Difference between revisions of "Anarchy 43/Reflections on parents, teachers and schools"
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
<div style="text-align:justify;">{{sc|What anarch­ists are after}} is per­sonal and so­cial auto­nomy—the idea that in­di­viduals and their organ­isa­tions should be self-reg­u­lat­ing auto­no­mous bodies. It is this which makes us ad­voc­ates of worker{{s|r}} control in in­dus­try and which makes us en­thusi­astic about such ex­amples as we find of so­cial organ­isa­tions spring up from below, from people{{s}} urge to sat­isfy their own needs, as op­posed to those which depend on a struc­ture of hier­archy, power and au­thor­ity in which one set of people give in­struc­tions and another set of people carry them out. | <div style="text-align:justify;">{{sc|What anarch­ists are after}} is per­sonal and so­cial auto­nomy—the idea that in­di­viduals and their organ­isa­tions should be self-reg­u­lat­ing auto­no­mous bodies. It is this which makes us ad­voc­ates of worker{{s|r}} control in in­dus­try and which makes us en­thusi­astic about such ex­amples as we find of so­cial organ­isa­tions spring up from below, from people{{s}} urge to sat­isfy their own needs, as op­posed to those which depend on a struc­ture of hier­archy, power and au­thor­ity in which one set of people give in­struc­tions and another set of people carry them out. | ||
− | {{tab}}The the­or­et­ical ap­pli­ca­tion of our ideas to the organ­isa­tion of edu­ca­tion is clear enough. The auto­nom­ous self-govern­ing school is the aim, and in view of the ob­vi­ous limits within which chil­dren may be said to govern them­selves, this means in prac­tice a school con­trolled by teach­ers by virtue of their func­tional re­spons­ibil­ity to chil­dren, and by parents because of their bio­lo­gical re­spons­ibil­ity for them. But the issue is more com­pli­ca­ted, for in both prim­it­ive and com­plex com­mun­it­ies it is recog­nised that all adults have a re­spons­ibil­ity towards chil­dren, which because of the vagar­ies and vicis­si­tudes of in­di­vidual parent­age, may have to be exer­cised on its behalf or on the child{{s}} behalf. Once that is ad­mit­ted, we have of course ad­mit­ted that edu­ca­tion is the con­cern of the com­mun­ity. But what com­mun­ity? The state as in {{w|France|Education_in_France}}, the local au­thor­ity as in the {{w|United States|Education_in_the_United_States}}, or a mix­ture of the two as in {{w|Britain|Education_in_the_United_Kingdom}}? And where does the re­spons­ibil­ity of the com­mun­ity begin and end? | + | {{tab}}The the­or­et­ical ap­pli­ca­tion of our ideas to the organ­isa­tion of edu­ca­tion is clear enough. The auto­nom­ous self-govern­ing school is the aim, and in view of the ob­vi­ous limits within which chil­dren may be said to govern them­selves, this means in prac­tice a school con­trolled by teach­ers by virtue of their func­tional re­spons­ibil­ity to chil­dren, and by parents because of their bio­lo­gical re­spons­ibil­ity for them. But the issue is more com­pli­ca­ted, for in both prim­it­ive and com­plex com­mun­it­ies it is recog­nised that all adults have a re­spons­ibil­ity towards chil­dren, which because of the vagar­ies and vicis­si­tudes of in­di­vidual parent­age, may have to be exer­cised on its behalf or on the child{{s}} behalf. Once that is ad­mit­ted, we have of course ad­mit­ted that edu­ca­tion is the con­cern of the com­mun­ity. But what com­mun­ity? The state as in {{w|France|Education_in_France|Education in France}}, the local au­thor­ity as in the {{w|United States|Education_in_the_United_States|Education in the United States}}, or a mix­ture of the two as in {{w|Britain|Education_in_the_United_Kingdom|Education in the United Kingdom}}? And where does the re­spons­ibil­ity of the com­mun­ity begin and end? |
− | {{tab}}Should edu­ca­tion be com­puls­ory anyway? (And is the com­pul­sion to be ap­plied to the child or to the parent?) {{w|Bakunin|Mikhail_Bakunin}} saw the ques­tion dia­lect­ic­ally: | + | {{tab}}Should edu­ca­tion be com­puls­ory anyway? (And is the com­pul­sion to be ap­plied to the child or to the parent?) {{w|Bakunin|Mikhail_Bakunin|Mikhail Bakunin}} saw the ques­tion dia­lect­ic­ally: |
<blockquote><font size="2">{{tab}}The prin­ciple of au­thor­ity, in the edu­ca­tion of chil­dren, con­sti­tutes the natural point of de­par­ture; it is leg­itim­ate, neces­sary, when ap­plied to chil­dren of a tender age, whose intel­li­gence has not yet openly de­veloped itself. But as the de­velop­ment of every­thing, and con­sequently of edu­ca­tion, im­plies the gradual nega­tion of the point of de­par­ture, this prin­ciple must dimin­ish as fast as edu­ca­tion and in­struc­tion ad­vance, giving place to in­creas­ing liberty. All ra­tional edu­ca­tion is at bottom nothing but this pro­gres­sive im­mola­tion of au­thor­ity for the benefit of liberty, the final ob­ject of edu­ca­tion neces­sarily {{p|276}}being the form­a­tion of free men full of re­spect and love for the liberty of others. There­fore the first day of the pupil{{s}} life, if the school takes infants scarcely able as yet to stam­mer a few words, should be that of the great­est au­thor­ity and an almost entire ab­sence of liberty; but its last day should be that of the great­est liberty and the ab­solute aboli­tion of every vestige of the animal or divine prin­ciple of au­thor­ity.</font></blockquote> | <blockquote><font size="2">{{tab}}The prin­ciple of au­thor­ity, in the edu­ca­tion of chil­dren, con­sti­tutes the natural point of de­par­ture; it is leg­itim­ate, neces­sary, when ap­plied to chil­dren of a tender age, whose intel­li­gence has not yet openly de­veloped itself. But as the de­velop­ment of every­thing, and con­sequently of edu­ca­tion, im­plies the gradual nega­tion of the point of de­par­ture, this prin­ciple must dimin­ish as fast as edu­ca­tion and in­struc­tion ad­vance, giving place to in­creas­ing liberty. All ra­tional edu­ca­tion is at bottom nothing but this pro­gres­sive im­mola­tion of au­thor­ity for the benefit of liberty, the final ob­ject of edu­ca­tion neces­sarily {{p|276}}being the form­a­tion of free men full of re­spect and love for the liberty of others. There­fore the first day of the pupil{{s}} life, if the school takes infants scarcely able as yet to stam­mer a few words, should be that of the great­est au­thor­ity and an almost entire ab­sence of liberty; but its last day should be that of the great­est liberty and the ab­solute aboli­tion of every vestige of the animal or divine prin­ciple of au­thor­ity.</font></blockquote> | ||
Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
<blockquote><font size="2">{{tab}}At this point you per­haps pro­test, {{qq|But if there is no com­pul­sion, what hap­pens if a child does not want to at­tend school of any kind, and the parents are not con­cerned to per­suade him?}} It is quite simple. In that case the child does not at­tend any school. As he becomes adoles­cent he may wish to ac­quire some learn­ing. Or he may de­velop school-going friends and wish to at­tend school because they do. But if he doesn{{t}} he is never­the­less learn­ing all the time, his natural child{{s}} creat­ive­ness work­ing in happy alli­ance with his free­dom. No Utopian parent would think of using that moral coer­cion we call {{q|per­sua­sion}}. By the time he reaches adoles­cence the child grows tired of run­ning wild, and begins to ident­ify himself with grown-ups; he per­ceives the use­ful­ness of know­ing how to read and write and add, and there is prob­ably some special thing he wants to learn—such as how to drive a train or build a bridge or a house. It is all very much simpler than our pro­fes­sional edu­ca­tion­ists would have us believe.</font></blockquote> | <blockquote><font size="2">{{tab}}At this point you per­haps pro­test, {{qq|But if there is no com­pul­sion, what hap­pens if a child does not want to at­tend school of any kind, and the parents are not con­cerned to per­suade him?}} It is quite simple. In that case the child does not at­tend any school. As he becomes adoles­cent he may wish to ac­quire some learn­ing. Or he may de­velop school-going friends and wish to at­tend school because they do. But if he doesn{{t}} he is never­the­less learn­ing all the time, his natural child{{s}} creat­ive­ness work­ing in happy alli­ance with his free­dom. No Utopian parent would think of using that moral coer­cion we call {{q|per­sua­sion}}. By the time he reaches adoles­cence the child grows tired of run­ning wild, and begins to ident­ify himself with grown-ups; he per­ceives the use­ful­ness of know­ing how to read and write and add, and there is prob­ably some special thing he wants to learn—such as how to drive a train or build a bridge or a house. It is all very much simpler than our pro­fes­sional edu­ca­tion­ists would have us believe.</font></blockquote> | ||
