How would splitting the vote help? A vote solely on the AV referendum would be prone to a Tory rebellion. Plus Labour are complaining about the date… they may well use this to vote against it anyway.

You either support something — in isolation — or you don’t. If you do, then be pleased it’s on offer. If not, campaign against it.

Individual policies of the govt. are just that: individual policies. Attempts to link one policy to any others will be — are being — seen by the public as pitiful opposition for opposition’s sake.

The Grauniad called it right in this morning’s editorial.

The Labour Party currently have it easy. Without a leader, there is nobody for us to love or loathe, and no need for any coherent policy positions to be expounded. That _will_ change once there is a figurehead, and I would gently suggest (as somebody who would like someone in parliament to effectively scrutinise govt. policy) that the longer such petty posturing goes on, the harder Labour will find to snap out of it once they actually need to. Like it or not, the coalition is giving the appearance of dealing in ‘grown-up politics’. It’s time the left did likewise.

“Supporting Michael Gove’s ideological experiment with schools”

It is peculiar that the comprehensive system being set up as an ideological experiment was fine but that any attept to change the system is bad because it is an “ideological experiment”.

Criticising the practical effects of a policy seems more reasonable than railing against it simply because it has a different philosophical foundation.

Duncan@1

There is a majority of over 200 for AV alone. Of course Labour would have

The question is the other Bill: do the Tories trust the LibDems to vote it through. Of course they would have to do so.
http://www.nextleft.org/2010/07/growing-support-for-two-bill-solution.html

Personally I think the date is fine and sensible, and that is a red herring chosen by the Tory right as the occasion for a show of strength. In any event, split the Bills and you can face that down.

@3 Falco

“Criticising the practical effects of a policy seems more reasonable than railing against it simply because it has a different philosophical foundation.”

That’s not what is happening here tho is it? Few people would claim the comprehensive system was beyond reproach, but the fact that it is still such a huge issue only goes to show how anal the English are about education.

Anyone who can’t see that the switch from a two tier grammar/secondary modern system, to a single tier comprehensive system wasn’t (at least in philosophical terms, if not in implementation) “a good thing”, and a socially progressive measure which aimed to promote equality of opportunity, is likely to heartily approve of Gove’s plans, or the nauseating NuLabour infatuation with faith schools, academies and other such nonsense.

People don’t actually want choice in education: the vast majority (unless they plan to educate their children privately) simply want the best possible schools, decently funded and resourced, and in their area. The progressive left should have no truck with promoting private initiative schools, still less faith schools!

The problem with philosophically founded policies to change comprehensive education is that their aim is the antithesis of what those on the left and centre-left should be striving for. NuLabour’s baleful influence continues from beyond it’s grave… acting as the entry point for the deconstruction of comprehensive education, and no doubt later the NHS, by it’s ideological bastard child the Big Society.

A vote solely on the AV referendum would be prone to a Tory rebellion.

I think they’re heading for a rebellion anyway…

Which would be interesting, as they were promised a 3-line-whip on the matters in the coalition agreement. Break that and the coalition will dissolve instantly.

People don’t actually want choice in education

Well, terrific. They can keep sending their children to the existing schools then can’t they. Of course, the fact that some schools are massively over-subscribed, while others in the same area are under-subscribed would suggest that you’re talking nonsense.

#8

No, the fact that some schools are over-subscribed and others are under-subscribed shows that some schools are better than others (and additionally that some parents are snobbish about sending their kids to school with certain other kids).

If parents live nearest an under-performing school, they may well want the choice between a good school and an under-performing school. But they would probably rather that both schools were good schools and that they didn’t have the choice.

Of course, free schools will actually exacerbate inequality between schools, making this situation worse.

Galen @ 5

Appreciate that you have a different view from me on the schools front. That’s fine and dandy.

But arghhhh!

Please don’t say that people “simply want the best possible schools, decently funded and resourced, and in their area”. The whole point of freeing up choice in the system is that the choice is the ‘mechanism’ for delivering decent local schools. Not about allowing creationism to be taught in schools. Not about middle class parents keeping their kids away from the riff raff. Not about using taxpayers money to buy off profiteers who donate to the evil Tories.

