10.04.2014
For working class education
Freedom is just another word for increased statisation, writes Christina Black
The Observer ran a report last week of a leaked document that will further discredit education secretary Michael Gove and his ‘free schools’1. The confidential government paper warns of the political embarrassment that will be caused if free schools are judged “inadequate” by Ofsted and or are earmarked for “fast-track” intervention.
Free schools have generally not had an easy ride in the media (Spectator excepted) - from the Al-Madhina school in Derby, which segregated students according to their gender and forced female non- Muslim staff to wear headscarves, to Pimlico Primary where the 27-year-old head with no teaching experience resigned after four weeks in the job, to the Discovery New School in Crawley (West Sussex), which eventually closed last week after having been judged inadequate, not least because its teachers were unqualified.2 Undeterred, Gove has recently approved funding - £45 million worth, to be exact - for Harris Westminster Sixth Form for “high-achieving students”. That works out at a mere £90,000 for each one.
Gove’s attempt to catch failing free schools before they fall through the net into ‘inadequacy’ is evidently a political move to avoid further tarnishing the government’s education agenda a year before the general election. As The Observer article points out, if a state sector school is said to be ‘failing’ after an Ofsted inspection, it will face being placed under ‘special measures’. The irony cannot be lost on Gove that the failing ‘free’ schools - set up with government funding, but without government ‘interference’, to go forth and thrive or fail of their own accord - are now to be subject to more state intervention than the average local education authority (LEA) community school. As things stand, nine free schools have so far been judged “outstanding”, four “inadequate” and a further eight “requiring improvement” - not a great track record for the government’s flagship project.
Gove’s vision for education has a certain Jekyll and Hyde quality. On the one hand, schools remaining under local authority control are subject to ever increasing state restrictions on what is taught and how. For example, Gove is changing the national curriculum at key stage 3 and in the name of ‘rigour’ has attempted to create new GCSE equivalencies that have been repeatedly sent back to the drawing board over the past few years. The GCSE reforms that we are seeing now represent a return to an O-level style of assessment: less modular coursework, more reliance on the final exam; no early entry with the opportunity to resit at the end of Year 11, so students will only get one crack of the whip. Gove just will not stop interfering in LEA-run state schools.
But, on the other hand, he has offered schools graded ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ significant cash incentives to opt out of LEA control and become academies, thus giving them the ‘freedom’ to abandon nationally agreed pay and conditions for staff, to shorten holidays, increase directed time and so on. This, from the government’s perspective, is seen as a success, as large numbers of state schools have indeed converted.
Free schools are based on the same ideology as academies: less state interference, more independence to employ who they like, teach what they like, however they like. But setting up a free school was always going to be more risky. Unlike an academy, it will have no existing facilities, staff (with an understanding of pedagogy) and students. It can only be set up where there are the institutions capable of creating it. So the chances of concerned parents on your local estate joining forces to establish one are virtually non-existent. In the current climate, the opportunity was only ever going to be taken up by two types of organisation.
The first consists of the church, the mosque or the temple. The fact that non- Christian groups have taken advantage of the opportunity must be provoking internal spasms out there in Daily Mail land from those whose natural inclination is to attack teachers, local councils and assorted loony liberals alleged to be responsible for the moral degradation of this country - in cahoots with single mothers and immigrants, of course. Yet, their idyllic middle class, suburban institution, teaching Great British history and the three Rs, turned out to be the Osama bin Laden School for Young Jihadists - well, a school set up by the local mosque, anyway.
The other type of organisation seeking to set up free schools is the private company selling education. The prime example is Ark, which has opened free schools such as Ark Conway Primary in west London (one of the nine deemed “outstanding”). Ark, through its chain of academies and free schools, can provide much of the infrastructure that would traditionally have been the remit of local authorities.
The Gove/Cameron ideology in all this is evident, yet it is a curious form of privatisation by the back door. It almost represents a return to before 1870, when the state was forced to provide free, compulsory education for children up to the age of 11. This was, of course, opposed by religious groups, which had a vested interest in providing schooling. But there is a problem with the marketisation of education, where private companies, religious groups and those possessed with an enterprising or philanthropic spirit are free to run schools without state bureaucracy getting in the way. Rather than having the ‘freedom’ to thrive or fail, the current free schools quite evidently cannot be seen to fail: rather than being seen as a failure on the part of the church or company concerned, that would be perceived as the failure of this government’s education policy. In an ironic twist, however, privatisation has paradoxically led to increased statisation: a symptom of a social system in decline.
