Oblatrating one's oblectation: inveigh against one's pleasure; that 'one' being David Blunkett who in today's letters to the Guardian states his "Pride in Labour's education legacy". DB seems to want to equate entry into universities and staying-on at 16 (and passing the exams) to be "proof of the change in life chances of youngsters who in the past would have been written off". Written off, or left school and got a job, got an apprentiship, joined the services, went to night school/college while they worked, etc? Why is having the "third lowest rate of entry into universities and one of the lowest staying-on rates at 16 in the country" seen as a bad thing: somewhere has to be lowest and in an industrial city surely it's the norm.
Should we really be proud that some of 'the most disadvantaged areas' and 'the most underachieving schools' have jumped - to use DB's example - from 6% (probably something to do with the 'wonderful example of liberal education' you speak of...20% truancy) to 82% of its pupils getting five A*-C grades? If you're proud of that surely you should want 100%, maybe then, at last, you'd realise how meaningless it is. A social engineering paper exercise to try to equalise an unequalisable range of abilities, dumb down to a level of all-the-same pointlessness...part of the New Labour fucking shite fest. Cunts.
No comments:
Post a Comment