30/1/2004
Let me make it clear from the start that I fully support the military action taken in Iraq. The only problem is that it didn't happen years ago. Saddam Hussein was a tyrant of the worst sort. If the scale of his atrocities was less than that of Hitler it was only because of lack of opportunity. I wonder at those people who suggest that the action was in some way illegal, a strange description to use for a war in my view. In 1939 would they have left Europe to its fate? Should the massacre of Jews have been permitted to continue? The situation in Iraq was no different. One assumes that they would equally turn a blind eye to a mugger attacking an old lady in the street or an abused child in the house next door.
It would have been better if the action could have taken place under authority of the United Nations but as usual they lacked the resolve to take a difficult decision. In another age it might have been said that they lacked moral fibre!
The problem that I do have is the way that the need for war was sold to the public. Was there a threat from long range "Weapons of Mass Destruction"? Common sense said no even before we failed to find any trace. Did Iraq have links with Islamic extremists? Most unlikely, Saddam prided himself on having Iraq as a secular state. He had no religious further about him. In fact he despised Bin Laden.
Despite this we were expected to believe that Iraq posed a threat to the west. Our governments treated us as children to be scared by the Bogeyman! When they could and should have attempted to take the high moral ground and say that they were fighting a war to liberate the oppressed Iraqi people they chose a pathetic non-argument and expected the people to believe it. What do they think of us?
To make things worse when journalists chose to cast doubt on the accuracy of their statements they protested loudly. So loudly in fact that they managed to make their argument with the BBC seem more important than the war itself.
The British Government over dramatise something or be selective with the truth? Perish the thought! After all they only do that once every other day so why should we think that they didn't do so this time?
The problem was that the reporter, Andrew Gilligan, in his desire to make a story, was a little careless in his choice of words. The most important part of the story was clearly and unquestionably true but the fact that Gilligan had actually played the governments own game was apparently unacceptable. The unfortunate Dr Kelly, who was apparently the source of Gilligan's story, was exposed by the MoD and left to the mercy of the press and various parliamentary committees. It's worth pointing out that Gilligan at all times attempted to protect the confidentiality of his source.
All of this was clear from the evidence given to the Hutton enquiry. I can only assume that Lord Hutton wasn't paying very careful attention at the time.
Although the BBC may have made mistakes the blame for the most important issue involved here - who misled the British Public - can very clearly be laid at the door of the government. The sad thing though is that the government had no need to mislead anyone. They had a strong enough case anyway but it seems that their first thought these days is to make something up.
Perhaps it's naïve to expect politicians to tell the truth but this wasn't just another election promise. No one seriously expects those to be kept anyway. This was about fighting a war with the inevitable loss of life for British troops. On this issue the public deserve as full and as honest account of the facts and arguments as it is possible to give.
Individually who was at fault?
Does anyone honestly think that anything comes out of the government without the knowledge and express permission of "Prime minister Blair"? He has made it clear on any number of occasions that his is the only opinion that counts and that he is the only one capable of understanding all the arguments. If you want all the credit Tony you have to accept the blame as well. The buck stops with you.
Blair often talks about being an honourable man. An honourable man would resign and call an election.
Did I just see a flight of pigs pass the
window? No - I thought not.
I've tried hard to find a way to dress this up and make it sound clever but I think that I'm just going to have to be blunt and get to the point.
The European Union is a bad idea - a Federal "United States of Europe" is completely stupid.
The EU has achieved nothing except for keeping thousands of civil servants and otherwise failed politicians in jobs. It costs millions of Pounds (Euros …… whatever) to run and it can't do anything better than to argue about what constitutes ice cream or try to regulate the shape of bananas. It has maintained artificially high prices and wasted food that could have been put to sensible use or not been produced in the first place.
The whole concept of international trade is bizarre. We send cars to Italy, they send cars to us. Why? We spend millions of pounds every year transporting goods around the world that could be made locally. It is beyond comprehension that we waste the Earths valuable and diminishing resources in this way. What does Europe have to sell that we can't produce ourselves? Olives? Wine??
Well I'll give you olives but we can get better wine from Australia or South Africa. In fact I seem to recall that there used to be a really useful trading organisation called the Commonwealth. Now in many cases the Commonwealth countries did have goods that we couldn't produce ourselves. Of course now that we're in the EU we aren't supposed to trade much with other people. In fact the EU isn't so much an international community as a closed shop that is trying to shut itself off from the rest of the world.
