(nb I've posted this before, but I've just been an Arts Award Conference in Newcastle, presented it, and informed people that I would put it up on this blog to save them scribbling notes.)
Advocates for the arts find themselves facing some choices: do we claim the arts can help children achieve and by extension haul the UK up the league tables? Do we claim for them a unique role in pupils' mental and physical well-being? Do we say that the arts offer some kind of aid to school discipline, enlisting children in team-building?
Should we be linking the creative activities at the heart of the arts with active, inventive learning that can and should take place across the core curriculum? Do we say that the arts is an industry and part of the job of education is to train people so they can enter any industry, including the arts? Or should our claim be that old cry of the aesthetes – art for art's sake?
My own view is that the arts are neither superior nor inferior to anything else that goes on in schools. It's just as possible to make arts-focused lessons as weak, oppressive and dull as other subjects. It's just as possible to make those other lessons as enlightening, inventive and exciting as arts work.
The key is in the 'how' – not whether arts education in itself is a good thing but what kinds of approaches can make it worthwhile for pupils. We should think in terms of necessary elements:
'pupils' (or young people in any arts situation) should:
1) have a sense of ownership and control in the process of making and doing,
2) have a sense of possibility, transformation and change – that the process is not closed-ended with predictable, pre-planned outcomes, but that unexpected outcomes or content are possible,
3) feel safe in the process, that no matter what they do, they will not be exposed to ridicule, relentless assessment and testing, fear of being wrong or making errors,
4) feel the process can be individual, co-operative or both, accompanied by supportive and co-operative commentary which is safeguarded and encouraged by teachers/leaders/enablers,
5) feel there is a flow between the arts, and between what used to be called (wrongly) 'high-brow' and 'low-brow' and that these are not boxed off from each other according to old and fictitious boundaries and hierarchies,
6) feel they are working in an environment that welcomes their home cultures, backgrounds, heritages and languages into the process with no superimposed hierarchy,
7) feel that what they are making or doing matters – that the activity has status within the school, club, group and beyond
8) be encouraged and enabled to find audiences for their work whether in the same school, other schools or in the communities beyond the school gate, including digital (blogs, e-safe environments etc),
9) be exposed to the best practice and the best practitioners possible or available in order to see and feel other possibilities,
10) be encouraged to think of the arts as including or involving investigation, invention, discovery, play and co-operation and that these happen both within the actual making and doing but also in the talk, commentary and critical dialogue that goes on around the activity itself.
Friday, 7 February 2014
Thursday, 6 February 2014
WW1 - what a decent Secretary of State for Education would do
Here's a challenge to Michael Gove and the Ministry of Education instead of trying to hit the headlines with abuse of supposedly 'left-wing' interpretations of the First World War; instead of trying to create a fixed ideological interpretation of the war offered without evidence or research; instead of trying to swing the whole of education behind this interpretation - Michael Gove and the Ministry could and should do something altogether different.
With digital communication, we are now in a unique position of being able to have an instant European-wide debate about the First World War. I suggest that Michael Gove and the Ministry stop trying to influence the serious matter of collecting evidence and having an open debate about this moment of history. They should instead use the resources they have at their disposal, help create a digital discussion between a wide number of European researchers and historians to discuss the many aspects of the First World War and its interpretations.
This could take the form, say, of a week-long digital teach-in which could be streamed live and then kept up on line. Various edited forms of the teach-in could be offered. Simultaneous translations would make it accessible to all. Text versions could be provided too.
This would inform and engage. It would stimulate debate. Educationally, it would show students of all ages how history is a matter of debate and discussion, with evidence and information at its core.
Incidentally, it would also show that Michael Gove misused his position of power and access to the media. It wasn't simply a matter of one person 'expressing his opinion' - as we are all entitled to do. By virtue of his position, he has a very particular 'voice' which is beamed out to all. This gives him a kind of false place in the matter of authority. In terms of how historical debate between historians is concerned, Michael Gove has no authority to say what he said about the War. His 'authority' is only that of someone who finds that he holds a post in government. It so happens it's a post which has now accrued more personal power than almost any other government post.
This episode shows a sinister development. Michael Gove, from this position of great power has expressed a highly partisan, politically specific view of a major event in history and urged schools and colleges to adopt this view. It's bad governance, bad historical work and bad educational practice.
