Teaching Assistants - Supply Teachers on the Cheap

I am often amazed at the slowness of this government to discover "matters of concern" in education, but this latest discovery takes the biscuit. As today's BBC web page sets out:

"Teacher shortages mean classroom support staff are doing work normally done by qualified teachers, suggests a survey of union members.

Some two-thirds of almost 700 classroom supervisors who responded felt they did the work of supply teachers, says the Association of Teachers and Lecturers.
"This can only lead to lower educational standards," said ATL general secretary Mary Bousted.
The government said support staff should not be used to replace teachers."
Well put, but what surprises me is that it has taken so long for the government to find out; I personally have known about this for years. When the DFE brought in Planning, Preparation and Assessment Time (PPA) in 2005, it became normal practice in some schools to leave non-core subjects to be taught by Teaching Assistants (TAs) for one or two lessons while the teachers were on their PPA release time. As I did this myself, I can attest that all my TA colleagues worked very well, scrupulously following the plans that I left for them. When I retired from full-time work in 2011 and worked as a supply teacher for several years, I found the situation to be no different in any school I worked in. I even know of a London secondary school where security staff were used to cover classes, some years ago. No-one ever seemed to question this. Many schools appointed full-time PPA teachers, but a large number did not.
In the early stages of my 30-year full time career, there were no TAs; the teacher was responsible for all teaching and non-teaching tasks, which were time-consuming and arduous. Since the 90s,TAs have gradually grown in numbers and importance in schools. In fact, I don't think our schools could function without them.
For this reason, and because I have friends who continue as TAs, I think it worth examining more of the ATL's overdue discoveries. Back to the BBC item:
"Dr Bousted said teacher shortages, along with increasing pressure on school budgets, were leading to the use of support staff to replace teachers "in a way that was never intended".
"So rather than hiring a temporary teacher, schools are asking support staff to teach.
"They should not be asked to do it," said Dr Bousted."
This is true. Some schools, though, use TAs as supply teachers for no other reason than budgetary considerations - although they might well now use the teacher shortage as an excuse. In the event of teacher absence, through sickness, courses, etc, it is standard practice to employ a supply teacher to cover their absence. Some schools, however, in order to save money, as Dr Bousted says, cover their classes with TAs, as I know for a fact. Once again, I quote the BBC:
"Of almost 700 who answered questions on supervising classes for absent teachers, 72% of TAs asked said it was impossible to supervise without teaching some form of lesson.
And 64% felt their work as cover supervisors was indistinguishable from supply teaching."
Quite. It also needs to be said that any supply teacher would be better paid than a TA. And yes, I do know of schools where it is happening, but I am forced to be discreet. Nor do all Heads value and cherish their TAs - I am told of one school where the incoming Head slashed the TAs' lunch hour by 50%! Besides this, the practice of using TAs to cover lessons while teachers have their PPA time continues in many schools, although we now know that they should never be used in such a role.
Finally, let us look at the government response to this newly discovered scandal that everyone knew about.
"This survey shows that, sadly, support staff feel over-utilised and undervalued.
"It is driving experienced and valuable staff from the profession," said Dr Bousted.
A Department for Education spokeswoman said: "We trust heads, governors and academy trusts to plan their staffing.
"Support staff are best used when they add value to what teachers do, not when they replace them."
I am astonished at this; the DFE trusts schools with very little usually. The last three decades have seen unrelenting top-down pressure from successive governments and the DFE. Why was this matter overlooked? Don't watch this space for the answer. Already, offending heads, governors and academy trusts will be preparing their excuses and warning their TAs not to talk to the press. The long and tedious inquiry has begun.

Holocaust Memorial Day - Reflections and Memories

Back in the 1970s, as an active member of the Anti-Nazi League (ANL), like all members and supporters, I was involved in distributing posters, sticker and leaflets which depicted scenes from the Holocaust below a banner headline : "Never Again". This was part of a campaign against the National Front (NF) which we saw (rightly) as a neo-Nazi organisation with plans for Britain's ethnic minorities and their political opponents similar to those of Adolf Hitler's NSDAP (Nazis), i.e. mass murder.
Fortunately, the NF imploded at the end of the 70s, and never got to implement their policies. Undoubtedly, the campaigning by the ANL had played its part in this; even in the 70s, memories of the Holocaust and the crimes of the Nazis were still fresh in our national memory. Holocaust Memorial Day, chosen for the 27th January as the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz by the Red Army, is intended to remind future generations of the multitude of crimes committed durng the Holocaust, as well as honouring the Holocaust's victims.
Today, of course, is of particular poignancy to the Jewish people, who Hitler had marked down for total annihilation. We usually attribute the figure of six million to Jewish victims, but this is probably an underestimate. Thousands of infants and babies were killed before their births could be registered.
Even back in the 1970s, there were people who pointed out that there were millions of non-Jewish victims in the Holocaust. As the Huffington Post says:
"Historians estimate the total number of deaths to be 11 million, with the victims encompassing gay people, priests, gypsies, people with mental or physical disabilities, communists, trade unionists, Jehovah's Witnesses, anarchists, Poles and other Slavic peoples, and resistance fighters."
And we should remember them all, even though remembering can be traumatic. As Shakespeare's Macbeth says in Act 5, Scene 5, merely reading of Holocaust statistics and survivors' memories can leave you saying:
"I have supped full with horrors".
Here are just a few carefully chosen examples:

1. Approximately 220,000-500,000 Romanies (Gypsies) were killed during the Holocaust.
2. More than 870,000 Jews were killed at Treblinka with a staff of just 150 people. There were fewer than 100 known survivors of Treblinka.
3. In one infamous concentration camp experiment, newborn babies were taken away from nursing mothers to see how long they could survive without feeding.

And that's quite enough for a short blog item...

That's why we in the ANL campaigned under the slogan "Never Again!". The trouble is, it has happened again, albeit in circumstances we could never have anticipated. Pol Pot in Cambodia, between 1975 to 1979, oversaw the murder of about 1,700,000 people; Idi Amin of Uganda slaughtered 300 000; 900 000 were killed in Rwanda in 1994; 320 000 are estimated to have perished in the Syrian Civil War, which began in 2012.

