Well, those ever-vigilant chaps at OFSTED are at it again - talking about the need for a shake-up in education. It always amuses me to hear this, as they have been saying the same thing for the better part of two decades. As a veteran of numerous inspections by both OFSTED and Her Majesty's Inspectors for Education (HMI), it's my belief that schools, to borrow Elvis' phrase,are "all shook up" already. So what was wrong with all the many thousands of school inspections that OFSTED have carried out in the past?There are two answers to this question - one that will be acceptable to OFSTED and one that definitely won't be - I shall provide the latter.
Nick Glibb, the Schools Minister, says that OFSTED will be concentrating upon things "which really matter". No-one seems to have asked him what they've been doing so far - still less has he asked them. The BBC article states:
"Overall, these new ground rules for inspections show a shift in emphasis from wellbeing issues, such as safeguarding children, community cohesion and healthy living, towards core academic standards."
This gives the impression that OFSTED inspectors have ignored teaching standards and gone around checking alarm systems and locks. This is simply not true, as anyone who works in a school will tell you. Anyway, the OFSTED supremo, Miriam Rosen, declares:
"Inspectors will spend even more time in the classroom observing teaching and learning, with a renewed emphasis on reading and literacy skills."
Parents reading this will no doubt be reassured - but lessons are observed anyway. In my first such inspection, I was observed for six lessons, and at that time, I was not unique in this. Some teachers I know had far more. All this happened when inspections lasted a whole week. The length of inspections has been reduced since, but, in my experience, the number of classroom visits pro rata has not dropped. All this talk of "shake-ups" is happening for another reason - one to which I have alluded before.
It is no coincidence that Nick Glibb and Miriam Rosen are new to their jobs, and want to make names for themselves. UK education is, as I have said before, a political football which is always being kicked around as in need of reform. It never seems to occur to people like Glibb and Rosen that things might improve if there were less shake-ups and schools could get on with teaching.
And there is something else about OFSTED that the general public does not know. This organisation has a habit of moving the goal posts when it comes to assessing the quality of teaching and learning. OFSTED has four "level descriptors": Outstanding, Good, Satisfactory and Inadequate. Well, lessons which may have been classed as Satisfactory by an inspector in one year, can be graded UNsatisfactory after the passage of time. I have been present at a meeting when an adviser has shown a video of a lesson graded Satisfactory in 2000, "but (said the cheery adviser) it wouldn't be now!". At another such meeting, we were told that the OFSTED grade of "Good" is now the new "Satisfactory". OFSTED, it seems, has the power to change the meanings of words, but we were not told what "Satisfactory" now meant. Imagine what would happen if the standards of bricklaying changed in the same way - would a wall that was "satisfactory" in 2005 have to be knocked down in 2011?
So why do they change the standards for lesson assessment? Well, they won't admit this - but I think that OFSTED is being governed by what Durkheim called "the dialectic of ends and means", whereby a means to an end becomes an end in itself. OFSTED inspectors enjoy fat fees and generous expenses.Anyone doubting this should look in the school car park during an OFSTED inspection - the inspection team always arrive in a fleet of new cars. To justify its existence, OFSTED needs to keep repeating the need for shaking up education. One question - at a time of stringent budget cuts in the public sector, is it not time to shake OFSTED (and Mr Glibb) by the scruff of the neck?
Monday, 3 October 2011
Sunday, 18 September 2011
The Afghan War, Faith and Statistics
Mark Twain once said:
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so". He had a point, and atheists frequently use this quote when they want to provoke arguments with religious believers. That's not my intention here, however. I quote Twain because it seems to me that our leading poiticians are doing just that - believing in something that they know cannot be true. After ten years of fighting, British party leaders, including our incumbent Prime Minister, still seem to believe that we are accomplishing something worthwhile by fighting the war in Afghanistan. This is either what psychologists call "being in denial" - or simple self-delusion.
There is an abundance of hard facts to show that our miltary effort in Afghanistan is futile. There are the obvious ones, such as:
1. The Taliban is still fighting, and is even able to launch attacks in the Afghan capital without too much trouble. IED attacks are as common as ever.
2. Following on from the point above, there is the painfully inescapable fact that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have actually increased the risk of terrorism around the world. Al-Qaeda may have taken a severe beating, Bin Laden might be dead, but Al-Qaeda imitators, such as the 7/7 bombers and Al-Shabbab, are active in other countries outside Afghanistan.
3. British attempts to hold ground are made untenable because of the simple fact that we do not have enough troops out there to do it, as some US commentators have observed.
4. Civilian casualties, whether caused by ground troops or aircraft, have alienated the local population, driving some of them to support the Taliban.
5. Resources, that could be used to maintain the public sector, which this government is bent on attacking, are being squandered. It has been shown, for example, that one day's war costs as much as it would cost to pay 100, 000 nurses. Here is a short (2.5 minutes) video by Tony Benn which covers this issue:
Now, these are the obvious reasons for describing the Afghan War as futile. You can read them in any "Stop the War" leaflet. But there are others:
1. No-one ever points out that the people of Afghanistan never asked us to help change their society and, like Robespierre said: "No-one loves armed missionaries".
2. The Karzai government is corrupt and only survives thanks to massive infusions of US aid.
3. Even senior US soldiers are now admitting that the military effort in Afghanistan is doomed - SEE HERE
With all these compelling reasons for withdrawal, our leaders persist in asserting the need for combat operations in Afghanistan. I can only conclude that they are motivated by simple, blind faith.
