Alex is someone who lives in Blogsville. She reads my blog. Her recent comment moved me so much that I have copied it below. She speaks of her husband's experience in state education in Britain. Now I might argue that the teachers' behaviour will have been motivated by a number of different things, not just their lefty politics. We must not forget the state of fear that schools are in - the fear the teachers themselves feel, of the children, of the system - the SMT's fear of the system - and because of that we let children like Alex's husband down all of the time.
Sometimes I wonder whether I really have changed, whether these people who keep telling me that I have just 'become right wing' are right. Every now and then I'm reminded that the people who say this are simply insane. Alex's comment was one of those reminders.
I don't say what I say out of some desire to earn more money from my banking job in the City. I don't say what I say because I'm going to benefit from saying it. I say what I say because it is the truth.
My husband is now 30. His parents were London born and bred: one from a family of colonial migrants, the other an old-fashioned English working class lad. They didn't, I guess, understand much about the way the schools might have changed since they were young, and sent my husband to an all boys comprehensive in South London. He started there in 1990.
The school's intake took many children from a nearby estate, white children may I add, who were aggressive, violent and uncontrollable. There were few lower middle class or middle class children in the school. Almost from day one, my husband said it was like going into hell. His bike was vandalised everyday. The constant threats, bullying and violence towards him and his friend put his nerves on edge. For two years, he suffered aggressive and violent bullying; the teachers constantly made excuses for the aggressors, and eventually refused to listen to him. He learnt nothing.
Finally, in year nine, one of these boys went too far. He attacked him in the school grounds, and punched him in the face repeatedly. His teeth were chipped badly, he went home covered in blood and bruises. His parents called the school, and said enough was enough. The incident provoked the aggressor to then "put a price" on my husband's head. My husband says if he had returned to the school, he would have been stabbed in a classroom.All the teachers did was beg his parents not to remove him from the school. They refused to call the police, despite the incident classing as GBH. They were more concerned about their results plummeting than about the fact one of their pupil's face was a mess.
His parents then sent him to a private day school, where he had to work to catch up on three years of secondary school. My husband is still very angry to this day about what he went through at that school; he feels a lot of his problems with anxiety stem from the experience of constantly looking over his shoulder five days a week for three years. He also feels it influenced his political viewpoint, and is the reason why he is a Conservative. The teachers were "all hardcore lefties" that made excuses for behaviour that was beyond the pale because the aggressors were from 'underprivileged families.' He never understood why it was right that he should suffer violence and lose years of education just because of an ideological position.
I am a believer in equality of opportunity. I am from a working class Northern family. My grandparents worked in mills and factories. And all I can see is that the left in Britain have forced decent parents to pay to protect their children from physical harm -- by removing them from state schools and sending them to private insititutions.
It is a disgrace.
I could not agree more.
Friday, 31 October 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

27 comments:
"I don't say what I say out of some desire to earn more money from my banking job in the City. I don't say what I say because I'm going to benefit from saying it. I say what I say because it is the truth."
Fair enough, but consider this. Perhaps the right-wing aren't actually motivated by greed as you assume.
Perhaps they just believe that choice, independence and a reduction of the state's influence are all things that would improve the conditions for the majority.
Perhaps your desire to impose discipline and to allow the majority of your class to emerge from the oppressive weight of the trouble-makers is an indication that your thinking is in fact right-wing, at least in certain areas. It's just right-wing may not mean what you think it means.
I think that what makes you seem right-wing is not that you find the ordeal described repulsive (I can assure you I do too) but that you agree with efforts to blame "the left" for something that happened after the Tories had been in power for over a decade.
I don't think that this anything to do with right or left, but about stupidity.
What happened to Alex's husband was a total disgrace. No child should be allowed to be intimidated out of a school.
Like others have said, this happened under a conservative government obssessed with targets. Equally I went to a school with some of the most left wing teachers you can imagine. It never stopped them from suspending or expelling where it was appropriate. These incidents can happen regardless of what political influence is involved.
What this is all about is common sense and the school involved here showed none.
Mr Potarto
Welcome. Yes, you may very well be right.
Old Andrew & Akela
No. When I say left wing and right wing, I don't mean Labour and Conservative. I mean that the Left generally believes that one shouldn't expel children who are badly behaved because they are poor or come from single-mother families. The Right generally believes that people should pull themselves up by their bootstraps. The Left believes in 'helping' people in need. The Right believes in people helping themselves.
