I don't know how Peter Hitchens could keep a straight face on Question Time when he stated that what concerned him most about the current state of education is how dire it is for the poorest, and then in the next breath claimed that what would help is the reintroduction of academic selection. What he really means is that it would help a very modest minority of the poorest. The sole conclusion it's possible to draw is that Hitchens only places any value on the poor if they happen to be fairly bright - the others don't seem to even have an existence in his mind. Now, academic selection would of course also be massively advantageous for the majority of more affluent children, but I'm sure that's nothing more than a extraneous detail in his thinking. We know it's those poverty-stricken kids you've really got in mind, Peter.
The argument put forward by Hitchens and many others is perpetuated by an endless cycle - a large chunk of those in power and influence will always hanker after selection for the very simple reason that they benefitted from it themselves. Because they naturally have a self-image of having got to where they are today solely through their own endeavour, they imagine that the system that allowed them to do so must be the 'fairest'. But those whose lives were blighted by being shunted off to secondary moderns have - almost by definition - no voice with which to tell the other side of the story. If you want to know what really happens when you have "rigorous selection, solely on merit", you need look no further that the current undergraduate populations of Oxford and Cambridge, and see just how closely it matches up with the demographics of the general population.
Good post. Peter Hitchens mixes some truths with prejudice when he makes a point, so it IS true that money gives people advantage in education. But the answer to that is not to make it easier for children whose parents can pay for extra tuition to pass entrance exams, it's to generally improve the standards of education for all. After his admirable effort not to actually state that the country would be financially better off if those on benefits would just die his concern for the poor was a gem of hypocrisy.
ReplyDeleteAfter his admirable effort not to actually state that the country would be financially better off if those on benefits would just die
ReplyDeleteI only saw the last few minutes so I missed that bit. I'll have to go back and watch the rest on iplayer!