Besides this, which is only a sample (click on link for full list), I was saddened to read in the Guardian and on the BBC website that hate crime shows no sign of disappearing. As the Guardian says today:

"A quarter of the British public have witnessed racial hate crime in the last year, according to research released to mark Holocaust Memorial Day as the millions who fell victim to genocide are commemorated".

We can only be grateful that the neo-Nazis have failed in their attempts to create a mass movement in this country. Efforts to counteract hate crime, though, must be stepped up, not by a successor to the ANL, but by all of us. Ethnic and religious minorities, asylum seekers, LGBT people and even the disabled are targets for hate crime. Just how bad this has become is borne out by statistics:

"Home Office statistics on recorded hate crime released in October showed a rise of 18% on the previous year. In 2014-15 there were 52,528 hate crimes recorded by police, compared with 44,471 hate crimes the year before.
Of those, 42,930 (83%) were hate crimes based on race, 5,597 (11%) were about sexual orientation, 3,254 (6%) were to do with religion, 2,508 (5%) were directed at disabled people and 605 (1%) were transgender hate crimes."
In sum, we must all become campaigners against hate crime; we owe it to the victims of all the Holocausts to prevent another.

The Guardian, the DWP and Unintended Consequences

"The law of unintended consequences, often cited but rarely defined, is that actions of people—and especially of government—always have effects that are unanticipated or unintended." - so says the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, although we are all surely aware that this can happen, whatever course of action we follow. Or perhaps not - the dropping of atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the last century and the disastrous invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq in this are examples to the contrary. Failure to think ahead before proceeding with well intentioned actions, as the old saying says, has paved the way to Hell itself.
Recently, I came upon two Guardian articles, written with the most laudable of aims, which could well have unforeseen repercussions.
One, by Diane Taylor, dated on the 6th of this month, is titled: "The DWP – a bureaucracy of outstanding brutality"; the other, by Aisha Gani and written on the 7th January is titled "DWP told woman she was not ill enough for benefit on day she died". Both are well written, and sincerely concerned for the victims of apparent DWP malevolence.
Diane Taylor's article is a moving account of how a young African woman she calls Hawa, illegally trafficked to the UK as a sex slave, escaped, was granted asylum, and turned to the DWP for support, only to be denied benefits. Taylor says:
"It eventually emerged that Hawa’s benefits had been pulled because she had not shown the DWP a letter she had recently received from the Home Office extending her refugee status into indefinite leave to remain. But why were her benefits being axed for failing to comply with an instruction that was never received? It was explained that the benefits could be applied for again but the process would have to start from scratch".
Aisha Gani's article covers a subject that featured more widely in the media: the outrageous case of tragic 67-year old Dawn Amos whose sickness benefit was cancelled in a letter sent on the day she died. Gani writes:
"Sent on the day she died, it notified her that her allowance was being withdrawn based on “treatment, medication, symptoms and test results”.
Both these cases are deplorable, and I completely support what these journalists have done. What worries me is that these articles, and others like them, could well have highly unpleasant consequences for ordinary DWP staff.
Now, if you type "Guardian" and "DWP" into Google, you will see that the Guardian has run a number of articles attacking the actions of the DWP and the politicians whose policies they implement. They are unique in doing this, as right-wing newspapers (guess who!) usually attack the DWP for lavishing huge amounts in benefits on scroungers, migrants and bloody foreigners in general. The problem is, as I see it, that it is the front line DWP staff who have to follow the directives handed down to them and suffer the backlash from the public.
In May 2014, I posted an article - "Biting the Helping Hand"- which looked at violence against public sector workers. I looked at the rate of assaults on teachers, police, NHS staff, and the DWP. Assaults against DWP staff at that time were showing an increase, but I have been unable to locate figures for 2015. With apologies for this, I quote myself here:
"The DWP's own stats showed staff reported 476 assaults in 2012/13 - up from 228 in 2009/10, before the coalition took power and began changing the benefits system...Of the 476 assaults reported last year, 80 resulted in cuts and bruises and 23 in an injury greater than a cut or a bruise..."
I have written about this since, but omitted to describe the effect that these incidents have on DWP staff. From "The Sunday Post" of two years' ago, I found this:
"Policies to slash the benefits bill have led to a rise in assaults. Increasing violence in job centres is leaving staff scared to go to work...Last year alone there were more than 20,000 attacks."
I am not suggesting that Diane Taylor, Aisha Gani and other Guardian journalists are inciting these attacks or condoning them, but I wish they would make a distinction between politicians who frame policy, senior staff who order that policy to be carried out, and the poor staff at the sharp end who have to follow their directives. As a Guardian reader of many years sitting and standing, I expect far better.