I am speaking in generalities of course but there is no question that the situation that Alex's husband found himself in is a result of leftist ideology, (irrespective of what government was in power at the time) and an education system which is swimming in this kind of thinking!
And to deny this is simply another example of the Left refusing to see the truth!
We had some bad experiences (not as bad as Alex's husband) with a private school and found our local state school much tighter on discipline.
So I think this is not about State school vs Private school but good schools and bad schools.
Dorset
I'm guessing you don't live in London. I'm also guessing you don't live in Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester or any other large city in Britain!
Hey Snuffy.
Your response to Dorset is interesting. It is interesting because you are right and because it is what we expect from our state schools (especially in a big city); however, shouldn't we expect that kind of discipline from state schools. Is it so hard to believe that it could be the case that state schools are well run and discipline well. As I said earlier I don't think it is case of state = bad. State can = good, I'm fairly sure of it. You seem to want to frame the debate in terms of left and right but by doing so you're condeming your words of wisdom to cliché and stereotype when they go far beyond that.
No. When I say left wing and right wing, I don't mean Labour and Conservative. I mean that the Left generally believes that one shouldn't expel children who are badly behaved because they are poor or come from single-mother families.
The trouble is that you have adopted your own definition of "left" and "right" and then proceed to use them to sloganise. By your definition, I am right wing. The Communist Party of Great Britain was right wing. The education system of the Soviet Union was right wing.
By contrast, David "hug a hoodie" Cameron, not to mention various education secretaries under the last Tory government, are more left wing than I am.
Are there not other issues here which determine who is left and who is right? I seem to be having a continuing argument on here with free market extremists who care only about allowing a bigger slice of the middle classes to get into private schools and to hell with the majority. Isn't that also about left and right? Can I tell them that according to you I am actually a right winger and firm opponent of the left?
I'm with oldandrew on this one. For Alex's husband left and right was understood in terms of party politics he now votes Tory because his teachers were lefties (did they really tell him their voting intentions?) Here's what was happening as OA pointed out after 11 years of Mrs Thatcher's government being in power.
Schools were funded on a per capita basis. League tables were about to be introduced. Parents in London under the brave new world of choice could pick which secondary school - after the Greenwich ruling even outside the London borough of residence. Undersubscribed schools lost out on funding. Oversubscribed schools could kick out miscreants at will with no financial penalty as they could fill the child's place easily. Undersubscribed schools were in a viciuos cricle. They were losing out on the budget and because of surplus places they were being heavily leant on by local authorities to take on the kids that were being expelled from other schools. This made behavioural problems even worse at their school, it did not enhance their reputation, more surplus place, more naughty kids. 'Teachers' (lefties or not) did not have the power to exclude children - head teachers (and their deputies) did. The dim witted system of league tables, offering parents 'choice' when it can't be offered - because the elasticity of supply cannot meet the elasticity of demand, filling up schools which were already facing problems with kids who had been excluded from other schools - these and the breakdown in family life (a topic for another time) were the factors that made Alex's husband's life a misery at school. It's that crap system that he should be angry with. Yes - the Labour government can be taken to task on this but mostly for continuing with these stupid policies when it should have consigned them to the bin.
oldandrew, by Miss Snuffy's definition you are indeed right wing. This is not her own idiosyncratic labelling. She is labelled rightwing herself, much to her own surprise.
Alex made a fine post in the Lefty Kind Of Girl thread.
These people [the left]]are the establishment and the state now. These are the people who believe all serious political authority is illegimate, including their own -- so they fudge serious governance issues, refuse to take positions, and cover all this pathetic inadequacy by paying court to ideological principles they feel are vastly more important -- like climate change and inclusion.
It is worth reading in full.
Over the interesting half term we have had at this blog, I found myself asking can the State sector really be that bad? I know from my own experience that the private sector is not the answer to everything. Alex's post brought me down to earth. Like her husband's parents I am out of touch.
And as for the Left, it is really a collection of tribal loyalties, formed in the last Century.
It is not surprising that many young people cannot believe that the State can run anything, when, as Alex says, the people who run it believe it is illegitimate.
Meanwhile the populist as opposed to the free-market right gathers strength.