To engage with the idea properly you need to offer a critique of why you think they’re a rubbish idea, and what you think would be better. Mutual ownership by local parents/ teachers (although that would be allowed by the free schools). LEA control to ensure consistency and equitable distribution of resources. A trade union official in every classroom to protect teacers from the kids. Whatever floats your boat.

But not this ‘it’s ideological’ nonsense. The status quo is ideological.

Rant over. Sorry!

@8

No, they suggest you’re not paying attention.

I’m the first to admit that the system isn’t perfect, and that some state schools fail. Of course if you live in an area with a failing school, you’ll want your kids to go to another which is better, even if it means travelling…or maybe paying for it if you can afford it..bit like one of the candidates for the Labour leadership.

The point is that all state schools need to be, to the extent possible, the same general standard. I’ve never heard a convincing argument that parents would prefer to send their kids miles away to some academy or faith school or specialist languages/science/drama academy, rather than see them go to their closest school – unless of course it’s run down, under-resourced and failing. It’s the same with the arguments for “choice” and a market place in the NHS: if you make it unattractive and under-resource it enough, OF COURSE people will turn elsewhere in desperation.

It’s not becuase they approve of the Big Society tho Tim, it’s because they’ve been let down.

@10 illegal immigrant

They are a rubbish idea becuase in many cases they are EXACTLY the things you say they aren’t in your post.

If you don’t think the choice between a comprehensive system and either the old grammar/secondary modern system, or the new constellation of free schools, faith schools, academies etc is ideoligical…then what is it exactly?

It’s fairly clear from my posts I think..I want consistenct and equal distribution (altho accepting some problem areas may need more resources). I don’t want them run by amateurs, I want them to be accountable, I don’t want them to be run for profit, I don’t want some bunch of parents grouping together to educate Jocasta and Ptolemy.

If you can’t see that these ill considered, back of the envelope plans, sprung on the unsuspecting public with little notice will simply replace one set of problems with another, then no..we’re unlikely to agree about anything!

Of course, free schools will actually exacerbate inequality between schools, making this situation worse

Or, as John Prescott said, ‘the problem is if you have a good school, then people will want to go there’. It’s a weak argument. As is the one that ‘people don’t want choice, they just want to have the best possible school’. Of course they bloody do. The question is how you make schools better. I would suggest that the idea that central Government can dictate standards that will automatically see all schools attain identical levels of quality has been tested to destruction over the past 40 years.

If the only local state secondary school has a GCSE pass rate of 35% what do you do? Suck it up (hell, it’s only your children we’re talking about)? Move? Send your children to independent school (but then, we’re not all Labour MPs who can afford it)? I believe the traditional answer is that you send you children to that school, and then get so involved with it that standards improve. What’s the moral difference between this approach and helping to start a new school?

I don’t want them run by amateurs, I want them to be accountable, I don’t want them to be run for profit, I don’t want some bunch of parents grouping together to educate Jocasta and Ptolemy.

It is, incidentally, this sort of mindless ignorant bigotry that makes so much of the modern left so utterly unappealing.

@14 Tim

..as I suspected..no sense of humour as well as no conscience

15 – what am I supposed to be conscience-stricken about? Unpleasant stereotyping on class grounds is just that – unpleasant. Stupid too of course, but I don’t mind that so much.

It is, since the subject has been raised, typically condescending to imagine that the only people at all interested in a potentially better way to educate their children are middle class. The left in this country once had a fine tradition of encouraging charitable, non-state education for the working classes. Your attitude seems essentially to be that they should just shut up and be grateful for the munificence of the state.

Maybe the Lib Dems’ compromise might be slightly more palatable if the referendum was on a meaningful change to the voting system, not the half-measure we have been given.

Galen 10 @ 12

I agree those are things that could happen. But in order of the things that I listed:
- I’m not personally a religious person, so probably wouldn’t send my kids to a school teaching creationism. Having said that, if was a cracking school in other ways, I might…
- Middle class ‘ghetto’ schools already exist. It is precisely the need for this that these schools are designed to stop, by preventing the size of your wallet – via house prices – being the decisive factor. Plus, the pupil premium is specifically designed to encourage providers into deprived areas.
- The profit motive is not there because I want to give my tax money to a private company. I like low taxes! It is there because it will encourage more suppliers into the arena, thereby opening up the market.

