Sherington Tory

In the Further Education Bill the Government wants to allow FE colleges to award degrees. It is all part and parcel of getting 50% of school leavers and those up to the age of 30 to become graduates.

Also announced today are moves by the Higher Education Funding Council to switch money to Universities who recruit students from "poor" backgrounds. Academics from the leading universities (represented by an umbrella organisation named "The Russell Group")have voiced concerns that they will be paid for accepting students who do not have the academic vigour to complete a degree course and so they will be penalised for recruiting students who have demonstrated the academic disciplines required of them who are not deemed to have come from a "poor" background.

I worked for one of the "new" universities in london for 4 years as their Facilities Manager. One would be forgiven for thinking that a university should be about research and teaching and maintaining academic standards. In the case of the university which emlpiyed me, you would be wrong. The mission statement had more to say about social engineering and influencing social change beyond any tangible link to its remit, demoigraphic, and catchment was striking. What else was striking was the cynicism with which it tried to encourage students with poor, or even no A Levels onto degree courses by one means or another and to try and keep them from dropping out by doing away with exams, allowing re-sit after re-sit of exams until a pass mark was achieved, and when all else failed allowing mitigating circumstances to be used to disregard failure and award degrees anyway. The single criteria for enrolment at this university is the ability to pay fees. It is a damning indictment of this policy that the drop-out rate of students who cannot cope at this University is exceptionally high. Not surprisingly it refuses each year to publish it's results for the Tmies league tables.

Under the proposed system the likes of UCL (and I will profess now that it my twice alma mater) would be penalised for recruiting the brightest and best students against the likes of the university I used to work for. Parents of teenagers applying to the better universities are rightly worried that their children will strugle to find places whilst lesser qualified, and consequently lesser able, peers are admitted. Universities are worried that they will have to water down course content in order for them to cope.

One result of this policy over the past few years is that schools now push less able students towards easier subjects that Universities are forced to expand in order to obtain funding to subsidise the harder, and thus less popular courses. Only this week Reading University has announced the closure of it's Physics Department because of falling student numbers. To the Universities it does not make viable economic sense to offer courses that are under-subscribed because funding is being targeted on a demographic that is being pushed towards A Levels in Combined Sciences rather than pure Physics because it is deemed to be easier to pass, and an inflated grade plus the "tick in the box" as being from a target social group will see you leap over those students from non-target schools with good A Levels gets the University more (much needed) cash from HEFCE's coffers.

Children from poorer backgrounds are not inherently less intelligent than those from better off backgrounds. What they do lack in comparison however is a decent school system that can nurture their talents so that they achieve their potential. If we are to provide genuine opportunity for all we need to ditch some idiotic fallacies that have driven education policy for the past 9 years:

1. Universities should be about academic excellence. Not as many as half of young people aged between 18-30 would derive any real benefit from a degree as the value of holding one is debased. The net result is that students are graduating thousands of pounds in debt and joining a graduate job market that is offering the asme jobs as they were to non-graduates 10 years before.

2. If the FE sector is to flourish it needs to offer a practical alternative to degrees that are attractive to employers and students alike. Giving them degree awarding powers and then creating another overseeing standards QUANGO as proposed in the FE Bill is not the answer.

3. Schools are the starting place for academic standards and should be given the flexibility to promote and encourage learning as opposed to meeting arbitrary targets. I wrote a few day ago about flexible catchments, and this is one of many changes needed to the way schools operate to give them the means to teach. It is interesting that many independant schools are ditchnig the A Levels as discredited and opting either for the international Baccalaureate or the new Cambridge "Pre-University" diploma.

It is a grave concern to me that school places, then, are at such a stretch in Milton Keynes. We welcome 13 new residents a day on average, and yet in spite of this 450 pupils are being educated in temporary accommodation, and the temporary accommodation at Oakgrove is now set to stay for another five years. Given that the Government are happy to set the expansion plan for Milton Keynes until 2031 but funding for schools only until 2008, I am concerned that our students will not be given anything like the best start in life that they should be getting. The failure of both the Lib Dem Council to get the school building programme in Olney on time and on cost as well as adding too little too late to school provision, and Government's short sightedness and focus on tomorrow's headlines has hampered the city's ability to meet the challenges of providing the first rate education our residents deserve.

