Layer 352 . . . Gaga, Changing the World, Battle of Britain, Training Leaders, Coalition Education, Free Schools, Theorems, Gove, and Wild and Whacky

.
Gaga

"And now, I'm just trying to change the world, one sequin at a time."

It seems Lady Gaga - Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta - has over 6 million "followers". And that doesn't include people who pay attention to her but haven't identified themselves as Gaga followers on Twitter, or whatever.

Channel 4 news has just reported that LG's been making televised speeches demanding that the laws against gays in the US military be repealed, and it seems the US legislature might well be preparing to do exactly that. Gaga seems to be turning herself into a formidable political lobbyist.

http://www.politico.com/click/stories/1009/lady_gagas_political_helpers.html

http://www.sldn.org/blog/archives/gaga

http://www.ladygaga.com/sldn/

Obviously any changes in the anti-gay laws won't be entirely down to Gaga, since there's been an ongoing campaign on the issue by several different groups. But it's significant that artistes like her, thanks to the internet and to their access to the media, are able to play a major part in politics if they're so minded.

Other musicians and artists who are already well known for their support for various 'causes' include Bob Geldoff and the guys in U2. The significance of Gaga is that she's young, photogenic and extremely popular. The lady has plenty of guts - which isn't a pun on the meat dress thing, either. There are literally millions of homophobes in the US - many of them aggressively so. Millions of fruit cakes of all sorts - many of them right-wing gun-toting fully paid up loons.

Let's not forget this is the 30th anniversary of John Lennon's assassination, and that he was only 40 when he was murdered.

Lennon was an artist who was best known for wanting to change the world, especially after he left the Beatles, and was a massive propagandist for world peace and universal brotherhood and love. Clearly a dangerous radical. Pretty amazing he chose to live in the USA really.

.................................................................

Battle of Britain

A few weeks ago, before I'd realised that 2010 is the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Britain, I took a drive along the Kent coast with my good friend K. We came across a place called Capel-le-Ferne, and just off the main road, on the clifftops, the beautiful Battle of Britain memorial. Watching a TV programme about the battle a few days ago I was delighted to see some brilliant aerial shots of the memorial.

http://www.battleofbritainmemorial.org/the-memorial/

The memorial consists of a replica Spitfire, a replica Hurricane, a curved wall on which are written the names of every pilot who took part in the battle, and a landscaped circle of grass in which a gigantic three-bladed aircraft propellor is depicted. At the centre of the circle is a sculpture of a seated pilot. You can zoom in on the site here:

http://www.multimap.com/maps/?mapType=aerial&zoom=16&countryCode=GB&lat=51.0986573722078&lon=1.20642034929497

http://www.hows.org.uk/personal/hillfigs/bob/bob.htm

(c) Oxzenpics 2010
 
..............................................................

Training Our Leaders

Oxford University is opening what it says is Europe's first school of government, with the backing of international leaders.

Funded partly by a £75m donation from Soviet-born philanthropist Leonard Blavatnik, the school will train top graduates in the skills needed for government.

It has the backing of world statesmen Nelson Mandela and Kofi Annan.

The school also has Prime Minister David Cameron's support.

Mr Cameron said the school would create "a new avenue for training and research in the crucial field of good government and public policy in this country and around the world".

He added that Mr Blavatnik's gift was a "very generous act of philanthropy".

'Huge milestone'

Former UN secretary general Mr Annan said: "More than ever before, we need a new generation of leaders who understand the different dimensions of society and the economy, and its implications for governance and public policy.

"I am certain that the school of government at Oxford University will spearhead this new approach to leadership and public service."

Mr Mandela said he was delighted about the establishment of the new school.

Professor Andrew Hamilton, vice-chancellor of Oxford University which is contributing an extra £26m, said the development of the school represented a "huge milestone" in the university's history.

"It will give tomorrow's leaders the best of Oxford's traditional strengths alongside new and practical ways of understanding the challenges of good governance," he said.

