Comments on: Dianne Abbott is a hypocrite?

By: David T

David T — Thu, 20 Nov 2003 12:55:05 +0000

I went to CLS (on a scholarship), and I am a constituent of Dianne Abbott. I’m also a Labour Party member. Although Dianne is a fairly lazy MP, I support her decision to send her son to my old school, which was a very good one indeed from my recollection. I do feel for Dianne. At least he’s not planning to become a rapper like the daughter of the man who is said by some outrageous gosspimongers to have fathered Dianne’s son … but obviously I don’t want to be sued for libel, so I’ll say no more.

By: harry

harry — Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:29:25 +0000

James—I went to your website and was SO disappointed to find out that you didn’t name it for my namesake’s great play. Oh well. Abiola—ok, I’ll reply but not now—how about Ill promise a post on freedom in the next couple of weeks? (It’s a big issue, and I have a job and two little kids, and don’t want to give it short shrift).

By: James R MacLean

James R MacLean — Thu, 06 Nov 2003 08:07:52 +0000

I’d strongly recommend resisting the impulse to attribute views to others they haven’t actually expressed. I’m guilty of it on occasion (“You might think..” or “You probably think…”), but usually when I do it I try to restrict it to humor. I’m on the opposite side of many issues with Mr. Lapite, but I still think his combination of opinions and his reasoning is interesting. I enjoy reading what he has to say. A lot of people have influenced my opinions whom I didn’t see eye to eye with. Good grief, most of my econ professors fall into that category! But that didn’t stop me from learning a lot from them.

By: Abiola Lapite

Abiola Lapite — Wed, 05 Nov 2003 21:54:12 +0000

“I sense from your tone that you don’t really want a reply” Well you’re wrong. I would love to see how anyone could justify the position you hold. Please, enlighten me. Obviously, I don’t believe you can justify it, and I think I have enough brainpower to handle whatever it is you choose to throw in my direction as a response.

By: harry

harry — Wed, 05 Nov 2003 15:20:38 +0000

Gregg, That last revelation is amazing. Where did you get it from? Chirag, my wife has a reprehensible practice of buying books, lookiung them over without breaking the spine, and then taking them back for a refund. Not suggesting you do this, especially to my book, but… On privates in the US versus the UK: I think that in the UK they make a significant contribution to, and are not merely a symptom of, educational inequality (though they are also a symptom of an unjustly unequal society). Here’s two startling contrasts 1. The average cost of a UK prviate is about double the average per-pupil spending in state schools (rolling into the later figure all the costs of LEA and DfES bureaucracy); the average cost of a US private school is HALF the average per-pupil spending in US state schools. 2. Per pupil spending in the UK state schools with the highest concentration of low-income kids is about double per pupil spending in UK (state) schools with the lowest concentrations of low icnome kids; even within most US States per-pupil spending in the school districts with the highest-income kids is between 2 and 4 times the per-pupil spending in the districts with the lowest income kids (there are exceptions—CA, VT, ect—But even Wisconsin, my own state, which is one of the egalitarian midwestern states, spends about double the amount on wealthy kids as on poor kids). In many districts (in the US) it is the case that if you want your kid to attend a school with a socio-economic mix which roughly mirrors that of the city you live in, the only way you can come close to achieving that is by opting for a lowish-cost private school, typically a religious one. The lesson: wealthy suburban state schools in the US perform roughly the function that mostof the private sector in the UK performs—conferring advantage on the children of the anxious and wealthy middle class, and keeping them separate form the rest. [IN both countries the REAL elite are probably served by the most expensive schools in the private sector (Eton, Winchester etc in the UK, Choate, St Albans etc in the US)—the kind of schools that Oliver Letwin, Al Gore, and Jesse Jackson prefer for their kids, while the latter two do their utmost to prevent poor kids having any option other than low-spending inner city schools]. The lesson: in the US it is the public (state) school system that must be the central target of any efforts to get educational justice; int he UK the private sector is a reasonable target. Abiola, I sense from your tone that you don’t really want a reply; I could give one but it would take us far into political philosophy, further than I feel like going now. I wouldn’t, though, make assumptions about your views about abortion on the basis of anything about the legitimacy or toherwise of private schooling, and am surprised that you feel so confident about my views.

