex the better. No doubt parents prefer complexity since this makes those important decisions so much easier. Time for the market to provide an alternative.

This government hopes to cut its cake, cook it and eat it. However, although Britain is ending up like Golgafrincham, we cannot offload the cake decorators or the telephone earpiece cleaners, so all of the skilled workers and the professionals are emigrating, leaving the Golgafrinchams behind.

(32)

At Joanne Jacobs I learned about another of these teacher/pupil ruckuses where the teacher would appear to have behaved very stupidly.

17 year old Ahmad Al-Qloushi disagreed with his teacher, Professor Jospeh Woolcock, about America being great. Ahmad Al-Qloushi thinks it is. His teacher, Professor Joseph Woolcock, on the other hand, said to Ahmad Al-Qloushi that he needed therapy for expressing such an obviously bonkers opinion. The story is already bubbling away on the internet and will surely spread. Al-Qloushi has put his version of the story out there, and however much the Professor may curse, he cannot now reverse this. The Professor has filed a grievance, whatever exactly that means, against Al-Qloushi, for putting his, the Professor's, name out there, but out there it is and out there it will now remain.

Whenever I hear about disagreements like this, I always think to myself: well, maybe the guy is a bit crazy. Maybe, in this case, the essay was a bit bonkers. And maybe Al-Qloushi had said and done other crazy things which he is forgetting about, and this essay was just the final straw in a hayrick of craziness that we are not hearing about. So, I am especially interested that in addition to reading Al'Qloushi's complaint, we can also read the offending essay.

Says Joanne Jacobs:

If the student's tale is accurate, it's outrageous. It's one thing to flunk him - I think the essay is not bad for a 17-year-old immigrant - quite another to treat him like a lunatic because he thinks the Founders were good guys and is grateful America liberated Kuwait from Saddam Hussein.

This guy (IA?), on the other hand, is sceptical about Al-Qloushi. Registration may be needed at the other end of that link, so I quote from this mercurynews.com story at length.

Needed: a grain of salt

"Arab Student Pushed to see Therapist'' the headline began. The Foothill College Republicans blasted faxes to reporters this month complaining that a professor had forced a student to see the college therapist merely because the student wrote a pro-American essay.

This, the students fumed, is why the Los Altos Hills campus should adopt an Academic Bill of Rights.

Nationwide, conservatives are pushing the political protection bill, which says that while colleges tolerate different races, sexes and creeds, they only welcome liberal politics.

Ahmad Al-Qloushi seems a poster child for the cause: His political science professor allegedly told him to get psychological help simply because Al-Qloushi wrote a chest-thumping patriotic essay.

But IA was suspicious. Al-Qloushi happens to be president of the Foothill College Republicans - a fact the group's press materials neglected to mention.

What were the odds of a campaign-perfect case happening to the college Republican president?

"It is a coincidence,'' Al-Qloushi said, "but this is the case.''

IA tried to confirm Al-Qloushi's story - and a subsequent release from the group that said the professor had filed a grievance against Al-Qloushi - but campus officials said they couldn't discuss confidential professor-student matters.

The professor wouldn't return calls and e-mails; the therapist simply hung up.

Fair enough. If you criticise someone publicly, you become a target yourself.

My first reaction was that maybe an angry Professorial outburst was being misunderstood, or misinterpreted, as a serious recommendation. But if there is indeed a therapist involved, the Professor presumably meant his recommendation seriously.

And maybe the fact that Al-Qloushi is the college Republican president is all part of what the Professor regards as so crazy about him.

However, I further guess that the combination of a pupil who is also a student politician (and maybe also an aspiring politician period) plus the Internet, faced the Professor with a situation he did not see coming. I guess that this Professor is used to getting away with crap like this, but did not realise that he was dealing with a different sort of pupil to the ones he is used to subjugating. My guess is that this Professor is a lefty who did indeed, despite what the mercurynews.com guy says, do something seriously wrong, but who did not understand that the Internet has changed the rules of these little conflicts.

Maybe he simply underestimated his adversary, regarding him as a confused immigrant without the moxie (as Joanne Jacobs would say) to stand up for himself.

In which case, the Professor is now getting a rapid piece of further education in the subject he is already a Professor of: American government and politics.

(28)

From yesterday's Telegraph comes this amazing story:

A 10-year-old girl saved her family and 100 other tourists from the Asian tsunami because she had learnt about the giant waves in a geography lesson, it has emerged.

Tilly Smith, from Oxshott, Surrey, was holidaying with her parents and seven-year-old sister on Maikhao beach in Phuket, Thailand, when the tide rushed out.

As the other tourists watched in amazement, the water began to bubble and the boats on the horizon started to violently bob up and down.

Tilly, who had studied tsunamis in a geography class two weeks earlier, quickly realised they were in danger.

She told her mother they had to get off the beach immediately and warned that it could be a tsunami.

She explained she had just completed a school project on the huge waves and said they were seeing the warning signs that a tsunami was minutes away.

Her parents alerted the other holidaymakers and staff at their hotel, which was quickly evacuated. The wave crashed a few minutes later, but no one on the beach was killed or seriously injured.

I missed this yesterday, but Norm Geras, linked to today by Instapundit because of another posting about Guardian foolishness, caught it, to whom thanks.

I am sure that some time during the last few months I have blogged things which have at least suggested that blogging etc. is capable of replacing the existing media. If so, apologies, and if not, lucky me. This tsunami disaster has made clear what has long been obvious, that the old media and the new media complement and feed into each other, or at any rate they ought to.

Bloggers in the right places at the right times can feed stories not just to other meta-bloggers, but to the mainstream media. A few of them were, after all, actually there. And then other bloggers, as I have just done, can point blog readers towards particularly choice mainstream media stories.

I particularly admire the way that the Guardian, for all that it is easy for the likes of us to criticise it for all kinds of other reasons, has at least learned how blogging can actually help in times like these, not just by telling the terrible story, but by helping to make it less terrible.

(12)

As regulators impose more onerous capital adequacy and reporting requirements on the Western world's banks, investment firms and brokerages, demand surges for increasingly sophisticated computer infrastructure to keep track of all the new systems deemed necessary to make the regulations work. As a result, demand is rising, according to this Financial Times article, for graduates with science degrees, especially in the field of physics. And it does not come as much of a surprise to learn that Britain's mostly state-run education system is not doing a very good job at churning out young physics students. I am shocked, shocked to hear this!

I would greatly prefer it if clever folk with scientific knowledge were engaged in the potentially fruitful areas of nanotechnology, biotech, aviation and civil engineering, all fields likely to see continued rapid growth, than working to make increasingly Byzantine bank regulations work better. It looks like a waste to me. We want our budding Isaac Newtons and Richard Feynmans working on spacecraft, not greasing the wheels of the latest EU banking directive.

(34)

Carol and Peter Williams live in Alton, Hampshire, with their son, also called Peter, who is a chess champion. Which was how the trouble started. The Williams family is now locked in battle with their Local Education Authority (LEA) about whether Peter should be allowed to pursue his education at home, or should instead be forced to attend school.

I heard about this via Daryl Cobranchi (such are the ways of the Internet), and emailed first Daryl, and then Carol Williams, who emailed me thus this morning

I would not say that education (I hate that word) is the subject. It is about freedom of choice and the desire to encourage your children in the subjects they enjoy and/or are good at.

I will now give a potted history so you can see how we got where we are today with the LEA.

Peter started playing chess when he was 5 years old. The rapid progress he made showed us this was way above the expected level of the average 5 year old. When Peter became 6, for a period of around 6 months, he had one day a week off school to study chess more in depth. Every week we had to write a letter to the school asking permission for this, after this period we decided to request that this was made a permanent arrangement, this is where it all started to go wrong. The school granted us a maximum of 15 days per year, stating that Peters' education would suffer otherwise. As he had just taken his SATS tests and achieve above average marks in all bar one subject, this argument did not hold water. We wrote back stating that this was not acceptable to us. We subsequently received a letter from the LEA's Barrister stating that the offer had to be withdrawn as it was illegal to allow children time off from school. This is absolutely incorrect as Hampshire LEA's website states that discretionary leave is entirely at the discretion of the Head . At this point we made the decision to withdraw Peter from state school and teach him at home.

The first letter we received from the LEA regarding Peters' home education, without quoting verbatim went along the following lines:

We understand you wish to educate your son at home.

This is not a wish, it is a right.

What exams will he be taking?

How can you answer this when the child involved is 6? What relevance is it at this age? Furthermore you do not have to take any exams.

What are the qualifications of all those who will be involved in his education?

Home educators do not need to have any formal qualifications.

The whole approach of this letter was very authoritarian .

Further letters followed from the LEA's various departments, advising us that they would be coming to our home.

The culmination of events was the issuing of the Notice of Failure to give an Education by the LEA. At this point we decided enough was enough, the LEA had not responded to any of our questions or complaints satisfactorily, yet continued to pursue us in their dogmatic way. We entered a complaint to the Ombudsman who is currently investigating the situation, it took him 4 months to get a response from them.

Other LEA's appear to be more flexible and helpful when it comes to both flexi-schooling and home education but Hampshire LEA appears to be particularly behind the times. Their website states "school is where children should be for most if not all of the time". Home Education is located in the Welfare Department and there is no help or assistance on their website for home educators.

From our experience there is a lot of ignorance surrounding home education. People seem to think there is something strange about home educators. I sometimes think people expect us to have at least 2 heads. We have spoken with people who were under the impression that LEA's provide tutors, materials, financial assistance etc to home educators, whilst we cannot speak for other LEA's it is certainly not the case with Hampshire. I believe that this assistance should be available to home educators if they wish to make use of it. To date the only response we have had as to why they give no assistance is that's the way it is, yet there is no legal reason why they cannot offer assistance. For each pupil registered a state school receives in the region of £4500 per annum and in the case of special needs children the sum is in the region of £10,000 pa. What happens to this money for a home educated child? Answer: nothing. From this stance it is clear that Hampshire LEA do not believe home education is a suitable learning environment so how can they have the audacity to insist on inspecting the work, surely they would be basing their assessment on a biased opinion. The very people who profess to care so much about our children only do so if on their terms.

It's funny really, until all this blew up as a family we had never thought about home education (like most of the population), now we believe that we have done Peter a great disservice by inflicting the state school system on him at all. Peter now enjoys so much freedom in studying the subjects he enjoys for the length of time he wishes. Some days he will work all day on science a particular favorite of his, another day painting or chess. It is his life and providing no laws are being broken and no-one is being hurt he has the right to make his own choices. Although we made the initial decision to home educate Peter does not want to return to school.

I give below a couple of websites which you may find of interest:

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/educate/leaguide.htm

http://www.hants.gov.uk/education/schoolsadmissions

Sorry if I have gone on a bit but this is a subject we are passionate about. Although I have written this email, both Peters have been reading it as I type and added their comments.

If there is anything you can or want to do to help Peter it would be appreciated.

Have a good Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Best Regards

Carol, Peter and Peter

If you want to join in this argument, Daryl Cobranchi has posted a couple of addresses you can write to. I have done another posting about this at my Education Blog, with pictures (of Peter jnr. and of that Notice of Failure that Carol refers to above), and with further linkage and reportage.

(18)

I don't usually much enjoy denunciations of liberal bias, because they so often seem to me to be as tediously and unthinkingly abusive as the liberal consensus that they denounce so often is. But I did enjoy this piece by Mark Bauerlein, entitled Liberal Groupthink Is Anti-Intellectual (linked to recently by Arts & Letters Daily)

The essence of Bauerlein's description of liberal bias is that it is a social process, and not just a political conspiracy. Quote:

The problem is that the simple trappings of deliberation make academics think that they've reached an opinion through reasoned debate � instead of, in part, through an irrational social dynamic. The opinion takes on the status of a norm. Extreme views appear to be logical extensions of principles that everyone more or less shares, and extremists gain a larger influence than their numbers merit. If participants left the enclave, their beliefs would moderate, and they would be more open to the beliefs of others. But with the conferences, quarterlies, and committee meetings suffused with extreme positions, they're stuck with abiding by the convictions of their most passionate brethren.

Quite so. What I like about Bauerlein's piece is that it addresses how it feels to be a typical academic. And your typical academic does not feel biased, in the sense that he thinks what he thinks through a great and continuous effort of mental will, in full knowledge of several alternatives. On the contrary, he thinks that what he thinks is the most natural thing in the world. So, if you do call him biased you immediately lose him, and prove to him only that you are stupid, about this and about much else.

Unchallenged extremism is one problem. Another is the resulting tedium. Bauerlein takes a J. S. Mill line, to the effect that even if the orthodoxy is right (which he doesn't think it is) it still needs to be kept on its intellectual toes by facing regular in-house challenges.

But he writes about liberal academics more as confused and ignorant barbarians than as fully functioning enemies. His job is not so much to oppose them as to rescue them. He feels sorry for them.

Even as I write the above paragraphs, I know that commenters will probably swarm around this posting, saying that those damned academic liberals are continuously and malevolently biased and that it is all their fault and curse them to hell, blah blah blah. I am not satisfied with this kind of non-dialogue, and I think that people who think approximately as I do can do better, and that Bauerlein (who does think very approximately as I do � given the overlap between what Americans call conservatism and what I call libertarianism) does do better. For him, liberal academic bias is not so much a continuous and conscious decision, as the unthinking outcome of a process, and because of that, the process might just as easily have produced a different kind of bias.

He does not talk about this, but it is my understanding that in the past, it did. In Britain in the nineteenth century, higher education was more independent of state control (although arguably just as much controlled by the social elite who also controlled the state) and groupthink and intellectual degeneration held sway in British universities, then as now. As I understand that story, this often took the form of an obsession not so much with the truth of theology as of an obsession with its obvious importance, compared especially to science, the beyond-the-pale intellectual upstart of those times. Science rode into the twentieth century universities on the back of nineteenth century scientific institutions that were founded and run by enthusiastic amateurs and academic outsiders. But ride in it eventually did.

Which leads me to speculate about another possible reason for the strength of liberal academic bias in the USA. This is: that in the USA, the God versus Science thing is still playing to packed houses. Here in Britain, the only people who really, seriously. believe in God in any numbers, in the sense of believing that the earth is how it is now because of decisions made and still being made by God, in heaven, are the recently arrived Muslims. Britain's Christian theologians � and I for one, as a devout atheist, am very content about this � have, not just academically but intellectually, been utterly routed. (Which means that we atheists are completely out of practice for dealing with the Muslims, but that is another story.) British Christians are content to sing hymns on the TV, worship nature and do good works. But in the USA, the Christians are now doing some serious intellectual regrouping, having never really gone away. Setting aside what you may think about the rights or wrongs, truths or falsehoods, of this national contrast, I surmise that one of the effects of it is to make academics in the USA still think that they are fighting old battles on behalf of scientific enlightenment against Godly primitivism, while in Britain, academia is, from the point of view of the God versus. Science debate, a victorious coalition. And we all know what happens to victorious coalitions. They split. As a result, British academia actually does offer slightly more genuine intellectual debate (about other things beside God) than is offered in many universities in the USA. Say "cut income tax" to a liberal on campus in the USA and he is liable to hear (truly to hear � he is not merely pretending to hear): "God created heaven and earth". Say "cut income tax" in a British university, and you are more likely to be told why you are wrong, and to be genuinely thought wrong, about income tax. But, me not having recently been to a British university, or ever to an American one, that could be all wrong.

By the way, Instapundit did a good Guardian piece last week about the continuing relevance of religion to politics in the USA, on both sides of the political divide. He also said that he did not much care for this fact, which will immediately get him a more polite hearing in Britain than he would get otherwise. This may not be saying much, but it is something. In the USA, his support for Bush is probably felt by many a liberal academic (insofar as they are even aware of it), as 'objectively pro-creationism'. Which puts him beyond the pale.

Well, I do not seem to have proved very much with this posting, just to have rambled for a while. But interestingly, I hope.

(17)

Last night I attended a seminar on education organised by the Social Affairs Unit (there is as yet nothing about this event on their blog), at which the speaker was Francis Gilbert. Gilbert read a bit from his new book, I'm a Teacher, Get Me Out Of Here!, and if this bit was anything to go by, it is a very good book. (See also this posting here earlier this year.)

I will not here recount � and could not hope to recount - everything that was talked about, but I do note with approval that Francis Gilbert, after he had finished reading from his book, invited us to think about how much better education would be if it was run by the man who has recently taken over his local corner shop, and has made a great success of it, and by a few thousand others like him, instead of by the Government.

However, I will focus on one very widespread and wrong clutch of related ideas that cropped up in the course of our discussion. It was said, echoing something that Francis Gilbert himself had said, that education is not "like oil or bread". The most important qualities of education are beyond measurement or quantification. The thing is just too complicated and ... I think that the word ineffable may even have been used. Unlike oil or bread.

The conclusion we were invited to draw from this was that education, unlike oil or bread, cannot be supplied entirely by the free market, as a lot of us, taking our lead from Francis Gilbert, were enthusiastically recommending. It is just too complicated a thing to dole out in easily measurable little packets, like oil or bread.

But it simply does not follow that because something is complicated and immeasurable, even ineffable, that it cannot and should not be supplied by tradesmen.

All products worth bothering with have intangible, ineffable qualities, which are almost impossible to measure. Oil and bread are not "like oil and bread" either. They too have mysteries and intangibles attached to them.

Closely related to the entirely correct claim that education is a very complicated thing was the point, also made, that "people do not know what is good for them", when it comes to education. A complicated service cannot be a mere product, because the consumers will not know what to pick. They need to be told that (in the words of Claire Fox while putting this argument) "Mozart is better than Hip Hop", but will not want to be told this.

The idea that authority (as opposed to raw power) can never flourish in a free market is likewise very widespread, and likewise utterly wrong. I buy all kinds of immensely complicated products, and I am constantly seeking out authoritative guidance about which ones are best. Often I do not understand the reasons why they are best. I am glad merely to have detected a consensus among the authorities that product X is indeed excellent. The very existence of the institution of the specialist periodical press is proof beyond all doubt that authority and the free market go hand in hand.

I did what I could very briefly to challenge these notions. I said the "oil is not oil either" thing, and also waved my little digital camera. (This is hugely complicated object freely available in many competing versions in shops, yet it is clearly not something any government would have come up with. I chose the one I was waving not on the basis of my own non-existent knowledge of such devices, but on the basis of reviews written by people who do understand these things.) I might also have seized hold of one of the many wine bottles on the table we were seated around. Was there ever a trade � and it definitely is a trade � with so complicated and so ineffable a product as the wine trade? Yet this is one of the oldest trades of all.

The wine trade also points us towards another important point. Wine, however ineffable, can, to some extent anyway, be measured � in gallons, in bottles, in costs, in profits and in losses, and the same applies to education. The fact that not everything about education (or oil, or bread, or digital cameras, or wine) can be satisfactorily measured, does not mean that measurement can contribute nothing at all to education. You can still measure numbers of pupils, hours of teaching, pupil satisfaction, parental satisfaction, and exam success, in ways that are way better than just guessing. If a school is a business, you can most definitely measure income, and costs. No business would ever use the impossibility of completely accurate and completely uncontroversial measurement as a reason to abandon all effort to measure at all.

Yes, there is a danger, in any business, that the measurable will be concentrated upon at the expense of things which are beyond measurement but perhaps in the long run more important. But this is a familiar idea in the literature of business management and in the experience of real world business managers.

I would go further, and say that governments are at their worst and most bureaucratic when what they are trying to do is least easy to measure. Tradesmen can always fall back on the notion that their customers are always right, even if they cannot ever be entirely sure of what they are right about. But what is a government to do when the numbers mean nothing? (A few years back, I did a whole Libertarian Alliance piece about the absurdities of government support for that most ineffable and immeasurable of things, Art.) The fact that, as I say, almost nothing can be measured with complete accuracy means that governments tend inexorably tend to screw up everything that they do. Far more than traders, governments depend on their precious statistics. If a trader makes a nice loaf of bread (or a nice school), and people like it, he is in business, provided only that the Government does not stop him. Government itself is not like that at all.

By the way, I do not want to present Francis Gilbert as a pure free marketeer. The excerpt from his book had been all about the waste and incompetence of state provision � inspectors, second-guessers, form-fillers and bureaucrats of all kinds crawling about doing very little � yet his final recommendation was that the state should concentrate on providing very good nurseries for all the badly brought up children who were, he felt, almost beyond getting a good education when they first arrived at school. But a nationalised nursery industry would merely pile bureaucratic miseries on top of current family failures.

To be fair to Gilbert, I felt that the point he was really making was that "we", the concerned classes, need to think and worry most about those very early years, where improving things will do the most good, rather than that the Government would necessarily do this job as well as he would want them to, if they were to tackle it. He is a product of a statist intellectual culture, and is not in the habit if distinguishing between: "we" should do something, and: The Government should do it. In any case, we put him right.

(7)

The University of St Andrews Students' Association has threatened to ban the student newspaper, The Saint, for not complying with an Equal Opportunities Policy. The Saint is an independent newspaper, run by students, but pays rent to the Students' Association (the union) for the use of an office. Unlike student newspapers at many universities, it is not funded by the university/taxpayer. Nevertheless, the tabloid publication has won several prestigious national awards and is regarded as one of the best student newspapers in the country.

Three years ago, a campaign against The Saint was run by a group of anti-capitalist students. They charged that it was too right-wing, and a flat window on College Street was taken up by posters attacking the newspaper.

The student union has repeately tried to compete with The Saint, bringing out a succession of free newspapers and a magazine, but none have enjoyed success - or regularity of production. Union officers have complained over several years that The Saint doesn't give their side of the story.

Now the union has found that the newspaper is in violation of the union's Equal Opportunities Policy on the grounds that it does not respect students' "right to dignity". This seems to refer to a section of the paper called 'Halo' which features pictures from parties and events, generally of students fairly drunk and in strange poses. There is a caption underneath each photo. The issue apparently came to a head after they featured a student union official who objected to the caption used. Some students fear that the Equal Opportunities Policy could be used to censor other types of reports.

(13)

Such as the Department of Trade and Industry, or the Department of Education, for example. Yes, I know it is an old joke but... is it really a joke?

(20)

Christy Davies has an interesting article on the Social Affairs Unit blog which looks critically at one of the educational 'given' of our age:

Science we are told is something that every child should and must study. Most children hate it, fail to master it and never use it or think about it again after they have left school. It is forced upon unwilling and inept pupils because it is supposed to be good for them. Science is the twenty-first century's version of Latin.

Interesting stuff. Read the whole thing.

(3)

This sums up the case for university top-up fees very nicely:

The new higher education minister, Kim Howells, today stormed into the education debate with a warning for universities that top-up fees would create a "cut throat" market.

Wow, a rabid free marketeer telling the universities that they are going to have to get their act together, not because little old he merely says so or else, but because there is now a market out there.

But it turns out that Kim Howells is against this market:

In his first speech since joining the Department for Education and Skills, Mr Howells risked the ire of his boss, Charles Clarke, with a series of negative remarks about the direction education policy had taken since he was last an education minister in 1998.

This is a classic case of something that happens a lot, namely a good idea being spread by someone who vehemently disagrees with it.

And here comes another combination of rightness and wrongness:

He questioned the government's focus on the economic benefits of education and admitted that sending his children to university had left him "broke".

In characteristically colourful language, Mr Howells told an audience at the University of Westminster in London today: "We've become very utilitarian in the department for education. I'm in a lucky position of having returned after six or seven years.

"Learning for learning's sake is something we should criticise very warily. People want to learn simply because learning is wonderful and it's the second best thing I know in the world."

Howells has a point about learning for learning's sake. But just because something is wonderful doesn't mean that other people ought to pay for it. I think that classical music is wonderful, and governments around Europe pay a lot of people to entertain me at way below what it might otherwise cost me. But is this right, just because I get wonderfulness rather than usefulness?

There is also the fact that, I think, classical music would actually be very different and much better if it was not subsidised at all. Ditto education, especially of the "wonderful" sort.

The proportion of "wonderful" education that is now subsidised is now declining rapidly, thanks to the Internet, which is all part of how much more wonderful it has now become.

(26)

Diddy Kirton writes about the grief of trying to get that first job after graduating.

You have had the degree results; you've done the graduation ceremony; you have been welcomed home for a well-deserved holiday; and now, three months later, you are still lying on the sofa, your eyes glued to daytime television. What next?

This is when things can start to get nasty. Parents begin to get restless. Is this person they had thought was launched into the world ever going to get going? When is my son/daughter going to get a job?

Well, three months on the sofa is nothing. Expect 12 months or more. Graduates are finding it increasingly difficult to get work after completing their degrees � not because the job market is shrinking (it isn't) and not necessarily because they don't have the required abilities. Many of them just don't know where to start and are terrified of the future.

I think that young people in this pickle are years behind already, in the sense that successful graduates (i.e. successful people who are also graduates) have, by this stage, for several years, been thinking about what they will be doing next, and have been networking within their future field of conquest, kissing arses and pressing flesh and generally putting themselves about. Indeed, they chose what to study with what they would do with it at the front of their minds.

Yet a lot of schools still peddle the Big Lie: Pass Your Exams and Worry About Life Later. Not because they really believe that, more because teachers tend to be rewarded according to how hard their charges concentrate on the exam work right in front of them, rather than on how well their charges' Lives go later.

There may be a little wisdom in this Big Lie, because, after all, those exam results do hang around, and a degree with no thought of the future is probably better than plain old no thought of the future without even a degree. All Big Lies have to have a grain of truth in them, in order to seem plausible. But if the what-the-hell-now? moment is merely delayed by all that Higher Education, even a degree may do more harm than good, because all it does is postpone Life. A good start at Life is at least as important as your mere exam results, and if you have a good first decade in your career, then your tacky degree won't do you any great harm.

My Dad was very fond of telling me about all the High Court Judges (he was a QC himself and ended up as a sort of specialist Judge) who had ropy old 2:2 degrees or worse from unfashionable Oxbridge colleges, and about some who were never � horror of horrors � at Oxbridge in the first place, or even in some freakish cases at any university at all. What those gents had got right was that they had hit the ground running when Life kicked in.

I like to read the biographies of high achievers. (Sometimes I reproduce bits of them at my Education Blog.) I am struck by how often Life starts extremely early for such people, perhaps because of a family catastrophe or because of a catastrophically hopeless father who dumps all his responsibilities onto our hero, aged ten. By the time they reach the age of those daytime TV watching graduates, they are at least ten years ahead of them, career-wise, and often more like thirty.

Good teaching, it seems to me, includes getting ten-year-olds to think about Life, but without doing it by hurling huge catastrophes at them.

(39)

The dependably readable William Sjostrom takes an article in the Daily Telegraph decrying the fact British students are in debt and turns it on its head:

My central point remains this: why do newspapers, staffed by people who happily go into debt to buy cars and homes, write as if students are clearly worse off going into debt to pay for university education?

(12)

I've done several posts at my Education Blog on the theme of the educational gains to be got from blogging, by the blogger. Of course writing things communicates to others. But it also organises the thoughts of the writer, and makes them more likely to be remembered by the writer. Failing that, it makes it easier for the writer to access his written thoughts later, if only because the writer is likely at least to remember having written on that subject.

