Education, education, education, and how sinister political ideology can befuddle children’s minds
What’s wrong with this statement: Just because private schools do better than State schools it doesn’t follow that working class people are less intelligent than rich parents.
- That somebody was daft enough to utter it?
- That it exemplifies a silly non-sequitur?
- It assumes that material success indicates a high IQ?
- It presumes that working people are unintelligent
- It patronises tradesmen and craftsmen.
- It betrays a confused mindset steeped in Darwinian prejudices.
Obviously you got all six correct. But there is something else so very wrong with the remark that it’s worth a few moments reflection and, perhaps, a re-assessment of the depth to which standards in public debate have plunged since ADTB (anno drato Tony Blairo). The person who contrived to skew so many considerations in a few (carefully chosen?) public pronouncements seemed to take it for granted that our nation is riven by a form of warfare being fought out between those British people who are willing to pay punitive fees to ensure a decent education for their children and another set of British people, many of whom are professionals, who with the best will in the world simply cannot afford to, and must send their kids to the local primary and then high school.
We can leave aside those who do not have children or those sort of parents who do not place such a premium on education at all. There are others, no doubt, who fondly believe that State schools are every bit as good as public grammar schools but they are in a special class of fantasist not included in this Newshawk deliberation simply because the officially ascertained facts are that private teaching is far superior to that provided by the State.
This is probably the only thing which Ms Christine Blower the general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, got right, for it was she who issued the nonsense presently under advisement, as the posh lawyers would put it.
Leaving the six obvious errors aside, it is profoundly wrong of her to suppose that this nation provides the model for the Marxist millennialism dream. It is the mind set of extreme fascism. It is so ubiquitous that it passes unnoticed.
And this form of fascism carries with it another dreary invisible which seems so perfectly to fit into the matrix of intrusive State control over our human life and freedom (always on the pretext of caring for the needy) and that is Darwinian evolutionary theory. It was the preferred science philosophy of the Nazis. It is the ideal simplistic philosophy of Marxism, The effective intellectual basis of Communist atheism insofar as it pretends a special solution to the question “where did it all come from?”
Darwinism’s cold sun has a number of lesser satellites whose social effects are also rather negative. The older one is the less intelligent one must be in comparison to the more recent. Potentially, since arriving in history more recently than teacher, the children must be brighter. Think about it! It’s too easy to kid ourselves that we are brainier than the ancient Egyptians! If you really insist on a theory follow to its conclusions!
Another satellite implication is that nothing has subjective value, certainly if there is no primary cause of goodness, beauty, meaningfulness, judgement, or inherent value. If it is all a mindless, meaningless mechanism, we become mere things, ciphers, implements, possessions, SLAVES.
All of that ghastly, perfidious hollowness was in Ms. Blower’s little intervention in the recent research which placed private teaching in such a favourable light. But really, what she said was worse. We dared to paraphrase it all at the start by writing: “Just because private schools do better than State schools it doesn’t follow that working class people are less intelligent than rich parents”.
Ms Blower actually put it like this: “The OECD recognises that once socio-economic factors have been accounted for private schools do not perform any better than state schools.” That’s how to tell a blatant lie and at the same time disguise the snake pit of ideological fascism without which the lie could not be credibly constructed at all.
In fact there is a greater consideration which was missed entirely by Ms Blower, the reporters who reported her cunning rhetoric, and no doubt millions of readers. It is this; why on God’s good earth is what one school teaches so different from what is taught by another. A teacher either knows her subject or she does not. She either knows how to inform others about her subject in a professionally competent manner or she does not. That is, she is either trained or untrained.
Therefore there should be no reason whatever why Sir Anthony Wedgwood Benn (who eventually pretended not to be ennobled as if he had been ignobled somehow) was not right when he sent his lads to the local state school rather than Eton or Harrow, or, dare I say it, Manchester Grammar or St. Aloysius in Glasgow.
Trackback from your site.