"Bankers " school keeps out the poor

So much for Con Dems promises to raise educational standards for all kids:

A CONDEM flagship school set up by fatcat bankers is refusing to take poor kids.
Pupils from a council estate primary are banned from Bolingbroke Academy in Battersea, South London, although it will cost taxpayers £6million a year.


...

Pupils from a struggling primary that lies on a deprived council estate have been told there will be no place for them at a ConDem free school being set up with backing from City fatcats.
Yet those at four others in wealthier parts of the same area have been singled out as feeders for Bolingbroke Academy – dubbed the bankers’ school – when it opens next year.


...

Labour MP Lisa Nandy said: “This is a shocking indictment on the Government’s policy on free schools, transferring money from the poor to the rich.

“Labour and teaching unions warned about this when the legislation was passed.” Bolingbroke Academy, being built on the site of a former hospital in Battersea, is supported by leading City finance firms.
Among them are NM Rothschild, Credit Suisse, Citi Group, Barclays Capital, Coutts, Normura, HSBC, Morgan Stanley and RBS.
Tory-controlled Wandsworth council is spending £13million buying the site and more public cash will be needed to convert it into a school. Taxpayers face an estimated £6million yearly bill for running the academy.

The move has sparked fury among teachers and union chiefs. GMB spokesman Paul Maloney said bankers who had to be bailed out with billions of pounds of taxpayers’ cash had “acquired a taste for using public money to fund their pet projects”.


All in it together, I think not. Handouts for the rich .

More squirming from the Lib Dems: Danny Alexander on QT

Hat Tip Left Foot Forward

Some thoughts on all the protesting malarkey , positive ones as well !

I have been a bit quiet with the blogging,doing temp work is very unpredictable. I tend to be rung up first thing and asked to go asap to a job. I have done some very long two day shifts recently and all in all found it hard to get my head into the right place to do a post.Lots have been going on and I wish I had been able to go on some of the demos, but paying the mortgage and bills comes first I'm afraid. Here though are some thoughts on the last week or so.

A little while back I did what was perhaps a bit of a jaded post re the students demos . My concern was that the protests around education should be part of a wider movement around the cuts to the public sector and should involve those who have or are at risk of losing their jobs as well as those who rely on the services they provide . With regard to the last group this needs to be done sensitively , not always a trait of the left . At the moment there is much anxiety and also expectations being dashed for them.

Over the last decade , people have been encouraged to be more independent and have more control over the support they receive. Older people have been helped to live in their own homes or extra care housing where they have a flat and not just a room . People with learning disabilities have moved out of long stay hospitals and many now live in their own flats , some of which are shared ownership or housing association, rather than large homes. Same with others , such as those with long term mental health issues .

The old ways of people being expected to be happy with day centres , separate from the rest of the community , have been being eroded . People with learning disabilities, for example, have been moving from only having the option of day centres to being more part of their community . Many have chosen to do training , voluntary work or paid work. In this climate that is becoming less likely. The cuts mean that these improvements , that people can live like the rest of us , could be coming to an end. I know of a number of areas that are looking backwards to residential care as a 'cheaper' option . The chances of people getting into the employment market is less likely now, the day centre beckons. Expectations raised are now dashed . Anxiety increases with all the uncertainty. Having choice, control and independence for people who need support will be seen as a 'luxury' when the cuts are made . It will be a return to the old ways and the cheapest .

OK, gone round the houses a bit here . My point though is cuts to public services are not just about jobs, they are about the day to day quality of life for people . That will diminish and we will start to go backwards . There are a number of strong advocacy groups nationally, as well as local ones. They need to be part of campaigns and that will mean the left listening to their concerns and experiences and not trying to lead .

As an old cynic I must now admit I am becoming more positive with recent developments . The energy and determination of the student and schoolchildren movement is encouraging and it seems quite infectious. As is so often the case in the NUS, and unions in general, the members have been more radical than the leadership. The actions and pressure of the students have forced the NUS President to back them and admit the NUS had been spineless and too cautious. TUC take note.

I haven't been on the blogs much, I hope to do a bit of a round up of reporting on the demos in the next day or two, but I did notice Phil has written about the storming of Lewisham Town hall against the Council making cuts . Very heartening to see the direct action being taken to the Town Halls and against the cuts in services. I have also seen that students joined the RMT picket lines this week, that's what is needed , united against all cuts . It also seems that the Coalition of Resistance conference was both well attended and not dull in the extreme , pretty good going when faced with many speakers and a long day. Liam , who lets just say can be a tad cynical as well, even went as far as to call it 'exhilarating.' High praise indeed .