David Bowie, Music, and the National Front

No-one takes the National Front (NF) seriously these days. They are estimated to have no more than 400 active members and, as Hope not Hate comments:
"Few of the NF’s branches have ready access to party materials and the party is often seen as a drinking club".
That is welcome news, but things were not always like this. Back in the 1970s, the NF were seen as an approaching menace, growing in number, influence and credibility by holding provocative street marches, rowdy public meetings and recruiting soccer hooligans. At times, and especially in the violent street confrontations that took place, it was possible to believe we lived in Weimar Britain, facing a neo-Nazi takeover. I was in the Socialist Workers' Party (SWP) at the time, largely because they were - to their credit - spearheading the campaign against the NF, widening the base of the campaign by founding the Anti-Nazi League (ANL) and Rock Against Racism (RAR). Some pundits will have it that Mrs Thatcher caused the NF's demise by her restrictions on immigration. Anyone, like me, who took part in any of the many events organised all over Britain by ANL and RAR at that time, finds that hard to swallow. In 1978, they held a joint rally and music festival in Victoria Park, Hackney, which starred anti-fascist bands such as The Clash, The Tom Robinson Band and Sham 69. I was there, and well remember the exhilaration of the event. I cannot bring myself to believe that all the activism of those times had no effect. Or perhaps I'm just being sentimental?
RAR began because of the declarations of support for Fascism and racism by three leading musicians. One of these musicians was Eric Clapton, who, drunk on stage in Birmingham, August 1976, praised Enoch Powell and told the audience to "get the coons out of Britain". A number of times during the concert, Clapton shouted "Keep Britain White!" - an NF slogan. (Clapton has never lost his admiration for Powell). Another singer listed by RAR was Rod Stewart, and the third - of interest here - was David Bowie. At the time, there was a rumour that one of these three was secretly financing the NF, but this was never proven.
David Bowie went further to the Right in his statements. The eulogies written about him since his recent death (January 10) praise him for many things. His individualism, his ambivalent sexuality and flouting of the dull conventions of 60s and 70s Britain, would appear to make him, as Rod Liddle has said in "The Spectator":
"...  a sort of combination of Harvey Milk and Peter Tatchell rolled into one: a fearless fighter for LGBT rights, pushing back the barriers of conservative morality and heralding, almost single-handedly, a brave new world of equality for gays, transgendered persons, bisexuals, etc."
It comes a shock to learn that Bowie:
1. In 1975, said that Britain needed a good dose of fascism.
2. Again at that time, he said: ‘I believe very strongly in fascism… Adolf Hitler was one of the first rock stars."
3. On the moral decay he believed he saw in Britain at that time: ‘You’ve got to have an extreme right-wing front come up and sweep everything off its feet and tidy everything up."
There were unconfirmed rumours that he had been caught with Nazi literature in his luggage by Swedish customs. There were also reports that he had been photographed giving Nazi salutes in one of his personas - the Great White Duke. As the Jewish Chronicle says:
"As the Duke, Bowie was known to make pro-fascist comments, praising nationalism and Hitler in interviews. He subsequently blamed heavy drug use for his behaviour."
He also blamed his persona for having led him into making extremist statements. This is a remarkable thing to say, rather like Steve Coogan blaming Alan Partridge for his (Coogan's) getting a job as a TV presenter.
And Bowie survived this storm - why? Some artists would have been finished by such events, but he bounced back. One reason could be that no-one really believed Bowie to mean what he was saying. And he didn't - he went on to marry an African woman and father a mixed race child, on whom he doted. He was a great supporter of Live Aid and a huge admirer of black funk and soul  music. He recently teamed up with P Diddy to re-record "This is not America". These are not the actions of a hard line national socialist, but Bowie should have counted himself lucky to have survived as a performer.
If all this is relevant, it shows the power of Bowie to change his personas, his musical styles, his lyric content and infuse them all with enduring passion. His early tracks still sound as fresh and original as they did when he first began, even the "Laughing Gnome". He went from being an Anthony Newley clone to an androgenous sex god, to a diamond dog, then a Great White Duke, then a guy in the group ("The Tin Machine") to a musical recluse. He could sing rock, blues, soul, funk, ballads and Christmas songs (with Bing Crosby). He even played saxophone on a Steeleye Span album track.
I can only wonder: did all these fluctuations reflect a psychological defence mechanism which he developed from childhood? Perhaps he only felt comfortable when he pretended to be someone else? Also, in his lyrics, marvellous as they are, there seems to be an affinity with outsiders. Major Tom, Ziggy Stardust, Jean Genet ("Jean Genie"), the narrator in "Where Are We Now?" (off the penultimate album, "The Next Day") are all outsiders in some way. Did Bowie think of himself in these terms? Was he the kind of person who could feel lonely in a crowded room? I shall never know, and he might well have been none of these things. His self-imposed isolation of recent years might hint at this, however, as well as the opaque nature of some of his more recent lyrics.
This is all speculation, of course. What can definitely be said is that the worlds of music and art have lost a towering genius. Perhaps the most significant of the many tributes to Bowie came from the first British astronaut, Major Tim Peake, who tweeted from space:
 "Saddened to hear David Bowie has lost his battle with cancer – his music was an inspiration to many."
I think it fair to say: Major Tom's creator would have liked that.

The Rhymes & Routes Christmas Message 2015

By the time we reach December, it seems as though Christmas has already been around for months. That's because it has: I saw my first Christmas merchandise in September. In 1956, the science fiction writer Frederik Pohl published a short story called “Happy Birthday, Dear Jesus.” It's set in a future when September is the height of the Christmas season, and the shopping frenzy has only another three months to go. On Christmas night, everyone removes all traces of Christmas to prepare for the next selling season, unaware, or perhaps uncaring, of the fact that Christmas Day is meant to be the beginning of the holiday, not the end. It's a tale that seems increasingly prescient as time goes by.

Religious types sometimes complain that all the shopping and partying detracts from what they call the true meaning of Christmas, but even they know that Jesus wasn't really born in December and that his year of birth is variously estimated between 2 BC and 5 BC. It's a bit rich of them to complain about Christmas being hijacked when the early Fathers of the Church themselves decided to claim pagan winter festivals, such as Saturnalia and Yule, as their own. Christians are fully entitled to celebrate at this time of year, but they cannot claim exclusive rights.

This is all by the by. There are nasty elements in our society who can only see this time of year, irrespective of whether it's a time of religious celebration or of parties and materialism, as an opportunity to further their own malicious ends. They surreptitiously spread the message that it is politically incorrect to celebrate Christmas in case it offends people with other religions, and many ordinary people fall into the trap of believing it. We hear stories of Christmas being “banned” by local councils and schools; such tales are almost always a deliberate misinterpretation of the facts, which are usually quite innocent when properly examined.

This is a complete lie

In recent years, we see people posting Christmas pictures, such as nativity scenes, on Facebook with messages stating that Facebook is trying to get such scenes removed because they are offensive, so let's keep posting them to prove them wrong. This is a malicious falsehood without the slightest basis in fact and is a deliberate attempt to make people think that the symbols of their culture and their celebrations are under attack. Why would anyone tell such lies? Because they wish to stir up ill-feeling against religious minorities in this country. They are extreme right-wing racists who aim to get ordinary people unnecessarily worried so that they become unwitting allies by making them think that everything that defines their way of life is under attack. Unfortunately, I've seen too many ordinary decent people fall for this malevolent nonsense.