By: Gregg

Gregg — Wed, 05 Nov 2003 02:29:33 +0000

Reading Swift’s article, clearly she is a hypocrite then, since she told Blair he was wrong for doing what she has done. Whilst Abbot has done the wrong thing, it should be noted that the above does not make her a hypocrite. She criticised Harman and Blair for breaking with party policy. This was 1997 and the Labour party was still committed to comprehensive education. The Labour party is now committed to specialisation, selection and privatisation (both encouraging more fee-paying schools, and having private companies run state schools). So, Abbot is simply following the Labour party’s line, and therefore not doing what she criticised Blair and Harman for doing. Surely her latent Blairism should be welcomed, as it removes any lingering myths about the Labour party still being left-wing – even it’s left-wingers have Tory inclinations. Did you know the lad in question has Jonathan Aitken for a God-father?

By: Abiola Lapite

Abiola Lapite — Tue, 04 Nov 2003 21:28:36 +0000

“the short version is this: in principle there’s nothing wrong with abolishing privates” Why exactly is there nothing wrong with this “in principle”? If party A chooses to pay party B to educate his child, what gives anyone the right to prevent the two parties from coming to an agreement? This notion of yours is an extremely illiberal one, I must say – as a left-winger, you probably believe that a woman has a right to do as she pleases with her fetus well past the time when it would be viable, but once the child is born, you’d seek to deprive her of the right to educate it as she chooses? Where is the intellectual coherence in that? And if you prize “equality” so much that you’d strip parents of the freedom to educate their children at establishments of their own preference, why not go the whole hog, and handicap those who are “unfairly” privileged by the genetic lottery with superior intellectual abilities? Why not just have a Handicapper-General and be done with it? The only conclusion I can draw is that you and those who support your stance are enemies of freedom. In the name of a fetish you call “equality” you’d gladly strip the rest of your fellow men of all choice in their lives, refusing to acknowledge that there is only one place in which all men are fully equal in this world, and that is the grave. Have you learnt nothing from the human tragedies set in motion by communism, or are the aspirations of your fellow men to live their lives as they please of so little weight in your thinking that you believe the state justified in frustrating them?

By: Chirag Kasbekar

Chirag Kasbekar — Tue, 04 Nov 2003 20:26:49 +0000

Harry, Also, I’m curious about what you think is the difference between the role played by private schools in the US and the role they play in the UK.

By: Chirag Kasbekar

Chirag Kasbekar — Tue, 04 Nov 2003 20:02:33 +0000

Harry, Thanks. That makes things clearer. Your proposal (lotteries + no payments) is worth considering. Though I can’t say I’m convinced. I’d definitely have checked your book out if I had access to a good university library at the present time. But I don’t. :-( It seems to me that there still is a lot of potential for social injustice in such a system—only that it won’t be class-based. But something for me think about.

By: harry

harry — Tue, 04 Nov 2003 15:50:27 +0000

Chirag, the short version is this: in principle there’s nothing wrong with abolishing privates, and in principle, whether or not we abolish privates there should be a rigourous and egalitarian choice system in the state system—rigourous in that everyone has to state preferences and egalitarian in that, since obviously not everyone can get exactly what they want, social class does not correlate with getting what you want. (The obvious way to achieve this is by forcing schools to use lotteries for admissions). So, yes, I am an advocate of parental choice. Whether privates have any role in the system depends on context—I am much less hostile to privates in the US than in the UK, because they (generally) play a completely different role. For the long version of all this see my book School Choice and Social Justice (sorry to advertise!) Marek: yes I didn’t mean to make it sound like she has jumped out of the frying pan into the fire. And, of course, one of the relevant facts is that schools that suit some kids well do not suit others at all (one of the reasons parental choice should play a role in allocating kids to schools). But I did want to caution against using exclusiveness and expensiveness as markers of quality (and quality is what Swift is concerned with).

