Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[J Ed]

I think rather than describing it as a big issue it might help if we distinguished between something being an important issue (to us personally, or to a bunch of people here) and a politically significant issue.

The immediately politically significant education issue ATM is grammar schools, and I haven't seen, for instance, anyone involving themselves in that debate also arguing that (the abolition of) faith schools is something which needs to happen. This is why I was asking if JC (and lets open it up to anyone else within the LP as well) having anything to say about faith schools.

From what I've seen, the abolition of faith schools is not a significant political issue within the context of this thread or current British political discourse, nor (IMO) are they likely to become one, unless you have something specific to demonstrate they are.

IMO this is something that will become more and more significant, May wants to take the cap off admissions to faith schools which otherwise in theory if not in reality ensure that even faith schools are mixed. Recipe for even further atomisation along the lines that butchers describes.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The immediately politically significant education issue ATM is grammar schools, and I haven't seen, for instance, anyone involving themselves in that debate also arguing that (the abolition of) faith schools is something which needs to happen. This is why I was asking if JC (and lets open it up to anyone else within the LP as well) having anything to say about faith schools.

The way to widen it would be to talk about selection at schools - selection by examination of the child, and also by interview with the parents and requirements for religious attendance, something which it is frankly extraordinary that state schools are allowed to do.

That approach covers both grammars and faith schools. Extension of grammars and extension of selective faith schools are very much linked, and they should be linked in any political discourse about them.

 

[andysays]

Those distinctions are missing a further key one - that something can be having a socially damaging effect (through various forms of social-apartheid, covert transmission of privilege, cementing religious/cultural/racial/identity based ways of organising social institutions and ways of doing politics and so on) whilst not being politically significant in terms of voting behaviour - i.e not politically significant to a wide section of society. This i think is the case now, but i would add for the main parties this is actually a way in which they organise their support bases - they're perfectly happy with the social atomisation it relies on and produces, and the formal groupings and leaders they can then fall back on to legitmise their own lack of bigotry or prejudice.

Yeah, I agree with this.

To be clear what I'm saying, I'm not saying that the existence and extension of faith schools isn't significant politically/socially/whatever. I am saying that the banning of faith schools which some (including me, for the avoidance of any doubt) would like to see is not

politically significant in terms of voting behaviour - i.e not politically significant to a wide section of society

nor do I see it becoming so.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I am saying that the banning of faith schools which some (including me, for the avoidance of any doubt) would like to see is not nor do I see it becoming so.

Banning totally, you're probably right, not a priority for many. But as they see non-selective schools disappearing around them, the extension of faith schools does grow as an issue. Their existence and their role in society then becomes a thing that needs discussing.

 

[andysays]

The way to widen it would be to talk about selection at schools - selection by examination of the child, and also by interview with the parents and requirements for religious attendance, something which it is frankly extraordinary that state schools are allowed to do

That approach covers both grammars and faith schools. Extension of grammars and extension of selective faith schools are very much linked, and they should be linked in any political discourse about them.

Banning totally, you're probably right, not a priority for many. But as they see non-selective schools disappearing around them, the extension of faith schools does grow as an issue. Their existence and their role in society then becomes a thing that needs discussing.

Unfortunately, this is just you wanting something to happen, and apparently not being willing or able to consider why it isn't happening.

What's your response/reaction to this, particularly the bit in bold?

something can be having a socially damaging effect (through various forms of social-apartheid, covert transmission of privilege, cementing religious/cultural/racial/identity based ways of organising social institutions and ways of doing politics and so on) whilst not being politically significant in terms of voting behaviour - i.e not politically significant to a wide section of society.

This i think is the case now, but i would add for the main parties this is actually a way in which they organise their support bases - they're perfectly happy with the social atomisation it relies on and produces, and the formal groupings and leaders they can then fall back on to legitmise their own lack of bigotry or prejudice

 

[krtek a houby]

What the fuck are you talking about? I don't even know what you posted. Neither do you. You posted "I knew a man". What the hell are we supposed to do with that information?

Do you know what; even that tidbit of information is enough. Make of it what you will. I don't believe all the kids who go to those schools end up wrong 'uns. That's my useless, simple thick logic for you. Sincere apologies all the same.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Unfortunately, this is just you wanting something to happen, and apparently not being willing or able to consider why it isn't happening.

