Hackney Community College hosts Big Education Debate

The Big Education Debate took place at Hackney Community College yesterday evening

“It’s tax payers’ money, and we have to remember who we’re paying for. If you went to Lithuania, would you expect free Lithuanian lessons, or would you learn the language before you got there?”.

Fair comment, but this statement by Labour parliamentary candidate Meg Hillier didn’t go down too well in response to a question about the reduction in English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) courses following cuts to the further education (FE) budget.

Especially when the majority of the audience was made up of FE staff, some of whom say they are facing redundancy as a result of the cuts, and the foreign nationals who benefit from the courses.

Welcome to the Big Education Debate!

With FE colleges facing a cut of more than £200m to their funding for adult students in 2010/11, last night (Wednesday 21 April) Hackney Community College held a Question Time – style debate with some of the Hackney South and Shoreditch parliamentary candidates to discuss the future of education in the borough.

Although billed as a genuine opportunity to discuss serious issues about funding, with the presence of two members on the panel in Hackney Labour councillor Rita Krishna, Cabinet Member for Hackney Children’s Services and Sean Vernell of the University and College Union National Executive Committee, it was clear from the very beginning that to the parliamentary candidates this was just another step on the campaign trail.

Green Party candidate Polly Lane and Conservative Simon Nayyar wore their hearts on their sleeves (or should that be lapels?) with both sporting their party rosettes with pride.

Liberal Democrat Dave Raval was more inclusive and subtle, with a pale lemon shirt and wearing an “I “heart” Hackney” badge.

Labour’s Meg Hillier adopted a belt and braces approach with a red blazer, Labour party rosette and an “I “heart” Hackney” badge, presumably just in case you thought she was there out of the goodness of her own heart and not because she was seeking re-election as MP.

The debate started with a general question about further education – which is post-compulsory education that is pre-degree level, and primarily consists of A-Levels and vocational study – and problems with its financing.

Showing her experience as a junior government minister and five years in Parliament, Hillier explained the particular challenges faced by Hackney, where the high numbers of foreign nationals do mean that the demand for FE is higher than in most other areas, and that she has campaigned for greater flexibility for Hackney to access a higher proportion of the national FE budget.

However, some of the other candidates failed to perform as well in judging that the audience, who in addition to the foreign nationals and FE workers included local parents, were actually there to hear about education.

Simon Nayyar, who clearly hadn’t received David Cameron’s memo about toning down the posh factor, preambled every answer he gave with a lengthy attack on the Labour government’s record and how the financial situation wouldn’t have been so dire had the Conservatives been in power.

But the blatant electioneering didn’t go down too well with the crowd, who stared groaning and jeering every time Nayyar started to waffle.

In stark contrast was Dave Raval. Ahh, Dave. Clearly going for the “likeable” factor, you wonder if his aim was to buddy you into voting for him.

Indeed, his campaign strategy seemed to be along similar lines to UKTV’s decision to re-brand its G2 channel “Dave” (chosen because apparently everyone’s got a mate called Dave).

And, where Nayyar liked to talk, Dave liked to refer every answer to the Liberal Democrat manifesto (which he actually brought along). A question near the end of the debate queried how the cuts to FE promoted the government’s commitment to a high-skilled and high-waged population.

Dave answered (presumably as a sly dig at Nayyar), “I believe in facts, not rhetoric, do you mind if I just read out the Lib Dem policy on…”, to which the chair of the debate interrupted before he could finish his sentence, “I’d prefer it if you didn’t”.

Clearly trying to avoid the anger of the audience (Nayyar) or the irritation of the chair (Dave), Polly Lane obviously felt the best thing was to say as little as possible.

She did seem nervous in the opening exchanges, but to her credit she did admit that education was not her strong point.

However, although she remained quiet for much of the debate, she did win points with the audience by stating that in contrast to the other three parties, the Greens were in principle against academies or any privatisation of schools.

But the most contentious issue of the debate surrounded the question about the cut in ESOL courses, which, as an FE establishment, Hackney Community Colleges offers, and which allows non-native speakers to more easily settle into society and gives them the confidence of language to compete for higher-skilled jobs.

After Nayyar was heavily booed for claiming that Hackney was a “broken society”, it was Hillier’s response that if resources had to be cut from somewhere then it was best that they were cut from less important areas, such as giving all those eastern Europeans free English lessons.

Which, of course, could have been said with a little more tact bearing in mind the audience. And especially where the chair of the debate, Jo Thorpe, is an ESOL lecturer.

And Meg, just as an aside, following the break-up of the Soviet Union, the Lithuanian government did indeed give free Lithuanian lessons to all the remaining Russians in a bid to re-establish the indigenous language.

So, to some light relief, and the final question of the debate: what course would the panel members enrol in at Hackney Community College?

Simon Nayyar – Archaeology; Dave Raval – Photography; Polly Lane – Fine Art.

All interesting and commendable subjects, just such a shame that the college doesn’t actually do any of those courses.

And for Meg Hillier: “some kind of modern language”.

Ahh, come on Meg, you should have been more specific than that, you’ve set your own trap.

“Lithuanian!” someone helpfully suggested from the audience.