Political Parties

5 Apr 2016

Deep and Significant Problems

Teachwell Political Parties Labour Party 0

Oh Diane! What a car crash this was:

While it is the norm now for party leaders to resign if they lose an election, the problem is that MPs were elected under their banner, their proposed policies, their personality and the Labour Party they have created. There is a fundamental denial of this in the Labour Party and among the Corbynistas that is causing deep and significant problems, which look set to continue. It’s as though they have forgotten that the electorate who voted for the MPs are not drones rubber-stamping the views of the party membership, whoever the party might consist of at a given point in time.

The current PLP reflect the Labour electorate, even if they don’t represent the current party membership. But here is the crux of the matter – the party membership can and will change under any leader. This does not mean that the party can simply pick and choose when they represent the electorate who voted for them. Jeremy Corbyn won the support of Labour’s members, not its electorate, and it is a mistake to assume that they would have voted for Labour if he had been the party leader. The fact that the mandate that was given to the PLP is being so willfully disregarded shows the deep problem that the current Labour Party has.

Over and over again the narrative is “THE PARTY MEMBERSHIP” wants. Actually I would argue that Jeremy, John and Diane don’t really have a clue about what the party membership want because even among the Corbynistas there is some difference in terms of why they voted for him.

It is telling that the last time the membership were asked for their opinion, the vast majority were simply ignored. If tens of thousands of people respond to a survey – as happened with the position on Syria – then actually it is not acceptable to select 2000 of them to base policy on. There is still no answer on the question of why this happened. And no, excuses do not count, a load of which I had the last time I mentioned it.

The gulf between membership and electorate is only set to grow seeing as more and more moderates are choosing to leave the party. And yes the Labour electorate are watching all of this play out. They are watching the hypocrisy at the centre of the ‘newer, kinder’ politics which appears to be little more than a façade.

Diane could have set the tone here after the reshuffle, instead it is clear that she can’t stop herself from making snide remarks and lacks the self awareness that she is doing it! Ah but the right are sniping in the press, etc, I hear you say. Well, actually most Labour MPs have kept their feelings private and disagreed behind closed doors. I had no idea that Keith Vaz (one of the MPs where I live) was going to vote with the government on air strikes or disagreed with Jeremy Corbyn on it prior to the vote. Diane no sooner opened her mouth than criticised those who chose to resign over the cabinet reshuffles. Surely, this actually helps the Corbynistas achieve their goal of cabinet unity, so why bother?

The left of the party would have a lot more credibility if they could actually stick to the principles they claim are important rather than contradicting themselves publicly. It’s all very well saying that we should be fighting the Tories not each other, but that means that the leadership need to set the example on this. Rather than demonstrate repeatedly that they actually do think this is acceptable. There are children who grasp the concept of hypocrisy better.

As for Hilary Benn, he may very well be a thorn in Jeremy Corbyn’s side. But then again he learnt firsthand from a true master. And no, it would appear that Benns don’t blindly follow their parents or their legacy, but forge their own. It may have taken him a bit longer than Tony, but he is getting into his stride. Now there is a good a reason as any to stay and fight to keep the Labour Party a broad church.

This post was originally published on the Labour Teachers website.

5 Apr 2016

Democratic Deficit

Teachwell Political Parties Labour Party 0

There is an assumption that some left-wing, middle class people have, which is that they are somehow more capable of knowing what is moral and what is right. That they are ‘informed’ about the world in some value-free, neutral way that means they are better able to identify their own needs and indeed those of others.

To be fair this does not simply afflict members of the middle classes on the left, it is equally true of those on the right. What is often forgotten is that the middle classes did not want the vote so they could establish a fully democratic system; they wanted it so they could gain a share of the power and in most countries were happy to pull up the ladder once they had gained the right to do so. Universal suffrage took much, much longer and, once it arrived, it was not without its opponents from those who had got used to exercising power and enjoyed the privileges it gave them. True democracy was never the goal of either the Tories or the Liberals of the Victorian era. Instead the lower classes were expected to be happy with the benevolent dictatorship of the elite and educated middle class. This was echoed in many countries across Europe.

The emergent democracies of the inter-war period lay in tatters not due to revolutions, but because the enfranchisement of the working class led to a decline in the power of the middle classes in these countries. Both on the left and the right, they spat the dummy out when democracies did not deliver them what they wanted, and they abandoned liberal democracy with ease.

It is easy to forget that if monarchy, tyranny and oligarchy were dictatorships of the elite, then fascism and socialism were dictatorships of the middle classes. There is no causal link between an enfranchised middle class and the maintenance of democratic systems. Totalitarianism is the means of silencing the great majority of people and forcing them to think in the ‘correct’ manner and way. Any dissent has to be crushed. Let’s not kid ourselves that Lenin was nicer about this than Mussolini. He wasn’t.

