Randomly Selected Article or Link

Surely it is a given that we are all different? Size, shape, gender, colour, intelligence, personality, practical ability... So surely the human brain, and mind, are also infinitely variable. So why then do we have clothes, shoes, accessories, food, gadgets, literature, music, art, newspapers, all sorts of media, cars, houses, gardens, holidays, hobbies and pastimes of every conceivable colour, shape, size, sophistication, individuality to suit our needs and tastes and yet, when it comes to nurturing minds, especially young ones, in other words education, the state seems always to want a one size fits all, or nearly all solution we must all be dragooned through?

_{Scary kids from Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in the Wall" video, copyright Columbia/CBS. Is this how we see education?}

Even the current advocates of increased "choice" in education are generally not calling for the sort of individually tailored schooling that might cater for a near infinite combination of aptitude and need in different subjects. No, squeezed onto the cattle trucks of the "skills agenda" at an increasingly early age, our children's precious formative minds are driven through National Curricula, SATs, Literacy Hour, regurgitated standardized lesson plans and a plethora of targets till they get an OFSTED stamp on their forehead to say they are ready to be part of Britains fast changing economy. Or at least, the fast changing economy that was being predicted by, yes, you guessed it, government, a decade ago when they started.

On Saturday I was having dinner with friends who either have children going through this system or looking to have soon. All of them, I think it would be fair to say, would be termed "left of centre" and would never have considered private education or home-schooling previously but are all actively considering it now or would if they had the money. They feel patronized by the system, and treated with varying degrees of contempt by the school and its staff.

But most of all they feel helpless when they can see that their child needs extra help or a different approach in one subject where they may thrive in a totally different subject with little struggle. Such different approaches may not be available in the one school. And the lesson plans used don't vary a great deal from school to school so there isn't a great deal of choice anyway. If they wanted to change schools - as one is trying to do now as a result of their experience - the bureaucracy is stifling.

Oh, this all sounds incredibly expensive doesn't it? How can we satisfy that nearly infinite combination of needs and aptitudes? Turn it around and ask, if we can satisfy a near infinite appetite for different trainers, baked beans and holidays, why can we not produce individualized education - surely one of the most important human needs, even for those of us who tend towards Herbert Spencer's view that the state should not be dictating or providing education at all.

I think we need to consider how to personalize education, from the earliest age; we're not going to achieve any step change in attainment just by adding a few extra teachers armed with standard lesson plans, just by putting a little extra money in the direction of the least well off - though that will no doubt help, assuming they can actually find the package to suit them.

Localism is certainly a part of the answer, as perhaps are things like "free schools" on the Dutch model and an idea expanded on at Regno del fines blog. Why not return the provision of schools much much closer to the families using them - at parish level or something similar sized. Parents could decide amongst themselves in a mutualist structure whether to get in a teacher who's going to teach the children proper grammar or to learn their times tables.

And we should not be so squeamish about the corporatization of education. By which I don't mean the mish-mash of schemes to get token private money into the current system. I mean that education, or at least the "skills agenda", is already a subsidy to business (or it ought to be if the education system produced people business can use). It is corporate welfare. So why not instead expect business itself to contribute directly to nurturing the skills needed in an area - perhaps paying for particular teachers is specialized subjects related to the local economy? It would be more transparent at least than corporate lobbyists persuading a few politicians far away to spend our money on providing them workers, and probably more reactive to changes in the economy.

A quantum leap in the amount of flexibility and personalization of education is what we need. And for government to butt out as much as possible. For surely, we have pretty well reached the situation Spencer predicted:

The minister for suspending local governemnt, David Milliband, has started a blog on his ministerial pages.

Actually, my spoonerism isn't very nice. And I do think more of David Milliband than that - and for all I know he may even believe all the stuff about devolution he talks about! But resisting the temptation was no fun though...:)

Further to the previous confusion over who is going to stand in for Vince Cable tonight at a Labour fringe event on taxation policy and transport funding it turns out that organisers have managed to get none other than the next leader of the Labour Party, John McDonnell to champion the new Lib Dem tax plans at the event.

Eat your heart out Evan!

I've just received another electronic communication from one of our South East European candidate hopefuls. It repeats Linda Jack's recent gripe about not being able to say who they are supporting for the leadership.

Apparently this is because such an endorsement by a Euro-hopeful might be interpreted as an implicit endorsement by the relevant leadership candidate for that Euro-hopeful and thereby possibly increase their chances of selection.

If it hadn't been made up by the powers that be it would not have been a conclusion I would have leaped to, I have to say. However, given that I do support a particular leadership candidate I would like the opportunity at least to consider giving extra weight to those Euro candidates who share my opinion of what would be best for my party in the leadership. It might very well not make any difference of course.

So, let's remove the gag. It's a bonkers idea. Sure, we did not know there would be a leadership election when the Euro selection process started, but now that we have one, it could very well be another factor in whether to prioritize one candidate over another.

I don't really have a lot of time for the Greens in Oxford - their politics that is - as individuals I get on well I think with all of those I know. They go their own way and do their own thing and are rarely to be relied on, as our joint administration in the run up to 2002 on the City Council proved.

But they have a one party crypto-communist state in East Oxford, so there's no meaningful opposition to them on the East Area Committee, at the moment at least. But it is unusually refreshing to see them turn down the offer of an intrusive state run CCTV system on the Cowley Road. I'm not sure about their alternative of bobbies on bikes and (more!) road safety measures on a road that has become a bit of a joke anyway for the way vehicles now have to weave dangerously in and out of the path of buses and pedestrians, but good on them for resisting the encroachment of further state surveillance in the area.

I've never felt unsafe down there, except perhaps on leery Wednesday when the university sports teams are on the drunken prowl, and it is well surveilled naturally by all the people using it at all hours of the day and night - and by bouncers at the pubs and clubs every few yards. So there is no need in my mind for yet more electronic eyes.