Selective Education - The Modern Apartheid for Children

I have posted this on the Conservative Party blogspot, on the PM blog spot and sent it to many newspapers. It is a short letter giving my views on selective education.

Dear Sir,
The recent argument over grammar schools is, in my opinion, long over-due. I myself am a former student of a comprehensive college, and now attend the 6th Form of the school. In my experience there a two major negative influences that grammar schools have.
Firstly, because an element of the school system is selective, we segregate students. Not only do we split the male and female students, but also split between high academic achievers and low academic achievers. This generates a completely false idea of what the world is like. Not only are there few places where life is accordingly separated, but also, it engenders an idea that it is acceptable to treat people differently because of their abilities. We moved on from the idea that women were different because of their sex in 1928, that blacks were different because of their skin in 1990 when apartheid ended, so why do we still cling to such an old fashioned notion nowadays?
Secondly, having a selective school system means that at some schools, presumably, students are supposed to receive a better quality of education, or be in a more desirable environment because of the academic surroundings. (If this is not the case, why do people send their children there?) Therefore, because there are schools that are supposed to offer better education, it makes comprehensive schools appear as second best. In my case, I probably would have been able to enter my local grammar, but my parents refused to send me there. Because of that, have I received a poorer education or be expected to get lower grades? Of course not. But because grammar schools are for ‘brighter students’ (quoting hundreds of ‘Letters to the Editor’), ones that are going to get to the top of tree, by not going there, I am not expected to reach as high or be as academically talented.

Therefore, I would urge anyone who wants to keep grammar schools to consider what good selective education actually does for students at these schools. But, more importantly, consider the damage a selective education does to comprehensive educated students, their self-esteem, aspirations and ability to aim high. This is more of plea than a statement of opinion. It simply isn’t fair on comprehensive students to have a two tier system, nor right that some students should receive a better class of compulsory education. Please reconsider your attitude to grammar schools and their relevance in the 21st century.

Review of Shadow of the Wind by Carlos Ruiz Zafón

I have just finished reading an excellent book called ‘Shadow of the Wind’ by Carlos Ruiz Zafón. The book follows two different stories at once, one of a Daniel, young boy growing up in his father’s book shop in Barcelona, and the other trailing an author of a book that Daniel has become devoted too.
The reasons that this story is a must read are manifold. Firstly, it is exceptionally well written by Carlos Ruiz Zafón with a great understanding and ability to communicate the intricacies of Spanish culture. The author is of Spanish origin, so his knowledge on this subject is unsurpassable, but his ability to convey the sense of the Spanish mindset and lifestyle is faultless. Zafón brilliantly expresses the relaxed, lazy atmosphere of the Spanish afternoons spent in coffee shops and Tapas bars, everyone enjoying the hot afternoon sunshine in the Plaza.
Zafón also blends in with his wonderful descriptions of good Spanish living with the much seedier, squalid poverty of Barcelona in the 1940’s under Franco’s governance. Many of the characters either experience or come into contact with the poverty and abandonment that faced many Spanish citizens, for the oppressive and prejudicial nature of the Government and the law. The blend of the two ways of Spanish life in this novel is quite unique to me. Too often books about 20th century Spain focus on Franco’s rule and how this crippled the country, destroyed Spanish culture etc. all of which are undoubtedly true. However, Carlos Ruiz Zafón is distinctive in that he chooses neither to focus on how bad Franco’s rule was nor what it did to individuals or the country, without making clear that there was an amalgamation of the good and bad of Spain at that time.
Finally, this book was fantastic because it was chillingly cold-hearted and abject in places, yet also was full of hope and possible happiness. This reflects his description of Spanish lifestyle, but it is much more apparent in the themes and story line of the book.
As an example of this I point to the story of Penelope Aldaya. I am trying not to give too much away in this review, but no reader will be left untouched by the description of Penelope’s fingernails scraping the door in an effort to get out of the room where she had her illegitimate and incestuous baby, with her parents standing on the other side refusing to help. Similarly shocking is the discovery of the room years later by Daniel, who finds the blood stains on the wall and floors. Zafón goes a good deal beyond horror in this scene. Yet, we also get wonderfully refreshing and heart-warming incidents, such as in the opening chapters where Daniel meets Clara, reads to her and listens to her piano playing.
I would unhesitatingly recommend this book to anyone who wants a challenging read and a book that deals with complex emotions. As a rule I only like books that have a happy ending, but keep you guessing until the end, and Shadow of the Wind was no exception.