Both Mark Lancaster and I believe that the city ought to have a dedicated undergraduate university. We have representation from de Montfort, Crafield, and the Open University, but neither Mark or I feel that they satisfy the demand. I am particularly interested in the approach of the University of Buckingham, the UK's only private undergraduate University. I think the model would translate well into MK. If it is to be successful though the Council ought to go beynod lobbying for it's creation, but pressing Government hard for a joined up schools policy to adress the deficiencies of 9 years of labour's social meddling and "class war" dressed up as policy.

The idea that schools should not necessarily be constrained in their admissions policy by geography is one that deserves serious consideration.

One of the latest ideas to come out of the Conservative policy review is that schools in poor areas suffer from the flight of those more able to afford to live in more properous areas and so are able to send their children to academically higher achieving schools.

It is one of the blights of this Labour Government that school attainment has gone down rather than up. Of course every year exam results improve, but the truth is that exams are getting easier to pass. I have been, at times, forced to employ school leavers who are barely capable of writing a sentence in coherent English and yet they have a grade C at GCSE English. One of the reasons why the Independant sector is capable of maintaining high standards is that they can recruit from a wide catchement area, making their student body as diverse as they wish it to be.

LEA's run by socialist authorities are terrified of choice because parents invariably do not wish to choose to send their children to schools that they run. They are not fooled by the rhetoric and ideology that replaces pedagogy with child-centred learning. Theirs is a "do as I say not as I do" mentality, or else why else whould firebrand socialist MP Diane Abbott spend so much tmie denouncing independant schools but choose to send her son to one rather than the sink school her politics creates?

Of course there are risks that accompany the rewards. Schools freed from geographic recruiting boundaries must ensure that they cater for the communities they find themselves in. That is not the same as saying that it should be difficult for parents from outside that community to successfully apply to send their child there if they choose to do so. But schools should be able to compete with one another. It is the best way to ensure that successful schools remain successful. Regulated competition would see schools be able to join forces in managament take-overs just as in commerce. Teachers should be encouraged to develop professionally and be exposed to best practice, and those who fail to make the grade should be removed from the classroom. Interestingly it was the left-wing fabian Society that a few weeks ago observed that poor classroom discipline was often as a direct result of boredom brought about by indifferent, or uninspired, or incompetent teaching. Some students took a decision on whether to truant based on which teachers they were likely to have that day. Permanent recruitment plays a significant factor in this as a constant turnover of supply teachers can be both damaging and demoralising for both teacher and pupil as neither is able to build up a rapport or plan ahead in such uncertainty. The quality of this generation's students will most certainly influence the quality of the next generation of teachers.

I am in favour of school specialisation and this government should now consider the next logical step in that process and not necessarily limit access to students who show aptitude in a given area because of geography. It does not benefit the acdemically gifted child to not have the option of applying for a grammar school place when he or she is forced to attend a school with specialist sports college designation because they find themselves constrained by catchment area. Many FE colleges and Universities specialise and recruit from all over (and do very well out of it also), so there is little argument from preventnig schools from doing the same.

I enjoyed Sunday's Rembrance Day parade and service at Newport immensly. It's an opportunity to see some of those who fought in defence of this nation in World War 2 and since and enjoy a conversation and a beer in the Legion afterwards. Sadly the numbers of those who served in WW2 are dwindling and I feel grateful that I am part of that last generation who will hear the stories of that time recounted by those who were there.

As a former serviceman myself I appreciate the need for us to recall the sacrifices made by others in the defence of what makes this nation so great. To the detractors of Remebrance Sunday I continue to argue its relevance in this troubled world. It is only by recalling the lessons of the past that we learn not to make mistakes again, and it is in recalling the sacrifice those men made that we understand the true impact of the decisions that are made in our name and the need for the democratic process. Now more than ever, in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan the questoins are being asked about the need for our service men and women to place themselves in harms way. I would continue to argue the need to see through what we have started in order to build a stable political environment and to provide the infrastructure necessary to allow people to live their lives in peace. The sacrifice made by the 4 service personnel on Sunday whofell victim to a bomb in Iraq was a poignant reminder of our obligations and the courage and moral fibre of those who serve.

