Faith schools and a progressive school system

Faith schools are an integral part of the British education system and the vast majority, in my view, do an outstanding job. I speak from experience as both a pupil (I attended a state funded Catholic comprehensive school) and as a professional (I am a former senior leader in a Catholic high school). However there have long been concerns about how some faith schools operate in terms of admissions. A couple of years ago the interim report by the then schools adjudicator Philip Hunter looked into claims that faith schools had been breaking laws aimed at making admissions fairer. This was after the DfE had come across a "significant number" of faith schools apparently breaking the statutory admissions code. Breaches included parents being asked for money and personal and financial details. There were also concerns that faith schools had not been taking enough children who are vulnerable including those with special needs and those eligible for free school meals.

Several years on and little seems to have changed. So here are three practical suggestions for reform:

1) Insist that all state funded voluntary aided (VA) schools set aside a minimum of 20% of its annual intake for the pupils of parents of other faiths or none.

2) Require all VA schools to publish their admission figures (criterion referenced) annually.

3) Require all VA schools to provide local authorities with action plans (updated annually) as to how the school will actively seek to promote community cohesion.

At present, faith schools may select 100% of pupils from parents who share their faith. To be fair, most religious primary schools try to serve their local neighbourhood and often accept children of other faiths and of none. Like non-religious schools, many of them do a brilliant job and some do not. All religious secondary schools give some preference to children of their faith. Some try to be inclusive and accept a significant proportion of children from other faiths. Many do not. I am firmly of the view that opening up faith schools to the pupils of parents of different faiths (or none) would be a positive move towards greater social and educational inclusion. A faith school that is true to its core values and principles will surely be one that seeks to be open and accessible to all pupils, one that would pay particular attention to the needs of the marginalised and the poor.

The problem is that the forces of conservatism that dominate many faith groups are deeply resistant to change. For example, the Catholic Education Service (CES) has, in the past, argued that it is spurious to suggest that removing the absolute right of a religious community to educate its own children by introducing a percentage non-faith quota for church schools would aid social cohesion. As someone whose teaching career was solely in the VA RC sector I would suggest that it is neither spurious nor indeed is it contrary to the mission of the church itself. Indeed I would go further and challenge the CES to publish a complete list of state funded Catholic schools (secondaries in particular) where it is already custom and practice that between 20%-30% of pupils come from other faith backgrounds or none.

The challenge to the various faith groups in Britain must centre on the type of educational provision they would be happy to support and indeed help shape in 21st century Britain. For me the only truly progressive, inclusive and comprehensive system would be one that intrinsically values and caters for all pupils regardless of their spiritual, economic or social capital? What we require is an education system in which every child is treasured, every child learns to value diversity and to appreciate the variety of contributions that each of them makes to our culture and where every child understands that he/she shares the potential and the frailty of the human condition.

The opening up faith schools to pupils from more diverse cultural, social and religious backgrounds would be one small but significant step towards giving parents real choice in our increasingly complex system of state schooling.

Ed Miliband is right: The Labour party under Blair and Brown was too often managerial not inspirational

Labour's centre-left credentials in the early years of the Blair reign were impressive: the introduction of the minimum wage, the abolition of the assisted places scheme, more help for pensioners, removal of the hereditary principle in the Lords, huge investment in the NHS, debt cancellation etc, etc. The problem is that almost all of the these radical and socially progressive initiatives were carried out during the first term. Ed Miliband is right, post 2001 Labour was, on the whole, competent but not radical, managerial but not inspirational.

As Labour goes through the often tetchy, sometimes divisive period of reflection and renewal, Ed will need to emphasise the party's centre-left credentials and spell out exactly what his ‘fairness’ agenda will mean in terms of outcomes for the British people.

If he is to have any chance of returning our party to power he will need to be 'bold' Ed, not 'timid' Ed. His stance on banker's bonuses is encouraging and he knows that given the present economic climate talking about such issues could be fertile ground for Labour and will make life distinctly uncomfortable for David Cameron and his front bench.

Cameron's Conservatives - together with few Lib Dem frontbenchers - are made up of the "right kind of people", his people – privately educated and from backgrounds of immense wealth and privilege. Under Cameron, the Tories still believe that the role of government is to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of those who embrace their political, economic, and social views. For these reasons, Cameron is reluctant to get into a debate about the super-rich and what they should or should not contribute via the tax system.