However, I do recognise that just as I am predisposed to these ideas, you’re default is not to like them.

But my over-riding point – and I apologise if this wasn’t clear – is that the exisitng system is not some practical utopia in which ideology was dispensed with in order to reach practical ends. The assumption that the state knows better than a child’s parents what is best for it is extremely ideological. To be clear, it is this, and not the opposition the ideas themselves that I think far too many on the left are getting wrong.

p.s. these ideas are definitely not drawn up on the back of an envelope. Hence a bill could be put together so quickly. I’d go so far as to say they are some of the most prepared plans a party has come to government with. Which is not to say that you have to think that they’re right, or that I don’t lament the speed with which they were rushed through the HoP.

…and also, you don’t get more accountable than the ability to take your kid out of a school and take them elsewhere. Not the bloody LEA!

@16 Tim

Wow.. you really are a po faced individual aren’t you? It was a joke..sheesh.

Of course I’m aware it isn’t only the middle class that are interested. As for the tradition you refer to..much like the general debate about the bonkers Big Society concept, the reason such provision was surpassed was that we moved out of the 19th century into the 20th..and now the 21st. Charitable, non-state provision of education or other basic services is laudable enough as an adjunct, but not as a means of prime provision.

No. it isn’t my view “they” should just shut up and be grateful.. I just prefer that the state take the lead in most of the provision as it’s accountable in a way the charitable and voluntary sectors aren’t.

I suspect that a fully realised Big Society would be far more likely to be telling the lower orders to get on their bikes and know what’s good for them down the privatised poor houses.

No. it isn’t my view “they” should just shut up and be grateful.. I just prefer that the state take the lead in most of the provision as it’s accountable in a way the charitable and voluntary sectors aren’t.

How would a free school be any less accountable than a standard state academy? The admissions policies would be the same, they would both be inspected by Ofsted, they would neither be subject to LA control, they would neither be subject to the national curriculum – they’re identical institutions except for the motivations of the people that founded them. For one set it’s a job, for the other a passion. What on earth is the objection?

@18

“But my over-riding point – and I apologise if this wasn’t clear – is that the exisitng system is not some practical utopia in which ideology was dispensed with in order to reach practical ends.”

I didn’t.. and don’t.. think it a non-ideological utopia, as I already said. With all it’s faults, I just prefer it as a model to the various posited alternatives both past and present. The shortcomings of the curent system, and the fact that some schools are bad and some oversubscribed, doesn’t invalidate the model in my view – it’s more that it hasn’t been implemented and resourced properly, and has suffered from constant flip-flopping in direction over decades.

As you say our views differ. Faith schools should be banned in my view – if parents want to brain wash their children let them do it in their own time and pay for it themselves. It’s all of a piece as far as I can see: if education goes this way, it will be health next on the spurious grounds that we can’t afford it.

#21

My understanding is that local authorities still had the ability to say no to an academy under Labour. They will not have that crucial democratic planning role under free schools. That’s aside from the fact that under Labour academies were ways of improving schools in deprived areas, not letting well-performing schools widen the gap, so the equality argument is different. However, I wasn’t ever a fan of Labour’s academies either, I’m just pointing out a couple of ways in which Labour’s academies were better as far as the left is concerned than the current proposals. Another might be the range of private partners that could be involved.

(Of course, I know you’re not either part of the left or a fan of democratic planning, but you did ask how they differed from Labour’s academies!)

@Morlock,

“Individual policies of the govt. are just that: individual policies. Attempts to link one policy to any others will be — are being — seen by the public as pitiful opposition for opposition’s sake.”

I can’t make any sense of what you’re saying. It isn’t the Labour Party which linked the two policies together. The Government did so. It isn’t within the Labour Party’s power to unlink them into two separate bills. The Party has made clear that it supports a referendum on AV. But if it strongly opposes other policies that are in the same bill – and it does – then it is quite right to oppose the bill as a whole.

