POLITICS
`Progress centres' could be a first step towards radical progress
BRUCE ANDERSON
0 n Wednesday, the spinning was re- Spun. Tony Blair chose a mass rally of the Women's Institute to adjust the govern- ment's tone of voice. There was to be no more raucous class-warring and elite-bash- ing; it would be replaced by a modulated aPpeal to the middle ground. The PM insisted that we could have modernity and innovation while preserving the 'best of Britain': we can enjoy the Internet and borne-made jam. It would seem to have been a cunning choice of venue and audience; in the advance press briefings you could hear Mr Blair's spokesmen chuckling at their own cleverness. But were they right? Over the Past three years, the Blairites have grown accustomed to discussing their PR tactics in Public, and the voters have not appeared to object. But now there may have been a Change in public mood, towards a more cold-eyed even cynical, appraisal of the government's methods. ., Mr Blair may yet discover that you can fool a lot of people for a long time, but not you give them advance notice of your Intentions. There are signs that the elec- torate may be growing bored with the Blairite political diet: limitless quantities of Portentous waffle. Even when everything Was going well for him, Mr Blair has often below tense because of his fear, never far the surface, that one day the voters Mild stop buying his act. That has not yet pPened, but the box-office queues are at what they were. The Prime Minister twrill never again enjoy the easy rhetorical nitriphs of the past three years. ho n the other corner, Mr Hague must career that the Terrible Sonnets phase of his ,,. rt-n'ecr is now over. 'No, worse there is fo-ne' ---- but there always was. It is easy to serget how bleak Mr Hague's prospects seemed just before Christmas, when the of Cher imbroglio reduced a large number thn °ries to despair. It seemed that every _ e the it t° there party began even a minimal recov- would be another disaster to drag of Yet lower depths. Mr Hague got most wid the blame for this: there was a ir,'",e, sPread feeling that he must be in the ,i3atuitt f o' kicking black cats on Friday the wha, while walking under a ladder. For 1,1,.. Lever reason, he seemed doomed, and Is.r.tt'Y with him. to ,.,''els.is no longer the case; it has ceased o inconceivable that Mr Hague could eventually reach No. 10. So now that the worst is over, we ought to pay tribute to his resilience. There must have been moments during the past three years when he won- dered whether he had made the most fool- ish mistake of his life by deciding to run for the Tory leadership, and instantly trans- forming himself from an immensely promising young politician into an interim leader, saturated in unelectability, who would have a brilliant future behind him before he was 40.
But if William Hague had such thoughts, he kept them to himself, or to Ffion. When Mrs Thatcher was leader of the Opposi- tion, her staff often felt the lash of her ner- vous tension; she did not regard speech- writing sessions as complete until she had tossed and gored several persons. For the past three years, however, Mr Hague's office has been an island of calm in a storm-tossed party. In circumstances which would justify intense stress, Mr Hague's aides have often been awed by his imper- turbability. That quality could yet assist him to shoulder greater burdens, such as creating a decent educational system in this country. He has made a sound start with his call for disruptive pupils to be sent to 'progress centres'. Classroom discipline is a sine qua non for education, yet in many inner-city schools it has been extinct for several decades. Mr Hague's proposal could restore it, and at a stroke, for it would give teachers an effective sanction. The progress centres should, of course, start their day earlier than the conventional schools and end it later; they should also sit on Satur- days. Those who failed to turn up would face rapid prosecution for truancy. Return to normal school would have to be earned, by hard work and good behaviour. The threat of the progress centre would be a more effective deterrent than corporal punishment ever was; many pupils would prefer the cane. It would also mean no more expulsions from state schools. At pre- sent, that desperate remedy is necessary to prevent some schools becoming battle- fields, but youngsters who need education and discipline should not be roaming the streets during school hours. The 'progress centre' announcement was good politics as well as good educational theory, for it wrong-footed the government. Ministers were unsure whether to pour scorn on Mr Hague's plans, or to steal them. But the progress centre could also be the first step towards a radical reform of British education.
For many years now, two big ideas have been lurking in little think-tanks. At times, Tory ministers have been tempted by them, but were quickly daunted by a formidable combination: practical problems and politi- cal risks. The two ideas are vouchers and independence. Why not give every parent a voucher which would cover the cost of edu- cating their child at a state school, while giv- ing every state school its independence? Parents would then have more choice and pedagogues more freedom. But as in the private sector, schoolmasters would be sub- ject to market forces. The Head Master of Eton has much more control over his cur- riculum than any state-school head does, but if a hundred parents were to withdraw their sons, he would probably lose his job. If all heads enjoyed the same freedoms as Mr Lewis has at Eton and were subject to the same constraints, standards would improve.
Any mention of Eton will inevitably pro- voke cries of 'resources', the standard defence mechanism of every failing public service. No one should pay any attention. At present, there are good state schools which deploy their existing resources effec- tively; there are others which might as well flush them down the lavatory. The problem is not resources; it is how they are used.
That said, denationalising education could produce significant additional resources. In previous centuries, City livery companies established schools; recently, rich individuals — including Michael Ashcroft — have helped to found city tech- nology colleges. Once the local education authorities were out of the way, there would be a great increase in sponsorship by and partnership with the private sector.
It would be enormously difficult to turn that sketch of a transformed future into a blueprint for every state school. But the incentive to overcome those difficulties does exist, in the failure of the present sys- tem. That could also provide the political momentum for any Tory politician brave enough to be an educational radical. Mr Blair tells us that the NHS is 'riddled with inefficiency and old-fashioned systems'. That is even more true of many state schools, and it cannot be rectified by the state: only by the state's withdrawal.
Previous page