You've bolded the last bit in my last post while ignoring the first bit. As non-selective schools disappear around people, the existence and extension of the various selective ones grows as an issue. You might disagree with that, but 'not willing or able' is not a response to what I wrote.

 

[krtek a houby]

What if they do? Only a tiny proportion of parents have the capacity and willingness to homeschool.

Bottom line ought to be that state money should not be spent on religious education. Of any kind. Start there, and work from there.

Yes, I agree - of course. But I think there will be a lot of resistance to that move if and when it happens.

 

[two sheds]

Would you have to ban faith schools? Couldn't you just require them to adhere to the same rules as state schools for balanced treatment of religions?

 

[DotCommunist]

require all you like, it doesn't always get adhered to in reality. What was those muslim faith schools that got in trouble over that sort of thing a few years back?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Would you have to ban faith schools? Couldn't you just require them to adhere to the same rules as state schools for balanced treatment of religions?

imo the issue that could very well gain in traction is that of selection - in the case of religious schools, often in the form of religious observance by parents. Removing the freedom to do that would go a long way towards ending that as an issue, I think, yes (although I'd certainly want to remove all religion from state schools as they do in France).

As for whether or not it could be in the interests of a Labour party to advocate the removal/reduction of selection, I don't agree with butchers on this. In the 1970s, the Labour party saw it as in its interests to all but abolish grammar schools. I see no reason why that could not be the case again, extending it to ending/reducing the number of selective religious schools.

 

[eoin_k]

When I was at school the religious schools were seen as the 'best' local schools (non grammer or private). That's how I ended up at a catholic school of which there are loads in Birmingham.

When I look back on it now it's so clear that it was a dangerously backward method of education with banned books, the downplaying of really important science and damaging ideas and politics rammed into kids (and let's not even start with the dracionian 'disciplinary' system plus the weirdo priests and nuns)

Not to suggest that Catholic education is flawless, but did you attend school before 1950? I attended a few catholic schools. While corporal punishment* was administered with enthusiasm by some teachers and I had interesting discussions with others about womens' reproductive freedom, science was always taught well. Church doctrine on the natural sciences has been fairly pragmatic since papal encyclial Humani Generis:

'the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter'.

'Men of experience' seems to have been interpreted quite broadly in practice. Steven Jay Gould writes well on this from the perspective of an agnostic, Jewish scientist.

* Not sure how different this would have been in secular schools at the time.

 

[J Ed]

require all you like, it doesn't always get adhered to in reality. What was those muslim faith schools that got in trouble over that sort of thing a few years back?

The Trojan horse thing was in academies in Birmingham rather than faith schools, although that isn't the only example of this stuff.

 

[Teaboy]

Problem is, since Blair, there has been a considerable extension of faith schools in the state sector, and an emphasis on religion has grown in other schools where it was previously in the background. I think this is a big issue politically, and it is likely to become bigger - in many areas, parents have very little choice outside of faith schools.

Aye, it my area of London (like most areas) there is a chronic shortage of school places. The council then found some land to build a new one and then promptly decided it was going to be a catholic school. So this is a state funded school which prioritizes places for children of catholic parents. Great.

 

[bimble]

This place may or may not still be in operation, in London. Not only did they teach nothing but religious nonsense they refused to let them speak or learn English. If it's hard to shut down something like this I don't have much hope.
Jewish school which banned English 'still open despite order to close'

 

[redsquirrel]

Ideally, yes. But what if some of the faith school parents balk at this and homeschool the child/children. You then get isolated kids not mixing with others and not being open to others opinions?

The governments own report into the 2001 Bradford riots concluded the the growth of faith schools reinforced community segregation. Not that that stopped the government from promoting faith schools.

 

[Fingers]

So my mate is a pretty senior teacher on a decent wedge. She is as left wing as you can get but she is convinced that labour under JC will tax the hell out of her more than the Tories. I have asked her where this has come from and she is a bit vague about why she thinks that.

Have I missed some policy here or can I continue telling her that a JC government will go after the billions we loose over corporate tax dodgers?

 

[Hocus Eye.]

So my mate is a pretty senior teacher on a decent wedge. She is as left wing as you can get but she is convinced that labour under JC will tax the hell out of her more than the Tories. I have asked her where this has come from and she is a bit vague about why she thinks that.