He added that Oxford had educated 26 British prime ministers and more than 30 other world leaders, but that until now international schools of government have all been outside Europe.

The Blavatnik School of Government would develop leaders in both private and public sectors and would aim to address complex global problems in new and practical ways, Oxford said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11370707

On the Radio 4 Today programme there was talk about 'vision' and 'ability to inspire' and 'character' and 'being informed'.

The idea is clearly that our leaders need to have an informed understanding of society's problems, and they also need to understand technical, scientific and legal advice from experts. They also need to renounce war and violence.

The big question is - can 'character' be taught? Can empathy and a determination to achieve social justice be taught? Can the ability to find innovative solutions be taught?

"The course will combine disciplines ranging from the humanities, social sciences and law, to science, technology, health, finance, energy and security policy. The school will also teach an understanding of different political systems."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/sep/20/oxford-university-blavatnik-school-governance

Which is all very well, but doesn't guarantee we'll get wise or radical leadership instead of another generation of bullshitting administrators doing the bidding of the Establishment, Whitehall, the City, financiers and fat cats in general.

..............................................................................


Education and the Coalition

Further to my previous blog's wondering whether Clegg and Gove have been talking to one another about education policy - Gove popped up on the Today programme and pretty much reiterated what Clegg had said about giving headteachers more control over their schools - including Primary headteachers, who must have the same freedom to direct their schools as their Secondary counterparts.

He also guaranteed that the pupil premium will shift resources to the more disadvantaged schools. He intends to extend the Teach First programme for training 'high flyers' to teach before going off on careers in the City, etc.

He also spoke about flaws is our current system, the need to 'level up' and create more aspiration. He said he was concerned with addressing inequality 'head on'. "How poorly we educate those from disadvanteged homes". He said he wants to encourage ideallistic people who want to work with the poorest children.

So far, so good.

Citing the much celebrated Mossbourne Academy on Hackney Downs, Gove said it's a genuinely comprehensive school that has a brilliant headteacher and also does brilliant things for the least able, on account of insisting on 'academic rigour' for the least able.

And it's here, of course, that he starts bullshitting. Because Mossbourne may well have a balanced and fully comprehensive intake, but the same can't be said of other schools in the area. Mossbourne appears to have gone beyond the tipping point thanks to having good teachers, good premises and facilities, good leadership, and a critical mass of focused pupils of all abilities who are eager to study and enjoy going to a good school.

But it's also oversubscribed and as such is able to pick and choose from those in its catchment area of every ability and aptitude who have the most positive attitudes and 'fit in with the ethos' of the school. The same isn't true of all schools in the poorest and most challenging parts of our inner cities. Besides which - not all of our least academically able pupils are willing to strive for academic success when what they need is an education that emphasises success in creativity, art, communication skills, emotional intelligence, practical skills and technical skills. Yes, it's possible to have all of that PLUS academic success - in ideal circumstances. The reality is that lots of kids are simply unwilling to write essays galore on obscure topics towards exams in science, history, literature, etc. A lot of kids aren't willing to write at all, because they hate writing. Whilst this is regrettable, it's simply the reality, and as such schools need to take account of it and shape their offering accordingly. Most schools are too inflexible to do so.

As John Humphries said - surely we need better teaching and a more relevant curriculum that meets the interests and needs of pupils - not 'free schools' and more 'academies'?

At which point Gove gave himself away and started spluttering about 'proper uniforms', 'strict discipline' and 'academic emphasis' instead of "wild and whacky 'theorems' ".

Theorems? Pillock.

Obviously an education that puts equal emphasis on all the intelligences, plus creativity,  imagination and the development of human values, is a wild and whacky 'theorem' in Gove's book.

'Strict discipline' sounds like an urge to get wild and whacky with the more wayward souls in our schools. Which I'm sure it is for Whacker Gove. I'm sure he'll testify that getting whacked never did HIM any harm. Obviously.