Now I'm not naive enough to think this is 68 again, that the revolution is on its way or that the left will be united , but hey its not a bad start is it ?

Pic: Eddie and Cat's Dawg . Totally unrelated to the post, but couldn't resist!

Meeting : Minorities and Faith Schools

Meeting hosted by Jewish Socialists' Group :

MINORITIES AND FAITH SCHOOLS

Speakers will be looking at who is demanding faith schools and why;
whether the state should be funding them; and what attitudes
educational progressives should take towards them.

They will also be looking at the controversy that erupted earlier this
year around the Jews Free School (JFS), a comprehensive which refused
to enrol a child because the school did not recognise the conversion to
Judaism of the mother. The law courts found the school guilty of
racial discrimination. This has raised discussion both about entry
criteria and the content of education at Jewish schools.

Speakers are
Julia Bard (active in the Jewish Socialists' Group and Women Against
Fundamentalism)
Simon Rocker (a regular Jewish Chronicle writer who also writes for The
Guardian on issues relating to the Jewish community)

The meeting is at 7.30pm, Sunday October 4th at the Indian YMCA, 41
Fitzroy Square, London W1 (nearest tube Warren Street)

Teachers judge a child by their name

A survey has shown :

Teachers in the UK say they can identify which children are likely to be troublemakers by their names.A poll of 3000 teachers run by the parenting club websitebounty.com, found the names Jack, Kyle, Courtney and Brooke were among those thought to denote a naughty child.

More than one-in-three of the teachers surveyed "expect" children with certain names to cause more trouble than others, The Sun newspaper reported.

The survey also asked teachers which names they thought indicated bright pupils.More traditional names topped that list, with monikers like Elizabeth, Charlotte, William and Alexander among the top ten.However the name Daniel got a mention on both lists, coming in at number four on the naughty boys list and number seven on the bright list.

Hmm, lets look at those lists in full and see if there is any clue as to why these teachers are forming judgements on a child's intelligence and behaviour before they have even met them :

NAUGHTY

Boys

1. Callum
2. Connor
3. Jack
4. Daniel
5. Brandon
6. Charlie
7. Kyle
8. Liam
9. Jake
10. Brooklyn

Girls

1. Chelsea
2. Courtney
3. Chardonnay
4. Aleisha
5. Casey
6. Crystal
7. Jessica
8. Brooke
9. Demi
10. Aisha

BRIGHT

Boys

1. Alexander
2. Adam
3. Christopher
4. Benjamin
5. Edward
6. Matthew
7. Daniel
8. James
9. Harry
10. William

Girls

1. Elisabeth
2. Charlotte
3. Emma
4. Hannah
5. Rebecca
6. Abigail
7. Grace
8. Alice
9. Anna
10. Sophie

Just innocent assumptions ,looks more like prejudice to judge a child purely on their name . So what is it about them that creates these impressions in supposedly educated teachers ?Well this is not based on stats (but then I doubt the teachers were rigorous either in their rush to label a child), but some names in the "naughty" camp seem to be more popular for working class parents, in the Black or Irish in origin. Good solid middle class or 'royal' ones in the "nice" section.

Does this prejudice cloud how a teacher might view the same behaviour exhibited by different children? Little Alexander is a bright boy that asks questions, little Liam is rude and disrespectful?

Of course I could be reading much to much into this. Thoughts or experiences anyone ?

ABC: Against Brook Cuts

Angry parents have vowed to fight budget cuts at Brook Community Primary School in Hackney.

The school, which serves one of the country's most deprived areas, and whose kids have a variety of needs, faces a cut of £75,000. This will hit staffing, with Numeracy and Reading Recovery teaching provision in the firing line.

As the cuts were explained to a meeting of the Parents, Carers and Staff Association last week, parents refused to discuss how the school should implement the cuts, and instead declared their intention to fight them.

A meeting this evening decided to launch a campaign called ABC - Against Brook Cuts. Parents plan to write to MPs and councillors, to march to the Learning Trust's offices, and to work with the teachers' and support staff's trade unions. We have been inspired by campaigns such as that waged by Lewisham Bridge parents, and are determined to fight and win.

Please email messages of support to me.

Lewisham Bridge and the Non-Union Fightback

Parents continue to occupy the roof of Lewisham Bridge school, under threat of closure and demolition. Well, you would, wouldn't you? Parents defend their kids from all sorts of things - illness, playground bullies, traffic ... why not council wreckers too?!