We should think up alternatives to this way of going on. I have suggested here, just one possibility, albeit as a way of pointing out what a serious democratic secretary of state would do, one who was interested in true intellectual engagement, inquiry and education.
With digital communication, we are now in a unique position of being able to have an instant European-wide debate about the First World War. I suggest that Michael Gove and the Ministry stop trying to influence the serious matter of collecting evidence and having an open debate about this moment of history. They should instead use the resources they have at their disposal, help create a digital discussion between a wide number of European researchers and historians to discuss the many aspects of the First World War and its interpretations.
This could take the form, say, of a week-long digital teach-in which could be streamed live and then kept up on line. Various edited forms of the teach-in could be offered. Simultaneous translations would make it accessible to all. Text versions could be provided too.
This would inform and engage. It would stimulate debate. Educationally, it would show students of all ages how history is a matter of debate and discussion, with evidence and information at its core.
Incidentally, it would also show that Michael Gove misused his position of power and access to the media. It wasn't simply a matter of one person 'expressing his opinion' - as we are all entitled to do. By virtue of his position, he has a very particular 'voice' which is beamed out to all. This gives him a kind of false place in the matter of authority. In terms of how historical debate between historians is concerned, Michael Gove has no authority to say what he said about the War. His 'authority' is only that of someone who finds that he holds a post in government. It so happens it's a post which has now accrued more personal power than almost any other government post.
This episode shows a sinister development. Michael Gove, from this position of great power has expressed a highly partisan, politically specific view of a major event in history and urged schools and colleges to adopt this view. It's bad governance, bad historical work and bad educational practice.
We should think up alternatives to this way of going on. I have suggested here, just one possibility, albeit as a way of pointing out what a serious democratic secretary of state would do, one who was interested in true intellectual engagement, inquiry and education.
Wednesday, 5 February 2014
Reminder: Gove's mind (true)
Transcript of Gove and the Education Select Committe (true)
Chair: One is: if "good" requires pupil performance to exceed the national average, and if all schools must be good, how is this mathematically possible?
Michael Gove: By getting better all the time.
Chair: So it is possible, is it?
Michael Gove: It is possible to get better all the time.
Chair: Were you better at literacy than numeracy, Secretary of State?
Michael Gove: I cannot remember.
Chair: One is: if "good" requires pupil performance to exceed the national average, and if all schools must be good, how is this mathematically possible?
Michael Gove: By getting better all the time.
Chair: So it is possible, is it?
Michael Gove: It is possible to get better all the time.
Chair: Were you better at literacy than numeracy, Secretary of State?
Michael Gove: I cannot remember.
Tuesday, 28 January 2014
Phonics - a summary.
There are many possible responses to the government's imposition of intensive, systematic, synthetic phonics teaching on English schools.
Today has been especially important because Professor Andrew Davis from Durham University has expressed dismay at the way in which children who are already emergent readers are being told that they are not reading properly and must accept the full phonics regime.
This backs up the research conducted by Eve Bearne and others for the United Kingdom Literacy Association which has showed that many children who have become good readers are 'failing' the Phonics Screening Check given to children at the end of Year 1. One of the reasons why they 'fail' is that they 'correct' the nonsense words on the test-sheet, changing 'strom' to 'storm'.
These academic responses are important and others cited by such people as Professor Stephen Krashen and Professor Henrietta Dombey back up the central argument that a wall-to-wall phonics regime is not the solve-all that has been claimed and indeed sets up other problems.
I rarely say this in print, but I'm an 'academic' too, as well as being a children's author who has written or adapted books for the very age group of children learning to read. The way I'm an academic is slightly different from the ones already mentioned, but I would like to say here, in a clumsy sort of a way, that the kind of academic I am, can also contribute to this debate.
To clarify, the great contribution made by the academics above is that they have examined in great detail: the process of learning to read, the evidence offered by the many forms of testing reading in English-speaking countries. All good, and when I've come up against the exponents of the present phonics regime, I do my best to remember and cite their research and evidence.