− | {{tab}}Some of us think it is not ''that'' simple. But the point is aca­demic, for in prac­tice the deci­sion is that of the parents. Nowadays it is only highly soph­ist­ic­ated and edu­ca­ted people who bother to argue about whether or not it is desir­able that chil­dren should learn the {{w|three Rs|The_three_Rs}}. The law in this country does not in fact re­quire parents to send their chil­dren to school; it im­poses an obli­ga­tion on them to see that their chil­dren while within the com­puls­ory age, are re­ceiv­ing {{qq|an ap­propri­ate edu­ca­tion}}. The oc­ca­sional pro­secu­tions of re­calcit­rant parents usually reveal a degree of apathy, in­dif­fer­ence or parental in­com­pet­ence that hardly pro­vides a good case for the op­ponents of com­pul­sion, though they do some­times rope in highly con­scien­tious parents whose views on edu­ca­tion do not hap­pen to co­incide with those of the local au­thor­ity. (Mrs. {{popup|Joy Baker|Joy Elsbeth Baker}}{{s}} {{popup|ac­count|Children in Chancery (1964)}} of her long and in the end suc­cess­ful struggle with the au­thor­it­ies will be [[Anarchy 46/A partner not envisaged|re­viewed]] in a coming issue of {{sc|anarchy}}). Usually, apart from a few of the rich, with their gover­nesses and tutors, there are not many parents with the time or skill to teach their chil­dren at home, and of those who could, many must feel it unfair to de­prive their chil­dren of the pleasures and so­cial ex­peri­ence of be­long­ing to a com­mun­ity of their peers, or may cherish the right of parents to have the kids out of their way for some of the time—and the recip­rocal right of their children to be outside the parental at­mo­sphere. | + | {{tab}}Some of us think it is not ''that'' simple. But the point is aca­demic, for in prac­tice the deci­sion is that of the parents. Nowadays it is only highly soph­ist­ic­ated and edu­ca­ted people who bother to argue about whether or not it is desir­able that chil­dren should learn the {{w|three Rs|The_three_Rs|The three Rs}}. The law in this country does not in fact re­quire parents to send their chil­dren to school; it im­poses an obli­ga­tion on them to see that their chil­dren while within the com­puls­ory age, are re­ceiv­ing {{qq|an ap­propri­ate edu­ca­tion}}. The oc­ca­sional pro­secu­tions of re­calcit­rant parents usually reveal a degree of apathy, in­dif­fer­ence or parental in­com­pet­ence that hardly pro­vides a good case for the op­ponents of com­pul­sion, though they do some­times rope in highly con­scien­tious parents whose views on edu­ca­tion do not hap­pen to co­incide with those of the local au­thor­ity. (Mrs. {{popup|Joy Baker|Joy Elsbeth Baker}}{{s}} {{popup|ac­count|Children in Chancery (1964)}} of her long and in the end suc­cess­ful struggle with the au­thor­it­ies will be [[Anarchy 46/A partner not envisaged|re­viewed]] in a coming issue of {{sc|anarchy}}). Usually, apart from a few of the rich, with their gover­nesses and tutors, there are not many parents with the time or skill to teach their chil­dren at home, and of those who could, many must feel it unfair to de­prive their chil­dren of the pleasures and so­cial ex­peri­ence of be­long­ing to a com­mun­ity of their peers, or may cherish the right of parents to have the kids out of their way for some of the time—and the recip­rocal right of their children to be outside the parental at­mo­sphere. |
Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
− | {{tab}}Histor­ic­ally, in this country, the strug­gle to make edu­ca­tion free, com­puls­ory and uni­versal, and out of the ex­clus­ive con­trol of reli­gious organ­isa­tions, was long and bitter, and the op­po­si­tion to it came, not from liber­tarian ob­jectors, but from the up­hold­ers of priv­ilege and dogma, and from those (both parents and em­ploy­ers) who had an eco­nomic inter­est in the labour of chil­dren or a vested inter­est in ignor­ance. The very reason why it had to be made com­puls­ory ninety-four {{p|277}}years ago was because chil­dren were an eco­nomic asset. Read­ers of chap­ters {{l|8|https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch08.htm}} and {{l|12|https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch12.htm}} of {{w|Marx|Karl_Marx}}{{s}} ''{{l|Capital|https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/index.htm}}'' will not dis­sent from the as­ser­tion that the {{w|in­dus­trial re­volu­tion|Industrial_Revolution}} was made by the chil­dren of the poor. As late as 1935 {{w|Lord Halifax|Edward_Wood,_1st_Earl_of_Halifax}}, as {{w|Pres­id­ent of the Board of Edu­ca­tion|Secretary_of_State_for_Education}}, op­pos­ing the pro­posal to raise the school leaving age from four­teen to fif­teen, de­clared that {{qq|public opinion would not toler­ate an un­con­di­tional raising of the age}} and the {{w|Bradford|Bradford}} tex­tile manu­fac­turers as­sured him that {{qq|there was work for little fingers there.}} | + | {{tab}}Histor­ic­ally, in this country, the strug­gle to make edu­ca­tion free, com­puls­ory and uni­versal, and out of the ex­clus­ive con­trol of reli­gious organ­isa­tions, was long and bitter, and the op­po­si­tion to it came, not from liber­tarian ob­jectors, but from the up­hold­ers of priv­ilege and dogma, and from those (both parents and em­ploy­ers) who had an eco­nomic inter­est in the labour of chil­dren or a vested inter­est in ignor­ance. The very reason why it had to be made com­puls­ory ninety-four {{p|277}}years ago was because chil­dren were an eco­nomic asset. Read­ers of chap­ters {{l|8|https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch08.htm|Full text at Marxists Internet Archive}} and {{l|12|https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch12.htm|Full text at Marxists Internet Archive}} of {{w|Marx|Karl_Marx|Karl Marx}}{{s}} ''{{l|Capital|https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/index.htm|Full text at Marxists Internet Archive}}'' will not dis­sent from the as­ser­tion that the {{w|in­dus­trial re­volu­tion|Industrial_Revolution|Industrial Revolution}} was made by the chil­dren of the poor. As late as 1935 {{w|Lord Halifax|Edward_Wood,_1st_Earl_of_Halifax|Edward Wood, 1st Earl of Halifax}}, as {{w|Pres­id­ent of the Board of Edu­ca­tion|Secretary_of_State_for_Education|Secretary of State for Education}}, op­pos­ing the pro­posal to raise the school leaving age from four­teen to fif­teen, de­clared that {{qq|public opinion would not toler­ate an un­con­di­tional raising of the age}} and the {{w|Bradford|Bradford}} tex­tile manu­fac­turers as­sured him that {{qq|there was work for little fingers there.}} |
− | {{tab}}The no­tion that primary ecu­ca­tion should be free, com­puls­ory and uni­versal is very much older than the {{w|English Act of 1870|Elementary_Education_Act_1870}}. It grew up with the print­ing press and the rise of prot­est­ant­ism. The rich had been edu­cated by the {{w|Church|Church_of_England}} and the sons of the rising bour­geoisie in the {{w|grammar schools|Grammar_school#Early_grammar_schools}} of the Middle Ages. From the 16th century on arose a grad­ual demand that all should be taught. {{w|Martin Luther|Martin_Luther}} ap­pealed {{qq|To the Coun­cil­men of all Cities in {{w|Germany|Holy_Roman_Empire}} that they estab­lish and main­tain Christian Schools}}, ob­serv­ing that the train­ing chil­dren get at home {{qq|at­tempts to make us wise through our ex­peri­ence}} a task for which life itself is too short, and which could be ac­cel­er­ated by sys­tema­tic in­struc­tion by means of books. Com­puls­ory uni­versal edu­ca­tion was founded in {{w|Calvin­ist|Calvinism}} {{w|Geneva|History_of_Geneva#Reformation}} in 1536, and {{w|Calvin|John_Calvin}}{{s}} {{w|Scottish|Scotland}} dis­ciple {{w|John Knox|John_Knox}} {{qq|planted a school as well as a {{w|kirk|Church_of_Scotland}} in every parish.}} In {{w|puritan Mas­sachu­setts|Massachusetts_Bay_Colony}} free com­puls­ory primary edu­ca­tion was intro­duced in 1647. The common school, writes {{w|Lewis Mumford|Lewis_Mumford}} in ''{{l|The Condi­tion of Man|https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.188937}}'': | + | {{tab}}The no­tion that primary ecu­ca­tion should be free, com­puls­ory and uni­versal is very much older than the {{w|English Act of 1870|Elementary_Education_Act_1870|Elementary Education Act 1870}}. It grew up with the print­ing press and the rise of prot­est­ant­ism. The rich had been edu­cated by the {{w|Church|Church_of_England|Church of England}} and the sons of the rising bour­geoisie in the {{w|grammar schools|Grammar_school#Early_grammar_schools|Grammar school}} of the Middle Ages. From the 16th century on arose a grad­ual demand that all should be taught. {{w|Martin Luther|Martin_Luther}} ap­pealed {{qq|To the Coun­cil­men of all Cities in {{w|Germany|Holy_Roman_Empire|Holy Roman Empire}} that they estab­lish and main­tain Christian Schools}}, ob­serv­ing that the train­ing chil­dren get at home {{qq|at­tempts to make us wise through our ex­peri­ence}} a task for which life itself is too short, and which could be ac­cel­er­ated by sys­tema­tic in­struc­tion by means of books. Com­puls­ory uni­versal edu­ca­tion was founded in {{w|Calvin­ist|Calvinism|Calvinism}} {{w|Geneva|History_of_Geneva#Reformation|History of Geneva: Reformation}} in 1536, and {{w|Calvin|John_Calvin|John Calvin}}{{s}} {{w|Scottish|Scotland|Scotland}} dis­ciple {{w|John Knox|John_Knox}} {{qq|planted a school as well as a {{w|kirk|Church_of_Scotland|Church of Scotland}} in every parish.}} In {{w|puritan Mas­sachu­setts|Massachusetts_Bay_Colony|Massachusetts Bay Colony}} free com­puls­ory primary edu­ca­tion was intro­duced in 1647. The common school, writes {{w|Lewis Mumford|Lewis_Mumford}} in ''{{l|The Condi­tion of Man|https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.188937|Full text at the Internet Archive}}'': |