Old Andrew
Yes, I think you are right-wing. And yes, I often tell people that I am more right-wing than Cameron. I don't want to hug a hoodie, for instance.
But I don't think these positions are my own inventions. It is, as Jolly says. Alex's husband isn't blaming Labour. He is blaming leftist ideology. I don't know what education was like in the Soviet Union but perhaps it was extreme right/extreme left? At some point the two sides meet on the other side, don't they?
As for your argument with Ken etc, I am completely baffled. I don't understand it. Are they arguing for the middle classes to have more choice? I don't think so. Choice doesn't actually exist in Britain when it comes to schools. It is not real. You know this. So I don't know why you keep saying there is choice as if you believe there really is. They are suggesting a system which would allow MORE choice. Admitedly, even in that system, the worst children would not have much choice at all - but then this would give them reason to change their ways.
I am interested in why you don't agree. Explain it to me. Because up until now, I don't get it.
"reason to change their ways"
Thats the crux. Until there is a signal or message from society that says: we will not tolerate, fund or excuse this behavior we will continue to get it. And we will allow them into the same physical space as kids who do behave.
What the libertarians want and what I advocate is not to allow the middle classes more options to leave. What we are arguing for is more equality of opportunity.
I think part of the problem (I could be wrong) is that OA starts from the viewpoint that the existing system has lots of problems that need to be resolved:
Closing bad schools (or changing management dramatically)
Enforcing discipline
Etc
So he sees the argument for more schools as being foolish as it distracts from fundamental issues above - as a way for the middle class to flee.
What the "right" in this case want is closing schools, enforcing discipline AND greater school choice. We dont just want the existing system + vouchers useable within the system with no other changes (which would probably increase segregation.)
We see school choice not as a solution for not closing bad schools - we want to close schools or at least change the management. And more discipline, less national curriculum, more choice in educational/vocation, but we see choice as the way to push better educational choices and to help along discipline/closing of poor schools.
Choice must include fundamental reforms - otherwise it isnt choice.
It isnt really true to describe the Libertarians as being of the right. And the education system of the Soviet Union was authoritarian and it believed in discipline. I dont know how much choice they offered, but it was fairly elitist, with streaming and early selection of the best. So if you want to call it right wing, yes it was. The USSR didnt believe in equality of outcome as some woolly lefties in this country want to achieve. The USSR wanted to create world beating scientists and clever spies, they worked hard at creating them. The Libertarians dont even want to go that far - they want discipline, but they want choice, with academic excellence a route, but not especially singled out. So less elitist than the Soviet Union. And we all agree that the basics are a necessity. (So we all hate lefties who excuse the urban poor for writing in txtspk (or in the old days ghetto slang). "It's their culture". AAARGH.FFS. You cant get a good job if you cannot read and write properly.)
In the GL's story of what was wrong with choice - the logical end result is we get to the point where a few schools are dumping grounds for the worst pupils. But for those who were oppressed by the worst kids, the situation should improve. There is greater equality of opportunity for the majority. We do need to do something for the most marginal, but it should not come at the cost of all the other kids.
I do agree that much of the attempt to improve teaching has simply taken us further away from the desired outcome - league tables, even with value added just arent informative enough. 5 A*-C at GCSE is a dreadful thing - teach to the test, teach only the borderline, ignore the best and worst. Choice without reform simply speeds the shift of the middle classes. Academies are expensive ways of repeating the same mistakes.
Mrs T was very right wing. But she chose her fights - she crushed the NUM, but not the NUT. To say that education policy under the Conservatives is right wing is missing the point, they didnt really do much with the mess they inherited - they tinkered at the edges, not altogether successfully I will admit.
Fascinating post. By the way Miss, did you know that public school teachers here in Japan are notorious for being strongly left wing? I'll do some more research about it, and let you know. (I know you love Japan, and I'm pleased!)
Old Andrew
Yes, I think you are right-wing. And yes, I often tell people that I am more right-wing than Cameron. I don't want to hug a hoodie, for instance.
But I don't think these positions are my own inventions.
It's not just you. Right-wingers will claim that anything that is obviously mad is "left-wing", and the insane parts of the left will view anyone that opposes them as "right-wing", including you and I. (Have your read the bit it in "Things Can Only Get Better" where John O'Farrell finds Hard Left activists condemning Tony Benn for being a right-wing extremist?)