Jesus said (Matthew 17:20) that a little faith could move mountains. Maybe, but there are a lot of mountains in Afghanistan - and I'm not just referring to the physical geography.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so". He had a point, and atheists frequently use this quote when they want to provoke arguments with religious believers. That's not my intention here, however. I quote Twain because it seems to me that our leading poiticians are doing just that - believing in something that they know cannot be true. After ten years of fighting, British party leaders, including our incumbent Prime Minister, still seem to believe that we are accomplishing something worthwhile by fighting the war in Afghanistan. This is either what psychologists call "being in denial" - or simple self-delusion.
There is an abundance of hard facts to show that our miltary effort in Afghanistan is futile. There are the obvious ones, such as:
1. The Taliban is still fighting, and is even able to launch attacks in the Afghan capital without too much trouble. IED attacks are as common as ever.
2. Following on from the point above, there is the painfully inescapable fact that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have actually increased the risk of terrorism around the world. Al-Qaeda may have taken a severe beating, Bin Laden might be dead, but Al-Qaeda imitators, such as the 7/7 bombers and Al-Shabbab, are active in other countries outside Afghanistan.
3. British attempts to hold ground are made untenable because of the simple fact that we do not have enough troops out there to do it, as some US commentators have observed.
4. Civilian casualties, whether caused by ground troops or aircraft, have alienated the local population, driving some of them to support the Taliban.
5. Resources, that could be used to maintain the public sector, which this government is bent on attacking, are being squandered. It has been shown, for example, that one day's war costs as much as it would cost to pay 100, 000 nurses. Here is a short (2.5 minutes) video by Tony Benn which covers this issue:
Now, these are the obvious reasons for describing the Afghan War as futile. You can read them in any "Stop the War" leaflet. But there are others:
1. No-one ever points out that the people of Afghanistan never asked us to help change their society and, like Robespierre said: "No-one loves armed missionaries".
2. The Karzai government is corrupt and only survives thanks to massive infusions of US aid.
3. Even senior US soldiers are now admitting that the military effort in Afghanistan is doomed - SEE HERE
With all these compelling reasons for withdrawal, our leaders persist in asserting the need for combat operations in Afghanistan. I can only conclude that they are motivated by simple, blind faith.
Jesus said (Matthew 17:20) that a little faith could move mountains. Maybe, but there are a lot of mountains in Afghanistan - and I'm not just referring to the physical geography.
Friday, 9 September 2011
9/11 - The Forgotten Victims
The cliche is correct - everyone remembers where they were when they learned of 9/11. I was walking into an Ealing pub after school with a friend who told me how he'd heard that some terrorists in New York had let off a bomb in the World Trade Centre. Once in the pub, we saw it was much worse than that. Like most of the world, all of us in the pub stood and watched the planes crash into the two towers (and their subsequent collapse) over and over again. It was almost as if we were all hypnotised by events. Yet, even at the time, I had the feeling that it was all a monstrously successful "come on" - a provocation.
Well, as we know, the reaction was not long in coming, and the counterreactions soon happened as well. The USA, rightly incensed at the attack on its territory, set out to thrash Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Iraq - as we know. This, in turn, led to further terrorist attacks such as those in Bali, Madrid and 7/7 in London. Osama Bin Laden is now dead, slain by a small group of elite spooks.But, we know all that, and I don't intend to dwell upon it.
As the 10th anniversary of this appalling atrocity approaches, the focus of America's attention will be upon the memorial service on Sunday, in order to mourn the 3000 dead of 9/11. This is entirely correct, and I certainly would not wish to criticise it. Some people, though, equally correctly, point out that The US and UK "coalition" has killed far more people in Iraq and Afghanistan than the number who perished in New York on 9/11. Wikileaks puts the number as high as 111, 937 Iraqi civilians. According to the Guardian, no-one is keeping a precise count of civilian deaths in Afghanistan. And of course, there will be no service of remembrance for Iraqis and Afghans.
But there is another group of 9/11 victims that no-one sees fit to mention. These are the innocent victims of post-9/11 backlash who felt the anger of people in the USA and the UK. There was the Sikh petrol pump attendant in the USA who was shot dead by a bunch of rednecks because he looked like Osama Bin Laden. A Somali girl in my class at that time told me how her auntie, living in America, had been stoned and chased by a crowd for" looking Muslim".
Over here, a bunch of thugs showed their "solidarity" with the USA by beating up an Afghan taxi driver in Acton, West London. The taxi driver was left paralysed.
A Muslim man, whose own daughter had died on 9/11, was subjected to a racist attack by two girls.
Muslim pupils in UK schools reported numerous cases of bullying and harassment.
There were many such incidents in the UK and the US, and the ugly term "Islamophobia" became a commonly used word in the English language.
It hardly needs to be said that there will be no ceremonies for this group of victims, either.
Well, as we know, the reaction was not long in coming, and the counterreactions soon happened as well. The USA, rightly incensed at the attack on its territory, set out to thrash Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Iraq - as we know. This, in turn, led to further terrorist attacks such as those in Bali, Madrid and 7/7 in London. Osama Bin Laden is now dead, slain by a small group of elite spooks.But, we know all that, and I don't intend to dwell upon it.
As the 10th anniversary of this appalling atrocity approaches, the focus of America's attention will be upon the memorial service on Sunday, in order to mourn the 3000 dead of 9/11. This is entirely correct, and I certainly would not wish to criticise it. Some people, though, equally correctly, point out that The US and UK "coalition" has killed far more people in Iraq and Afghanistan than the number who perished in New York on 9/11. Wikileaks puts the number as high as 111, 937 Iraqi civilians. According to the Guardian, no-one is keeping a precise count of civilian deaths in Afghanistan. And of course, there will be no service of remembrance for Iraqis and Afghans.