− | <font size="2"><blockquote>{{tab}}… con­trary to popular belief, is no be­lated pro­duct of 19th century demo­cracy: I have pointed out that it played a neces­sary part in the ab­solu­tist-mech­an­ical form­ula. {{w|Friedrich Wilhelm I|Frederick_William_I_of_Prussia}} of {{w|Prussia|Brandenburg-Prussia}}, fol­lowing Luther{{s}} pre­cept, made primary edu­ca­tion com­puls­ory in his realm in 1717, and foun­ded 1,700 schools to meet the needs of the poor. Two ordin­ances of {{w|Louis XIV|Louis_XIV_of_France}} in 1694 and 1698 and one of {{w|Louis XV|Louis_XV_of_France}} in 1724 re­quired regular at­tend­ance at school. Even {{w|England|England}}, a strag­gler in such mat­ters, had hun­dreds of private char­ity schools, some of them foun­ded by the {{w|So­ci­ety for Pro­moting Chris­tian Know­ledge|Society_for_Promoting_Christian_Knowledge}}, which had been in­cor­por­ated in 1699. {{w|Vergerious<!-- as spelt in original -->|Pier_Paolo_Vergerio}}, one of the earliest renais­sance school­masters, had thought edu­ca­tion an es­sen­tial func­tion of the State; and cen­tral­ised au­thor­ity was now be­lat­edly taking up the work that had been neg­lected with the wiping out of mu­ni­cipal free­dom in the greater part of Europe.</blockquote></font> | + | <font size="2"><blockquote>{{tab}}… con­trary to popular belief, is no be­lated pro­duct of 19th century demo­cracy: I have pointed out that it played a neces­sary part in the ab­solu­tist-mech­an­ical form­ula. {{w|Friedrich Wilhelm I|Frederick_William_I_of_Prussia|Frederick William I of Prussia}} of {{w|Prussia|Brandenburg-Prussia|Brandenburg-Prussia}}, fol­lowing Luther{{s}} pre­cept, made primary edu­ca­tion com­puls­ory in his realm in 1717, and foun­ded 1,700 schools to meet the needs of the poor. Two ordin­ances of {{w|Louis XIV|Louis_XIV_of_France}} in 1694 and 1698 and one of {{w|Louis XV|Louis_XV_of_France}} in 1724 re­quired regular at­tend­ance at school. Even {{w|England|England}}, a strag­gler in such mat­ters, had hun­dreds of private char­ity schools, some of them foun­ded by the {{w|So­ci­ety for Pro­moting Chris­tian Know­ledge|Society_for_Promoting_Christian_Knowledge}}, which had been in­cor­por­ated in 1699. {{w|Vergerious<!-- as spelt in original -->|Pier_Paolo_Vergerio|Pier Paolo Vergerio}}, one of the earliest renais­sance school­masters, had thought edu­ca­tion an es­sen­tial func­tion of the State; and cen­tral­ised au­thor­ity was now be­lat­edly taking up the work that had been neg­lected with the wiping out of mu­ni­cipal free­dom in the greater part of Europe.</blockquote></font> |
− | {{tab}}All the ra­tion­al­ist philo­sophers of the 18th century thought about the prob­lems of edu­ca­tion, and of them, the two acutest edu­ca­tional think­ers ranged them­selves on op­pos­ite sides on the ques­tion of the ''organ­isa­tion'' of edu­ca­tion: {{w|Rousseau|Jean-Jacques_Rousseau}} for the State, {{w|Godwin|William_Godwin}} against it. Rousseau, whose ''{{ | + | {{tab}}All the ra­tion­al­ist philo­sophers of the 18th century thought about the prob­lems of edu­ca­tion, and of them, the two acutest edu­ca­tional think­ers ranged them­selves on op­pos­ite sides on the ques­tion of the ''organ­isa­tion'' of edu­ca­tion: {{w|Rousseau|Jean-Jacques_Rousseau|Jean-Jacques Rousseau}} for the State, {{w|Godwin|William_Godwin|William Godwin}} against it. Rousseau, whose ''{{l|Emile|http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5427|Full text at Project Gutenberg}}'' pos­tu­lates a com­pletely in­di­vidual edu­ca­tion (human so­ciety is ig­nored, the tutor{{s}} entire life is de­voted to poor Emile), did never­the­less con­cern himself with the so­cial aspect, argu­ing, in his ''{{l|Dis­course on Polit­ical Eco­nomy|https://archive.org/details/socialcontractd00rousgoog/page/n302/mode/2up|Full text at the Internet Archive}}'' (1755)<!-- '(1758)' in original --> for public edu­ca­tion {{qq|under regu­la­tions pre­scribed by the govern­ment}}, for |
<font size="2"><blockquote>{{tab}}If chil­dren are brought up in com­mon in the bosom of equal­ity; if they are im­bued with the laws of the State and the pre­cepts of the General Will … we can­not doubt that they will cher­ish one another mu­tually as broth­ers … to become in time de­fenders and fath­ers of the country of which they will have been so long the chil­dren.</blockquote></font> | <font size="2"><blockquote>{{tab}}If chil­dren are brought up in com­mon in the bosom of equal­ity; if they are im­bued with the laws of the State and the pre­cepts of the General Will … we can­not doubt that they will cher­ish one another mu­tually as broth­ers … to become in time de­fenders and fath­ers of the country of which they will have been so long the chil­dren.</blockquote></font> | ||
− | {{p|278}}{{tab}}William Godwin, who, in his ''{{l|En­quirer|http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/godwin/enquirer.html}}'' at­tacks the con­cealed au­thor­it­ar­ian­ism of Rousseau{{s}} edu­ca­tional theor­ies, criti­cises in his ''{{l|En­quiry Con­cern­ing Polit­ical Justice|http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/godwin/PJfrontpiece.html}}'' (1793)<!-- '(1792)' in original -->, the idea of na­tional edu­ca­tion. He sum­mar­ises the argu­ments in favour, which are those of Rousseau, adding to them the ques­tion: | + | {{p|278}}{{tab}}William Godwin, who, in his ''{{l|En­quirer|http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/godwin/enquirer.html|Full text at Anarchy Archives}}'' at­tacks the con­cealed au­thor­it­ar­ian­ism of Rousseau{{s}} edu­ca­tional theor­ies, criti­cises in his ''{{l|En­quiry Con­cern­ing Polit­ical Justice|http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/godwin/PJfrontpiece.html|Full Text at Anarchy Archives}}'' (1793)<!-- '(1792)' in original -->, the idea of na­tional edu­ca­tion. He sum­mar­ises the argu­ments in favour, which are those of Rousseau, adding to them the ques­tion: |
<font size="2"><blockquote>{{tab}}If the edu­ca­tion of our youth be en­tirely con­fined to the pru­dence of their parents, or the ac­cid­ental be­ne­vol­ence of private in­di­viduals, will it not be a neces­sary con­se­quence, that some will be edu­cated to virtue, others to vice, and others again en­tirely neg­lected?</blockquote></font> | <font size="2"><blockquote>{{tab}}If the edu­ca­tion of our youth be en­tirely con­fined to the pru­dence of their parents, or the ac­cid­ental be­ne­vol­ence of private in­di­viduals, will it not be a neces­sary con­se­quence, that some will be edu­cated to virtue, others to vice, and others again en­tirely neg­lected?</blockquote></font> | ||
Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
{{tab}}Godwin{{s}} answer is: | {{tab}}Godwin{{s}} answer is: | ||
− | <font size="2"><blockquote>{{tab}}The injur­ies that re­sult from a system of na­tional edu­ca­tion are, in the first place, that all public estab­lish­ments in­clude in them the idea of per­man­ence. They en­deavour, it may be, to se­cure and to dif­fuse what­ever of ad­vant­age to so­ciety is already known, but they forget that more re­mains to be known … But public edu­ca­tion has always ex­pended its en­er­gies in the sup­port of pre­jud­ice; it teaches its pupils not the fort­i­tude that shall bring every pro­pos­i­tion to the test of exam­ina­tion, but the art of vin­dic­at­ing such tenets as may chance to be previ­ously estab­lished … This feature runs through every spe­cies of public estab­lish­ment; and, even in the petty in­sti­tu­tion of {{w|Sunday schools|Sunday_school}}, the chief les­sons that are taught are a super­sti­tious vener­a­tion for the {{w|Church of England|Church_of_England}}, and to bow to every man in a hand­some coat … Refer them to read­ing, to con­ver­sa­tion, to medi­ta­tion, but teach them neither creeds nor {{w|cat­ech­isms|Catechism}}, neither moral nor polit­ical …</blockquote></font> | + | <font size="2"><blockquote>{{tab}}The injur­ies that re­sult from a system of na­tional edu­ca­tion are, in the first place, that all public estab­lish­ments in­clude in them the idea of per­man­ence. They en­deavour, it may be, to se­cure and to dif­fuse what­ever of ad­vant­age to so­ciety is already known, but they forget that more re­mains to be known … But public edu­ca­tion has always ex­pended its en­er­gies in the sup­port of pre­jud­ice; it teaches its pupils not the fort­i­tude that shall bring every pro­pos­i­tion to the test of exam­ina­tion, but the art of vin­dic­at­ing such tenets as may chance to be previ­ously estab­lished … This feature runs through every spe­cies of public estab­lish­ment; and, even in the petty in­sti­tu­tion of {{w|Sunday schools|Sunday_school|Sunday school}}, the chief les­sons that are taught are a super­sti­tious vener­a­tion for the {{w|Church of England|Church_of_England}}, and to bow to every man in a hand­some coat … Refer them to read­ing, to con­ver­sa­tion, to medi­ta­tion, but teach them neither creeds nor {{w|cat­ech­isms|Catechism|Catechism}}, neither moral nor polit­ical …</blockquote></font> |