Here is the Early Day Motion that John McDonnell and others have put together. Why not drop your MP a note asking him/her to add his/her name? Better still, if you live in London, take yourself down to Lewisham and spend a spell on the roof yourself!

EDM 1345 LEWISHAM BRIDGE PRIMARY SCHOOL 24.04.2009

McDonnell, John; Cryer, Ann; Wareing, Robert N

That this House applauds the action taken by parents of children at the Lewisham Bridge Primary School who are occupying the school rooftop to express their anger at plans to close their school and build a new academy; notes that pupils' lives are being disrupted by being bussed to a temporary school in New Cross as a result of the project whilst Lewisham Bridge Primary School currently stands empty; and therefore urges Lewisham Council to halt plans to demolish the school and allow the pupils to return.

It is interesting that it is parents, rather than teachers or other school staff, who are leading this action. Just as it is interesting that it was non-unionised workers who occupied Prisme in Dundee, and seemed to have achieved a victory in winning funding for a workers' co-operative. Even where unionised workers have taken radical action, such as at Ford Visteon, they did not have a particular tradition of militancy or active union involvement. And this is not a new phenomenon. The Grunwick dispute, one of the major struggles on the 1970s, was a fight by workers who at the outset were not union members.

So what is happening here? Are established trade unions proving to be a brake, rather than a vehicle, for working-class resistance? Do unions give out a vibe to members that the union will do everything for them, or worse, that there is nothing that can be done? If you are not in a union, does that mean you will be more inclined to rely on yourself and your workmates than on some distant bureaucracy?

In other words, are we wasting our time trying to build and strengthen trade union organisation? Would we better off forgetting all that and looking out for spontaneous, radical action to support?!

Or does this make the case not for giving up on trade unions, but for a radically different view of what an effective trade union would be?

The comments box is all yours ...

Steve Purcell, Leader of Glasgow Council is this week's Friday Fuckwit!

There are plenty fuckwits this week however this week i am nominating Steve Purcell. Mr Purcell's biography can be read here

But why poor Mr Purcell, what has he done to merit Stroppybog's wrath well he's massacared 22 nurseries and schools in Glasgow. Check out the Save Our Schools blog here

Fury has erupted amongst parents, carers and communities after Labour councillors voted to close primaries and nurseries, despite the mass opposition movement of the past 3 months.There have been demos, public meetings, occupations and blockades but the voice3s of the community, parents and school pupils themself have been ignored.

Activists in Glasgow said:

“Labour councillors have shown absolutely spineless careerism by bowing to the dictatorship of their Labour group leader, Steven Purcell. They will rue the day!

At the secretive meeting of the Labour councillors last week, they voted by 31:6 to proceed with 22 closures. That means 6 of them felt the closure package is rotten, the tens of thousands who oppose the closures are right, and they hoped to save their electoral skins by making a gesture of opposition behind closed doors. But today Labour councillors all toed the Labour party line, obeyed orders and ignored their own consciences. Shame on them for their cowardice - for putting their Labour party careers before kids!

“They have voted to close down schools and nurseries, but they won’t find it so easy to implement their scandalous decision!

“Across the road from the Council meeting, the Glasgow Save Our Schools Campaign met, with representatives from schools across the city, and decided a plan of action to defy, defeat and reverse these closures.

“We will launch a new round of peaceful direct action protest, with unity in the community, starting with a city-wide Hands Around Our Schools protest on Monday at 3pm, declaring that the councillors might vote for closures, but ‘we shall not be moved’!

“We are seeking professional help with legal challenges to a brutally flawed procedure.

“And we are taking our case to the Scottish parliament. The Scottish government should come out clearly in opposition to these closures, wield its political power to demand they be reversed, and side with the people of Glasgow against the Labour council’s unprincipled axe-wielders

Guest post : Hands Off Lewisham Bridge Primary School

Cross posted from Infantile and Disorderly , by Vicky:

Early this morning, parents of children who attend Lewisham Bridge Primary School bravely occupied the roof of the school in protest at Lewisham Council's reprehensible decision to bus all the pupils and teachers 3 miles each day to another site. For decades, Lewisham Bridge Primary School (a grade II listed building) has been at the heart of the community... There is a facebook group called Hands off Lewisham Bridge Primary School (you will need to be logged into facebook to see this). Join the group, or check back here, for pictures and updates. If you're one of the strange people who prefer twitter, you can keep up to date with events here.