However, I see no reason why I should accept these definitions. These labels are unhelpful and misleading. They are obviously flawed when you move beyond stereotypes. Working class left-wingers (as opposed to middle class liberals) are among the most disciplinarian people I know. Communists were among the strongest supporters of strict discipline in schools. Plenty of liberals (of the "let's just be nice to the kids" variety) are too wishy-washy to describe themselves as "left-wing" in any sense whatsoever. Plenty of SMT-types who blame teachers, not kids, for discipline problems are Daily Telegraph readers who hate trade unions and see themselves as implementing the latest advances in management theory over left-wing dinosaurs. The attempt to turn this into a left-right issue is unwelcome and unhelpful. And when it puts me into a camp with people whose only concern about sink schools is getting the middle class kids out of them it is insulting too.
As for your argument with Ken etc, I am completely baffled. I don't understand it. Are they arguing for the middle classes to have more choice? I don't think so. Choice doesn't actually exist in Britain when it comes to schools. It is not real. You know this. So I don't know why you keep saying there is choice as if you believe there really is.
I am left wondering how you measure choice then. Our private sector is big by international standards. Our religious sector is big by international standards. Our multiplicity of types of school is pretty unusual too. I'm not sure how you measure choice except by the number of options and how widely used the different options are.
When it comes down to it, as long as sink schools are allowed to exist, somebody will end up in them and telling us that its the parents fault for not exercising "choice" doesn't help the children.
What the "right" in this case want is closing schools, enforcing discipline AND greater school choice.
This is what we call "having one's cake and eating it". Closing schools and enforcing discipline reduces choice. It also involves the state intervening in schools.
The rot in the education system exists in its most concentrated form in those schools where the (remaining) parents don't exercise choice and where bad practice is tolerated by the state. People who talk about more parental choice, or less state intervention, are deeply unconvincing allies in the fight to improve these schools.
OA
Oh, state intervention in the worst places are a given. (well unless you fancy concentrating these people in camps somewhere, and there is a bad word for that.) I dont see the contradiction in more choice for the many and continued state intervention in the rump.
Part of the problem is that the most hopeless cases are already the subject of a great deal of state intervention - mainly though of the "emergency" service kind - social services, police, etc. It isnt working all that well.
While the State can grant choice and benefit many, the rottenest parts of the society (and thus the education system) require most action. No one denies that those who do not care enough or do not have the resources to exercise what choices they are given are those that require state intervention.
The question there is what should the state be doing? Clearly choice isnt the answer and more money by itself isnt going to solve the problem - although money will probably have to be spent. Part of the answer will be incentives - no more incentives to become young teenage mothers. More prison places so that criminals will be deterred.
I think that you assume that the right think that choice will solve everything and I acknowledge that some do - they are deluded. I happen to believe that for many pupils and parents in the state system, more choice will be good and would be welfare enhancing. But, it will still leave a large problematic rump.
I'm starting from the position of looking at the majority - who I think will benefit from choice. You appear to be starting from the tail (and yes, its an enormous tail) of low achieving problem kids that grow up to become problem adults.
Old Andrew
You know teachers who read the Daily Telgraph?? You are too caught up on this SMT vs teacher thing. SMT aren't monsters. They are just as lost as the teachers.
It isn't that the left don't like discipline. They just don't like exclusions and will sacrifice discipline in order to prevent exclusions. That's the left in Britain now. Maybe 50 years ago the left thought differently. Who cares? What matters is now.
Parents don't have choice over schools here. They never get what they want. It is decided by distance and siblings. You know this! And schools closing down doesn't limit choice if new schools are springing up. It is the absence of schools closing down that takes away choice - the very situation we have at the moment. I'll leave Ken to try to persuade you. I am lost for words.
Miko
You are very welcome here. Do you live in Japan? Do you teach?
I think that you assume that the right think that choice will solve everything and I acknowledge that some do - they are deluded.
I'm judging it by what is being claimed on here. I don't think the right do generally think like that, but that has certainly been the thrust of a number of posts on here.
I happen to believe that for many pupils and parents in the state system, more choice will be good and would be welfare enhancing. But, it will still leave a large problematic rump.
I'm starting from the position of looking at the majority - who I think will benefit from choice.