<font size="2"><blockquote>{{tab}}Secondly, the idea of na­tional edu­ca­tion is foun­ded in an in­at­ten­tion to the nature of mind. What­ever each man does for him­self is done well; what­ever his neigh­bours or his country under­take to do for him is done ill. It is our wisdom to in­cite men to act for them­selves, not to retain them in a state of per­petual pupil­lage. He that learns because he desires to learn will listen to the in­struc­tions he re­ceives and ap­pre­hend their mean­ing. He that teaches because he desires to teach will dis­charge his oc­cupa­tion with en­thusi­asm and energy. But the moment polit­ical in­sti­tu­tion under­takes to as­sign to every man his place, the func­tions of all will be dis­charged with supine­ness and in­dif­fer­ence …</blockquote></font> | <font size="2"><blockquote>{{tab}}Secondly, the idea of na­tional edu­ca­tion is foun­ded in an in­at­ten­tion to the nature of mind. What­ever each man does for him­self is done well; what­ever his neigh­bours or his country under­take to do for him is done ill. It is our wisdom to in­cite men to act for them­selves, not to retain them in a state of per­petual pupil­lage. He that learns because he desires to learn will listen to the in­struc­tions he re­ceives and ap­pre­hend their mean­ing. He that teaches because he desires to teach will dis­charge his oc­cupa­tion with en­thusi­asm and energy. But the moment polit­ical in­sti­tu­tion under­takes to as­sign to every man his place, the func­tions of all will be dis­charged with supine­ness and in­dif­fer­ence …</blockquote></font> | ||
Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
{{p|279}}{{tab}}In practice, in this country today people who want to try an anarch­ist ap­proach to edu­ca­tion have two pos­sible courses of action: to work in the private sector—in­de­pend­ent schools of one kind or an­other, a minor­ity of which are pro­gres­sive, or to work in the normal school system and try to in­flu­ence it in a {{qq|pro­gres­sive}} direc­tion. These two courses are by no means mu­tu­ally ex­clus­ive, and there is plenty of evid­ence of the in­flu­ence of the former on the latter. | {{p|279}}{{tab}}In practice, in this country today people who want to try an anarch­ist ap­proach to edu­ca­tion have two pos­sible courses of action: to work in the private sector—in­de­pend­ent schools of one kind or an­other, a minor­ity of which are pro­gres­sive, or to work in the normal school system and try to in­flu­ence it in a {{qq|pro­gres­sive}} direc­tion. These two courses are by no means mu­tu­ally ex­clus­ive, and there is plenty of evid­ence of the in­flu­ence of the former on the latter. | ||
− | {{tab}}It is sur­pris­ing, and cer­tainly sad­den­ing, con­sider­ing the number of people in­ter­ested in {{qq|pro­gres­sive}} schools, how few of them there are and how they seldom in­spire other people to start them. For ex­ample, the pub­lica­tion of ''{{w|Summer­hill|Summerhill_(book)}}'' a com­pil­a­tion of the writ­ings of [[Author:A. S. Neill|A. S. Neill]] brought about a great deal of in­ter­est in his school and his ideas in {{w|America|United_States}}; there was an embar­ras­sing pro­ces­sion of over­seas vis­it­ors to Neill{{s}} little school in {{w|Suffolk|Suffolk}}, but how few of the ad­mirers and vis­it­ors set about start­ing more schools on similar lines. A few did: one of the [[Anarchy 43/High School U.S.A.|con­trib­u­tions]] in this issue of {{sc|anarchy}} comes from people who are trying to. | + | {{tab}}It is sur­pris­ing, and cer­tainly sad­den­ing, con­sider­ing the number of people in­ter­ested in {{qq|pro­gres­sive}} schools, how few of them there are and how they seldom in­spire other people to start them. For ex­ample, the pub­lica­tion of ''{{w|Summer­hill|Summerhill_(book)|Summerhill (book)}}'' a com­pil­a­tion of the writ­ings of [[Author:A. S. Neill|A. S. Neill]] brought about a great deal of in­ter­est in his school and his ideas in {{w|America|United_States|United States}}; there was an embar­ras­sing pro­ces­sion of over­seas vis­it­ors to Neill{{s}} little school in {{w|Suffolk|Suffolk}}, but how few of the ad­mirers and vis­it­ors set about start­ing more schools on similar lines. A few did: one of the [[Anarchy 43/High School U.S.A.|con­trib­u­tions]] in this issue of {{sc|anarchy}} comes from people who are trying to. |
− | {{tab}}Why shouldn{{t}} the parents of a group of babies in the same age-group get together and plan a school for them well in ad­vance, so as to ac­cum­ul­ate the funds re­quired before they are needed? They could as several groups of parents do, run their own {{w|nurs­ery school|Preschool}} when their chil­dren reach the ap­pro­pri­ate age and then de­velop from the primary stage onward. The wealthy who are also in­tent on edu­ca­ting their chil­dren in in­de­pend­ent schools, have found a vari­ety of ways for fin­ancing them by way of Deeds and Coven­ant, en­dow­ment pol­icies and so on. ({{w|John Vaizey|John_Vaizey,_Baron_Vaizey}} es­tim­ates that at present some­thing like £60 mil­lion a year is spent on school fees and £15-£20 mil­lion of this is found by tax-avoid­ance). | + | {{tab}}Why shouldn{{t}} the parents of a group of babies in the same age-group get together and plan a school for them well in ad­vance, so as to ac­cum­ul­ate the funds re­quired before they are needed? They could as several groups of parents do, run their own {{w|nurs­ery school|Preschool|Preschool}} when their chil­dren reach the ap­pro­pri­ate age and then de­velop from the primary stage onward. The wealthy who are also in­tent on edu­ca­ting their chil­dren in in­de­pend­ent schools, have found a vari­ety of ways for fin­ancing them by way of Deeds and Coven­ant, en­dow­ment pol­icies and so on. ({{w|John Vaizey|John_Vaizey,_Baron_Vaizey}} es­tim­ates that at present some­thing like £60 mil­lion a year is spent on school fees and £15-£20 mil­lion of this is found by tax-avoid­ance). |
− | {{tab}}Many of us on the other hand, are more con­cerned with changing the ordin­ary primary and second­ary schools which the vast ma­jor­ity of chil­dren at­tend, changing the teach­ing methods and changing parental and so­cial at­ti­tudes. Some will simply say that this can­not be done—this would be the view of the {{w|second­ary modern|Secondary_modern_school}} [[Author:Mister P.|school-teacher]] who con­trib­utes an honest [[Anarchy 43/Teacher's dilemma|ac­count]] of his prob­lems else­where in this issue. But others will say that it would be fool­ish not to try to take ad­vant­age of the present wave of in­ter­est in edu­ca­tion and in the state of the schools. | + | {{tab}}Many of us on the other hand, are more con­cerned with changing the ordin­ary primary and second­ary schools which the vast ma­jor­ity of chil­dren at­tend, changing the teach­ing methods and changing parental and so­cial at­ti­tudes. Some will simply say that this can­not be done—this would be the view of the {{w|second­ary modern|Secondary_modern_school|Secondary modern school}} [[Author:Mister P.|school-teacher]] who con­trib­utes an honest [[Anarchy 43/Teacher's dilemma|ac­count]] of his prob­lems else­where in this issue. But others will say that it would be fool­ish not to try to take ad­vant­age of the present wave of in­ter­est in edu­ca­tion and in the state of the schools. |
{{tab}}The anarch­ist, seek­ing func­tional, as op­posed to polit­ical, answers to so­cial needs, and con­trast­ing the so­cial prin­ciple with the polit­ical prin­ciple, sees in the state{{s}} con­trol of edu­ca­tion a usurp­a­tion of a so­cial func­tion. (His­tor­ic­ally of course, the Edu­ca­tion Act of 1870 didn{{t}} {{qq|usurp}} any­body{{s}} func­tion, but if you ac­cept the con­cep­tion of an in­verse rela­tion­ship between the state and so­ciety—the strength of one re­sult­ing from the weak­ness of the other—you can see how the so­cial organ­isa­tion of popular edu­ca­tion was, so to speak, at­rophied in ad­vance, by its polit­ical organ­isa­tion. That this has not been the dis­aster—though some would say it has—that anarch­ist think­ers like {{p|280}}Godwin pre­dic­ted, has been due to the local dif­fu­sion of con­trol, the di­ver­gent aims of teach­ers and the re­sili­ence of chil­dren). | {{tab}}The anarch­ist, seek­ing func­tional, as op­posed to polit­ical, answers to so­cial needs, and con­trast­ing the so­cial prin­ciple with the polit­ical prin­ciple, sees in the state{{s}} con­trol of edu­ca­tion a usurp­a­tion of a so­cial func­tion. (His­tor­ic­ally of course, the Edu­ca­tion Act of 1870 didn{{t}} {{qq|usurp}} any­body{{s}} func­tion, but if you ac­cept the con­cep­tion of an in­verse rela­tion­ship between the state and so­ciety—the strength of one re­sult­ing from the weak­ness of the other—you can see how the so­cial organ­isa­tion of popular edu­ca­tion was, so to speak, at­rophied in ad­vance, by its polit­ical organ­isa­tion. That this has not been the dis­aster—though some would say it has—that anarch­ist think­ers like {{p|280}}Godwin pre­dic­ted, has been due to the local dif­fu­sion of con­trol, the di­ver­gent aims of teach­ers and the re­sili­ence of chil­dren). | ||