Idiocy in Immigration - An False Belief

Immigration has to be one of the most contentious issues that politicians can discuss today. Somehow it has become ingrained into the British mindset that immigrants bring nothing but crime, unemployment and, frankly, mean trouble. It seems to be even more the case that it is not just extremists like the BNP that think this, but also a small minority politicians in the more ‘respectable’ and main stream British parties.
One of the main reasons why I think that immigration has been such a controversial issue for the UK is because of the legacy of the British Empire and what it has left in this country. For there still exists in Britain an ideal that somehow the British are superior to the rest. Now this is not a view that is expressed very often, certainly not vocally, but at least in our attitudes towards other countries, in particular Eastern Europeans and Asians it is very apparent. Whenever the immigration issue crops up in discussion or politics, there are always those that bring out the argument that immigrants are just here to live off the state and the benefits it awards. Aside from being misguided and completely incorrect, the idea typifies the attitudes some people have in this country towards foreigners. Somewhere the thought has been put into their heads that, simply because they are not British, they will not be putting something back in this country. There is absolutely no basis for any claims that immigrants to this country will not work when they come here. Immigration figures from independent sources show that unemployment amongst the white male population stands as 4%, whereas in Indian or Chinese male populations the figure is 7-9%. This shows that although unemployment is higher amongst other ethnic groups, the change is hardly on the scale that is often represented.
So why does this idea exist? Where has the idea that British people work harder and deserve more come from? We cannot simply put it down to a sense of national pride. If it were true that a nationalistic feeling was responsible for the notion that foreigners deserve less in this country because of a false belief in their work ethic, why aren’t people in the BNP and other right-wing groups up in arms about the thousands of American, French or Irish natives who live here? Of course they aren’t. So we have to turn to another solution, which I believe is the simple fact that it somehow irks certain people that others should be enjoying this country and working hard for it just as much as themselves. It is the selfish attitude that people such as Poles or Pakistanis should be allowed to enjoy the privileges of living in such a fine country, because that means they will have to share what they enjoy so much.

Queuing

Did you know that the average person in the UK over 50 will have spent 2 years waiting in lines?! The reason I mention this is because on Saturday I spent a small eternity queuing at the airport check where they processed 50,000 people’s boarding. I wouldn’t have minded if the single check in clerk was not yet out of Secondary school, had infinitesimally low intellect, and processed each boarding pass at the rate of one every half hour. But it wasn’t his entire fault; there were 50 check in desks unmanned right up until I reached the desk. Then, as if by some divine intervention, the entire check in clerk workforce in the UK filled up the available desks to process the 3 remaining families, then, presumably, sat and waited in an empty lobby until the next crush came, when they would all leave for tea break again! The same thing happened at the security checkpoint, passport control, boarding gate and even the coffee shop. Yet, as soon as I reached the airport in Switzerland, all was quick and efficient. The same was true of the bank and train station. Why?
Personally, I put it down to the Swiss Army knife. Any country that can come up with a contraption that contains tweezers, a toothpick, a corkscrew, fish scaler, magnifying glass, ballpoint pen, and even, on some modern ones, a USB key has to hold the reputation for being the most efficient nation in the world. Not that there are any uses for Swiss Army knives. Seriously, can you imagine a circumstance in which you would need an all-in-one fish scaler cum USB key? But that is not the point. Young children can cause serious damage and harm with them, so they have become a necessity for growing small boys. Efficiency is the key with Swiss Army knives. Can you imagine parents buying separate utensils for different purposes for kids who have a hankering to carve their initials in trees after removing splinters with tweezers? So, because the Swiss have achieved their reputation as being an efficient nation through the Swiss Army knife, they are anxious not to disappoint. And I salute them for it. If only we could have some of that clear headed efficiency in England. But we can’t, because otherwise I wouldn’t be able to enjoy the fact that 4% of my life has been spent in a queue.

