Why I Have Got To Cancel My RSA Subscription
Francis Beckett planned to attend a sensible debate on education, but was instead met by a lecture on privatisation.
22 Sep 2011, 21:30
Steps to privatisation
We were supposed to be talking about Melissa Benn’s book School Wars, which is an account of how the education system developed and what we should expect from it – and which, along the way, attacks the privatisation of education. But the other speaker was Lucy Heller, chief executive of academy sponsor ARK, so the RSA really only wanted to debate academies and privatisation. The chair helpfully pointed out that the RSA “proudly” sponsored what she euphemistically called a “family” of academies, rather implying that it was therefore being terribly liberal in allowing Melissa to talk at all.
Lucy Heller is someone I usually rather like. She’s wrong about privatisation, but I think she’s sincere, and at least she normally engages intelligently with her opponents and accepts their sincerity, unlike many academy sponsors.
But something has happened to her. Today was all about politics. She raged against opponents of academies, like Melissa. She, unlike her opponents, cared deeply about failing schools and poverty of aspiration, she told us. She wished “the left” would engage properly with education (which was pretty rich, since the left created state education).
One opponent of academies – well, all right, me – was told: “You may be willing to wait for the socialist millennium, but I’m concerned about children’s education now.”
This isn’t educational discussion, it’s crude political point-scoring. No one’s waiting until the socialist millennium, even people who want one (and I, as Lucy knows perfectly well, don’t want one.)
There was no educational debate at all, unless you count an emotional tirade against failing schools (with which no one could disagree – though she tried to imply that her opponents did disagree with it) and an even more emotional hymn of praise for an academy she’d visited (no doubt justified – I know there are good academies, just as Lucy knows there are good local authority schools, though she doesn’t admit it.)
Then there was what looked like a concerted group among the audience determined to try to undermine Melissa Benn’s credibility. The attacks on her, from Lucy and Lucy’s supporters in the audience, were remarkably personal.
What’s happened, I think, is that the academy sponsors feel safe, since now all three main parties are now in some way their prisoners. They can behave in as brutal and Stalinist a way as they like. They can pretend that the debate is between those who care about children (them) and those who only care about “the socialist millennium.”
They see the chance of removing the subject from the area of respectable debate. They can behave as though everyone knows academies are good, and academy opponents are a bit like flat earthers, standing out against a common sense consensus.
They feel that they don’t any longer have to make the arguments, or prove what they say. They can take our education system away from us, and remake it in their own image, and no politician, no newspaper, will raise a finger to stop them.
And the RSA, to which I pay a small subscription every year, is one of these sponsors, and today it collaborated in the tilting of the playing field.
The author
Francis Beckett
Francis Beckett is a writer and journalist and editor of the book Prime Ministers Who Never Were.
Full profile →
Comments (2)
Subscribe to this posts's comments feed
"which was pretty rich, since the left created state education"
To attribute something created (in England, at least) over a thousand years ago to a particular political ideology seems rather a stretch - and even if it held water, do achievements from that far back absolve blame in this century at all?
Trying to characterise them as "brutal and Stalinist" then claim they are the ones "removing the subject from the area of respectable debate" seems a bit hypocritical - and yes, I would say letting someone who is opposed to your organisation's activities speak at one is quite tolerant. When was the last time the BBC hosted a fair debate on the merits or otherwise of the licence fee? Have the Labour party invited many anti-union speakers to their conference?
Reasoned debate would be nice, of course: if you have a good reason for opposing academies, or the RSA's support for them, I would be interested to hear it. I can't imagine a good reason, which is perhaps a better explanation for all three parties accepting the idea than that they have somehow become "prisoners" of something that couldn't have existed in the first place without a fair amount of support.
24/09/2011 10:17James - a history lesson. State education in England has not been around for 1,000 years. Until the 19th century education was for the few. It was not until 1870, when liberal MP William Forster introduced his education bill that a framework for elementary schooling was established. During WW2, an Education Act was introduced by a Conservative politician which established a tripartite system of secondary schooling: grammar, technical and secondary modern. The technical schools never really took off and a few local authorities experimented with comprehensive education. In the 1960s the Labour Party supported plans to phase out grammar schools and when Labour came into power in 1964 it sent instructions to all local authorities to prepare plans for comprehensive schools. This policy was accepted by the Conservatives who left it to local authorities to decide. Most went comprehensive except a few counties such as Kent and Lincolnshire where children are still divided at 11 into high-ability and the rest.
The debate which Francis Beckett attended was supposed to be a discussion of Melissa Benn's book. The chair was partisan - RSA sponsors academies. The opposing speaker represented an academy chain. Ms Benn was allowed to speak and then the attack on her seemed to hinge on the results of the school which is attended by her children. The opposing speaker made it quite clear that those criticising academies were supposedly on the side of lower standards. Only Ms Benn mentioned OECD research. The "debate" degenerated into a one-sided discussion about academies and GCSE grades. Ms Benn mentioned democratic accountability - this was brushed aside as if it didn't matter just so long as the results were better. The opposing speaker said all children should leave school with the passport of 5 GCSEs but didn't seem to realise that if all children gain 5 GCSEs then standards will actually have fallen to the stage where GCSE is nothing but a basic school leaving certificate. OECD has warned that the apparent rise in GCSE grades in England is not borne out by similar rises in PISA scores. The debate has been highjacked by rhetoric about a pseudo rise in standards, but by the time anyone realises the emptiness of this, academy chains will be running a large number of English schools. They will not be accountable, they will siphon money from education to pay for a head office, often remote. They can, as the ARK report makes clear, run education as the chain "sees fit". Parents with unresolved problems will not be able to complain to a local authority because academies are nothing to do with them. Parents will have to take their problem to the Secretary of State. And schools will be locked in for at least seven years. This is what should be being debated.
24/09/2011 17:20