He's incapable of conceiving that self-discipline, whose development is far more important than any imposed discipline, can only come from motivated learning and engagement with a rich, diverse, relevant and enjoyable curriculum, which for some pupils will have nothing to do with traditional academic disciplines, or indeed A levels and universities.

How many times do we need to say this? Not going to university does not mean failing in life. And going to a university is far from being a guarantee that someone will learn how to live well, find fulfilment, become self-actualised, learn how to live and work creatively, and develop all of their intelligences.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5imMcdlTe1HhO__THFpQP781NAilA

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8013973/Michael-Goves-attack-on-wild-and-wacky-teaching.html

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23880012-michael-gove-parents-prefer-strict-discipline-and-school-uniforms.do

http://www.timeplan.com/news-and-events/news/1743-parents-%27want-better-discipline-in-schools%27/

............................................................

Blow for Clegg as Lib Dem delegates vote down coalition's flagship 'free schools' policy

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1313642/Lib-Dem-conference-Delegates-vote-coalitions-flagship-free-schools-policy.html
.

Layer 338 . . . Tom Jones Revisited, More Music, Equal Opportunities, and Developing Talent

.
Further to Oxzen's recent musings about Tom Jones, the latest Observer had a whole page on the man, his life and his career, including the news that Praise & Blame has become Britain's best-selling album. At 70 Tom is the oldest male musician or singer to reach No 1 in Britain - taking over from Bob Dylan and his album Modern Times.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2010/aug/01/profile-tom-jones

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/jul/28/tom-jones-album-charts-praise-blame

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/jul/22/tom-jones-praise-and-blame-cd-review

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/jul/25/tom-jones-praise-blame-review

It's appalling when someone like Tom Jones is described as "not much good at school", which means only that he didn't do well "academically". What they're trying to say is that the pupil was a bit, or plenty, thick, when the reality is that the school was hopeless at finding someone's talents and developing them - and in fact the school never even tried to do so, which was probably the case.

Here's an example. My old secondary school is a school Listed by English Heritage. (My old Primary school is too, but that's another story). What that means is that it can't be mucked about, or its original form changed, which includes its outdoor areas. It had, and still has, a large number of games pitches, and a proper athletics area which includes facilities for both track and field events. In a school like that there's at least a possibility that some of its pupils will be seriously encouraged and enabled to do well in sports and athletics.

By way of contrast, a similar school built at roughly the same time on the opposite side of the city is not Listed. Some years ago at least 50% of its sports fields were sold off to a property development company, and those previously open areas and sports fields are now covered with bijou houses. So what kind of message does that give to the local community and its children about the value the school, or society in general, places on children's physical education, or encouragement for achievement in sports and athletics?

In this country we throw money at "elite" athletes whom we think might win medals in high profile competitions like the Euros and the Olympics, having identified those so-called elites from club competitions, but the reality is that most kids don't get any proper opportunities for proper coaching in a school context, so that only those who join clubs have sustained contact with trained coaches, facilties for practice, and the excitement of regular competition. It's not too difficult to guess which kids get to join the clubs outside of school, and have eager parents driving them to and from their clubs and competitions.

It's the same story with tennis, of course, which is why twats like Tim Henman and the odd character like Andrew Murray are Britain's sole high-achieving representatives at the Wimbledon championships, which are said to be the biggest and best tennis competition in the world. In some other countries even the smallest villages have decent public tennis courts.

It's somewhat different with music, since it's possible to own an instrument and become proficient at playing it through hours of practice at home, with or without lessons from paid professionals - not that this happens very often.

The crying shame, however, is that music as a school subject is on the whole taught in a tokenistic "academic" way and not thorough regular instrumental lessons by skilled teachers and tutors of musical instruments, except for a small minority of kids who have been picked out as having gifts and talents, or who get access to instrumental tuition because they have pushy parents, who probably, in addition, pay for private lessons.

It's not hard to imagine how much potential talent goes undiscovered and undeveloped, mainly because as a society we don't set out to develop it and don't fund such activities - leaving it to ambitious and dedicated parents to buy the instruments and the lessons if they want their children to have the joy of playing an instrument, either solo or in a band.