In summary it is this:
1. There is no evidence to suggest that intensive synthetic phonics teaching will do any better - in the long run - than the 'old' methods of mixing up different and diverse methods of teaching children to read - so long as what's being tested is 'reading with understanding' and not just 'reading out loud' or 'decoding' as the phonics exponents call it. This 'in the long run' phrase is very important, because one of the ways in which the phonics revolution has been won by governments is to point to the success of tests like the Phonics Screening Check. To clarify this: this purely and only tests whether children can read words - real and nonsense - out loud to a teacher.
2. Reading is much more than 'sounding out' or 'reading out loud'. In short, it's reading with understanding. This is the longterm aim of all researchers, teachers and children in relation to reading. Otherwise, there really is no point.
3. Exponents of the phonics regime regularly claim that they are 'returning' to the old ways of teaching reading. This is not true. No one before the present era was taught to read by a pure and intensive phonics-only method. This can be reviewed by looking at the teaching-to-read materials. They all have phonic elements, some more than others. But none of them is exclusively phonic.
4. Some exponents of the phonics regime say explicitly that the instruction should take place 'first, fast and only'. Though they argue amongst themselves about what this means, it is working out in practice to mean that parents and children are at the very least being discouraged from trying to read texts other than the ones that are the government approved phonics reading schemes. For a variety of reasons, this is thought by the 'non-phonics' lobby to be wrong. For example, one problem with phonics teaching is that it has to come up against the fact that English is not 100% 'regular'. That's to say, any given letter or letter-combination may well produce different sounds when we try to say them: eg the 'ch' in 'church' is different from the 'ch' in 'machine'. Then again, when we think of a sound like the 'e' in 'bed', we notice that we can also make that sound by writing the 'ea' in 'bread'. Then again, there are many letters which appear to be 'silent' - the 'k' in 'knife' the 'gh' in 'fight' and the 'b' in 'debt'.
In other words, a purely phonic approach has to do some quite complicated procedures to explain all this from within the phonics scheme. And ultimately, they don't. They have invented another category - known as 'tricky words' or 'red words' in order to get over the problems of such words as 'was', 'of' and 'come'. These have to be learned as 'look and say'.
So, researchers are interested in how well children can make the transition between reading phonically 'regular' words to the non-regular ones. Again, there seems to be very little or no evidence to suggest that this transition is made any quicker or better (including understanding) by those children on a phonics-only regime as opposed to those learning by a mixed methods regime.
5. Of itself a phonics-only regime doesn't give children a reason to want to read more, other than the pleasure gained from getting the process right. In other words, it's a 'reward' system. Some get it all right, some get most of it right, some don't get it right. The reward doesn't come from an intrinsic quality of the process they're embarked on. The whole point of reading - and this is the author in me talking here too - is to get pleasure out of the stories, poems and plays. These are complicated pleasures and I'll come on to them in a minute. The government has spent £23million on providing 'match funding' for schools to buy the schemes they approve. In other words. £46 million pounds of public money in England has been spent on teaching children to read phonically. Open question - how much public money has been spent giving an equivalent focus on providing the facilities and books and training to encourage very young children to read for pleasure?
6. If you compare transcripts of conversations between young children or between young children and adults, with the texts that we ask them to read, we can quickly see that there are big differences. Talk and conversation is full of interruptions, tailings off, gaps, 'ers' and 'ums', repetitions,very short 'utterances' like 'yes', 'no', 'oh', 'what?' 'thanks', 'please' and a very extensive use of words like 'there', 'it', 'he', 'she', 'they', 'I', 'we', 'you', 'his' 'her', 'hers', 'them', 'him', 'this', 'that'.
Apart from talk put between speech marks, the texts put in front of young children are based on standard English sentence structure. Most children aged 5, 6 and 7, hear very little language expressed in this way as part of their everyday lives - unless they hear it read to them by parents, carers and teachers.
The significance of this is that even as we teach children to 'read the words' we are also initiating them into another 'code'. I've said in the past that this is analogous to trying to understand a dialect other than your own. Some people disagree with that analogy. Either way, it's clear we are talking about different kinds of English - at least one kind for speaking; and at least one kind for writing. In each case, it's probably more kinds that have to be learned eg child and adult speech; the writing of picture books, the writing of the ads the children see on posters and in ads, the writing of newspaper headlines or TV captions...and so on. These different kinds of speech and writing involve quite different uses of grammar, different ways of putting words together, different word orders, different ways of sounding 'complete' or 'appropriate' for the context.