“The Grauniad called it right in this morning’s editorial.”

Not really. Even the Guardian admits that there are “strong reasons” to object to certain aspects of the bill, and says Labour should try to amend them. It doesn’t say whether Labour is within its rights to vote against the bill if such amendments fail. In my view, though, the Guardian’s proposed amendments would not go far enough. I don’t want to see the number of seats in the Commons cut to 600 – and I doubt that it is something the yellow-blue coalition will give way on.

If this bill passes, the tories will GET boundary changes and all means of gerrymandering to help win the next election.

The Lib Dems will ONLY get a referendum on changing the system. The tories will oppose, along with their right wing media friends.

We could end up with no change to the voting system, and a gerrymander tory wet dream.

I still say Clegg is a CIA plant.

@ falco – 3

“It is peculiar that the comprehensive system being set up as an ideological experiment was fine but that any attept to change the system is bad because it is an “ideological experiment”.

What garbage.

This is one of the right wing’s myths about comprehensive education, that it was some ideologically driven socialist method of introducing equality into education. Now this may have played a part, but it was a very minor part.

The principal reason we got comprehensive schools was because only 25% of children made it to grammar schools and a lot of those who didn’t make it were middle class children condemned to secondary moderns at 11 and their parents were making a hell of stink about it.

This is why the Tory Party nearly tore itself apart over the issue in the 1960s, because on this issue of ‘choice’ there were a lot more losers than winners and it had repercussions in elections.

The Tory Party still cannot openly say it is in favour of selection (except by stealth).

And who as Secretary of State for Education created the most comprehensives? That well known socialist Margaret Thatcher, who I get the impression you might rather admire.

@26 You say that it was a myth that it was “some ideologically driven socialist method of introducing equality into education.” and then go on to say that it was an ideologically driven, (the ideology in question being the promotion of equality over and above other concerns), reform of education.

Whether right or wrong it seems foolish to deny that an ideology was behind the introduction of the comprehensive system. That is why I suggested that criticising Gove’s changes just because they are ideological rather than because of the effects that they will have is misguided.

It is, since the subject has been raised, typically condescending to imagine that the only people at all interested in a potentially better way to educate their children are middle class

This is true: most immigrants are also keen on education.

My understanding is that local authorities still had the ability to say no to an academy under Labour. They will not have that crucial democratic planning role under free schools.

That’s correct – the ability of an LA to veto an academy has been removed. They will still be involved in consultation, but they won’t have the final say. To be honest, if this wasn’t the case, then it would be vanishingly hard to set up a free school at all.

@21 Tim J

Your rosy tinted and uncritically positive view of free schools is one thing: the reality may well be another. Of course well run free schools would be seen as a good thing. I can even sympathise with “concerned” parents wanting to set up such a school in an area where existing schools are failing, or oversubscribed.

I suppose I’m just much less sanguine than you are that this is the right way forward? As tim f notes @23 there are other ways, and a whole slew of professional bodies and local government bodies have come out against Gove’s plans. I’m sure you won’t find that persuasive, or see it as “the usual suspects”, but it ought to give anyone concerned with improving standards pause for thought.

Another last thought: from personal experience, I wouldn’t trust a lot of parents to run a tombola stand at the PTA fete, never mind have the smarts, the time, the energy and the commitment to plan, set up and run a high school. Lord knows what some of the dingbats involved would come up with…. and (unlike institutions which are subject to some form of LEA or local government control) what happens in instances where it all goes horribly wrong? Who is held responsible?

a whole slew of professional bodies and local government bodies have come out against Gove’s plans

Well of course they have. In the same way that ACPO came out against elected police commissioners, or the civil service came out against spending cuts. The opposition of vested interests is something of a given.

@31 Tim J

The fact that it is a given doesn’t mean that their view, or certain elements of it is ipso facto wrong. As is so often the case in such situation, those with an axe to grind against the current system will paint “the usual suspects” as not just wrong, but somehow bad.

Of course the professionals aren’t invariably right, but to dismiss their concerns out of hand, or fail to address legitimate concersn simply looks like spite or petulance….. or as more likely in this case an ideologically motivated, atavistic desire to roll back what they see as a “failed” comprehensive model.

or as more likely in this case an ideologically motivated, atavistic desire to roll back what they see as a “failed” comprehensive model.