The amount who can benefit from choice depends on the amount places in good schools available and the amount interested into getting into those good schools.
There seems to be a lot of dreaming here that schools are so convenient to open and close and children are so easy to redistribute that this will be transformed as soon as there is more choice.
In actual fact good schools are usually already oversubscribed with no convenient way to expand. Parents are very reluctant to accept the closure of even very awful schools, or to move their children around. Every teacher in my LEA knows the name of the worst school, but it still gets enough first choices every year to fill up even though some of the better, neighbouring schools are also undersubscribed.
You know teachers who read the Daily Telgraph??
Yes, and the Daily Mail. I also know many, many teachers who send their children to private schools. Maybe it is different in London but here there is a complete lack of left-wing ideology in our tough schools here (unless of course you redefine "left" in such a way that makes all bureaucrats and liberals left-wing and all people who believe in firm discipline and exclusion of the worst behaved right-wing). In fact all the left-wing activists I know of (and the NUT is run by Trots here) come from the posher schools.
You are too caught up on this SMT vs teacher thing. SMT aren't monsters. They are just as lost as the teachers.
I worked for a short with a headteacher and deputy headteacher who had been "lent" from one of Britain's most improved schools.
In that time they seemed to do all the things that headteachers claim they "can't" do, from permanent exclusions, to sacking teachers who opposed the discipline policy, to dealing with all serious behaviour incidents personally. Yes, they got stick for it from the local authority. They also got invited to see the Prime Minister at Number Ten to explain just how they had achieved such a dramatic turn around in results.
It isn't that the left don't like discipline. They just don't like exclusions and will sacrifice discipline in order to prevent exclusions. That's the left in Britain now. Maybe 50 years ago the left thought differently. Who cares? What matters is now.
Which again leaves me wondering who "the left" are in this conversation. Not my local Labour councillor. Not any of my NUT trade union reps. In my experience the people who oppose exclusions are crap SMT (of whom very few are identifably political) and the local authority (Tory run where I currently work).
Old Andrew
Yes, they do send their children to private schools - but that's because they KNOW what the alternative is - it isn't because they are right-wing.
When SMT are drafted into a failing school to turn it around they are allowed to do things that others are not allowed to do. They are given more leeway. But even then, it sounds like your people were taken to task.
But that's what it takes. People with nerves of steel who are willing to stand up to the bollocks they are told and do what they think is right. And then in the end, as you have experienced, they win out. Those people are extraordinary - as I have said before. Most people are not and it is unfair of you to expect them to be so. It is also ridiculous that the system is set up in such a way that only the extraordinary can be successful heads. (I've said this before - your story just proves what I've been saying.)
You are too caught up in this 'who is running things at the moment'. The LEA may be Tory run but it is very likely to be soaked in leftist dogma.
But that's what it takes. People with nerves of steel who are willing to stand up to the bollocks they are told and do what they think is right. And then in the end, as you have experienced, they win out. Those people are extraordinary - as I have said before. Most people are not and it is unfair of you to expect them to be so.
I'd accept this if:
a) SMT didn't routinely want extraordinary, if not impossible, things from classroom teachers
and
b) Crap SMTs at least aspired to be like the extraordinary SMTs instead of hating them, and blaming the shortcomings classroom teachers for why their schools wasn't as successful as the schools with extraordinary SMTs.
You are too caught up in this 'who is running things at the moment'. The LEA may be Tory run but it is very likely to be soaked in leftist dogma.
So "the left" are axiomatically to blame for everything, up to and including what the right do.
Don't you think this makes the very use of the labels "right" and "left" absurd? If it doesn't actually correspond to the politics or views of the people taking the actions in question, then, surely, it can only be misleading to use conventional political terms?
correct Snuffy - I live in East Herts where we have a selection of very good state schools. All the teachers I've met have been professional, skilled, and committed to doing a good job for all the children. Kids will be kids but generally the schools uphold high standards of behaviour.
The fact that you knew that means this is not a problem of state schools in general, but a problem of inner city schools.
You know what it is like to be hated for something you are, something you cannot change.
I was bumped from a comfortable independent school to the local public dump during the last two years of my secondary education, due to a collapse in family finances. I was bullied and beaten so badly and so regularly that I was able to leave that school and continue my studies with people older than me at a college. My confidence was shattered and it took me decades to recover from it.