− | {{tab}}Func­tion­ally, the ad­min­istra­tion of the school is the con­cern of parents and teach­ers, and if we really seek a so­ciety of auto­nom­ous free as­so­ci­a­tions we must see such bodies as {{w|parent-teacher as­so­ci­a­tions|Parent-Teacher_Association}} as the kind of organ­isa­tion whose even­tual and {{qq|natural}} func­tion is to take over the schools from the {{w|Ministry|Ministry_of_Education_(United_Kingdom)}}, the {{w|County Coun­cils|County_council#United_Kingdom}}, the Dir­ect­ors, In­spect­ors, Managers and Gov­ern­ors who, in a so­ciety domi­nated by the polit­ical prin­ciple are in­evit­ably their con­trol­lers. I don{{t}} know whether schools so ad­min­istered would be any better or any wrose than they are at present, but I do believe that a {{qq|self-regula­ting}} so­ciety would run its schools that way. Among in­de­pend­ent schools in this country which ex­em­plify this kind of organ­isa­tion, there used to be [[Anarchy 43/Progressive experience|Burgess Hill School]] (de­scribed by one of the [[Author:Olive Markham|parents]] in this issue of {{sc|anarchy}}) which was owned by a Friendly So­ciety of parents and teach­ers and there still is {{w|King Alfred School|King_Alfred_School,_London}}, governed by a so­ciety of people in­ter­ested in modern edu­ca­tional methods and {{qq|ad­min­istered by an ad­vis­ory coun­cil of pupils and staff}}. I have not heard of any parent-teacher as­so­ci­a­tions in the ordin­ary school system which aspire to such func­tions, though with the de­velop­ment of a vari­ety of organ­isa­tions in the last few years con­cerned with in­ter­est­ing parents in edu­ca­tion, one can imagine the mem­bers re­flect­ing after a time on whether their own in­tense {{qq|par­ti­cip­a­tion}} had not rendered the usual com­plic­ated and ex­pens­ive bureau­cracy of school ad­min­istra­tion super­flu­ous. | + | {{tab}}Func­tion­ally, the ad­min­istra­tion of the school is the con­cern of parents and teach­ers, and if we really seek a so­ciety of auto­nom­ous free as­so­ci­a­tions we must see such bodies as {{w|parent-teacher as­so­ci­a­tions|Parent-Teacher_Association|Parent-Teacher Association}} as the kind of organ­isa­tion whose even­tual and {{qq|natural}} func­tion is to take over the schools from the {{w|Ministry|Ministry_of_Education_(United_Kingdom)|Ministry of Education}}, the {{w|County Coun­cils|County_council#United_Kingdom|County council}}, the Dir­ect­ors, In­spect­ors, Managers and Gov­ern­ors who, in a so­ciety domi­nated by the polit­ical prin­ciple are in­evit­ably their con­trol­lers. I don{{t}} know whether schools so ad­min­istered would be any better or any wrose than they are at present, but I do believe that a {{qq|self-regula­ting}} so­ciety would run its schools that way. Among in­de­pend­ent schools in this country which ex­em­plify this kind of organ­isa­tion, there used to be [[Anarchy 43/Progressive experience|Burgess Hill School]] (de­scribed by one of the [[Author:Olive Markham|parents]] in this issue of {{sc|anarchy}}) which was owned by a Friendly So­ciety of parents and teach­ers and there still is {{w|King Alfred School|King_Alfred_School,_London}}, governed by a so­ciety of people in­ter­ested in modern edu­ca­tional methods and {{qq|ad­min­istered by an ad­vis­ory coun­cil of pupils and staff}}. I have not heard of any parent-teacher as­so­ci­a­tions in the ordin­ary school system which aspire to such func­tions, though with the de­velop­ment of a vari­ety of organ­isa­tions in the last few years con­cerned with in­ter­est­ing parents in edu­ca­tion, one can imagine the mem­bers re­flect­ing after a time on whether their own in­tense {{qq|par­ti­cip­a­tion}} had not rendered the usual com­plic­ated and ex­pens­ive bureau­cracy of school ad­min­istra­tion super­flu­ous. |
{{tab}}The men­tion of parent-teacher as­so­ci­a­tions—in theory an epitome of the kind of so­cial organ­isa­tion which anarch­ists en­vis­age—re­minds us of their greater de­velop­ment in America, and the fact that this has not had ex­actly the re­sults that we as anarch­ists would find de­sir­able. In his book ''On Being Human'', writing about the school as {{qq|a most im­port­ant agency in the teach­ing of the art and sci­ence of human rela­tions}}, the an­thro­po­lo­gist and bio­lo­gist {{w|Ashley Montagu|Ashley_Montagu}} de­clares: | {{tab}}The men­tion of parent-teacher as­so­ci­a­tions—in theory an epitome of the kind of so­cial organ­isa­tion which anarch­ists en­vis­age—re­minds us of their greater de­velop­ment in America, and the fact that this has not had ex­actly the re­sults that we as anarch­ists would find de­sir­able. In his book ''On Being Human'', writing about the school as {{qq|a most im­port­ant agency in the teach­ing of the art and sci­ence of human rela­tions}}, the an­thro­po­lo­gist and bio­lo­gist {{w|Ashley Montagu|Ashley_Montagu}} de­clares: | ||
Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
<font size="2"><blockquote>{{tab}}We must shift the em­phasis from the three Rs to the fourth R, human rela­tions, and place it first, fore­most, and always in that order of im­port­ance as the prin­cipal reason for the ex­ist­ence of the school. It must be clearly under­stood, once and for all time, that human rela­tions are the most im­port­ant of all rela­tions. Upon this under­stand­ing must be based all our edu­ca­tional poli­cies … Our teach­ers must, there­fore, be spe­cially quali­fied to teach human rela­tions …</blockquote></font> | <font size="2"><blockquote>{{tab}}We must shift the em­phasis from the three Rs to the fourth R, human rela­tions, and place it first, fore­most, and always in that order of im­port­ance as the prin­cipal reason for the ex­ist­ence of the school. It must be clearly under­stood, once and for all time, that human rela­tions are the most im­port­ant of all rela­tions. Upon this under­stand­ing must be based all our edu­ca­tional poli­cies … Our teach­ers must, there­fore, be spe­cially quali­fied to teach human rela­tions …</blockquote></font> | ||
− | {{tab}}But the kind of thing that hap­pens when this point of view filters into the school system is dis­cussed by {{w|David Riesman|David_Riesman}} in his {{qq|Thoughts on Teach­ers and Schools}}. The teach­ing func­tion, he ob­serves, {{qq|has been ex­tended to in­clude train­ing in group co-opera­tion, manners, the arts, and self-under­stand­ing, as well as large residues of the tradi­tional cur­ricu­lum}}. For Human Rela­tions has in fact already become a class­room sub­ject, but some­how not in Montagu{{s}} sense. {{qq|The school is im­plica­ted and em­broiled}}, says Riesman, {{qq|in the changing forms {{p|281}}of America{{s}} pre­oc­cu­pa­tion with suc­cess—the patina of suc­cess now being de­fined by such terms as {{q|group co-opera­tion}}, {{q|self-under­stand­ing}}, {{q|per­sonal ad­just­ment}} and {{q|get­ting along with people}}.}}<!-- end quotation omitted in original; all inner quotations double in original --> The pro­gres­sive edu­ca­tion move­ment, spread­ing in a dis­torted fashion through the state school systems, has, he feels, dove­tailed with the {{qq|mind­less prag­mat­ism and voca­tion­al­ism}} which the schools ab­sorb from their so­cial sur­round­ings, from parents, super­vis­ors, tax­payers and the vari­ety of pres­sure groups, great and small which sur­round the American school boards. Mean­while the teach­ers lead lives of harried des­per­a­tion fight­ing a {{qq|losing battle in de­fence of the tradi­tional intel­lec­tual values}}. And he evolves, on the ana­logy of {{w|Keynes­ian eco­nomics|Keynesian_economics}} a ''counter-cyc­lical'' theory of edu­ca­tion. Just as {{w|Keynes|John_Maynard_Keynes}} re­com­mended spend­ing in times of {{w|de­pres­sion|Depression_(economics)}}, so Riesman re­com­mends that {{qq|teach­ers, in se­lect­ing among the ex­pecta­tions held out to them, have some modest op­por­tun­ities to op­pose life in its moment­ary ex­cesses}}. He wants {{qq|to en­courage some of them to give up trying to be psy­chi­at­rists, mothers<!-- 'mothersm' in original --> and moral­ists, to give up making cit­izens, demo­crats, and toler­ant chil­dren. Could they not be per­suaded to con­cen­trate more than many now feel justi­fied in doing, on their roles as teach­ers of spe­cific sub­jects? This is, after all, a job no one else is as­signed or trained to do.}} | + | {{tab}}But the kind of thing that hap­pens when this point of view filters into the school system is dis­cussed by {{w|David Riesman|David_Riesman}} in his {{qq|Thoughts on Teach­ers and Schools}}. The teach­ing func­tion, he ob­serves, {{qq|has been ex­tended to in­clude train­ing in group co-opera­tion, manners, the arts, and self-under­stand­ing, as well as large residues of the tradi­tional cur­ricu­lum}}. For Human Rela­tions has in fact already become a class­room sub­ject, but some­how not in Montagu{{s}} sense. {{qq|The school is im­plica­ted and em­broiled}}, says Riesman, {{qq|in the changing forms {{p|281}}of America{{s}} pre­oc­cu­pa­tion with suc­cess—the patina of suc­cess now being de­fined by such terms as {{q|group co-opera­tion}}, {{q|self-under­stand­ing}}, {{q|per­sonal ad­just­ment}} and {{q|get­ting along with people}}.}}<!-- end quotation omitted in original; all inner quotations double in original --> The pro­gres­sive edu­ca­tion move­ment, spread­ing in a dis­torted fashion through the state school systems, has, he feels, dove­tailed with the {{qq|mind­less prag­mat­ism and voca­tion­al­ism}} which the schools ab­sorb from their so­cial sur­round­ings, from parents, super­vis­ors, tax­payers and the vari­ety of pres­sure groups, great and small which sur­round the American school boards. Mean­while the teach­ers lead lives of harried des­per­a­tion fight­ing a {{qq|losing battle in de­fence of the tradi­tional intel­lec­tual values}}. And he evolves, on the ana­logy of {{w|Keynes­ian eco­nomics|Keynesian_economics}} a ''counter-cyc­lical'' theory of edu­ca­tion. Just as {{w|Keynes|John_Maynard_Keynes|John Maynard Keynes}} re­com­mended spend­ing in times of {{w|de­pres­sion|Depression_(economics)|Depression (economics)}}, so Riesman re­com­mends that {{qq|teach­ers, in se­lect­ing among the ex­pecta­tions held out to them, have some modest op­por­tun­ities to op­pose life in its moment­ary ex­cesses}}. He wants {{qq|to en­courage some of them to give up trying to be psy­chi­at­rists, mothers<!-- 'mothersm' in original --> and moral­ists, to give up making cit­izens, demo­crats, and toler­ant chil­dren. Could they not be per­suaded to con­cen­trate more than many now feel justi­fied in doing, on their roles as teach­ers of spe­cific sub­jects? This is, after all, a job no one else is as­signed or trained to do.}} |