Learning to read involves 'getting' all this - being able to make transitions between these different codes., or at best being able to talk one code and write another.
Phonics teaching on its own, cannot and does not enable children to do this. What has to take place is an engagement with 'meaning' and 'understanding' ie with the power of people to use words to affect and interest others. If you don't do this, you can probably enable children to 'sound out' or 'decode' but you will not enable them to understand what they're reading.
I absolutely concede, without argument, that some schools and some exponents of phonics practise an active teaching of rhymes, reading of stories in order to make that bridge between pure phonics and the 'written code'. Some do. Some don't.
6. One of the aspects of reading that I studied in order to become an academic involves a theory of how it is we assemble texts in our head thereby enabling us to read the text in front of us. It's as if we assemble in our heads a library of books, recordings, signs, posters, labels...and indeed anything made up of words, or containing words, or the words themselves in all the different ways in which they are expressed - written, spoken, sung or however. It's clear that we start doing this from the moment we are born. People talk to us.
But it's not just 'words', it's how they are strung together and how they appear in all the different 'formats' or from the different 'platforms'. To get understanding from these, we have to 'get' these formats and platforms or 'contexts' just as much as the words themselves.
Put another way, none of the writing that we put in front of children comes as a true 'first'. The child approaches what is put in front of him or her, with the texts that are already in his or her head.
So do we do all we can to develop this 'store of texts' (sometimes called a 'repertoire')? Or do we treat the child as someone who is always in deficit, always with 'not-enough' knowledge?
Either way, it's my belief that with every act of bringing something new to the child, we should also build on and acknowledge what they already have. Most teachers, prior to the arrival of the phonics regime, knew this and did this. They scribed the things the children said, they got the children to label their corners and pegs. They got them to explore the places they knew in order to look at the words and language that was there - ads on the sides of buses, cereal packets and the like.
Many teachers and parents are carrying on doing this sort of thing, no matter how hard-pressed they are, no matter how much under pressure from workload, inspectors or whoever to focus on phonics, phonics, phonics.
7. A word used by linguists to describe - for example - the language spoken in Europe, before the Romans arrived - is the 'substrate'. That's to say, eg the Celts spoke Celtic languages and then along came the Romans speaking Latin. The result is that the different kinds of Celts had different kinds of effects on the kinds of Latin they ended up speaking. That's why Spanish, Portugese and French speak so differently from each other.
A similar argument could be made to do with learning to read. Different children are different substrates, with very different experiences of texts, (ie different 'repertoires'), very different attitudes to writing, very different ways of speaking. It's almost impossible to imagine why anyone would think that a one-size-fits-all approach to the process of learning to read would be appropriate or right.
In short, it isn't. That's why parents are hearing that the child they thought could read, can't read. That's why some children, particularly those who are learning English and have little experience of texts other than phonics texts, end up 'barking at print' - ie reading out loud but not understanding what they're reading.
8. We have to resist the phonics-only approach ('first, fast and only'). We have to do all we can to encourage reading for pleasure with children of all ages. We must not discourage parents and carers from helping children read if they want to. We have to keep our eyes on the final prize - reading for understanding as part of learning for life.
Today has been especially important because Professor Andrew Davis from Durham University has expressed dismay at the way in which children who are already emergent readers are being told that they are not reading properly and must accept the full phonics regime.
This backs up the research conducted by Eve Bearne and others for the United Kingdom Literacy Association which has showed that many children who have become good readers are 'failing' the Phonics Screening Check given to children at the end of Year 1. One of the reasons why they 'fail' is that they 'correct' the nonsense words on the test-sheet, changing 'strom' to 'storm'.
These academic responses are important and others cited by such people as Professor Stephen Krashen and Professor Henrietta Dombey back up the central argument that a wall-to-wall phonics regime is not the solve-all that has been claimed and indeed sets up other problems.
I rarely say this in print, but I'm an 'academic' too, as well as being a children's author who has written or adapted books for the very age group of children learning to read. The way I'm an academic is slightly different from the ones already mentioned, but I would like to say here, in a clumsy sort of a way, that the kind of academic I am, can also contribute to this debate.