I am not aware that the political views of my teachers had anything to do with my plight.
There are huge swathes of uncivilised, violent and moronic people in this country. Their children mostly take on the same behaviour. They have role models, but they are bad ones. I believe the answer lies in allowing flexibility for pupils who need it and for recognising that some are gifted, some are extraordinarily gifted and that some are not and are destined to become a drain on society throughout their lives. That fact is something the left just cannot accept, and until it does you will have this muddle that allows the weak and violent to tyrannise the rest.
Old Andrew,
I thought I ought to post to your point that my comment turned into a party political broadcast.
This is quite an interesting point for me, as I certainly did not intend the comment to be pro-Conservative or pro-right-wing. But I would like to clear up my position somewhat.
Until about five years ago, I would have said I was hard left -- radical left probably. I worked within Labour/left-wing politics for about 12 years until 2006.
Knowing what I know now about the modern Labour party, at executive, local and subsidary levels, and left wing thinking on the margins, I strongly believe that the Labour party and the left today have nothing remotely in common with the principles and ethos of the early Labour movement. Nothing. Whatsoever.
To me, there is old Labour thinking, which, for me, splits into socialists and mutualists. This is my arena. But then there is the new strain of left thinking, which splits up into the tiny bands of hard neo-marxists (modern Trots) and the weird amorphous blob that is the outcome of the ideologies of the 'soixante-huiters'.
It is now the latter course of thought that now holds ascendence on 'the left' and within Labour. And there are some quite serious consequences to this. Basically, it has allowed for some very privileged, very upper middle class, people to rise to very high levels within Labour and 'the left' -- and their influence has skewed the left and Labour beyond all proportion. What was once a party to represent the ordinary working man and woman against the interests of the elite has now become an elite in itself, full of all the same kinds of people you would find in any other elite -- moneyed, privately-schooled, Oxbridge, silver spoon etc.
Put it this way, I was shocked at some of the types of people I found in high, rather powerful, policy positions within the Labour network -- most of the celebrated young bloods were just modern Mitfords. The nepotism is horrendous. For example, there is now an "old boys and girls network" operating within the Labour party ranks and subsidary organisations that solely recruits people from certain privileged backgrounds.
To my eyes, Labour and a lot of modern 'left' thinking is now just the product of a 'replacement elite' that comes from exactly the same place as the traditional establishment elite that used to be perceived as 'Tory'. Labour and the Conservatives are just like two brothers from the same family competing to inherit the family business, except one holds traditional values, and the other has 'rebelled' and argues against everything the other brother stands for -- purely because such an act is a rebellion, rather than a product of concern for the workers in that business.
Teaching, education, culture, social ideas: all of this has been caught in this tussle for power. And in the process, the ideals and ethos of the original Labour movement, a movement that was taken over by said 68ers, have all but vanished as policy and only remain as 'voter candy'.
So where does that leave my original comment? Well, I am now of the opinion that some more traditional (aka, non-68 infused) approaches will deliver old Labour ideals better than 68 leftish thinking will. And it is my belief that somewhere around the early to mid 90s, this 68-er thinking began to infiltrate education to a level that it had never really done before (though not necessarily because of teachers' individual political beliefs), and this date also chimes with the rise of 'New Labour'. It is as though the thinking finally 'breached the wall' sometime around that date, and began to proliferate around culture as a whole, and we are now seeing the consequences politically, socially, culturally and educationally of this change.
I think this could explain why people who should be traditional Labour voters are suddenly finding themselves in alignment with "the forces of Conservatism". It is not so much that they are 'right-wing' but more that they are reacting against the products and results of 68-er ideology that now is affiliated to Labour and the left.
Maybe. :-)
Another interesting point is timing, the impact of generational differences in thought and waves of teacher training.
I went to a comprehensive in the mid 80s and most of my teachers had taught my mother back in the early 60s. This means their teacher training took place in the mid to late 50s.
Now these teachers were traditional, strict and authoritarian; the school I went to took a significant number of children from poor homes and rough estates but got results and had a decent enough intake of middle-class children. Behaviour was pretty perfect in the classroom.
My husband's teachers, however, were almost all fairly young and would have trained in the 80s -- quite a few of them are still at the school today -- whereas most of mine retired in the early 90s.