Interestingly, in the name-calling that passes for reasoned debate about the EU, people who are opposed to the Union are often called "xenophobic".
How is it that it is xenophobic to oppose union
with Europe and yet it is perfectly acceptable to disparage links with the USA?
Surely it is more xenophobic to restrict our associations to our European "brothers"
to the exclusion of other countries?
It seems that it's the European governments that are adopting isolationist policies
because they are scared.
Politically Europe does not exist. There are too many differences between the peoples. The culture and way of life in southern Europe is completely alien to those in the north. We have different attitudes and different ways of doing things. It's no accident that the countries of Europe have spent most of the last millennium at war with each other.
Certainly we must have alliances and treaties. We need discussion and agreement - but we also need the right to disagree and go our own way if that is what our consciences dictate. Friendly relations are not the same as union. From what I have heard and seen it is not just the people of the UK that oppose the creation of a federal European state but the majority of people in most countries.
Far from a closer union encouraging countries to work together and creating harmony, forcing disparate people together will cause antagonism and conflict. The World is teeming with people who have fought to break free from political ties that bound them into unnatural countries. The USSR, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia are all obvious examples. The Kurds want independence from Turkey and Iraq. The Sikhs want an independent homeland. Chechnya fights to be free from Russia. All of these situations have led to conflict. Even in the UK the Scottish want independence and in Canada, many of the people of Quebec province wish to secede from the rest of the country.
These are people who have been forced together who
wish to have the basic right to decide their own future, even though it may
seem to outside observers that there is very little difference between them
and the country they wish to separate from.
Forming massive super-countries does not reduce conflict - it makes it more
likely! War is caused by trying to make people agree with one another where
no agreement is possible. Peace exists where people accept each other's differences
and let them carry on in their own way.
In this case big is definitely not beautiful. The politicians must abandon their
grandiose schemes to earn themselves a place in history by founding a new world
order. If they could put as much effort into developing a little humility and
common sense we might all be better served.
Vive la differencé as the French would say!
In the way that has become normal for the British Labour Government Charles
Clarke (Minister of State for Education) has attacked the National Union of
Teachers (NUT) for a return to the bad old days of Trade Unionism.
What we really have here is another example of the Government trying to disguise
the weakness in it's own policies by shouting loudly in an attempt to distract
attention from the real arguments. In fact the truth is that the NUT has been
the only body of any sort that has attempted to raise public awareness of the
problems facing schools today.
The current dispute seems to centre around two points;
· Class size
· The use of classroom assistants instead of fully qualified teachers
· Testing students at the ages of 7, 11 and 14 with SAT's
The first two points are partly linked. The Government claim that the use of assistants will both reduce teacher workload and allow smaller classes. The Government is quietly ignoring the fact that a teacher will be expected to set work for the class, mark the work, liase with the assistant and also be responsible for the progress of the students. In fact it's quite possible that a teacher will in effect be teaching two or more groups at the same time. This seems more like education on the cheap rather than an attempt to improve standards. It certainly isn't going to ease teacher's workload.
Frankly I'm confused, virtually the only thing that teachers are assessed on is their performance in front of a class. That has always seemed to be of paramount importance. Never mind the dozens of other things that are part of the job. They don't count these days. If that is so then how can we replace a teacher with someone who has little formal training and whose grasp of a subject is unlikely to be as good?
Put it another way, if the assistant is as good as the teacher shouldn't they be paid the same and have the same status?
If they are not as good then how can a class be getting the best possible education??
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against classroom assistants. They perform many useful jobs and some of them are excellent but they can't possibly have the same training and expertise as a qualified teacher.
Just to muddy the water a little more some people suggest that the size of a class doesn't really matter that much.
Well, if you have a group of mature, self-motivated, disciplined and intelligent students who are capable of working independently and who don't need assistance then perhaps it doesn't. Of course these people don't need teachers at all. Give them the syllabus, point them at the books and the Internet and let them get on with it. Sadly these students are as rare as hens teeth!