It is, again, worth pointing out that the comprehensive ideal was not that every school should be the same, it was that selection should not be determined by academic ability. Since this remains the case under academies and under free schools, it’s a bit of a stretch to call this the abandonment of the comprehensive model.

It is, instead, a move away from the idea that increased central control is always and everywhere the answer to every problem. That’s an ideological position, to an extent, but only in the same way that every political position is an ideological one. The word doesn’t work as some ‘I’m a scary conservative with a hidden agenda’ boo-word.

@33 Tim J

“The word doesn’t work as some ‘I’m a scary conservative with a hidden agenda’ boo-word.”

No, really? Thanks for the lesson. Are you a teacher by any chance… or does being patronising just come naturally to you?

It is, instead, a move away from the idea that increased central control is always and everywhere the answer to every problem. That’s an ideological position, to an extent, but only in the same way that every political position is an ideological one. The word doesn’t work as some ‘I’m a scary conservative with a hidden agenda’ boo-word.

Idiot, all schools are independent bodies, they have governing bodies which employ the head and regulate the curriculum.
They buy into LEA services because it is sometimes cost effective in regards to professional development and building services, but they do not have to pay that 10 % levy in they do not wish to.
As for the ideological position , you are correct but christ you believe there is always a market answer to world’s problems.
You are as a much of an ideological tribalist as a statist.

Idiot, all schools are independent bodies, they have governing bodies which employ the head and regulate the curriculum.
They buy into LEA services because it is sometimes cost effective in regards to professional development and building services, but they do not have to pay that 10 % levy in they do not wish to.
As for the ideological position , you are correct but christ you believe there is always a market answer to world’s problems.
You are as a much of an ideological tribalist as a statist.

It’s a point of view certainly that state schools in the UK are all independent, but in a world where Ed Balls was deciding which schools should stay open during snow, it’s hard to argue that schools have any meaningful degree of autonomy. Incidentally, there’s no such thing as an LEA any more.

And while I don’t believe there’s always a market solution to every problem, the point I was trying to make was that dismissing any political idea as ‘ideological’ is an empty phrase. Of course political ideas are ideological, where do you think the word comes from?

Are you a teacher by any chance… or does being patronising just come naturally to you?

I’ve had to work hard at it over the years.

Tim Jerk

” I was trying to make was that dismissing any political idea as ‘ideological’ is an empty phrase.”

You moronic brown shirt trolls were using terms like that for the last 13 years.. ‘Social engineering’ was a favourite.

Tory policy on schools is just a rerun of all their policies. Which can best be summed up by the term ‘OPT OUT.’ The rich tory voter goes private both in terms of education and health. But the tory party can’t win an election with just those people so they want to gerrymander the system which allows a small group of middle class tories to opt out of the system. The tory party like to create thousands of little Northern Irelands all over the public services. Where the minority opt themselves out of the majority and then ring fence themselves. They even did it with planning with the so called Gummers law which allows the wealthy land owner to opt out of the planning system. Tories hate democracy. They only like tory power.

sally,

There is only one problem with your analysis there (other than being deliberately abusive of Tim J, who is hardly a troll – are you now immune to the comments policy? – and associating someone believing in choice with the brownshirts, the paramilitary wing of a party who believed all children (of correct race) should not only have a particular form of education, but also that they should all be enrolled in compulsory youth groups – kind of the antithesis of what Tim was saying, which just goes to show you should think before you throw of insults).

The problem is your assumption that only middle class people will opt out. Now, if opting out required money, this might generally be the case. But as the funds to run the schools come with the children, not from the pocket, opting out is open to all. Including those who are working class but want a different choice for their children. I sometimes suspect you actually believe only middle-class and rich people could vote for the Conservatives, and that therefore all policies are for their benefit only. But a bit of common sense might allow you to see that in the same way as rich and middle-class people vote Labour (they do you know – see all but two of the current leadership candidates) working-class people can vote Conservative (did you ever hear of John Major for example?).