The recent decision by the University and Colleges Union (UCU) to sever links with colleagues and educational institutions in Israel and the decision of Steven Weinberg, a professor at the University of Texas to boycott his visit to Imperial College in July to speak in honour of a Pakistani physicist because of the NUJs boycott of Israeli products, exposes how the principles of academic freedom are being badly eroded. It is ironic that the struggle for academic freedom has traditionally been against interference from the state. Now it seems that academics are engaged in hysterical posturing and seeking to censor each other.

Academic freedom is fundemental to what higher education institutions are about - the free and unfettered exchange and analysis of views and ideas. Higher Education institutions are also the engines of social change - academics and students linking up in the UK and South Africa throughout the 70's and 80's was a key element of the struggle against apartheid.

The only principle that the UCU is offering in boycotting Israeli Universities is that they are responding to a request by Palestinian Trade Unions and, therefore, this is an act of trade union solidarity.

The real problem for UCU is that it will now receive numerous requests to boycott links with universities in a whole host of oppressive regimes. How does it respond?

The key is to support those who support freedom of speech, freedom of thought and who allow their work to be critically appraised by their peers wherever in the world they are. In other words, those academics that support academic freedom. Israels universities subscribe to the principle of academic freedom. Academics and students are some of the most vocal critics of the Israeli governments policies in relation to its Arab neighbours. How are the UCU going to make a difference by turning their backs on the very people inside the institutions who are promoting progressive agendas and the principles of academic freedom?

The UCU position is simplistic and naive at best yet beneath the surface there are some pretty tiresome prejudices being recycled about Israel. This can be seen in the comments of Michael Cushman, from the London School of Economics, as quoted in the Guardian. He is reported as saying: "Universities are to Israel what the springboks were to South Africa: the symbol of their national identity."

Israel wanted to claim it was a normal democratic state and universities were integral to that, Mr Cushman said. "[But] it is not a normal state. They are not normal universities. (my emphasis)

"Senior academics move from universities into ministries and back again," he said.

"Regularly, lecturers take up their commissions in the Israeli Defence Force as reserve officers to go into the West Bank to dominate, control and shoot the population."

Academics should consider the wise words of the president of Al Quds University, in east Jerusalem, Sari Nusseibeh: "an international academic boycott of Israel, on pro Palestinian grounds, is self- defeating: it would only succeed in weakening that strategically important bridge through which the state of war between Israelis and Palestinians could be ended, and Palestinian rights could there for be restored. Instead of burning that bridge the international academy should do everything within its power to strengthen it, including, foremost, through its own collaborative intervention."

A detailed debate on boycotting Israeli academia, or not, can be found here.

The Tories position on grammer schools is an echo from what they actually started 30 years ago. At the 1977 Conservative Party conference Norman St. John-Stevas accepted that there could be no return to the 11-plus examination. The consequence of the Tories' taking office two years later was the continuation of around 150 grammar schools, while some 85% of secondary school pupils went to comprehensives. We must also remember that Margaret Thatcher as Education Secretary oversaw the enormous transformation of grammer schools into state comprehensives.

Existing grammar schools are in effect a sectional interest – one which Quentin Davies MP was quick to trumpet when the government introduced regulations which would have tightened up the anomaly which allowed parents to wait for the results of the 11+ before putting in their schools choices, essentially getting two bites at the cherry. David Cameron knows that the Conservatives will not be regarded as a national party with a complete and coherent education policy while they are linked to the anachronism of grammer schools.

A key argument given by those that support selection and grammer schools is that the comprehensive ‘experiment’ has failed. In fact, if we go back to the 1960s the point when grammer schools were  a predominant feature of the education system around 16% of pupils obtained 5 or more passes at O-level, while 75% of pupils left school with no qualifications at all. The modern equivalent - 5 GCSE passes at grade C or better, including English and Maths – is now obtained by 45% of pupils. The number of pupils leaving school with no qualifications has dropped to 3%.

Defenders of grammer schools argue that they produce better results than comprehensives. Yet it is clear, when we compare like with like, that overall results in those authorities that have fully comprehensive systems are better than those in authorities that have retained selection. Research carried out by Professor David Jesson at the University of York

demonstrates that, whereas the most able 25% of pupils in comprehensives achieve at least as well as their contemporaries in grammer schools, the least able pupils in Secondary Modern schools perform worse than their contemporaries in comprehensives. Moreover, those authorities that have remained fully selective, such as Lincolnshire and Kent, are regularly over-represented in OFSTED's lists of worst performing schools. In other words, genuinely comprehensive systems are able to raise the aspirations of all children across the board.