I did another such posting yesterday, in connection with something Michael Jennings said to me last week in conversation about how he blogs about computer matters with this benefit in mind.

Rob Fisher commented on this post, in a way that emphasises the point:

I certainly find that the act of writing a blog post forces me to get my thoughts into some kind of order, which is useful. The part of my website that gets the most feedback is a tutorial I wrote about how to use Linux to edit digital video; and I wrote this mainly because I knew I would forget half of it if I didn't write it down - and if I'm going to write it down I might as well publish it.

I think this could explain the presence of a lot of the wide range of useful information available on the web.

I'm currently investigating the possibility of using a Wiki for publishing useful information. Wikis are interesting because they make web pages so easy to change; and even more interesting because they let other people add and amend information.

By the time I understand that last paragraph I will have had to have made some educational progress myself, although I am sure it is straightforward enough once you understand it. Educationally helpful comments, anyone? "Wiki"? I have heard that word, and the presumably related word "wikipedia", but what does this stuff mean?

Blogging, it seems to me, blurs the distinction between the private and the public. It is not that this distinction is now of no importance. But blogging does shift the economics of (what do we call it?) message management? � towards combining the public with the private, wherever that can be done without too much risk. Simply, by doing both private and public communication simultaneously, you can save both time and effort, and that might make it economical to engage in forms of communication with oneself and with others that would previously not have been possible.

I think, as I said in my original posting, that this is one of the big reasons for the success of blogging. Constructing a helpful set of notes as one learns a subject area might be too difficult, and hence beyond you. Writing material good enough to reach a wide readership, ditto. But licking your notes into shape and sticking them on a blog, which obviously can be read by millions, but need not be in order to be an economic proposition, adds up to something that can make a lot of sense.

I did not set out with my Culture Blog with the self-conscious aim of learning about new buildings in London, but that is the way it is turning out. And I definitely did start Brian's Education Blog in order to educate myself, about education, as the ambiguous name, I hope, communicates. Brian's Blog About Education? A Blog About Brian's Education? Both.

These friends of mine are in the business of helping businesses to set up blogs. They emphasise the benefits blogging can bring in the form of communicating with customers, and that must be right. But a company which blogs will be, it seems to me, a company which learns, individually and collectively, more than it would learn otherwise.

But of course there is a further potential benefit to blogging as self-education, I have already tried to illustrate with this posting by asking commenters to explain wiki to me. Commenters can help to educate you. Not all such help is truly helpful, but sometimes it can be very helpful indeed.

I would be delighted to hear about any other bloggers who have used blogging as part of their effort to further their own education. I would not be surprised if a consensus were to emerge here, or to have emerged from a comment-fest somewhere else of interest, along the lines of: this is (partly) what all bloggers are doing.

(14)

It is always refreshing to read an article trashing state intervention only to read in the by-line at the end that the author is a candidate for the State of Massachusetts' Senate.

Going back to look up James D. Miller's bio details, I see that he is 'Assistant Professor of Economics, Smith College'. My ignorance of the American education system is profound. Yet it seems to me that this is not the profile I would expect for a British economics professor. A candidate for political office who publicly calls for less state intervention, and does not even ask for more tax money in education! We used to have one or two or those.

I am especially intrigued by Mr Miller's references (linking to Thomas Sowell) to the two earthquakes in California and Iran during 2003. The reason fewer than 10 people were killed in a Californian earthquake measuring 6.5 on the Richter scale, whereas 28,000 were killed by a 6.6 Richter earthquake in Iran? One word: wealth.

I really must read more Sowell. And thank you James D. Miller for an educational article.

(14)

Not that I need to preach to the converted here, but I love the internet. How else could I read every daily edition of my hometown newspaper back in the US if not for the web? I like keeping up on who is engaged and who got married, who got arrested and which baseball coach got sent to prison for selling crack cocaine - it is local gossip news through a global channel, and I can never resist tuning in.

It is also interesting to note the range of opinions that co-exist in my largely conservative hometown. It is a wonderful place to grow up, and a wonderful place to grow old, full of lovely people, but I was somewhat surprised to read an editorial in Monday's edition which stated that taxpayers have to be willing to foot the bill for public schools' physical education classes. What surprised me was not that such an unquestioning, statist line could be uttered in the kind of place that was built on a can-do attitude and pride in one's own ability to do for oneself; what surprised me was how the editorial writer did not even bother to craft an argument in favour of his or her opinion.

So I wrote my first ever letter to the editor. I do not think it will be published, and I would hate to have totally wasted the one minute it took me to read the article and the five minutes it took me to dash off a response, so I reproduce it here.

According to Monday's Gazette editorial on gym classes in public education, "Schools cannot turn their backs on students' health, and the state and taxpayers have to be willing to foot the bill." This is nonsense, at least if you accept the fact that it is up to individuals to decide to be fit or to be unfit. In the case of children, it is parents - not school systems - who must bear that responsibility. It is a scary state of affairs indeed when the notion that parents ought to be the ones taking responsibility for the food their children consume and the activities in which their children participate strikes so many as strange and unthinkable. "But it's the schools' job to teach that!" comes the cry. No, actually, it is not.

The incontestable fact of the matter is that our ability to do things for ourselves - including the ability to think, in some cases - is diminished when the government does those things for us. (Anyone who doubts this should look to those countries where Communism was not so long ago the order of the day, where people who lived under those brutal r�gimes quite literally struggle to make basic choices for themselves after years of having the government make almost all of life's decisions for them.) This also diminishes us as human beings. The question we must really answer is whether we give priority to a population that may overeat and under-exercise and that consequently does not live as long as it may, or to taking away citizens' autonomy "for the common good". Such collectivist thinking ignores individual rights and responsibilities, and in doing so encourages moral and intellectual passivity. It is also, not coincidentally, the kind of sentiment with which any proud Communist would agree.

As for the question of Medicare and Medicaid, not everyone swallows the statist line that citizens must submit to having our finances looted by the government in order to pay for such services.

On the same note, it is a regrettably radical concept in this day and age, but I do not believe - as the Gazette editorial stated - that I or any other citizen must be willing to foot the bill for any other parent's child's physical education. Our schools have their work cut out for them as it is when it comes to guiding children in academic disciplines. There is no reason to pin the blame on them if Johnny and Susie do not realize that physical activity is a good thing. Of course the fact is that Johnny and Susie and any person with a functioning brain knows this; it is - and must be - up to them to decide whether or not to act on this knowledge. If Johnny and Susie's parents wish to be let off the hook for parenting their children in this area, they need only look to editorials like the one in Monday's Gazette to feel absolved of any such responsibility.

What I did not mention in my letter is that I experienced in two local school districts, as a child and teenager, downright lousy phys ed programs. In high school, it was so bad that your phys ed grade was based solely on whether or not you bothered to bring a change of clothes for the class. The teacher, who also served as athletic director and head basketball coach of the high school, would give you 50 per cent credit just for showing up. Calling that "physical education" was nothing short of a joke, especially as most of us used the period to do the homework we'd neglected to do for the next period's class.

Is this really the reason why some kids are overweight? Hardly. But if I have learned one thing from growing up in an area with very little in the way of fee-paying schools, it is that the parents of kids who attend state (public) schools will always complain about all the things the schools are not teaching their kids that they are entirely capable of teaching their children themselves, be it how not to get pregnant, how not to catch a sexually transmitted disease, or how not to grow obese. It is time someone started making parents feel as crummy as they should for this attitude, so get guilt-tripping today.

(2)

One of the better ways to learn about policy trends, in any policy area, in any country, is to read something by someone who disapproves.

This article, about what its author thinks is wrong with all the various directions which Indian education is heading in, reads to me like a catalogue of all that is right about it.

Two trends in particular struck me as especially encouraging. First this:

A self reliant India needs very different intellectual support from the kind of intellectual labour envisaged by a government that in its enthusiasm for selling out to multinationals could only dream of bringing some outsourced functions of these multinationals into our country. �

"Self reliant" reads to me like "futureless backwater". So, what I take this to mean is that Indian education is now turning out people who are very employable indeed, and on the world market where the real money is to be made and where so much of India's economic future will be created.

And second, there is this:

A self reliant and democratic India also needs its citizens prepared for the globalised world not as cogs in the wheel, fulfilling some technical function, but as thinking beings able to defend and safeguard democracy. �

... which the guy put in italics of his own, meaning that this was his biggest point. "Preparing for the globalised world not as cogs in the wheel" sounds to me like preparing them against the globalised world. So what this all says like to me is: "The education system isn't turning out enough political mischief-makers."

There is also much complaint in this article about "para-education", which sounds to me like free enterprise education, rather than the state-provided shambles which most Indians were stuck with until recently.

So, then: India doing really well. This has been one of the decade's great Global Stories. Long may the story continue.

(47)

This looks really interesting. I have just learned about it by reading this:

A right-wing think-tank will this week launch a national chain of cut-price primary schools in a drive to open up private education to middle-income families.

The first New Model School will start work in September, charging less than half the average fees of many independent primary or "pre-prep" schools.

Teachers have already been appointed, and tomorrow the school starts advertising for pupils to join the inaugural class of five-year-olds.

So what are these people trying to accomplish?

The New Model School Company aims to establish a chain of local schools, each subscribing to the same ethos and curriculum. A New Model School can be created wherever there are enough interested parents to start one. Organisational structure and support will be provided by the New Model School Company. Curric�ulum materials will be developed by its sister organisation, the New Model Curriculum Company.

And who are they?

The individuals who have formed the New Model School Company were brought together by the social policy think-tank Civitas (www.civitas.org.uk). Our aim is not just to set up a single successful school, but to provide a model of excellent and affordable schools which will improve the lives of many children and their families.

Our ambitions for the school are far wider than success in exams. The final aim of education is the formation of strong moral character, good manners, and the development of well-informed judgement. Good citizenship is not a subject of the school curriculum, but an aspect of conduct and behaviour that arises from a knowledge of the foundations of the culture, its history, values, and institutions.

If you would like to know more about us, you can telephone Matthew Faulkner on 020 8969 0037.

Because of my continuing interest in such matters, I plan to stay continuously interested in this venture, and will certainly be phoning that number myself in due course. But I think I wlll wait a while before doing that, because something tells me that this guy's phone will be ringing fit to burst for the next few days.

I especially like that it is being set up by a "right wing think tank". The idea of saying that was presumably to discredit the whole venture, as, maybe, is the slightly derogatory expression "cut-price". (like there is something wrong with that). The more likely effect will be to make all "right wing think tanks" look better, if this is the kind of thing they do.

Also, by branding these places "right wing", the Indy will scare lefties away from teaching in these places, and the political tone of them will undoubtedly be more free market in orientation than your average school. When these people talk about "history, values and institutions" that is not merely code for higher taxation and caving in to public sector trade unions.

I love it, and will almost certain have more to say here about this in the future. I really hope it works.

(5)

Every few days, with this in mind, I trawl through whatever google has to offer under the heading of "education". Mostly, it is dreary and depressing stuff about how (a) things are terrible, and (b) it is all the fault of those other bastards, or (if it is Africa) (a) things are terrible, and (b) things are terrible. Only when it comes to Chinese people or Indian people is the education news ever very good by the time national newspapers get hold of it, and of course that only depresses other people.

So, this story made a nice change:

The quality of education and behaviour of pupils at Probus Primary School have been praised by Government inspectors.

Ofsted inspectors highlighted children's good behaviour and attitudes towards learning and the partnership with parents and the local community.

The report notes the improvements made since the last inspection and concludes that achievement is satisfactory overall and standards are rising.

It said: "Probus is providing a sound education for its pupils. There is good teaching through the school. The school is well led and managed and there is a good partnership with parents. There is a good team ethos and members of staff are supportive of each other.

"Pupils are well cared for and those with special educational needs make good progress."

What this really illustrates is probably only that whereas national newspapers like bad news, local newspapers prefer good news. The national newspaper definition of news is: whatever someone does not want printed. Local newspapers are such that whatever someone does not want printed tends not to get printed, because that someone plus all their employees and friends and relatives add up to a significant slice of the readership. Thus, local newspapers are full of sickeningly satisfactory happenings, where everything went according to plan and everyone was happy and satisfied with the outcome. The news, every time is: our readers are good people, successful people, happy people.

There is occasionally bad news, so bad that its occurrence cannot be concealed, in which case the story is how nobly our readers are coping with the situation, but on the whole, there is simply not enough bad news to go round.

Britain as a whole cranks out enough misery, conflict and personal embarrassment per day to satisfy the nationals, and of course the nationals also have a whole world of misery to contemplate beyond their nation's borders.

But Truro and Mid Cornwall, the area reported on by the newspaper that supplied this Probus Primary School story, is just too nice a place for all the news to be bad.

(12)

A battle is brewing in Japan between education authorities and liberal minded teachers over the place of national symbols in the Japanese school system, reports Aussie expat Cameron Weston, for Australian news website Crikey.com.au:

Most countries have no law in place that compels its citizens to stand, put their hands on their hearts or do anything else when the national symbols are displayed. Most people do it because they want to, and this is the way it should be. Patriotism is something felt, not imposed. Forcing such action impinges on the basic tenets of democracy and freedom, and democracies have laws that enshrine this principle.

But what if the symbols of your nation had a deeper historical meaning, if they spoke to a past that some were ashamed of, of policies and deeds which some considered criminal?

And what if you felt strongly enough about this that you refused to stand and sing the anthem or to gaze upon the flag of your nation? In a democracy, you would be allowed to do so.

You might still reasonably be called a patriot by some, a person of conscience by others, ignorant and a traitor by others still but it would all be a matter of opinion, and hopefully then of discussion and debate. In 1999, amid some controversy, the Japanese LDP government passed legislation making the rising sun flag (�Hinomaru�) and the national anthem (�Kimigayo�) official, legal symbols of this nation. In a country where voluntary adherence to tradition and fixed social rites underpin the very fabric of society and daily life, it is ironic that the government felt that these forces were insufficient to ensure the flag and anthem remained venerated national symbols � they deemed that a law needed to be passed....

However, in the last few months, as the new school year begins, the debate has been taken to a new level. Teachers across Tokyo have been issued with a directive from the Tokyo Metropolitan Board of Education, compelling them to stand and sing the national anthem and for them to in turn compel their students to do the same. No debate, no discussion; this is a direct order.

If the teacher refuses to do so, he will be open to public censure and criticism from his superiors, further warnings and potential expulsion. So far this year, over 200 teachers have refused to stand and many have received written warnings as a result. Miwako Sato, a music teacher who received one such warning when the law was first enacted in 1999 sums up the problem for many teachers perfectly, "Many people in other Asian countries do not want to look at the flag, the symbol of Japanese occupation of their lands, even 60 years after World War II, and I believe its coercive display at school ceremonies is against our Constitution," she said.

Ah, the Japanese constitution. What I tend to get out of Mr. Weston's article is a feeling that although Japan has lived under that constitution for over 50 years, it has never really embraced the spirit of the document (which is a bizzare mixture of the liberal and the statist).

But the fact that the more reactionary elements in authority in Japan feel the need to legislate nationalism, and to make it compulsary, gives me heart; I doubt they would have felt the need to do it if people were embracing the nationalistic message willingly.

And the resistance of teachers and the media is a good sign too. Anyway, read the whole thing.

(7)

We agonize a lot here about Islamic fundamentalism. But what can be done about it?

There are many reasons why Islamism of the most belligerent sort now stalks the earth, but one of them is that in many parts of the world, if you want an education, your only choice now is often either an education presided over by Islamic fundamentalists, or no education at all.

It is this problem which a group of businessmen in Pakistan have set out to remedy. With financial help from people of Pakistani descent who are living it Britain, they have established The Citizens' Foundation, and there was an article about the work of TCF in the Times Magazine yesterday by Joanna Pitman.

Quote:

The six of them � all highly successful top-level managers � met in August 1995 and began to think seriously about the problems. They addressed poverty, health, intolerance, population, education, water and sanitation, and concluded that the solution to all these issues was education. In Pakistan, education remains desperately, stupidly low on the list of government priorities. The state schooling system, riddled with corruption, has been either non-existent or on the point of collapse for many years. The result is a massive intellectual deficit: out of a total population of 145 million, the country has 28 million children entirely unschooled and 41 per cent of adult men and 70 per cent of adult women illiterate. Ironically, in some areas, the first parents queueing to send their children to TCP schools rum out to be government schoolteachers.

The six businessmen decided to set up a corporate-style charitable organisation to build and run schools offering high-quality education to both girls and boys in the poorest areas of the country. Within four months, the ground had been broken to construct the first five schools, paid for out of the pockets of the founders, and by May 1996 all five were operational. Only once the schools had been running successfully for a year did TCF begin to expand � not through advertising or asking for funds, but simply by taking people to see the reality and letting them spread the word.

Its target is to build 1,000 primary a secondary schools by 2010, which will cater for 350-400,000 children at a time, offering them a high-quality, secular education that is the envy of most government schools and comparable to the country's elite private schools. "We want these children to compete with our own children," says Saleem, whose four teenage children are being educated at the best Pakistani private school and at the American School.

I have been unable to locate this article either here or anywhere else (although if someone can correct that, please do), and so have taken the liberty of scanning it all into my Education Blog, where you can now read the whole thing. If you do that, you will not, I believe, regard your time as having been wasted.

This project strikes me as an example of all kinds of good things, but in particular of the benefits that can come to a poor country when people from it are able to go and live in richer countries, and are then able to do something about the depressing circumstances from which they thought at first only of escaping.

In general, I believe that if Islam ever does get past confrontation and accommodates itself amicably into humanity as a whole, the Islamic diaspora will be an important part of this process.

(34)

On the face of it, this is a story about school truancy, and I have labelled it as "education", because it is indeed in that general vicinity. But I think this is really a story about law. Can it truly be right to send a mother to prison for failing to make her child go to school?

A mother who became the first parent in Britain to be jailed for letting her children play truant was yesterday sent to prison again for the same offence after her youngest daughter repeatedly skipped school.

Patricia Amos, from Banbury, Oxfordshire, was sentenced by Bicester magistrates to 28 days' imprisonment after failing to ensure her 14-year-old daughter, Jacqueline, attended lessons regularly. She had denied the charge, saying she had made "every effort" to get her daughter to go to school.

Amos was jailed for 60 days in May 2002 because Jacqueline and her older sister, Emma, persistently played truant from Banbury school. She was released on appeal after 28 days and vowed to make her daughters attend lessons, but after initial improvement - including a school prize for Emma - Jacqueline's attendance slipped again to 61% last autumn.

One thing I do know, which is that now that the definition of child abuse has thus been widened to include achieving a school attendance rate of only 61% for your child, it will inevitably be widened still further, to include such things as smoking in the vicinity of your children, allowing them to eat sweeties and sticky buns, and no doubt in the decades to come, failing to teach them a foreign language or to give them a solid grounding in how to play computer games.

I agree that it lots of cases, forcing a particular child of a particular parent to attend a particular school rather than roam these particular streets and get into that particular sort of bad company may be a good thing, in this particular case. But the law itself is weakend when it is used to enforce something so controversially virtuous as this. Should everything that our rulers think desirable become compulsory? And everything considered improper and uncouth by our rulers illegal?

There is also the beginnings here of the creepy principle that you are legally responsible for the wrongdoings of another. Surely one of the basic ideas involved in the rule of law is that the individual who commits the crime is the one who should be punished for it, not someone else who might perhaps have influenced the criminal. Holding families legally responsible for individual behaviour sounds very collectivist to me.

File under wedge, thin end of.

And watch out, home educators.

(20)

A relentless and seemingly unstoppable trend in education in Britain is something which I call, at my Education Blog, sovietisation. This means: desperate quota fulfilment frenzies, and, increasingly, statistical measures of educational success which bear no relation to reality. In a word: cheating. Officially encouraged. With the politicians themselves implicated heavily, because they no more want to face the truth about how well they are really doing than anyone else does.

My latest sovietisation posting contained a big slice from this Telegraph article by Frank Furedi about cheating at university, and David Gillies added this comment by way of confirmation of this disturbing trend. The only thing I have cut from his comment was the brief apology at the end of it for going on at such length, which I have assured him was quite unnecessary.

This corresponds exactly to my experiences in academia. As a doctoral student, I would augment my meagre income by acting as a 'demonstrator' (i.e. teaching assistant). I would help guide students in the lab courses through the trickier points of the thing they were studying and give them hints when they got stuck. I also had the responsibility of marking the reports they subsequently prepared.

At the end of one term, I was given the task of marking the results of a fairly major project that one class had undertaken. After about ten of them I noticed an ominous trend. Phrases and in some cases entire paragraphs were copied verbatim between reports. As I proceeded, I started to notice that there were several different, sometimes overlapping variants of the report. I began to be able to discern a sort of taxonomic structure - in the end I was almost able to ascribe a sort of evolutionary tree to the plagiarised reports, rather like philologists do with missing or partial texts of ancient manuscripts.

By now both worried and annoyed, I wrote a detailed memorandum, with copious examples of the suspect work, heavily footnoted and with an explanation of my hypothetical taxonomy (I seem to recall it took me about three days to write). I went to the lecturer who was running the course and said, "we have a serious problem." He looked at my memo and promptly got the Head of Department involved. The Head sent my report over to Admin, along with some thoughts of his own and the lecturer. And then - nothing. The degree of plagiarism varied from student to student. The most egregious example was one in which, as far as I could tell, two students had run off two copies of the same report with simply their names substituted. For these I recommended expulsion. For the remainder, I recommended sanctions ranging from failing that module of the course to failing the course entirely. Most severe sanction actually imposed: loss of marks for that module and a written warning put on file. Most escaped scot-free.

I was sickened. Just a few years earlier, as part of our induction to studying Physics at Imperial College, we were given an afternoon's worth of lectures on integrity, ethics and the scientific method. We were told in no uncertain terms that not only would cheating get us kicked out, it would end our scientific careers. And yet, in the mid '90's, students at a University in the north of England could plagiarise with near impunity.

The reason? Money. Every lost student was a lost grant. So shackled is the University system to the filthy teat of Government (especially post the hare-brained notion that more than a small fraction of a nation's youth is capable of conducting study at degree level) that chasing grants is the primary, secondary and tertiary priority of universities. Teaching and research quality is important only inasmuch as it can be used to garner a tick in the right box in the latest assessment exercise. Only a complete divorce of higher education from government can halt and reverse this trend.

UPDATE: See also this confessional memoir by Natalie Solent.

(8)

I've just done a rather long posting on my Education Blog about a teacher called Francis Gilbert, who has written a book highly critical of government education policies. Put it this way, I classified the post under one of my most frequently used headings: "Sovietisation." The guts of Sovietisation is when the measuring system imposed from the centre completely overwhelms the activity it is supposedly measuring. In the old USSR, people spent all their time fulfilling quotas, by hook or by crook, as opposed to doing useful work. Now, more and more teachers are pushing, and faking, children through exams. And as also happened in the old USSR, everyone knows that this is happening, but nobody except a few very unusual dissidents can afford to go out on a limb and admit it.

While I was linking to articles by and about Gilbert, and to his recent book, Kit Taylor was simultaneously emailing me, twice, about a radio performance that Gilbert did today.

Email one:

Teacher Francis Gilbert was on Radio2's Drive Time programme this evening (wednesday 10th March), promoting his book "I'm a Teacher Get Me Out of Here!"

Though he described himself as being of the left and wanting equality, he delivered a tirade against a crushing bureaucracy he likened to something out of 1984, and said that he was disillusioned by "what the left had done." Notably, as questioned why schools weren't free to devise their own curriculums, something utterly uncontroversial as far as I'm concerned but seemingly unthinkable in today's political climate.

Host Johnnie Walker even chipped in agreeably, pontificating that anything the government tried to run it messed up!

All this on primetime national radio. Cause for optimism?

And then, just as I was going to press (having included email one at the last minute), in comes email two:

Actually, now I think on Francis Gilbert something even more interesting in the interview.

It was along the lines of -

"I can go to the corner shop, and I can buy a good quality jam or a cheaper one. I have that option. But if I want my daughter [aged three] to learn french or classics, the choices aren't available."

If advanced by the Tories, I'd be unsurprised if such a notion were attacked as Thatcherite extremism. What's interesting is that Gilbert's comments were not apparently derived from ideological dogma, but the product of a "man in the street" intuitively questioning why a system that was working well in one aspect of his life wasn't being applied in another that wasn't.

As I think I may already have been quoted here as saying, we do have one rather big advantage over our opponents, which is that reality is on our side.

(4)

This sounds promising:

The Tories' flagship education policy to give parents more freedom to choose their children's schools is to be dramatically expanded, the party has announced.

The "pupils passport" will be rolled out across England and Wales rather than just inner city areas as originally planned.

And so on. Basically it is education vouchers, but not called that.

There is even a good soundbite on offer:

"Under the Conservatives you'll be able to go to the right school even if your family lives in the wrong street."

Nice one. I was going to put this posting on my Education Blog, for obvious reasons. But thinking about it, I think the real significance of this announcement may be more what it says about the general attitude of the Conservatives.

Much as I dislike Tories because of the way they talk, dress, are, etc., this sounds very promising. Their problem for the last decade or so has been that they have simply stood up in the House of Commons and read out all the complaints everyone has had about what the government has done, is doing, or is about to do, regardless of whether the criticisms add up to a coherent alternative attitude to government. This tax increase is bad, but so is that spending cut. This attack on freedom is bad, yet this other attack on freedom is insufficiently ferocious. And their handling of the Iraq war has been a mess, I think. We aren't sure about the war as a whole, but this � (fill in the detail of the week that they happen to be moaning about) � is terrible.

But this education announcement actually suggests a bunch of people who think that they might one day be the government. Three of four more announcements of this substantial sort, and the public might start to think of the Conservatives with a modicum of respect.

This is not what everyone would ideally like for education. That would be for everyone's child to become a genius, with no effort, as a result of an infinitely powerful and infinitely nice Prime Minister with an infinitely nice smile waving an infinitely magic wand over each child's head, causing all children everywhere to get ahead of all the other children everywhere else. But people are starting to get that a wish list is not necessarily a workable policy.

The Conservatives are never going to be liked. But people are starting to despise this government, for announcing rather too many wish lists - each one headed "dramatic new policy", "radical shake-up", etc. So even if people still quite like Tony Blair, they are starting to lose respect for him. If they ever start respecting the Conservatives more, then that will be a new phase of British politics, and a potentially Conservative phase.

(13)

The way to tell what is really happening by reading newspapers � which is not always very easy, is it? � is to look for what both sides in arguments agree about. And in Africa the reports which I read from time to time all seem to agree that educational standards are falling. The only argument is about whose fault that is.

Take this report, which I found on a google hit list from typing in, as is my occasional wont, "education":

Principals in secondary schools in Ebonyi State have been identified as responsible for the falling standard of education in Post-Primary schools as they contribute significantly to examination malpractices in the state.

This was the view of members of State House of Assembly who spoke when the planning committee on the forthcoming Ebonyi State educational summit paid advocacy visit to the House in Abakaliki on Monday.

The House members frowned at the prevailing situation where many principals allegedly collect money from students and aid them during NECO and WASC examinations and even negotiate deals between the students and examination supervisors.