Because of this lack of opportunity most people in our society don't own an instrument, and have never known the pleasure it gives to play well and to play in bands, and we don't as a whole appreciate what developing musical talents does for children - especially those kids who find it hard to succeed and build their self-esteem through "academic" work.

Even if a child never does well enough and isn't talented enough to make and sell albums,  or perform in public, the pleasure that's to be had from playing an instrument, or being able to sing well, is incalculable. The number of undiscovered, frustrated and underachieving musicians in this country must be massive - with huge consequences for individuals, communities, and the country as a whole - both in terms of individual fulfillment and enjoyment of life and untapped commercial potential.

Just ask people like Wynton Marsalis what music does for the soul and the spirit. Many of us get some benefit from just listening to music. Being able to create and play music gives a whole other dimension.

Other countries see and do things differently. Schools in places like Japan, Korea and China set out to offer all kids, and not just the 'elites', a proper musical education - seeing it as integral to the development of character. It's the norm. It's not unusual.

...................................................

SRE

Talented writers, whose books have been shortlisted for this year's Booker Prize, are apparently no longer writing about sex. So says an article by Tim Adams in the latest Observer. Mr Adams has in the past written extensively on this subject in Observer 'specials'.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/aug/01/sex-british-novel-chatterley

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/sex/story/0,,818295,00.htm

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/bodyuncovered/story/0,,1067744,00.html

Adams reminds us that DH Lawrence's 'Lady Chatterley's Lover', following its eventual publication in 1961, sold around two million copies.

So why are there no novelists writing about sex and human sexuality in the 21st Century? Surely the subject hasn't lost any of its interest? Surely novelists still have something to say about sex and relationships?

Apparently Andrew Motion thinks novelists are afraid to describe sexual encounters because they fear they'll end up being nominated for the Bad Sex Award. Quite right too - they've learnt a lesson that most descriptions of people having sex are rubbish. They're either stupidly full of inappropriate metaphors and similies, or they simply fail to convey the true essence of positive sexual experience. Quite possibly too many of our writers, who tend to live quite solitary lives, have had too little in the way of sublime, satisfying and fulfilling sex, and therefore find it difficult to say anything about it with an authentic voice that speaks of knowledge and wisdom.

However, it's not as though sex isn't a basic and integral part of most people's lives, since most people recognise that sex is rather wonderful, especially when you're young and prone to falling in love. What one might call transcendental sex is surely an essential part of a life well lived, since the urge and the instinct to have sex is hard-wired into all, or most, of us. And whilst the sex drive diminishes as one gets older, that doesn't mean that sex loses its potential to give pleasure and to provide an amazing intimate connection with those we most wish to be intimate with.

At the very least sex provides physical, emotional and spiritual release and stops us accumulating stress and tension to the point of exploding. Wilhelm Reich wrote about this decades ago in a book called The Function of the Orgasm.

DH Lawrence set out to tell the truth about sexual desire, and sexual needs. Lady Chatterley represents all women who have sexual needs but have great difficulty in expressing and satisfying those needs, thanks to personal inhibition and the restrictive conventions of society.

According to Tim Adams, Lawrence also set out to legitimise the word 'fuck'. "Lawrence had striven to cleanse it of its furtive, contemptuous and expletive connotations, and to use it 'in the most simple, natural way: one fucks'."

.................................................................

Sex and the City told stories of New York women fucking their way through life in a search for Mr Right, so that they could settle down and live happily ever after.

There was a three page article in yesterday's Observer - in the New Review section - which also dealt with writing about sex. In particular, with women writing about sex.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/aug/01/emily-gould-meghan-daum-confessional

True confessions in new women's lit

Candace Bushnell's Sex and the City columns inspired some dire chick lit, but also a generation of more serious young writers

The piece takes issue with the whole genre of chick lit and so-called 'confessional' writing, which has no artistic merit and does nothing more than entertain and titillate. Of course it also makes a hell of a lot of money from people who are desperate for a bit of entertainment and titillation.