− | {{tab}}Montagu writes that {{qq|A so­ciety such as ours, in which human rela­tions are sub­merged in the eco­nomic system, can rescue itself only by sub­merging its eco­nomy in the matrix of human rela­tions … And this is the task that the schools must assist in under­taking, no less that the rescue of man from his de­basing en­slave­ment to the prin­ciples and prac­tices of an aquis­it­ive so­ciety}}. But how does the at­tempt work out? We may gain a clue from the book {{popup|''Crestwood Heights'': ''A North American Suburb''|University of Toronto Press (1956)}} by {{popup|Seeley|John R. Seeley}}, {{popup|Sim|R. Alexander Sim}} and {{popup|Loosley|Elizabeth W. Loosley}}. {{w|Crest­wood Heights|Forest_Hill,_Toronto}}<!-- "Crestwood Heights" is pseudonymous and refers to Toronto's Forest Hill, according to Allan Levine in Toronto: Biography of a City (2014). --> is built around its modern, well-equipped and en­light­ened schools. It is par­ticu­larly {{qq|child-ori­ented}} and the Crest­wood Heights parents {{qq|ap­pear to have ac­cepted nearly all the values which the human­ists, the liber­als, and the psy­chi­atric­ally ori­ented speak­ers and writers have ad­voc­ated over the last fifty years.}} All the right ad­ject­ives are used. {{qq|In the city}}, writes William J. Newman, {{qq|com­peti­tion is open, ac­know­ledged, and brutal; in the suburb toler­a­tion, per­mis­sive­ness, and in­di­vidual choice are the rule. The child is brought up as an auto­no­mous spon­tan­eous in­di­vidual: thus the open glass school. The suburb will pro­vide the arena in which the family and espe­cially the chil­dren can emerge as {{q|free}} and {{q|re­spons­ible}}, ready to take their place in the world.}} But the well-meaning parents of Crest­wood Heights are pur­su­ing for their chil­dren two contra­dict­ory goals, {{qq|suc­cess}} and {{qq|psy­cho­logical matur­ity}}. The authors ob­serve that: | + | {{tab}}Montagu writes that {{qq|A so­ciety such as ours, in which human rela­tions are sub­merged in the eco­nomic system, can rescue itself only by sub­merging its eco­nomy in the matrix of human rela­tions … And this is the task that the schools must assist in under­taking, no less that the rescue of man from his de­basing en­slave­ment to the prin­ciples and prac­tices of an aquis­it­ive so­ciety}}. But how does the at­tempt work out? We may gain a clue from the book {{popup|''Crestwood Heights'': ''A North American Suburb''|University of Toronto Press (1956)}} by {{popup|Seeley|John R. Seeley}}, {{popup|Sim|R. Alexander Sim}} and {{popup|Loosley|Elizabeth W. Loosley}}. {{w|Crest­wood Heights|Forest_Hill,_Toronto|Forest Hill, Toronto}}<!-- "Crestwood Heights" is pseudonymous and refers to Toronto's Forest Hill, according to Allan Levine in Toronto: Biography of a City (2014). --> is built around its modern, well-equipped and en­light­ened schools. It is par­ticu­larly {{qq|child-ori­ented}} and the Crest­wood Heights parents {{qq|ap­pear to have ac­cepted nearly all the values which the human­ists, the liber­als, and the psy­chi­atric­ally ori­ented speak­ers and writers have ad­voc­ated over the last fifty years.}} All the right ad­ject­ives are used. {{qq|In the city}}, writes William J. Newman, {{qq|com­peti­tion is open, ac­know­ledged, and brutal; in the suburb toler­a­tion, per­mis­sive­ness, and in­di­vidual choice are the rule. The child is brought up as an auto­no­mous spon­tan­eous in­di­vidual: thus the open glass school. The suburb will pro­vide the arena in which the family and espe­cially the chil­dren can emerge as {{q|free}} and {{q|re­spons­ible}}, ready to take their place in the world.}} But the well-meaning parents of Crest­wood Heights are pur­su­ing for their chil­dren two contra­dict­ory goals, {{qq|suc­cess}} and {{qq|psy­cho­logical matur­ity}}. The authors ob­serve that: |
<font size="2"><blockquote>{{tab}}The child must be free in ac­cord­ance with demo­cratic ideo­logy; but he must, by no means, become free to the point of re­noun­cing either the ma­terial suc­cess goals or the en­gin­eered co-opera­tion in­tegral to the ad­equate func­tion­ing of an in­dus­trial civil­isa­tion.</blockquote></font> | <font size="2"><blockquote>{{tab}}The child must be free in ac­cord­ance with demo­cratic ideo­logy; but he must, by no means, become free to the point of re­noun­cing either the ma­terial suc­cess goals or the en­gin­eered co-opera­tion in­tegral to the ad­equate func­tion­ing of an in­dus­trial civil­isa­tion.</blockquote></font> | ||
Line 101: | Line 101: | ||
− | {{tab}}In this country the pioneer of parent-teacher co-opera­tion was the Home and School Com­mit­tee of the {{l|New Edu­ca­tion Fel­low­ship|http://www.wef-international.org/}}. An­other body, the Na­tional Fed­er­a­tion of {{w|Parent-Teacher As­so­ci­a­tions|Parent-Teacher_Association#United_Kingdom}} was founded in 1956, link­ing together many exist­ing bodies. Some of these as­so­ci­a­tions have sprung up in a neg­at­ive way to resist, and in some cases suc­cess­fully avert {{qq|closing-down}} orders for schools. In the case of one in­de­pend­ent school in London ({{w|St. Paul{{s}} Junior School|St_Paul's_Juniors}}, {{w|Hammer­smith|Hammersmith}}) due to be closed down because the exist­ing build­ing could not eco­nom­ically be kept in repair while the trust­ees could not find the money for a new build­ing, the parents suc­cess­fully raised loans for it, an­noun­cing that they {{qq|would ac­cept finan­cial and edu­ca­tional re­spons­ibil­ity for a new school}}. Other as­so­ci­a­tions con­nected with both primary and second­ary schools have pro­vided their schools with swim­ming baths, or have seen their func­tion in im­prov­ing the school{{s}} equip­ment—pro­viding such equip­ment as record-players, film-pro­jec­tors, stage-light­ing and so on. On the pit­falls and pos­sibil­ities of this kind of organ­isa­tion, the staff at one school re­ported that: | + | {{tab}}In this country the pioneer of parent-teacher co-opera­tion was the Home and School Com­mit­tee of the {{l|New Edu­ca­tion Fel­low­ship|http://www.wef-international.org/|World Education Fellowship web site}}. An­other body, the Na­tional Fed­er­a­tion of {{w|Parent-Teacher As­so­ci­a­tions|Parent-Teacher_Association#United_Kingdom|Parent-Teacher Association}} was founded in 1956, link­ing together many exist­ing bodies. Some of these as­so­ci­a­tions have sprung up in a neg­at­ive way to resist, and in some cases suc­cess­fully avert {{qq|closing-down}} orders for schools. In the case of one in­de­pend­ent school in London ({{w|St. Paul{{s}} Junior School|St_Paul's_Juniors|St Paul's Juniors}}, {{w|Hammer­smith|Hammersmith}}) due to be closed down because the exist­ing build­ing could not eco­nom­ically be kept in repair while the trust­ees could not find the money for a new build­ing, the parents suc­cess­fully raised loans for it, an­noun­cing that they {{qq|would ac­cept finan­cial and edu­ca­tional re­spons­ibil­ity for a new school}}. Other as­so­ci­a­tions con­nected with both primary and second­ary schools have pro­vided their schools with swim­ming baths, or have seen their func­tion in im­prov­ing the school{{s}} equip­ment—pro­viding such equip­ment as record-players, film-pro­jec­tors, stage-light­ing and so on. On the pit­falls and pos­sibil­ities of this kind of organ­isa­tion, the staff at one school re­ported that: |
<font size="2"><blockquote>{{tab}}… the pro­gress of several chil­dren in arith­metic was being im­peded by well-inten­tioned ef­forts to help them at home. At a series of even­ing meet­ings, the staff worked through spe­ci­men arith­metic papers with the fath­ers and moth­ers, ex­plain­ing the par­tic­u­lar methods in use at the school. Simil­arly, the head­mis­tress of a village school intro­duced italic hand­writ­ing, a move which ap­peared to per­turb some parents. As a result of dis­cus­sion several moth­ers became inter­ested and asked her to ar­range even­ing classes so that they might learn it for them­selves.</blockquote></font> | <font size="2"><blockquote>{{tab}}… the pro­gress of several chil­dren in arith­metic was being im­peded by well-inten­tioned ef­forts to help them at home. At a series of even­ing meet­ings, the staff worked through spe­ci­men arith­metic papers with the fath­ers and moth­ers, ex­plain­ing the par­tic­u­lar methods in use at the school. Simil­arly, the head­mis­tress of a village school intro­duced italic hand­writ­ing, a move which ap­peared to per­turb some parents. As a result of dis­cus­sion several moth­ers became inter­ested and asked her to ar­range even­ing classes so that they might learn it for them­selves.</blockquote></font> | ||
Line 111: | Line 111: | ||