Sounds like Nigerian business as usual is proceeding as usual. I do not know anyone with direct experience of Nigeria who does not regard the place as the world capital of anarcho-capitalism, in a bad way. In London � which is now, like the Internet itself, infested with dishonest Nigerians � our default attitude is: crooks the lot of them, until an individual can prove himself an exception to the rule. Anyone not totally prejudiced against Nigerians, from the trust point of view, is totally ignorant.

At first the link to this report didn't work, and my immediate inclination was to blame a Nigerian somewhere for taking a bribe instead of doing his job, but that may have been somewhat unfair. (And when I checked the link again before posting this, it was back to not working again. Bloody Nigerians!)

Not that those "House members" who "frowned" at all this are going to do anything about it. They are just higher up in the bribery chain.

My solution: make Nigeria anarcho-capitalist in a good way. Stop trying to have a government that does anything, because whatever government there is will be totally corrupt. Make the system that everything is for sale and everything negotiable official, including law and order. Then the place might work semi-reasonably.

But then again it still might not.

(3)

The Office of Fair Trading (the name being a splendid example of British irony in action) has ordered 60 private schools in the UK to hand over documents for an inquiry into alleged fee-fixing in violation of the 1998 Competition Act.

The OFT's move provoked protests from the Independent Schools Council, which said it had "serious concerns about the protracted nature of this investigation and the effect it may have on schools".

However, the ISC appeared to acknowledge that some schools may have fallen foul of a change in the law, but blamed the Government for failing to keep them informed.

Yet again we see that the scope and burden of state regulation is such that it is almost impossible for businesses to avoid breaking some laws unless they employ a ruinously huge staff of lawyers and 'compliance officers'. Of course the very notion that the state, which imposes vast distorting pressures throughout the economy, can be an arbiter of 'Fair Trading' is almost beyond parody. As the Angry Economist said the other day:

Now, I would be the last person to claim that markets always produce good results. Some problems are hard for markets to solve simply because they are hard problems. Pointing to a problem which is hard for markets to solve doesn't automatically mean that solution-by-government will be better. It may turn out to be that government interference will produce a better result (pareto optimal) than peaceful cooperation. I allow that as a possibility at the same time that I doubt it will ever happen, once all costs are accounted for.

The trouble is, as economies are complex networked systems, that it is not always obvious how this law over here buggers up that market over there. The distortions are often not a single causal step away and thus might as well be completely unrelated unless you are willing to take the time to really look at why things happen the way they do... and in most political systems, it is usually easier to just pass another law.

(33)

Yesterday I finally got around to renting the DVD of the documentary ("D � O � C � U � M � E � N � T" um er "A � R � Y") movie Spellbound, which is about a bunch of American kids selected for their variety of ethnic backgound � as well as unity of linguistic ("L � I � N � G" er "U � I � S � TIC") foreground or course � who took part in the 1999 National Spelling Bee Championships in Washington DC. Until now I had not really appreciated what an important piece of Americana the institution of the Spelling Bee is. (And by the way, what does the "Bee" bit mean? Is that bee as in the insect, and if so, how did that come about?)

The spelling of English is notoriously perverse and difficult. Spelling Bees turn what might have been a horrible barrier to becoming an American into a patriotically shared ordeal, and this movie shows this process still to be in rude health. Spelling Bees for other languages would not make nearly so much sense, because other languages are so much easier to spell. Spanish spelling, for instance, is a doddle (doddle? � could you give me the language of origin please? � language unknown) compared to English spelling.

My favourite bit of Spellbound was watching an Indian-American boy who had sailed through hundreds of other words being struck dumb by "Darjeeling" ("DAR" � "D � A � R" pause, etc.). You could really see the American Dream and the American Melting Pot working at full power, melting the various ethnically diverse peoples who still now flood into America into Americans, in the heat of competition, gripped by a shared desire to Get Educated and to Get Ahead, and join in being Americans by competing with other Americans for the Good Life and the Glory of winning the National Spelling Bee Championship. Since competition is such a huge part of American culture, the psychological art of handling it is also central to being a successful American, and you could see them all learning about that also. ("Our daughter was a winner just by getting this far", etc.)

The key quote probably came from the mother of the Indian-American girl who actually won it, in the form of the claim that she now felt that she "belonged". Quite so. Americans, bound together by their shared struggle to spell the American language. Bound by spelling, that being the point of this movie's title.

I know, I know, champion spellers are only a geeky freaky minority. But think how much trouble such intellectuals can make when they have some ethnic differences and resentments to work with. Getting the clever ones stirred really thoroughly into the Melting Pot counts for a lot more than their mere numbers would suggest.

All this was further brought home by my coincidental reading today of an article by Samuel P. Huntington about the retreat of English in the American South West in the face of the advancing Spanish. Huntington's point is that the linguistic unity of the USA is now in the process of being destroyed. The USA is being turned into a bilingual nation. Whatever that "U" in USA used to mean, it is no longer, in the future, going to mean linguistically united. Third and fourth generation immigrants from Mexico and from other parts of Latin America are growing up with no more knowledge of English than their grandparents or great grandparents had when they first arrived in America.

Huntington even alludes to the spelling bee tradition in this article, quoting the late California Republican Senator S. I. Hayakawa:

"Why is it that no Filipinos, no Koreans object to making English the official language? No Japanese have done so. And certainly not the Vietnamese, who are so damn happy to be here. They're learning English as fast as they can and winning spelling bees all across the country. But the Hispanics alone have maintained there is a problem. There [has been] considerable movement to make Spanish the second official language."

One of the kids in Spellboungwas a Mexican American, whose dad came into America as an illegal immigrant. The dad's elderly employers, a couple far too old and grizzled to be bothering with political correctness, were shown opining that this Mexican dad illustrated that not all Mexicans were layabout good-for-nothings, or words to that tactless effect. And you couldn't help wondering if this opinion was all mixed up with the fact that this particular Mexican family was learning English, so much so that one of their sons was proud to be a champion English speller. For they are exceptions, according to Huntington. Most incoming Mexicans are now quite consciously resisting being swept up in American values of competitiveness and educational advancement, and speaking English.

Author Robert Kaplan quotes Alex Villa, a third-generation Mexican American in Tucson, Arizona, as saying that he knows almost no one in the Mexican community of South Tucson who believes in "education and hard work" as the way to material prosperity and is thus willing to "buy into America." Profound cultural differences clearly separate Mexicans and Americans, and the high level of immigration from Mexico sustains and reinforces the prevalence of Mexican values among Mexican Americans.

To put it unkindly: we are layabouts and we are proud of it.

Here in Britain, we have many problems associated with mass immigration, but a contiguous border with a Third World country, speaking one of the great non-English World Languages is not one of them. Our Muslim immigrants are a potential problem because we fear that they will not ever become culturally assimilated. But the biggest linguistic minority in Britain looks, for the foreseeable future, like being, and remaining � the Welsh! But imagine if the Welsh speakers of Britain were only the advance guard of another thirty million Welsh speakers in a separate and much poorer state right next to us, where Ireland actually is for instance, and of another two hundred million Welsh speakers elsewhere in the world. That would certainly change how we Anglos would feel about our Welsh minority, and how they would feel about themselves. It would also make the prospect of serious Anglo-Welsh conflict far more likely.

As it is, Britain looks, and no thanks to all the multi-culturalist in our midst, likely to continue with its ongoing project of linguistic assimilation. There are just no incoming linguistic groups big enough, relative to the rest of the population, to make not learning English a rational educational or economic choice. And indeed, there is something very turn of the century New York about London just now � which is all part of why I am so optimistic and excited about the immediate future of London.

Maybe language will prove more unifying in Britain than Muslim culture threatens to be divisive. And maybe the linguistic disunity of America could spell more trouble for them than we face from our Muslims-versus-the-Rest divide, because that linguistic divide threatens to bring with it cultural differences every bit as profound, but in addition to that, to freeze those cultural differences into a permanent pattern.

Talking of British linguistic unification, why don't we in Britain have Spelling Bees? Because I say that we definitely should. Now would be an excellent time to make a big fuss of such clever kids, and about the art of spelling in general. Maybe we do, in which case, British commenters, please enlighten me about that. But although mention was made in Spellbound of how this Spelling Bee thing has gone global, I'm not aware of it having caught on here. If it hasn't, yet, maybe Spellbound will change that � either by unleashing it from a standing start, or by fanning the flames of whatever Spelling Bee sparks are sputtering away here already, to mix the metaphors ("M E T A" � "PHOR"). I was quite surprised to see Spellbound in Blockbuster, which is not an enterprise given to sentimental, politically correct gestures. They only offer for rent what they reckon people will want to rent. And quite a lot of people besides me did seem to be renting it.

Before anybody else says it, let me say it. It doesn't matter how many British schoolteachers would moan about excessive competition and try to stop the thing. It could all be run by a TV company. All that is needed is for some clever kids willing to participate to be rounded up and quizzed, and then for others to join in, and I reckon plenty would.

We in Britain could certainly use such a tradition. What's the betting that in twenty years time, a British Muslim kid will be the Spelling Bee World Champion?

(13)

You can tell that maths teaching in Britain is in a mess. How do we know? This report in the Guardian:

The report calls on the government to set up a "maths tsar" to help revamp the structure and content of the maths curriculum and also to advise ministers.

As we have said here before, when they appoint a "tsar", it means that they have a problem, but no idea how to solve it.

Our only problem is how we are supposed to spell the damn word.

(9)

Stop all the clocks. Cut off the telephone. Prevent the dog from barking with a juicy bone. For the UK's University lecturers are going on strike. On Wednesday. Put it in your diary. It's a catastrophe.

If anybody notices, of course.

"We've got the support of the students," said one earnest lecturer, on the radio this morning. From what I remember of my own ear-ringed, combat-trousered, drunken oblivion, in academia, I used to just love lecturers going on strike. It was simply great for extending hangover recovery times. And with Wednesday being a traditional sports day, within British Universities, the lecturers, I presume, will only be sacrificing about three hours pay, from their 10am coffee break, which starts the morning, to the 1pm finish time, which ends their arduous half-working day.

So brave of them. Don't ya think?

Now if I was a betting man, and had to guess the contingent of British society which still possessed the highest percentage of Marxoid buffoons, after the disastrous collapse of Marxism in Eastern Europe, I'm sure you wouldn't give me tremendous odds against it being University lecturers.

But what's really amusing is that they still think anyone at all, outside the ivory tower, cares enough about them to quake in their boots, at their threat of a three hour strike. Well, I've got some news for you dear Marxoid professors. The nation ain't going to be paralysed. Indeed, it's barely going to register at 0.001 on the Richter Scale. Worse than that, it's barely going to register at 0.001 on the Newcastle Brown Ale Scale, on your own campuses. Mine's a large one, and a deep-fried Pizza, please, stout yeoman of the bar.

Oh dear, you say, but we work so hard doing the Guardian Quick Crossword every morning, and with double the number of students not handing in their essays, and not turning up at lectures, while they're sleeping off hangovers, the stress levels have become simply unbearable, almost enough to raise a pulse. We're not here to work for a living, you know! And if you take into account increasing pay levels in the private sector, and inflation, and the price of fish, we've taken a ninety per cent pay cut, in the last ten minutes.

Tell you what, then. Go to the politics department, if you can find anyone there this early in the week. Ask them whether we live, yet, in a Marxist police state, where it is compulsory for you to do the job assigned to you by the current Fat Controller, a land most of you Marxoids would like us to live in, or whether you're free to permanently withdraw your labour from your current employer to seek alternative employment elsewhere?

You don't like your job? Good. Leave it. Go and get a job somewhere else. Try to get the same money and the same conditions in the private sector, if you think you can. If you can't, then enjoy the long holidays, the funded trips to the conferences on astronomy, in places like Hawaii, be grateful that you're allowed to do something you love, rather than doing something you don't like to pay the taxes necessary to fund academic ingrates, and get on with your job.

Oh no, you might say, I really want to be an academic in the UK, and I can't think of anything else I could do, never mind would like to do. But there's only employer, the government, and only one rate of pay, nationwide. We're simply forced to go on strike.

No. You're not. You, the Marxoids, are the ones who wanted higher education nationalised. You're the ones who wanted national pay rates, and you're the ones who wanted to be treated collectively, rather than get paid according to your individual merits. And if you can't do anything else, that's your problem, not mine.

Alternatively, campaign for Universities to be privatised. Campaign for University lecturers to be paid according to their worth, as determined by student numbers wishing to attend lectures, rather than incremental Buggin's Turn payscales, and campaign for the complete separation of state and education.

Then, and only then, ask me to put back in my earring, pull back on my combat trousers, and re-lace my Dr Marten boots. For then I will be all too glad to share a barricade with you. Until that glorious futuristic day, don't phone me up. I'm washing my hair.

And if you must keep taking my coerced tax shilling, in the meantime, please take it with a bit more humility. Otherwise, one day I and all the other taxpayers are going to wake up and rumble your game.

No, actually. Can I reverse my appeal? Please go on strike indefinitely. If and when the rest of us notice, we'll be able to abstract you much more easily from the state-free education system of the future. Yes, go on strike. Permanently. I'm sure there's an outdoor gardening centre somewhere near you, today, with a gainful employment task you're capable of carrying out, without subsidy, even if you're a Marxoid sociology lecturer. Think of it as a test that the true free market can make use of anybody, no matter how intrinsically useless they were in their previous state-subsidised position.

(18)

This is quite a little story, and with my libertarian stirrer hat on I say that the more it gets around the better, because the more it will draw attention to the existence of the libertarian journal Liberty, and of the libertarian movement generally. And when a little story gets written about in the New York Times, I guess that makes it not such a little story:

ALPINE, Tex., Feb. 16 � The first indication that Dr. Larry J. Sechrest's neighbors and students had read his article titled "A Strange Little Town in Texas" was when he began receiving death threats and obscene phone calls and his house was vandalized.

The article by Dr. Sechrest, an economics professor at Sul Ross State University, was published in the January issue of Liberty, a small libertarian magazine with a circulation of about 10,000 and only two local subscribers, one of whom is Dr. Sechrest. But it was weeks before people heard about it in remote Alpine, which is three hours from the closest Barnes & Noble, in Midland, Tex.

The article lauded the beauty of West Texas, the pleasant climate, the friendliness and tolerance of the locals. But Dr. Sechrest, who has a Ph.D. in business administration from the University of Texas, also contended that "the students at Sul Ross, and more generally, the long-term residents of the entire area, are appallingly ignorant, irrational, anti-intellectual, and, well, ... just plain stupid."

Well, death threats and obscene phone calls does sound pretty plain stupid to me, so although Sechrest may regret his candour, he has nothing to apologise for.

Sadly, Liberty seems to be one of those paper publications which is reluctant to give all its writings away on the Internet until several years have passed (which you can understand), so the actual article by Larry Secrest that caused all the fuss is not linkable to. But in addition addition to the NYT piece linked to above, there's also this from the Desert-Mountain Times:

Sechrest said he regretted publishing parts of the article that have caused such a strong reaction in the community.

"I thought there were two libertarians in the community," he said. "If that�s true, I thought, �Who will ever see it� � it never crossed my mind it would cause such an uproar. If I knew the reaction it would cause, would I have done it? Of course not."

Ah, but the libertarian movement is bigger and more pervasive than you think!

The New York Times piece ends on a positive note:

Last week Dr. Sechrest said he had begun to receive more positive e-mail and phone calls. He noted in particular an e-mail message from a former student.

"As I read your article I found myself laughing out loud and saying things like 'amen' and 'true,' " the former student wrote. "At the same time I felt somewhat guilty because it really did offend people I really care about. There's no denying these are legitimate concerns. The lack of interest in anything beyond Brewster County lines also baffled me."

The student added, "It is my sincere hope that all involved can extract what is true and good from your article, and get over the rest."

The message was signed, "A former clod."

Maybe getting a not unsympathetic write-up in the New York Times will stir Alpine into being less cloddish, and Sul Ross State University into improving its standards. It certainly sounds as if that could be the longer term outcome. Maybe Sechrest has done the whole area a favour, in other words. If he has, it would not be the first time in human history that criticism was met first with anger, but then with a resolve by the people criticised to do better in the future.

(4)

There was a nice little post yesterday at Daryl Cobranchi's homeschooling blog:

A teacher's union official has said that g-school teachers are incompetent. I'm sure she didn't mean to but it is the only logical conclusion.

1. Teachers are underpaid (according to the union official)

2. "If you don't pay competitive salaries, we're never going to get competent teachers."

Therefore, the current teachers must be incompetent. Q.E.D.

Cruel, but correct.

(12)

Almost everywhere I turn I hear bad news and horror stories about youth and education. Based on that I was quite surprised by this paragraph in a DOD press release:

These reference group scores are called norms. The current ASVAB norms were developed in 1980, and no longer accurately reflect the aptitude of today's youth. Over the past 20 years, aptitude levels in the United States have increased. Scores on educational achievement tests such as the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) are up; high school and college attendance rates have increased; youth demographics have shifted; and the country has experienced an explosion in technology development and application. Consequently, the 1980 norms are no longer representative of American youth.

(9)

I think it is at least plausible to propose that a vast swathe of bad ideas and damaging policies are borne on the wings not of malevolence or even stupidity, but simply economic illiteracy: a fundamental failure to grasp how money actually works.

If that is the case, then this kind of thing is encouraging:

Personal finance education looks set to become a regular part of school life, following a series of successful pilot schemes across the country.

The charity the Personal Finance Education Group (Pfeg) has been working with teachers to help them provide extra-curricular lessons covering everything from straightforward budgeting to calculating interest and getting a good deal on a mobile phone.

One teacher said: "I think it will broaden their horizons; they will certainly have a better understanding of how to manage money. I think they'll also have a better understanding of the taxation system and why you pay tax."

However, enthusiasm should be tempered by the possibility that the subject is not being taught very well or, worse, that the whole thing is the project of ghastly statists who want to use this as a means of driving home pro-tax propaganda to a new generation.

But, those caveats aside, this could be welcome because even if it transpires that this is really all part of a lefty 'get-them-while-their-young' programme, the effect might be to start prodding young brain cells in directions that their teachers never intended them to go.

(4)

Peter Briffa catches Polly Toynbee talking sense:

The middle classes, who benefit most, might have preferred an earmarked income tax rise to extra university fees.

The government replies that 80% of taxpayers never went to university, so why should they pay too? Besides, if taxes rose, there are better spending priorities. Why should the 50% with too few opportunities fork out for the lucky ones? That's very nearly a good enough answer - but it raises key questions, too.

For that is not social democratic thinking: on that basis, why should those without children pay for schools? Or those without cars pay for roads? Or the great majority who never use trains pay for the 4% who commute by rail? Or those outside London contribute �1bn a year to the tube? Or southerners pay for the Angel of the North, while ballet-haters pay for Covent Garden? And why should the majority pay for social housing or tax credits they will never use?

Once you start to question who should pay for what, the idea of national collective provision crumbles. Where is the line in the sand? Where does it stop? Is there really something about universities that is clearly, qualitatively different to any of the above? You might just argue that there is a stronger personal financial gain to be had from a degree which justifies a personal contribution. But the same case might be made for why the suburban commuter should pay the full cost of his train, paying for his pleasure at living somewhere salubrious. �

Very good! PT of course intends that all these very good questions should be answered with:yes. Yes, southerners should pay for the northern angel, yes ballet-haters should pay for ballet, etc. And yes, higher education despisers should pay for other people's higher education. But for once, I like the cut of her jib. Asks Briffa mischievously: Is the penny finally dropping for La Toynbee? No of course not. She is incorrigible. But might not some of her readers find their brain cells being prodded into unfamiliar directions by all this flagrant logic.

This spasm of Toybee sanity reminds me of when people say that I should oppose some little government tyranny not for being tyrannical (that being perhaps too difficult or unpopular to do effectively), but for being inconsistent with some other not-so-tyrannical arrangement. Beware of asking for consistency in such circumstances, I reply, you just might get it, in the form of consistent tyranny. Toynbee starts by arguing for consistency and immediately finds herself sounding for the duration of her point like the purest sort of libertarian.

Heh.

(15)

Education experts are apparently flocking to Belfast. Baaaaaaaaaaaaaa humbug.

The pre-report linked to above includes an intriguing titbit:

Prof Brighouse is expected to recommend that schools and parents of pupils who perform worst in tests should receive extra Government money.

In his speech this afternoon, he will propose a financial incentive for schools to take on poorer performing students.

That could have some interesting incentive effects.

(5)

At first it reads like bad news:

China not to pursue profit-oriented education: official

BEIJING, Jan. 6 (Xinhuanet) -- Chinese education minister said here Tuesday that China will not place profit-gaining capability as the primary par for education.

At a press conference organized by the State Council Information Office, Minister Zhou Ji said that education is basically a cause for social benefits.

Governmental encouragement of private investment into education does not mean gaining economic returns is the priority for schools, said Zhou, adding that more private funds could alleviate burdens of the government for financing education.

Meanwhile, China welcomes overseas partners who are able to provide quality education service to the Chinese.

A newly adopted law stipulates that private schools are legally equal to their public counterparts.

Statistics show that by the end of 2002, about 61,200 privately-funded schools enrolled more than 11 million students. A total of 712 programs were jointly carried out by Chinese and overseas educators, nine times that of seven years before.

"Profits pursuit in education might endanger equal rights of education for every Chinese citizen," Zhou said.

What's going on here? My take: the Chinese government knows it has to have great gobs of education if it is to race ahead economically like it wants to. But (just like India) it can't afford to supply this entirely out of its tax revenue. So it is going to encourage private sector, profit-oriented education. But won't encouraging profit-oriented education encourage profit-orientation? No, says the government. We won't be encouraging profit-oriented profit-oriented education, only non-profit-oriented profit-oriented education. So there.

And the shorter version of the above reads: never believe anything until it is officially denied. In China, as in so many places, "official" is another word for "not".

The point here is not the answer, which is contradictory waffle. The point is the question, which is: how about all this private sector education? How about it indeed.

I am increasingly starting to believe � and I seem to recall (quick phone call) our own David Carr hinting here not so long ago at something similar � that the next great challenge to statism and statist economic policies may come not from the likes of us, but from the East.

(5)

My day has been deranged by the discovery, which I made at about 4 pm, that Simon Schama's televised History of Britain has been shown and is still being shown continuously on UK History (one of the free digital channels) throughout the day, from 7 am until 1 am tomorrow morning. I've been dipping into it ever since I found out about this, having only caught bits of it when it was on one of the bigger channels first time around.

Most of the historical personalities mentioned by Schama were reasonably familiar to me. I know who Elizabeth I was, and when. I know who Thomas Cromwell, Tom Paine, William Wordsworth were, approximately speaking. But one name, in the the episode about the Victorian age, was entirely new to me: Mary Seacole:

Mary Seacole, the "black Florence Nightingale" was once one of the best-known women in England. She was a Caribbean doctress who had travelled widely, and was able to put her skills to good use in the Crimean War. Denied the opportunity to work with Nightingale, she travelled there on her own to minister to wounded British soldiers. Thousands of them remembered her with gratitude and affection.

That's her. That's definitely who Schama was talking about. Denied an official nursing position, she simply went out to the Crimea on her own initiative, and got to work, feeding the soldiers before they went into action in the 'hotel' she somehow contrived to have built (I think that's what Schama said), and then prowling the battlefield searching out the wounded and feeding them and caring for them, and even curing them with her West Indian remedies, which, said Schama, saved many a life, as the word "doctress" certainly suggests.

I'm guessing that knowing about Mary Seacole is probably a generation thing. I am of the generation that learned dates and maps and chaps, but which made no great effort to search out worthy people other than White Male worthies for deserved � and I dare say sometimes undeserved � celebration. So I'm guessing that Mary Seacole is now an increasingly well known figure among younger people with any curiosity about Britain's past. But I'd never heard of her. Thanks to Simon Schama and the UK History channel, now I have.

And thank you also to the Internet, and in particular to Google (apparently some are complaining about Google � for its sinfulness in wanting to make money). All I had to go on was how the name sounded, but soon, up came the magic words: "did you mean Mary Seacole?" and the means were in front of my to satisfy any curiosity I might feel about this remarkable woman.

(22)

When I read The Wealth of Nations for the first time, I liked Adam Smith's idea that lecturers would respond better to their students if the students directly paid their lecturers. But I wasn't sure if it could work in the world of modern higher education. Well, it turns out that when Madsen Pirie was a lecturer at Hillsdale College in Michigan, he was indeed - in part - paid according to how well the students thought he did his job. And, as he explains on the ASI Blog, it seemed to work very well.

Of course, the less-radical introduction of tuition fees in Britain is doing wonders. Lecturers who I've spoken to say that students are starting to expect more as it is their money that is being wasted. And universities know that American students - who pay much higher fees - will sue if they don't get what they are paying for. Anyone who cares about the quality of university education should write a thank you note to Tony Blair.

(14)

More news from the Independent concerning the globalisation of education, which is all mixed up with the global mega-success story that is the English language:

A successful Chinese industrialist was boasting proudly that his son was at a British educational institution, one of the best in the country. However, he couldn't remember which. After racking his brains, he decided to call his wife on the mobile phone. But his wife couldn't recall the name of the elite establishment either. In desperation, the entrepreneur had only one choice: he fast-dialled his son in the United Kingdom to ask where the boy was being educated.

This is a true story, illustrating not only the Chinese affection for mobile telephones, but also their enthusiasm for a foreign education. In China, to receive your schooling or your degree at an institution in Britain, or Australia, or the United States automatically puts you into the top league. The name of the university or school is not as important as the fact that you have tasted learning outside the People's Republic. No wonder universities from the United Kingdom are falling over one another to meet this huge demand.

Last year, the number of Chinese students in the UK reached a new record � 25,000. But there are millions of people in China now who aspire to, and receive, a university education and would leap at the chance to get a degree from the UK. In the three years between 1997 and 2000, there was remarkable growth in student numbers within China, according to the Observatory on Borderless Higher Education. Numbers increased from 3.2 million students to a staggering seven million. (The government target is 15 million.)

Ironically, given China's status as a Communist country, many of the new universities that are being set up to deal with this demand are private. There are 1,300 private institutions now in operation, and alliances between Chinese and foreign organisations are burgeoning.

While English educators fret about whether English people are well enough behaved, Chinese educators worry that the Chinese are too well behaved. Too dutiful, obedient, conformist, uninventive, inflexible.

Seriously, one suspects that the real product here is not just Anglosphere education, but Anglosphere education plus a bit of that Anglosphere attitude, hence the indifference concerning exactly which University their children go to. It could be a winning combination. Although I reckon word will soon get around which universities are the best.

It makes you wonder what Mao would have thought about it all. "I ordered you to have a permanent revolution and challenge all authority, but I didn't mean this!" Attitude!

And quite aside from the impact of all this on China, there is the interesting matter of how it will affect Britain. How long before someone uses the word 'swamped' to describe what is happening to higher education? All those foreigners, taking our children's places. And working too hard.

(26)

So Dianne Abbott's decision to send her son to a private school is indefensible.

Says who? Says Ms Abbott:

On BBC2's This Week, Miss Abbott, a member of the Socialist Campaign Group of MPs, said: "I've said very little about this because anything you say just sounds self-serving and hypocritical. You can't defend the indefensible.