But there is another group of 9/11 victims that no-one sees fit to mention. These are the innocent victims of post-9/11 backlash who felt the anger of people in the USA and the UK. There was the Sikh petrol pump attendant in the USA who was shot dead by a bunch of rednecks because he looked like Osama Bin Laden. A Somali girl in my class at that time told me how her auntie, living in America, had been stoned and chased by a crowd for" looking Muslim".
Over here, a bunch of thugs showed their "solidarity" with the USA by beating up an Afghan taxi driver in Acton, West London. The taxi driver was left paralysed.
A Muslim man, whose own daughter had died on 9/11, was subjected to a racist attack by two girls.
Muslim pupils in UK schools reported numerous cases of bullying and harassment.
There were many such incidents in the UK and the US, and the ugly term "Islamophobia" became a commonly used word in the English language.
It hardly needs to be said that there will be no ceremonies for this group of victims, either.
Tuesday, 16 August 2011
The Riots - Are We Missing Something?
It's hard to believe that a week ago today, we thought Britain was descending into anarchy. The Sun newspaper, last Tuesday, was actually entertaining the idea of using live rounds on rioters. Now, in the aftermath, our political leaders are at loggerheads about how to prevent it happening again. Everyone knows about this, but those who don't, can see the competing arguments of Cameron and Miliband HERE.
Actually, I think this discussion to be a worthwhile idea, and don't want to sound negative about it. From the far political Right to Left, a plethora of explanations and remedies are being explored and touted.
What concerns me is the fact that one very important aspect is being ignored or forgotten. The underlying economic situation, which "everyone knows about", is being left out of the equation. The inescapable truth is that there are simply not enough jobs for young people, and particularly the young people from whom the ranks of the rioters are drawn.
In sociological terms, most of the rioters (not all) come from what we used to call "the unskilled working class". That's when there was work for them, I mean. In 1966, 50% of the UK workforce worked in manufacturing industry; today, the percentage is only 14%. When Mrs Thatcher, with her monetarist fiscal "reforms", practically destroyed British industry in the 1980s, tens of thousands of people found themselves on the scrap heap in Mrs Thatcher's Brave New Britain. The unskilled sector, the people who had done the routine jobs in the factories, were particularly hard hit. Lacking the skills, education (and, let's face it,the will) to adapt to the new service economy, they, and the areas they lived in, stagnated. A new expression was coined - instead of the unskilled working class, the talk was of "the underclass" (an expression revived last week). Many of the youth of this class, as we know, drifted into gangs who blighted their local neighbourhoods in various ways.
I get the impression that our political leaders were happy to live with the problem - provided the gangs stayed out of sight on their "turfs". What no-one expected was for these gangs to bury their differences and go on the rampage, as they did last week. Suddenly - ooops! - we have a major problem to deal with.
The solutions being mooted at the moment, as far as I understand them, are of the "sticking-plaster" or punitive kind: parenting classes; sports training; citizenship education; ending benefit payments - even evictions.
The problem I have with these measures is that they simply will not work if these youths are not placed in well-paid, worthy jobs. What is the point of doing an 8 week course in citizenship (or anything else) if you just end up back on the dole? This idea was tried in the 80s (Who remembers YOPs?)It failed then, and will fail again. I wish I could say that I have the answer, but I haven't. The only idea that occurs to me is to increase the benefits payments to these youths massively - but that would be politically unacceptable.
Actually, I think this discussion to be a worthwhile idea, and don't want to sound negative about it. From the far political Right to Left, a plethora of explanations and remedies are being explored and touted.
What concerns me is the fact that one very important aspect is being ignored or forgotten. The underlying economic situation, which "everyone knows about", is being left out of the equation. The inescapable truth is that there are simply not enough jobs for young people, and particularly the young people from whom the ranks of the rioters are drawn.
In sociological terms, most of the rioters (not all) come from what we used to call "the unskilled working class". That's when there was work for them, I mean. In 1966, 50% of the UK workforce worked in manufacturing industry; today, the percentage is only 14%. When Mrs Thatcher, with her monetarist fiscal "reforms", practically destroyed British industry in the 1980s, tens of thousands of people found themselves on the scrap heap in Mrs Thatcher's Brave New Britain. The unskilled sector, the people who had done the routine jobs in the factories, were particularly hard hit. Lacking the skills, education (and, let's face it,the will) to adapt to the new service economy, they, and the areas they lived in, stagnated. A new expression was coined - instead of the unskilled working class, the talk was of "the underclass" (an expression revived last week). Many of the youth of this class, as we know, drifted into gangs who blighted their local neighbourhoods in various ways.
I get the impression that our political leaders were happy to live with the problem - provided the gangs stayed out of sight on their "turfs". What no-one expected was for these gangs to bury their differences and go on the rampage, as they did last week. Suddenly - ooops! - we have a major problem to deal with.
The solutions being mooted at the moment, as far as I understand them, are of the "sticking-plaster" or punitive kind: parenting classes; sports training; citizenship education; ending benefit payments - even evictions.
