132,627
edits
Changes
no edit summary
''The Tail'' is edited by Paul Marshall. It is a collection of essays by different writers who all share a common vision. The transition from one writer to another is not noticeable. I have never read a book with so many authors before which had no differences in opinion. This literally has 19 voices which speak as one, each one reiterating a very strong political and economic vision. The uniformity does make for easier reading. If the author of each chapter were not listed, I would assume I was reading the opinion of only one person. But it also displays an extreme lack of balance and at times becomes very tedious as it reads likes a monologue extolling the virtues of a political manifesto. In all honesty, I would have really preferred this with one author and perhaps 100 pages or less, as I felt that I was just reading the same opinion over and over again, as if enough repetition would wear the audience down.
The Tail is term used to refer to the bottom 20% of England's students. These are the children who will leave school lacking basic skills in literacy and numeracy, without any good GCSE's and with very few employment prospects. The book spends a fair amount of time using statistics and graphs to convince that this is bad for the economy. I liked the fact that this book does draw attention to this issue. The book compares UK achievement with other developed countries and I was surprised to learn we rank far below the USA in literacy, with roughly twice as many children failing to achieve basic standards of education in the UK as in other well developed countries. I agree with the authors wholeheartedly that this can not be allowed to continue, and that the effects on the economy are serious as well. I also agree with the author on SEN inflation, but I won't go as far as the author has to blame many parents for intentionally disabling their children to get a DLA check. I do agree with him on the over use of medication though, and the overuse of labels to justify low achievement. I especially liked that the authors called the safety of these medications into questions, but was appalled that they wanted teachers to be consulted as to whether a child should be given medication. This is a strong infringement on parental rights in my opinion. I do not feel that teachers are trained or qualified to order medication. I do believe he feels the teachers would order less medications, but this has not been the case where I live. I have seen many teachers push parents to medicate as it is - I can't imagine giving them to power to force the issue. The idea that a parent's right to decide on medical treatment should be removed without just cause ins incomprehensible to me.
I do agree with the authors on some points, but I do not agree at all with the proposals of this book to correct it. In all fairness I will point out that I am a home educating mother, with very strong views on the rights of children and the importance of family, as well as the freedom of parents to raise their children according to their own beliefs so long as the children are happy, well cared for and educated. While education is one of the most important things in life to me, I also feel that a child's physical and mental well being have value as well, and I do want my children, and all children, to have some joy in their childhood. This book went against everything I believe in. I am also a former youth worker with far more experience of children's illiteracy than I would like. I have seen far too many children grow up unable to read, and have seen what works and what does not in helping these children. These experiences have also given me very strong opinions of a programme that I believe would cause more harm than good. This book might perfectly suit a politician arguing for what they see as a better fiscal plan, but to a mother, it is abhorrent.