Skip to main content
Dear Andrew Smith MP,

I am writing to you concerning the education reforms that your government is steamrolling through.

I strongly disagree with faith-based selection. I think the whole idea of insulating people from other cultures, other peoples, and other ideas is actually quite abhorrent. Yet this is what faith-based schools do.

You can't mandate one hour a week for studying multiculturalism or religious education, that is simply not enough to integrate people. The only way to integrate, appreciate and respect one another's cultures is via contact with other people. My prejudices quickly melt away after spending just ten minutes with someone from a different background to myself.

I can understand that some parents may want their children to grow up to be good Catholics or Muslims, but I would rather that the decision was taken by the child, not by the parents. I find the differences between the faiths to be largely artificial, and forcing it upon children at an early age will just divide society. The example of faith-based selection in Northern Ireland is proof that this just fosters prejudice, and denies children a balanced view in life. Surely the only way for multiculturalism to work is via integration, not division, and it is wrong to give in to parents' demands on this issue.

I would urge faith-based selection to be outlawed, in the same way that it is outlawed in the workplace. It is, to use Tony Blair's word, an anomaly (though he was not talking about education). Parents who want their children growing up in a vacuum have the evenings and the weekends to indoctrinate their children into their faith and culture.

On the other hand, I do favour selection based on ability. I went to a grammar school, and eventually came out as best scholar and went on to Cambridge where I got a first and a PhD. I am so grateful that I was able to receive a good education from the state, and I think that forcing me to go to a comprehensive school would have been to my detriment. To remain competitive, the UK must foster competence at all levels, not try to drag everyone down. It only takes one disruptive child to ruin a class.

I would instead urge greater provision for the brightest students. Whilst it is dangerous to label students and bright or mediocre at an early age (I was a very late starter but just about scraped into grammar school), it is important to challenge and develop the brightest students. The comprehensive system fails to do that. I would bet that money spent on brighter students would be fantastic value, and would be a more rewarding experience for teachers and students alike. Look at the examples of Sweden and Finland.

Why should quality of education be based on the wealth or faith of the parents? I would much rather it was based on the potential of the child.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. Unfortunately I think your government has got it completely wrong on this issue, and I see a worrying trend that Tony Blair's faith-based agenda is once again taking him down the wrong route (Iraq being the first faith-based mistake). While his intentions may be good, the results may not be.

Yours sincerely,

Calum Grant

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking the Article 50 Impasse

Andrew Tyrie overestimates the UK's control over when the UK government can invoke Article 50. As with much of the Brexit debate, hope and aspiration trump cold hard reality. The next few months will see a lot of work by the UK government setting up new departments and policy positions relating to the triggering of Article 50 and Britain's exit from the EU. This is a sensible and necessary delay. However this article by The Independent makes the case that the UK should delay invoking Article 50 until we establish an informal agreement with the EU on our exit terms. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-andrew-tyrie-must-manage-unrealistic-expectations-warns-tory-mp-a7220681.html This is very desirable from the UK's perspective, but flatly contradicts statements by the EU (including direct statements by Jean-Claude Juncker, Donald Tusk and Cecilia Malmström, as well as official EU policy) that no talks can happen prior to invoking Article 50
3 comments
Read more

Simulation independence

I recently came across Nick Boström's article about the simulation argument , which goes that there is a non-zero chance that we are actually simulated individuals, and not actually made of carbon at all. It was spun out of The Matrix series of movies, though is a recurring theme right from Descartes and the Brain in a Vat. Key to this idea is the argument of substrate independence , that is, carbon-based cells are not the only possible way of conjuring consciousness. Surely it isn't the carbon-based molecules per se that cause consciousness, but rather their configuration, and the kinds of computation (if that's the right word) being performed. Surely any "computer program" that reproduces the workings of the brain sufficiently well would suffice, since its operation and outputs would be essentially identical to the biological brain. The simulation argument goes that we are not all that far from achieving that level of computation, so therefore there may wel
3 comments
Read more
Accosted by Jehova's Witnesses The old ring at the door. "Are we expecting anybody?" asks my dad. The answer is no. Instead it's Jehova's witnesses, which I answer. Let the sport begin! Opening gambit: they ask what is the name of God? I answer Yawhe. They seem impressed, then correct me when I also say "God", which they say is only his title. Ok. Then they ask about morality. This is an excellent topic of debate. Where do morals come from? They say God, and he is a person. I argue that he is not human, or that he has thoughts and morals. They ask if I have thought about God seriously, I answer yes, and have rejected the idea, saying that it is a mistake to give God human characteristics. Is society going downhill? They claim it is going downhill, I claim humans have always been fairly rotten to each other. I immediately lay my cards on the table. I say that psychology, and morals are evolved, and did not come from God. They claim morali
1 comment
Read more