The problem I have with these measures is that they simply will not work if these youths are not placed in well-paid, worthy jobs. What is the point of doing an 8 week course in citizenship (or anything else) if you just end up back on the dole? This idea was tried in the 80s (Who remembers YOPs?)It failed then, and will fail again. I wish I could say that I have the answer, but I haven't. The only idea that occurs to me is to increase the benefits payments to these youths massively - but that would be politically unacceptable.
Wednesday, 10 August 2011
The Riots - the Ulcer Bursts
 |
| SHOP FRONT, EALING BROADWAY. 9/8/11 |
The choice of premises attacked was interesting;_ they were all retailers of fashion accessories, such as mobile phones, trainers, or clothes, such as the store in the photo. All of which sets the present riots apart from those of previous years. Previous riots in Britain have been political in intent (Lewisham, 1977), or over a recognisable grievance (public sector cuts) or a combination of both (The Poll Tax Riots of the 90s).
These riots, I think, are exactly what so many commentators have said already: a massive outburst of criminal activity. I have no intention of reproducing what has been written already - there is an abundance of that, but I would like to express a personal view. My opinion is that these horrendous events are the bursting of an ulcer that has ben building up in our inner cities for some time. A number of national newspapers have been chronicling the rise of gang culture and general anti-social behaviour in Britain for years. The media has highlighted numerous "spasms" of that ulcer, such as senseless murders, violence, drug taking and binge drinking. There has been much condemnation of "Broken Britain" (David Cameron's phrase), but precious little serious analysis of the problem, still less a national strategy to deal with it. And no-one predicted what has happened - the fact that these gangs might resolve their "turf" differences and act together, with devastating consequences.
Already, the blame game has begun ("liberal society"), as well as sensationalist, simplistic (or should it be "simple-minded"?) solutions ("put them in the Army"), coming from the Right, in their posturing, unimaginative way.. The Left, in their posturing, unimaginative way, are starting to regard the riots as some kind of latter-day "Peasants' Revolt", and linking it to cuts in public spending. Both need to wake up to the fact that we now have a national emergency on our hands that needs immediate pragmatic attention.
Instead of employing carrots OR sticks to deal with the problem, I would advocate the use of BOTH. If, as so many right-wing thinkers say, these rioters are a bunch of twisted, psychotic criminals, then we need to find what has made them that way and - very important - how to cure this psychosis and prevent it spreading to younger, potential rioters. The Left needs to recognise that criminal behaviour is just that, and needs to dealt with severely. There is no political motive at work here. As noted, the looting has been of luxury consumables, not necessities. Ordinary people have been attacked, robbed and made homeless by these rioters - hardly an expression of class consciousness. Wherever these rioters have met determined opposition, such as that shown (I think magnificently) by the Turkish/Kurdish community in the East End of London, they have been dispersed and defeated. That wouldn't happen if the rioters were the vanguard of the revolution, as my friends, the Anarchists, seem to think.
In conclusion, I would say that if we think we are having problems now - wait until these rioters have their own children, and see what problems we have then.
Tuesday, 2 August 2011
The Three "Rs" and the Rising Stars of Education
As I have observed before, education in this country is a political football which politicians rediscover and set out to reform periodically, usually at strategic intervals (eg, when facing falling opinion polls), or to enhance their own reputations. Today, the BBC reported the pronouncements of the latest in a long line of such politicians:
"Schools Minister Nick Gibb welcomed the rise in results, especially in writing but he said a third of children were still struggling in the three Rs."
He said: "There has been a decline in the proportion of children - both boys and girls - who can read and write beyond the expected level. And the results of our weakest readers and writers also remain a real concern."
The "results" he is talking about are, of course, SATs results. These have been subject (no pun intended) to withering criticism for years by the leaders of the teacher unions and various educationalists. I totally endorse this view, having seen, at grass roots level, the effect that SATs pressure can have on some parents and children. I know that some 11 year olds are pressurised by ambitious parents into long hours of SATs revision - sometimes for periods of time that would do credit to undergraduates facing their Finals. I have seen young children in tears because they have not got the results they (and their parents) wanted. It has been known even for some children to be threatened with violence, should they not get high grades in their SATs. These tests, in a nutshell, should be abolished completely. They prove nothing of any value; they encourage "teaching to the test", not education; after SATS, year 6 children are as keen on coming to school as GCSE and "A" level students are after their exams (i.e. not at all) - except that the older pupils go on "study leave". Nor are SATs of much value to secondary schools, who implement their own ability tests in Year 7, making SATs results irrelevant.
Mr Gibb (or should it be "Glib"?) seizes upon the fact that many children cannot read and write as well as he would seem to expect. It may be true, but there is nothing new about this. If we look back to 1945 and beyond, we see that there has ALWAYS been a problem with general literacy, and Mr Glib deserves no credit for discovering something well known already. The real reason for this problem lies not in teaching methods, but in attitudes of wide sections of the population towards education - in particular, the hostile attitude of many in the white working class - the lowest attaining educational grouping. In my opinion, those negative attitudes need to be tackled root and branch, rather than making a few cosmetic changes in order to score political points over rival parties.
"Schools Minister Nick Gibb welcomed the rise in results, especially in writing but he said a third of children were still struggling in the three Rs."
He said: "There has been a decline in the proportion of children - both boys and girls - who can read and write beyond the expected level. And the results of our weakest readers and writers also remain a real concern."