As for serious writing about sex and relationships . . .

"For all that she might get annoyed by those high-heeled women on the sidewalk, without Sex and the City, there would arguably have been no Emily Gould. The 28-year-old has just published her first confessional memoir, And The Heart Says Whatever. In 11 pithily written essays, Gould, a former co-editor of the Gawker gossip website, charts her experiences as a young adult in New York, working in jobs she loathes, facing up to failed relationships and going to parties attended by people she dislikes. Her debut has already attracted praise from the likes of Jonathan Franzen, while Curtis Sittenfeld, the author of American Wife, has hailed it as a modern-day version of The Bell Jar. Gould is one of a new generation of female confessional writers who, according to Sittenfeld, "speak, in our often phoney and cheesy culture, to the truths of women's lives".

"Gould decided "very consciously to let go of whether or not anyone likes me". In And the Heart Says Whatever, she deliberately resists the urge to mould each story along a neat, narrative arc with a cleverly packaged ending. "I don't tie everything into a little bow and say: 'That's what I've learned'," she explains. "I think a lot of women writers go around apologising, saying: 'Oh stupid me, oh the goofy things I did when I was young and didn't know any better' but I set out specifically not to do that… I just want it to be OK for women to be complete people, to have sides to themselves that aren't whitewashed or palatable."

Meghan Daum, another of this new wave of serious 'alternative' writers who focus on sex and relationships, apparently

"sees her writing as a corrective to the tradition of women's magazines that talk about relationships, diet or body image in a redemptive fashion, plotting each minor self-improvement along a wider trajectory of personal growth. "I tend to be very honest and my goal is to identify something people think but are afraid to say," explains Daum. "That's not the general cultural expectation of women."

The article concludes,

"It's quite scary to men to know what [a woman] is thinking. It's much more convenient to imagine that they aren't really people", says Emily Gould.

In the same way, one imagines it might be easier to dismiss the work of female confessional authors as being somehow facile and glib because, on the surface, they deal with the small moments of everyday experience rather than dealing with the grittiness of big ideas. But this would be to do them a disservice. By engaging with their readers and speaking to them on their own level with humour and candour, Gould, Daum and Crosley seek to illuminate broader truths. They might not always succeed but at least they aim for something bigger; for something that is hopefully a little more nuanced than the endless search for Mr Right and a world viewed through the bottom of a Martini glass.

What a wonderful thing  it is to have writers who seek to question common assumptions and to challenge the status quo, who also set out to illuminate broader truths and spread a little enlightenment.
.

Layer 336 . . . The Politics of Education, Graduates, Sweat, Debt, and Disillusionment

.
Oh well, it's back to keeping up with politics, beginning with the politics of education.

Peter Preston, loud-mouthed supporter of SATs and league tables, and scourge of trendy lefty teachers, as he imagines them, is suddenly concerned about children and students actually enjoying life. Why? Well wouldn't you know it - he's been awarded an honorary degree (why?) and he wants us to know about it. Being at a graduation ceremony has caused him to focus on real students and their experiences of the education system.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/25/university-not-just-exam-slog

University: learning to enjoy life

Witnessing the hope of a graduation day, I remember that education is about more than sweat and debt

He remembers!!! At last!!

Actually this piece is only concerned with university students, and I suppose it's too much to expect him to think laterally to what also goes on in schools, and whether pupils enjoy their lives within them. To do that he'd need to actually go into a school, having been awarded an honorary GCSE or maybe an honorary Level 4 in English.

So what does he have to say about learning and enjoying life?

University isn't a mere staging post to a well-paid job . . . Nor is it just an investment in Britain's future, so we can compete with Beijing by 2020. It isn't wholly a practical slog, either, a skill box of computer or engineering skills. University is an experience, often a life-changing one. You leave school a spotty child, and three years later, you're sort of grown up. You have friends you'll probably never lose. You've looked after yourself. You've sweated through exams. If you're lucky, you've learned how to think – the best boon of the lot.