To clarify, the great contribution made by the academics above is that they have examined in great detail: the process of learning to read, the evidence offered by the many forms of testing reading in English-speaking countries. All good, and when I've come up against the exponents of the present phonics regime, I do my best to remember and cite their research and evidence.
In summary it is this:
1. There is no evidence to suggest that intensive synthetic phonics teaching will do any better - in the long run - than the 'old' methods of mixing up different and diverse methods of teaching children to read - so long as what's being tested is 'reading with understanding' and not just 'reading out loud' or 'decoding' as the phonics exponents call it. This 'in the long run' phrase is very important, because one of the ways in which the phonics revolution has been won by governments is to point to the success of tests like the Phonics Screening Check. To clarify this: this purely and only tests whether children can read words - real and nonsense - out loud to a teacher.
2. Reading is much more than 'sounding out' or 'reading out loud'. In short, it's reading with understanding. This is the longterm aim of all researchers, teachers and children in relation to reading. Otherwise, there really is no point.
3. Exponents of the phonics regime regularly claim that they are 'returning' to the old ways of teaching reading. This is not true. No one before the present era was taught to read by a pure and intensive phonics-only method. This can be reviewed by looking at the teaching-to-read materials. They all have phonic elements, some more than others. But none of them is exclusively phonic.
4. Some exponents of the phonics regime say explicitly that the instruction should take place 'first, fast and only'. Though they argue amongst themselves about what this means, it is working out in practice to mean that parents and children are at the very least being discouraged from trying to read texts other than the ones that are the government approved phonics reading schemes. For a variety of reasons, this is thought by the 'non-phonics' lobby to be wrong. For example, one problem with phonics teaching is that it has to come up against the fact that English is not 100% 'regular'. That's to say, any given letter or letter-combination may well produce different sounds when we try to say them: eg the 'ch' in 'church' is different from the 'ch' in 'machine'. Then again, when we think of a sound like the 'e' in 'bed', we notice that we can also make that sound by writing the 'ea' in 'bread'. Then again, there are many letters which appear to be 'silent' - the 'k' in 'knife' the 'gh' in 'fight' and the 'b' in 'debt'.
In other words, a purely phonic approach has to do some quite complicated procedures to explain all this from within the phonics scheme. And ultimately, they don't. They have invented another category - known as 'tricky words' or 'red words' in order to get over the problems of such words as 'was', 'of' and 'come'. These have to be learned as 'look and say'.
So, researchers are interested in how well children can make the transition between reading phonically 'regular' words to the non-regular ones. Again, there seems to be very little or no evidence to suggest that this transition is made any quicker or better (including understanding) by those children on a phonics-only regime as opposed to those learning by a mixed methods regime.
5. Of itself a phonics-only regime doesn't give children a reason to want to read more, other than the pleasure gained from getting the process right. In other words, it's a 'reward' system. Some get it all right, some get most of it right, some don't get it right. The reward doesn't come from an intrinsic quality of the process they're embarked on. The whole point of reading - and this is the author in me talking here too - is to get pleasure out of the stories, poems and plays. These are complicated pleasures and I'll come on to them in a minute. The government has spent £23million on providing 'match funding' for schools to buy the schemes they approve. In other words. £46 million pounds of public money in England has been spent on teaching children to read phonically. Open question - how much public money has been spent giving an equivalent focus on providing the facilities and books and training to encourage very young children to read for pleasure?
6. If you compare transcripts of conversations between young children or between young children and adults, with the texts that we ask them to read, we can quickly see that there are big differences. Talk and conversation is full of interruptions, tailings off, gaps, 'ers' and 'ums', repetitions,very short 'utterances' like 'yes', 'no', 'oh', 'what?' 'thanks', 'please' and a very extensive use of words like 'there', 'it', 'he', 'she', 'they', 'I', 'we', 'you', 'his' 'her', 'hers', 'them', 'him', 'this', 'that'.
Apart from talk put between speech marks, the texts put in front of young children are based on standard English sentence structure. Most children aged 5, 6 and 7, hear very little language expressed in this way as part of their everyday lives - unless they hear it read to them by parents, carers and teachers.