The "results" he is talking about are, of course, SATs results. These have been subject (no pun intended) to withering criticism for years by the leaders of the teacher unions and various educationalists. I totally endorse this view, having seen, at grass roots level, the effect that SATs pressure can have on some parents and children. I know that some 11 year olds are pressurised by ambitious parents into long hours of SATs revision - sometimes for periods of time that would do credit to undergraduates facing their Finals. I have seen young children in tears because they have not got the results they (and their parents) wanted. It has been known even for some children to be threatened with violence, should they not get high grades in their SATs. These tests, in a nutshell, should be abolished completely. They prove nothing of any value; they encourage "teaching to the test", not education; after SATS, year 6 children are as keen on coming to school as GCSE and "A" level students are after their exams (i.e. not at all) - except that the older pupils go on "study leave". Nor are SATs of much value to secondary schools, who implement their own ability tests in Year 7, making SATs results irrelevant.
Mr Gibb (or should it be "Glib"?) seizes upon the fact that many children cannot read and write as well as he would seem to expect. It may be true, but there is nothing new about this. If we look back to 1945 and beyond, we see that there has ALWAYS been a problem with general literacy, and Mr Glib deserves no credit for discovering something well known already. The real reason for this problem lies not in teaching methods, but in attitudes of wide sections of the population towards education - in particular, the hostile attitude of many in the white working class - the lowest attaining educational grouping. In my opinion, those negative attitudes need to be tackled root and branch, rather than making a few cosmetic changes in order to score political points over rival parties.
Saturday, 23 July 2011
Norway's Agony
So, now Norway, one of the most peaceful and stable countries in the world -seemingly, at least - is afflicted by mass terrorist slaughter. Understandably enough, we all thought it was the work of Al-Qaeda or even agents of The Mad Colonel (Gaddafi) at first. Commentators (on the BBC at least) seemed shocked to learn that intead of the perpetrator being an Arabic Muslim fanatic, he is a Norwegian Christian fanatic -or more accurately, a local extreme right wing terrorist.
I won't go into details of the event, which are appearing in every media outlet today and can be read HERE.
What I'd like point out is the fact that European neo-Nazis are not so different from Islamic Jihadi terrorists as might be believed. There are, of course, obvious differences: Islamic terrorists, unlike fascist terrorists, are not racist. Anyone can be a Jihadi, whatever their racial origin. Also, there is the faith aspect - Jihadis kill in the name of their faith in Allah, while neo-Nazis usually, but not always, kill in the name of racial supremacy, and have no religious motivation.
Nevertheless, there ARE similarities:
1. They both hate liberal democracy and freedom of speech.
2. They both want to establish totalitarian states (Jihadis call it a "caliphate")
3. They both want to turn back the clock on women's rights.
4. They both persecute homosexuals (despite many of their number being gay)
5. They are both rabidly anti-semitic (although Jihadis try to disguise it by saying they are "anti-zionist")
6. They both are willing to employ terrorist tactics and kill indiscriminately.
We must not make the mistake of thinking that Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian arrested for yeterday's massacre, is an isolated case. Let's not forget David John Copeland, who carried out several bombing attacks in London in 1999. Copeland was no Jihadi, either, but, like Breivik, a right-wing extremist.
In short, when it comes to opposing terrorism, we must not be blind in the right eye.
I won't go into details of the event, which are appearing in every media outlet today and can be read HERE.
What I'd like point out is the fact that European neo-Nazis are not so different from Islamic Jihadi terrorists as might be believed. There are, of course, obvious differences: Islamic terrorists, unlike fascist terrorists, are not racist. Anyone can be a Jihadi, whatever their racial origin. Also, there is the faith aspect - Jihadis kill in the name of their faith in Allah, while neo-Nazis usually, but not always, kill in the name of racial supremacy, and have no religious motivation.
Nevertheless, there ARE similarities:
1. They both hate liberal democracy and freedom of speech.
2. They both want to establish totalitarian states (Jihadis call it a "caliphate")
3. They both want to turn back the clock on women's rights.
4. They both persecute homosexuals (despite many of their number being gay)
5. They are both rabidly anti-semitic (although Jihadis try to disguise it by saying they are "anti-zionist")
6. They both are willing to employ terrorist tactics and kill indiscriminately.
We must not make the mistake of thinking that Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian arrested for yeterday's massacre, is an isolated case. Let's not forget David John Copeland, who carried out several bombing attacks in London in 1999. Copeland was no Jihadi, either, but, like Breivik, a right-wing extremist.
In short, when it comes to opposing terrorism, we must not be blind in the right eye.
Saturday, 9 July 2011
"It's No Sacrifice" at the News of the World
I know there are some people who welcome the demise of the News of the World (NoW) for the right reasons: ie, it is a scandal sheet that has indulged in illegal phone hacking, crude sexual sensationalism and various types of privacy invasion. Again, there are those who welcome its passing for the wrong reasons - these are the wrongdoers and criminals who have been exposed by its investigations. I don't want to get into that debate, but there is another issue here which I find disturbing and downright sinister. The fact is that a very rich man has the power to kill a newspaper at will - and has done so. If any more reason were needed to prevent Rupert Murdoch from getting control of BSkyB, this exercise in megalomania is another one.
For, let's not be naive - "The Dirty Digger", as "Private Eye" calls Murdoch, is not axing the NoW because he is embarrassed by the antics of some of its former journalists. If he felt any shame in that regard, he would have closed the paper down years ago. No, he has only leapt into action after large firms have announced their withdrawal of advertising from the NoW, making it unprofitable. Money, not morals, move Rupert Murdoch. If he cared for people's feelings at all, he'd think of the journalists about to lose their jobs at the NoW. They face what is euphemistically called "an uncertain future", while the Dirty Digger remains a rich and powerful media mogul. Terminating a long-established newspaper is no sacrifice for him; he's got so many more, in many countries.