According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies the highest-earning 0.1% of the UK population enjoy an average annual income of £780,043. This is around 31 times higher than the national average income of £24,000. Given the present context, and given Ed's avowed commitment to fairness and equity, surely a national debate (led by Ed) about whether the very wealthy should contribute a bit more through the tax system would be most welcome.

These past few years the public has watched on in horror and disgust at the city traders who deliberately bid down bank shares, bet on the failure of key stock and companies and even – it is suggested – spread false rumours in order to line their own already very deep and very full pockets. If the Tories wish to seek to defend these excesses – in the manner in which, at the opposite end of the scale they opposed the minimum wage and defended poverty pay – then they will find themselves on the wrong side of the argument.

Past poll findings have often indicated that the public view Mr Cameron as being on the side of the rich and not the ordinary ‘hard working’ families that he talks about so frequently. If my own recent experience on the doorstep is anything to go by - I am a candidate for Labour in the May local elections in Telford - then the use of the term the 'squeezed middle' is beginning to resonate with people, particularly at a time when petrol prices creep up to nearly £7 a gallon.
I am half way through Blair's 'A Journey' and agree with him when he argues about the need for focusing on practical solutions to problems when in government.

The truth in 2011 is that we are no longer in power and can therefore take the opportunity to once again campaign in poetry, to offer inspiring ideas, radical alternatives and a vision of a fairer, more equal country. I campaigned for Ed in the leadership election because for me he was the one candidate that 'got it', and would be a leader who understood that the party needs to reconnect not just with middle England but also with its traditional supporters who are confused by the political cross-dressin of modern politics.

Ahead in the polls, beginning to win the arguments over health, education and the economy and even winning the odd by-election. Given the scale of the defeat last May I think this is close to being an inspired start by our new leader. Underestimate Ed Miliband at your peril.

People in Telford want jobs not new council offices

To: The Borough of Telford & Wrekin Council

We, the undersigned, wish to object to the council spending millions of pounds of tax-payers money on lavish new council offices in Telford Town Centre. We feel that during this period of economic hardship, it is irresponsible to spend this amount of tax-payers money to build new offices when suitable offices already exist throughout the borough.

We:

1) Call on the Council to look into the option of using existing offices that lie vacant within the borough.

2 ) Wish to Register our objection to the Council spending our money in this way.

If you live in the Telford area please sign the petition by clicking HERE.

Why join a Trade Union?

I have written a review of the excellent 'Why join a Trade union?' by Jo Phillips and David Seymour for Tribune (due for publication this week). An edited version of the review is below.

British workers are relatively well off when compared to the majority of people who now produce the things we buy (and used to produce), but why is this? According to the hugely enjoyable Why Join A Trade Union? it is not because of Britain's enlightened capitalist philanthropists but because of the men and women who marched, campaigned and suffered in order to get better working conditions for all. In other words the employment rights and conditions of service we have today we have because people joined trades unions.

Jo Phillips and David Seymour's Why Join A Trade Union? is a book that, in its own way, advocates the strengths and the many virtues of collective endeavour - admittedly in a witty and at times highly irreverent manner. Margaret Thatcher is given a special mention in the section dealing with hate figures - where she is joined interestingly enough by the PFA's Gordon Taylor (one of the few union leaders whose members earn more than he does) and ITV's Adam Crozier who is no doubt greatly missed by CWU members across the land. The title however is, in my view, a bit misleading as the book is primarily a beginner's guide to the history of the trade union movement, or as the authors point out, This Great Movement of Ours, which for some reason is often shortened to Tigmoo and the book encourages you to check out the excellent Tigmoo website for union blogs and bloggers at www.tigmoo.co.uk.

The book is the sequel to the authors' previous publication, the excellent Why Vote? It is very funny in parts and there are some excellent one liners, for example early on in the book there is an account of how, having battled to extend the franchise, the unions created a political party that working people could vote for. At the end of the paragraph the authors add (in brackets) a brief note stating that this party was the Labour party "in case that description of Labour passes you by." My one reservation about the book is that the jokes tend to detract from the more serious and in the present climate very real reasons for people wanting to join a trade union. The notion that trade unions are the 'enemy within' and that they constitute an impediment to economic growth, free enterprise, and the ability of the government and industry to operate freely, is one we should expect to be pushed more and more as the impact of the recession deepens and workers are forced to fight back against mounting attacks on their livelihoods.

Why Join A Trade Union? is a readable, engaging and thought provoking book that reminds us that things can't and don't always get better but they sometimes get a good deal worse.