The truth is entirely different.

Ten years ago, in my capacity of union rep, I visited one of my members at his home in December to discuss his personal case. In the corner of the living room there was what I took to be the family Hindu shrine, and while we were talking, his younger sisters were decorating a Christmas tree, and doing a really good job too: it was all looking very festive. Inspired by the sight of young Hindu girls putting up Christmas decorations, I said to him as I left, “Happy Christmas”, and he replied similarly. No offence intended, or taken.

In 2013, the Muslim Council of Britain produced two cards wishing everyone a HappyChristmas, along with a statement that said: "Who wants to ban Christmas? Not Muslims. So put up the Christmas tree, prepare the roast, wrap the presents and spread the Yuletide joy. None of us will be offended if you go ahead and enjoy the Christmas cheer. We'll remember too the blessings Jesus gave to all of us. He was, after all, an important Prophet to Muslims.”

There you have it: it is not politically incorrect to celebrate Christmas, and no one really minds if you do. Living in a multicultural society doesn't mean anyone has to surrender their own way of life. It simply means we have various different cultures living side by side, and there is absolutely no reason why, with good will, we can't do that in peace and harmony. Surely that is at the heart of the Christmas message.

So whatever your religious beliefs, or if you have none at all, I sincerely wish you a Happy Christmas, however you choose to enjoy it!

RedNev

alias Nev Grundy

OFSTED, Standards and the Pantomime Season

As Christmas approaches, the pantomime season begins. Pantomime was once regarded with scorn by serious actors, but it has grown in esteem among the acting fraternity, and it is now common to see thespian luminaries such as Sir Ian McKellen, Jo Brand, David Hasselhoff and even Anne Widdicombe (she was a Fairy Godmother) tread the boards in productions such as Aladdin, Puss in Boots, Cinderella and Jack and the Beanstalk. I think it a good idea, then, to continue the trend by casting a pantomime with leading figures from politics and education. No better candidates for pantomime can be found than the Chief Inspector of Schools, Sir Michael Wilshaw, who has recently been passing comments and judgements on secondary schools in the North West and the Midlands.
In the annual OFSTED report (a sort of round robin Christmas card), the BBC comments:
"... the report highlights concerns about a north-south gap - with stronger GCSE results in London and the South and weaker results in parts of the North and Midlands.
"This gap is a worrying one. We don't want to see a divided country after the age of 11," Sir Michael said.
More than 400,000 pupils in the North and Midlands go to a school that is "less than good", and the Ofsted chief said this could not be "explained away" by higher levels of deprivation.
Primary schools were much more successful than secondary, Sir Michael said, despite facing similar problems of social disadvantage".
Sir Michael, you see, has anticipated the obvious criticism: the fact that many areas in the North and Midlands are areas of severe poverty and social deprivation. This grossly obvious point, please note, is regarded as merely "explaining away" the situation.
Now, in my casting of the OFSTED panto, my initial casting for Sir Michael was as the rear end of a pantomime horse. This is because his apparently logical conclusions are not as accurate as might at first be believed.
Firstly, schools in areas of deprivation tend not to be as well resourced as those in more prosperous areas. I have personal experience of this. As a Religious Education (R.E.) co-ordinator in a Liverpool primary school in the 90s, I was allotted an annual budget of about £50. When I took on the same role in a West London primary school in the noughties, I was allowed nearly a thousand pounds! And, please remember, R.E. is generally regarded as a Cinderella subject in primary schools (no irony intended). Core subjects received much more funding. Resources are vital to all schools in order to help in the delivery of the curriculum, and this is a factor that OFSTED should have accounted for in their report.
Another point missed by Sir Michael and his acolytes is the fact that many secondary schools in deprived areas find it difficult to motivate pupils to work for examination success when they can see no job at the end of it. It may be argued that there are deprived areas in the South, but that does not hold water - in the South, and London especially, there is always the chance of some kind of a job. This is not the case in Skelmersdale, Toxteth or Rotherham.
There is also the fact (ignored by Sir Michael) that teaching is increasingly becoming a good profession to leave. As the BBC article says:
"Head teachers' leader Brian Lightman linked the north-south gap to the "very serious difficulties" that schools faced in recruiting teachers.
Mr Lightman, head of the ASCL head teachers' union, said schools in challenging areas were finding it "incredibly hard" to find teachers in some shortage subjects, particularly affecting schools in some parts of the North...
Education Secretary Nicky Morgan said: "More needs to be done to deliver educational excellence everywhere."
Mrs Morgan, significantly, shows no recognition of the obvious problem, and perforce offers no solution to it - the fact that hazards such as classroom violence, OFSTED pressure and a pay freeze are making teaching an unpleasant job, leading to a teacher exodus and grave difficulties in teacher recruitment. Max Fischel, an assistant headteacher, said in a letter to the Guardian:
" Anyone (like me) who has tried to recruit teaching staff over the past couple of years knows there is already a desperate shortage of qualified teachers out there...
Headteachers’ and governors’ relentless pursuit of “outstanding” ratings from Ofsted is a major factor in driving teachers away; pressure on classroom teachers to churn out data which Ofsted will like is not only pointless but anti-education, yet it is the mantra across the country. In the 20-odd years since its invention, Ofsted has cost hundreds of millions, but has done nothing to improve education."
So - where does this leave my OFSTED pantomime? Well, I have chosen Aladdin as a suitable play. The role of Aladdin goes to Mrs Nicky Morgan, Abanazar can be played by Michael Gove, and Sir Michael Wilshaw can be Widow Twankey. The role of Wishy Washy, Aladdin's brother who works devotedly in the laundry without reward or recognition, can go to any ordinary teacher who gets treated in their jobs in exactly the same way. I have yet to cast someone to play the Genie of the Lamp, though. Can anyone suggest a suitable candidate?