Yes Pete, old duck, IF YOU'RE LUCKY. Because even at undergraduate level there's still no priority given to learning how to think. What we have is still a grim determination to force young people to swallow a curriculum, memorise its content, and regurgitate it in exams.

In fact, this happens even at postgraduate level! A friend's very bright son decided to bale out of his Masters course as soon as he realised that there was still no scope for self-directed learning and research, and it was still a bloody boring exam treadmill.

Pete goes on:

When did we begin to forget such things?

When did YOU forget, you old bastard? Some of us have been saying this stuff forever. Beginning with primary schooling.

He goes on to blame education ministers for making "degree courses seem like tests for national survival."

This is the man who talks about Primary tests and league tables as though they're essentials to national survival!

And there's more. He concludes:

Is school, and then college or university, there as an obstacle race, a slog of tests and hurdles? Is it just a rehearsal for 50 years of frustration, sweat, debt, disillusion and staffroom tears?

The danger is making education seem unutterably grim. The hope – see that beaming [graduation] queue of something achieved – is that happiness has a part to play. For learning in this crunched, short life means learning to enjoy yourself, too.

Thanks to people like Peter Preston, Melanie Philips, Chris Woodhead and their politician friends, schools and universities HAVE become unutterably grim results factories where pupil and student wellbeing, as well as their social, emotional and spiritual intelligences, have been increasingly neglected and marginalised - in the rush to "drive up standards".

Learning to enjoy yourself? How can you enjoy yourself when you're racking up debt doing stuff day in and day out that's basically cramming for exams, with little or no opportunities for self-directed creative experience?

What a fucking idiot.

...................................................

There's more evidence of the university system being useless and actually harmful to young people's life chances reported in the education section of the Guardian this week.

Should universities teach students how to find a job?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/jul/27/graduate-job-crisis

Sarfraz Manzoor has been following the fortunes of six young people who graduated last year. How well do they feel that university prepared them for today's economic realities?

The class of 2009 left university knowing they were facing the toughest battle for jobs in a generation.

That was, at least, the dire prediction, but what was the reality? I have spent the last year documenting the post-graduation lives of six students who are among the class of 2009. The six studied at the University of Leeds and Leeds Metropolitan University, and agreed to keep audio diaries throughout their year in which they recorded their hopes for the coming year as well as their reaction to the reality.

By the end of the year, the six students were scattered around the world and were far more cynical about the value of a university education than they had been on graduating.

For a start off it's interesting that none of the six was interested in using knowledge gained from their degrees - they all wanted to pursue careers in areas like sales, journalism and the media - careers that had nothing to do with the subjects they'd been studying. Given the likelihood that they'd originally chosen those subjects for their interest and enjoyment, what does that say about the universities making them somehow utterly tedious and uninspiring?

Page and Ali both left the country to seek work in Cyprus and Saudi Arabia, while Del Core found the soul-crushing business of being rejected hard to take. "I've looked for jobs in newspapers, at the job centre, on the internet, and by word of mouth," she says. "I've had several interviews, some of which I got to the second stage, but I never got past that. It has been quite disheartening – some positions I applied for were more the dream job than a means to an end, and I was very upset when I didn't get those. I was in tears."

Having spent time with the graduates, I was struck by how much they seemed to have believed, at least at the start, that they were entitled to a well-paid and fulfilling job simply because they had been to university. "When you look at the people who are going to university," explains Professor Kate Purcell, of Warwick University's Institute for Employment Research, "they have been encouraged to think that education has given them employability skills, so as well as learning about history or English or business studies they are also learning problem solving, developing communication skills, so they are pretty confident about themselves."

This confidence is not necessarily well founded.

A lot of people go to university for the sake of it because they think it is the right thing to do. So that makes lots of graduates. Universities are still selling the idea to people that if they go to university they are guaranteed a great job at the end of it, and that is just not the case any more.