I would suggest, maybe, that part of the issue could be the impact of new educational ideology upon teacher training in the 70s and 80s, and also the anti-Tory ethos within higher education institutions in this period.
I am Alex's husband. Alex has just spoken with me about her post and the vibrant discussion that has evolved out of it.
I'd like to personally add a few points here.
My experiences over those three years are of such a number and magnitude, they can hardly be understated. Alex describes a handful of those experiences, providing a very brief synopsis if you will, of what actually happened.
I do not exaggerate when I say that those three years were horrendous. A form of hell, or as I saw it at the time and as my dad conceded, a prison sentence in a form of bleak, harsh, unrelenting camp.
I am well aware that I am not alone in having bad school experiences. I am moved to this day over what happened to me because of how it affected me psychologically and how it has fed my world view and strong political disposition.
I would also add that I am more Libertarian right wing than 'conservative', though I certainly vote for the Tories as they are the least worst option.
I want to respond to 'the gentleman loser' who appears to sneer at the account of my experience.
He stated:
"For Alex's husband left and right was understood in terms of party politics he now votes Tory because his teachers were lefties (did they really tell him their voting intentions?)"
How did he come by this analysis of events? I am amazed at his seeming omniscience, and I'd love to hear how he came by such cerebral talents. No, I have never undertaken an understanding of 'left' and 'right' in party political terms. I was aware even in the early 1990s as an adolescent that the Tories had barely chipped at the socialist structure that underpinned education, welfarism and criminal justice.
Thatcher's legacy was a stronger form of 19th century liberalism: free marketeering. The education system, however, was gripped then as it is now by ideological socialists and it has been this way since the 1960s.
And did my teachers tell me their voting intentions, he asks? Why, yes actually. They did.
The teaching staff were agitated and ruffled old school socialists, that had by then been insulted and angered by a decade of conservative government - a series of administrations led by a 'right winger' that had rudely interupted their progression to the ideal they all craved for.
Politics was openly displayed and teachers would often overtly and explicitely state their allegiances. I remember it very well, and I remember specific teachers well and what they said. They were Labour voters, and at the left of the party led by Neil Kinnock.
By the time of the 1992 election, I saw a nervous yet confident band of teachers at the school (and pupils with socialist parents) look to the election with hope.
After the 1992 election, the worst phase of my time at that school was to come. I remember leaving the school with the realisation of why discipline collapsed so badly. Or at least a contributory factor.
Many teachers were so disheartened and upset at Major's victory, that they exercised their influences in the only way they knew how. The result was that the 'reactionary' and bourgeois middle class minority from the suburbs who belonged to the gloating victors were seen as part of the next generation of enemies.
We, and we were few believe me, would almost be punished for the collapse in socialist hopes. We were supported less and less, sneered at more and more, and left to our bloody fate.
People will probably read this and think I'm a mad, disillusioned idiot, left with a warped view on the world because of a bit of school bullying.
I wish those people were right, believe me. It would be far preferable for the world were there to be one mistaken fool than a country being wrecked by ideologues and idealists.
Many teachers were so disheartened and upset at Major's victory, that they exercised their influences in the only way they knew how. The result was that the 'reactionary' and bourgeois middle class minority from the suburbs who belonged to the gloating victors were seen as part of the next generation of enemies.
I was feeling really sympathetic about what you described before. Now I wish I hadn't. You don't want to solve the problem, you want to blame the teachers. Of course, that will put you in sympathy with the Tories, but it is not because they are sound on discipline.
Yes, teachers wanted the Tories out from the mid-eighties on. (Prior to that teachers had been overwhelmingly Tory voters.) This had less to do with deep-seated ideology and more to do with the fact that the Tories declared war on the teaching profession at that time. Even then teachers were voting Liberal-SDP Alliance (remember that?) in 1987 rather than Labour.
Incidentally, there was concern about school discipline in the late eighties, noticeably after the abolition of corporal punishment, much of it coming from teachers. What did the Tories do? Up the number of exclusions? Change the ideological basis of schooling? Anything of note at all?
No, they commissioned a report that blamed it all on teachers being bad at their jobs and having lost public respect because of union action in previous years.
I could (of course) find things Labour governments have done wrong on this issue too, but the point has to be made that the Tories never cared about school discipline, started the blame the teacher culture and it was they who were in power when what you described occurred.
Post a Comment