Since Ms Abbot appears to be lost for words, allow me to assist. Here are a few things Diane Abbott could say:

• "I have realised that education is too important to be left to the state."
• "Perhaps everyone should have as much choice as I do."
• "If I am not prepared to condemn my child to the state system, why should anyone else?"
• "The pursuit of equality for all means everyone gets crap."

But Ms Abbot has not said any of those things. And she never will.

(18)

As luck would have it, there is no category called 'Honking Great Hypocrisies' so I have had to settle for filing this under 'Education' instead.

But that's appropriate too because this story is nothing if not instructive:

Labour leaders backed Diane Abbott, the Left-wing MP, yesterday over her decision to educate her son privately, days after condemning a Tory MP for saying he would do the same.

Ms Abbott has used her wealth, status and privilege to give her child the best, as is befitting the ruling elite. In fact, Ms Abbott is merely following in the best traditions of Britain's socialist politicians who have always had a curious and inexplicable penchant for both private education and healthcare (while publicly denouncing both).

Labour MPs were taken by surprise by the news that she had chosen the �10,000-a-year City of London Boys School for her son, by-passing four comprehensives in Hackney and Stoke Newington, the constituency she represents.

In the past Miss Abbott has criticised the Prime Minister, for rejecting schools in Islington and sending his sons to the London Oratory School in Fulham, and Harriet Harman, the Solicitor General, for choosing a grammar school outside her constituency. She once said of Miss Harman: "She made the Labour Party look as if we do one thing and say another."

Now where would anyone get that crazy, zany idea?

(10)

For a while now I've been noticing something called the No Child Left Behind Act, which Republicans were hugely pleased about when President Bush signed it into law as recently as January 2002, but which has now turned pear shaped, as we say in these parts, with extraordinary speed.

There's more about No Child Left Behind today in the New York Times, because the Democrats now smell blood in the water on this.

The gist of No Child Left Behind is: (a) Education Must Be Better For Everybody, So There, but er � (b) you'll have to pay for this compulsory improvement yourselves.

Here's the start of the New York Times coverage today:

Congressional Republicans are nervous about a G.O.P. poll that shows them losing ground over education. But how could voters not be disappointed by the Bush administration's mishandling of education policy generally, and especially its decision to withhold more than $6 billion from the landmark No Child Left Behind Act, the supposed centerpiece of the administration's domestic policy?

The new law is supposed to place a qualified teacher in every classroom and wipe out the achievement gap between rich and poor children. Schools that fail to make steady progress are labeled deficient and required to provide students with costly tutoring and allow them to transfer to more successful public schools in the same district.

In some districts, more than 40 percent of the schools are called "in need of improvement." The lack of money from Congress has licensed a backlash by states that never wanted to comply with the law anyway, especially the provision that requires ending the achievement gap between rich and poor.

This is classic statism. A bunch of people have a notion about how the world should be which they get all excited about. So, they get the government to say: that's what must happen. Within a few years it becomes clear to all that these 'education reformers' would have done far, far better to have just sat on their porches, drunk liquor, and said howdy to passers-by.

The point is, the everyday language of government, so to speak, is a language of compulsion and suppression. No Child Left Behind was sold as � well, as: no child left behind! What it actually says is: you must supply "better" education, which turns out to mean education done by people with fancier exam results to their names, to everybody, and especially to poor people. If, on the other hand, you have been teaching poor people with great success for the last few years, but without fancy exam results to your name, guess what? Stop it at once you bad bad person!

No Child Left Behind � a textbook example of statism in action � has, because it is statism, made things worse.

I guess it's all education in how the world works, but the people who need to learn their lesson are the idiots who unleashed this shambles. They need to learn how wrong they were. And it's all part of statism that they will do anything rather than learn their lesson.

The Democrats will now make the running in this argument, but sadly, the only lesson they want anyone to learn is that More Money should be spent.

If more money is spent, that'll be yet more education, this time in the folly of stealing money from one bunch of people and spraying it over another bunch.

As Perry de Havilland would say at this point: the state is not your friend. And that applies just as much to education as it does to anything else.

(8)

Here's a strange article, by the Telegraph's education man, John Clare, in today's Telegraph.

It starts with lots of standard issue bad political news, about cuts and the resulting educational damage. Deranged plans for improvement, smashing down all that we've worked for over the last twenty years, blah, blah. The headline - "'Government incompetence' led to schools shedding 21,000 staff" - is all about that bad news. The usual political wreckage in other words.

But this, about one of those reports that journalists so love, is the interesting bit, I think:

The report laid much of the blame for the funding "debacle" on the "patently unfair grant culture" that the Government has imposed on schools.

It led to chronic disparities in funding, much of it allocated on an ad hoc basis to poorly conceived projects. "Schools emerge as winners or losers almost in spite of themselves," the report said. "On the basis of some decision taken in the remoteness of Whitehall, a school can suddenly find itself receiving or being deprived of an extra �100,000 or more."

Or, as one Inner London head put it: "Pots of money suddenly appear and disappear." This year's winners were failing schools, specialist schools, and schools with high proportions of pupils who are entitled to free meals and achieve poor exam results.

Okay, I don't know what's really going on here, but here's my guess. What we see here is government activity done by people who have been pummelled with free market ideology and have accepted that free markets, although politically impossible to actually have, are nevertheless worth learning from. So the responses of consumers are faked by issuing that deluge of directives from London that I spent about a third to a half of my education blog complaining about. These directives give you extra money if you do what London says are good "outcomes", and less if you don't. Like in the free market, right?

Well, not really. These directives don't actually have even the crude rationality of the free market. They aren't actually the same as actual consumer demands, so instead of satisfied or unsatisfied customers giving you more or less money, you just get a kind of permanent government organised lottery. This month, the winning number is: Schools who are crap but considered by London to be getting better! If that's you, you win! But, if your school is good but not considered by London to be getting any better, you lose! Next month, it'll be something different. Next month it'll be: Maths! Or: Languages! Or: The Obesity Directive! Or: Social Inclusion! Or: (Socially?) Excluding bullies, in response to the government's Bullying Directive! And through it all, win or lose, you have to fill in form after form after form, because if you don't even do that much in response to each bullying directive, you definitely lose.

When Tony Blair uses the word "reform" in connection with education, it is this process that he is referring to, and he wants more of it, but done better.

That's what I think may be going, but it's only me guessing really. Anyone with any better ideas?

(8)

Alice Bachini sincerely wants to be rich.

Hello. While I am on light blogging duties, I thought I would set you all some homework. Regular readers of this blog will have noticed that my quest to become a hard-nosed international millionaire businesswoman is still pretty much in its pre-foetal stages. I have considered many career paths, and various means of propulsion along them, including the possibility of multiply launching the whole set, yet somehow time still feels short (which, as we all know, is merely a conceptual illusion and not a true insight on anybody's reality), learning still seems really difficult due to the technomoronicism curse, and generally other more urgent things seem to get in the way. You know, things like making toast and gallivanting around London.

Therefore, I am calling upon my readers yet again to offer their suggestions, tips and positive ideas (no need to tell me I'm an idiot doomed to failure, thank you) in a financially-improving direction. Whatever I do has to be extremely flexible, realistic, and clever enough to work for me. And that means clever. But you people are clever, right?

Some calling himself "I'm serious, and I'm too lazy", supplied this really rather intelligent comment:

Interview the twenty richest persons in the UK. Or set your sights higher, and interview the twenty richest people in the world. Write it all down. Find a publisher. Title it, How the twenty richest people in the world became that way and how they keep it. Or just title it, How? and put a big green dollar sign on a yellow background, or pound or euro if you wish. Put your picture on the back in dark glasses (see above). You will make lots if you find a publisher. Even if not all twenty give you an interview, the reasons why they won't will make a book that sells. If none of this works at least you will have had fun gallivanting, and you will made some excellent contacts and some good stories to tell your grandchildren. By all means wear those dark glasses and only remove them once you have the interview booked.

Anyone here got anything to add to that? Read Alice's blog a bit to find out what kind of person she is, and then tell her what to do. (You people are clever, right?)

(35)

One of my favourite films, when I was growing up, was Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, that strange children�s classic written by James Bond creator, Ian Fleming. Every Christmas it came on the telly some teatime or other, which my memory recalls as being just after that year's screening of The Great Escape, another all-time classic, or just before an omnibus edition of that year�s Doctor Who series.

Anyway, enough of nostalgia. The most disturbing character in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang was the ski-slope nosed Child Catcher. He was nearly as bad as a Sea Devil for pure evil intent, rounding up children on behalf of a child-hating Baroness.

And now, in this wonderful sceptred isle of Tony Blair�s modern Britain, we have an equivalent, the school truancy protection officer. Not content with taking over private charity schools and ideologically convincing the majority of the docile British population that the one-size-fits-all state propaganda farms, also known as comprehensive schools, are far better than any alternative, the do-gooders just can�t rest.

Because, God forbid, children aren�t willingly attending these educational swamps, despite being able to get an A-grade Mathematics exam pass for knowing how many beans there are in a ten-bean bag. And what�s worse, their parents are often 'colluding' with them, by helping them with their truancy. Those nasty people! And apparently this is not good enough for 'Society', so we're going to have slap £100 pound on-the-spot fines onto these sadistic child-destructive malcontents.

Comprehensive schools have been a complete disaster for this country. Their rise has entirely overlapped with the rise of violent criminality, graffiti-ridden vandalism, and the collapse of the tolerant society. I wonder if this is any coincidence? As poor ersatz copies of academic private schools, filled with Guardian-reading statist shock troops, laughingly known as educationists, they've also failed to provide most of the children with what they want.

They're either too academic for most of them, or not academic enough for those few who do actually like academia. So what happens? To be an academic child in one of these places is like being a dissident in the Soviet Union. You are a hunted species, constantly derided, and gathering in isolated streamed packs to avoid the taunts of the majority. And what's it like to be in the majority? Bored rigid every day by the acres of politically correct information you rightfully regard as total nonsense, which scoot over your head every day leaving absolutely zero impression. No wonder you start bullying the academics. It's the only thing that makes the prison tolerable.

And that's what these places are. Prisons. With all the authoritarian statist mentality that goes with it. But these are special prisons, because not only do you have to endure five years of this torture, you're pushed unwillingly onto a constant treadmill of tests, examinations, and continuous assessment, with no end in sight, except perhaps the non-compulsory two years in sixth form college where you can smoke dope, drink cheap beer, and text your friends all day, to your heart's content. A tempting prospect! And if you fancy it, you can then do more of the same on your media studies course at University! At least it keeps you off the government's employment register for five years, when you could be doing something useful.

You're also told that if you don't keep padding around this constant treadmill, you are finished in life, a dreadful failure, and a worthless individual; so on you go. Though very few of you are really interested or motivated, except through fear, to achieve this freedom through work. So in response the system has had to dumb down the exams, to appear as if it is in some way actually improving your life. So the inmates have won, I suppose. At least those who can stomach this irksome insanity.

And then the do-gooders dare to wonder why some of these inmates are truanting. Have none of them ever seen The Great Escape? It's a wonder anybody stays at all, except for the constant carrot of a 'better life' being hung over them, and the stick of punishment being threatened if they fail to attend.

For don't they realise that the state needs tax-serfs, people to go out there to make money for the government, to allow it to continue in its rightful position as our benevolent ruler? Sorry, benevolent servant.

So who are the schools actually for then? Are they for these truanting children? Obviously not, for they're voting with their feet and heading down the shopping mall. So are they for the parents? Well, you'd have thought that if anyone had 'ownership' rights over these children, or had withdrawal rights as the school's true client, at least until some vague grey line in teenage, it would be the parents. But obviously not, for when they accompany their children to something they consider more useful, such as a cheap afternoon watching discount-price movies, they're now to be handed £100 pound on-the-spot fines for daring to do so. So we ask again, who are the schools for? Who is the customer? And further to that, who owns the children? And the only answers I can think of are the schools are for the state, because it pays for them, and the children are now owned by the state, rather than the parents, or the children themselves, because they are destined to be its future milch-cows.

Out of the goodness of its heart the state has provided these rotten propaganda farms, so these disobedient truanting children WILL attend. Because 'Society' (a.k.a. the government) needs them there, so it can brainwash them, and turn them into passive Labour-voting tax cows. It's for their own good. Don't they realise that?

But if it really was in their personal interest to attend, do you think the children wouldn't realise this? Or if you think 14-year old children are incapable of deciding such weighty matters, do you think the children's parents wouldn't realise this? No, it is to the state's good that these children attend. And that's it. They've got to be able to read, at the very least, or they won't even be able to fill in their tax returns. God forbid. Or learn how to obey.

And the really laughable thing is that the moronic do-gooders who are applauding this move think it will actually make any difference. First of all it won't be applied much, because school truanting officers just want a cushy parasitic life as state drones, and approaching potentially aggressive parents in the street, who nine-times-out-of-ten will have a perfectly 'valid' state-approved reason as to why they are with their children in school hours, is not part of the bureaucratic deal they signed up to.

And even if the parents really are just taking their children shopping, so perhaps an older one can look after a younger one, are the courts going to be able to cope with the endless consequences of appeals, non-payments, and the ultimate sentencing of parents to terms in jail?

Who'll look after the children then? Maybe the other parent, if they have one in this welfare-dependent age, will stop working, go onto state benefits, and cope in the meantime. This is a good lesson for life, don't you think? And if it's a single parent, the children will have to go into state childcare. Will this be in their interest? Or if the welfare-dependent single-parent does pay the fine, they won't be able to afford to buy their children new shoes. Well done, do-gooders. No doubt a special shoe grants department, manned a whole new cohort of properly rewarded do-gooders, will sort this one out.

Government by gimmick. It's not a nice place to be.

And even supposing the children can be 'made' to attend their lovely 'world-class' comprehensives? Will they actually knuckle down to their textbooks, say mea culpa, and turn out to be future professors of physics? Well, Fettes College boy Tony, you've obviously never seen the inside of a real comprehensive school, other than as a man surrounded by press cameras and flunkies. For what they'll do is either fade into a sullen daily trance, running out of the school gates at 3pm every day to whoops of joy, or they'll become disruptive or violent pains in the neck, ruining the lives of everyone else around them who is trying to schlep their way through the dumbed-down treadmill.

Or possibly, just whisper it, they might truant again. And hide out this time in other truants' houses. Who'd a thunk it? How could they be so devious?

So I suppose the state will then require the right to break into Englishmen's homes to track down these miscreants? You bet. Society can leave no stone unturned in its bid to do good to everyone.

Would someone please stop the world? I want to get off.

(12)

The latest social engineering proposals from the government are out on University education.

If I wanted my son to get into Britain's ruling class, this is what I would now have to do, according to these plans. First, I would get him into the most expensive private school I could possibly afford. Then at sixteen I would have an arranged divorce with my wife, and I would move with him to the worst sink estate I could possibly imagine. Somewhere grim and remote would do the trick, perhaps the Belle Vue South estate in Carlisle?

And now comes the tricky bit. Once ensconced in Carlisle, we would track down the very worst comprehensive school or sixth form college in North Cumbria, and bung him right in there on the register. But what we wouldn't do, of course, is actually send him there, oh no.

We'd do lots of private tutoring during the week, instead, and send him in late to the 'official' college, one or two days a week, and encourage him while there to complain about girlfriends, spend hours on a mobile phone, and generally look surly around the campus, wearing various disgusting grunge clothes. That would be stage one. Stage two would be to get him predicted A-level grades of two 'E' grades, from the pinko lecturers. It would be a bonus if said pinko lecturers could be persuaded to try to interview him privately about his failure to attend. After missing two appointments we'd send him in on the third while stinking of Carlsberg lager and Drum tobacco mixed with cannabis, and get him to moan about the pressure of work, and the whole essay he had to do every term. Stage three would be to attain grades 'BBC' in his A-level finals (not too high, you'll notice.)

At his subsequent Oxbridge University entrance interview, using my ancient medical knowledge I would try to give him lots of hypodermic scars on his forearms, and get him to wear a grubby bandanna and a FCUK T-shirt with holes in it. He would turn up late for said interview and spend his time in the waiting lobby beforehand 'reading' a jazz mag. Even better, he would keep glancing down at the jazz mag while the interview took place. Splendid!

And then, Bob's your Uncle, he'd get a place at Balliol studying law, and then subsequently a place in the ruling elite feasting upon the tax revenues of the serfs, perhaps starting out as a state-franchised barrister. Why, you might ask? Because we'd be following the new government social engineering policy of rigging places at Universities to cover up the failures of the state comprehensive system. Just think, he'd be from a terrible school, he'd come from a sink council estate, a broken home, have drugs problems, difficulty focussing on work, girlfriend difficulties, he would smell, smoke, drink, and swear routinely, but despite having terrible A-level predictions, he would have 'worked hard' to achieve 'BBC' respectability, although without getting anywhere near the 'AAA' grades that people from good private schools would have had to attain to get the same University place. Marvellous!

Even better, the parents of those people from the good private schools would be forced to pay for my son's University fees, and with a bit of luck, even be forced to buy his student drinks via a large maintenance grant. £xcellent!

Obviously, once he'd graduated my wife and I would re-marry, and we'd burn the FCUK T-shirts.

Welcome to the wild and wacky world of socialised education. I just hope house prices don't go up too much in council sink estates, when the above pattern of educational achievement becomes the norm amongst the middle classes trying to get round the latest insane set of education regulations. I wish they'd rise up and revolt, to throw off their shackles of socialism, but they won't. (Though I'd love to see them prove me wrong.) What they'll do is adopt mad schemes like that suggested above. You see, to live in modern Britain is to adopt the mantra, 'Mustn't grumble'.

(1)

Posting looks as if it may be thin here today, so a quick comment on the economics of the internet.

The usual story is that the big, bad, old organisations could be in trouble now as the internet whistles into existence a million new nimble players to run rings around the big, bad, etc. � blah blah.

But how about this for a train of thought?

Selling text on the internet is working, okay, sort of, but it hasn't really taken off. There's too much free stuff, and anyway, people don't want to pay. Maybe they're scared that if they start surrendering £30 here and £30 there, it will never stop and they'll be bankrupt. Maybe they just reckon the prices will come down, and they're waiting.

But what if you are a huge, globally celebrated organisation which wants to be able to swank even more than you do now about how much beneficial impact you are having on the world, to your donors, charitable or political, and would actually quite welcome the simplicity of not having to be too businesslike about it all, and to have to chase every last cent for every bit of virtual stuff that you part with?

What if you are the BBC? Despite all that our bit of the blogosphere may say, the BBC still counts for a hell of a lot in the world; that's why our bit of the blogosphere complains about it so much.

Or what if you are the Massachusetts Institute of Technology?

I finally took a look a long overdue look at the MIT OCW site (OCW = OpenCourseWare) today as a result of my Education Blog activities, but it seems to me that the give-away principle is far broader than merely educational � and incidentally that education itself will gain from many other institutions besides straight-up educators giving their stuff away. (Like the BBC.)

I still don't think it's right that the BBC should be paid for by me, in the form of a tax on my television viewing of over £100 per annum, and I hope they lose this privileged economic position no matter how generous they now say they want to be to the world. Nevertheless, as a matter of fact (whether business or political) rather than of morals, it seems to me that we may see a lot more of this kind of reputation-building giving-it-away stuff.

I reckon that for the right kind of global institution, basically an already globally leading operator which is eager to stay out in front of the pack, and which has a big archive the selling of which is not (as it would be in the case of, say, a big record company) central to its economic success, a huge give-away could be the smartest possible move.

The BBC is fighting for the current version of its life, and their give-away may only be talk, as part of that fight.

But MIT have, I reckon, taken a huge leap into the educational twenty first century with their great, global give-away, in a way that can only secure their position as global brand leaders in higher education.

There must be big organisations whom it would suit to do the same. There must be others who are doing the same.

The blogosphere is going to love it.

(9)

"Academic cheating is a major problem and has negative results on everyone involved."

So goes the first sentence of a recently composed essay on cheating in academia. To get the whole essay, though, you'll need to pay for a membership at DirectEssays.com, an Internet operation that promises access to "over 101,000 high-quality term papers and essays." For $19.95 a month, you can see the anticheating tract in toto, and a lot more besides. DirectEssays is one of several Internet operations selling term papers that students hand in as their own work, and business is booming.

Cheating, especially Internet cheating, is becoming more and more the way of the academic world. A recent study found that 38 percent of the students polled had committed "cut and paste" plagiarism � that is, copying sentences or even several paragraphs from the Internet and implanting them in their own work. Forty percent of respondents admitted to copying without attribution from written sources � books, journals and the like � in the past year.

(11)

Suppose you met someone who argued that there is a moral right to sex. He said that it is unfair that some people don't have sex at all, particularly those who are less well endowed physically. Thus the government should make sexually successful people have sex with those who are missing out.

You would probably think the argument used is outrageous. It would be an act of violation. It uses compulsion. It treats people as a means to an end, rather than as an end in and of itself.

Now let's look at schooling. Some people argue that there should only be comprehensive schools. Grammar and private schools should be abolished. They point out that if less academically gifted children spend time with people who are high academic achievers, it raises their ambitions and helps them to be successful in life. But this right to have bright people at your school, is just like the right to have sex without the other party's consent. It is violation of the child. It treats the child's life as a means to an end, rather than as an end in and of itself. It is based on the principle of slavery.

(48)

Who do you reckon wrote this?

But the truth is that a university degree is not the best educational attainment for the majority of people. Most jobs do not require such a level of education, although I firmly believe that education should not just be about what job you get. But for many, a university education provides little in terms of other personal development. Joining the job market earlier, or learning vocational skills, could be much more beneficial to the individual and society as a whole. Becoming a plumber or a butcher, rather than a teacher, is now a job with real security.

Some ghastly Conservative, talking sense of a sort, but doing it in that voice that we all hate and the memory of which still keeps the Conservatives in the bucket market unelectable, the one that goes: "Thanks to my hard-work and all-round merit I have reached the pinnacle of human achievement and am now a smarmy back-bench Conservative MP with ministerial ambitions." Right? Certainly right as in not left.

Let us read on:

I know this is a case that many may find unpalatable, but we must recognise that the striving for equality should not blind us to the fact that we are different. We cannot all be a concert pianist, or a David Beckham. In the same way, a university education does not suit everyone.

Well, you ghastly little creep, you may be right, but could you please be just a little less patronising about it? How good are you at playing the piano? (Don't answer that.)

If the Government could just recognise this simple point, then it could return to its job of improving the standards of university education to those who go there. �

Quack quack quack.

� It could also, just as importantly, make sure that those who should go to university, regardless of their backgrounds, actually get there, and are not penalised for their efforts by having a large level of debt hanging round their necks.

Ah, maybe this is an older sort of Conservative, the sort that has university age children and is feeling the pinch, now that those ministerial ambitions have collapsed in a New Labour heap.

� The present policy is ripping the Labour Party apart, and not helping our young people or the country.

The Labour Party? Ripping the Labour Party apart is good, surely.

� We are victims of woolly thought from both sides of the argument. We need to spend more public money on each individual student. But the point is, we don't need so many going to university.

We are victims � We need to spend more public money � we don't need so many going to university � It's confusing isn't it.

And that's the end of the piece, at which point it says:

The author was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, 1997-9

Yes it's � Mo Mowlam, in yesterday's Independent. Adding fire to the flames of a Labour back-bench revolt on the subject of top-up fees for university students. Better to cut university education and keep it free, says Mo, than expand it and make it worse and charge for it.

The parliamentary debate about financing higher education has divided into those who say that the winner class should damn well have to pay for it, and those who say that the loser class shouldn't. Neither policy is the complete answer.

Here's my complete answer: denationalise the entire thing, and get the government right out of it. Then let the rich and concerned give scholarships to all those who they think deserve them, and let the poor who are left out work their way through university, if they are that desperate for a university education. It wouldn't be perfect, and certainly not perfectly fair, but what would? University education, because denationalised, would be a lot better, and in particular, for those who most need that, a lot cheaper.

And here's another argument for total denationalisation. If university education boosts your future income and productivity, then surely those who get the income should pay for the education which yields it, not everybody else. If university education does not boost your future income and productivity, then why the hell would everybody else want to pay for it? What use is it to all of them?

If those arguments fail because of being too intellectual and logical and everything, try this, which just says that students are disgusting parasites and to hell with them. (Except for the foreigners, who are paying for what they are getting and are quite nice.)

(40)

I've already linked to this amazing Guardian article from my Education Blog, but it deserves wider blog-reader notice than that.

Sandra Thompson was used to her son's weekend rhythm - the immediate relaxation and laughter of Friday afternoons, the dark mood that descended every Sunday as another week loomed. "With the first mention of school, Thomas must have had the same thoughts - are they going to be at the bus stop, are they going to get me today, do I have enough money on me to cover what they take?

He should have been out of there.

Mother and grandmother offer a picture of a boy whose main problem seems to have been his inability to behave like a child. "He loved being one-to-one with adults," says Sandra. "He loved to have conversations, but you couldn't talk about something silly. He always wanted to know adult stuff, and sometimes I didn't have the answers. He was constantly asking about the war with Iraq, and wanting to know the ins and outs of what countries had been attacked in the past. He always wanted to know what it was like to be older. He couldn't wait to learn to drive, get his own place, go to college, make his fortune."

So why the hell did he have to wait? Okay, I will give you the driving, but why not his own fortune, his own place, his own life?

While waiting about to make his fortune and start his life, he filled in time by going to anti-Iraq-war demos. He was pretty good at that apparently.

This is the bit that made me most angry about being a member of this pathetic dim-witted species of ours.

In his final report, the headteacher of his primary school described Thomas as one of the most courageous boys he'd ever met because of the years of bullying he'd survived.

What is so depressing is the sense you get from all the adults who presided over this disaster that there was simply nothing they could do about it. "He couldn't crack it in school." And I couldn't crack it when I tried to make it in the building trade half a lifetime ago. As soon as I realised I was hopeless at doing building I stopped doing it, and did something else. It really wasn't a difficult decision to make.

Here's this teacher, the Head of his School no less, and he is well aware that this poor kid is being driven crazy, but what could he do? Birds gotta fly. Fish gotta swim. And boys gotta go to school, no matter how completely horrible it is for them.

No.

More than 200 mourners packed St Paul's Church, Wirral, to say goodbye to Thomas Thompson, many of them children. By the day after the funeral, Sandra had received so many cards that she had to display some of them on the floor around the mantelpiece. "He was a lovely lad," says his grandmother, "and he touched a lot of people's hearts."

So why the hell didn't they do something to help the poor kid while he was still alive?

I have to force myself to be sympathetic to mother, because frankly, it doesn't come very naturally to me.

Her eyes get wet. "It's hard. You're empty. There are no words to describe it. You start asking yourself all sorts of questions. Were you a good parent? Did you do everything you possibly could have done? Should you have bypassed his decision and gone up to the school? But how would you ever have let him grow up if you'd done that? You go round in a circle � if only, what if? You do live through but the one thing that you can never get over is that you'll never see him again in this life."