Friday Fuckwit: A Spokesman With No Name

Again, the 'Friday Fuckwit' award comes a day late.

This week, it goes to the unnamed spokesman for the Department for Children Schools and Families who reckons that teachers boycotting SATS would be "unlawful".

So - Don't bother considering the legitimate concerns of teachers about how these ridiculous tests get in the way of them doing their jobs (ie. teaching kids, rather than generating test scroes). Ignore the fact that most parents deplore SATS too and that kids are developing stress-related illneses because of them.

No, why bother even thinking about such serious issues when you can just wave your hand dismissively and write off any action against them as "unlawful"?! I guess that's easily done in a country whose anti-union laws are, as Tony Blair used to boast, the strictest in western Europe.

But in this case, the government may be arrogantly exaggerating the extent of these oppressive laws. Even the NUT's senior lawyer - renowned as a man who will defer to the law whenever possible - reckons that the boycott would not fall foul of the law. He states that, "If there was any serious question about the lawfulness we wouldn't be doing it."

Which may be reassuring in this particular case, but in general is not very reassuring at all.

Support the Schools Occupations in Glasgow

People Power in Glasgow has broken out when some parents occupied their children's schools, St Gregory's Primary and Wynford Primary Schools are under occupation just now.

Check out a video with interviews with some of the mothers here 

Find out more about the Save Our Schools campaign by reading the Scottish Socialist website here

Hurting and Humiliating Kids - An English Public School Tradition Lives On

While the country is apparently obsessed with a TV political correspondent who can't dance, have a look at this horrible story about a schoolboy left unable to walk by the punishments meted out to him by his private school.

Hillcrest School in Stockport repeatedly made the 13-year-old - who has a joint condition and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder - stand still for up to 40 minutes in detentions. Not surprisingly, this was painful, debilitating and humiliating for the boy. Obviously, the English public school tradition of cruelty and degradation is alive and well.

The Special Needs and Disability Tribunal found the school guilty of unlawful discrimination.

The Uphill Struggle To Claim Your Rights

This year, I have successful claimed two very important rights for my son Joe - who has Asperger syndrome - and our family. Firstly, his Statement of Special Educational Needs, and secondly, Disability Living Allowance. The first means that he now has his own Teaching Assistant throughout the school day, playtime supervision and extra specialist teaching. The second means that we get sixty-odd quid a week towards the extra expenses of having a kid with his special needs.

But each claim was a struggle up a very steep hill, which not only used up a lot of our time and energy but also made me realise that many people in a similar situation to us will not be getting these rights.

To apply for a statement, you have to fill in a form and write about your kids' condition and needs. It helps if you can get other people to write supportive stuff too, so we enlisted Joe's speech and language therapist, child psychologist, consultant paediatrician and inclusion co-ordinator at his playscheme. The initial result we got was a 'high incidence' statement - so called because it rules that your kid's special needs are so common that the school should be able to deal with them within its existing budget. So that's no good to anyone. In fact, as a retired school teacher mate of mine said, it can be worse than nothing, as the kid gets all the stigma of having a statement but none of the support that comes with it.

So we had to appeal. We wrote more text, and enlisted more people to write more text. The appeal succeeded, and Joe got a 'low incidence level 3' statement, which gives him the support listed earlier in this post.

I strongly suspect that our local education authority - Hackney's Learning Trust - has a standard practice of offering crap statements all the while planning to improve them on appeal. Perhaps they are hoping to save cash with the families who are too poor, unsupported, vulnerable, foreign, lacking in confidence, inarticulate, pressed for time, stressed out or just plain grateful for the slightest support to summon the strength to appeal.

Drafting an appeal is, after all, second nature to me and Joe's dad, as we are both union reps who have lost count of the number of appeals we have drafted for members.

The application form for Disability Living Allowance is about 80 pages long. I submitted it online, and had to come back to it day after day after day after day, wading through the sections, reviewing what I'd written, adding things I'd overlooked, making sure that it really did accurately describe Joe's needs, and answered all their questions, including the several confusing ones. When my partner announced to the family support group that we attend that we had successfully claimed the benefit, he got a round of applause, as many of the other families there had been defeated by the application process.

In my experience and opinion, the system is biased against poor and working-class families.

Acid Sprayed on Afghan Schoolgirls

Two men on a motorbike threw acid in the faces of eight Afghan girls yesterday. Three of the girls have been hospitalised.