The significance of this is that even as we teach children to 'read the words' we are also initiating them into another 'code'. I've said in the past that this is analogous to trying to understand a dialect other than your own. Some people disagree with that analogy. Either way, it's clear we are talking about different kinds of English - at least one kind for speaking; and at least one kind for writing. In each case, it's probably more kinds that have to be learned eg child and adult speech; the writing of picture books, the writing of the ads the children see on posters and in ads, the writing of newspaper headlines or TV captions...and so on. These different kinds of speech and writing involve quite different uses of grammar, different ways of putting words together, different word orders, different ways of sounding 'complete' or 'appropriate' for the context.
Learning to read involves 'getting' all this - being able to make transitions between these different codes., or at best being able to talk one code and write another.
Phonics teaching on its own, cannot and does not enable children to do this. What has to take place is an engagement with 'meaning' and 'understanding' ie with the power of people to use words to affect and interest others. If you don't do this, you can probably enable children to 'sound out' or 'decode' but you will not enable them to understand what they're reading.
I absolutely concede, without argument, that some schools and some exponents of phonics practise an active teaching of rhymes, reading of stories in order to make that bridge between pure phonics and the 'written code'. Some do. Some don't.
6. One of the aspects of reading that I studied in order to become an academic involves a theory of how it is we assemble texts in our head thereby enabling us to read the text in front of us. It's as if we assemble in our heads a library of books, recordings, signs, posters, labels...and indeed anything made up of words, or containing words, or the words themselves in all the different ways in which they are expressed - written, spoken, sung or however. It's clear that we start doing this from the moment we are born. People talk to us.
But it's not just 'words', it's how they are strung together and how they appear in all the different 'formats' or from the different 'platforms'. To get understanding from these, we have to 'get' these formats and platforms or 'contexts' just as much as the words themselves.
Put another way, none of the writing that we put in front of children comes as a true 'first'. The child approaches what is put in front of him or her, with the texts that are already in his or her head.
So do we do all we can to develop this 'store of texts' (sometimes called a 'repertoire')? Or do we treat the child as someone who is always in deficit, always with 'not-enough' knowledge?
Either way, it's my belief that with every act of bringing something new to the child, we should also build on and acknowledge what they already have. Most teachers, prior to the arrival of the phonics regime, knew this and did this. They scribed the things the children said, they got the children to label their corners and pegs. They got them to explore the places they knew in order to look at the words and language that was there - ads on the sides of buses, cereal packets and the like.
Many teachers and parents are carrying on doing this sort of thing, no matter how hard-pressed they are, no matter how much under pressure from workload, inspectors or whoever to focus on phonics, phonics, phonics.
7. A word used by linguists to describe - for example - the language spoken in Europe, before the Romans arrived - is the 'substrate'. That's to say, eg the Celts spoke Celtic languages and then along came the Romans speaking Latin. The result is that the different kinds of Celts had different kinds of effects on the kinds of Latin they ended up speaking. That's why Spanish, Portugese and French speak so differently from each other.
A similar argument could be made to do with learning to read. Different children are different substrates, with very different experiences of texts, (ie different 'repertoires'), very different attitudes to writing, very different ways of speaking. It's almost impossible to imagine why anyone would think that a one-size-fits-all approach to the process of learning to read would be appropriate or right.
In short, it isn't. That's why parents are hearing that the child they thought could read, can't read. That's why some children, particularly those who are learning English and have little experience of texts other than phonics texts, end up 'barking at print' - ie reading out loud but not understanding what they're reading.
8. We have to resist the phonics-only approach ('first, fast and only'). We have to do all we can to encourage reading for pleasure with children of all ages. We must not discourage parents and carers from helping children read if they want to. We have to keep our eyes on the final prize - reading for understanding as part of learning for life.
Wednesday, 15 January 2014
Don't mention the rich
(This is a quick post I did on facebook)
Did anyone see the discussion on Newsnight a couple of nights ago which talked about the role of the state?
The whole discussion stayed within the confines of talking about the wealth available as that derived from taxation, as if the wealth of the super-rich is, by nature or god or both, out of bounds. The cunning thing that our rulers have got away with in the last period is to restrict thousands of public conversations to the need to cut the amount of wealth that the state spends for the benefit of - largely- the poor or the poorer. This is done as if it is the only wealth that can be discussed. All that other stuff - the profits -is simply out of bounds, beyond reach, not relevant. And so not relevant, it's not even mentioned.
