Justine Greening - The decimator of state education

When a Tory government comes to power it means many things, the rich get richer, the poor poorer and the rich go on to perpetuate their advantages for as long as they possibly can. Systems change in a way so the financially better off are even more better off. The notion seems to be to give pain to the disadvantaged which should motivate them to do better and pull their socks up. In education the wealthy are now grabbing more opportunities and the hot topic is anything but state education based schools. Consequently the bare faced lies of Justine Greening are laid out for all to see. As the Tory party yet again decimate another inherent social structure, the education system.  They state more money has been put into the education budget than ever before. However rather than being disseminated to secondary state schools it going to, Academies, Free (often religious) schools and lastly Grammars with state schools getting a real time reduction in funds. The evidence for this has come from the Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS).

The IFS, the report BN195 titled "The short and long-run impact of national funding formula for schools in England" goes into detail of how the national funding formula (NFF) is applied to the different educational systems in place. Some alarming findings from this report indicate, costs per pupil has been frozen in real times since 2015 right through to 2020 and has meant a 6.5% cut in real terms of money per state pupil. Additionally funding for those deprived schools is being diverted away to those schools of average level funding. Effectively, this government is making those schools in need worse off. They are already schools suffering from poverty, low class under achieving pupils needing all the support they can get and now it seems as if this government stamps those kids with the sole of its big size twelve boots into the mud. Your needy kids are going to get less, have less opportunity and do even worse than you did. Justine Greening says there is more money being put into education, perhaps so but not to those who need it. It is a simple statement which does not reflect the full reality of educational funding, a lying statement to appease the electorate, to whitewash over their dismal record. The full reality is education is so diverse and complex only idiots use a simplification such as this to justify their decision making.

I wonder who Justine Greening is, how can she agree with these disastrous policies to kill the working classes of Britain.  What visually used to strike me were the moles on her face but as you can see to the left here, she had them removed. Probably the best bit of PR exercises she's ever done.  Greening doesn't strike as a particularly intelligent, perhaps because she was educated in a state school in Rotherham. Which makes her one of the unusual breed of Tories who came from a working class background and to an extent a working class traitor. Unfortunately this seems to be a common nowadays, she came out as gay not so long ago, which was fine as by this time she'd already made it into government otherwise, there is remarkably very little on the internet about her life and it's a matter of reading between the lines from the articles which are available.

Wikipedia indicates she is from a working class family, her father was in the steel industry but we don't know what his actual job was. Greening is probably a example of a averagely educated and not outstandingly intelligent person.  What was it like growing up as a young Justine Greening, what was her life like and her experiences? In a Guardian article published on the Friday 23rd January 2013, Greening describes her tendency toward the conservative party when at Oakwood Comprehensive school in the 1980s. All the kids around her also had family in the steel industry and Greening asked her father why they were going on strike. Her father opposed strike action and so apparently the union/labour view.  From this episode she gleaned her thinking was different. She didn't buy into having to continually fund an industry which was making no money, but rather it should have been re-structured. She kept her views to herself no doubt because of repercussion in the environment she was part. It seems she disagreed with the logic of the argument to strike and sided with her father's belief the strike wouldn't change the inevitable downfall of the steel industry. Given Greening's father was in the steel industry it is likely he had a higher than normal pay. Put it this way certainly not on minimum pay and highly unlikely her family claimed any in work benefits.

The Tories have inadvertently created and stepped onto their own landmine when discussing equality, education and the working classes. They have began to cite the income of an ordinary working class people (OWP). However, their definition is someone who has current earnings of £33,000 or more per year and doesn't receive in work benefits. The medium income in the UK (that is 50th percentile level) is £20,000 per annum and the reality is 40 percent of workers earn less than £18,000. So what is considered the OWP is actually someone in a pretty well off position. The government report further indicates it is the middle classes who will benefit the most from grammar schools and someone on an income of £33,000 can include themselves in this bracket. So what we have is a government using a definition which falsely represents a much smaller part of the electorate than they publicise. Because of course, this government doesn't care about those who are on much lower income and this is the majority of working class people.

Social mobility, has often been viewed as the great equaliser.  If there are opportunities and you are good at what you do then why not climb the ladder to the top? However, it is not true in respect of opportunities and it has never been true. The issue is rather more of whether we live in a society which is closer to better social mobility than previously? Unfortunately the answer to this appears to be no. The re-emergence of free schools into the educational system has seen faith school take a lead. However, what these faith schools do is to continue the segregation of society. Muslims then only interact with Muslims, Jews with Jews, Catholics with Catholics. Further, there is a question of whether what is learnt in school actually helps get a job in the wider society.  Religious schools by their very context of based in a religion will be biased and profile specifically for their religious group.  Yes, there are some examples now of faith schools not only doing very well in educational terms but also equally of being very bad. How can this help social mobility? In a similar way the same goes very much for private schools, where only wealthy parents can afford to send their children, children who it has now been found with mediocre talent will outperform in the real world job stakes than much more talented and educated state school kids. This emphasises more than anything we do not live in a meritorious society. We live in a society which favours those who have good financial status. Education then becomes nothing of value to the poor. No wonder there is a increase in crime and an increase in continued poverty. See the research from the Cambridge Primary Review Trust and their report titled: Mind the Gap, Tackling Social and Educational Inequality printed in 2015.

An example of the financial disadvantage state schools have to contend with is they are not considered charities. This costs them greatly in funds their receive because they have in fact to run like a business.  Private schools and Free schools have charitable status to compare state schools with them is like playing foot ball on a 1:4 gradient, with Private and Free Schools at the top of the hill. National non-domestic rates (NNDR) and pension liabilities for these charities are far lower or exempt than the state education schools. It begs the question of why in the first place are state schools expected to pay NNDR while charities get away scot free? They gain from charging parents for the education and by being charities, not even considering the funds they leach away from the state schools.

Education can be a great leveller in society, but only if said society values it and feeds opportunities to those who get educated. Further education should be a life long journey, regardless of age if you have decided to qualify for any kind of subject, pass exams and get into it then you should also have opportunities related to it. It is therefore grossly unfair education and opportunity should only be given to selected groups of people. Just because they are richer, privilege or born within a culture or religion which ups the anti in support, ensuring their kind always steps on the toes or the heads of the less well off to be on top. So the moral of this educational story in the UK is, take a early advantage continue with it and never look back and being smart doesn't come into it.