Role of the state
This brings us to the question, ‘What should be the role of the state in education?’ The intrinsic reaction of those to the left of centre, be it your Guardian columnist, trade union official or member of a Marxist group, is to exclaim, outraged, that it is the state’s responsibility to run all aspects of education. No-one else should be trusted, as they will either balls it up or indoctrinate our children into their religion or the cult of McDonald’s. But apparently we can trust the state, which, of course, promotes the dominant ideology through its control of the curriculum.
In terms of religion, non-denominational schools in England and Wales are supposed to provide a daily act of worship “of a broadly Christian character” (church and state, of course, being entwined). While this is either interpreted by schools as an instruction to put across some well-meaning, sanctimonious Thought for the day-type message or else completely ignored, it still represents a telling comment on the role of religion. But it’s Christian religion, so that’s OK (unlike in Birmingham, where, according to the Daily Mirror, there is talk of a plan by Muslims to covertly take over state schools and indoctrinate pupils3).
Meanwhile, the history curriculum is all about Stalin and Hitler on the one hand and Winston Churchill on the other (and that’s without Simon Sharma’s vision, where we focus on our collective Britishness). History is made by great figures. Then there is the celebration of royalty and the aspirational quotes lining the corridors. And don’t forget to start assembly with an Oprahesque ‘If you want it enough and believe in yourself enough, you’ll succeed’. Add to this a thick dollop of Angel Delight-style topping of ‘We’re all in it together’; ‘To be British is about sharing the common values of inclusiveness, respect and democracy’ - you get the picture. In fact, one of the department for education’s many ‘teaching standards’ (which all qualified teachers must meet) includes the stipulation that a teacher must “not undermine fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect, and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs”. As I recall, that just about sums up the history of the British empire …
Marx was not in favour of allowing the state to determine curricula. In his 1875 Critique of the Gotha programme, he called for the state to provide universal education and “free instruction”. But he opposed the idea of “the state as the educator of the people”. As communists, we must make this distinction. The state should fund education, but teachers must be qualified and should be trusted as professionals to ensure standards, not Ofsted. The state should not control what is taught in schools. Take the recent example in Hackney, where science GCSE papers were doctored in a Jewish faith school to remove questions on evolution!4 A teachers’ self-regulatory body - the equivalent of the British Medical Association perhaps - should have the power to ensure that, for example, science is taught seriously in all schools.
The current curriculum is not only state biased: it is restrictive. It leaves little room for creativity, digression or the exploration of ideas in depth. Teachers are often forced to cover extensive content in short time-frames and teach to the exam, irrespective of their students’ interests or passions. Students and teachers, rather than being given the opportunity to run with concepts, to experiment and explore, are tied down by the curriculum. Despite massive progressive changes in pedagogical methods over the last 20 years, there is still a tendency caused by the nature of the curriculum and exam culture for students to become the receptacle for the teacher’s knowledge. It is little wonder that the result is either disaffection or, worse, buying into this culture (‘Sir/Miss, will it be in the exam?’ - the inference being: ‘Why are you wasting our time if it’s not?’).
‘Student-led learning’, ‘independence’, ‘personalisation and choice’ will remain aspirational buzzwords unless the curriculum and culture of the education system itself is changed. Both students and teachers should have more control and flexibility over what is covered in school. The focus should be on education in the genuine sense of the word, not Stakhanovite-style targets imposed on students and teachers alike.
Communists should not be opposed, in principle, to the notion of free schools. I have previously made the analogy with freedom of the press: in present conditions it produces the Daily Mail, but we still uphold it. The problem is we are limited by our own weakness in terms of both numbers and social influence. Organisations of the workers’ movement should be in a position where they are capable of setting up their own ‘free schools’, but in practice it is only religious groups and private businesses who can do so.
However, we should not limit our vision to what is possible in the here and now. We must start to organise for what is necessary l