THE SPECTATOR
SAVING OUR SCHOOLS
There is nothing in the deal made between teachers and their employers on Monday which represents a 'breakthrough' for schools or. a 'change in the climate of education'. The deal may provide a some- what more sensible pay structure, but its chief feature is simply that it offers teachers a great deal more money. If the Government accepts the deal, it will in- deed keep teachers quiet for a year or two, but British education will not be in much better shape. This is because the malaise in schodls is a deeper problem than a conflict between government and unions about pay. The problem is that many schools are very bad; and not only are they bad, but parents feel that they can find no way of helping to make them better. Two recent publications, The Wayward Curriculum, edited by Dennis O'Keeffe (Social Affairs Unit, 0.95) and a pamphlet by a group of new Tory MPs, Save Our Schools (Con- servative Political Centre, L1.50), display a range of concerns that goes well beyond money. There are the emergence of politic- al teaching ('peace studies' and 'anti- racism'), the weakening of coherent struc- ture in the teaching of English, French and mathematics, disciplinary problems and poor exam results despite smaller class sizes than in the past. As the authors of Save Our Schools point out, these are all abuses arising from a monolithic, producer-dominated system, whose in- terest is to prevent consumers (parents and children) from exercising choice. In a superbly asinine intervention last week, the Bishop of Durham condemned Church schools because they sorted ill with our 'pluralistic' society. But what is so extraor- dinary about the state system is how unpluralistic it is. Educationists have in- vented one type of school — the non- denominational comprehensive — which is supposed to be able to meet the needs of the whole of society. This is as ludicrous as supposing that the only type of hospital should be a general hospital, the only type of shop a supermarket. What is needed, therefore, is a series of measures designed to break up the monolith. Despite battles between Thatcherites and anti-Thatcher- ites, there is a surprising amount of agree- ment among Conservatives about this. The authors of Save Our Schools recommended the establishment of boards for each school on which parents predominate, the hand- ing over of much more power to headmas- ters, the payment of government money to schools per head of pupils. None of this is so very far from the notions of the new Education Secretary, Mr Kenneth Baker. He has already declared his determination to do away with the Burnham Committee which determines teachers' pay and he has publicly expressed his scepticism about the suitability of local education authorities to run schools. He is considering direct fund- ing to start schools in difficult areas. There is no great ideological gulf among Tories. The difference is one of tactics. Those of radical views argue that parents should be offered a charter for freedom of choice which would be as attractive and as irrev- ersible as the sale of council houses. Mr Baker is not a radical. He is likely to feel that he must keep the established educa- tional powers on his side. If this were possible, it would be all to the good; but since these are the powers which are threatened by the necessary reforms, it is not possible. If Mr Baker decides to play safe, the state of education will remain sorry.
Previous page