Student's need - no demand - attention. They want help and advice, clarification, encouragement, correction or perhaps just a boot up the backside! A teachers time in a class is divided between the number of students. It's not hard to see that the more students there are the less attention each one has. That isn't even beginning to consider the convoluted group dynamics and discipline problems that just get worse as the group gets bigger.
Clarke says that SAT's are here to stay and that anyone who thinks otherwise is, "Living in Cloud Cuckoo Land".
Why?
SAT's have achieved nothing. The tests themselves are poorly written and carelessly marked. The results are unreliable and tell nothing about the progress of a student yet a child who does badly may be considered to be a failure. They might give some indication about overall standards in the country but I find that very unlikely as well.
More importantly they cost countless millions of pounds to carry out, money that could be better spent on the actual education of the students.
The whole idea of an end of Key Stage is ridiculous. Education is a continuous process. To place an artificial barrier in the road is counterproductive. The temptation is to stop educating the students in the broadest sense and to spend time simply preparing for examinations. This is a completely ridiculous and unacceptable state of affairs.
The "levels" of attainment produced by SAT's are contrived and are completely misleading. Mainly because the government are determined that, whatever the results really show, their policies must appear to be improving standards.
They are not. In my opinion the standards of education in England have suffered greatly because of government interference. I hesitate to say that they are at an all time low because it seems to reflect badly on the students and their teachers but this does appear to be the case.
The true cause of the problem is government ineptitude
and the callous disregard for the effects that their policies have had on the
well being of students. Obviously the politicians - who probably know the truth
- want this to be hidden from the public. This is the reason why Clarke has
attempted to set up his smoke screen by belittling the intentions of those who
genuinely care about education.
5/2/2003
One of the proudest boasts of Western Society is that we live in a democratic world. We have the right of self-determination. We are free and our destiny is in our own hands. "Government of the people, for the people, by the people", as George Washington (I think!) said.
Of course the idea of democracy comes form the ancient Greeks. The word comes from Greek and literally means government by the people. We may not have recognised their form of government as democracy as we know it. They elected a leader - although not all people had the vote - but when it came to important decisions the leader had to argue his case with the people who then voted on the matter. If they disagreed he had to go away and think of something else.
You have to ask though, would the Greeks recognise our form of government as democracy either?
In Britain we elect Members of Parliament who are supposed to represent our views in the House of Commons. However, once elected they are expected to vote the way their party leader tells them to - even if it is directly against the best interests of their constituency or their moral judgement. If they do even look like voting against the party line they are bullied, blackmailed or (apparently) even threatened with physical violence. Not very democratic. We may elect a representative but we have no control over what happens after that.
Of course there are supposed to be various safeguards to prevent a Prime Minister from becoming too extreme - or there were!
The House of Lords was clearly a "bad thing" it was "undemocratic" because its members were unelected. They were mainly the rich members of the aristocracy and so it was assumed that they were out of touch with the "real world".
Being unelected they couldn't be ... erm..... unelected (?!). That is they couldn't be removed, apart from under the most extreme of circumstances. This also meant that they couldn't be threatened or, more importantly, controlled. What the Lords was really guilty of was opposing some of the more unpopular, harebrained policies of the government, not just the current government but many governments. They certainly upset Thatcher or on any number of occasions. This doesn't mean that they were perfect. They had their own vested interests and certainly scored a few own goals but I would suggest that on the majority of issues the views of the House of Lords was more in line with those of the "Man on the Street" than what came out of the Commons.
But it was "undemocratic" so it has to be "reformed" - which meant that the awkward so-and-so's are going to be replaced with people who are more likely to be pliable to the wishes of the career politicians who they will owe their new elevated status to. The fact that it will make it easier for the Prime Minister to do whatever he wants has nothing to do with it - perish the thought!
Today Parliament voted on how the new Upper Chamber was to be formed. Tony wants the members to be appointed. Perhaps its not surprising that the remaining Lords agreed with him. (Or if you think about it, perhaps it is!) Of course their reasons are different - Tony want to make the appointments and the Lords understand the advantages of being independent and unthreatened. The Commons, equally unsurprisingly, want the chamber to be elected - or they might do - they seem to be having trouble in making up their minds. This could be starry eyed idealism but more likely the party grandees know that it's the best way to keep control.
Now pardon me, but why do we need two elected chambers? Aren't they just going to agree with each other?
