Ever since David Blunkett said "I'm desperately trying to avoid the whole debate in education concentrating on the issue of selection when it should be concentrating on the raising of standards. Arguments about selection are a past agenda."(2000) our parties policy on the future of the existence of grammar schools seems to have taken a back-seat. Whilst I shall not argue that the regurgitation of this debate will be beneficial to the fortunes of the national party, but I wondered, as a new member to this site, what other members believe the next step (if there ever is one) on this issue should be.

The amendments introduced yesterday (Wednesday) to the Education and Skills Bill will help to make school admissions fairer. Much has been done to end covert selection BUT thousands of children in England continue to face overt selective entry tests for secondary education. These numbers are growing.

CLPs have an opportunity now to press for a change of policy to include a commitment to end to selection on ability and aptitude. CLPs are encouraged to hold meetings to submit amendments to the draft final year Partnership in Power documents from now on. I would be grateful if LabourHome readers might consider suggesting amendments to the Education and Skills document at forthcoming branch or CLP meetings - I suggest some wording below. Details are on the members section of the Labour party website under 'resources'. Consultation ends on June 20th by which time CLP secretaries should submit amendments.

There is plenty of supporting material on the Comprehensive Future website www.comprehensivefuture.org.uk or you can send me an email - mike-ion@hotmail.co.uk
 
The suggested textual amendments to the Partnership in Power: Education and Skills are as follows:
 
Page 9
There are two alternative amendments we suggest - both for line 47 following 'Code' They are -
 
We now intend to go further and ensure no child has to face selective entry tests for secondary education (except banding) by ending selection on ability and aptitude.
 
Or
However many English children continue to face overt selective entry tests on ability and aptitude in order to transfer to secondary education. We intend to commission a wide ranging study on how this affects children, families, schools and educational attainment.
 
Note
Ending selection on ability and aptitude would support the following –
 
Social justice is about opening up the doors of opportunity – Gordon Brown’s letter
 
‘our commitment to give every child the chance to unlock their talent and narrow the gap in educational achievement between the most disadvantaged young people and their peers’. Page 2 line 19
 
Labour wants every child to make good progress at school and reach their full potential. That is why we will do more to tackle barriers to learning and focus on individual needs of every child. Page 7 line 42
 
Our firm belief is that every young person has a talent and everyone should have the opportunity to use that talent. Page 8 line 44
 
We must close the gap in attainment between disadvantaged young people and their peers and raise the aspirations of all young people. Page 9 line 5
 
But members agree that we need to raise the aspirations of young people, especially those from low aspirational families and communities.  Page 9 line 39

The piece below is also to be found on the Guardian's Comment is Free blog

How about a wee quiz.

What do the Today programme’s latest presenter Evan Davies, Foreign Secretary David Miliband, his brother and fellow government minister Ed Miliband, the novelist Zoe Heller have in common with yours truly? Is it that we are all passionate Manchester United fans? Or is it that we are all ardent Coronation Street watchers? Or how about we all holiday in Aberdovey? Actually it is none of these. The simple answer is this - we are all products of the comprehensive system of schooling.

To read the full piece visit http://mike-ion.blogspot.com/

Wasn't this some barmy Tory policy idea from the mid-90s that was quietly abandoned? Why the need to blanket-militarise today's teenagers? Why introduce such a reactionary, atavistic and totalitarian policy idea that deserves to be buried in the graveyard of history along with the Hitler Youth and FDJ?

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2271362,00.html

 

If a synonym was ever sought for "anti-religion," then probably my name might come up. At least among the circles I move in, if not among the general population. Despite this, I rather think that this announcement of a policy document to be presented at NUT Conference proves to be interesting.

 I spotted this in The Times and thought it’d provoke a fine correspondence!!

In all my years working in companies across the UK, I have always been amazed how little training they organise for their staff.

Will Parbury of Parburypolitica says we can use the internet to inspire and promote the best teaching in our schools and universities.

UPDATE: I have written a lengthier piece for the Guardian's CiF website - click here to read in full.



According to the Sunday Times the political row over selective education is about to be reignited following the announcement that the government intends to look at how it can make it easier for disaffected parents to force the ending of selection at local grammar schools.

What planet is Gordon on?

Research published by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) shows that secondary schools which are their own admission authorities are much less representative of their local area. IPPR argues that schools have no reason to be their own admissions authorities, other than to select students by ability or socio-economic background.

In 1997, Peter Mandelson said “I say to the doubters, judge us after ten years in office. For one of the fruits of that success will be that Britain has become a more equal society. However, we will have achieved that result by many different routes, not just the redistribution of cash from rich to poor, which others choose as their own limited version of egalitarianism…” (Peter Mandelson, Labour’s Next Steps: Tackling Social Exclusion, Fabian Society 1997)

With the Conservatives now convinced that grammar schools are bad for Britain and with the nation about to have a new Prime Minister in need of some passion-rousing policies that will unite his movement’s natural supporters and signal a shift towards a more radical and egalitarian agenda, are we nearing the time when selection by ability will finally be abolished for good? Almost all of the main political parties in Britain now agree that getting rid of selection in England’s schools (there is no selection in Wales or Scotland and it is on the way out in Northern Ireland) would produce an immediate improvement in the overall exam performance of the nation’s children, reduce poverty and inequality in many of our most deprived inner-city areas and overtly and transparently attack privilege that all too often masquerades as excellence. However it is important to emphasise that it is selection that needs to be got rid of, no one is suggesting that particular schools should be closed. There is no reason why the remaining 164 grammar schools themselves should not remain pretty much as they are now. They would have the same buildings, the same governors, the same headteachers and staff, the same resources, the same curriculum, uniform and largely the same funding. The only real change will be in the academic profile of the pupils attending the school.

Lord Puttnam, award winning film maker and president of Unicef UK, writes this weeks guest blog.  He talks about the importance of including digital technology in educational practice to make it more relevant to young people's lives.

This blog is posted on www.the2020vision.org.uk. To read it and leave your comments click here

According to Tony Blair one day every secondary school will be either a trust or a city academy. He may well be correct and I am of the view that it may not be a bad thing. As long as Academies remain in the depressed hearts of the old towns and cities and, perhaps most importantly of all, maintain their all-ability intake then progressive thinkers on the Left should not worry too much.

I. What is Socialism?