|
|
 |
| |
Has education become a commodity?
THERE is something a little unedifying in the spectacle of private sponsors queuing up like salesmen to pitch for the privilege of running an academy school in Camden.
There is University College London, which wants to turn the new school into a science academy. There is the Church of England, rightly proud of its record in running primary schools, but liable to turn parents into god-fearers (on the surface at least) in order to make sure their children receive the best education.
And there, lurking in the shadows, is the controversial hedge-fund charity ARK, which has already stumped up cash for other academies, including in neighbouring Westminster.
The thing they all have in common is a vested interest in shaping the ideas of children.
This newspaper has concerns. In Islington, City University, the sponsors of an academy there, has run out of cash and are seeking private donors, who will remain anonymous. That is a dangerous precedent. It is important to know who is paying for education. After all, £2m buys you a say in the curriculum and the school board.
The Church of England has a place in education. But it should not be all powerful because it insists a large proportion of its parents are believers. This, in effect, ends up in forcing parents through the church doors.
But more than all of this is a worry that education has become a commodity, a production line in which the tyranny of cleverness is king. The ablest are processed into money-making units while those who show a lesser brain capacity (or just have the bad luck to live in the wrong area or estate) can go to blazes.
That is to say nothing of the hoops this government will go through to avoid spending any public cash, or the fact that the real need in Camden is for a school in the south of the borough, not Swiss Cottage.
What is wrong with a state-funded school in which all talents are held in equal esteem? The government may say there isn’t enough money in the pot. But two arguments spring to mind, old they maybe, but no weaker for that. The first is that if we can afford a war in Iraq or billions on Trident, we can afford to educate our children.
The second is that nobody likes to pay tax, but you can’t have it both ways.
That’s a bit rich...
THIS paper is not in the camp that believes councillors should be unpaid volunteers. Theirs is a difficult and demanding job and takes up a lot of time. It is also important councillors are drawn from all corners of the community, not just the monied-middle classes who can afford to give up their scarce hours for nothing.
However, it would have been nice if the Town Hall’s elected representatives had led by example when setting the budget last week. It is a bit rich asking voluntary groups to take a cut in income so the council-tax increase is non existent while awarding yourself a pay rise.
They didn’t award each other much, but there is a principle here and it’s a pity they couldn’t see it.
|
 |
|
|
|