You were a bad parent. You didn't do anything like all that was possible. You shouldn't just have "gone up to the school", you should have yanked him out of there. And any world which didn' t tell you that loud and clear is crazy.

(7)

A little boy called Arran Fernandez that's who. This lad is clever enough to have caught the attention of the UK Times [No link - you know the drill]:

A BOY of eight has become the youngest person to receive an A at GCSE.

'A' is the top grade and the GCSE is a national examination paper for pupils of age sixteen.

As pupils across the country received their results, Arran Fernandez, from Surrey, celebrated the grade awarded for a mathematics paper that he took when he was 7 years and 11 months. Only 32 per cent of candidates - most considerably older - reach the same standard.

So little Arran must be the brainiest kid in his school, right? Wrong. Because little Arran doesn't go to 'school' at all:

Arran, who is also the youngest person to pass a GCSE at any grade - a D in the subject when he was five - is educated at home by his parents, Neil and Hilde.

Another successful product of Britain's small, but growing, home-school movement, I'd say.

His father, Neil, a political economist who achieved a grade A at O level maths when he was 13, is evangelical about the benefits of home tutoring.

"I believe that every child could do this, given the right encouragement," he said. "Why are children held back in their earliest years? And why are parents, who are their best educators, discouraged from realising and exercising their ability to teach?"

Because so many generations of parents assigned those abilities over to the state, doubtless believing that the state would do a better job of it. That same state is likely to respond to the increasingly successful reclamation by trying to put a stop to it.

(13)

Following on from Mr Carr's education piece, earlier in the week, comes further 'pragmatic' news from the UK's Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.

In a bid to make the UK's A-level mathematics courses more 'accessible', this august and incorruptible State body has announced it will be making the subject even 'easier'. Is this possible? And please don't laugh at the next bit, it's really not funny. To study it, you won't even need to have studied elementary algebra, beforehand. Yep, you heard that right.

No doubt the honest government which rules us won't then take the increased grades, which they hope will result from this heavyweight dumbing-down operation, and use them to promote how effective their education policies have been? Yeah, right.

Is the UK the only country in the world in which even Homer Simpson could get an A* grade, in a higher education mathematics qualification? Maybe, not this year. But give them a chance. I'm sure they'll get there eventually. Everyone must have prizes.

In the meantime, the poisoned A-level gold standard is going the same way as the Pound Sterling gold standard, i.e. straight down the pan to get the UK government off the hook of its own continuing failure. Expect all private schools to abandon A-levels, entirely, within the next few years, to replace them with the International Baccalaureate. A-levels will then become purely the concern of the State system, which will suit the State admirably, as they'll be able to inflate their achievements to levels of magnificence previously undreamed of, without any reference required to any kind of external reality. What a banana.

So as I gaze lovingly at my A-level certificate, up there on the wall, I wonder if now is not the time to replace it with a small poster of Kylie Minogue, in the hope that when she visits she'll be much more impressed. I should be so lucky.

(8)

We all know the old saying: there's lies, then there's damnable lies and and there's government education statistics:

Leading independent schools are preparing to abandon GCSE, one of the central props of the Government's tottering exam system.

Pupils at leading schools commonly take 12 subjects, many of them a year early, and up to 90 per cent of the papers are graded A* or A.

"It's like Boy Scouts collecting badges," said Tony Little, who has just completed his first year as head of Eton. "One has to ask what the educational value of it is."

Methinks that Mr.Little is being polite. I suspect that what he really wants to say is that an exam system that is so 'dumbed-down' as to ensure that virtually nobody fails is about as much practical use as a chocolate teapot. Handing every schoolchild lots of certificates to wave around doesn't mean that they have actually been educated.

The elite schools' decision to break ranks without waiting to see the details of the Government's plan to replace GCSE and A-levels with a national diploma will alarm Charles Clarke, the Education Secretary.

It suggests the schools have no faith in the Government's claim that academic standards will be protected from further debasement.

And they are right not to have any faith because the government is not concerned about education it is merely anxious to present lots of impressive statistics in order to convince everyone (including themselves) that children are being educated instead of merely processed. This isn't education it's a puppet show.

However, it is difficult to hide the sordid truth from the people whose business it is to actually help young people learn lots of things and it is gratifying to witness some of them breaking rank. Hopefully this is the start of a trend as people who truly value education begin to realise that it is far too important and precious to be left to the government.

(12)

In Does Education Matter? Alison Wolf attacks, tin the words of the book's subtitle, "myths about education and economic growth". Here are a few paragraphs from the Introduction:

From the premise that a full-blown 'knowledge economy' is arriving now on our doorsteps, it is easy to slip into prescribing more and more of the raw material which apparently makes this possible: education. And of course it would be stupid to deny that education is central to any modern economy. Imagine the UK today � or the USA, or Greece, japan, Brazil � being run by a population. which is more than go per cent illiterate - the level of eleventh-century England.' Imagine Microsoft or British Aerospace research and development in the hands of people all of whom had left school after only a primary-school education, or a drug industry dependent on people whose academic training was the intermingled science and alchemy of Newton's day. Who could doubt that education matters?

But what doesn't follow is that vast amounts of public. spending on education have been the key determinant of how rich we are today. Nor is it obvious that they will decide how much richer, or poorer, we will be tomorrow. The simple one-way relationship which so entrances our politicians and commentators � education spending in, economic growth out � simply doesn't exist. Moreover, the larger and more complex the education sector, the less obvious any links to productivity become. Developed countries have now moved well beyond providing basic education. for all, and instead spend more and more on higher education, technical provision, vocational programmes, and adult training.

These are my main subject matter, for they are also the main recent targets of government policies inspired by ambitions for growth. Unfortunately, while an overwhelmingly strong case can be made for the state's responsibilities in basic education � and, indeed, for the latter's economic importance � not one of these newer enthusiasms deserves any such.accolade.

Alison Wolf

(1)

I did a posting yesterday at my Education Blog about a suggestion for a more "free market" approach to Britain's examination system. It is of course not a suggestion for a real free market, merely for a centrally licensed franchise system.

Anyway, this comment appeared today about this, which gives an excellent if anecdotal feel for the state of education in Britain now:

A friend of mine (source protection here) was asked to mark double the usual amount of scripts this year because that particular exam did not have enough markers. That's 400 scripts in about 4 weeks.

Reasons for the lack of recruits: a) the markers are paid peanuts b) it's just at the beginning of the summer holidays, and most teachers would rather have a rest than do even more marking c) teaching is such a depressing business to be in at the moment that many of the sparkiest - who would make competent examiners - are getting the hell out.

Exam board solutions:
This year they offered to pay schools for supply cover so that instead of teaching, examiner-teachers could spend school time marking scripts. Not surprisingly, the take-up was small.

Gossip from my anonymous friend: exam boards are considering making a deal with schools whereby if the school wants to sit that board's exams, they'll have to supply n teachers to mark them.

I can't wait to see it all implode, necessitating some market solutions rather than this government-sponsored-shoe-string job.

My worry is that the "market solutions" they resort to will, like that proposed "free market" exam franchising system, not be real market solutions. The government will stay totally in command of the curriculum, and the "free market" will just be another more complicated way to pay state hirelings.

A real free market in exams would mean competing curricula, competing exams to examine mastery of said curricula, and teachers, parents, pupils and employers organising, advising and choosing at will, to suit themselves and their various ambitions and purposes. The government's job would be to stay out of it all, while every so often making the occasional discouraging remark about how education is over-rated and that it prefers ignorance, especially for children, thereby giving the adults who are organising everything the confidence that the government would continue to stay out of everything, and thereby getting the kids all excited about it.

Dream on Brian. Which is what I am for, I suppose.

(28)

What with termination of the Iraqi regime, George Bush in the Whitehouse, Bersluconi bestriding Europe and internecine war between the Labour government and the BBC, the editors of the Guardian must be scratching around urgently for some news they can celebrate.

They have finally found some: the emergence of the next generation of guardianistas:

The public sector is now the most popular choice of employer for graduates, new research revealed today.

In a Mori poll, 32% of students said they would like to work for a public sector organisation - ahead of blue chip companies and small to medium enterprises.

On the face of it, the revelation that nearly a third of graduates want to devote their lives to consuming taxes and finding ever-more bizarre ways to spend other people's money, should be somewhat alarming. But maybe it is simply a doleful recognition that the private sector has little use for people who have spent three or four years immersed in 'Gay Studies' or the 'History of Yoghurt'.

I suspect the real culprit here is the addle-brained article of faith for our political elites that lack of personal achievement is inextricably linked to feelings of self-esteem, especially the self-esteem that grows from having 'qualifications' regardless of how bogus they might actually be. It was this conviction that led to an explosion of state-backed 'universities' which tossed out potemkin qualifications like Palestinian candy.

The result, however, is no an upgrading of people but rather a downgrading of education to the point where image of a 'graduate' as a steely-witted young go-getter has been reduced to a laughable myth.

Graduate Prospects' chief executive, Mike Hill, said: "The public sector has a great deal to offer young graduates looking for their first job, not least working conditions that often mean a better balanced life. This can include flexible hours, home-working, job-share and better holidays.

And that, for me, is the 'money' quote. Isn't the term 'better balanced life' really a polite euphamsim for 'easy ride'? Perhaps these prospective graduates have lost none of the survival instincts they were born with and are unwilling to undergo the rigours of the private sector that they know will shred their fragile intellects. Hence, find me a sinecure and find it quick.

"In addition, many graduates want to feel they are doing something good for society in their work. Research by the audit commission found that wanting to have a positive effect on people's lives was the main reason why staff chose the public sector. That makes it an attractive option for graduates."

As if we need a bigger army of Diversity Development Outreach Co-ordinators in order to set off the harmful effects on society of all those greedy people who devote their lives to the selfish pursuits of trade, innovation and enterprise.

I am willing to wager that it is the highly selfish pursuit of soft options and not sham altruism which is lying at the root of this new trend. But, let's face it, the alleged desire to 'do good for society' sounds a lot more like the kind of thing that the paladins of the education establishment want to hear. But that is still a problem because clearly the education establishment is committed to pushing this message to its charges and, for as long as that is still happening, then the assembled forced of reason have a long march ahead of them.

(39)

Steve Sailer is a name I hear now and again, every few weeks, but I know very little about the guy. Someone commented on this, which I wrote last night (about men wearing their shirts outside their trousers), to the effect that Sailer had something to say about this, about a week ago, that was relevant. I couldn't find it, but I did find this 1995 piece about the nuances of why race relations in the US army are so much better than race relations in US colleges.

It's no surprise to me that treating people in a totally meritocratic way, regardless of race, makes for better inter-ethnic relations, or that armies can't allow inter-ethnic rivalries to build up in the ranks, so they don't. So it was another less than completely obvious idea that I found striking in this piece, which is that the way for an unpopular racial or ethnic group to make an admired impact on the wider society is for it to concentrate and conquer niches rather than disperse and try to do well across the board. Sailer's point is that academic racial preference policies undermine (to name but one of their many drawbacks) this benign process, by over-dispersing the group supposedly being helped.

The US armed forces have been following the niche achievement model based on focussing totally on what each individual is best at contributing and letting the coloured faces concentrate or disperse at will, while the colleges of America, especially the elite colleges, have been applying the help-and-disperse model, with racially toxic results. The US army has enabled black men to impress white men � and black people to impress people generally � far more impressively than colleges have done. What's more, this process has only become the more pronounced during the time since Sailer wrote his piece. (To drive home the point about what individuals can and can't do, Sailer notes that although black Americans have excelled as Generals, they have as yet scarcely even flickered as Admirals.)

This fits my own experience, in non-military London. After my first few years as a Londoner I was seriously worried that I was turning into a racist. The last six black people I'd encountered were all blaring black music from their car stereos too loudly for my comfort, and I was starting to blame blackness, and to believe that there was a Black Musical Bad Manners gene. You don't say things like this to strangers, but I was seriously starting to think it. (And I dare say that in a complicated genes-interacting-with-environment way this is actually true.)

Then I went to work, in a part-time and very menial capacity, in a totally meritocratic (and absolutely free of all racial quotas) financial services business, where clutches of black (and also black Muslim) guys were niche conquering, and doing fantastically impressively and well. The rule was simple. Are nine of the top dozen high-earning achievers nationwide in the business black guys with strange foreign names? So? What is your problem? You want white racial preferences do you? The rules are the rules! There is no problem! The rules are working and we are making money by the ton. Handshakes and rounds of applause all round. End of story.

I was graciously, and I do mean graciously, permitted to converse with a few of these mighty personages and all suggestion that such people were in any way genetically � or for that matter culturally � incapable of making anything impressive of themselves was expunged from my mind. And need I add that the manners of these impressive people (to someone of no likely importance or advantage to them � me) were impeccable? I felt immense relief. I didn't want to become a racist, thank you very much. But I had become scared that the facts might oblige me to.

In other words, a potential white racist was cured not by the race I might have despised being helped (this would only have added resentment to my existing suspicions of inferiority), but by it finding a niche where (for reasons which I still don't really understand) it had an advantage and where it was therefore concentrating, and was being allowed and encouraged to concentrate, and being handsomely and deservedly rewarded for what it was concentrating on.

(I have here dodged the whole argument about what exactly being "a racist" means. Here's what I think about that. According to some definitions of racism, I still am a racist and this is a racist article, because it says that different groups are better at different

(18)

My boredom with eating sandwiches or salad for lunch encouraged me to visit the ready-meal section of Tesco today. The result was lasagne. As it cooked at work, one of my colleages commented on how good it smelt. I realised there was a positive externality created by cooking the meal, so I suggested to the office that they should pay me for the pleasure they were receiving.

I had no takers. Had I pushed them, they might have argued that, while the smell was enjoyable, they had not consented to it and therefore had no obligation to pay for it. They might also have pointed out that although the smell was nice, I would be getting the real benefit (the eating part).

In this example, it can be seen that charging people to receive a positive externality is unfair and absurd. Yet this is exactly the argument many people use in favour of taxpayer-funded university courses. This argument, out of all the arguments for scrapping tuition fees, is the worst.

(20)

Two comments have appeared on a long ago posting of mine here about the menace to Western Civilisation posed by people dropping chewing gum all over the damn place.

Comment 1:

i like chewing on gum^^ It should have neva been banned!!! I feel sooooo sorry for the singaporeans....owell beta get on wiv my english assignment nowz...byebye :)

Lana

Comment 2:

Hi its me again (Lana) if anyone noes any interesting facts about Singapore then can u plz email me qt_mashi@hotmail.com, bcuz this is for my english assignment and its very important THANK YOU :)

Lana

You know what? Lana likes chewing gum, and I like her. She has her own individual take on English spelling, although maybe it's her whole generation and they all spell because bcuz. But, she seems to be able to spell in the regular manner when she wants to ("any interesting facts about Singapore") or when she is forgetting not to, plus she has a nice ingratiating manner and understands the value of a smile. I think she should be encouraged.

So, if anyone has any interesting facts about Singapore, please email them to her.

(5)

Loony-left Labour backbenchers will no doubt be overjoyed that the Office of Fair Trading is investigating Britain's top private schools. The idea that private schools could get punitive fines will make the saliva drip from their statist mouths. Yet fines, if issued, would be worse for parents than the alleged crime.

The crime is that the top private schools run a cartel which conspires to raise the price of tuition. But since there is more demand for places as these schools than supply, meaning the price is below the market-clearing price, the allegation is quite obvious nonsense. As last week's Economist pointed out:

Some of them think they could raise their fees by 50% and still fill all their places with the children of the super-rich. Headteachers don't want to do that because it would weaken their claim to charitable status and limit their ability to select the cleverest children and thus get the best results. So if they have been colluding, it may be to keep the fees down, not up.

But even if private schools have been colluding to raise prices, a fine would not be justified. Private schools are non-profit distributing charities, and if they have more money, they employ more teachers and build better sports facilities. How does taking a school's cash and giving it to HM Treasury benefit the parents?

(2)

Iain Duncan-Smith relaunched the Conservative Party yesterday, announcing that a future Conservative government would abolish tuition fees. Of course, political parties have to reach out to those outside their traditional supporters. But IDS is going about it the wrong way.

Margaret Thatcher got lots of people living on council estates to vote for her. It was not by being left-wing, but by applying her free-market principles to make their lifes better. By giving them the option to buy their houses from the state, she helped them to rise up the ladder of economic prosperity. By allowing parents to have a say in which state school their children could go to, power was taken away from government bureaucrats, enabling parents to take their children to away from failing schools. Her strategy for getting non-Conservatives to vote Conservative was entirely consistent with her principles. Voters believed her policies because they saw their consistency.

By simply adopting socialist policies - and moving the Tories to the left of Labour - IDS is alienating his core support. But worse, he is unlikely to gain the votes of those who support his policies anyway. There aren't many Old Labour opponents of tuition fees that are going to jump ship and vote Tory. They are much more likely to vote Lib Dem, a rather more convincing party of socialism.

(7)

A wondrous row has erupted between two fat, middle-aged, uncouth, bearded geazers, one of them the British Minister of Education, and the other the Chairman of Chelsea Football Club. Mr Clarke is plugging a scheme to get sports clubs to help out with teaching the 3Rs to recalcitrant youth, and Mr Bates' Chelsea are the only football club not to be cooperating. Mr Clarke slagged off Bates, and now Bates has been slagging off Clarke, pointing out that the British state education system is appalling and getting worse and he, Mr Clarke, should see to it instead of attacking defenceless football clubs.

I have dealt with some of the boring educational angles of this story in another place, but the interesting aspect is that Mr Clarke has now said that he wants West Ham to beat Chelsea in their forthcoming and crucial Premiership clash tomorrow. Or, to put it another way, he wants Liverpool and Newcastle (rather than Chelsea) to qualify for the European Champion's League next year, and even more controversially, Mr Clarke supports West Ham in their desperate effort to avoid relegation, and accordingly he must favour the idea of one of the clubs above West Ham, such as Bolton, Leeds, or Fulham, getting relegated from the Premier League instead. Bolton, did you get that? I can't remember a Cabinet Minister wading into sport like this. Supporting your own team in a new-laddish, post-modern sort of way is one thing, but to mix this kind of thing with serious politics is new, surely, and frankly rather unsavoury.

Since Ken Bates is making trouble for a politician, we here presumably all now support Chelsea against the abominable West Hamsters and the even more abominable West Ham support Clarke. And that's quite aside from the Samizdata HQ being in Chelsea, and David Carr already being a Chelsea season ticket holder. I'm a Spurs man myself, that is to say, for the benefit of Americans, a supporter of Tottenham Hotspur. But Spurs are never involved either in trying to get into Europe or in being relegated because they come eleventh in the Premiership every year. Very dull. So by now I don't care what they do tomorrow and am happy to swing into line behind Chelsea also. I'll be keeping a close eye on the Chelsea game tomorrow and keep everyone posted. Go you � Chels?

(10)

I've recently been writing at my Education Blog about the noted educator and educational theorist Maria Montessori.

Montessori recommended what for her time must have been a most unusual kind of object for young children to play with. She disapproved, it would seem, of the kind of complicated toys and dolls which, then as now, many parents get for their children. Instead she recommended abstract objects. What she had in mind was that children should not be overwhelmed with excessive amounts of information. Too little information, and children get bored. But too much causes them to switch off, in sensory self defence. That was her attitude. So, instead of dolls and train sets and woolly animals, she prescribed plain geometrical objects and matching sets of things like rods all the same size but of different colours, or rods all of the same colour but of different lengths. Or Montessori children may be presented with a set of identical sized blocks which different textures on their surfaces, like the different surfaces of different grades of sandpaper.

Whether by coincidence or by cause and effect, the Montessorian view of childhood objects has in recent decades made remarkable headway. Look into a child's nursery or playpen now, and you will see all manner of geometrical shapes and blocks and wheels and surfaces. Felt covered cubes. Wooden zig-zaggy things to put in zig-zaggy shaped holes. Lots of different colours and consistencies of plastic. And so on.

The point I want to make here has nothing to do with the educational wisdom or otherwise of surrounding small children with such objects. No, I want to offer a theory about Modern Art, or rather, a theory about the (to many) extraordinary popularity of Modern Art. By "Modern Art" I of course mean abstract art � art that is not "of" anything, but is merely itself.

When I was a child, most of my toys were "representational". I didn't own any actual cows, bears, soldiers, cars, trains, airplanes, ships or houses. But I owned all sorts of "models" or "representations" of such things. Insofar as I also owned small abstract objects of the sort favoured by Montessori, these too were used to represent things, like farm buildings for my small plastic livestock, or the boundaries of roads for my cars and lorries to progress along. Everything, therefore, was representational. I don't recall ever having been subjected to any "abstract" phase.

Well, you can see where I'm going, can't you? What if the popularity not just of Modern or Abstract Art, but of all kinds of art, is profoundly influenced by the very first objects by which our parents and our culture chooses to surround us? What if one of the key "functions" of pictorial and sculptural art is to push aesthetic buttons, so to speak, that were established during the first few months of active consciousness? One of the things art does for us, I surmise, is to evoke in us the recollection of our very first sense experiences, and thereby to comfort us, at a very deep psychological level.

If that's right, then a change in fashion concerning what it is appropriate for young children to be given to play with would lead directly to profound artistic changes a couple of decades later.

I don't know how true this really is, and I don't for a moment say that this is the only reason why people like this sort of pictorial or sculptural art rather than that. Clearly, other influences are also at work. After all, representational art is now making something of a comeback. But I still think it makes a lot of sense. When I last visited Tate Modern, the place had the air of a giant nursery, with objects as big compared to me as smaller toys are to a small child. And when asked why they do abstract art the way they do, artists often sound like Maria Montessori herself, saying that they are "about" shape, colour, texture, and so on. Adults surely don't need any more instruction about such things, but maybe they like to be reminded of the time when they did.

This also explains the often noticed - and much puzzled obout - fact that whereas Modern Art (i.e. modern visual art) seems now to have genuine mass appeal, "modern" classical music still registers as near as dammit zero on the mass popularity scale. Simply, almost no small children have ever spent any time listening to anything resembling the "music" (the sneer quotes tell you what I think of it) of Stockhausen, Boulez etc. Accordingly this modern music remains the enthusiasm only of a tiny coterie of musicians and of their tiny few fans, and continues to fail utterly at the box office. (Similar considerations apply to the very brief vogue for "modern" - i.e. non-grammatical - writing.)

Had Maria Montessori, or perhaps a subsequent generation of influential education theorists, had views about auditory stimuli similar to her views on the look and feel of physical objects, the story of "modern" classical music might have unfolded very differently.

This theory might also explain something else about the largely inter-generational arguments that rage about the virtue or lack of it of Modern Art, which is the extraordinary ferocity of the criticisms of Modern Art expressed by those who don't like it, and the extraordinary glee expressed in response to these criticisms by those who do. Don't think: argument between adults. Think: crazy squabble in a nursery, complete with tantrums and bullying and all manner of shouting and carrying-on. Modern art connects to the inner child, in good ways and in bad ways.

I cannot believe that I'm the first person to have thought of this. Comments connecting me to others who have speculated about, or perhaps even proved, a connection such as I offer would be very welcome.

(8)

Since Samizdata, along with the rest of the Anglosphere, seems to be in us-Brits-great-or-what? mode today, please permit me to mention here that over on my Education Blog, I did a piece about the British Army as a teaching organisation, based on a conversation with a friend who is a captain in it. If what you're now thinking is: "Wow, those Brits, how do they do it?", well, I think this little piece goes some way towards answering that question.

At the centre of the piece is an accronym: EDIP. This stands for: Explain, Demonstrate, Immitate, Practice.

The other key principle "embedded" � to use this month's mot du jour � in British Army practice is that the best way to learn something is to teach it. Quite junior officers start the "high powered" bit of their army careers by instructing at Sandhurst, and Sergeants and Corporals do most of the day-to-day training of the soldiers. At the end of it the soldiers may not be completely in command of what they're doing, but the men who've been teaching them have it ingrained into them. Soldiering can be taught, and so can leadership, and this is how.

The thing I remember most vividly about that conversation was, well, how vivid it was. The question "Education � How about that then? � How does the army go about doing that?" is just about the best way for a civilian like me to get inside the head of a soldier that I could possibly have picked. "So, what's it like killing people?" is useless by comparison. (a) It's insulting. It makes it sound like that's the thing they most like doing. (b) Half of them don't know. (c) Those that do have no way of really telling you. And above all (d) they don't want to talk about it. But asking them about how they teach is, as I said in my original piece, like taking the cork out of a shaken champagne bottle.

I want to do a lot more pieces like this one, about actual teachers and how they set about it, for my Education Blog, but so far have only done one more, about my friend Sean Gabb. So if any Samizdata readers are doing any teaching, of any sort, in the London area or near offer, and of a sort they wouldn't mind me sitting in on and/or writing about (I promise to accentuate the positive � almost all teachers are doing some good things), please get in touch.

(12)

What do you think these are?

feg � jes � vok � gop � ruch � dez � thob � cag � shug � wiss � miff � sleck

Words that used to exist, but which have fallen out of use? Words that ought to exist, to describe things that exist, but now have no word attached to them so that we can talk about them? Douglas Adams produced a little book called The Meaning of Liffe, or something similar, full of such concepts, with suggested words to describe them. "Pimlico � the pool of stale beer into which the barman deposits your change" etc. etc. Ruch � to vomit or cough violently, while still trying to rush for a bus or appointment. Sleck � to refrain so ostentatiously from performing one's duties that even very, very posh people, who hardly do any work themselves, notice. And miff? Well, isn't that a word already? Are we not "miffed" if things don't happen as we wish? So miff must be the verb of that, surely. And "gop" is the Republicans, isn't it?

sprell � creld � splind � fland � blim � flut � smez � shrid � sprund � shrong � brost � flamp

Still don't know? Clue: it's to do with learning to read. These "words" are to be found on page 17 of the latest Newsletter, No. 50, from the Reading Reform Foundation.

spow � clirt � throrn � scight � droy � scray � troud � drair � weeg � grort � ploon � frarp

I support the Reading Research Foundation, in the sense that I pay to get these newsletters and agree, for whatever that may be worth, with what they are trying to do. And what they are trying to do is beat some sense into all the senseless fools who now, still, preside over the teaching � or non-teaching � of literacy in the schools of Britain, indeed of the entire Anglo Saxon world.

The trouble with the RRF's literature is that most of us can only concentrate on it for so long. This is because the argument is changing only with glacial slowness. The RRF explains that the best way to teach reading is to teach "synthetic phonics". This means � warning: I may get this somewhat wrong � first learning what sounds are made by which letters and letter combinations, and then spelling out the entire word by spelling out each letter or letter combination. Something like that. The Satanic Tendency, for these purposes, are the Morons From Hell who believe that the way to read words is to guess them by looking only at the first letter or two, or by looking at accompanying pictures, or by looking at the shape made by all the letters together. "Whole word" and "look and say" are the phrases to watch out for if you want to catch a (il)literacy Satanist at work and drown him in your village pond.

