You might expect her to defend religious schools, because they're, well, religious and Mel's a bit weird that way. But she also has a lot to say about dumbed-down British education, much of which I'm inclined to agree with.
She makes the point – she makes a lot of points, but this is interesting – that Balls's department doesn't even have the word education in it: it's called the Department for Children, Schools and Families (she says "Department of", but let's not get too picky).
"It now turns out," Phillips writes, "that most of these breaches [of admissions policy] were technicalities that [Balls] blew up out of all proportion. The most damning charge was of 'cash for places' – but when that was looked at more closely, it fell apart altogether. [. . .] [T]here is not a shred of evidence that these schools have demanded cash as a condition of awarding a place, like some kind of classroom protection racket. It is a grotesque smear."
Without something approaching a forensic examination of it all, it's impossible to say who's telling the truth and who's telling the porkies, but what is telling is that, according to Philips, Balls admits that his charge was based on "unverified desk research", which is, says Mel, "a fancy way of saying he had plucked it out of the air".
Well, you can't expect rigour from products of a dumbed-down education system, I suppose (though I suspect some of Mr Balls's researchers are quite clever in some things, if only in telling us how good our dumbed-down education system is).
It's dumbed down in two respects, you might say: as hinted at above and in the fact that taxpayers' money is allowed to subsidise (and, in the case of state institutions, pay for) "faith schools" in the first place.
No comments:
Post a Comment
We welcome lively and challenging comments. However, please try to stay on topic, be polite and do not use abusive, racist or sexist language, and do not incite your readers to violence or other antisocial behaviour, or your comment will be deleted. This isn't censorship: it's a case of staying within the bounds of decency and having an eye to the law, although we realise the law will be different in different countries.
We do not bar anonymous comments at the moment, but we would prefer that those commenting play fair and use their name or at least a regular nom de plume. It does show a confidence in your convictions. We know, too, that it's easy to use a false name and be effectively anonymous, but, again, we appeal to your sense of good practice. Even a wacky nom de plume is better, since at least readers will come to know that contributor and maybe remember her or his previous comments.
Blatant commercial advertising will be removed.
Comments should not be construed as necessarily the policy or opinion of the Pink Triangle Trust.
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.