Syria, Bombing and Avoiding the Terrorist Trap

I think it fair to say, that if there is one issue that we have heard enough about this week, it's the House of Commons vote to bomb Syria.  Not that it has been uninteresting - far from it. The marathon debate on Tuesday made for riveting viewing, with many good speeches made by proponents of both sides of the argument. There is no point in my revisiting the arguments here, except to express my own view on the vote and its consequences.
For me, the crucial question is: how effective are the RAF bombing attacks going to be? After all, many other countries have been bombing ISIS in Syria for months, and it has not stopped attacks in Tunisia, Paris and, now, San Bernardino, California. Even President Assad has said that the bombing raids have had a nugatory effect on ISIS, who have continued to advance in Syria. There has been much discussion on how to deal ISIS a severe economic blow, and the RAF has joined in the attacks on oil installations with gusto and, I'm sure, with great skill. But knocking out oil production is not as simple as it sounds - especially since ISIS have scattered oil production over a wide area, with many small oil pumps that will be impossible to eliminate.
There is also the risk of alienating civilians. This is so obvious now, that I won't bang on about it too much. All I will say is that ISIS must be looking forward to an influx of new recruits, rather like the IRA experienced after Bloody Sunday in 1972.
The only benefit from the Commons' decision will be to reassure our allies that we will support them if they are attacked - and we can now feel free to ask for their co-operation if we suffer terrorist atrocities. However, as Gerald Kaufman MP said, our bombing runs will be little more than a gesture, as we, the nation that launched 1000-bomber raids against Nazi Germany in WW2, will be providing less than 15 planes. And, as some anti-bombing Tory MPs pointed out, bombing alone, unaccompanied by ground troops, will be largely ineffective.
Reading the above, you might think that I am opposed to the bombing of ISIS in Syria. It will come as a surprise to some people to learn that I am not against bombing ISIS - it is a vile organisation that must be extirpated from the face of the earth. I listened with sympathy to the anti-bombing lobby, but they failed to present a viable alternative strategy. Whether we like it or not, we are at war with ISIS, and we must take decisive action against them. The key word, for me, then, is decisive. I believe that we must assess where bombing has been effective, and that the RAF would be better employed in these areas. There is one area where bombing has been successful, and that is ground support for ground troops - especially the Kurds. With air support, the Kurds have gallantly taken the war to ISIS, recapturing much ground and many villages. I support bombing if it is to be used effectively; had I been an MP on Tuesday, I would have voted for it.
At this point, someone might well be looking at my previous posts about terrorism and terrorist strategy and saying: "Hang on - aren't you falling into the trap of doing what the terrorists want us to do?" Well, no, I'm not. ISIS are counting on indiscriminate bombing in Syria/Iraq and a rise in Islamophobia in Europe and the USA. The former would be a huge blunder and the latter, totally wrong (even though there are worrying signs of an increase here). Nevertheless, ISIS must be destroyed intellectually, strategically and physically, even if we have to make alliances with detestable states and individuals. After all, we've done it before.

UK Bombs Syria? - a Ridiculous Mouse

There is a Latin proverb: "Parturiant montes, nascetur ridiculus mus" - "The mountains are in labour, and a ridiculous mouse will be born". More prosaically put, "Big fuss, small result". No better example of the truth of this can be found than the present controversy over the projected UK bombing of ISIS targets in Syria. Despite argument and counter-argument, the fact remains that UK involvement in this campaign would be very limited; we do not have the aircraft to make more than a token contribution. There also is the fact that such actions are not proving very successful. When France promised retaliation for the hideous Paris atrocities and launched air strikes against ISIS bases, ISIS simply evacuated their bases. They are not going to sit in static positions, waiting for us to bomb them. They have been bombed relentlessly for a long time and still control large swathes of territory. Nor have they been prevented from launching attacks against innocent people in Europe and North Africa.

This is not to say that air strikes have been pointless; they have certainly helped to stop the ISIS advance and supported anti-ISIS offensives, particularly by the gallant Kurds. It does, however, point to the limitations of what can be achieved by air power alone. As a US military adviser said during the Viet-Nam War:
"Trying to win a guerrilla war by aerial bombing is like trying to delouse yourself with a club"
Even in conventional war, it can prove controversial. There is a strange convergence of opinion on the Allied bombing of Germany in WW2. The pacifist Left and neo-Nazi revisionist "historians" howl with condemnation of this offensive, conveniently forgetting the fact that the German Luftwaffe were every bit as merciless wherever their invading forces went. But the ruthlessness of both sides failed in one crucial aim: they did not succeed in destroying the morale of the enemy civilian populations, despite many thousands on both sides being killed. The USA bombed North Viet-Nam for years during the Viet-Nam War, only to fail in the same way. As a North Vietnamese officer said after the war:
“The Americans thought that the more bombs they dropped, the quicker we would fall to our knees and surrender. But the bombs heightened rather than dampened our spirit.”
The fanatics of ISIS are unlikely to be any different, and the killing of innocent non-ISIS civilians could well be counter-productive.
The only way out of this, I think, is to co-ordinate air power with ground offensives. As ISIS has succeeded in alienating all the major nations. It ought to be possible now for united action against ISIS, with or without the deployment of ground troops (special forces are already there). How possible is it? Well, the shooting down of a Russian aircraft by the Turks does not bode well for unity. ISIS must be dancing around in glee.

The Paris Massacres - Triumph Through the Tears?