I heard one old soldier tell me that he is glad he doesn't have to serve in the army of today with it's increasing complexity. He himself went throuhg many hard tmies and lost many friends in the Far East, but he said at least it was clear who the enemy was. Now the modern British Army faces an indistinguishable threat that fights "asymetrically", or in an unconventional manner. It is a great credit to this cnostituency that our MP is a serving TA Major who spent his summer recess on operations in Afghanistan. His authority to speak out on this issue is now unquestioned. It is a sad truth that there are precious few MPs now who vote on where to commit the UK's armed forces have never served themselves. I hope that they do not view Rememberance Day as a motion that needs to be gone throuhg, but reflect long and hard on what it is and what it means. I saw many people from my own party at Sunday's events, including the Kenyons who are our stalwarts in that ward. I was dissapointed not to see our Lib Dem councillor for Sherington at the service. In the democratic process we all have our obligations to think long and hard about the impact of the decisions we make and Remembrance day acts as a focus of those thoughts on what I believe really matters.

Did anyone see the little article in the Times today about Kirklees Council?

Once dubbed the most Politically Correct (PC) council in Britian, common sense now seems to be the yardstick by which the council is to be run. It was after the appalling governence of the Lib Dems that the council earned it's reputation for barking mad PC nonense that led to the election of the divisive British National Party (BNP) into 2 of the wards. Examples of the lib Dem's utter stupidity included the training book "Equality Essesntials" that even banned employees from using the term "Political Correctness" in case somebody was so overly sensistve they might be offended by the term.

The leader of the new Conservative run administration, Cllr Robert Light, described the Lib Dem days as " a PC zealot's charter". Unfortunately, PC nonesense and badly run councils are exactly what you get when you vote Lib Dem. I bet the people of Kirklees are relieved that the Tory's are back in the driving seat getting rid of the officious PC stupidity!

Ask yourself a question. When was the last time you read in the papers or heard on the news that an Evangelical member of the Church of England launched a suicide attack on innocent civilians?

The fact is that 99% of mainstream Christians the world over are not driven or drawn to acts of random violence against strangers, irrespective of their denomination. There are, of course, exceptions to this rule such as the more deranged anti-abortionists in the US and the protagonists of the Protestant/Catholic divide in Northern Ireland. In the former case the link between religion and violence is tenuous, in the latter it is about generations old hatreds between communities based in the politics of settlement. Remove the religious aspect of the Northern Ireland divide and you would still have an indigenous population that for centuries has resented the political power excerted over them by settlers from elsewhere so the matter of whether their bishop or elder takes his thological instruction from a bishop in Rome or Canterbury is only a part of the bigger picture.

To read the mainstream press this week you would think that the Christian Faith schools of this country are hotbeds of murderous intent bent on subverting our youth into irrational self-segregation that will ultimately lead to the downfall of social cohesion as we know it. Utter rubbish!

I want to deal with a couple of issues on this matter. The first is that the press are jumping on the bandwagon of establishing fear in order to stir up some mild histeria in order to sell copy. Nothing new there you might quietly ponder. The press have suggested that the seed-bed of terrorism is the madrassa, or Islamic faith school, and by extension they are arguing that a madrassa being a faith school it is exclusive and therefore breeds a culture of segregation, that as a consequence segregation leads to isolation from the community, which can be manipulated into hostility, that then becomes a fertile ground for fundamentalism, that can easily be turned into active terrorism. The next logical leap for the press is that if Islamic faith schools are bad, that all faith schools have the same potential to segregate. Only the weakness in the argument, as I pointed out at the beginning is that the Church of England is not exactly known for producing violent extremists. So instead the argument is turned into one of educational Apartheid - faith schools produce motivated students and have higher standards of discipline, but because they are exclusive they are de facto creating a 2-tier education system of "haves" and "have nots" depending on faith... oh, and by the way they breed ignorance and... etc etc.

I want to debunk a few of these assertions.