− | {{tab}}Another of the dif­fi­culties fre­quently met in the rela­tions of parents and teach­ers is the narrow con­cern dis­played so fre­quently by the anxious middle-class parents in little Johnny{{s}} {{w|11-plus|Eleven-plus}} or {{w|GCE|General_Certificate_of_Education}} pro­spects, to the ex­clu­sion of an interest in the class or the school or the age-group as a whole. The at­ti­tude may be under­stand­able, but it is never­the­less prim­itive to those who see as one of the pleas­ures of parent­hood an en­large­ment of sym­pathy and con­cern from one{{s}} own bio­lo­gical off­spring to chil­dren in general. Two other more recent de­velop­ments in edu­ca­tional organ­isa­tions may help to bring about this wider view which is cer­tainly a pre­requis­ite for the parent-teacher control of edu­ca­tion which we see as an eventual aim. | + | {{tab}}Another of the dif­fi­culties fre­quently met in the rela­tions of parents and teach­ers is the narrow con­cern dis­played so fre­quently by the anxious middle-class parents in little Johnny{{s}} {{w|11-plus|Eleven-plus|Eleven-plus}} or {{w|GCE|General_Certificate_of_Education|General Certificate of Education}} pro­spects, to the ex­clu­sion of an interest in the class or the school or the age-group as a whole. The at­ti­tude may be under­stand­able, but it is never­the­less prim­itive to those who see as one of the pleas­ures of parent­hood an en­large­ment of sym­pathy and con­cern from one{{s}} own bio­lo­gical off­spring to chil­dren in general. Two other more recent de­velop­ments in edu­ca­tional organ­isa­tions may help to bring about this wider view which is cer­tainly a pre­requis­ite for the parent-teacher control of edu­ca­tion which we see as an eventual aim. |
− | {{p|284}}{{tab}}The first of these is ACE, the {{l|Advis­ory Centre for Edu­ca­tion| | + | {{p|284}}{{tab}}The first of these is ACE, the {{l|Advis­ory Centre for Edu­ca­tion|https://socialinnovationexchange.org/insights/advisory-centre-education|Social Innovation Exchange article}} founded in 1960. This is an­other brain-child of {{w|Michael Young|Michael_Young,_Baron_Young_of_Dartington}} who started the {{w|Insti­tute of Commun­ity Studies|Institute_of_Community_Studies}} and the Con­sum­er{{s|r}} As­so­ci­a­tion, and just as the latter organ­isa­tion and its journal {{w|''Which''|Which%3F|Which?}} seeks to im­prove the qual­ity of our con­sump­tion of goods and ser­vices, so ACE and its journal ''Where''? (sub­scrip­tion £1 a year) seeks to give the same kind of in­depend­ent, un­biased as­sess­ment and ad­vice for the con­sum­ers of edu­ca­tion. The con­sumer ap­proach with its im­plied philo­sophy of {{qq|he who pays the piper calls the tune}} could be the vehicle of a narrow {{w|phil­istin­ism|Philistinism|Philistinism}}, but in prac­tice it is sound and sens­ible. Michael Young returns to the theme in the annual report of the Con­sum­er{{s|r}}<!-- no apostrophe in original --> As­so­ci­a­tion, pub­lished last month. The at­ti­tude of re­gard­ing parents as intrud­ers in the schools is ruin­ous to good edu­ca­tion, he de­clares, {{qq|How can parents take an in­ter­est if they are barely al­lowed inside the schools? The sooner parents play a part in our schools, the sooner will the money be found for their im­prove­ment.}} In fact, ACE, as readers of ''Where''? will agree, is an in­valu­able medium for closing the gap between parents and teachers. |
− | {{tab}}The second of these new trends is the spring­ing-up of {{w|As­so­ci­a­tions for the Ad­vance­ment of State Edu­ca­tion|Campaign_for_State_Education}}. This move­ment again began in {{w|Cambridge|Cambridge}} in 1960, when a group of parents tried to hurry along im­prove­ments to a {{w|Newnham|Newnham,_Cambridgeshire}} primary school. They found that the poor con­di­tions were more wide­spread than they had real­ised and that re­stric­tions in edu­ca­tional ex­pend­i­ture pre­vented any­thing from being done. From the ori­ginal pres­sure group, others sprang up in dif­fer­ent parts of the country and today there are bout 90 such as­so­ci­a­tions with a total of 10,000 members feder­ated in CASE, the Con­feder­a­tion of As­so­ci­a­tions for the Ad­vance­ment of State Edu­ca­tion, which has been con­duct­ing na­tional en­quiries on a vari­ety of edu­ca­tional topics. Un­doubt­edly this move­ment—co-exist­ing, not com­peting, with Parent-Teacher As­so­ci­a­tions—<!-- comma rather than dash in original -->has helped to widen people{{s}} field of con­cern from one child in one school, to the schools of the city or county and of the country. | + | {{tab}}The second of these new trends is the spring­ing-up of {{w|As­so­ci­a­tions for the Ad­vance­ment of State Edu­ca­tion|Campaign_for_State_Education|Campaign for State Education}}. This move­ment again began in {{w|Cambridge|Cambridge}} in 1960, when a group of parents tried to hurry along im­prove­ments to a {{w|Newnham|Newnham,_Cambridgeshire}} primary school. They found that the poor con­di­tions were more wide­spread than they had real­ised and that re­stric­tions in edu­ca­tional ex­pend­i­ture pre­vented any­thing from being done. From the ori­ginal pres­sure group, others sprang up in dif­fer­ent parts of the country and today there are bout 90 such as­so­ci­a­tions with a total of 10,000 members feder­ated in CASE, the Con­feder­a­tion of As­so­ci­a­tions for the Ad­vance­ment of State Edu­ca­tion, which has been con­duct­ing na­tional en­quiries on a vari­ety of edu­ca­tional topics. Un­doubt­edly this move­ment—co-exist­ing, not com­peting, with Parent-Teacher As­so­ci­a­tions—<!-- comma rather than dash in original -->has helped to widen people{{s}} field of con­cern from one child in one school, to the schools of the city or county and of the country. |
{{tab}}Before get­ting too ex­cited about this trend of course, we should at­tend an as­so­ci­a­tion meet­ing, to dis­cover, once again, the solidly middle-class at­tend­ance and the dis­con­cert­ingly vo­ca­tional at­ti­tudes to edu­ca­tion ex­pressed from the floor. However, what better forum could there be for the edu­ca­tion of parents? And is it in­con­ceiv­able that some, without adopt­ing an at­ti­tude of patron­age or su­peri­or­ity, could de­vote them­selves to bring­ing others in? | {{tab}}Before get­ting too ex­cited about this trend of course, we should at­tend an as­so­ci­a­tion meet­ing, to dis­cover, once again, the solidly middle-class at­tend­ance and the dis­con­cert­ingly vo­ca­tional at­ti­tudes to edu­ca­tion ex­pressed from the floor. However, what better forum could there be for the edu­ca­tion of parents? And is it in­con­ceiv­able that some, without adopt­ing an at­ti­tude of patron­age or su­peri­or­ity, could de­vote them­selves to bring­ing others in? | ||
Line 133: | Line 133: | ||
− | {{tab}}Are there ways in which parents can push further into the de­cision-making bodies on edu­ca­tion?<!-- period in original --> The ori­ginal Cambridge As­so­ci­a­tion for the Ad­vance­ment of State Edu­ca­tion put up two members as in­depend­ent can­did­ates for the county council elec­tions. One was elected and is now on the edu­ca­tion com­mit­tee. This is hardly a pro­cedure which fits into an anarch­ist ap­proach to the prob­lem, although one of our fre­quent con­trib­ut­ors, [[Author:Paul Goodman|Paul Goodman]] is proud to be a School Board member in {{w|New York|New_York_City}}. But what about parents as school gov­ernors or school man­agers? (Readers inter­ested will find an article on what their func­tions are and how they are ap­pointed in ''Where''? No. 10). Dis­cus­sing parent-teacher rela­tions in a letter to the {{w|''New States­man''|New_Statesman}} in March this year, Mr. John McCann made an inter­est­ing point which most of us never knew and which should pro­vide useful am­muni­tion in argu­ments with local au­thor­ities: that back in 1944 the gov­ern­ment gave a pledge that parents would be properly rep­res­ented on the man­aging bodies of the schools at­tended by their chil­dren. Mr. McCann says: | + | {{tab}}Are there ways in which parents can push further into the de­cision-making bodies on edu­ca­tion?<!-- period in original --> The ori­ginal Cambridge As­so­ci­a­tion for the Ad­vance­ment of State Edu­ca­tion put up two members as in­depend­ent can­did­ates for the county council elec­tions. One was elected and is now on the edu­ca­tion com­mit­tee. This is hardly a pro­cedure which fits into an anarch­ist ap­proach to the prob­lem, although one of our fre­quent con­trib­ut­ors, [[Author:Paul Goodman|Paul Goodman]] is proud to be a School Board member in {{w|New York|New_York_City|New York City}}. But what about parents as school gov­ernors or school man­agers? (Readers inter­ested will find an article on what their func­tions are and how they are ap­pointed in ''Where''? No. 10). Dis­cus­sing parent-teacher rela­tions in a letter to the {{w|''New States­man''|New_Statesman}} in March this year, Mr. John McCann made an inter­est­ing point which most of us never knew and which should pro­vide useful am­muni­tion in argu­ments with local au­thor­ities: that back in 1944 the gov­ern­ment gave a pledge that parents would be properly rep­res­ented on the man­aging bodies of the schools at­tended by their chil­dren. Mr. McCann says: |