The RRF people, although very determined and hardworking, are by their nature rather earnest and systematic people, who have got hold of the right way to teach reading and writing, and don't really know what else to do except repeat themselves until enlightenment finally erupts. What they are not so good at is spicing up their stuff to make it catch the attention of civilians. Partly, of course, this is because they are absolutely sure that "spicing up" the material is absolutely how you should not teach reading and writing itself. Pictures and irrelevant joking and general side-issues are to be avoided like the mental plague that they are. Thus, RRF type people tend to have a puritanical devotion to their truth, and positively to dislike � to be exceedingly miffed by, you might say � all the trivia and silliness (as well as deadly seriousness) that an operation like samizdata.net brings to the business of spreading good ideas.

cleab � scrule � gurt � hoint � splafe � scry � chie � floke � grooring � shrawed � scurnly � slared

Ho ho ho, or if you prefer it, hoe hoe hoe. (I don't like "Heh", for some reason. Don't know why.)

Okay I'll tell you what it is. It's Ruth Miskin's Nonsense Word Test. Ruth Miskin is one of the bigger names of the Synthetically Phonic world, and this test is to see if those subjected to it actually spell out the words they "read", or merely guess.

I've kept the best ones until last, as does Ruth Miskin, the best ones being, of course, the most elaborate and complicated ones.

phantrite � strowble � frubehabe � doilible � snoiggal � wacespink � disclorping � thription � illarptacture � naightentance � stobosaurous � feanlissable

Are you spelling out these "words" in their entirety? Congratulations. You can read.

Here's how the page ends.

Letters should be read as sounds, not names. (Note: When the test is used as an rml entry assessment, allow 4 seconds a word. Stop when 2/3 errors are made in one box.) Complete test as far as is possible to ascertain breadth of phonic knowledge and blending ability. Tester has separate copy to record reader�s response for detailed assessment. This test should be given in conjunction with a real word and comprehension test to ascertain reader�s full skills in and out of context.

So now you know.

(7)

Natalie Solent links to a typical education story from education.guardian.co.uk.

A six-year-old boy has become one of the youngest children to be permanently excluded from school, following an 18-month reign of terror that left some of his classmates psychologically traumatised.

The boy was thrown out of Ashton Vale primary school in Ashton, Bristol, after worried parents wrote a letter to governors demanding his removal. They reported him urinating on fellow pupils, stamping on children's heads and scratching classmates' faces. One parent claims he bullied her son to such an extent he needed speech therapy, while another victim began wetting the bed through fear. However, his father, a BBC technician, yesterday blamed the school for exacerbating his son's bad behaviour and not acting quickly enough. "I think they've gone the wrong way about it," he said. "At home he's as good as gold."

What's this? The Guardian making a BBC employee look like an idiot?

He did, however, admit that his son had been given "more than enough chances" and had "taken it too far" at the school. "He's always been naughty. He fights everyone all the time but doesn't know when to stop - he just carries on."

The boy was known as a trouble-maker at nursery, but the frequency of violent incidents has risen steadily and he has been suspended numerous times.

His father fears his unusual domestic environment may have had an effect on Troy's behaviour. He has split from boy's mother, but they still share the same home, despite the fact she is now expecting a baby with her new boyfriend, who lives in the Birmingham area.

Yes, that doesn't sound good.

But to get more serious, here's what Natalie says about this boy's expulsion.

This sort of thing is ineradicable from state education. It comes from the obligation to pretend to educate every child, whatever the real harm done to other children such as the rest of the class in this disturbing story. Some children should be abandoned by the education system.

I take a certain angry pleasure from writing things like that. What usually happens is that people make hesitant criticisms of the cult of "inclusivity" or of "no fault" programmes that purport to deal with bullying and then a representative of The Blob lashes out and says, "Ooooh, riiiight, you are willing to just abandon children, are you, just do nothing for the most vulnerable members of society?" and the wimps backtrack. So I might as well short-circuit the outrage. Yup. Abandon them. You think that's unethical? You educate them, then: I'm not stopping you.

I have a rule about putting something, however lame, up on my Education Blog every calendar (clock?) week day, Monday to Friday, week in week out (weekends optional). Sometimes that has meant doing something at 12.05 am and then the next something at 11.50 pm nearly two real days later, but I have so far stuck to this rule, even when abroad.

Because of this rule I have often gone trawling through "national" education stories such as the one Natalie linked to, the way I wouldn't have done in the normal, Education Blogless course of my life. (Which was part of why I do an Education Blog, and why I do it the way I do it.)

What I'm getting round to saying is, I have recently, despite finding the subject pretty boring, been paying quite close and regular attention to what passes in Britain for education policy. And I can confirm that Natalie has identified one of the absolute central idiocies of our present government's education policy.

The state can either include every child in its education system, or it can, in its crude and insufficient way, educate most children but not all. It cannot do both. It simply cannot. It doesn't matter if every single MP in the House of Commons is New Labour and agrees with Education Minister Charles Clarke about everything he and his assistants ever say or ever do. Reality remains reality. If a boy like Troy is in a class and can neither be removed from that class nor beaten in to submission, then that class will be about begging Troy to behave and Troy not behaving. It cannot also be about teaching any of the other children anything except about the idiocy of their school's policy, and their government's policy, with regard to Troy.

Our present government does have an education policy, after a fashion. This policy is completely ridiculous, but here it is. It is to command this week that Troy shall be included, but, next week, that Troy shall be excluded. This is called government by initiative, and it is driving the teaching profession to premature senile dementia. It is making it literally impossible to be a state employed teacher. Yes, the government is recruiting record numbers of teachers. But ask yourself why? This is because record numbers of teachers are also saying to hell with it, often within a few days of joining, and going off to become financial advisers, or ditch diggers, or unemployed wrecks.

My, we're in a cheerful mood here this weekend, aren't we? Thank goodness for the Ireland/England rugger game, which kicks off in about three hours. If England lose, I don't know what I'll do. War, and economic meltdown, and plague, and this, and then, on top of all that, that. Doesn't bear thinking about.

I think I just wrote a Brian's Bleat.

(4)

Julius Blumfeld, a home educator himself, believes that it may be a while before the right to home educate in Britain is seriously eroded. ("Ask me again in ten years time.") But I recommend also this rumination by Michael Peach about the future of home education in Britain, and on how to defend it. Says Peach:

Currently in England, although most Local Education Authorities would like you to think otherwise, we are pretty free to educate our children as we see fit. School is not compulsory, there is no legal obligation to inform the LEA of your decision to take your children out of school, you don't have to let LEA representatives into your home, you do not have to let them see any of your child's work, and you do not have to complete a pile of forms just to satisfy them that you are doing a good job (A statement of educational philosophy should suffice). From what I can tell we currently enjoy probably the most freedom in this regard anywhere in the western world.

So far so good, in other words. Which is also pretty much what Blumfeld had said:

At the moment, home education in the U.K. is off the Government's radar. It's just a quirky thing for a small minority. It's nothing to worry about and it's not worth bothering with.

But as Blumfeld had gone on to say:

� as more parents home educate their children, it will become increasingly visible. And as that happens, the pressure will grow for the State to "do something" about "the problem" of home education. The pressure will come from the teaching unions (whose monopoly it threatens). It will come from the Department of Education (always on the lookout for a new "initiative"). It will come from the Press (all it will take is one scare story about a home educated ten year old who hasn't yet learned to read). And it will come from Brussels (home education is illegal in many European countries so why should it be legal here?).

As I say, Blumfeld preceded that by saying that in in ten years time things may have changed, and home-education might have become a "libertarian issue", i.e. a political battleground.

Ten years? Peach thinks that things may be about to get nasty a lot more quickly than that.

However, these freedoms are coming under attack. A new directive from the DfES to LEAs has come to light. Apparently this directive has been widely discussed with home education groups, however the largest of them, Education Otherwise has never been consulted.

The directive contains several passages that are in direct contradiction of the existing law but this does not seem to have been taken into consideration when it was issued. Why is this?

Of course it could just be ineptitude on the part of the department but I do not believe this to be so. This is the start of a long and winding road that leads to new legislation and restriction of the rights of parents.

Peach believes that home-educators should adopt a totally hard-line and uncompromising attitude towards all this, but fears that many of them won't.

Daryl Cobranchi agrees vehemently with Michael Peach, and disagrees very vehemently indeed with Julius Blumfeld. Alice Bachini will also be keeping an eye on things, both here (at her personal blog) and, I would assume, now here (at Rational Parenting).

For the wider libertarian movement, all this is both very depressing or a possible opportunity, depending on how you look at such things. Personally, I would infinitely prefer the home-educators to be left alone to do what they want with their children, within the limits only of the criminal law. But the kind of libertarians who think that recruiting new libertarians to the libertarian movement is the only sure way to save the world will welcome these developments, because lots of hitherto (see Blumfeld) mostly Green and/or Pink home educators are, it would seem, about to get a severe political education at the hands of the state. It may, in other words, be the gun hobbyist story all over again. The gun hobbyists, to simplify that story only somewhat, started out as gun hobbyists with guns, and ended up as libertarians without guns.

Until now, Britain's home educators have mostly tended to rely on keeping their heads down and not criticising the State Monster so rudely that he stirs himself and decides to go on the attack. But if the Monster is now attacking anyway, silence no longer makes sense. A campaign may now be needed to explain to Britain and its rulers just how important is the right to educate one's children as one sees fit, and just how damaging would be the ending of this right. Again, following on from the gun example, it might help a lot if the Americans got heavily involved with the debate over here, in the manner of Daryl Cobranchi, and I dare say, already, quite a few others.

(4)

The famous cartoon mouse is far too busy making money for the Disney company to waste his time on a BSc in "Golf-Course Management" or "Decision-Making". However, higher education minister Margaret Hodge has finally noticed the proliferation of ridiculously silly publically-funded university courses, identified them as "Mickey Mouse Degrees" and promised to solve the problem!

Even the Guardian can't resist making fun:

"There are the apparent oxymorons - turfgrass science, amenity horticulture, surf and beach management and the BSc from Luton University in decision-making, which begs the cheap but irresistible observation, how did those on the course manage to make the decision to take it in the first place?"

But has New Labour got some right ideas for once? Have they finally decided that market forces and the education system should meet?

"...students themselves will ensure that what is offered by universities not just meets their aspirations but also meets labour market needs," [Margaret Hodge] told a seminar in London organised by the Institute for Public Policy Research"

Well, no. Because actually, it shouldn't actually be any of their business what universities do, because they shouldn't be funding them in the first place, whereupon students would be obliged to be much more careful in their choice of how to spend their first three years after school than they are now. Perhaps some might even not go to university at all! But that would be a terrible blow to the government's Ten-Year-Plan to keep as many young able-bodied people as possible well away from the workplace:

"The Government remained committed to its target of higher education for 50 per cent of under-30s by 2010."

Actually, all the government is doing about their embarrassing joke-degree problem is trying to ban more things. This isn't going to help. Anyone can ban things if they use enough coercion: but the real answer is to make those libertarian economic reforms and then just watch the students abandon ship as the daft degrees suffer a slow and painful death... Madonna studies, feminist ice-skating theory, cross-dressing, nail varnish and citizenship, and all their loyal leftie practitioners disappearing down the post-communist rabbit-hole once and for all.

But don't hold your breath just yet. Not until you have a proper PhD in Underwater Oxygen Management first, at least.

(7)

Bill Clinton is the favourite candidate for the office of Chancellor of Oxford University. He is facing growing opposition from dons who fear that his election would endanger the reputation of the institution and the virtue of its undergraduates.

The arguments against his candidacy are many and varied:

1. The former President of the United States would harm "the dignity of the office" as Mr Clinton's sexual peccadilloes, including his affair with Monica Lewinsky, render him unsuitable for such a prestigious post

2. His lies on oath about the Lewinsky affair and his decision to award presidential pardons to a number of well-connected criminals just before he left office in January 2001 should disqualify him from the role.

3. Mr Clinton's patchy academic record hasn't been particularly distinguished in any field - he went to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar in 1968 but failed to complete his degree and his extensive commitments in America.

Mark Almond, a fellow of Oriel College and a lecturer in 20th-century history, added that Mr Clinton would face "endless allegations of sexual scandal".

"There's bound to be trouble...We need a woman chancellor, not a womanising chancellor."

As far as I know, the main argument for is Mr Clinton's fundraising abilities. Since leaving office he has embarked on a series of lucrative foreign tours, giving lectures for a reputed £1,200 a minute. Oxford University being starved of state funds and facing transatlantic competition for its academics, grossly underpaid in the British academia, is desparate for more cash. And I suppose some dons are reasoning - if he brings more money, sod the dignity of the office or the potential damage it may do to the university's image.

I can see how that happened - during my university days we came to appreciate the unique tutorial system at Oxford that the government has been threatening to scrap as it is five times more expensive per student than the usual seminar/lecture style of university education. Both Oxford and Cambridge are constantly under attack for their allegedly 'elitist' admissions policies and forced to fulfill quotas for students from 'state' schools.

I do have a problem with Clinton being the next Chancellor of Oxford University. I also want the university to raise enough funds to continue in its distinguished tradition, without the need to force change because of a lack of them. However, there must be better candidates for the post, both morally and academically more accomplished as well as able to attract sufficient funds for this ancient institution.

(12)

At the heart of almost all 'redistributive' statism lies the idea that it is perfectly okay to take money from one person, backed by the threat of state violence, in order to give it to other people deemed more worthy of that money. The 'worthy' people are those who have managed to make the political process work in their favour in some manner, such as students in Britain.

People like Will Straw, son of British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, call education a 'public good' and thus sees that as ample justification for the National Union of Students demanding that students like himself have their education paid for by money taken from others... and yet is not the opening of a corner shop or supermarket a 'public good' as well? It offers not just needed products but also employment. Is not almost any lawful economic activity between two willing parties a 'public good' for much the same reason, as it generates wealth and satisfies needs?

Yet unlike education funded by theft, these other activities involve only consensual relationships and private capital allocated with private insights and information... If I buy a product or open a shop, it is because I think it is in my interests. However I am not going to use force to extort people into buying products at my shop or acquire things by violent robbery.

Although Will Straw may think it is in my interests for him to be educated, I happen to disagree. However he is quite prepared to have the state use force to compel me to provide for his education. Like most who feed at the public trough, he casually accepts the morality of the proxy violence of the state provided it benefits him.

There are some actual 'public goods' in the sense Will Straw uses the word, such as defence, the prevention of crime and perhaps discouraging communicable diseases, but those are really the only legitimate role of state... for the likes of Will Straw to think something like his personal education is something that compares to those true 'public goods' is strange thinking indeed, for it violates the true public good of the prevention of crime: he would have the state rob me for his benefit.

(4)

It has just gone midnight here in the UK and so I will begin by extending my very best wishes to all our readers for a happy, healthy and prosperous New year. Sadly, I suspect it will not be peaceful.

However, there is some good news to be had. The BBC TV teletext news service (no link, sorry) is reporting the result of a nationwide survey of parents the result of which is that a relatively whopping thirty one percent are considering home-schooling. The reason given was the growing disillusionment with the current education system.

Since this is not the kind of news the BBC would wish to propogandise about, it may just be an accurate reflection on the way Britain is moving on this issue.

(21)

Just who is being protected here? Just what benefit is being bestowed upon our society? What good can possibly be derived from a ruling like this?

"A mother-of-two has been jailed for failing to prevent her daughters from playing truant from school.

The Brighton woman was sentenced to seven days in prison and is only the second parent in the country to be jailed because her children skipped lessons."

Why incarcerate this woman for the 'refusenik' behaviour of her children? I presume it's because the state takes the view that threatening the liberty of parents will oblige them to become more coercive and bullying towards their own offspring in order that they may toe the educational establishment line. How degraded and immoral is that? I am reminded of the late Philip Larkin's injunction:

The once misanthropically gloomy Larkin begins to sound more and more like a pragmatist.

This woman has been sent to jail because education for children is compulsory and the state is the monopoly provider. Sadly, this paradigm is now a fixture of just about all Western societies but has anybody thought to ask the children themselves if this process is something that they either want or need? Clearly, the two little girls in question were fed up with being forced to traipse day after day to a draughty, municipal building and sat at a desk while a low-grade public servant with halitosis and a short temper drones at them about the French Revolution. Or Algorithms. Or something.

I am at a loss to understand how these two children, or the society of which they are a part, have anything to gain from being forced back into a situation where they are likely to be nothing except sullen and resentful prisoners? Very few people take the view that forcing human beings to work in state-owned factories on government-mandated projects will be in any way beneficial yet nearly everybody is entrenched in the dogmatic belief that doing the very same thing to human beings under the age of 18 will be nothing but beneficial.

This is an orthodoxy to which I once held myself: education is good, but children don't realise this. Therefore prescribed and generally agreed packages of learning must be forced on them for their own good. Is this true? I must confess that I have no ready alternatives available nor any glib answers on what parents should do instead. But I do know that I am increasingly unsettled by noxious enforcements of the kind reported above and by the quiet, persuasive ideas of people like Alice Bachini.

Compulsory education is about compulsion not education. It is a received wisdom to which I am finding it increasingly difficult to subscribe and which I believe should be revisited and re-examined at a systemic level.

(19)

The following posting was written with my education blog in mind. However, although in general this enterprise is rattling along fine, it is for the time being ungettatable. I'm hoping that this is (a) because this is now Sunday afternoon and every internetter in the world is internetting and my blog empire's hardware can't cope, or even better (b) because Atlas (he knows who he is) has unshrugged and is finally getting Brian's Culture Blog going, but in a way that has interrupted normal service. Alternatively, (c) one of Richard Branson's slaves read what I put about his Lord and Master on Transport Blog the other day and has turned the Virgin army of hackers loose on my life, in which case it was nice knowing you all.

Anyway, I read what follows through again and found that it will do okay also for samizdata.net so here it is:

Joanne Jacobs links to the following piece of dialogue, originally posted on Notes From The Ghetto Teacher on October 29th.

Today, we were discussing 15th century literature and the invention of the Gutenburg Press. I asked them to write a short essay on what they'd learned from the chapter and lecture. One of my students tentatively raised his hand:

Student: Miss?

Me: Yeah, baby?

Student: When was the 15th century?

Me: Between the 14th and 16th, baby. Do you mean what years are in the 15th century?

Student: Aww ... dawg ... naw ... I'm sayin' ... what century was the 15th century in?

Me: [pause] Write it down a piece of paper then read it back out loud.

Student: [writes it down slowly] Fif-teenth century.

Me: Right. So, what century is that?

Student: That's what I be aksin' you.

Some days, I just want to throw my chalk.

Now I have far less experience of teaching in a ghetto than does the Ghetto Teacher (she presumably has quite a lot and I have none), but what I want to know is: what would have been the problem with just giving the answer, along the lines of: "The fifteenth century means the one hundred years between the year 1400 and the year 1500"?

Okay, maybe confusion would still have reigned in the mind of the student, in which case the teacher might have had to try something else, and maybe that would have been difficult if two dozen or more other students were also demanding the teacher's attention.

A reasonable answer in the circumstances might also have been: "This is an exercise to find out what you already know, so for now I won't answer. Later, I'll tell you. Please ask me again afterwards."

But to give the answer "between the 14th and the 16th century" borders on the facetious.

Here is one of those wonderful students that teachers all say they love, a student who wants to learn. In this case, he wanted to learn when the fifteenth century was. And it's not a stupid question. I'm not a moron, but I had to pause to make sure I got the answer right? How many of us have not assumed, at some point in our lives, that the fifteenth century must be the century from 1500 onwards? No wonder the boy was asking. Sensible fellow. If the teacher has the knowledge, and the student wants it and is ready to receive it, then hand it over. What is the problem about that?

If we were being told about this conversation as an illustration of how frazzled and snitty teachers can sometimes get down there in the school trenches, fair enough, we could all sympathise. But this woman seems to think, on mature reflection, that she was being entirely reasonable, and that the bizarre behaviour was entirely on the student's side. And Joanne Jacobs, to whom thanks for the link despite everything, agrees. I guess that's teachers for you. They all stick together no matter how annoying one of them is being.

But I mean, if you were working in a shop, would you talk to a customer like this? Would you turn a simple question into a Kafkaesque guessing game? Would you expect him to write his question down on a bit of paper? And if all that didn't work, would you then be tempted to throw things at him? And would you then write the whole thing up that evening on ihatemystupidcustomers.blogspot.com? This is Basil Fawlty territory.

Maybe it's an exam thing. Teachers spend so much of their time coaching their students to pass exams that they forget about simply imparting information. Instead they focus obsessively on dinning into their pupils the habit of deducing what they want to know only from what they already know, because that's what they'll have to be able to do in the exam room. As a result, one of the basic techniques of good teaching - simply answering the questions of one's pupils, as patiently and as accurately as one can manage (and as often as necessary to get the information truly received and understood) � gets forgotten.

(17)

The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else
- Frederic Bastiat

Thousands of British students have gathered in London today in order to protest against a Government proposal to introduce university top-up fees. Coming from across the UK, they started marching at noon today (I am pleased to report it is pissing down with rain) in protest against a Government plan to require students to pay for at least some of their own university education. The protestors are backed by trade unionist and assorted socialist groups, who are claiming 20,000 students are marching. Police have said there are closer to 10,000 present.

Mandy Telford, president of the National Union of Students (NUS), said: "Education should be based on your ability not your ability to pay. Going down that road is putting a price tag on degrees and that's not positive for society."

Society? It is not 'society' which takes money from one group of people by force and gives it to another, only the state (or organised crime) can do that to whole sections of the population by force. If students are entitled to take other people's money in order to educate themselves, and the object of this education being to benefit themselves, why not also for food? For housing? For petrol? For clothing? In fact, why should they need to pay for anything from which they benefit? It seems they do indeed want that invidious form of outright theft called progressive taxation to fund the priorities of others and of course students are just the thin end of the paleo-socialist wedge being offered up here.

Ms Telford [of the National Union of Students] said students were converging on London from across the country. She said: "The march will send a very clear message to ministers. Students are angry and their families are angry.

Well I am bloody angry too! These 'protestors' are nothing more than parasites calling for the state to continue to engage in theft on their behalf. What makes their needs and priorities so much more important than mine that they feel they have the right to take my money for their benefit? Well up your, you scruffy leeches... you will get very little from me. Any future business of mine will be off-shore benefiting someone else's economy, and 10,000 of the reasons are marching through London today.

(1)

Because of the vagaries of the internet, comments are occasionally attached to Samizdata pieces that were posted many weeks ago. Such comments are liable not to be noticed. Well, my email this morning contained the text of a most helpful and interesting comment from Lisa Wylde on my piece about dog expert Jan Fennell. Here's what Lisa said:

I was fortunate to get a place on one of Jan Fennell's two day foundation courses. This was spent in her home, and to see how content and relaxed her own dogs were was an absolute inspiration. I have been interested in canine behaviour for many years, and it is interesting to see that many of the "experts" do not own dogs themselves - or indeed some of them own ones with "problems". Of course there are some behaviourists, such as the late John Fisher who have a lot to teach us, unfortunately not all of them are as dedicated to the canine mind and spirit as he was.

You state that you should "ignore them all the time" this is not actually the case, simply that when YOU want to play and fuss your dog - YOU call them. Assuming they respond to your call, you can play, cuddle, fuss, whatever you want to do. But if you are sitting on the settee watching the tv, for example, and the dog comes to you uninvited, and plonks his head (or body!!) on your lap � you would quietly push them away, because you had not instigated contact. This is why some people believe it is cruel, "ignoring your dog all the time" but this is not actually what you do � just simply when you are relaxed and want to play with the dog you do so, and you would both enjoy it more, but if the dog was demanding to play, barking, jumping up etc. although you may accept his behaviour in the park when you are appropriately dressed, you may not appreciate the same "request" by your dog when you are dressed up ready to go out! Consistency is the key, if the dog knows that you will only play with it when you want to, and therefore learns manners, both of you will really relish that quality time together!

Lisa, thank you very much for this. This was the aspect of Fennellism that had been most bothering me, and you have answered my bother perfectly. After all, if you are supposed to ignore your dog all the time, then quite aside from the cruelty to your dog aspect, what, for you, is the point of having a dog? I knew there was an answer that I hadn't assimilated, and I sort of knew what it was, in fact I must have read this answer myself in Jan Fennell's book. But, I hadn't absorbed it properly. Thanks for your explanation, and for your general confirmation of what I have believed of Jan Fennell ever since my sister and brother-in-law first told me about her, which is that she is definitely on the right track � the right dog track, you might say.

Alpha dog Brian with two pack members

(1)

In my previous posting here, about Gordon Brown's plans to wreck the British economy, I said that all that was one reason I was happy. Here's another: Brian's EDUCATION Blog. It's not for me to be saying how good this is, but I can say that so far I am managing to keep on doing whatever it is I'm doing. I'm not running out of things to say.

For example, I'm already thinking about a post I hope to do soon concerning the vital importance to the development of Silicon Valley not just in a general way of Stanford University, but in particular of just one academic at Stanford University, a man called Frederick Terman. I've semi-known about this man for almost as long as I've known about Silicon Valley, but there's nothing like having to write regularly for a specialist blog to make you learn the outlines of a story like this properly, by the simple procedure of writing it out. Quite aside from what others may be learning from it, think what Brian's Education Blog is doing for Brian's Education. The ambiguity of the title is entirely deliberate.

And what about the writings of others that I might otherwise have missed?

My favourite new writing discovery this week is Colby Cosh. He's done two pieces this week on educational themes, both excellent. This is a take on one of the minor weaknesses (slightly weird parentally implanted beliefs) that sometimes goes with a kid being home-schooled, and on the major strength, ditto (very good education).

And this is an essentially economic critique of the whole idea of schools as we now know them which I think is right on the money, money being one of the things Cosh talks about. I've already quoted from this over at BEdBlog. Here's another bit:

� If you were designing an education method from scratch you'd never dream of having hundreds of kids in one giant building like a workhouse or a Panopticon prison, would you? You'd probably get together with ten or twelve of your neighbours, people who have kids roughly your child's age, and you'd hire one person to handle their education. Think of the background checks you could do on your candidates, the multi-tier interview process you could organize. Worried about paying the salary of a tutor? Well, I don't know about where you live, but my provincial government spends about $5,000 a year educating a child, according to a back-of-envelope calculation. That's not an unreasonable amount, but if you were given that money and allowed to spend it as you please, do you think you could do better?

That's more or less what I see happening... increasingly radical forms of "school choice", the creation of a free market for tutor labour, innovative community arrangements. Flatter educational structures without all the paperwork. An outflow of schoolwork from the factories to - well, I don't know; it seems to me, just for starters, that there are a whole lot of old people rattling around big houses who would almost be willing to pay to have the place full of children during the day. Or you could simply let a parent with a large house host the class, and allow their child to join for free. A finished basement would be more than large enough, really, for the kind of classes I'm imagining. �

Moving from the sublime to the ridiculous, I've got into the habit of typing "education" into google and seeing what floats to the top. Usually it's some ghastly governmental, er, item, and last night was no different. But honestly, what is there to say about some piece of politico-educational chair re-arranging like this? One lot of politicians think that someone in charge of some schools in Ottawa (a Mr Beckstead) should be fired. Another lot of politicians think he shouldn't. Money is mentioned a lot, education hardly at all. Something to do with how quickly inner city schools are being shut down and how quickly new schools are being erected in the suburbs. By the government. As they say in parts of the USA, well whoop-de-do. Maybe I ought to be interested, but all I can really think to say is that in Colby-Cosh-Brian-Micklethwait world, these things would take care of themselves. I'm afraid Mr Beckstead is not going to get any mentions on BEdBlog, and this is definitely the last you'll be reading about him here, unless some Canadians surprise us with some comments about why we should care about him.

