When Tyrell Burgess, academic and innovative educational thinker, was asked to write a Labour party pamphlet on education he found himself ‘depressed about the lack of real planning … I could only bring myself to say no more than we would “make a start”’.
That was his own admission from an essay published in 1968 in which he called for a Labour education policy founded on ideas and built on promise. The title of the essay is one which should decorate the wall of the office of every Labour MP in charge of education policy, shadow or otherwise – ‘optimism is not enough’.
Some are optimistic that the government will fall of its own accord. Optimism is the opium of the opposition masses. It is so incredibly easy to shout about how evil every coalition policy is and think that as a result in 2015 Ed Miliband will enjoy a leisurely stroll into Downing Street.
Optimism never wins elections, it is never enough to change the country and it certainly is never enough to write education policy, whether you’re Burgess or Stephen Twigg.
Indeed, it is Twigg’s thoughts on ‘service schools’ which best surmise the mantra of planning over optimism. Education and training, as a path to economic prosperity and social equality, should be our priority. In their 1996 account of ‘The Blair Revolution’, Peter Mandelson and Roger Liddle called the failure to understand this priority was a ‘misconception among the leftwing chattering classes’.
I should point out that, having supported free schools, opposed public sector strikes and called for military intervention where it is justified, I am best friends with the ‘leftwing chattering classes’. Alas, that is something which one must sacrifice in favour of common sense.
It is pure laziness to suggest that links between the military and education amount to authoritarianism. These are reforms based not on recruitment or ‘boot camps’. There is not going to be an assembly line of students who, a day after receiving their GCSEs, will go off and fight a war. These plans aren’t some sinister attempt to force ‘poor kids’ into a modern-day Dickensian workhouse.
There is undoubtedly massive respect in British culture for our armed forces. Why do we not encourage that expertise to filter through into other parts of society?
The criticisms facing Twigg’s planned reforms are nothing new. I suspect that the main gripe is with bringing in outside help for our public services, dogma which the Labour party must shake off. At some point the burden on the education sector, and the public service we provide, becomes too much. It is ineffective in reducing inequality, child poverty and the lack of skills received by school-leaving age.
Gordon Brown spoke, as chancellor, of the ‘recognition of the limits of government’ which often leave politicians with very little choice but to encourage outside help in tackling social inequality. The work done by SkillForce, an educational charity, since its inception in 2000 has served as a potent reminder of the benefits of charitable support from those outside the limits of the state.
SkillForce’s successes should be championed by the Labour party. Which socialist or social democrat wouldn’t welcome the results of their work? Ninety per cent of young people they work with feel ‘more positive’ with ‘useful skills’. Ninety-three per cent leave school with qualifications. Ninety-seven per cent go into employment, training or further education, ‘compared with the 16 per cent nationally’ who are ‘NEETs’. Truancy is reduced. Predicted exclusion is 24 per cent but, in reality, only four per cent are excluded.
These are brilliant results but because I am Labour I am told I cannot agree to the expansion of similar work. Why? Because SkillForce was originally a pilot project by the Ministry of Defence and works with ex-military personnel to give society something.
Opposing these plans for closer integration between schools and service is leftwing posturing of the highest order. It is demeaning to our military if we allow their efforts and passion for helping society to be lost in a clamour to shout ‘working-class cannon fodder’ the loudest. It is a betrayal of our children if we stick to outdated methods of teaching.
The plans for service schools are new. They will, like all policy, go through a lot of changes between now and when they are implemented. But we should not endanger the implementation of bold and radical ideas. To do so would be to fail to listen to Liddle and Mandelson, in refusing to make education and training our priority for government and economic prosperity.
Even more dangerous is to replace bold and radical plans with blind optimism. That is never enough.
—————————————————————————————
Alex White is a member of Progress, writes for the Young Progressives column, and tweets @AlexWhiteUK
—————————————————————————————