My mind, like that of every sane person, is still in a state of shock following last Friday's atrocities in Paris. For so long now, I have been commenting upon terrorism, terrorists and their methods. This year alone, we have seen innocents slaughtered in Paris, Tunisia, Egypt and finally Paris again. Yet again, I find myself struggling to analyse the aims and intentions of Jihadi killers - usually fanatics from ISIS. I shall do so again here, as I feel I owe it to the victims of these attacks to try and make some sense of such despicable crimes. So much has been said already in the media, but I shall make an attempt to bring a personal perspective .
I was pleased, if by no means happy, to see a terrorism expert recognise that the Paris attacks are meant as a provocation. He rightly said that ISIS want to bait France into a violent retaliation, either militarily in Syria, or by attacks on the Muslim community in France. This strategy, which I have written about before, is intended to further resentment against French society among already alienated Muslim youth, and thus bring Jihadi groups more recruits.
These crimes are also attacks upon European culture. Isis hate the very idea of people enjoying themselves on beaches, in concerts, restaurants, sports fixtures and concert halls, most of which were viciously assaulted on Friday evening. As Billy Bragg said on Twitter:
"This is an attack on anyone who goes to a bar, to a restaurant, to a gig or a game. Abhorrent."
When David Cameron talks of ISIS being an existential threat to us, this is what he means. Their aim is to create a miserable, joyless existence for all humanity, and they are prepared to inhumanly slaughter innocent people of all ages to do it. They are also prepared to die to bring this about; only one terrorist was shot dead on Friday evening, while the other seven committed suicide. This is because, like Hitler's Einsatzgruppen or Stalin's NKVD, they believed they were doing the right thing. We must not lose sight of that. You cannot change beliefs unless you understand them - especially fanatical beliefs.
These, I believe, are the main aims of ISIS strategy, but there is also the question of their tactics. As has been noted, ISIS are slowly giving ground militarily in Syria and Iraq, and as a tactic, and perhaps also a morale raiser, are launching increasingly bloody attacks on the European mainland. As we have seen, they like "soft" targets, where there is little or no chance of effective resistance. By massacring unarmed civilians, they are baiting European governments, effectively saying:
"See how weak you are. Despite your military muscle, you cannot protect your own citizens from us."
To their (twisted) minds, last Friday in Paris will be a great achievement. For the loss of just eight "martyrs", they have killed 129 "infidels", and wounded hundreds more. They might be losing on one front, but they will seek victory on other "fronts". It is not too far-fetched to say that all of us in Europe are on the front line against terrorism.
One aspect of these crimes puzzled me: how is it possible for terrorists in France to acquire AK-47 rifles so easily? The AK-47 has been a favourite with guerilla and terror groups for some time - the IRA called it "the widowmaker". France, like the UK, has strict gun laws. As Al-Jazeera says:
"In France individuals, except for certified collectors, are prohibited from owning military-class arms. Those hoping to possess a handgun or hunting rifle in France must pass a stringent background check and a mental health evaluation and must obtain a license."
The answer would appear to be: smuggling and the Internet. It is only too easy to move illegal goods and weapons around Europe. I am reliably informed, for example, that it is possible to drive from Brussels to Paris without any customs checks. The source of these weapons appears to be so-called "failed states" and conflict zones. Again, as Al-Jazeera says:
" Weapons left over from wars are also often trafficked across borders, which was the case after the Libyan revolution in 2011. The New York–based nonprofit Foreign Policy Association says that there are millions of weapons from the conflict and there is little regulation by government officials. "
The "dark internet" is also a means to an end of buying illegal guns. But this is not a French problem; it is a European problem, and we must unite to deal with it.
Personally, I see no alternative now other than to eradicate ISIS by all means necessary - even if we have to forge alliances with Russia and (I can't believe I'm saying this) Iran. Even then, we are in for a long, hard battle, and ISIS will fight like cornered rats on steroids. Nonetheless, they must be defeated, despite tragedies like that in Paris on Friday evening. I suppose people will object to this view by pointing out, correctly, that ISIS only came into being because of the invasion of Iraq. That does not preclude action by us now - if we caused the problem, then we should help to solve it.
I don't know if anyone in Paris or France will get to read this blog, but, should they do so, I wish to send my condolences and those of my regular contributors and readers. Our hearts are with you, and we know that the City of Light will be victorious over the forces of darkness. Through your tears, you will triumph. As your national hymn says:
"Aux armes, citoyens !
Formez vos bataillons !
Marchons ! Marchons !
Qu'un sang impur
Abreuve nos sillons !"

Gaffes, Netanyahu and the Duke of Edinburgh

Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, has recently made one of the hugest gaffes imaginable. As everyone knows, he recently told the World Zionist Congress that Hitler did not want to exterminate the Jews of Europe; he wanted to deport them, but was talked into the Holocaust by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, has a reputation for gross tactlessness. Here are two of his classic gaffes, taken from a Daily Telegraph article:
""If it doesn't fart or eat hay then she isn't interested"- speaking about his daughter, Princess Anne.
"Can you tell the difference between them?"- The Duke's question after President Barack Obama said he met with the leaders of the UK, China and Russia. "
We can laugh at gaffes such as this, but Netanyahu's blunder has had far more serious consequences. He has been condemned for this statement by just about every one, even within Israel itself. Apparently, he has made this claim before, in 2012, but now appears to have done some further reading on the subject. As today's Haaretz says:
"The argument concerning Husseini's role was recently mentioned in a book by Barry Rubin and Wolfgang G. Schwanitz, "Nazis, Islamists, and the Making of the Modern Middle East." The authors, like Netanyahu, draw a straight line between the mufti's support of Hitler and the policy of the Palestinian Liberation Organization under Yasser Arafat.
                                                                 