I hope that I speak for all trade unionists in what I say now. If I could address the assembled staff at the NoW (which, of course, I can't), I'd say: "As one trade unionist to others, I extend my sympathy at the loss of your employment. I do hope you soon find work elsewhere, and that you will not forget your treatment at the hands of News International. If any of you ever write about industrial matters, such as the cuts in public expenditure, I hope you will write with more sympathy for ordinary workers who are struggling to keep their jobs, and understand that they, like you, are subject to the same callous treatment that you have received from the barbarians who run News International".
I wonder what reception I'd get?
For, let's not be naive - "The Dirty Digger", as "Private Eye" calls Murdoch, is not axing the NoW because he is embarrassed by the antics of some of its former journalists. If he felt any shame in that regard, he would have closed the paper down years ago. No, he has only leapt into action after large firms have announced their withdrawal of advertising from the NoW, making it unprofitable. Money, not morals, move Rupert Murdoch. If he cared for people's feelings at all, he'd think of the journalists about to lose their jobs at the NoW. They face what is euphemistically called "an uncertain future", while the Dirty Digger remains a rich and powerful media mogul. Terminating a long-established newspaper is no sacrifice for him; he's got so many more, in many countries.
I hope that I speak for all trade unionists in what I say now. If I could address the assembled staff at the NoW (which, of course, I can't), I'd say: "As one trade unionist to others, I extend my sympathy at the loss of your employment. I do hope you soon find work elsewhere, and that you will not forget your treatment at the hands of News International. If any of you ever write about industrial matters, such as the cuts in public expenditure, I hope you will write with more sympathy for ordinary workers who are struggling to keep their jobs, and understand that they, like you, are subject to the same callous treatment that you have received from the barbarians who run News International".
I wonder what reception I'd get?
Saturday, 25 June 2011
An Olympic Confession
I feel slightly guilty to say this, but I'm one of the fortunate minority of applicants for Olympics tickets who actually succeeded in buying any. Not that I spent as much as I thought - I applied for £750 worth of tickets, but only managed to get £128 worth (including postage). Had I managed to acquire all the tickets I wanted, I would have about 24 for my wife and myself. As it is, I will be getting just four for two events - one for badminton and the other for tennis. Neither event is a final - they are both just qualifying rounds. Still, I'm not complaining. According to news reports, two thirds of applicants failed to get any tickets at all, including Boris Johnson (there is some justice, after all). I suppose the situation was not helped by the fact that so many tickets were bought up by big firms as freebies for staff and clients. One report said that two thirds of the seats to watch the 100 metres final were "corporate tickets". All of which raises the question: just who are these Olympics for ? After all, it is the UK taxpayer who is footing the bill. I accept that there were always going to be losers, but there must have been a better way of selling the tickets. I'm glad that I'll get to see live Olympic events, but, if the organisation of the games themselves is of the same quality as the selling of the tickets, I might not consider myself to be so fortunate after all.
Sunday, 12 June 2011
Arise, Sir Chris!
Like all teachers who remember Chris Woodhead's tenure as Chief Inspector of OFSTED, I was astounded at the news that he is to become a peer of the realm.
When he was the top banana at OFSTED, Sir Chris made the claim that there were 15 000 "incompetent teachers" in the UK. The right-wing press eagerly seized upon this figure, without questioning it; it gave them another excuse for "teacher-bashing". The fact is, however, that Sir Chris never provided any evidence for this astonishing claim, nor did he describe the methodology which he used to arrive at his conclusion. Personally, I always thought that this reflected upon Woodhead's competence, not 15 000 unnamed teachers.
He has also made the claim recently that middle-class children are more intelligent than working class kids - SEE HERE. Once again, Sir Chris fails to provide conclusive evidence for his views, although the claim should provide good publicity for his latest book,"The Desolation of Learning". He also fails to account for social mobility - the fact that people can change classes, if not their genes.
Now, as might be expected, his views on education were very welcome to the Conservative Party -which explains why he became one of their educational advisers after leaving OFSTED. As Francis Beckett said of "Woody" back in 1999:
"The things he is certain about tended to be the sort of things the Tory government wanted to hear: phonics good, real books bad; whole-class teaching good, group work bad; didactic teaching good, child-centred teaching bad; and so on. He rightly complains about the way British education debate divides into two armed camps, one of them arbitrarily marked "right wing", the other "left wing". Yet he has firmly dug himself into the trenches on the side marked "right wing".
Times don't change. Damian Thomson wrote in his Daily Telegraph blog in 2009:
"He (Woodhead) went too soon, though it’s amazing that he stayed at all under a Labour government whose client state is heavily populated by crap teachers. Do you think grade inflation would be tolerated if there wasn’t an unspoken contract between Labour and the teachers who benefit most from it, ie the worst ones?"
Now - you couldn't get the wrong idea about Sir Chris's political bias from that, could you?
However, much as I oppose and condemn his views on education, I have to say that I do feel sorry for Sir Chris. He has Motor Neurone Disease, and it is severe. So severe, in fact, that he is considering suicide - SEE HERE. In his own words:
"I am clear in my own mind that it is better to end it than continue a life that is extremely frustrating for me and onerous to others who are involved with me," he (Woodhead) said. "I certainly feel that the quality of one's life is more important than its quantity."
