"THE MOST conservative education available in London outside the private sector." Where else would a Labour Party leader want to send his son?
The Sunday Telegraph's description of the London Oratory captures well how reactionary the opted-out, grant-maintained school is.
Tony Blair's decision to send his son there is a calculated political move designed to mollify the fears of potential Labour voters deserting the Tories, at the expense of undermining Labour's traditional commitment to the comprehensive school system.
The London Oratory's head, John McIntosh, helped draft the educational passages of the 1987 Conservative manifesto, and claims to have invented the idea of opting-out.
Complaints
Senior Catholic officials have complained to the Department for Education that the School operates a covert selection policy. It is run by the Oratory Fathers, one of the most TRADE UNION NEWS reactionary fundamentalist sects within the Catholic church.
But it would be a mistake to see this as an individual aberration by Tony Blair. On the contrary, he has simply walked through the door that was opened by David Blunkett in his first statement as Labour education spokesperson.
Speaking just after the 1994 Labour Party conference which reaffirmed Labour's policy of a comprehensive school system under local authority control, Blunkett made clear that he would disregard conference policy. Mass action is needed to defend education Opted-out schools, he said, along with City Technology Colleges, would not be abolished but would be treated 'equitably' by a Labour administration within a flexible and acceptable framework to achieve their and our goals.' The problem is that their aims and ours are completely incompatible.
The GM schools have opted-out precisely in order to escape control by local councils. Blunkett is currently trying to negotiate with the GM heads a Blunkett and Blair are sending out a clear message formula which will camouflage their privileged status.
Blunkett's speech at the recent Fabian Society education conterence marked a turther de. parture from the comprehensive principle.
While rejecting any new seSCHOOL CONSTA lective schools, he refused to give any commitment to abolish selection by the existing 150 grammar schools, or the selective grant-maintained (GM) schools.
What Blunkett and Blair are really doing is sending out a clear message that Labour represents no threat to the GM schools or the grammar schools, which will not be made answerable to locally elected councillors, and can carry on operating selective policies.
Blair and Blunkett are taking Labour education policy further to the right than at any time since the 1960s. But it would be wrong to accuse them of betraying Labour's education policy document Opening doors to a learning society. LLI AM