Afternoon:
15°c
Teachers 'crazy' to let pupils as young as 10 join protests
Anna Davis, Benedict Moore-Bridger and Mark Blunden25 Nov 2010
Teachers were accused of “crazy and dangerous” behaviour after letting children out of school to join protests in central London.
Pupils as young as 10 were seen among the crowds of students caught up in violent scenes.
One 13-year-old, who was given permission to leave school, said he felt “stressed” after being “kettled” by police in Whitehall for three hours.
He was among hundreds of pupils who walked out of lessons to take part in the protests against tuition fees, dubbed “Day X” by organisers and attended by tens of thousands in central London. At least 35 people were arrested and 17 injured during the clashes.
A police van and bus shelter were smashed and buildings daubed with graffiti, while pupils burned their school books and socks behind police lines. By 8pm last night anxious parents had gathered by Big Ben, waiting for their children to be released from the kettle.
Today MPs and campaigners demanded to know why headteachers had given permission for children under 16 to leave lessons.
Tory MP Graham Stuart, chairman of the Commons education committee, accused schools of letting down their pupils. He told the Standard: “In the light of the violence at the last protest, sending young children away from their studies into an angry demonstration is despicable.”
Nick Seaton, chairman of the Campaign for Real Education, said: “It seems crazy and dangerous that pupils should be allowed to slip out of school to go and demonstrate.”
Leon Murphy, 13, from Acland Burghley school in Camden, was kettled for three hours. He said he had been allowed to attend after his parents gave permission. He said he joined the protest as he thought it would be peaceful, but felt “stressed” when he was unable to leave. His sister Betty, 15, was kept inside the police cordon for more than eight hours.
Their father, Gareth Murphy, 48, from Kentish Town, said: “I absolutely support him being at the demonstration. My children deserve the right to education but the police should not keep them there. As far as I know he has not committed any crime, so they should absolutely let him leave.”
The headteacher of Leon's school, Jo Armitage, said parents of around 30 students had requested their children to be let off school. A further 30 left school without permission.
She said: “If their parents requested for them to be allowed to go, we allowed them. We told them to keep in touch with their parents every hour. It wasn't just a case of them writing a note. We spoke to every parent of children in year nine and below and pressed them to change their mind.”
Russell Hobby of the National Association of Head Teachers said: “A lot of heads have a lot of sympathy for the underlying causes. It's not like these children were doing it for bad reasons.”
London's transport boss hit out at student protesters after the capital's transport network was directly hit by the riot.
Peter Hendy criticised the damage — which included setting a ticket machine in Whitehall on fire — which had inconvenienced commuters.
The TfL commissioner said: “The disruption and damage this demonstration has caused is outrageous. Buses have been deliberately vandalised, bus shelters damaged... Some protesters have yet again showed little regard or respect for the people of London.”
Additional reporting: Rob Parsons, Nicholas Cecil and Pippa Crerar
Reader views (47)
The Tories have realised that if you really want to limit University numbers in the future you need to stop kids going to college and getting A levels. So you cut EMA immediately and limit funding for sixth forms. It's these cuts that are bringing school kids out on to the streets as much as the increase in university fees.
- Nick, London England, 28/11/2010 10:43
Report abuse
Daniel, London - Oh yeah, right! Wrong!
Kettling is designed to keep things under control - and violence comes from violently inclined people. The kettling tactic is to keep such people from getting together to create greater problems that result from the "greater the crowd, the lower the group IQ" phenomenon.
It is the JOB of the police to keep things under control. Your comment makes you to out to be either one of the people too young to know what you're talking about or, alternately, to be amongst those whose primary aim is to cause disruption and chaos. "Peaceful protest" isn't about bringing London to a grinding halt.
- Rogan, Irving, 27/11/2010 00:57
Report abuse
Politicians have been accused of "crazy and dangerous" behaviour in passing humungous debts onto the nation's children, and the nation's childrens' children. Experts have predicted that when the children grow up and get into power, they may want to get their money back from us, with interest.
- Jules, Ilkley, U.K., 26/11/2010 11:13
Report abuse
This headline is sick. The pupils were allowed to go and march because that is their right in a democracy and because they feel that the government is taking something important away from them. They were safe in the demonstration, the only danger was coming from the police: they were treated like criminals, and were kept for hours in a street in the freezing cold. It is not naive to expect that your right to political speech will be protected in the UK.