The increasing number of graduates entering the job market has meant that employers are often insisting that prospective employees pass psychometric tests as a way of selecting candidates, and it has also led to claims that too many young people are being herded into university.

"When I think about a university course, I think of something that teaches people a skill so that they are qualified to do a certain job," says Gerrard. "But, in reality, after my degree I don't feel qualified for anything – degrees don't indicate someone's common sense or people skills, and I don't think you can get through many interviews without a little of both."

Just a little? It's pathetic really - these young graduates aren't even properly aware of what they're lacking. Common sense? What's that? People skills? Such as?

What's more, it's not their fault. They've been told since Primary school that high attainment is all that matters - and too late they find it isn't. What's more, they don't really know what does matter. And they're not the only ones. Politicians and university bosses don't know either. Their assumption is always that a first class honours or a 2.1 degree will get you anywhere in life. Beyond that, they haven't a clue. Well - that's what got them a meal ticket to their high status, was it not?

And it's no wonder that employers put more trust in 'psychometric tests' than university attainment in subjects whose facts and figures they won't be using anyway. The poor bloody students think that having a degree tells people they're "bright". Actually it doesn't. It's just as likely to say they're a dull swat, a boring little library-goer, a self-regarding 'academically able' nonentity with little experience of life, proper work, or real people. Possibly a dull conformist who's unable to think for themselves, unable to think creatively and imaginatively, unable to work well in a team, or communicate effectively, or write well, or show any empathy, intuition or instinctual intelligence. Common sense indeed.

The New Learning Revolution is about developing all of these intelligences and skills. How come the people who run education in this country don't realise that yet? How many more generations of our young people will go through our education system deprived of the sorts of learning that are taken for granted in countries much smarter than ours?

What's more, they're deprived of their human right to enjoy learning for its own sake, and to be free of undue pressure and stress within the education system.

This country used to be known for its creative and innovative approaches to teaching and learning. Not only have other countries overtaken us, we've actually been going backwards for the past 20 odd years.
.

Layer 37 More Bloody SATs

.
With SATs week drawing to its close I’m afraid it’s time to write some more about this depressing subject. I say this because I’ve just chanced up a Melanie (spit) Phillips (gob) piece in the online Spectator (yuk). It’s sickening stuff. Nasty, stupid, right-wing cretinous garbage of the first order. But she does us all a favour in one simple respect. In wanting to show off her biting and trenchant intellect in another thrown-together piece of rubbish she reveals the true idiocy and nastiness of the right-wing mindset regarding schools, children and teachers.

This vile woman incredibly used to write a regular column in The Guardian. I've never understood why the paper employed her since it was always obvious that she was bigoted, authoritarian and had absolutely no empathy with liberals or progressives. So now she parades her supposedly huge intellect (cor!) in her blue stockings and her jackboots in the house magazine of bigots and reactionary nutters. She must really give those old (and young) duffers a stiffie.

Now I’m saying this as someone who has no great love of teachers as a breed. God knows I’ve met enough of them, and since most of them are quite young (they tend to either burn out or else find a more congenial career fairly quickly - a bit like the army) they often have issues around maturity, naivety, egoism, consistency, arrogance, etc. It’s also true that a lot of them struggle to get up to speed with the demands of teaching in the most deprived and impoverished areas of our cities and rural areas. It usually takes a lot of perseverance, a lot of grit, and a lot of determination to always do right by children to enable the average teacher to reach the stage of being a competent, mature and balanced individual who can work well under pressure.

However, I do care very much about all the excellent teachers who are disregarded and sneered at by Phillips and her ilk, and I do care very much about actual children, which she patently does not. At least, not the ones who attend state schools. Not the ones who struggle to reach the sacred Level 4 by the age of 11, and have to be cajoled, pushed, lashed and crammed towards it by teachers who are being cajoled, pushed and lashed into cramming them, who in turn are being cajoled etc by head teachers who are being . . .

