The people should be free to choose
This belief that the state is the sole purveyor of social goodness is Marxist claptrap
By
Janet Daley
We are going to have to make the argument again – and again and again. No
matter how many times we appear to have won the day, the tireless lobbies
whose own career interests, or ideological fervour, or political power are
under threat simply wear us down.So here we go: politicians are not superior
beings, okay? They are not more morally righteous, or in possession of
better judgement, than the majority of the electorate, right? That is
something on which we are likely to agree. In fact, it is something with
which roughly 99 per cent of the population would probably agree.
So why are so many of us apparently prepared to accept that a politician’s
decision about how our money should be spent, or our schools should be run,
or our hospitals should be administered is inherently virtuous? Whereas,
decisions about those things made by private individuals – whether as
providers or consumers – are automatically wicked.
The whole ridiculous thing cropped up again last week when Liz Truss was
forced to defend the idea of “free schools”. What an absurd thing to have to
defend: in a free country, what should schools be other than “free”?
Un-free? No, the opposite of “free” in this case is “government-owned and
run” which is the equivalent in the perverse terms of the Left, and their
special-interest front groups, to “without taint”. That is, the taint of
individual choice, personal initiative, and self-determination – all of
which are deeply sinister because some people are better at them than
others. Therefore they are socially divisive and lead to inequality.
In other words, the very fact of some parents having the desire and
determination to create a school which they believe will suit their children
better than the state-operated ones, constitutes a form of political
injustice because some other parents do not have the desire and the
determination to do the same. Put like that, doesn’t it sound stupid? And
more than stupid, it sounds totalitarian: you have no right to be more
conscientious and ambitious for your children than anyone else because that,
in itself, is a kind of privilege.
Believe it or not there are people who actually say this: if all parents are
not similarly equipped with the capacity and the fortitude to invent, or
even actively to seek out, a school they believe will suit their offspring,
then no parents should be permitted to do so. (The same argument is applied
to parental choice as to the more radical “free schools” concept: the
freedom to choose is pernicious because only some parents will make good use
of it.)
But The Argument which must be repeated ad infinitum is not just about parents
and schools. It is about the larger question of government power and the
public services. How on earth has it come to pass that “choice” and
“diversity” are such dangerous ideas that political parties are afraid to be
associated with them? (Or, at least, treat them like live grenades?) Now
that most British consumers can shop with demonic cleverness – comparing the
online prices of electronic goods and holidays with ferocious expertise –
how can the denial of choice and variety in the most important areas of all,
education and health, still be a sacred principle, never to be defiled by
the unpredictable whims of those on the receiving end? And even more
bizarrely, why does a nation which bows to no other in its contempt for
politicians and bureaucrats seem to accept that their edicts on the content
of schooling and the practice of medicine must be preferred even to those of
the professionals who practise them?
Now this brings us to an interesting point. The most influential enemies of free schools and of academies (which are, in the end, likely to be a more important phenomenon in the process of breaking the government monopoly on education) are the teaching unions. Their campaigning and concerted resistance has consistently forced every reform of state education that favours parental choice onto the back foot. (See earlier reference to Liz Truss’s travails over the past week.) Yet, it is their case that teachers should have the right to decide how to teach. So what if we were to get on to the front foot and agree?
Fine, we might say, you can choose how (and even what) you want to teach in your particular school, if parents can choose whether or not to accept what you are offering. If teachers must be able to exercise their own judgment, why shouldn’t parents? The teaching lobby would then presumably be forced to say explicitly that they always know what is best for all children – which is something they only hint at now with their condemnations of “pushy parents”. (Some politicians on the Right have actually taken to joining in that condemnation – which is absolutely shameful.)
If the dogmatic teachers’ spokesmen were not prepared to consider this trade-off, wouldn’t it weaken their public position? After all, they must assume that there is a large group of parents who would opt for the permissive, progressive, anti-testing philosophy that they espouse. If not, does that mean they know better than everybody else?