Meanwhile, this is taken on one step further by some in the discussion to imply that this money that the state spends is 'not productive'. What they mean, is that it's money that doesn't go through the capitalist system. But apart from any thing else it 'produces' the most profitable thing of all - 'labour power' ie the ability of people to work, which is 'sold' when people go to work. Capitalists spend hardly anything on producing labour power (a few apprenticeships and their subsidies for management training, I suppose). The state spends billions on education and health which hands to the capitalists fit and suitable employees. This is highly 'productive'!
Monday, 6 January 2014
How not to be an arse: history, schools and the minister
Let's rack back a week and imagine that Gove had not written his vain, self-regarding, megalomaniac article about the First World War in which he pretended to know everything whilst showing that he just likes waving his arms.
Let's rack back a week and spend a few moments imagining what a modest, creative, facilitating and democratic education minister could do about the First World War.
What could we come up with?
Perhaps he or she would spend some of the money being wasted on bribing academies and free schools on convening a big conference of heavyweight historians to discuss and argue about the First World War. And this could be livestreamed into schools all over the country.
Perhaps, he or she could put some money into schools holding local performances of plays, dance and poetry, exhibitions of paintings and films, created by a mix of school pupils and adult professional companies.
Perhaps he or she could improve the editing, digitizing and circulating of all the memoirs and recollections of the First World War...
So, rather than thinking that the job of an Education Minister is to give the 'national' line on what we should all think, his or her job would be to up the quality and quantity of debate and discussion. Then we could all, adults and young people, get on with it ourselves.
Let's rack back a week and spend a few moments imagining what a modest, creative, facilitating and democratic education minister could do about the First World War.
What could we come up with?
Perhaps he or she would spend some of the money being wasted on bribing academies and free schools on convening a big conference of heavyweight historians to discuss and argue about the First World War. And this could be livestreamed into schools all over the country.
Perhaps, he or she could put some money into schools holding local performances of plays, dance and poetry, exhibitions of paintings and films, created by a mix of school pupils and adult professional companies.
Perhaps he or she could improve the editing, digitizing and circulating of all the memoirs and recollections of the First World War...
So, rather than thinking that the job of an Education Minister is to give the 'national' line on what we should all think, his or her job would be to up the quality and quantity of debate and discussion. Then we could all, adults and young people, get on with it ourselves.
Sunday, 5 January 2014
Labour and immigration
Oh sheesh, Labour doing it again: following the Tories and the Mail claiming that low pay is caused by immigrants. Couldn't a Labour leadership have explained that it's employers who pay low pay not immigrants and that the Labour tradition of dealing with this is trade unions and a Labour government's way of dealing with it is to outlaw low pay, ('minimum wage'/'living wage' etc) legally backed up by an inspectorate? Gawd, that's not the revolution, it's just basic labour-style reform politics. Going on about immigrants causing low pay says that one group of workers is a threat to another group of workers and that one kind of poor person is a threat to another kind of poor person.
Again, couldn't Labour have said that the greatest threat to poor people are people like bankers who bring the system to collapse, governments who do what these same bankers tell them to do, governments who cut social services, freeze or cut pay, sack hundreds of thousands of employees, megamillionaires who don't bother to pay tax? Put all that together and that's by far, far more a greater threat or danger to poor people than the other kind of poor person, Labour is calling the immigrant.
Like the low pay cycle is the race to the bottom, this is a political race to hell. Labour, you will never win the blame the poor game. Tories and fascists are better at it, because they mix it up with flag-waving stereotypes and racist imagery to make it more potent. Labour tries to do it 'honestly' and it just looks like johnny-tag-along - which it is.
Again, couldn't Labour have said that the greatest threat to poor people are people like bankers who bring the system to collapse, governments who do what these same bankers tell them to do, governments who cut social services, freeze or cut pay, sack hundreds of thousands of employees, megamillionaires who don't bother to pay tax? Put all that together and that's by far, far more a greater threat or danger to poor people than the other kind of poor person, Labour is calling the immigrant.
Like the low pay cycle is the race to the bottom, this is a political race to hell. Labour, you will never win the blame the poor game. Tories and fascists are better at it, because they mix it up with flag-waving stereotypes and racist imagery to make it more potent. Labour tries to do it 'honestly' and it just looks like johnny-tag-along - which it is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)