Miss Whiplash Phillips, of course, as self-styled queen of the commentariat, does more whipping and lashing than anyone when it comes to schools and teachers. Maybe there are others who do it with more style, and certainly with more subtlety and beauty, but of course this is someone who would only want to be admired for her brains and the firmness of her opinions even if she had a staggeringly beautiful and sexy body, perish the thought. I often think of her as the female Chris Woodhead. Surely they’re created from the same test tube?

So this is what she says. And I quote.
“The SATs are not a test for pupils. Their sole purpose is to test the teachers.”

There we have it. There’s no point denying it, all you SATs lovers. This is really why you put the system there in the first place, and why you’re so determined to keep it. And to hell with the quality of learning and teaching, which the SATs system distorts and corrupts.

To hell with the alienation of non academically gifted children (and also a hell of a lot of those who are academically able, and are able to see through the uselessness of the cramming and rote learning that goes on). To hell with instilling a love of learning for its own sake. To hell with creativity and the fostering of children’s imagination. That kind of rubbish isn’t going to get you into Oxbridge, especially if you live on a council estate (unlikely anyway), and isn’t going to enable you to turn into a clone of Ms Phillips and her bilious tribe.

Phillips lays into Mick Brookes, General Secretary of the NAHT, a man who has served education as a head teacher himself for many years, and is clearly deserving of some respect, and speaks sneeringly of him as if he’s a complete fool. She calls the Commons Schools Select Committee “invariably idiotic”. She’s particularly hard on the Schools’ Minister, the hapless Jim Knight, but we’ll let that pass, since nobody has any regard anyway for this dozy front man, this puppet, and I’ve done my fair share of sneering at him in the past.

I’m really at a loss for words to say anything else about Phillips and her views, this woman who is happy to sacrifice all else as long as we go on using SATs to test the teachers. But I feel anger also for a profession that allowed itself, and allowed children, to have this nasty instrument of measurement inflicted on our schools, wreaking devastation on real education, when what was needed back in the eighties was a speeding up of the movement towards better curriculum definition to allow for the development of all of each child’s intelligences, and better systems for assessment for learning, and for the tracking of individual pupils’ progress.

Larkin wrote, “They fuck you up, your mum and dad.” But the poem goes on:

“But they were fucked up in their turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another's throats.”

Well Madame Phillips certainly is the favourite attack dog (bitch) of the Spectator classes, and prides herself on her ability to go for the jugular. As far as I’m concerned she can carry on her vicious campaign of hatred for all things slightly left of centre, and I for one will happily ignore her, but when it comes to children getting fucked up by the collateral damage, both directly and through having the legacy of indifference and hatred passed on through the generations, then I suggest we take stock and decide that enough is enough.

With some reluctance I suggest you have a look at the piece in the Speccy, since you might find my report on it hard to believe, and think I’m making it up. No, sir. You just couldn’t.

And then again, let’s just say thank you, Mel P, for laying it all on the line, and making this issue so crystal clear, for one and all.

And for a special treat visit Jim Knight MP’s website, and learn about all the good things he does for South Dorset. I take it all back, Jim. You’re a really nice man. You obviously really, really care about children. Love the goatee, by the way. Cool!

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/701706/do-keep-up-minister.thtml
http://www.artofeurope.com/larkin/lar2.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Be_The_Verse
http://www.jimknightmp.com/
.

-------------------------------------------------------------

If you get off on reading Mel P and fancy hearing/reading the words and wisdom of another female saddo and nutter, another weird and whacky 'lady', then this is the week for Cherie Blair, whose autobiography, which will probably make her at least a million, has just been published. She's actually being employed by the BBC to read sections aloud on "Book of the Week" next week. The Beeb obviously thinks it's a good read. On the other hand check out the review of it by Libby Purves in the Times Online, which calls Blair "self-serving, smug, opportunistic, vain, shallow-thinking and nasty", which also serves as a nice little summary for her husband, as well as Mel P.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/libby_purves/article3918782.ece
.