The United States Declaration of Independence states: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
Pursuit of Happiness.’ Well, that’s a nice ambition but we all know it’s a
crock of shit. Not only are all not starting out equal, it is an undesirable
outcome anyway, as equality can only be achieved by pushing standards and expectations
downwards, something which seems to be the purview of dictatorships and
communism... and the British state education system.
It has done its job well, the National Union of Teachers,
Jokers, Obfuscators and Bolsheviks. (NUTJOB) Raise the prospect of grammar
schools as Theresa May has done and out come the placards and the angry
condemnations of elitism and cries of “Unfair!” Nothing’s ever fair these days,
is it? But what is fair anyway? A decent crack of the whip seems like fairness,
so denying access to selective schooling for brighter kids looks manifestly unfair
to me.
But the system has worked well to promote anything but
excellence as a watchword. With the result that the following was a genuine exchange
I watched on Twitter:
A: I oppose selective schools. As someone with a learning
disability, I am not happy when my tax funds my own discrimination.
B: They do not discriminate but offer opportunity to all
children
A: So they don't subject children to maths and English
exams? How could a person like myself pass them?
B: So because you have learning problems all other
children should be denied the opportunity of a grammar school?
A: No they can exist but they can not be allowed to
discriminate.
Variations on that theme – you must never discriminate –
popped up all over the commentariat but what do you do when you choose one pair
of shoes over another? What do you do when you give the job to the best
applicant? Discriminate is not a dirty word but its constant use as a
pejorative has put it in the category of hate speech when in fact it is the
basis of all choice. If one person is the same as another we may as well pair
up with the first other human being we encounter. If we had never discriminated
the human race might have ended up looking like the denizens of the island of
Doctor Moreau. (Some say it already does)
Of course we need selection and streaming in schooling –
that is far more ‘self-evident’ than equality to anybody who has actually
thought about it. But it should be remembered that being academically gifted is
not the only way pupils can excel. The soft bigotry of low expectations has led
us to abandon those who fail under the current comprehensive nonsense to a life
of drudge. What about also nurturing physical skills such as crafts, or the
mental acuity of many who don’t achieve in exams but go on to become successful
in business despite their education?
If you want a truly comprehensive system then you need to
take one lesson from the grammar system and that is to discriminate. Only by selection
and specialisation will you ever produce anything close to those so-called
equalities you dream of. And of course if the state won’t do it the parents
will; is it fair that only the offspring of parents who have the means to influence
their child’s schooling? You would ban grammars because some parents are better
able to prepare their kids for an entrance exam?
Hands up if you can spell... anything, really.
Life, unlike the Olympics, is one long bout of selection in which we
all compete in different ways. The true equality of outcomes is that we all die
in the end; nobody wins in the long run. But it’s not the winning; it’s the
taking part. And some never participate to their full potential because they
languish in mixed ability classes when they could be flying. If grammar schools
are unfair then one-size-fits-all comprehensives are tantamount to child
cruelty.
Equality of opportunity - yes
ReplyDeleteEquality of outcomes - no
https://twitter.com/AlexanderBath/status/762294897097474049
ReplyDelete