Reform -- as befits Nigel Farage’s beer-drinking, man-of-the-people persona -- has no interest in education. Either no one of any influence in the party thinks education worth thinking about or no one is capable of thinking about it. The Party scarcely has an education policy. What it has instead is a very short list of points whose only connection is that they are either vacuous or meant to press some button or other. What it has in common with the Lib-Dem manifesto is that it couldn't have been written by anyone who was himself educated.
Its leading, highlighted ‘point’ both presses the patriotic button and is vacuous: the Party wants a “system that ensures that young people are proud of Britain and learn the skills, character and values to succeed in life.” But what aspect of Britain ‘young people’ (a favourite demographic of the smarmy) should be proud of, whether it’s the Rue Paul Drag Race or Hamlet or both, is left an open question, and so is the nature of the system that might ensure such an outcome or ensure any outcome. The system employed by the communist states of eastern Europe didn’t ensure that the peoples of eastern Europe became proud of communism; why should anyone think the British state can devise a system ensuring that the British are proud of Britain? The systems that states devise to ensure things and what the peoples of those states feel are two utterly different things, nowhere touching one another. And who wants the state even to try to ensure what we feel about our country (or anything else)? Let the state keep its nose out such things.
Reform has no discernible idea of what being educated amounts to. It thinks it might have something to do with ‘learning skills’ but that being skilful at something isn’t the same as being educated has been a commonplace -- for anyone who gives the matter a moment’s thought -- since at least Socrates. It also thinks it might have something to do with obtaining ‘success in life’ but what such success might amount to isn’t hinted at. In default of any other suggestion, we have to take it that ‘success’ is getting a good job and making a satisfactory amount of money, things which we all want for ourselves, I suppose, but only doubtfully connected with being educated. And what person who was educated would think that character can be learned, in school, as a skill might? And if it’s a character whose purpose is to ensure success, what character could it be that’s learned except the one on display in The Apprentice and exemplified by Sir Alan Sugar -- himself knighted for success? But who could watch the parade of seekers-after-success on the programme and come away thinking that seeking success had anything to do with being educated?
And then there is learning the ‘values’ that bring success. Now these must be a different set of ‘values’ from those ‘British’ ones politicians urge on us (like showing tolerance and respect for others -- actually more ‘multicultural’ than British). These would, presumably, have to be ‘values’ like ‘hard work’, ‘perseverance’, ‘determination’. But is school the place to learn such things? It might well be the place to learn to name and list them (“Now, class 3B, what are the four/seven/eleven values that ensure success in life?”) but isn’t it precisely out of school -- taking responsibility for oneself, making one’s own way in life -- where one might learn to work hard, persevere and show determination, learn what the value of these things might (and might not) be?
What does it all amount to? “Here are some words, words for things everyone speaks well of -- ‘young people’, ‘skills’, ‘character’, ‘values’, ‘success’, ‘life’ -- let’s make up a sentence to put them in. Who cares what sense it makes or whether it makes sense at all? Then we’ll drop in a few random afterthoughts and call it a ‘Policy’.”
And the afterthoughts? Ban transgenderism in schools, give tax incentives for private education, ease terms for repayment of student loans, restrict entry to universities, penalise universities that undermine free speech, make it easier for schools to ban difficult children, make universities provide 2-year degrees. All of which might (or might not) be desirable but nothing of which requires the Party to show that it has any idea of what education is or what schools and universities might be for. The verdict has to be that Reform is every bit as unfit to be in charge of the nation’s education as the LibDems.
Duke Maskell