Although, as I understand it, no group has yet claimed responsibility for this appalling attack, it appears that its aim was to 'punish' them for going to school and therefore dissuade others. During the Taliban's rule (1996-2001), girls were barred from attending school (and from numerous other activities, for example going out without a male escort), so the Taliban or a similar group must surely head the list of suspects.

Would anyone like to claim that condemning this terrible, reactionary, sexist act of violence against women is somehow imperialist?

Shock Horror! Five-Year-Olds Can't Write Their Names!

The reactionary 'school standards' brigade are up in arms about a new report that shows that some five-year-olds can not write their own name.

Er, why is this such a big deal? The priority for kids in their first year of primary school should surely be that they are happy, settled, making friends, and developing the skills that will enable them to learn.

Instead, the government - egged on by the aforementioned reactionary 'school standards' brigade - is concerned only with their ability to pass regimented measures of achievement regardless of their personal development. It is a recipe for a generation of kids who may be able to write a list of key words, but may also be stressed, anti-social and able to learn only by rote and not by creative and critical thinking.

The report goes on to bemoan that many five-year-olds can not write a shopping list. A shopping list?! Why on earth would a five-year-old need to write a shopping list?! Going to despatch them to the local Tesco's for the family's weekly shop, are we? Er, no.

It's not that I'm against school standards. Heavens, no. It's just that my standards are different from those of the government or the Mail on Sunday. They are to do with children's well-being and rounded development, not just their ability to write 'oranges, pasta, coffee' at an age when they should actually be having fun.

Oh, and one more thing. If the government announced the necessary measures that would genuinely improve school standards - eg. better pay for teachers and support staff, more staff to teach smaller classes, more books and equipment etc - that would necessarily involve higher public spending, how do you think the Mail on Sunday would react?!

Academy school site occupied again to save recreation ground

ARK NAKED GREED
SchNews, 11th July

"Locals object to the loss of the public recreation ground, and privatised schools, but it's also about the increased traffic problems, and the fact that Brent Council is allowing another school to be built in the northern part of the borough when there is already three large secondary schools, while neglecting the poorer, south part of the borough, which saw four schools closed in the 1990s." - Protester at Wembley tent city.

The site was occupied last year for 6 months by teachers, students and residents setting up tree houses (See SchNEWS 584, 603) in the longest running protest in the country against privatised Academy schools.

The proposed Wembley Park Academy school site in West London was re-occupied last week after the Brent Council took the lease away from the community sports ground - with immediate effect - as work was due to begin to get classrooms ready for the school, due to open this September. They have been given eviction papers, and are in Willesden County Court, Acton Lane, Harlesden, next Tuesday (15th) at 10.30am - so from that point onwards they may be facing the bailiffs, and will need urgent help.

The venture capitalists behind this Academy call themselves The Ark - which stands for Absolute Return for Kids (sic, and sick). The Ark is a group of hedge fund speculators who already have one privatised Academy school, three to follow, with plans for many more. They are headed by Arki Busson, a French multi-millionaire playboy who's recently engaged to actress Uma Thurman.

This school is due to begin its first year by offering students the old community sports hall - recently acquired, and in appalling condition - and a load of porta-cabin classrooms. During 2009 the new buildings will be constructed on the recreation ground, so for the first year students will be in porta-cabins in the middle of a building site.

* The camp is urgently requesting people - particularly those with experience in direct action, tents, and all the usual protest camp tat, particularly after Tuesday's court hearing.

* Directions: From the Wembley Park tube station, turn left, walk up the hill to main junction on Bridge Road, turn left, walk 100 metres, and turn left into the gate way to Wembley Park Sports Ground.

An Oasis In An Electoral Desert

Good news reaches us from the polling stations of Barrow-in-Furness (where, entirely co-incidentally, my uncle used to be the MP). Anti-Academy campaigners stood six candidates and won four seats, and ousted the Tory Leader of the Council. Of the two who did not get elected, one missed out by just one vote.

I wouldn't want to leap to any hasty conclusions, as I don't know anything about their broader politics. Maybe they will disappoint. But it does tell us something about fighting neo-liberal attacks at the municipal ballot box. Although some may be tempted to conclude that the lesson is to fight on single issues, I'd say that instead, the key issue is that successful left candidacies must come from genuine mobilisations of local working-class people.

Anyway, here is the campaign's website.