I sympathise with Sir Chris in his plight, but, as he ponders his fate, perhaps he will feel some retrospective sympathy for the late Keith Waller, Janet Watson, Jed Holmes and all the other teachers who took their own lives because of pressure brought upon them by OFSTED.
When he was the top banana at OFSTED, Sir Chris made the claim that there were 15 000 "incompetent teachers" in the UK. The right-wing press eagerly seized upon this figure, without questioning it; it gave them another excuse for "teacher-bashing". The fact is, however, that Sir Chris never provided any evidence for this astonishing claim, nor did he describe the methodology which he used to arrive at his conclusion. Personally, I always thought that this reflected upon Woodhead's competence, not 15 000 unnamed teachers.
He has also made the claim recently that middle-class children are more intelligent than working class kids - SEE HERE. Once again, Sir Chris fails to provide conclusive evidence for his views, although the claim should provide good publicity for his latest book,"The Desolation of Learning". He also fails to account for social mobility - the fact that people can change classes, if not their genes.
Now, as might be expected, his views on education were very welcome to the Conservative Party -which explains why he became one of their educational advisers after leaving OFSTED. As Francis Beckett said of "Woody" back in 1999:
"The things he is certain about tended to be the sort of things the Tory government wanted to hear: phonics good, real books bad; whole-class teaching good, group work bad; didactic teaching good, child-centred teaching bad; and so on. He rightly complains about the way British education debate divides into two armed camps, one of them arbitrarily marked "right wing", the other "left wing". Yet he has firmly dug himself into the trenches on the side marked "right wing".
Times don't change. Damian Thomson wrote in his Daily Telegraph blog in 2009:
"He (Woodhead) went too soon, though it’s amazing that he stayed at all under a Labour government whose client state is heavily populated by crap teachers. Do you think grade inflation would be tolerated if there wasn’t an unspoken contract between Labour and the teachers who benefit most from it, ie the worst ones?"
Now - you couldn't get the wrong idea about Sir Chris's political bias from that, could you?
However, much as I oppose and condemn his views on education, I have to say that I do feel sorry for Sir Chris. He has Motor Neurone Disease, and it is severe. So severe, in fact, that he is considering suicide - SEE HERE. In his own words:
"I am clear in my own mind that it is better to end it than continue a life that is extremely frustrating for me and onerous to others who are involved with me," he (Woodhead) said. "I certainly feel that the quality of one's life is more important than its quantity."
I sympathise with Sir Chris in his plight, but, as he ponders his fate, perhaps he will feel some retrospective sympathy for the late Keith Waller, Janet Watson, Jed Holmes and all the other teachers who took their own lives because of pressure brought upon them by OFSTED.
Sunday, 5 June 2011
Ratko Mladic - Should He be Tried Alone?
First, I would like to say that I have no sympathy for Ratkan Mladic. He has an appalling record, for which he is justly facing eleven charges - SEE HERE. The Srebrenica massacre, which he oversaw, claimed 8000 lives, and he richly deserves to be brought to trial.
But there are certain aspects of this case that make me feel uneasy. The Mladic trial reminds me of the trial of Rudolf Hoss, the Commandant of Auschwitz Concentration Camp. Hoss had overseen the murder of about 1 000 000 people during his reign as camp commandant, a number that dwarfs the number killed by Mladic's merry men. At the end of the war, Hoss was captured, put on trial and hanged at the scene of his crimes - in the camp itself. A Polish survivor of the camp later spoke of his disappointment that only one man had been executed for the murder of so many. He was right - about 8000 to 10 000 men and women had "worked" at Auschwitz. Following the hanging of Hoss, no more than 2 000 Auschwitz "staff" were ever tracked down and punished. This was not an isolated case - many, if not most, SS and Gestapo operatives involved in The Final Solution were never brought to justice - SEE HERE.
That's my first point. Mladic did not act alone, even if he was in charge. Why are his subordinates- the men who relayed his orders and the men who pulled the triggers- not on trial? To use that dreary Marxist term - this appears to be "tokenism".
Next - let's cast our minds back to the European tribal war of the 90s - aka the breakup of Yugoslavia. We have forgotten how NATO planes bombed Serbian targets in the Spring of 1999, even though it was pretty controversial at the time. No wonder. The bombing struck at Serbia not just militarily, but hit a good many civilian targets. The campaign was supposed to protect the Kosovo non-Serbs from the Serbs and (Tony Blair's words) "prevent an impending humanitarian disaster".
So we were told. In fact the NATO bombing made the situation worse. The actual "ethnic cleansing" only began after the bombing, not before. Who will stand trial for this error of judgement?
NATO violated international law on numerous occasions during the campaign. The UN Security Council's permission is needed to launch miltary action. It was not even requested. The bombing also broke NATO Treaty Article 5, which states that force can only be used in self-defence. Again - where is the trial being held for this?
According to Human Rights Watch, 500 Serbian civilians died during the bombing, and a number of civilian targets were hit, including hospitals, schools and Serbian Radio and Television buildings in Belgrade. Amnesty International said at the time:
"NATO forces violated the laws of war leading to cases of unlawful killings of civilians".
Thousands of unexploded NATO bombs litter the Serbian countryside to this day.
I repeat - I approve the arraignment of Mladic - but should he be tried alone?