Bitching about Buses

Today I want to moan about people who moan about bus services in Britain! There are areas in the UK where public transport is fairly bad. Yeah, and there are white elephants in Burma. To be honest, whenever I read a newspaper or see a report on television about how bad British public transport is, and how it used to be better, I want to write in and ask them whether they think that they are being just a little too selfish with regard to how they are being served by public transport.
Firstly, I know for a fact that my home town of Plymouth has an excellent bus service that reaches to every single area of the city, and the buses run at least every hour in all districts. All of these bus services run on time and link with one another to a reasonable degree. For example, on Saturday I purchased an ‘all day rider’ ticket and rode for three hours on 8 different bus route throughout Plymouth. I calculated that the deviation from the timetable averaged 4 minutes. I find it hard to believe that Plymouth is the only city in the UK where I can expect to be delivered where I want to go on time by the buses. In fact, the capitol, London, received an award for ‘City with the Best Public Transport’ in 2006. Clearly some cities receive an unparalleled service, whilst others do not, or people are making mountains out of molehills. I am inclined to think the latter.
Obviously, the buses and routes I have been looking at are city services and that facilities become fewer and further between in the country. Nevertheless, we have to look at these things in context. The reason that bus services are less frequent in the country is because there is less demand. There are fewer people who live in villages, and fewer people who have no car, and thus rely on a bus to take them where they want to go, so the bus services reflect this in their timetables. I recently did a survey for some Geography coursework and discovered that over 10% of residents in the particular village of my study needed a bus, and only 33% of interviewees would use the buses if the services were improved. Clearly the costs of running a service would not be met if residents continued to use their cars for journeys.
So, to conclude, what I mean to say is that if people want to have a good public transport system nationally, we need to make sure as a community that we use it. And if anyone wants to sample excellent bus services, I unhesitatingly recommend Plymouth.

Why can't the English teach their children how to speak?

Something that has been putting my back up lately is how some people seem to think that the English language is being used and, to use one persons words ‘degraded’, by the use of expressions such as ‘basically’ and ‘like’. I was reading an article in the newspaper and the comments of some readers and was astonished at how some people thought certain words were incongruous with English because they used both Latin and Greek prefixes and suffixes, they are overused, young people use them more and, probably, because they don’t like them or understand them!
Why shouldn’t English speakers be able to use words that aren’t ‘proper’ English, such as ‘over-exaggerate’, ‘detrain’ or ‘diarise’? Just because these words are new to some people, don’t fit Latin grammatical rules etc. doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t use these words? Any etymologist or linguist will tell you that language evolves as time goes on and that the variety and complexity of a language is only added too by the creation of new words and the adoption of colloquialisms.
Furthermore, one of the specific beauties of the English language and one of the main reasons many believe that has led to its widespread popularity is because of its casual structure and lack of regimentation. Because English has been mangled and used differently in many countries, we have a richness and diversity that allows us to express ourselves in millions of ways. We can identify between house and home, black and dark and many others, mostly because we have allowed the language to develop that way. One of the most famous writers in literature, Shakespeare, is thought to have coined over 600 words, and that is a conservative estimate. These include:
- accessible
- fashionable
- priceless
- assassination
- crucial
- successful
- useless and useful
- impartial
- and vulnerable

So how can people say that the English that we are using is not the Queen’s English, doesn’t work grammatically, or is just not ‘correct’ way of talking? And if anyone tells me that I should speak properly and not use words that aren’t in the OED, I think I might just make the aware that one of the best new words we have in the English language is moron!

How do we give to charity today?

How would I spend a million pounds? It would be the norm nowadays for me to say that I would use the money for a good purpose – maybe giving to starting a foundation or charity. Certainly everyone who has to answer this question publicly for a magazine or television interview say that they have some brilliant, ethical way of giving the money away. Similarly, it seems to be that celebrities nowadays must be seen to giving to charity or committing to some moral cause. For example, I was reading an article in a magazine that focused on certain celebrities who gave to charity over the year. For example, Angelina Jolie was highlighted as one who gave a significant proportion of his income to charity, along with various others such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.
I am certainly not highlighting these examples because I want to accuse them specifically. But, I think that, on the whole, the way the way in which people give to charity in the Western world today has become very arbitrary and self-centred. It seems that people give to charity in today’s world because it is fashionable and, in the case of celebrities, enhances their image. I point to the ‘Prince’s Trust Organisation’ as an example (though you can hardly describe Prince Charles as a celebrity) of this. Why does Prince Charles need to have his name labelled on the charity he is patron too? If he is genuinely giving to charity because he feels compelled to do so (which he should, as should we all), then why does he need to be associated so clearly with his charity? Similarly, Bill Gates and his wife Melinda Gates. They have their own foundation known as the ‘Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’! Being so clearly linked with the charity is obviously a way to promote his own image as a generous benefactor and philanthropist.
Secondly, some people say, and quite validly, that you need celebrities to advertise charities and get people to donate, this seems a very odd set of circumstances. Why do we in the Western world need to have celebrities to advertise charities? Why is giving to charity something we need encouraging to do? We are very fortunate to live in a society that is wealthy and has the ability to give to others. Yet people seem to have forgotten that giving to charity should be something we should be doing habitually!