Education

You certainly can't fault David Cameron for his perseverance. Six years after pushing the thinking behind the Big Society in his pitch for the Tory leadership, and three relaunches of the idea later, he is still at it in a speech today. He will, apparently, stress that the Big Society is not some nebulous nothingness — but, rather, "as gritty and as important as it gets". And as if to underline the point, the PM will announce some solid new measures to bolster his grand projet, such as £40 million of extra funding for volunteering. Cameron is, I suspect, making this case for two main reasons: to counter criticism of his Big Idea and to present a sunny flipside to the cuts, cuts, cuts. But an accident of timing adds to the resonance of this speech.

There may be a lot of debate about what the “big society” means, but there’s one thing we should all be able to agree on: we live in a big society – and it’s getting bigger. 62 million today. 64 million in five year’s time. And then on up to 70 million by 2028, according to the government.  (No, I’m not doing my bit, as my wife is about to have our third child.) What’s odd is how little debate there’s been at Westminster about all this. Why? Partly because it means you have to talk about immigration (still seen as toxic by many in SW1); partly because it is one of those issues that is just so big that it almost saps the will to live.

What a knotty problem David Willetts has created for himself today. Speaking to the Guardian this morning, he floated an idea to help the universities make a bit of cash: they could, he suggested, sell extra places to students who were prepared to pay exaggerated fees up front. This isn't yet government policy, and the students needn't do the paying themselves (they could be sponsored by charities or employers, for instance), but the Guardian pounced nevertheless. "Extra places at university for rich students," blared its front page headline. Not a good look for the coalition, at a time when access to university is such a general concern. Not a good look for David Willetts, who might have avoided the pitfall before him.

Here’s a thing. What’s happened to Andy Burnham? The affable scouser's leadership manifesto had an appealing tone: the red background enlivened by a blue streak on law and order, aspiration and tax reform. But Burnham lost the race and since then he has been matching Ed Balls for bellicosity, opposing each of Michael Gove’s education reforms out of an antediluvian tribal loyalty.  In recent weeks, Burnham has attacked cuts to the Educational Maintenance Allowance and the Building Schools for the Future fund. He’s at it again today. He will speak to the NASUWT teaching union later and he is expected to say: ‘This Tory-led Government’s education policy consists of broken promises, incompetence and wrong-headed reforms.

The most extraordinary row has broken out after the Prime Minister appeared to suggest that Oxford University has a racist admissions policy. He today said that, "I saw figures the other day that showed that only one black person went to Oxford last year. I think that is disgraceful." But the university has since hit back, pointing out that, "the figure quoted by the Prime Minister is incorrect and highly misleading — it only refers to UK undergraduates of black Caribbean origin for a single year of entry, when in fact that year Oxford admitted 41 UK undergraduates with black backgrounds.

There is extraordinary news today, suggesting that the Academies revolution is continuing apace. What was a trickle under the Labour years is turning into a flood. This time last year just 1 in 16 state secondaries had 'Academy' status: that is, operationally independent within the state sector. Now, it is 1 in 6. By Christmas, it should be 1 in 3. And by the next election, the majority of state secondary schools in Britain — about 1,600 — should have turned into Academies. Had Gove suggested such an expansion before the election, he would have been laughed at. The last time the Conservatives sought to give state schools independence was under Kenneth Baker, when just 50 availed themselves of such freedoms in three years. Now, freedom appears to be contagious.

With all the talk about social mobility, it was inevitable that those who believe grammar schools were the doorway to opportunity would wade into the debate. The most prominent of these interventions came yesterday from David Davis, who said: “The hard data shows that the post-war improvement in social mobility, and its subsequent decline, coincided exactly with the arrival, and then the destruction, of the grammar school system. This is the clearest example of the unintended consequence of a purportedly egalitarian policy we have seen in modern times.” The “hard data” Davis refers to is this 2005 study by Jo Blanden, Paul Gregg and Stephen Machin for the LSE and the Sutton Trust.

For the last fortnight, I've been doing an internship at The Spectator. And having seen the furore over Nick Clegg's announcement today, I thought I'd give CoffeeHousers my take. Until I was 22, I'd never heard of internships: no one at my school (Aylwin Girls' School in Bermondsey) went on them. Most of us left school at sixteen, and the jobs we were aiming for were admin, hairdressing, childcare — or, in some cases, motherhood (and welfare). The idea of pupils spending summers doing internships to beef up their CVs was alien to me. If you wanted to work at the head office of a high street bank — which was my first job — then you just applied to a recruitment agency.