The only episode of violence coming from a small minority of protesters was a consequence of the kettling, and not the other way around. The police acted like thugs, not just kettling but aslo charging indiscriminately and now they blame the parents and teachers. Shame on them.
- Daniel, London, 26/11/2010 09:28
Report abuse
"Teachers 'crazy' to let pupils as young as 10 join protests"
Child soldiers in a difference guise. Same cynical use of innocent ignorance and unquestioning enthusiasm though.
- Rogan, Irving, 25/11/2010 21:02
Report abuse
Jenny,
You`re not doing English Language then?
BTW Posters, what a hoot to read quotes from kiddies and their parents claiming "We thought it would be peaceful"!
Are there GCSEs for Gullible and Naive?
- Rowland, Kingston up the Thames, 25/11/2010 20:55
Report abuse
Jo Armatige Lied, i Am A Student At Acland Burghley and Am Using A Flase Name To Protect My Identity.
She Did Not Tell Us To Keep In Contact She Just Pushed Us Through The Doors. This Was Unnacceptable, Although i had Permission And Think i Have A Right To Demonstrate She Should Not Tell Lies, Even To A Newspaper.
- Jenny, Hudson, 25/11/2010 19:45
Report abuse
me, mark, howard and jason think that Gareth Murphy has the right idea, i also think leon has a nice face for the FRONT PAGE.
- Gary Barlow, Manchester, 25/11/2010 19:17
Report abuse
Gareth Murphy ought to be thankful he's not subject to a protection order.
- Scotty, London, 25/11/2010 17:51
Report abuse
Rosa L: "what sort of argument is that against those I have posed". Let's examine your 'arguments':
(a) "Education is a common and social good". As opposed to a "common and social bad" - perhaps. Yet you conclude that only "wealthy and corporates" should pay. Why not other members of the community and society? Or better - why not those who benefit the most? According to a recent study by the OECD, in Britain individuals get more than two-thirds of the benefits of higher education. Care to offer sensible and s[ecific objections?
(b)"Making profit on loans". Not an "argument" but a proposition. Care to prove it? Do look into US student loans while you do.
(c) "Producing market in higher education" - exactly. So that students can weed out Sesame Street degrees, professors and schools.
(d)"Irrespective of research needs". Again - care articulate how our R&D gets impacted?
(e) "Anyone can afford to pay back studen loan" - anyone with real job, that is. Care to produce numbers how it is impossible?
I could not fund any other 'arguments' or even propositions in your posts.
- Legal Immigrant, City of London, 25/11/2010 17:35
Report abuse
Surely it is the parents that have the say as to whether their children go demonstrating on violent marches or not?
Those same parents should then of course be prosecuted for neglect/child abuse.
- Frank, Home Counties, England., 25/11/2010 17:21
Report abuse
There will be no uprising. As long as these kids have Eastenders on the tv and can keep "tweeting" each other on their phones then they will become what the puppet masters and advertisers want. They have no brains to reason the country is broke, get it and get on with it, you will not get to be educated for free, FACT.
- Prophet of doom, UK dustbin of Europe, 25/11/2010 16:42
Report abuse
I went to a 'Technical College' and learned enough to earn for life. I also went to a very serious University, which was fun, whatever. School leavers should try a job, any job, and then see where they want to commit their energies.
- Steve, London, England, 25/11/2010 16:38
Report abuse
Rosa L: "You blame the woman for her own murder". I believe the point was "it - misguided support of the Spartacist rebellion - cost Rosa her life". Which is factually correct - it is in response to the rebellion that Ebert issued his orders. Sad as her story was, she was a failed marxist across the board - co-founded KPD and got outvoted on participation in National Assembly, rejected violence only to be brushed aside by the Red Flag which she co-founded, failed to convince Lenin and Trotsky who brushed her aside as a "classical Marxist"... One does struggle to point out what she did manage to accomplish.
- Legal Immigrant, City of London, 25/11/2010 15:09
Report abuse
what cost Rosa Luxenburg her life was her execution at the orders of the Social Democrats in Berlin. You blame the woman for her own murder. Bizarre and illogical. And it is not enough to say that I sound like a spoilt 19 year old....what sort of argument is that against those I have posed. You have none in reality. And yes, I am a very well respected and highly published Prof, thanks.
- Rosa Luxemburg, Somers Town, London,, 25/11/2010 14:00
Report abuse
The far left who now run most of Town Halls would have parents dragged before the courts if they let their own children out unsupervised like this. But if the schools do it it seems to be OK?