Maybe we have been repeating the old arguments for too long. Instead of reiterating the obvious truths – that diversity of provision raises standards, protects freedom and encourages personal responsibility through the power of choice – perhaps we should go on the offensive.
Instead of talking encouragingly about “independent” providers – a word which is associated in the context of education with the private sector and can thus be caricatured as privatisation – perhaps we should make a more aggressive case against allowing schools to remain in the evil grip of politicians. (This might seem an odd thing for a politician to say but Michael Gove has shown himself to be quite unafraid of uttering uncomfortable truths.) When the enemies of reform claim that they want to improve all schools at exactly the same pace and in exactly the same way, rather than encouraging difference (or “inequality”), we might say with unblinking ferocity that enforced uniformity is authoritarian, conformist and destructive of achievement.
It may be time for an unflinching, unapologetic stand: why shouldn’t governments provide the funding for public services without owning and administering them? What is this belief that the state is the sole purveyor of social goodness but a piece of old-fashioned Marxist claptrap? Of course, parents, communities and organisations should be allowed to set up schools. The proper role for government is to monitor their performance: to examine their results and to make that information publicly available.
The head of Ofsted, Sir Michael Wilshaw, is certainly on the right track here with his call for a return to national testing. If there are enough teachers and parents who believe that test performance is unimportant, they can set up their own schools too. Good luck to them.
Now this brings us to an interesting point. The most influential enemies of free schools and of academies (which are, in the end, likely to be a more important phenomenon in the process of breaking the government monopoly on education) are the teaching unions. Their campaigning and concerted resistance has consistently forced every reform of state education that favours parental choice onto the back foot. (See earlier reference to Liz Truss’s travails over the past week.) Yet, it is their case that teachers should have the right to decide how to teach. So what if we were to get on to the front foot and agree?
Fine, we might say, you can choose how (and even what) you want to teach in your particular school, if parents can choose whether or not to accept what you are offering. If teachers must be able to exercise their own judgment, why shouldn’t parents? The teaching lobby would then presumably be forced to say explicitly that they always know what is best for all children – which is something they only hint at now with their condemnations of “pushy parents”. (Some politicians on the Right have actually taken to joining in that condemnation – which is absolutely shameful.)
If the dogmatic teachers’ spokesmen were not prepared to consider this trade-off, wouldn’t it weaken their public position? After all, they must assume that there is a large group of parents who would opt for the permissive, progressive, anti-testing philosophy that they espouse. If not, does that mean they know better than everybody else?
Maybe we have been repeating the old arguments for too long. Instead of reiterating the obvious truths – that diversity of provision raises standards, protects freedom and encourages personal responsibility through the power of choice – perhaps we should go on the offensive.
Instead of talking encouragingly about “independent” providers – a word which is associated in the context of education with the private sector and can thus be caricatured as privatisation – perhaps we should make a more aggressive case against allowing schools to remain in the evil grip of politicians. (This might seem an odd thing for a politician to say but Michael Gove has shown himself to be quite unafraid of uttering uncomfortable truths.) When the enemies of reform claim that they want to improve all schools at exactly the same pace and in exactly the same way, rather than encouraging difference (or “inequality”), we might say with unblinking ferocity that enforced uniformity is authoritarian, conformist and destructive of achievement.
It may be time for an unflinching, unapologetic stand: why shouldn’t governments provide the funding for public services without owning and administering them? What is this belief that the state is the sole purveyor of social goodness but a piece of old-fashioned Marxist claptrap? Of course, parents, communities and organisations should be allowed to set up schools. The proper role for government is to monitor their performance: to examine their results and to make that information publicly available.
The head of Ofsted, Sir Michael Wilshaw, is certainly on the right track here with his call for a return to national testing. If there are enough teachers and parents who believe that test performance is unimportant, they can set up their own schools too. Good luck to them.
No comments:
Post a Comment