By: marek

marek — Mon, 03 Nov 2003 23:06:48 +0000

I am not sure that Harry is right to be quite so dismissive of City of London. I know a fourteen-year old now in his third year there who is extremely bright, revels in being in environment where being bright is not an instant route to social annihalation (though CoL is far from perfect there), is being stretched by some impressive-sounding teachers and is deep in a rich musical life. The qualities or otherwise of CoL as a school are in one sense irrelevant to the discussion, but the implication that Abbott has made some kind of frying pan to fire decision seems to me wrong. And for what it is worth, I think Abbott has put herself in an undefensible position, not because of what she has done now (with which I have considerable sympathy having faced a version of the same decision myself), but because of her loud and self-righteous criticism of Blair, Harman and others who faced those decisions before her.

By: Chirag Kasbekar

Chirag Kasbekar — Mon, 03 Nov 2003 18:42:46 +0000

Chris, Do you have any ideas on how such a system can be instituted? Also, wouldn’t wanting something ‘appropriate to your child’s needs’ be perilously close to wanting the best for your child? Which is certainly what Swift is saying is not an agreeable thing? Harry, I’m a little confused about what you’re saying. You seem to be saying that there are lots of reasons why parents might want a choice of schools. But they shouldn’t be given that choice. They should be forced to stick to the state system school. I’ve probably got you wrong.

By: harry

harry — Mon, 03 Nov 2003 18:21:43 +0000

Jack, many of the factors you cite that harm state schools are (if only partly) attributable to the existence of privates. If the welathy could not opt out they would accept or even lobby for higher taxes to pay higher teachers’ salaries; private schools would not be draining off academically talented teachers from the state system; parental attitudes might be more supportive of learning, etc. I agree that the state schools could be better even as things stand, though probably not without increased funding and changed funding arrangements. Also, as Chris emphasised, there are lots of reasons for regarding a school as inadequate for one’s own child. One is that it is inadequate for any child, and ifthat is Abbott’s view she should say so—I don’t see why her constituents should blame her for that. Or she might (as Swift hypothesizes) worry about the way state schools serve black boys in particular. Or she might worry that her kid is particularly prone to bullying. Or another parent might simply want to separate siblings—this is a common reason for going private with one kid who is perceived, often, as less academic, and not wanted to be in competititon with the shining sibling (who remains inthe state school). Many parents want to separate their kid froma particular friend or friends—this, again, is a common reason for selecting one school rather than another, or lobbying for changed classrooms. Anyway, absent detailed knowledge of Abbott’s situation, neither we nor her constitutents have reason to sneer—and it is quite proper of her to refuse to violate her son’s privacy. Though, of course, one hopes she has privately apologised to Blair and Harman. Dave, you are right about Swift’s position and about its demandingness. I think its the right position myself. But I also suspect that she has done exactly what he proposes, because I suspect (from talking to parents whose children have attended that school) that unless something big has changed it is just a very expensive merely adequate school. Certainly, if I had boys,had no compunction about going private, had the money, and lived in London, it would be very low on my list.

By: Jack

Jack — Mon, 03 Nov 2003 17:39:12 +0000

It is perfectly possible ot provide state schools that achieve the same standards as independent schools. There is not enough debate about why they don’t while they do in other countries and at other times. Selection, parental attitudes, teacher’s pay are all part of the issue and the current state of state education in the UK is at least as responsible for many of the issues as is the existence of private education. As long as there is no tax rebate if your child goes to a private school it’s all extra money spent on education. Instead the question should be why state schools are doing so badly. I’m not sure that Ms Abbott is being a hypocrite but her constituents should in any case be interested in her views on education policy and her influence on local developments. They are after all sending their children to schools that are not good enough for her child.

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Mon, 03 Nov 2003 17:15:58 +0000

Not unless a great many other things happened also. I certainly wouldn’t want to force everyone into a state-provided one-size-fits-all model. What we ought to be aspiring towards is a system where every child gets an education appropriate to its needs irrespective of its parents’ ability to pay. That’s consistent with there being a wide diversity of education providers and with parents having a lot of choice about where their kids go. Currently parents have very little choice (despite rhetoric to the contrary) except if they are willing to (a) pay, or (b) to move house or if they© either have or are willing to fake (yes lots of that goes on) religious commitments.