- Patrick, Dalston, 25/11/2010 13:45
Report abuse
Rosa, you are rightly worried about students having to pay for their choice of education. As they get more serious about how they spend their time and money, some "professors" will inevitably find themselves short of students. Same reason why teachers' unions in the States have been opposing school vouchers.
- Legal Immigrant, City of London, 25/11/2010 13:41
Report abuse
@Rosa Luxemburg
Of course, someone choosing the name of a failed Marxist as a pseudonym would see yesterday`s fiasco as the beginning of a glorious uprising.
Rosa Luxemburg saw the Berlin Revolt as a blunder but supported it anyway, misguided fool that she was, and it cost her life.
Yesterday`s activists have a lot in common with Rosa. Her education gave her the titles of Theorist, Philosopher, Economist. Useful stuff eh?
A lot of those Junior Che Guevaras in Whitehall will be aiming for equally worthwhile bits of paper, along with the popular Hairdressing Management and Sports Injuries.
There`s no revolution, Rosa. Get into a classroom and steer the students towards a useful future
- Rowland, Kingston up the Thames, 25/11/2010 13:40
Report abuse
The little darlings probably learnt more being kettled up in Whitehall for a few hours than 10 years at school. Next time kettle up the teachers and send propoer educators to the schools for the day.
- BJ, East London, 25/11/2010 13:34
Report abuse
What kind of rubbish parents let their children get involved in this type of thing? After the violence last time what did they expect the police to do? Set up a creche?
- Parent, London, 25/11/2010 13:26
Report abuse
Rosa, I hope you aren't a professor. You sound like a spoiled 19 year old who's angry that the world isn't perfect like she was always told by mumsy and daddy.
- Kevin T, Beckenham, Kent, 25/11/2010 13:21
Report abuse
Kettling (ie mass imprisonment) is a form of police brutality. Used against children it is craven. Just because the police think it is clever, does not make it right or legal. Clear and strict guidelines need to be published and enforced. For instance, there must always be provision for orderly exit.
- Bloke, Lambeth, 25/11/2010 13:15
Report abuse
Why shouldn't children be involved as long as they understand what is happening. I gave my 10 year old the option but she wasn't really aware of what it meant so I didn't push her. had she wanted to protest i would have let her.
Instead of wondering about the consequences of that, let's worry about the mismanagement of her school, or the fact that some of the teachers there have "encouraged" my children to read books on the "baby jesus" instead of the book they had already chosen.
Let's not worry what a few left leaning and well meaning teachers think when we are faced with the creeping evangelical nutjobs infiltrating our schools.
Anyway, I hope the students are the vanguard of an army that will tear the Tories playhouse down and help build a better society. Burn baby burn!
- Black Flag, Purley, 25/11/2010 12:58
Report abuse
The teachers probably encourage it. I went to school in Britain and it was a hotbed of left-wing ant-business/anti-economy politics. Teachers indoctrinate children with drivel encouraging them that they never need to go out into the world & earn. They teach that big business is bad, and that social dependence is good. Pretty much all teachers in Britain have never left the classroom in their lives. A quick 1 year at teacher training college, then back to the classroom on a state salary. Most of them are incredibly socialist, and a bad influence on children.
I think the very best teachers are those who have spent 15 years in industry before becoming a teacher. Ive seen the bearded, sandal-wearing misfits who teach children in Britain.
- Andrew, Tel Aviv, Israel, 25/11/2010 12:37
Report abuse
Education is a common and social good - corporations and the wealthy should pay for it.
These 'reforms' are about privatising debt, making a profit on loans, producing a market in higher ediucation, irrespective of research needs,and dumbing down this entire country. 130000 students say no - and growing. This is the beginning of the fightback. Hooray. The govt spokespeople think if they repeats lies often enough (the poorest will not be affected, anyone can afford to pay back 9% of their income once earning over £21000 etc etc) we'll just have to believe them. But we won't. Not the students and not me, a Professor in a 1994 group university).
- Rosa Luxemburg, Somers Town, London,, 25/11/2010 12:02
Report abuse
Many will deny it but universities as a place for teaching are out of fate Except for a few subjects they will places for research. The finest lectures are available on line today. Read in Todays Telegraph if you doubt my word.