Have I missed some policy here or can I continue telling her that a JC government will go after the billions we loose over corporate tax dodgers?

What a pity you don't know the difference between the words loose and lose. Not too impressive for a contribution an an education question.

 

[Fingers]

What a pity you don't know the difference between the words loose and lose. Not too impressive for a contribution an an education question.

I could have replied to your post and made myself look like I have condescending twat issues also, but I will not mate.

 

[J Ed]

So my mate is a pretty senior teacher on a decent wedge. She is as left wing as you can get but she is convinced that labour under JC will tax the hell out of her more than the Tories. I have asked her where this has come from and she is a bit vague about why she thinks that.

Have I missed some policy here or can I continue telling her that a JC government will go after the billions we loose over corporate tax dodgers?

Doesn't sound as left wing as you can get to me. You don't have to go very far beneath the surface to find a very right-wing moralistic tinged streak in a lot of teachers.

 

[J Ed]

That isn't teacher bashing btw, just something I have noticed and in some cases been caught off guard and surprised by.

 

[chilango]

That isn't teacher bashing btw, just something I have noticed and in some cases been caught off guard and surprised by.

Yeah, the whole "Leftie teacher" narrative that the media and successive governments have pushed since (at least) the 80's can be pretty misleading.

 

[Mr Moose]

Doesn't sound as left wing as you can get to me. You don't have to go very far beneath the surface to find a very right-wing moralistic tinged streak in a lot of teachers.

Define 'right wing' in this context. Teachers are certainly concerned with behaviour and so they have to take an opinion on it. Uniforms, maybe I'll grant you though I can see the downside of the race to wear the most expensive, most sexualised or tough looking clothing.

Maybe you feel any discipline is 'right wing'? But are teachers really more right wing than the rest of society? And do we need to slag them off?

 

[JimW]

Worrying about top rates of tax is hardly the stuff of ultra-leftism.

 

[J Ed]

Define 'right wing' in this context. Teachers are certainly concerned with behaviour and so they have to take an opinion on it. Uniforms, maybe I'll grant you though I can see the downside of the race to wear the most expensive, most sexualised or tough looking clothing.

Maybe you feel any discipline is 'right wing'? But are teachers really more right wing than the rest of society? And do we need to slag them off?

The idea of whether discipline and uniform wearing in schools are right-wing ideas seems like it could be an interesting debate, I don't really think so and I don't have any strong opinions on it either way. It's not really something that I know enough about to make an informed comment, but I am sure that there will be people on here who have actually thought about it and would be able to offer you an opinion. I am not sure whether either of those things are actually relevant since individual teachers don't decide a school's uniform or behaviour policy.

What I am talking about is the fact that there are a lot of teachers are literally Tories and there are plenty of others who are Labour voters (or left of Labour) but who have some pretty nasty views about welfare, people on welfare and working-class kids. I wonder how much of that is a function of the job, I suspect it has much more to do with the fact that teachers are disproportionately drawn from the upper-middle-class and that's a trend that seems to be getting worse not better.

I don't think that teachers are to the right of most of society, they are almost certainly to the left of it though I think not as left as portrayed or many think, and I am not slagging them off.

 

[Pickman's model]

So my mate is a pretty senior teacher on a decent wedge. She is as left wing as you can get but she is convinced that labour under JC will tax the hell out of her more than the Tories. I have asked her where this has come from and she is a bit vague about why she thinks that.

Have I missed some policy here or can I continue telling her that a JC government will go after the billions we loose over corporate tax dodgers?

Is higher tax necessarily bad, if it pays for a more equitable society?

 

[Pickman's model]

Unfortunately, this is just you wanting something to happen, and apparently not being willing or able to consider why it isn't happening.

What's your response/reaction to this, particularly the bit in bold?

Lbj is a particularly vapid liberal with the critical thinking skills of an ignorant lobster so you shouldn't expect too much.

 

[J Ed]

Worrying about top rates of tax is hardly the stuff of ultra-leftism.

Now, y'see... no one is as left-wing as me, but really.. this so-called Mr Corbyn is going to absolutely make the lives of those who live in absolute luxury marginally worse to the benefit of everyone else and actually that's going a bit to far.

 

[Libertad]

who have some pretty nasty views about welfare, people on welfare

Social security shirley?

 

[inva]

Worrying about top rates of tax is hardly the stuff of ultra-leftism.

not in public anyway