                   But even these two researchers do not claim that the dialogue described by Netanyahu ever took place. They say Hitler reached the conclusion to exterminate the Jews because of his desire to nurture Husseini, who opposed the transfer of Jews to pre-state Israel."
Netanyahu's faux pas has led some to say that he is letting Hitler off the hook by putting the blame on the Grand Mufti; he has also given Israel's opponents some excellent propaganda.
More seriously, I think, is that this blunder appears to be unfair to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and he is a man who deserves no sympathy. The Grand Mufti under discussion here, who met Hitler in WW2, was Mohammed Effendi Amin al-Husseini, (lived 1897 to 1974). Husseini was an active campaigner against the British pre-war mandate in Palestine, and a bitter opponent of Jewish immigration. He fled an arrest warrant in 1937, eventually arriving in Nazi Germany. While there, he actually did meet Adolf Hitler and made pro-Nazi propaganda broadcasts. He was known as "The Arabian Lord Haw-Haw", and was paid the equivalent in today's money of 12 million US dollars. He also played a key role in recruiting Bosnian Muslims into the Waffen SS. These units waged war against Yugoslav partisans (and civilians), gaining a grim reputation for atrocities. Some survivors of these units are said to have fought against the new Israeli state in 1948. Some authorities say that the Muslim SS were responsible for the deaths of 90% of all murdered Yugoslav Jews. Husseini eluded capture after the war, dying in Beirut in 1974. It hardly needs to be pointed out that even if he was not responsible for the Holocaust, he was unlikely to have opposed it.
Now, when I have had disagreements with the Pro-Palestinian Lobby (PPL) - my invented term - as distinct from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign - they emphatically maintain that they are anti-Zionist and not anti- Semitic. Any suggestion of similarity with the aims of the far right is met with righteous indignation (or is it self-righteous?). I accept this, and know that most PPL people are sincere in their beliefs, but, like it or not, there are anti-Semites in the PPL. Searchlight magazine has documented Neo-Nazis among Palestinian demonstrators in the UK, and even anti-Zionist Jews have been attacked by the far right on Gaza demos in Germany. This is not confined to neo-Nazi infiltrators, either. There are many PPL members (for want of a better word) who conceal their anti-Semitism. Occasionally, however, they let their mask slip, and I have experience of this. Pro-Palestinians often appear on my Facebook page, making swingeing attacks on Israel - and I never make any comment. But on one occasion, I did. Someone with an Arabic name made the comment "Crazy Jews". I was angered by this. Had he said "Israelis" or "Zionists", I would have said nothing. This time, I spoke out against it, to be answered by the comment: "Once a shithead, always a shithead". I congratulated this man with an Arabic name on his self-knowledge, and told him to take his self-analysis elsewhere.
To be fair, another PPL person did correct the Arabic man, suggesting that his unguarded utterance should be modified to "Crazy Zionists". This brings me back to the issue of gaffes - PPL members with Arabic names make them, the Israeli PM makes them and the Duke of Edinburgh makes them. Well, it's nice to know they have something in common.

Crime in Schools and Teacher Exodus - Many Causes and the Same Effect

I think we would agree that not all daytime television programmes are stimulating and informative (try watching the Jeremy Kyle programme). One honourable exception is the Victoria Derbyshire programme on BBC 2. One reporter working for the programme, Nicola Beckford, recently investigated the extent of crime in schools, both primary and secondary. 
The statistics that she received from 32 police forces make grim reading. The horrific murder of Anne Maguire does not appear to be so out of the ordinary as might be expected; in fact, it is a wonder that there have not been even more deaths of teachers, teaching assistants and pupils. As the BBC say:
"A total of 30,394 crimes were reported place at primary schools, secondary schools and further education establishments - excluding universities - in 2014, according to the data of 32 forces. In 2013, there were 28,444 crime reports.
Theft, burglary or robbery was the most common offence, with 13,003 incidents reported. There were 9,319 reports of violent crime, 4,106 reports of criminal damage or arson, and 754 reported drugs offences."
 So, although no-one is claiming that UK schools are danger zones, there is an increase of criminal behaviour that should be of deep concern to all of us. And, please remember, not all police forces revealed school crime statistics to the programme, which means that the true figure of school crime will be considerably higher.
Yet even these statistics are inadequate - as a retired teacher with more than 30 years experience, I can attest that there will be many more crimes committed in schools which never get reported as such. This happens for two reasons: firstly, the naïve and sentimental belief in childhood innocence that persists, despite the Mary Bell, James Bulger and Anne Maguire murders. Secondly, the fact that some Heads (not all) are reluctant to take appropriate action against violent and disruptive pupils because they believe it reflects badly on the school (and on them!). OFSTED, of which I have written many times before, takes a dim view of pupil exclusions for the same reasons.
Can I prove this? Well, yes, I can, but, as I do not have Parliamentary Privilege like  Tom Watson and other MPs, I must be circumspect in my revelations. Nevertheless, I know of many examples of Head teacher inaction, of which I offer a few here, taken from several decades:
1. In the 1970s, I knew of a London teacher who was attacked in the street by an irate parent, following a playground incident in school. The Head of the school threatened to give the teacher poor references if she prosecuted the parent, as it would besmirch the good name of the school.
2. In the 1980s, I knew of an incident at a primary school where a secondary school boy, the son of a parent governor at the same primary school, walked into a Year 6 class, attacked a pupil, then calmly walked out. Again, the Head took no action. The police were not informed, despite this clearly being a criminal assault.
3. In the "noughties", I  was told of a very small minority of pupils at one school who repeatedly abused, threatened and, occasionally, struck teachers and teaching assistants (other pupils suffered far worse). The Head took no decisive action against them because the school was in Special Measures, and any permanent exclusions (i.e. expulsions) would hinder the school's getting out of said Measures. Yet again, the school's reputation was regarded as being of more importance than the welfare of pupils and staff. In fact, the Head, on one occasion, refused to take action against a violent parent who had damaged school property because of the risk of adverse personal publicity.
I am well aware that other teachers, reading this, will know of far worse incidents, but I wanted to illustrate how Head teacher indifference/callousness/cowardice, call it what you will, has been a common factor in school crime for a great number of years. An extreme example of this can be found on the BBC page above, in the harrowing case of the ex-teacher Ian Corcoran, who was repeatedly and viciously attacked by a violent pupil over a lengthy period - again, no action was taken in his school by the powers-that-be to deal with this pupil.
I believe that if we are to tackle this problem, the attitude of the educational establishment must change drastically. In the USA, when a school gets into difficulties, the troubleshooting school principals always expel troublemakers, sometimes in scores - and are applauded for it. Zero tolerance, I am convinced, is the only way to deal with growing crime in UK schools. This is especially the case in primary schools, where troublesome pupils are treated with kid gloves in a number of ways. These children then go on to secondary school, where they are treated very differently. I know of many cases where such pupils continue with their antics when they arrive at secondary school, only to be summarily excluded.
It hardly needs to be said that facing violence, with no support from gutless Heads, is one reason for teachers leaving the profession. There are many others, as Michael Rosen has set out on his blog. To save clicking on a link, I provide them here (Thanks, Michael):

Tips for govt: how to guarantee teacher shortage

On the Guardian thread about teacher shortages and how they could possibly have come about, I posted some government policies to keep teaching recruitment and retention down:




1. Encourage the press to run stories saying that teachers are lazy and that there are thousands of bad ones.

2. Get the head of Ofsted to say the same.

3. Keep this up for decades. (both main parties)

4. Bring in hundreds of measuring and assessment systems, levels, targets, tests, exams, which then breed more 'rehearsal' tests and exams.