The other myth bandied about by the selection lobby is that grammer schools provide a genuine chance for children from poorer backgrounds to be lifted out of these circumstances. In fact, using a key indicator of low income status, only 2% of the children in grammer schools are eligible for free school meals, compared with a national average for secondary schools of 14%. The reality is that children from poorer backgrounds are significantly underrepresented in grammer schools.

The impact of selection tests on the self-esteem of children talking the 11+ can be deleterious and affect not only educational attainment but also self worth. A review study carried out in Northern Ireland, - which has a completely selective system is damning:

 “We have been left in no doubt that the Tests are socially divisive, damage self-esteem, place unreasonable pressures on pupils, primary teachers and parents, disrupt teaching and learning at an important stage in the primary curriculum and reinforce inequality

of opportunity….the selection (and separation) of pupils on a narrow academic basis, at such an early stage in their education career, is both inappropriate and unsustainable. In reaching this view, we have had regard also to the implications of the European Convention on Human Rights. (Education for the 21st Century. Report of Post Primary Review Body Department of Education)

It is about time that the DfES commission a similar review into those authorities that have retained selection. The case for ending this pernicious and unjust process is now overwhelming.

Press reports in the Daily Mirror yesterday following comments from the Housing Minister Yvette Cooper would indicate that a Brown government will allow councils to use rents to invest back into the development of council housing. The link to the Mirror appears to be bust but I have reproduced the text below:

The Mirror 2nd May 2007

RETURN OF THE COUNCIL HOUSE

EXCLUSIVE Margaret Thatcher sold them all off in the 80s Now Labour is to build thousands of new ones

By Bob Roberts And Oonagh Blackman 02/05/2007

GORDON Brown is ready to launch a new era of council house building when he takes over as Prime Minister.

As a first step, Housing Minister Yvette Cooper revealed yesterday that rules stopping town halls building thousands of desperately needed properties are to be relaxed.

She said: "Families on council house waiting lists know we have to build more homes, both for rents and shared ownership.

"Lots of councils have spare land. We want to make it easier to use it to build homes for local people."

Prom next April local authorities will be allowed to keep rent money - which now goes to Whitehall - to give them an incentive to build.

Ministers are also looking at easing regulations to let councils borrow money from banks to finance a massive new programme.

Ms Cooper insists there will be no return to sprawling 60s-style estates. She wants small "mixed developments" with council homes, shared ownership and private properties next to each other- and it must not be obvious which are rented.

Adam Sampson of housing charity Shelter said: "We're still to see the fine detail but this will go some way towards our call for the Government to build an extra 60,000 social rented homes in the next three years."

Council house waiting lists are growing fast and a report passed to the Mirror said those living in poor accommodation and waiting for a home will rise to two million by 2010.

Labour fears housing shortages could cost the party more than a dozen seats at the 2009 election.

Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly, for example, has a majority of just 2,064 but her local Bolton authority has 21,422 families waiting for homes.

Councils across England now build only 100 to 300 homes a year.

Their housing stock has been devastated since 1980 by Margaret Thatcher's flagship Right to Buy policy for tenants.

In 1918 eight out of 10 homes were privately rented. Now it is one in 10

Mass council house building was launched by Labour after the Second World War under their "homes for heroes" programme 3,000,000

The number of council house tenants in UK 1,600,000

People on council house waiting lists

In 1996 more than 60 per cent of council homes were thought to be below standard

On average, fewer than 300 council houses a year have been built by local authorities since Labour came to power

This Thursday is Polling Day for the local elections. You have a choice about who will represent you for the next 4 years.

The Conservative candidates promise more of the same. Over the last 18 months alone,  this Conservative run council has wasted nearly £1million on management costs and a failed attempt to sell-off council housing.

Did you know this is more than enough money to give pensioners the right to travel on bus passes outside the district?

The independent candidates have no ideas. Read their leaflet. You will not find a single idea of what they would do if they were elected.

Did you know the independents worked with the Conservatives to try and privatise council housing?

Grantham Labour is the only party that has taken the time and effort to write a local  manifesto. We think you have a right to know what we will do if you vote for us. We will:

• Set up a Grantham transport inquiry.
• Develop a new citizens advice and information centre for the community.
• Create and secure funding for a new Earlesfield Neighbourhood Forum bringing groups and people together to decide on local improvements.
• Create a new fund for young people to develop and run projects that support the community.
• Hold street advice surgeries on a monthly basis to ensure everyone gets a chance to have their say.

Vote Labour on Thursday for experience, ideas and commitment

You have 3 votes

Thursday May 3rd Polling Stations are open from

7am - 10pm. You do not need your polling card to vote

Vote Labour and together we can make Grantham better