Hat tip: Patrick

Even When You Choose A Non-Religious School, Religions Still Get A Say In It

I recently discovered that by law, local Councils which have a Scrutiny Commission responsible for education must co-opt representatives of religions onto that Scrutiny Commission with voting rights (scroll down to paragraph 52 of the link - it refers to Section 21 of the Local Government Act 2000). My own local Council, Hackney, has gone a step further and appointed three extra religious reps, presumably because if you are going to privilege religion, then why not privilege them all equally?!

My first gripe is that any post in government that has any power should be elected. Voting rights for unelected people is anathema to democracy.

But the main issue I want to take up here is the involvement of religion in education. What if you have a complaint about your school or your borough's education system that, for example, it is giving too much of a platform to religion? What if you want the Scrutiny Commission to look at improving sex education? Will you get a fair hearing? Who will speak up for secularists, even for atheists?

And what of 'choice'? Several times on this blog, I have taken issue with the very existence of religious schools. But even if you accept or defend religious schools, this law goes a step further - it gives religious organisations a say in education whether you want them to or not.

My partner and I chose to send our kids to a secular school, Brook Community Primary School. Many defenders of religious schools make their case on the basis of 'parents' choice'. I invite any of them to explain what happened to my 'choice' when unelected religious representatives still have a say in my kids' education even when I opted for a non-religious school.

The Government's Love Affair With Faith Schools Goes On

A while back, I signed a petition on the 10 Downing Street website against faith schools, worded thus:

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Abolish all faith schools and prohibit the teaching of creationism and other religious mythology in all UK schools ... Faith schools remove the rights of children to choose their own religious, philosophical and ethical beliefs. They also sanction ethnic segregation and create tension and divisiveness within society. Schools should be places where children are given a free education, not centres for indoctrination. Creationism and other religious myths should not be taught as fact regardless of the funding status of a school. Abolishing faith schools will provide children with more freedom of choice and help to promote a fully multi-cultural, peaceful society."


The government has now responded, thus:

The Government remains committed to a diverse range of schools for parents to choose from, including schools with a religious character or "faith schools" as they are commonly known.

Religious Education (RE) in all schools, including faith schools, is aimed at developing pupils' knowledge, understanding and awareness of the major religions represented in the country. It encourages respect for those holding different beliefs and helps promote pupils' moral, cultural and mental development. In partnership with national faith and belief organisations we have introduced a national framework for RE.

In February 2006, the faith communities affirmed their support for the framework in a joint statement making it clear that all children should be given the opportunity to receive inclusive religious education, and that they are committed to making sure the framework is used in the development of religious education in all their schools and colleges.

The Churches have a long history of providing education in this country and have confirmed their commitment to community cohesion. Faith schools have an excellent record in providing high-quality education and serving disadvantaged communities and are some of the most ethnically and socially diverse in the country. Many parents who are not members of a particular faith value the structured environment provided by schools with a religious character.

I scarcely know where to begin replying to this mixture of conservativism, soundbite, deference to superstition, unsubstantiated assertion, jargon-mongering, and refusal to answer the bloody points. So I refer you to my previous rants on the issue, and leave the comments box at your disposal.

New Labour Endorses Private Firms' 'Diplomas'

New Labour is to give private companies the right to have their training courses recognised as the equivalent of A Levels.

The media has concentrated on McDonald’s way more than the other firms involved, with headlines such as Would you like a diploma with those fries? or SuperSize my CV. Maybe McDonald’s is more newsworthy than FlyBe or Network Rail, maybe its brand best represents the radicalism of the policy for its supporters or its ludicrousness for opponents.

We should certainly oppose this policy, but be careful how we do so, avoiding chiming in with any snobbishness about academic purity or suggestion that young people who get jobs in McDonalds do not deserve equivalent qualifications to those whose families can afford for them to go to college. Nevertheless, oppose it we must, for two reasons:

• It is outside public education and training, and is therefore unaccountable;
  
• It is run by private firms, and is therefore compromised by the profit motive.

If McDonald’s trains its staff in, say, food hygiene, then it does not do so in the sole interest of public health, but in the interests of doing just enough to keep the inspectors away and the customers coming through the door.

And guess what? The CBI approves, deputy director-general John Cridland saying that the move is ‘a significant milestone on the road to reforming qualifications so that they better reflect the skills and competencies employers and employees need.’ And there you have it – this is about what employers need; for working-class people, it is only about what we need as employees, not as people, so is ‘what employers need’ in other words.

If the government wants the employees of private firms to get skills and qualifications – as it should – then it should require those firms to release those employees from work to go on college courses. And it should tax their profits to fund an expansion of state-run further education.