But there are certain aspects of this case that make me feel uneasy. The Mladic trial reminds me of the trial of Rudolf Hoss, the Commandant of Auschwitz Concentration Camp. Hoss had overseen the murder of about 1 000 000 people during his reign as camp commandant, a number that dwarfs the number killed by Mladic's merry men. At the end of the war, Hoss was captured, put on trial and hanged at the scene of his crimes - in the camp itself. A Polish survivor of the camp later spoke of his disappointment that only one man had been executed for the murder of so many. He was right - about 8000 to 10 000 men and women had "worked" at Auschwitz. Following the hanging of Hoss, no more than 2 000 Auschwitz "staff" were ever tracked down and punished. This was not an isolated case - many, if not most, SS and Gestapo operatives involved in The Final Solution were never brought to justice - SEE HERE.
That's my first point. Mladic did not act alone, even if he was in charge. Why are his subordinates- the men who relayed his orders and the men who pulled the triggers- not on trial? To use that dreary Marxist term - this appears to be "tokenism".
Next - let's cast our minds back to the European tribal war of the 90s - aka the breakup of Yugoslavia. We have forgotten how NATO planes bombed Serbian targets in the Spring of 1999, even though it was pretty controversial at the time. No wonder. The bombing struck at Serbia not just militarily, but hit a good many civilian targets. The campaign was supposed to protect the Kosovo non-Serbs from the Serbs and (Tony Blair's words) "prevent an impending humanitarian disaster".
So we were told. In fact the NATO bombing made the situation worse. The actual "ethnic cleansing" only began after the bombing, not before. Who will stand trial for this error of judgement?
NATO violated international law on numerous occasions during the campaign. The UN Security Council's permission is needed to launch miltary action. It was not even requested. The bombing also broke NATO Treaty Article 5, which states that force can only be used in self-defence. Again - where is the trial being held for this?
According to Human Rights Watch, 500 Serbian civilians died during the bombing, and a number of civilian targets were hit, including hospitals, schools and Serbian Radio and Television buildings in Belgrade. Amnesty International said at the time:
"NATO forces violated the laws of war leading to cases of unlawful killings of civilians".
Thousands of unexploded NATO bombs litter the Serbian countryside to this day.
I repeat - I approve the arraignment of Mladic - but should he be tried alone?
Sunday, 22 May 2011
Youth Unemployment - at Home and Abroad
As I type, thousands of young protesters are camping out in Madrid to demonstrate their anger at Spain's appalling rate of youth unemployment, which stands at 45%. The protest, thankfully, has been peaceful so far, but needs to be taken seriously, not just by the Spanish government, but by all societies, including our own. The picture in the UK is almost as bad; recent news reports show that graduate unemployment in the UK is very high - the highest for 15 years. Official figures point to the fact that 20% of graduates were unemployed in late 2010 and data from the Office for National Statistics suggests that more than 45 students could be applying for each graduate job in 2011.
The inevitable official response will be that this is all a consequence of the international recession and we'll just have to live with it. There will, however, be other consequences, and they need to be thought about carefully.
The most obvious consequence will be the waste of human resources. Having so many intelligent people on the dole is not going to help us out of the recession. Far from it - we need them in work to help us OUT of this dire economic situation.
Another effect will be to push graduates into work for which they are over-qualified. You don't need a B.A. in Medieval Studies to serve burgers at Macdonalds, and is another example of how human resources can be wasted. But this will have an impact in another unwelcome way. The more graduates pushed into unskilled work will lead to less job opportunities for non-graduate young people,even more of whom will be unemployed.
There will be knock-on effects throughout the education system, also. Young people will be questioning the need to go into Higher Education (I'm told that many are doing so already). The universities themselves will be adversely affected by a reduction in student numbers. Many degree courses and even departments may need to close.
It will also have a negative impact on schools. After all, if there's no point in taking a degree, why work hard at "A" levels or GCSEs? Hopefully, that level of demoralisation will not set in anywhere, but if it does, well, here's a story...
Some years ago, back in the so-called Thatcherite boom years, I met a secondary school teacher who'd moved from London to the West Country. Having taught in some tough schools in South London, she thought she'd seen everything. She was wrong. She found that for young people in the town she lived in, there were only three career choices: university, the armed forces or the dole. In this woman's own words:
"I had far worse discipline problems than ever I had in London".
Is this to be the future?
The inevitable official response will be that this is all a consequence of the international recession and we'll just have to live with it. There will, however, be other consequences, and they need to be thought about carefully.
The most obvious consequence will be the waste of human resources. Having so many intelligent people on the dole is not going to help us out of the recession. Far from it - we need them in work to help us OUT of this dire economic situation.
Another effect will be to push graduates into work for which they are over-qualified. You don't need a B.A. in Medieval Studies to serve burgers at Macdonalds, and is another example of how human resources can be wasted. But this will have an impact in another unwelcome way. The more graduates pushed into unskilled work will lead to less job opportunities for non-graduate young people,even more of whom will be unemployed.
There will be knock-on effects throughout the education system, also. Young people will be questioning the need to go into Higher Education (I'm told that many are doing so already). The universities themselves will be adversely affected by a reduction in student numbers. Many degree courses and even departments may need to close.
It will also have a negative impact on schools. After all, if there's no point in taking a degree, why work hard at "A" levels or GCSEs? Hopefully, that level of demoralisation will not set in anywhere, but if it does, well, here's a story...
Some years ago, back in the so-called Thatcherite boom years, I met a secondary school teacher who'd moved from London to the West Country. Having taught in some tough schools in South London, she thought she'd seen everything. She was wrong. She found that for young people in the town she lived in, there were only three career choices: university, the armed forces or the dole. In this woman's own words:
"I had far worse discipline problems than ever I had in London".
Is this to be the future?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
