The Debate: the future of British education

(c) Chicago 2016 photos

In our latest debate on The Vibe, columnists James Richardson and Simon Stiel go head to head, to discuss the future of education in this country. With Labour using the Queen’s speech to outline their ‘bill of rights’ for schools, and the Conservatives countering this with their own proposal to give teachers and parents more power to set up independent schools, the issue has been thrust into the election battleground. Below James and Simon tackle the thorny questions this throws up…

James Richardson: Whose education is it anyway?

Just as politicians have grasped the inherent flaws in the free market, we hear them waxing lyrical about its transformative potential in education. All three main parties present markets, competition and choice as the inevitable and solitary solution to an underperforming school system; the differences between them marked only by the lengths they will go in loosening the ties with the state.

The Conservative proposals will go the furthest, offering public money to establish new state schools that are independent from political control. Such an ambition should be greeted with alarm by a society that has a considerable stake in transmitting common values, attitudes and knowledge to our children through our schools. Basic numeracy and literacy aside, every democratic society requires at the very least, tolerance and respect for opinions different to their own. If parents are given universal rights to have their child educated at the school of their choice, unhindered by the constraints of government policy, common values are superseded by parent’s values. How long before a group of disillusioned parents launches a plan to establish a school based upon British National Party principles, believing that the “intrusive” interference of government has promoted multiculturalism at the expense of traditional English values? Another scenario, already lurking within our classist society, is the notion that parents could choose not to have their children educated with “less desirable” pupils. State education should exist to expose children to viewpoints that they would not otherwise hear, and to receive an education that fairly represents the world in which they will grow up. As a progressive society, we all have a stake in ensuring that it is so.

The Tory plans would hopefully have safeguards against such extremist groups establishing schools, but the fundamental message remains the same; if the balance of power in educational decisions swings too far in favour of parents, away from the democratic deliberation of elected officials, there is little to stop state schools fragmenting into a two tier system based upon the whims of parents.

Simon Stiel: Parent and teacher power is the key

Sweden, which contrary to popular myth doesn’t have the highest suicide rate in the world, has been an inspiration for educational proposals. The beauty of any proposal allowing parents or qualified teachers to set up schools is that it tackles the problems of British education head on.

It would address what increasingly desperate parents are doing: spending money on even higher fees, hiring private tutors, or lying about what religious faith they are to get the places they want for their children. The establishment of these schools would also give more opportunities for teachers who are leaving the profession altogether or are going to independent schools in high numbers.

If these schools are to prosper, they would have to be attractive to teachers or parents of an ethnic minority. Afro-Caribbean parents support Toby Young’s group in Acton, and Pastor Derrick Young set up the Tabernacle School to help black children who were underperforming at the local schools. That wouldn’t happen if it was to adopt a curriculum influenced by the BNP or have an ethos to keep out “undesirables”.

Elected officials have their uses but they don’t have the long-term concerns that parents do about a particular child. If anything, it would encourage them to be more proactive about the problems of state education knowing that parents can vote with their children’s feet if a school is not up to scratch. They could learn what is making a new school tick in its teaching and seek to emulate it.

Politicians have preached about education, education and education for a long time. It’s time to try a proposal that could improve the lot of the next generation.

The Debate

James

Simon himself highlights the central flaw in the Conservative proposals of independent state schools: “If anything, it would encourage [the government] to be more proactive about the problems of state education knowing that parents can vote with their children’s feet if a school is not up to scratch.” This is precisely the point about a system of independent state schools; they are funded by the state but not subject to their control.

Once you have granted them autonomy, they cannot be brought up to scratch by government that no longer has any influence of them. Schools that have to improve will do so alone, or perish, which many argue, will automatically eradicate unpopular schools and improve the quality of education. It is a neat logic, but the proposals do not understand the complexity of factors that make a school successful or not.

Simon

It’s hair-splitting time. The proposals are not “free-market” since, to the irritation of Thatcherite Tories, the new schools won’t be allowed to charge fees or make a profit. Like independent schools, these new schools will be subject to inspection from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate.

James’ concern about parent values superseding common values under this proposal is misplaced when parents at the moment can exercise the ultimate veto, homeschooling. As the government has shown by its investigation, that lends itself to greater pitfalls: children not be socially adept and it raises the potential problem of abuse. This proposal would encourage them not to give up on conventional education.

James

If parents wanted to exercise “the ultimate veto” of homeschooling because they are not happy with any school, they are entitled to do so. Considering that only 0.25% of parents in this country, choose this option, the competition from home is not sufficient to be closing state schools.

Simon

James thinks “school choice becomes a mechanism to satisfy parents without improving the quality of educational provision.” The independent sector shows time and time again that is not the case. Their teachers interact with parents about their childrens’ performance more than state schools.  They know that if the parents are not satisfied, they can simply take their money elsewhere. The league tables show that is an effective motivation.

At present in education, the less well off have to lump it. Indeed this year, excessive state meddling is leading to the closure of excellent free state schools. In Slough, the local council is riding roughshod over the parents wishes and threatening to merge the grammar school to create a 1,500 pupil academy. The idea behind parent created schools is to give the benefits of independent education for those who can’t afford it.

James

The dominant factors in the performance of schools in severely disadvantaged areas are not necessarily the schools themselves but the social problems facing the wider community. If schools aren’t sufficiently powerful to overcome the effects of social disadvantage, then simply exposing a school to competition will not improve it; merely pile on further problems. School choice becomes a mechanism to satisfy parents without improving the quality of education provision.

Finally, Simon referred to the popularity of Toby Young’s school in Acton. Naturally a multiethnic school will not of course attract BNP supporters. They would simply set up a school that reflects their values as an alternative to attract like minded parents. This is the central element of any market based system of choice; it segregates and exacerbates difference and inequality.

Simon

As for James’ BNP fear, Sweden has allowed teachers and parents to set up schools since 1992. Not a single one has been operated by the Swedish Democrats, the BNP’s counterparts. The Tabernacle School, as noted by the BBC, has had an astonishing positive effect on ethnic minority pupils who were previously getting little out of their education and being marked off as failures.

It would be worth reading the work of Professor James Tooley. In Kenya and the rural areas of China, areas far poorer than Britain, teachers and parents are setting up autonomous schools which are thriving. Home schooling because it’s an option that more parents are considering. Of course, parent run schools don’t exist in a vacuum. They can be vital in dealing with truancy and the lack of male role models in deprived areas. The few examples we do have demonstrate there should be more, not fewer.

So, do you agree with James, that state education is the best way in which we can safeguard our common values and stave off the threat of more extreme forms of education? Or is Simon right in arguing that competitive schooling allows schools to prosper and raise standards across the board?