Balls

Another rant. And one based on a Telegraph article, no less (apologies).

"We want schools to be world class in 10 years, says Balls", claims the headline (well, the paper has that headline. The internet version is pointlessly different). Why am I annoyed about this? On the surface it seems a perfectly reasonable thing to say. But really, it's a load of balls. And yes, the word "balls" is going to appear a lot - it's a useful name for a politician to have. Sorry, Ed.

Once again there's the promise of "sweeping reforms" and a "review" (another review. If they stopped reviewing and started actually doing something - or, actually, stopped doing things - it might be better). Remarkably, "parents, teachers, universities and pupils will be consulted". That's novel, that is, talking to the people who policies affect; I'm sure that's not been thought of before. There's going to be an "inquiry", too, "into the way children are taught maths amid concern that too many youngsters leave school unable to add up properly" - fine, but ten years ago New Labour initiated a "numeracy strategy" to combat exactly the same problem. A numeracy strategy that Ed Balls has already called "successful". Of course, mistakes aren't admissible in Politix, so all that'll happen is that a very slightly revised version of the "strategy" will appear under a different label (probably "Shopping Skills" or "Life Accountancy").

I get a bit anxious whenever "sweeping reforms" are mentioned. They are invariably not sweeping, and often just make a mess of both the old system and the intended new. It's a load of gobshite. What's worse is that sweeping movements are rarely made by people who are (a) knowledgeable about or (b) genuinely interested in the systems they claim to sweep. They might have a little of both knowledge and interest, but only as much as their job's worth. Shoot me for saying it if you like, but at least Estelle Morris was a teacher - none of her successors have been (Clarke, Kelly, Johnson, Balls), and it shows that they've never been involved in the education of anyone other than themselves. I'm not saying that people necessarily have to have been on the front line to make a good job of being Education Secretary (now Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families), but being actually or at least intellectually involved helps. Curiously, it's John Denham who is S-o-S for Innovation, Universities and Skills - I seriously hope he and Balls occasionally communicate. Please. Even if it's only in passing in the corridor.

Clearly people leaving skool without a decent grasp of the Three Rs is something that still needs to be addressed, though until we develop Matrix-style knowledge implanting it's unlikely we're ever going to get 100% success with this, and why they hell should we? I'm almost cheering on the kids who manage to ignore 12 years of eddicayshun - it's quite impressive, in its own way. Though I'm biased - I did my fair share of ignoring and truanting, but just got away with it because I wasn't too much of a pain in the arse (most of the time). Obviously people are missing out on something by not being able to read, but there are more important things. "Sweeping reforms" aren't what's needed to sort out these fundamental problems, though - gentle changes and thoughtful tinkerings will do enough for that. Sweeping reforms will only be needed or enacted when (not if) the running of the education system is put back in the hands of educators and people who have a real understanding of and long-term interest in what's going on. Fact is, as we stand at the moment, teachers - the people who do stuff - are the people who have the smallest influence on education policy. On what planet does that make sense? The more levels of almost laughably irrelevant bureaucracy above them, the less of a difference in their own classrooms these (mostly) fantastic people can make. Admittedly in a few scary cases that's a good thing (naming no names), but they're the minority.

This has got long, no less ranty and largely disjointed, so it'll be ending soon. But coming back to the original point: why do I find the headline annoying? Because it's meaningless. Andrew Gimson says it well enough - "This is a world in which the declaration of good intentions has become an end in itself". And it's true: so long as inquiries are promised, sweeping reforms threatened and reviews continually undertaken, that's policy sorted. Or not. We don't need "world class" schools - we just need schools that are allowed to do their thing according to their demographies, strengths, and values. I'm not saying that these shouldn't be monitored at all (of course they should), but they shouldn't be overpowered by the clueless, gesturing and empty words of Politix. "World class" sounds impressive, but isn't a helpful aim. What's needed (and realistic) are "community class" or "education class". No matter how well-intentioned, people who get dragged into Politix seem to end up spouting a load of balls. I'll be staying out of it, thanks, and just working on my square metre of influence.