In general, I find that all the interesting action in education is taking place underneath the politics, so to speak, in the form of local initiatives that make sense for the people directly involved. The nearest thing to a political-type news story that I have found seriously interesting is the so-called Teach First scheme, which although it is aimed at making some very bad state schools (of exactly the sort that Colby Cosh criticises) somewhat less bad still makes a lot of sense to me. Basically it's sticking posh young men from posh universities in crap schools for a couple of years before they duly get their posh jobs in the City. Good idea, at both ends. More about this, and about how I heard about it, here.

Although I have to struggle to stay awake when confronted with nationalised education policy, "Globalised" education policy, that is to say, the ongoing attempt to create a global Ministry of Education, is, on the other hand, extremely interesting, and also of course extremely sinister. I'm definitely going to keep an eye on that story as it unfolds. Very slowly, I hope and pray. With luck, by the time the damned machine is in place, real education of the Colby Cosh sort (which is now spreading like wildfire throughout the Third World) will be up, up and away.

(18)

More stuff from my Brian's EDUCATION Blog beat that deserves the Samizdata treatment.

Daryl Cobranchi picks up on a "state repression of home-schoolers" story. Here are the first two paragraphs of it:

A public school superintendent has sent police in squad cars to the houses of homeschooling families to deliver his demand that they appear for a "pre-trial hearing" to prove they are in compliance with the law.

Bruce Dennison, regional superintendent of schools in Bureau, Stark, and Henry counties in Northeastern Illinois, has contacted more than 22 families, insisting that they need his approval to conduct education at home.

Dennison is, legally speaking, quite wrong, or so something called the Home School Legal Defense Association argues (see their Nov 13 2002 story). Sadly, these days, something can be wrong, legally speaking, but still be true, factually speaking.

Nevertheless, for what it's worth (and I hope it helps the home-schoolers of Illinois), Regional Superintendent of Schools Bruce Dennison, you are now also being denounced on the other side of the Atlantic.

(1)

Daryl Cobranchi blots out "The Kingdom" (i.e. Saudi Arabia) from the story he's quoting from and says: Guess where this is? The quote he copies and pastes says all the usual things about how private sector education in these parts works better and costs less than the government's efforts. I guessed India, through having already done a piece about Indian education for my new education blog.

I was also going to hide this posting away in the same place, but then I thought Saudi Arabia? That's definitely Samizdata territory. That's of a lot more than merely educational interest. So here I am here with it, and here's the paragraph that follows the ones that Daryl recycled, from Arab News:

Essentially I am not an enthusiast for the privatization of the education system on a wider scale. However, the experience makes us appreciate the private sector�s quality and apparent superiority. The quality of government schools s not because of a shortage of funds. At the same time, it is the sheer size of the government bureaucracy and machinery that weighs it down and renders it ineffective.

Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid's use of the word "essentially" reminds me of how Kingsley (novelist father of novelist Martin) Amis used to say that "essentially" is another word for "not". The grammar doesn't quite work out with the above quote, but that aside, if this man is not an enthusiast for the privatization of education, it makes you wonder what a Saudi Arabian who is an enthusiast for the privatization of education would be like.

(5)

Alice Bachini observes that many want to penalize success. Nothing unusual there!

I don't exactly know what the Centre For Analysis Of Social Exclusion is, but it doesn't sound good to me. So its suggestion that our crumbling state-funded universities should be allowed to charge students top-up fees might seem at first very sensible and welcome.

However, what this frighteningly-named body actually wants is for state-educated pupils to be exempt from those fees. In other words, it wants people who fund not only their own children's education but also those of other people's children, through their taxes, to continue doing so at university level, only much much more heavily. To the tune of up to ten and a half thousand smackers a year, in fact. Because this is "fair". Of course.

"Parents of students from independent schools have signalled their ability to pay for education and research shows that these students earn significantly more in the labour market,"Abigail McKnight, a research fellow at the Economic and Social Research Council's centre, said at the weekend.

Quite so. Independent schools produce pupils better equipped to do well in life and earn more money. Success breeds success... and it seems that to many this is an outrage: how dare they! They must be made to pay!

So, the redistribution of wealth, in advance of the event of actually earning it, on the basis that one's parent's did so first; what do we call that idea, I wonder?

I doubt that these proposals will get through, but the fact that they can get taken even slightly seriously for a second demonstrates, in my view, both the latent socialism in New Labour institutions, and the acceptability of socialism in Education circles. Well, socialism isn't going to help British universities one little bit. Until they get free from the state and allowed to charge money where they want, their towers will keep crumbling and they will continue to leak their best people across the Atlantic.

Oh bother, I should start saving up for those Harvard fees right now.

Alice Bachini

(4)

To me, a blog, Brian's EDUCATION Blog, me and blog both doing well.

Well I hope we're doing well. "Up and running" is the usual kind of expression used for such events as this. Up and staggering around bumping into furniture but mostly lying in pram and sleeping would be more accurate. After vital initial help from expert Movable Typist Alex Singleton (of Liberty Log) my blogynaecologist is now Patrick Crozier (UK Transport and Croziervision), but it still looks an ugly brute despite their best efforts. I know, what must it have been like before?

But the text is starting to roll. Yesterday I did a ramble about what BEB stands for, blah blah blah but necessary. And today, Patrick has just posted a piece about a Maths textbook entrepreneur, whose website he saw on the side of a van.

(5)

I think one of the biggest mistakes made by Classical Liberals in Britain was to allow (and, indeed, encourage) the government to start funding education in the 19th Century. He who pays the piper calls the tune and it was only a matter of time before the government took over education and began to run it as the state monopoly we are still lumbered with today.

As with all these monolithic government services they are indifferent to the needs of their customers, exisitng primarily as fiefdoms of a professional education establishment. Well-to-do families can afford to escape the system but not so modest income and poor families whose children are left victimised by the shambolic sausage factories through which they are processed.

To date, there has been insufficient challenge to this state monopoly but that could all be about to change. Last night I had the pleasure of meeting James Stansfield at the October 'Putney Debate' hosted by Tim Evans. James works with the famous James Tooley, a former socialist who has seen the light and now campaigns for a free market in education. Together they have established the EG West Centre at the University of Newcastle; an academic research body dedicated to spreading radical ideas about the provision of education by means other than the state.

The man after whom the project is named, EG West, was a British-born academic who did most of his work in Canada in the 1950's and 1960's. Swimming completely against the tide of the received wisdom of that era, this man who concluded, from his meticulously documented research, that state education was a disaster. Unsurprisingly, he was pilloried by the rest of academia and the education establishment as some kind of dangerous madman before being proved absolutely correct.

West's legacy is a comprehensive set of ideological and analytical tools which are now being wielded by the likes of Messrs Stansfield and Tooley with a view to revolutionising public policy. James Stansfield is clearly passionate about his mission which he described in detail at last night's meeting.

It seems there is both good news and bad news.

The good news is that governments all over the world are getting so exasperated at their own failure to deliver that they are willing to consider any other alternatives on offer from the private sector. This is particularly the case with developing countries like India where the government is so desperate to get their people educated that they have entirely jettisoned all the old ideological baggage and are happy for the free market to let rip. James was also very enthusiastic about the widespread Home-Schooling movement in the USA and the burgeoning movement in the UK.

The bad news is that there appears to be very little chance in the immediate future of any headway being made in Britain where the government still clings tenaciously to the old ideal of centralised control despite its increasingly apparent failings. James was of the opinion that the government is still very much in thrall to the left on this issue. Elsewhere, organisations such as The World Bank and UNESCO are vigourously lobbying Third World governments to establish universal, compulsory state education i.e. to make the same mistake we have made in the West. [James kept referring to these people, sarcastically, as 'Charming purveyors of love' so I took the liberty of introducting him to the term 'Tranzi']

But the very fact that there is both good and bad news means that battle is being enjoined and that victory is out there to be won. With the EG West Centre we have the equivalent of a mechanised infantry division on our side.

This is not just a British issue, it is a universal issue and, if you have any interest at all in education, then I strongly recommend that you take a look at the highly informative EG West Centre website linked to above and spread to the word.

Dr. Jan Fortune-Wood is a freelance writer and home educator. She is a supporter of Taking Children Seriously and writes on home education, autonomous education and non-coercive parenting from a libertarian perspective.

In both the United States and Britain home education is on the increase. Roland Meighan, formerly special professor of education at Nottingham university estimates that at least 1% of school aged children are home educated in Britain. In the United States the figure is 5% with a growth rate of 20% each year and rising. In both the United States and Britain home education is increasingly a step taken by families disillusioned by the provision of mainstream education.

However, the content of this disillusionment seems to vary enormously. In the States, despite a growing number of secular home educators, the religious reason continues to dominate. In a society that separates religion and state, religious parents, especially those on the fundamentalist right are likely to withdraw their children from schooling. In contrast, Britain has no such separation of religion and state. Religious education and a daily act of worship are mandatory in state schools and the government is set to forge ahead with plans to increase the number of state funded schools with an explicitly religious foundation despite the protests of the National Secular Society. Of course, for some religious families this weak inoculation of school based religion is insufficient, especially when evolution is taught routinely in biology classes, but those who withdraw their children for religious reasons are very much in the minority of British home educators.

In the United States, Ronald Presitto¹ tells us that the right of parents to raise their children according to their religious convictions is at the heart of the divergence between 'home schooling' and the educational establishment. In contrast, most British home educators begin with pragmatic concerns - children are withdrawn when severe bullying incidents fail to be resolved, when they are too bored to tolerate the standardised national curriculum, when their special needs are not taken into account or when the only school place offered is at some dismal, failing institution where you wouldn't leave a dog. Some do start out with convictions about individualised education or religion, but these are the minority.

What American home schoolers and British home educators have in common is the reaction of their 'authorities' to their presence. From local officials to policy makers to government ministers there is a swathe of opinion that believes that parents are not to be trusted with their children and that the State, whether it is secular, socialist or broadly Judaeo-Christian, represents safer hands and inculcates more objective values. Recently in Britain the host of a prestigious legal radio programme (Radio 4 'Law in Action') opined exactly that in his weekly Guardian column - teachers are trained, accredited and hand down the official package to children, but heaven (or not) only knows what parents might be doing to their children.

In America, Presitto traces these attitudes to modern American liberalism, to progressives who rated common enterprise above the interests of the individual, giving rise to increased state powers and justifying this expansion as being in the people's best interests - secular and scientific. Parents, on the other hand, were suspect - they might infect and instill their young with dogma. In Britain education was first provided by the church and continues to be apparently 'Christian', but it is a mild, perhaps peculiarly British, strain of Christianity that goes hand in hand with socialist fears that parents might exploit or abuse children or that individualism might run rampant against the idol of communitarianism. In both countries, Marx's scorn for "the bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parent and child" is alive and well in educational and political arenas near you right now.

Despite Britain's recent adoption of the convention on human rights, which protects a right to a family life, this scorn is made all too evident in recent British politics. The Blairite government has introduced Connexions an iniquitous Orwellian electronic card issued to young people to enable them to access educational and other services, but only after they have gone through detailed interviews revealing every scrap of their own and their parents private lives. More recently a Bill which makes compulsory the drugging of children deemed to have 'ADHD' and which will criminalise parents who try to stand in the state's way has been introduced.

In Britain, despite having stepped out of the state provision of education, many home educators come from left wing backgrounds and have a great deal of sympathy with the view that if they have nothing to hide then they should be willing to let the authorities into their homes or produce their children on request - often in the name of saving other children from supposed exploitation or abuse. In Britain it often takes a first hand encounter with an intrusive and bullying local education authority inspector to make people reconsider their stance and ideology is usually something that develops along the way. Without the lobbying numbers of their American counterparts, many British home educators are fearful of putting their heads over the political parapet at all and though there are an increasing number of activists and signs of mature political thinking, there is also a great deal of suspicion of making any kind of stand. Behind the scenes in British home education there is certainly disillusionment with state provision, but the fight is not a religious one and, for many, not even an ideological one. Instead there is a confused picture - astute thinking and activism jostle alongside the concerns of down shifters, eco-worriers and socialists who just can't quite stomach the system when it comes to their own children.

In the States parents have won battles to protect the 'traditional interests of parents'. In Britain, home educators are holding their breath - they have watched French and Irish home educators loose rights and, within their own community, are witnessing an ongoing and protracted attack on the rights of Scottish home educators (where a separate law to that of England and Wales operates). British home educators have the advantage of being broad based, largely secular, not easily dismissed as wild dogmatists, but for all that they are living in interesting times in the face of Blairite infractions into liberty and need to galvanise before the fence they are sitting on is bulldozed for
their own good.

Dr. Jan Fortune-Wood

¹ = What's Behind Home Schooling? by Ronald J. Pestritto in 2002 edition of the San Diego Union-Tribune,Thursday, October 3. This
article is archived at The Claremont Institute.

(13)

For some years now, sister Daphne and brother-in-law Denis, with whom I had a most happy stay last weekend, have been telling me interesting things about dogs. I promised to do a posting about this earlier, and here it is. ("Education" is an odd way to categorise it, but this was the best I could find.)

D&D have two dogs themselves, but more to the point they've also been reading a particularly interesting book about dogs, The Dog Listener by Jan Fennell. Denis did a very positive customer review of this book for Amazon. However, these customer reviews apparently come and go, and Denis' one, which was there a week ago, seems now to have gone. Luckily I had already copied and pasted some of what he had said:

Her suggestions are so simple that, as a dog owner for many years, I thought they could not possibly work. I was so wrong that I was amazed. Within days my two labradors were so much more relaxed and better behaved that I experienced a fresh delight in keeping dogs. � Over the years I have read many books on dog training and this is the best.

Jan Fennell's wisdom is based on the observation of dogs and dog packs in the wild, including wolf packs, dogs being the domesticated descendants of wolves. In this respect Fennell's work resembles that of Monty Roberts, the famous "man who listens to horses" alluded to in the title of Fennell's own book, and the writer of the forward for it.

I read through The Dog Listener while staying with Daphne and Denis, and I can't say that I grasped all of its subtleties. But a few core notions I do now understand.

Dogs are pack animals, and the key to knowing how to relate to them means knowing how dogs relate to other pack members. Your dog, if you have one, thinks of you as a member of its pack.

And here's the most surprising thing. There is every chance that your dog thinks that it is the leader of your pack, and that you are its subordinate.

I had always imagined that dogs are like human infants only with about a hundred times more energy. That they might be worrying about their "owners" in the way that a parent worries about its child never entered my head. Yet when an "owner" abandons a dog, for example by leaving the dog at home, and the dog gets into a frazzle and bites the furniture and messes up the carpets, the dog isn't reacting like an abandoned child. The dog is reacting like a distracted parent who has lost its child. Don't think: neurotic dog, well, that's dogs for you, neurotic by nature. No. Think: pack leader who is failing in his basic responsibilities. Think: captain of ship who is out of his depth and who knows it. This is where the "neurotic dog" clich� comes from. Crazy, uncontrolled, obsessive behaviour is only natural for a dog in the sense that it is natural for me to piss in my trousers if someone holds a knife to my throat. That there are so many neurotic dogs out there is because there are so many owners who don't know how to take charge of their dogs. Such owners don't know how to relieve their dogs of overwhelming and impossible responsibilities.

Other boss dog ("alpha dog") habits: barking at strangers, on account of it being their job to guard the den against strangers; tugging at the leash, on account of it being their job to decide where the hunt goes; simply ignoring requests to come or sit or just calm down, on account of top dogs not obeying bottom dogs.

So how do you place yourself above your fellow pack member in the pack pecking order? How do you put a dog in its place?

The essence of the answer is: by ignoring it. When I arrived at the D&D household for the first time, I did exactly as Denisinstructed: ignore them, go where you're going, don't go towards them, don't make eye contact, don't pat them, don't smack them on the body, don't, don't, don't - and I soon had the dogs behaving as if I was the boss. This after a lifetime of greeting dogs in the human style, like long lost but low IQ friends � or like small children. Shouting enthusiastic greetings at them, smothering them in affection and body contact and generally making a huge drama out of how glad I am to see them - followed by them not giving me the time of day from then on. That's because if you do all that stuff, so natural to a human, the dog then reckons it outranks you. Everything you do to change that - more shouting, more you approaching them, more drama, more physical affection � only confirms their superior status to you in their eyes.

On the other hand, do to a dog what if done to another human would be called "cutting them dead", and the dog is yours to command. And perfectly happy about it. It works. If I can do it, anyone can.

After that it got more confusing. If a duly subjugated dog then approaches you and you pat it on the head and tickle its ears, are you confirming your superior status, or undermining it? More seriously, what's the point of owning a dog if, for its own good, you have to ignore it all the time? So far as I got from my first reading of The Dog Listener the answer is that you can play with your dog, but that you must do it at a time and with toys of your choosing, not his. And you keep these toys hidden away. But I could have got that wrong. If you want to explore the subtleties of all this, you'll have to read the book yourself.

On all other matters canine I defer to Denis's superior knowledge and far greater experience (to say nothing of Jan Fennell's of course), but one thing Denis said to me that I do severely doubt. I think he may have been rather exaggerating my expertise in saying, as he did, that I now know more about dogs and how to handle dogs than 99% of people (and he may even have said dog-owners). To put it another way, I think he underestimates how well Jan Fennell has been doing, with her television appearances, her books (there's now another), her public demonstrations and now her voluminous e-mail correspondence.

Not all those customer reviews are as positive as Denis's was. One says, for example, that Fennell's stuff is either well known already, out of date (whatever that may mean), or else over-dependent upon the idea of the canine hierarchy. The review I'm quoting now has also gone, unless I'm doing something wrong.

Although this book may help many people because Jan's techniques may work by accident, she hasn't got the faintest idea why they are. She tries to compare dogs to wolves, but appears to have learnt about wolves by reading the back of a cereal packet.

This isunfair. I distinctly remember a long description in The Dog Listener of a televised confrontation between a wolf pack and a new alpha-wolf who was offering himself as their new leader, their old one having died. You don't see TV shows on cereal packets.

Ignoring her dogs in the morning calmed them down because 'they accepted her as the pack leader'. Rubbish. She was no longer rewarding their excited behaviour with attention and that's why it worked.

Most dog trainers and behaviourists in the UK are holding their heads in their hands with despair that such a misinformed book is now the bible for the average dog owner looking to understand their pet.

As I say, Jan Fennell's stuff has definitely been getting around, certainly among the dog-people. I think I smell a turf battle here between the different dog-persons, with the old alpha-experts barking like hell at the upstart Fennell. I further suspect that these anti-Fennellists dislike the idea of canine hierarchy not because it's not a reality, but because it's a reality that they don't like. Egalitarianism among the animal trainers!

But what do I know? Take your pick. Or, use the comments section to tell me what's really going on here.

(2)

A 'Bear Of Very Little Brain' such as I does not quite follow every twist and turn of the A-Level scandal, but the story goes something like this: the government wants more students in higher education for good reasons and bad. So the government puts direct and indirect pressure on the exam boards to make the exams easier by changing their mark schemes and structures. This manouevre is kept secret; they would like us to think that they have made students cleverer by good magic. The ruse does not work. As grades go up and up people start to talk about "dumbing down." Finally the jump in the number of A grades is so embarrassing that the exam board start secretly moving the goalposts. This is a betrayal of trust: even if the level of achievement necessary for a good grade is objectively set too low, once the board has publicly stated the criteria it is bound to stick to them as part of its contract. To secretly mark students down is close to libel.

What a mess, hey? What's a poor Education Minister to do? In an article called Estelle, here is your way out of this mess the Telegraph's John Clare puts forward his advice to the beleaguered Estelle Morris.

But I've got some even better advice. I know a breathtakingly simple way for Estelle to get out of this mess entirely. It's this: Get out of this mess entirely, Estelle! Yes! It's that easy! Kick over your ministerial desk, make a barbecue of all your papers, hurl your dispatch box over the balustrade of the magnificent interior balcony of Sanctuary Buildings, and be gone and free within the hour. I don't just mean resign. I mean make your last act the complete and inalienable renunciation of government interference in A Levels, AS Levels, right through to X, Y and Z Levels, with every record so much as touching upon the subject shredded or electronically wiped to make sure your courageous decision sticks. Because government interference is the only cause of all this mess and government butting out is the only cure.

(4)

The comedian Alexei Sayle once said very wisely that he objected to the use of the word "workshop" in any connection other than light engineering. I now feel similarly about the phrase "limited edition", which should, I believe, be confined to publishing. Sadly, this phrase is now applied to cars, clothes, portable telephones, in fact to any manufactured product where they have to decide beforehand how many they're going to make in each little burst of manufacturing. In other words to all manufactured products.

The latest manifestation I have observed of limited edition feaver is: limited edition potato crisps. That's right, Walkers Crisps have just produced a six-pack "limited edition" bag, containing two Heinz Tomato Ketchup flavoured crisp packets, two Branston Pickle flavoured crisp packets, and two Marmite flavoured.

In my opinion the Marmite crisps are very nice (as are the crisps flavoured with Marmite's deadly rival, Bovril, which have long been available), the Tomato Ketchup crisps are okay, and the Branston Pickle crisps are disgusting.

Talk of limited editions raises the question: are there potato crisp collectors? If so, do they collect their crisp packets unopened, or do they merely preserve the wrappings? If they do collect the crisps unopened how do they ensure that the crisps do not get broken inside the packet, even as the packet remains unopened, and if the crisps are preserved in mint condition, how can the crisp collector tell?

It was with questions like these in mind that I consulted the
Walkers SHOWCASE website mentioned on all the crisp packets.

At this point my posting takes a sudden lurch away from harmless frivolity and towards seriousness, because this is what I found:

Welcome to Walkers SHOWCASE!

Walkers has invited every school in England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Eire to post their students' best work on the Walkers SHOWCASE online gallery. What better way to show off the children's talents - not only across the school, but to children's friends and relatives - and to everyone with an interest in education around the world?

If you have been chosen as your school's SHOWCASE Co-ordinator, your first step is to register your school. This takes just a few moments - but one part of it is your agreement to keep to the SHOWCASE Charter. You can review the Charter before proceeding with registration by clicking on the SHOWCASE safety button on the left. As soon as you have registered you can start uploading exhibits - everything from collages created in Reception to interactive games devised in a sixth form project.

Have fun!

I hate this. These people take no pride in their product. I expected � well, I was looking for � testimonials from satisfied crisp eaters, discussions of the relative merits of Marmite and Bovril crisps, intricate analysis of just why it is that the Branston Pickle crisps are so horrible, news of other Walkers products. Instead we observe what is now called a Public-Private Partnership, and of the most vomit-inducing kind. If I was a teacher and they made me the school's SHOWCASE Co-ordinator, I'd feel like a whore.

I realise that as a good little libertarian, I ought to be willing to defend everything that capitalism does however tasteless (including whores, of course), but when it comes to capitalists stalking the wastes of the public sector in search of captive juvenile audiences for junk food adverts, I'm sorry, I just can't do it. I wouldn't want a law against it, but surely no self-respecting school would do this.

Perhaps I should overcome my dislike of such things. I don't know, I really don't. I would especially welcome comments on this.

(2)

Dr. Jan Fortune-Wood is a freelance writer and home educator to four children aged 8-15. She is a supporter of 'Taking Children Seriously' and writes on home education, autonomous education and non-coercive parenting from a libertarian perspective.

All kinds of disparate and quiet groups become politicised when they are attacked by the state, scapegoated and weakened. That's what Brian Micklethwait pointed out in an article on August 26th on Samizdata. He cites as an example Britain's gun owners, who were made to take the blame for the actions of evil people and who as a result "suddenly started to care about things like libertarianism also."

It's a point well made, but when he goes on to say that another group who may be about to experience a similar process are 'home schoolers' (the British term he was struggling to find is actually 'home educators' or 'home based educators') he is several years behind the movement. Micklethwait is quite right that across the English-speaking world there are various efforts of "professional state educators" trying to erode the rights of home educators on the grounds that it is "a strange and scandalous legal anomaly." However, what he has not realised is that we home educators have been on to them for some time and politicisation is well and truly underway, even maturing in certain sectors.

The home education movement in Britain is at least twenty five years old in its established form and the last ten years have seen a massive rise in politicisation, much of it associated with the communication benefits afforded by the Internet. One home education support group (Education Otherwise) was instrumental in getting a change in the law so that parents can now automatically de-register their children from school without the old legal loophole of needing to establish and prove their educational provision before de-registration could take place.

Britain has perhaps the most liberal home education law in the world, but far from inducing complacency, there is a constant watch on the actions of over zealous local education authorities (LEAs) and the services of a brilliant home educating lawyer available to families who are mistreated by LEAs. Five years ago I was part of small collective that ignited a huge discussion across the home education community concerning our rights not to have home visits nor to allow local education authorities automatic access to out children. This resulted in a set of legal guidelines being written and distributed to every LEA in the country - they know that we know our rights even when they would like to pretend otherwise. On another occasion I took part in an organised lobby to make amendments to the guidelines to the Crime and Disorder Act, successfully ensuring that there are provisions that prevent home educators from being harassed on the speculated grounds of truancy. LEA officers cannot ask for our names and addresses during truancy sweeps. Many home educated young people now carry 'truancy cards' (which are not identity cards in any form) which outline the law and demand that they be allowed to go on their way, a scheme organised by another support group, 'Choice in Education'.

The news is not all good, but wherever home education is under attack its practitioners are fighting back. In France an appalling piece of legislation ostensibly aimed at curbing so called educational abuse by religious sects has recently made life more difficult for all home educators, but Enfants D'Abord, the national support group in France, are not giving up and going home. In Ireland, new legislation also looks set to make life worse, increasing state intervention into private family life, but once again Irish home educators, united by the Home Education Network and other support groups, are making stands and enlisting the support of home educators across Europe. In Scotland new legislation drafted by the executive two years ago is indeed Draconian, but it is also on hold. The foremost home education group in Scotland - Schoolhouse - has been vociferous in its opposition to the document, which is not even congruent with Scottish education law, and has enlisted the aid of Brian Montreith, MSP, who is introducing a private members bill counteracting the draft guidance.

Brian Micklethwait is quite right to be wary of the push against home education from the European Union. Home Education is illegal in some European countries: Germany, the Netherlands, Cyprus and Spain (though the law is not regularly enforced in Spain) and is under pressure in other places such as France and Ireland. There is, however, no blanket ban and even in the countries where home education is illegal there are ways of making exceptions and people engaged in not only exploiting, but enlarging these exceptions. There are currently challenges in both Dutch and German courts (in Germany the situation is not monolithic, but varies across regions) and European home educators are working together to make sure that the liberal laws of Britain become the model for Europe.