Equally who is going to make the appointments and on what grounds will they be made? Isn't an appointed chamber the same as the Lords?
Of course we could appoint members who have shown integrity over the years. We could assume that they are likely to bring up their children to share the same values and let the children inherit their appointment. Perhaps some of them might not be up to it, but in a body of several hundred they shouldn't be able to do much damage. Such people would obviously need a title. Can I suggest, "My Lord"?
Frankly, democracy is about far more than elections. It's about the government doing things that the people of the country think is correct. If that doesn't happen it's not democracy. As we seem to head unstoppably for a war that most people object to you have to wonder exactly what our political system really is.
The Greeks probably have a word for it - but it wouldn't be democracy!
24/12/2002
"The hopes and fears of all the years, are met in thee tonight", says the old carol. 2000 years on nothing seems to have changed.
Is it too much to ask that all the world leaders think hard about the Christmas message at this time of year be they from Israel, Palestine, Iraq, the USA or the UK? None of our religions teach that war is acceptable and yet, year after year over the centuries, we fight battles claiming that we have God on our side.
It just ain't so folks!
Let me sing you another song.
"Hark the herald angels sing, Glory to the new born King, Peace on Earth and mercy mild, God and sinners reconciled."
Happy Christmas and a peaceful New Year to you all.
August 2002
What Was That Again?
Now lets see if I got this right!
The government are committed to reducing teacher work load. They've sent a letter to every school telling head teachers the things that their teaching staff shouldn't be doing. They say that they will provide more money providing that the schools continue to implement "reforms".
But wasn't it the reforms that increased the work load in the first place?
In the meantime the National Association of Head Teachers say that there isn't enough money in the budget so they'll have to reduce staffing levels. Redundancy has been mentioned - but redundancy payments will cost more money won't they?
So by September there will be fewer people doing less work with poorer resources but more will be achieved!
Would someone run that past me again please?
April 2002
Hey, Tony - Leave Those Kids Alone!
Exactly what does the British Government think that it's doing with the education of our children?
In a few weeks we will embark on another round of
SATs. Children will be pressurised into taking extra classes - in some cases
extending their working day by 20%. Vast amounts of money will be spent on revision
materials - the DFEE have magically found an extra £1,500 for just our
department to spend (and woe betide us if we try to use it for anything else).
Well-meaning parents will hand over their hard earned cash to purchase revision
guides.
And why? Will it improve the standards of education in the country? Shall our
students suddenly become well-rounded, highly motivated individuals, ready to
meet the challenges of the twenty-first century?
Do pigs fly?
Will the government be able to point to a few meaningless numbers on a piece of paper and claim that their policies are working? Are school Principles around the country going to breath a sigh of relief as the local director of education gets off their backs for a few months?
Now we're getting closer.
The sad truth of the matter is that the government has no interest whatsoever in the education of English children apart from the opportunity to use the platform as a means to further individual political careers. This week it's "fast streaming" for the more able so they can miss out their GCSE exams. Last week it was important for all students to learn a foreign language from the age of seven, before that they were going to let them drop languages at fourteen!
Is it specialist colleges this week or more vocational courses? Which is more important, the literacy strategy or the numeracy strategy? Or is it Iteracy now?!
Do the policies work?
Who knows?
Who cares?
Certainly not the politicians.
They'll be long gone to the next ministry (or into opposition) before anyone has chance to find out. After all, how do we know if a policy is successful unless it lasts long enough for an entire group of students to go through it? And your average policy seems to last about 18 months these days.
Of course the politicians aren't completely to blame. You can't expect them to understand the education system - they only created it. It's to the eternal shame that the so-called teaching profession has allowed this situation to arise. We have meekly said, "yes sir" and, "no sir", when successive ministers of state have trotted out their half-baked schemes. School managers have been scared for their jobs. Union officials wanted their seats in the Lords. They mustn't rock the boat too much must they?
If we are a PROFESSION then we have a PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY towards the education and welfare of the students in our care. It is time that we stopped allowing them to be used as political footballs to aid the furtherance of careers and the inflation of egos.
This is not a particularly radical suggestion. All we need to do is to refuse to co-operate with activities that are not in the best interest of the students. What can the government do? Sack everybody?!!
The profession should insist that it is recognised as the expert body in the field of education and as such it should be in control of the schools.