5. Bring in a punitive, rapid, unsupportive inspection system which ignores the fact that scores are attached to children so that if you're in a school where there has been turnover the inspectorate say that has nothing to do with us.

6. Run a new kind of school where the salaries of management are not open to public scrutiny.

7. Allow interest groups to open schools which take on proportionally fewer SEN, EAL and FSM pupils than nearby LA schools.

8 Allow covert selection and exclusion process to take place around these new kinds of schools because the LA schools have to pick up the pieces.

9. Use international data as if it is holy writ and ignore evidence that suggests that comparing countries does not compare like with like, that some countries which are 'top' are selecting. Obscure the differences between the countries by only talking about 'places' in the table, without ever making clear whether these differences are 'significant' or not.

10. Use China as an example of utopia in education without making a comparison between the two societies - as if education exists separately from the societies that produce the respective education systems.

11. Make sure that very nearly all the people running the state education system from government have no, or very little, state education experience themselves."

 That is very well said, but it omits the risk of day-to-day indiscipline and, as seen above, violence. Now, we may wonder why the government are not acting to deal with this worsening situation. Just how much worse can be found in a Guardian article of March 31:

"Almost four out of 10 teachers quit within a year of qualifying, with 11,000 leaving the profession before they have really begun their career and record numbers of those who remain giving up mid-career, according to analysis of government figures.
The exodus of new recruits has almost tripled in six years, resulting in a crisis in teacher supply in a profession that has become “incompatible with normal life”, according to Mary Bousted, the general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers."

Unfortunately for teachers, this Tory government has one powerful factor working in its favour: The Recession. As job opportunities are restricted for graduates, many train as teachers. There are so many that it matters not how many teachers leave the profession, there is a ready supply of newly qualified teachers to replace them. Roll on the end of the recession?

Jeremy Corbyn and a Question for the Political Parties

Well, Jeremy Corbyn seems to be settling very well into his new role as Labour leader, despite the vitriolic and downright scurrilous attacks upon him, which have ranged from describing him as a security risk, to astonishing
ad hominem assaults in print, which have focussed upon his personal life. To his credit, Corbyn has weathered this somewhat hysterical campaign against him with commendable aplomb.His conduct in Parliament and at the Labour Party Conference has been measured and well balanced. All this is to his credit.
As a committed Labour voter, I cannot remember one Labour Party leader with whom I have been in complete agreement in all the years I have been eligible to vote. Corbyn has a number of policies which I support, and some that I don't. I am in complete agreement with him over the need to combat austerity, re-nationalise the railways and protect our welfare state - especially the NHS. I am also glad that, unlike the other parties, he recognises the importance of the Arts in our cultural life.
I part company with him over his apparent links to Hamas and Hezbollah via the Palestine Solidarity Committee and the Stop the War Coalition, both organisations with which he is in close contact. Nor do I agree with his view that we should restrict (or abandon) military activities against ISIS. But - as I said, I have disagreed with Labour leaders in the past. None of these disagreements stopped me voting Labour then, and I shall vote Labour in the future.
Of course, we need to keep a sense of proportion here. We still have a Tory government which, prior to Corbyn's victory, was gloating at the prospect of an unelectable Labour leader who they could rout in the Commons and at Election time. The disgusting character assassinations made against Corbyn in the right-wing press though, seem to point to a change of mind. Perhaps they have suddenly recognised that Corbyn has been able to mobilise more popular support than they expected? As the International Business Times said:
"Tens of thousands of people have joined Labour after Jeremy Corbyn won almost 60% of the vote in the party's leadership contest on the back of a left-wing surge in support. The party has claimed now more than 352,000 people are full members of the reds after more than 40,000 people signed up on the back of the Islington North MP's victory on 12 September."
And this, surely, is the main achievement of Jeremy Corbyn: the fact that he has drawn in thousands of new supporters for his party. Some, undoubtedly, are ultra-left "entrists", but the majority, I am convinced, are sincere young people with ideals - in other words, the very kind of people who felt there was no future for them in organised politics. Full marks to Corbyn for that, and for making David Cameron jealous. As "The Spectator" said in 2013:
"134,000. That’s how many members the Conservative Party now has, according to Paul Goodman at ConservativeHome. Despite months of campaigning from the site, the only figure Conservative HQ would release is that 253,600 people voted for David Cameron as leader in 2005. Today’s number means that membership has nearly halved throughout Cameron’s eight-year term as party leader."
So, it looks as if Corbyn is set for a honeymoon period as Labour Leader - for how long, no-one can say. His problems with the right-wing press will doubtless continue, although I foresee problems with the minority of "ultras" who have slipped into the party, despite efforts to screen them out. They will doubtless create problems if Corbyn is seen to be compromising (as he will have to) on some issues ("No sell-out!"... I can hear it now). The pro-Palestinian elements might seek for a stronger stance on Gaza, etc, perhaps even calling for all pro-Israeli Labour Party members and MPs, such as the Labour Friends of Israel, to be expelled. If Corbyn does not meet their expectations, "No sell-out!" will ring out loud and clear. If he compromises on Rail renationalisation, I'll be displeased - but I'll just write a letter of disapproval.
 All this is for the future. I conclude with the question alluded to in the title. I would like to ask the Conservatives, LibDems and New Labourites (SNP, Plaids and Greens are exempt): "If Jeremy Corbyn is able to interest and involve young, idealistic people in mainstream politics, what are YOU doing wrong?"