The notion that the middle classes as a group are inherently democratic or can be trusted to support democracy is a fallacy that was clear in the inter-war and post-war periods. Yet many on the far left would have one believe that, of course, they want to bring about a socialist society through consent. Do they? Well it’s a shame that the majority of people in this country have rejected it. It is even more clear that it is the working classes who were less attracted to communist and far left groupings that have always attracted a richer, more middle class and, amusingly enough, elitist group of people who wish to exercise power for the people not give it to them. The former chose the Labour Party and when they have flocked away from it have tended to go to other parties who, while they may have policies I deeply disagree with, are nevertheless committed to the democratic institutions of this country.

Corbyn won his leadership internally, not through the electorate. His mandate as an MP is no greater than that of the rest of the MP’s in the PLP. Inside the Labour Party he won a majority of the vote to lead the party. That means leading a party which has MPs in parliament that represent the electorate who voted for them.

This consists of millions who could have chosen to sign up to the Labour Party. They didn’t. They don’t need to. They cast their votes during an election and have representation in parliament. A leadership victory in the Labour Party does not mean that they ‘have to’ now agree with the new leader, it is for the new leader to get to grips with them. If he were a committed democrat, indeed if his supporters were, this simple truth would not continue to evade them. Corbyn is a classic middle class socialist who thinks he knows better; who thinks his way is the right way and who thinks that democracy is a means of getting power not a greater good that needs to be respected.

This post was originally published on the Labour Teachers website.

5 Apr 2016

What Difference Do Words Make?

Teachwell Education Debate, Education Policy, Political Parties, Teaching and Learning Education Policy, KS1, Primary School, Teachers 0

My only experience of marking SAT’s papers was illuminating. We mark blind so I had no idea whose paper was being marked or where they were from but one thing was clear – who was middle class and who was from a more deprived background. Middle class pupils, even when they got the answers wrong, were able to articulate their thoughts and ideas far better than their poorer peers, who were answering correctly! This is no surprise to me in theory, as it is well known. However, I would argue there is still something quite shocking about seeing it for oneself. The sheer difference between intelligent children who are poor and their not-so-bright middle class peers was greater than even I had imagined. Seeing it repeatedly whilst marking hundreds of papers was an experience that most teachers don’t gain.

It hit me more forcefully than ever how important modelling good spoken and written language really is. I have known teachers who excuse poor spelling, grammar and punctuation, arguing it doesn’t really matter if a child does not know where to put full stops. I never held much truck with that. How could they improve their writing or even write articulately if they did not possess a secure grasp of the basic units of writing – the difference between words, phrases and sentences?

Even more heartbreaking was the fact that not knowing this meant children missed out on marks in their SATs due to copying out whole sentences for answers instead of the correct phrase. At the age of 11, being asked to copy out a phrase should not be a difficult task if you are a child with no problems related to learning.

Even if we remove all testing from primary school, these issues remain and we need to figure out how to tackle them. Less teacher talk is not the answer! If anything children need to hear correctly formed sentences being spoken on a regular basis. Teaching Assistants also need to be in on the act. We can’t counter poor English at home with mixed messages at school. My main concern is how we start children off because, even in Year 1, I think that opportunities for speaking and listening are reduced in order to produce writing in books for scrutinies and Ofsted.

The new curriculum for Year 1 is clear:

write sentences by:
saying out loud what they are going to write about
composing a sentence orally before writing it
sequencing sentences to form short narratives
re-reading what they have written to check that it makes sense

Children need to do this, poorer children all the more. Yet the pressure to produce writing for the sake of it is not the only reason these goals may be undermined. Most primary schools I know of are still sticking with the old literacy strategy (see picture below):

Why so many genres? I know many of my ex-Year 1 colleagues were frustrated by all of this and so was I both in Year 2 and in later years, when children came to me with neither a secure grasp of the sentence structure or the features!

I would love to see a set of teachers from EYFS, primary, secondary and sixth form sit down and come up with a better plan for genres as I do believe focusing on them and their features robs us of precious time. Which genres are essential and need to be embedded, and when? Broad and balanced can and does mean different things in different year groups already. If children were focusing on maximum of say 5 genres in Year 1 but really embedding them, then they could move to Year 2 secure and ready for a new challenge. Teachers could interleave and embed the previous year(s) genres and build on them.

If we are to get it right for the poorest children, we need to stop wasting their time flitting around genres, give them the opportunities to speak and increasingly write in sentences and really secure these right from the start. The ability to articulate orally and in writing is vital if children are to succeed and cannot be left to chance.

This post was first published on the Labour Teachers website.