Two years ago at the worlds largest home education gathering, which meets annually in Dorset, a group of home educators got together to begin formulating responses to political pressure. One home educator (Mike Fortune-Wood, who owns the largest UK home education support site) set up a European website as a result to begin to chart the position of home educations across Europe. This year the group adopted the site and a new campaigning identity; 'learning unlimited' was formed with the remit of putting an end to routine government intervention in the lives of home educators across Europe. It's true to say that this remit caused some debate amongst home educators themselves; this is not a homogeneously libertarian group and some argued for the role of the state in family life, but the remit was nonetheless carried and remains.

"Harmonisation" may be causing continental politicians to "want to ban British home schooling, if only to prevent any possibility of the British contagion spreading to the continent." but the truth is that the genie is already out of the bottle. People in the Netherlands and Germany are finding ways to take control of the educational provision for their own children, they have support networks across Europe and the world and the phenomena of demanding a right to privacy and family life in the arena of education is growing despite the fears of political control freaks.

Sadly, some British home educators don't want to know - they are content with a system that is on their side for the moment and don't want to contemplate having to become involved in the messy business of politics. Many also come from strong socialist backgrounds and there is a mixed pull on their loyalties between the rights of privacy and self direction on the one hand as against giving up some of their rights and their children's rights for the supposed sake of others. Many of us, however, do not share this complacency or naivety and are engaged in acting before we are attacked. We have attuned our antenna to the winds of legal and political change and are not in the business of paying Danegeld or making ourselves easy prey.

Some of us are already libertarians, particularly those also involved in the 'Taking Children Seriously' movement, an educational theory which supports consent based, autonomy respecting interaction with children. I number myself in this growing international group and have written three books on its parenting and education theory and another attacking the whole notion of "free" state education. "Bound to Be Free" challenges the idea that freedom can flourish in any state system and charts the costs to individuals of state educational institutions - costs in social, educational, psychological and emotional damage as well as in the obvious theft by tax that is needed to support the state educational system.

Some of us are already working on those libertarian education memes and if the socialist home educators are suspicious of our ideas they at least know what are our arguments are. Home educators are not just good with the talk - some of us are good with the politics too. Politicisation of home education is certainly not complete or homogenous, but neither is it unheard of. Home education is a choice that infiltrates every part of your lifestyle and ideology and causes you to ask continual questions even when there is not pressure from political controllers; I've moved from being a socialist vicar to a rationalist libertarian without any threats from government. When the threats come, undoubtedly the movement will be even more galvanised, but the groundwork and networks of communication are well laid and there are more and more libertarians who will hopefully be willing to add their voices, including some of those gun-owners and maybe even some of the farmers and fishermen.

Jan Fortune-Wood, North Wales

Russ Lemley sees trouble ahead regarding California's attack on home schoolers

I share Brian's sense of unease about the reasons about why the Libertarian movement may pick up steam. It's because the state has decided to harangue certain people who just don't see the reason why they're being bothered. It upsets their lives, causing a great deal of grief and consternation about what to do next. To avoid possible punishment, some parents may decide to send their kids to public schools, albeit not because they think it's the right thing to do.

The general reaction to the Education Department's 'guidance' in California has been one of derision. Private (especially Catholic) schools don't require teachers to have a credential, and their students simply perform better. My wife went through the accreditation process. I attended a couple of classes with her, and they were a joke. They were basically PC bullshit sessions that had nothing to do with how to be a good teacher.

I am hoping that many home-schooling parents will simply ignore the Education Department's 'guidance' and continue to keep their kids where they are. Still, all you need is one idiotic bureaucrat to 'enforce' this crap. When that happens, though, I'm not sure how home-schoolers will react. It could get ugly, in a non-violent sort of way. There's been a movement among Christians, mostly, to pull their kids out of public schools because of their concerns about the moral environment. If the state decided to clamp down on home schooling, they could be in for a nasty surprise.

Will this help build support for the Libertarian cause? Maybe. But I sure don't feel happy about it.

Russ Lemley, Torrance, California

It is a sad fact that one of the things that causes the libertarian movement to get stronger is other groups in society getting weaker.

Consider Britain's gun owners. Until recently they were very content, using their guns to attack targets, animals, and even the occasional bad human being. Most of their intellectual effort went into discussing amongst themselves which guns were the best, how to hit targets even more accurately, how to make sure that the only other creatures they shot were creatures they were trying to shoot, and so forth.

Then suddenly the government (worse, almost the entire country) held the gunners responsible for a couple of gun massacres of good human beings and decided to take their guns away from them. Somebody had to take the blame, and the actual perpetrators were already dead.

Suddenly a sublimely apolitical group got politicised. Suddenly they found themselves trying to persuade others of the wisdom and rightness of them being allowed to go on using their guns, which you can't do only by talking about the technicalities of guns, although God knows they tried that. They found, far too late, that they would have to learn about politics, and in particular about whatever political principles might allow them to keep on owning their guns, or failing that, might one day allow them to own guns again. Thus many persons who formerly cared only about guns, suddenly started to care about things like libertarianism also.

I believe that another group which is about to be policised are the home schoolers, and not just of Britain but of the entire Anglosphere. Everywhere you look, in Britain and in the USA certainly, and I'm sure everywhere else where "education otherwise" is still allowed, efforts are being made to end what appears to professional state educators as a strange and scandalous legal anomaly.

On the Libertarian Alliance Forum Chris Tame recently posted a couple of reports (including this one) about a home schooling ruckus in California, which is what got me thinking about this. And a few weeks back there was a little flurry concerning the attempt to smuggle some kind of home schooling prohibition through the Scottish Parliament when no one was looking. (Apologies: I can't recall where I saw this. It may have been in the Times or Sunday Times, so no links to freely available text would in that case be available.)

Unlike the British gun argument, this one may be semi-winnable. There could be a quite big public row, involving both home schoolers and libertarians, in which the public's sympathies will be much more evenly divided, and perhaps even rather favourable to the home schoolers. State education is already much criticised, not just because of educational awfulness but because of the sheer physical brutality that so many children are now forced to endure.

In the USA, as I understand things, this debate is already quite far advanced, on account of the USA's education unions being so rapacious and so bone-headedly unaware of � or unconcerned by � how widely and deeply they are despised (and hence willing to have a public debate that may seriously harm them).

In Britain the push, as with everything else of importance now happening in British politics, is coming from � you've guessed it � the European Union. In mainland Europe, home schooling is already pretty much illegal (although comments about and contradictions of that from continentals would be very welcome). For now the "harmonisation" process is causing the continentals also to want to ban British home schooling, if only to prevent any possibility of the British contagion spreading to the continent.

I get the strong feeling that the British home schoolers mostly don't know what is about to hit them. They still talk about how British law now protects them, which it now does. What I fear they don't realise is that the legal wind could be about to change sharply against them. (In other words the home schoolers are behaving exactly as the gun people did.)

Alan Forrester of Taking Children Seriously is giving my next Last Friday talk on Aug 30. Maybe he'll have something to say about all this. (By the way, I've been using the phrase "home schooling" here to allude to all opponents of regular schooling. TCS people don't like any kind of "schooling".)

If things do take a turn for the worse for the home schoolers (and anti-schoolers), a whole new clutch of libertarian memes will suddenly be flying around furiously, and the homies will be paying these a lot more attention than hitherto.

Fishermen and farmers and butchers and bakers are fine at fishing, farming, butching and baking, but not very good with the chat, not given to reading books. So when the EU messes up their lives or closes down their businesses, they don't know what to say. The homies are different. Talk � about everything, not just home schooling � they can do.

Win or lose, this row will definitely strengthen the libertarian movement. My bit of it anyway, the bit that does the intellectual stuff.

I'm not especially pleased about all this, just trying understand it.

Remember my July 10 post, "Tell me about special reading"? Well, you can all stop thinking I'm just another middle class mama boasting about my wonderful offspring. I am and I do, but not today. The purpose of this post is to downplay my kid and up-play, if the term is allowable, the system that taught him to read so quickly. Evidence that this might be a group rather than an individual effect was provided by a little sign posted up on his classroom door at the end of term. It said that 95% of the children in his year were ahead of the national average in literacy, and 54% of them were more than a year ahead. In case you are wondering, the school is an ordinary state school in an area that is mostly middle and respectable working class but includes some children from welfare enclaves.

So what's this post doing on Samizdata? Early Reading Research (ERR) certainly is not a system designed to appeal to libertarians. The teacher is boss. The kids listen and participate as a group, in unison. Scientific it may be, but in spirit it is a throwback to systems the Victorians would have recognized.

But that doesn't matter. The libertarian morals to be drawn are (a) it's taken thirty freaking years or more to overthrow the fraudulent orthodoxy that monolithic state education enthroned, and the job ain't done yet; (b) that when you next hear statists moan on about how horrifically complicated, interconnected and hard to solve social problems are, mentally add the words "so long as you refuse to admit that you were wrong"; (c) watch the buggers in the educational establishment. Watch them with the eyes of a hawk. Sure, they are by now in their heart of hearts convinced that phonics is the system that works. But a little matter like the interests of actual children won't override the fact that the last thing the Special Needs "community" want is sudden, clear improvement in children's literacy. It would make them look bad. Worse, it would make them look unecessary. Expect them to obfuscate, distort and delay reform in every way imaginable. They'll tell themselves that gradual change and a "mixed approach" are the best thing all round, which is true when the best thing is defined as covering their tails.

One final point. I can talk "mixed approach" too. I'm not saying ERR is the best and only system for all time, just that it knocks the National Literacy Strategy into a cocked hat. I'm not saying that there are no children with real special needs, just that there are much fewer of them than will keep all today's legion of special needs teachers in their jobs. And I have no idea of what Jonathan Solity's political opinions are. If he ever reads this and finds himself agreeing with me, I suggest that he keep very, very quiet about it.

Following on from Brian's post on synthetic phonics, here are some words from a guest blogger:

It is great! I don't even do it because I do my sunshine work. (I am not going to tell you my name) You spell out words and stuff and do synthesis and segmantatean.

That was written by my son. Some of it he typed himself, some of it I typed at his letter-by-letter dictation. He was taught reading at his state school by means of a scheme called Early Reading Research, which is being piloted in several schools in Essex. He says "I don't even do it" because he has completed the scheme at the age of six years and three weeks. "Sunshine work" is presumably the next scheme on. As you can see, although not yet a giant of literature he is competent to write down in a comprehensible fashion any idea that he can express verbally. He gave up on spelling the word "synthesis", but so might many adults.

This rather misleading BBC News 24 story discusses the scheme. The article is better than the headline; I bet you 95% of readers saw the words "real books" and either applauded or condemned without reading further. ERR has little to do with the discredited system whereby children had books thrown in their direction and were told to get on with it. Rather it consists of tightly structured sessions of about twelve minutes, three times a day, where they do "c-a-t spells cat" (synthesis) and "dog is spelt d-o-g" (segmentation). Then they finish with some exemplary reading from real books.

The scheme is popular with his classmates and with the teachers. I gather the same is true wherever it has been tried. So why isn't it famous? Guess.

I'm getting good feedback about Brian's Education Blog, which is encouraging considering that it doesn't yet exist. (I'm waiting to see which software to use.) Patrick Crozier gave it an anticipatory mention last Tuesday, in his non-transport blog, which I missed at the time.

And Kevin Marks (no relation of Paul) emailed in response to my piece about synthetic phonics:

Good to see you picking up on this. Some more links:

Read America are a leading synthetic phonics organisation, whose Phono-graphix programme is excellent - they did the research to optimise it for speed of teaching, and it avoids learning complex and fragile rules by rote, which are the downfall of most phonics schemes.

The textbook for parents is great.

Sign me up for an education blog, BTW. I'll try and persuade Dad to join in too.

Dad would be John Marks, who is an education expert and not anything to do with the John Marks who is a drugs treatment expert. I expect to be supplying lots of links to John (education) Marks' various campaignings and muck-rakings, about such things as phoney exam results.

Not a phrase to grab you by the heartstrings, is it? But these are the words to listen out for if you want your child to learn to read properly. "Synthetic phonics" tells you that this is probably being done properly. If, on the other hand, they tell you that they're using "eclectic" or "a mixture of" methods, watch out. "Dyslexia" looms.

I also put "dyslexia" in inverted commas, because what we have here is that very common modern phenomenon, a damaged brain diagnosed as caused by its own inherent damagedness when actually it is a brain that has been damaged by having damaging signals thrown at it from outside. The mental radar screen registers muddle not because it is muddled, but because it has been muddled.

The situation is actually a little more complicated than that, or the problem would probably not have got as bad as it has. There is just enough physical basis for the notion of "dyslexia" for the false claim to persist that dyslexia and dyslexia alone causes all reading difficulties, and for a multi-billion pound industry to spring up to fail to solve the problem. The reality is that good teaching automatically gets around almost any inherent, genetic predisposition towards reading difficulty, and teaches virtually all children to read successfully. Bad teaching, on the other hand, is something that the majority of children can hack their way past. They do it with difficulty, but they do it. The become literate despiteall the muddle they are subjected to. But not so the "dyslexics". They don't "crack" reading. They don't get its inherent nature, because they have not been explicitly taught it.

And the explicit nature of reading that is not taught to an appallingly huge number of children these days is that each letter has a name and makes a sound or sounds (the name and the sound(s) not being the same! � obvious point but frequently overlooked), and that when you are confronted with a word, that is to say with a string of letters, the way to spell it out is to spell it out, one letter (or letter group like "ch") at a time. Don't guess. Don't read only the first letter and then guess. Don't look for the pattern of the "whole word". Read. That's synthetic phonics. Dee Oh Gee spells duh- o- guh- DOG.

Why don�t they teach that in all schools? Because they are ess tee you pee eye dee? Because they are mostly parts of a N-A-T-I-O-N-A-L-I-S-E-D I-N-D-U-S-T-R-Y? Both, and much more that's far too complicated to explain in a posting that would keep anyone's attention.

So what brought all this on? Partly of course, I'm getting into the swing of having arguments that will eventually find their proper home in 'Brian's Education Blog'. But the particular provocation was a really good article in last Sunday's Observer (Review Section, cover story).

You can also chase up the synthetic phonics story in more detail by going to the website of the Reading Reform Foundation.

A British news story today concerns the constant and presently insoluble problem of violence in schools. Pupils attack teachers. Parents now attack teachers. Some teachers have always been hateful to some pupils. Pupil-to-pupil violence has long been so routine as to be regarded as an intrinsic feature of juvenile human nature. What is to be done?

Are you a free(ish) adult? If so, ask yourself what you do about unwelcome violence in your life. Answer: if the violence occurs in places you don't have to frequent and have no control over, then you stay away in future. If the violence invades your turf, you ask it to leave, and if it doesn't you call the police. Mostly this works. It's called freedom of association. Unwelcome violence is mostly dealt with, by the same methods used to solve the problem of unwelcome rock music emerging from unwelcome loudspeakers, unwelcome propositions from street traders, unwelcome programs invading your television. You keep clear of it. You withdraw your consent. You switch it off. You concentrate on the things that everyone directly involved thinks are okay.

But most schools, and especially most state schools, don't work by these rules. There the assumption is that badness won't be walked away from. Teachers must teach everyone, however appalling and unwelcome and uninterested in what is being taught. Parents are entitled to education for even their most grotesque brats. Bad or even sadistic teaching has to be complained about and negotiated with. Bullying requires a national help line and a national policy in order that it may fail to be eradicated. Badness (which just means something that those involved vehemently disagree about) must be corrected, reformed, improved, and when all that fails, punished, agonised over, fussed over, Ministerially taken charge of and, finally, tolerated.

It is inevitable that a parallel but alternative universe of educational niceness will arise, and it is. Nothing in this educational free market is taking place without the consent of all those directly concerned. Pupils who refuse to follow the rules which the teachers insist upon have to leave. Teachers whose teaching seems pointless or nasty or educationally worthless have to find others to teach, or other things to teach, or something else to do. Parents who don't like what they're getting keep looking. It's called freedom.

I have in mind that some time during this new century I will start a specialist blog devoted to education issues, very roughly along the lines of Patrick Crozier's UK Transport, although less expert about education "policy" than he is about transport policy, and in general rather more chatty and personal. If I do get this going, stories from and advertisements for this alternative and expanding voluntary universe of educational excellence will be especially welcome.

If you have such stories now, don't wait for Brian's Education Blog... send them to Samizdata!

Of course, some libertarian parents don't pay twenty grand a year to avoid state schools; they keep their kids out of school altogether. Which arguably costs more, as it can mean the loss of an income, although the older they get, the easier it is to do other things than run circles around them all day. And if you work out how many minutes of teacher-time a child in a class of thirty actually gets to himself (something like ten minutes) the prospect of home educating is less overwhelming. It's mostly a matter of setting them up, and then letting them get on with it.

Advocates of the Taking Children Seriously school of libertarian parenting believe in letting their kids decide for themselves whether they want to spend all day in a classroom doing rote spelling followed by long evenings sweating over homework assignments. The impressive results of independent schools like the one where I taught for seven years don't just come from their less violent and drug-crazed atmospheres; those kids are made to work like...well, I can't think of any adult job where you do a seven hour day in a compulsory unpaid job not of your choosing followed by two or three hours of homework, plus regular testing. For, oh, eleven years.

What I remember most about attending school is its mind-blowing tediousness. This is not an experience I could honestly recommend to an innocent small person, and it always amazes me how so many people who patently hate school when they are actually there, suddenly decide it's just wonderful fun when their kids get to the age of five, or four, or two months, or whatever the school starting age is in the UK these days. I personally think they learn more from "Spiderman" (narrative structure, characterization, moral theories) than from any number of weirdly patronising and contrived government tests.

However, as a home educating adult, I do vastly appreciate the ability of schools to keep huge numbers of noisy unruly children out of the places I want to go in the daytime with my flawless well-behaved angelic ones (ahem). Except that, the ones who have guns probably aren't too bothered about whether or not their parents are jailed when they truant.

Alice Bachini

I'm thinking of starting a specialist blog of my own, dedicated to educational issues ("Brian's Education Blog"?), and the following is the kind of story I have in mind to be featuring, along with things about government education reports and such like. In this case, however, The Times (paper version, yesterday, June 8, news section, page 12) got there ahead of me:

Lorraine Crusham decided to go private after her daughter was assaulted by 20 pupils at the local state school (Glen Own writes).

Nicole, 15, was a few weeks into her first term at Bridgemary Community School, in Gosport, Hampshire, last year when the attack occurred.

"I'd only just dropped her off at school when I received a call saying she had been hurt by a group of boys and girls," Mrs Crusham said. "She had a massive bruise on her faced and had been kicked up and down her body. Two teachers were also assaulted.

"The school swept it under the carpet, claiming that she had instigated it by insulting someone the day before. But she had been off the previous day. I immediately took her and my 13-year-old son James out of the school.

"James was bullied for having red hair and being Scottish. One teacher suggested he could avoid it by dyeing his hair a different colour. I asked what else they thought I should change - his accent?"

Both children are now boarding at Shebbear College, Devon, where fees cost more than 12,000 GBP a year.

This story illustrates a more general report next to it, headlined "Parents go private as order collapses in state schools."

On the subject of things Scottish, Freedom and Whisky linked recently to another story about school unpleasantness, and tentatively suggested that it might be something to do with compulsory school attendance laws. I agree, although the young people mentioned in this story were older than the current school leaving age of 16. I believe that almost all seriously nasty and bullying behaviour perpetrated by people who are not career criminals is the result of circumstances that both the perpetrators and their victims can't (or feel that they can't) escape from. Nicole Crusham was lucky. She could escape. Millions of others aren't so lucky.

A free market in education talked about in London and Newcastle � and being done in India

On Saturday (March 16, 2002) I attended a day-long meeting ("Private education: the poor's best chance") at the Institute of Economic Affairs. This was one of two meetings (the other being in Newcastle) marking the launch of the E.G.West Centre For Market Solutions in Education, the Director of which is Professor James Tooley.

Professor James Tooley

James Tooley is one of my favourite people. He has discovered a whole world of private sector educational success being achieved by the world's poor, in places like India and South Africa, and is busily telling this story back to the world, hence the E.G.West Centre.

The final speaker in the morning was Fazalur Khurrum, President of something called the Federation of Private Schools Management, India, which is based in Hyderabad. The story he told was of a hubbub of small private schools in the Indian city of Hyderabad.

Before him was Dr Sugata Mitra, the Director of Research for the Indian free-market-education giant NIIT. He was the star performer of the day. NIIT can see the day fast approaching when it will have gone as far as it can in educating the kind of Indians who are easy to reach and can afford to pay individually serious money. What about the massed millions of India's (and for that matter the world's) seriously poor?

Dr Mitra talked about a fascinating project, in which he stuck an internet-connected PC in a wall, protected by see-through armour plating, in various Indian versions of the back of beyond, and awaited results.

A smart and adventurous poor kid sees the computer. He starts pushing buttons. Other kids assemble and join in. Their poor fathers and uncles watch from behind. Their poor mothers and aunts watch from a distance. (He showed some film of all this, and it was like watching a wildlife documentary, with different humans behaving in different, yet classically human ways.) Within a few days there were a cluster of computer literate children helping each other to have fun and find out about the world, and learning about computers. All this was done by the machine and by the juvenile punters. No "staff" were involved. Dr Mitra watched it all from his office in New Delhi, through a video camera, and by eavesdreopping on the computer. He calls this his "hole in the wall" project.

Dr Sugata Mitra

I could go on. On Sunday I did, at unbloggable length, partly provoked by the embarrassingly boring British people who talked after lunch. The lunch only seemed free; they were the price. What they said wasn't even fluorescent idiocy - that would have been interesting. It was just generic brand idiocy. For that you'll have to wait until the Libertarian Alliance (by which I mean me) gets around to toning the insults down and publishing it all as an Educational Note.

A final point. A big reason why even very poor people prefer paying for private education in India is that this way their kids get a good start learning English. In Indian government schools, teaching English to children under ten - even teaching in English - is forbidden.

I have been labouring under the impression that the growth of Home-Schooling is a purely US phenomenon.

Not so. A refreshingly illuminating documentary programme was shown last night on UK's Channel 4 about the rapidly growing popularity of Home-Schooling here in Britain. Sorry, it was a TV show so no link.

Actually, this should not come as a surprise given the current educational choices faces parents in Britain. Whilst private schools are widely available in Britain they are ferociously expensive so people of modest means have no choice but to process their precious charges through the state meat-grinders that HM government so kindly provides. The repute of the latter plumbs lower depths with each passing year.

The Home-schooling parents were all interviewed at length and, unanimously, they declared that their motivation was entirely due to the way they felt their children were being harmed or hindered by being sent to school in the 'traditional' manner so they just upped and decided to take matters into their own hands. Judging from the kids they were gloriously right; without exception these children were articulate, bright, curious, well-behaved, ambitious and highly-motivated. Furthermore, the time-worn prediction that Home-schooled children would grow up shy and withdrawn was proven to be egregious nonsense.

Now it might be said that the documentary-makers wanted to put a positive slant on things but programme-makers and TV producers in this country are notoriously hostile to free market ideas so if there was any bias it would most certainly tend towards the opposite.

Watching this show was a revelatory joy for someone like me but I almost had to be peeled off the ceiling when I heard some of the things these parents were saying. One mother said:

"I wouldn't want any money from the government because I wouldn't them involved in any way in what I am doing. That's what's so nice about what we're doing; the government has no juristiction over me....They have no involvement in what I do and I'd like to keep it that way"

And another mother said:

"What tends to happen is that when parents grow more confident they question not just the type of schooling we're given but also the type of health care we're given and how Councils are run. It leads to you saying, hang on, if I can take this large amount of responsibility back into my own life, why can't I live in a different way?"

Why indeed?

Warning: explaining free markets and freedom is too trite and too simple! Yep, that is right...or at least according to an "unbiased" teacher of mine.

Last week we had to write an essay fro class answering the question, "The 20th century showed us the problems of freedom, as seen in WWI, WWII, and Sept. 11. Please explain the future implications of this problem of freedom, specifically in the policy realm." In explaining the question for us, the teacher clearly (and wrongly) explained how freedom caused WWI and WWII and Sept. 11. He also said that from this we can learn that freedom causes societal chaos...we need government or a level of control to prevent freedom from causing this chaos.

Any reader of Libertarian Samizdata knows how many lies this statement contains. Is this teacher actually going to tell me that Hitler or Stalin or Mao or Mussolini or FDR and the results of their administrations were a result of freedom when the logical answer clearly would dictate the exact opposite?

Anyway, I wrote a very lengthy essay debating his premise about freedom causing problems. And today, I got my essay back, and his one and only comment on my paper was: "While I do not mind the fact that your essay debates my premise, and indeed I am glad to see it does, your argument is too simple and results in simple rhetoric about free markets equaling freedom, C+". My twenty-six page essay that raised twenty separate questions weighing the costs and benefits of free markets vs. collectivist states in a clearly detailed manner was too simple for his liking.

My friend, who, in one sentence accepted the premise and explained the question in one and a half pages, was told that his essay reached the appropriate level of depth and understanding. Now while I am the first to admit page numbers do not attest to a paper�s level of logic (Marx wrote a lot, but did that make him logical? Short answer: no!), my paper was well reasoned and well documented. In fact, I took it to three of my other professors and asked them to read it for logic only. The verdict reached by each was that I had great logical writing in this piece.

The remark about my paper being too simple is merely a cover for his real thought: you are wrong in your belief of free markets. Is it any wonder why we foster such lack of thought in today's younger generation?

When I was a teacher I would sometimes, not often but sometimes, convince a yob* to do some work. When this happened I would do my best to welcome him back to favour but also tried to avoid giving said yob an easier ride than those who had always been working. I felt that giving him an easier ride would send the wrong messages to both yob and good kids. Correction, stuff the "wrong messages" bit, it would be radically unfair to both yob and good kids.

If I could work this out within weeks of first facing a class, why can't Tony Blair? I say all this to illustrate why I heartily support David Carr's recent post "A warning to George W. Bush" while opposing, in gnomic fashion, his post a little further down where he appears to lament the partial reform of terrorists.

* Editor's translation for our American cousins: yob = English slang for a disorderly young man

In a nauseating opinion piece by authoritarian paleo-socialist Dea Birkett, writing in The Guardian (naturally), the state is urged to use force to abolish private education altogether in Britain. Birkett wants people to be deprived of even having the possibility of privately educating their children. We are told society must have a common purpose and once private education is made illegal, presumably socialist education police will start locking up people who dare to set up underground schools or educate at home. Birkett urges nothing less than universal forced backed nationally planned state education for all, regardless of what a family actually wants, in order to further national socialist goals.

But such a tiny minority holding on to such an outdated view on the right to exclusivity would increasingly appear absurd, as redundant as the royal family. Once private schools were reduced to such insignificant numbers, they could be easily, quietly closed down. The benefits would be enormous.

[...]

Education would become something we all shared, equal stakeholders in its quality and worth. Education could be effectively and efficiently planned on a national basis, in the knowledge that every child would go to a local school.

[...]

It's no longer any good just offering carrots. It's time to reach for the stick.

Will someone please remind me which side won the Cold War? Natalie Solent has described the equality and sense of common purpose Birkett demands as the equality and common purpose of galley slaves. If that ever comes to pass, Birkett and her ilk need to be shown that they are not the only ones who can reach for the stick.