- Alan ., England., 25/11/2010 12:00
Report abuse
Our country's manufacturing sector has shrunk over the past few decads. Our economy is based far more on the services sector, and the only way we can continue to grow, and develop, is by continuing to have highly-educated people.
We can't have a highly-educated population working in a knowledge-based economy if we jack up tuition fees to such an extent that they deter students from starting university.
Some rough, unscientific back-of-the-napkin calculations show that under these proposals, a student graduating with £39k of debt under these proposals (3x £9k tuition + 3 x £4k tuition) would need to average their earnings at about £48.6k per annium to clear their debt in the 30 year window, at interest rates of 4%. This simply isn't going to happen... we're storing up big problems for the future where a government will have to write off all of this debt.
- Mark Lee, Vauxhall, 25/11/2010 11:56
Report abuse
@Richard, you misunderstand me. I am not saying no mistakes were made in the banking industry. Errors were made by banks, regulators and borrowers and it was regrettable that government action was required. Remuneration is probably too high in some niche areas of the industry too, and there were as Mr King says negative impacts on the real economy (do remember though that he spoke these words in front of a potentially hostile trade union audience that he needed to appease to some extent). However, my point is: This has very little to do with the current fiscal crisis - the bailout has added almost nothing to the size of the national debt (current value of govt investment is just a few billion short of a profit now, compared to a National Debt in the trillions of pounds of nat debt). I don't understand why people conflate these two separate issues and think that the banking crisis in some way caused the cuts. It's just a self perpetuating myth which people pass on to each other without understanding it.
- James, London, 25/11/2010 11:46
Report abuse
Kevin T has it exactly, in my view. Unfortunately, people tend to 'look gift horses in the mouth' in that if you give them something for free for years, then they come to believe that they are somehow entitled to keep getting it for free forever. I believe that for a lot of students attending these demonstrations they may not have a handle on the facts. For many of those involved it is probably very exciting to get involved with the protests and get carried away with a spirit of defiance and herd mentality. When you look around the world though, you have to come to the conclusion that most of these kids are amongst the most lucky and privileged people on the planet. Let them have their fun, but not if it means damage to people or property.
- James, London, 25/11/2010 11:31
Report abuse
Fact: the government's plans envisage charging students compound interest on their loans, at a rate pegged several percent above the rate of inflation. In other words, they are deliberately setting out to make a *profit* out of student loans.
Whatever you think about the principle, there can be no justification for compound interest at a higher rate than inflation. Any amount repaid in a year should be deducted from the amount outstanding, and the debt then remaining adjusted upwards by the rate of inflation and no more.
And why should students shoulder the entire burden, when the UK has a lower rate of corporation tax than the OECD average? Companies are also beneficiaries of an educated workforce. Shouldn't companies be contributing?
- Nigel, London, 25/11/2010 11:18
Report abuse
Well, James of London, this is what Mr King said:
“There was nothing fair about the financial crisis. It was caused not by problems in the real economy; it came out of the financial sector. But it was the real economy that suffered and the banks that were bailed out,” he said. “Your members, and indeed the businesses which employ them, are entitled to be angry.”
On bank bonuses, he added: “Remuneration, especially the structure of financial sector bonuses, encouraged excessive risk-taking, and distorted the aspirations and career choices of too many talented young people.”
He took some blame for the crisis as a policymaker, admitting that “before the crisis, steady growth with low inflation and high employment was in our grasp. We let it slip”.
- Richard, London UK, 25/11/2010 11:18
Report abuse
Kevin T "All these things are paid for by the people of this country one way or the other" including the Foreign Aid budget, which gives billions of pounds of tax payer's money away to countries such as India who are able to fund their own space programme,presumably from our money.
- Michael Beckwith, London, 25/11/2010 11:16
Report abuse
Dream on James.
- Jason, London, 25/11/2010 10:37
Wow. great argument, you sure showed him.
- Scotty, London, 25/11/2010 11:09
Report abuse
Perhaps if Nick Clegg hadn't misled them in the first place there wouldn't have been any protests.
- Nick Gold, Bracknell UK, 25/11/2010 11:09
Report abuse
UK students should study in the USA for a better education at a quarter of the cost.
- dave, london, 25/11/2010 10:15
That's not been my personal experience, which US university did you attend Dave?