Firstly, let's deal with Islamic schools. Yes there have been some horrendous incidents of violence in the past few years perpetrated by fundamentalists in the name os Islam (and note I say "in the name of" and not on behalf of because the vast majority of Muslims are as appalled by what is done in their name as the rest of us), but those acts of violence have been committed by men who are angry, impressionable, and looking to make their mark. They are subverted by manipulitive men who do great damage in the name of a cause. For many of these young terrorists they fit a psychological profile which would potentially see them behave in similar way for a cause they believe strongly in, and it is entirely possible that they would find a cause be it "animal liberation/anti-vivisection", political extremism, nationalism, anti-globalisation, or any cause that unites people in the desire to challenge authority and order with violence. The madrassa itself is not at fault, only the ideology of some of the people who teach their own (violent) interpretation of the Koran. It is incumbent on the Islamic community to ensure that such people are weeded out and kept away from impressionable young minds, and my experience is that great efforts are made to do this.

Of course the Government is happy to see such ideological prosecution of faith schools, it fits their intellectually "liberal" ideology, their latent anti-hierrachical tendencies, and their abhorrance of authoritative conservatism. Also, without the fear of terrorism any last strand of authenticity for the call to invade Iraq is gone. The paradox is, that it is the very reasonsing for the invasion that is the cause of the much of the terrorism in the first place.

The second issue is the false impression given that our faith schools are the cause of social division. in yesterday's Times the normally lucid Martin Samual opined in such a way as to quite literally go off the intellectual rails. He related the history of a Catholic priest and politician called Ludwig Haas who cut a deal with Hitler's National Socialist party to keep faith schools in Germany in return for Haas' support in the Reichstag for the Enabling Act that gave Hitler effectual dictatorship to the behaviour of the churches today in preventing the British education system being turned into some supposed eutopian model of diversity and engagement. Utter, utter nonensene.

The impression the reader is left with is that Faith schools are some secret club with secret incantations and rituals hidden from view where children are taught to be suspicious of their unGodly neighbour that ought to have their doors burst open to forced diversity to dilute them to an extent that they integrate into society. As an opinion piece it preys on the ignorance of many readers of what faith schools actually are.

I went to a Catholic school in Lancashire. I can tell you it was no different to the "state" secondary school less than 500 yards away. The funding for the Catholic school I attended was a 70/30 slpit between state and church. In return the church sets a broad admissions policy that does not exclude children from non-RC feeder schools, but which sets the tone for teaching in an environment that is conducive to Christan philosphy. The RE syllabus in the first 3 years follows the history of christianity and catholicism in Europe and England and touches upon philosophical thought and its influences. In the final (GCSE) years the study is centred around Mark's Gospel account (which of the 4 Gospel writers is the most chronological and therefore useful in a teaching sense) and the principles of the sacramental life of the church. In every other regard the syllabus is exactly the same as every non-religiously founded school in the country, save for a prayer at each assembly, and mass in the school chapel each Friday lunchtime.

The reason that RC and CofE schools are often seen as more disciplined has a lot to do with the Christian ethics that are taught. The family, in Christian theology, is a central plank of our faith and beliefs (just as it is in most others). The school is seen as one extended family, it is inclusive, and like any family it needs rules and self-discipline to survive. As much as the school is a "family" it is also part of that wider family, which is the church. A child who attends and RC, CofE, or other denominational school is much less likely to find themselves in a culture of "dog eat dog" or "every man for himself". In a world where individual rights have taken on the sacrosanct nature where a lack of values has left a void, this nuturing of a sense of community ought to be a vitue to be extolled, not castigated.

The fact is that Faith schools have a more inclusive admissions policy that you might think from reading the press coverage of late, so there really is no need to enforce arbitrary quotas, such as the 25% "non-faith" students that are being bandied about by commentators. By suggesting such things we really are doing faith foundation schools an injustice and a dis-service. We are damning by implication (and with that half-truths) schools that go out of their way to encourage positive citizenshipand tolerance. Remember the "Great Commission" of the Christian faith is "Love one another as I have loved you", a central tennant of the ethos, philosophy, aqnd culture of christan foundation scvhools the country over.

I wonder what effect such constant and oppressive negative press does to the morale of the wonderful teaching staff at Sherington CofE school who must feel as if they are under siege without the means of defence at their disposal that the national press has. Not only them, but also the teaching and support staff in the other faith schools of Milton Keynes. I'm yet to see our Lib Dem run council fighting their corner vociferously.