- Scotty, London, 25/11/2010 11:08
Report abuse
Seriously - if somebody wants to explain in what way the banks are responsible for the current fiscal tightening, I'd be really interested to hear. It just seems that there's a lot of jumping on the bandwagon here. The national debt is several trillions of pounds, while the bailout is an investment in RBS and Lloyds worth a tiny fraction of that, at less than £100bn. That is not free money - the government didn't 'give' the banks that money - it was an investment. Lloyds share price today is 65p. If it goes up to 74p (ever) then the taxpayer has made a profit on it. So why 'dream on'? It's actually really very simple. I suppose though that people always like to have an easy target, and there always has to be a villain lol!
- James, London, 25/11/2010 10:55
Report abuse
@Jason , London. So you deny that Brown and Labour crashed the UK plc truck, and left a huge crash site? What delusion.
- John, London, 25/11/2010 10:54
Report abuse
John Smith, why is he a hypocrite? He wasn't given a choice to pay back tuition fees in return for less tax. Why can't he have an opinion on that? Besides, when he went, half the 18 year olds in the country were not getting a university education and it was much more affordable to cover that through tax.
You and your socialist mates really need to get it into your heads that university is not "free", hospitals are not "free", benefits are not "free". All these things are paid for by the people of this country one way or the other. What these idiots are rioting over is that tuition will have to be paid for more by the individual getting it rather than by everyone else in tax.
- Kevin T, Beckenham, Kent, 25/11/2010 10:51
Report abuse
Dream on James.
- Jason, London, 25/11/2010 10:37
Report abuse
Amazing that a HUGE proportion of the British public seems to think the banks are to blame for all this. The bailout was a loan and the government is likely to make a profit from it, and probably in the next couple of years or so. THE NATIONAL DEBT IS NOT A RESULT OF THE BANKING CRISIS - the bailout was a tiny fraction of the Nat debt and they're getting it back anyway lol! In fact banks have provided HUGE tax revenues for the Treasury which have ensured that the national debt is lower than it might otherwise have been. So why do we still get comments like 'Why should school students end up with a lifetime of personal debt because an older generation of bankers got too greedy?'. Not meaning to be rude - but that just shows a total lack of understanding of what's going in. The cuts are not a result of anything done by bankers - clear?
- James, London, 25/11/2010 10:30
Report abuse
UK students should study in the USA for a better education at a quarter of the cost.
- dave, london, 25/11/2010 10:15
Report abuse
@John Smith
Times have changed. In Willetts time there was 11+ and less than 20% went to universities. Now thanks to Blair and Brown, I have seen in the name of "widening participation" students with A level grades of D and E are given admission to universities and both Blair and Brown wanted 50% entry to universities citing India and China where the degrees have no value. In post-92s, the former polys, students with A level fails are admitted during "clearing" weeks. Universty is not for all students , and they should be doing vocational diplomas. To do this, the post-92s should revert back to poltechnic status.
@Ruth Lyons. The secondary school students in inner city schools in London will give any excuse to stay away from classes. You have no idea how bad these students can be in their subjects and in behaviour.
I am old enough to remember that
- James, Birmingham, 25/11/2010 10:11
Report abuse
"It's right that the people who benefit from university, that you pay afterwards, not ask taxpayers, many who have lower incomes than that"
Says a man who got his entire education totally for free. Hypocrite!
- John Smith, Londonistan, EUSSR, 25/11/2010 09:49
Report abuse
- Devil's Advocado, London, 25/11/2010 09:30
I suggest you don't go then if you don't feel it's worth it. You must be intelligent enough to work that out surely .......
- rob, london, 25/11/2010 09:44
Report abuse
Support the protests. Why should school students end up with a lifetime of personal debt because an older generation of bankers got too greedy?
- Ruth Lyons, London, 25/11/2010 09:42
Report abuse
the NUS used to routinely lie to students on campus about policy over 20 years ago, why would they stop now? I shudder to think about some of the fantasists running around when I was there.
thankfully most people on the proper degrees used to see them for the amateur wanna-be politicans they were.
After all, how many students are we still seeing on these boards protesting they won't be able to afford to study now? they didn't get that idea from reading any real material or policy for themselves, so where did it come from?
- Scotty, London, 25/11/2010 09:37
Report abuse
Getting a degree is now like buying a dodgy DHS sofa, buy now, interest free, nothing to pay for first 12 months, then four years of debt into your thirties on top of a mortgage, starting a family, utility bills etc.
- Devil's Advocado, London, 25/11/2010 09:30
Report abuse