− | <font size="2"><blockquote>{{tab}}At the Com­mit­tee stage of the {{w|1944 Edu­ca­tion Act|Education_Act_1944}} the gov­ern­ment gave an under­taking to see that parents would be pro­perly rep­res­ented on the man­aging bodies of primary schools. It was stated that they were not to be {{qq|drawn from a dif­fer­ent so­cial stratum from that in which the pupils of the schools are found, but that some, at least, of the Man­agers will be people who live the daily life of the village or town, who are in close as­so­ci­a­tion with the parents, and can make the wishes of the parents known to the Man­agers and to the teach­ers.}} This ad­mir­able prin­ciple was laid down in the form of an under­taking which is binding—for it was on that as­sur­ance that a Member of Par­lia­ment with­drew an amend­ment he had pro­posed.</blockquote></font> | + | <font size="2"><blockquote>{{tab}}At the Com­mit­tee stage of the {{w|1944 Edu­ca­tion Act|Education_Act_1944|Education Act 1944}} the gov­ern­ment gave an under­taking to see that parents would be pro­perly rep­res­ented on the man­aging bodies of primary schools. It was stated that they were not to be {{qq|drawn from a dif­fer­ent so­cial stratum from that in which the pupils of the schools are found, but that some, at least, of the Man­agers will be people who live the daily life of the village or town, who are in close as­so­ci­a­tion with the parents, and can make the wishes of the parents known to the Man­agers and to the teach­ers.}} This ad­mir­able prin­ciple was laid down in the form of an under­taking which is binding—for it was on that as­sur­ance that a Member of Par­lia­ment with­drew an amend­ment he had pro­posed.</blockquote></font> |
<font size="2"><blockquote>{{tab}}This under­taking has not been im­ple­mented. Some au­thor­ities try to see that parents are genu­inely rep­res­ented, some pay lip service to the prin­ciple, some regard the prin­ciple with sus­pi­cion. The bodies which ap­point Founda­tion Man­agers of vol­un­tary schools often come into the last cat­egory. Hun­dreds of years of strife over elect­oral rep­res­ent­a­tion have shown that there is only one way to achieve ad­equate rep­res­ent­a­tion; that is for the people con­cerned to elect their own rep­res­ent­at­ive. No nom­in­a­tion from above is going {{p|286}}to work or to sat­isfy the people who want to be rep­res­ented.</blockquote></font> | <font size="2"><blockquote>{{tab}}This under­taking has not been im­ple­mented. Some au­thor­ities try to see that parents are genu­inely rep­res­ented, some pay lip service to the prin­ciple, some regard the prin­ciple with sus­pi­cion. The bodies which ap­point Founda­tion Man­agers of vol­un­tary schools often come into the last cat­egory. Hun­dreds of years of strife over elect­oral rep­res­ent­a­tion have shown that there is only one way to achieve ad­equate rep­res­ent­a­tion; that is for the people con­cerned to elect their own rep­res­ent­at­ive. No nom­in­a­tion from above is going {{p|286}}to work or to sat­isfy the people who want to be rep­res­ented.</blockquote></font> | ||
− | <font size="2"><blockquote>{{tab}}The gov­ern­ment under­taking could be honoured very simply, without any change in the law, if the {{w|Min­ister of Edu­ca­tion|Secretary_of_State_for_Education}} would ask local au­thor­ities to ap­point one Man­ager ''who had been elected at a meet­ing of parents con­vened by the head­master''. The parents should have the right to elect one of them­selves or any other person (other than those already dis­qual­ified—teach­ers at the school, trades­men sup­ply­ing the school, etc.). Local edu­ca­tion au­thor­ities ap­point one, two or four Man­agers ac­cord­ing to whether it is an {{w|Aided|Voluntary_aided_school}}, {{w|Con­trolled|Voluntary_controlled_school}} or {{w|County|Community_school_(England_and_Wales)}} school. I am sug­gesting in all cases that this elec­tion pro­ced­ure be ap­plied to the ap­point­ment of one {{w|LEA|Local_education_authority}} Man­ager.</blockquote></font> | + | <font size="2"><blockquote>{{tab}}The gov­ern­ment under­taking could be honoured very simply, without any change in the law, if the {{w|Min­ister of Edu­ca­tion|Secretary_of_State_for_Education|Secretary of State for Education}} would ask local au­thor­ities to ap­point one Man­ager ''who had been elected at a meet­ing of parents con­vened by the head­master''. The parents should have the right to elect one of them­selves or any other person (other than those already dis­qual­ified—teach­ers at the school, trades­men sup­ply­ing the school, etc.). Local edu­ca­tion au­thor­ities ap­point one, two or four Man­agers ac­cord­ing to whether it is an {{w|Aided|Voluntary_aided_school|Voluntary aided school}}, {{w|Con­trolled|Voluntary_controlled_school|Voluntary controlled school}} or {{w|County|Community_school_(England_and_Wales)|Community school}} school. I am sug­gesting in all cases that this elec­tion pro­ced­ure be ap­plied to the ap­point­ment of one {{w|LEA|Local_education_authority|Local education authority}} Man­ager.</blockquote></font> |
<font size="2"><blockquote>{{tab}}It is some­times said that School Man­agers have no powers. At Aided schools they have very real powers, at all schools they have duties. Man­aging bodies vary greatly in the ex­tent to which they fulfil their duties, but in the most suc­cess­ful schools they per­form a valu­able service par­tic­u­larly in the field of parent-school rela­tion­ships.</blockquote></font> | <font size="2"><blockquote>{{tab}}It is some­times said that School Man­agers have no powers. At Aided schools they have very real powers, at all schools they have duties. Man­aging bodies vary greatly in the ex­tent to which they fulfil their duties, but in the most suc­cess­ful schools they per­form a valu­able service par­tic­u­larly in the field of parent-school rela­tion­ships.</blockquote></font> | ||
Line 149: | Line 149: | ||
{{tab}}And how do teach­ers react to all this? Many of course are de­lighted to make con­tact with the parents of their pupils and to feel that they have a shared con­cern. Their only regret is that the parents whom they most need to meet are the very ones they never see at open-days, parent-teacher func­tions and so on. Rela­tions are closest in the in­fant{{s|r}} school and seem to dwindle away later. {{qq|What hap­pens then}} asks Jean Rintoul, {{qq|that this close parent-teacher rela­tion­ship should be broken as the child gets older until, in the later second­ary years, it is worse than non-exist­ent? Is the teacher to blame and, if the teacher is, will a brief talk with a parent at an ap­pro­pri­ately-spaced {{q|surgery}} suf­fice? The answer to that is in the answer to an­other ques­tion: {{q|Who are the parents who are going to at­tend the sur­gery?}} That{{s}} an easy ques­tion and every teacher can answer it. They will be the same parents who at­tend the parent-teacher as­so­ci­a­tion meet­ings, the school prize-givings, the school con­cert or play; the same parents whose chil­dren are readily iden­ti­fi­able in every class because such chil­dren ex­hibit all the well-being and con­fid­ence that a priv­ileged home provides.}} This is one of the prob­lems of parent-teacher relations for which a solu­tion has not been found. | {{tab}}And how do teach­ers react to all this? Many of course are de­lighted to make con­tact with the parents of their pupils and to feel that they have a shared con­cern. Their only regret is that the parents whom they most need to meet are the very ones they never see at open-days, parent-teacher func­tions and so on. Rela­tions are closest in the in­fant{{s|r}} school and seem to dwindle away later. {{qq|What hap­pens then}} asks Jean Rintoul, {{qq|that this close parent-teacher rela­tion­ship should be broken as the child gets older until, in the later second­ary years, it is worse than non-exist­ent? Is the teacher to blame and, if the teacher is, will a brief talk with a parent at an ap­pro­pri­ately-spaced {{q|surgery}} suf­fice? The answer to that is in the answer to an­other ques­tion: {{q|Who are the parents who are going to at­tend the sur­gery?}} That{{s}} an easy ques­tion and every teacher can answer it. They will be the same parents who at­tend the parent-teacher as­so­ci­a­tion meet­ings, the school prize-givings, the school con­cert or play; the same parents whose chil­dren are readily iden­ti­fi­able in every class because such chil­dren ex­hibit all the well-being and con­fid­ence that a priv­ileged home provides.}} This is one of the prob­lems of parent-teacher relations for which a solu­tion has not been found. | ||
− | {{tab}}There are teach­ers too, who have a deep sus­pi­cion of par­ental en­croach­ment on their func­tions and their au­to­nomy. Their point of view was put with more-than-usual frank­ness by Mr. G. B. Corrin in a letter to the {{w|''Times Edu­ca­tional Sup­ple­ment''|TES_(magazine)}} ({{popup|10/4/64|10 April 1964}}). Com­ment­ing on a pro­posal by an {{popup|AASE|Association for the Advancement of State Education}} sec­ret­ary that time for even­ing meet­ings with parents should be written into the teach­er{{s}} con­di­tions of service, Mr. Corrin asked: | + | {{tab}}There are teach­ers too, who have a deep sus­pi­cion of par­ental en­croach­ment on their func­tions and their au­to­nomy. Their point of view was put with more-than-usual frank­ness by Mr. G. B. Corrin in a letter to the {{w|''Times Edu­ca­tional Sup­ple­ment''|TES_(magazine)|TES (magazine)}} ({{popup|10/4/64|10 April 1964}}). Com­ment­ing on a pro­posal by an {{popup|AASE|Association for the Advancement of State Education}} sec­ret­ary that time for even­ing meet­ings with parents should be written into the teach­er{{s}} con­di­tions of service, Mr. Corrin asked: |
<font size="2"><blockquote>{{tab}}When the child of one of these parents goes into hos­pital for an oper­a­tion, do they demand a meet­ing with the sur­geon at a time con­veni­ent to them­selves and then criti­cise his methods? I con­sider myself as highly trained and as ex­peri­enced in my work as any sur­geon, and I resent this in­tru­sion by the ignor­ant, who ap­par­ently have no faith in my abil­ity to do the job for which I am paid. Parent-teacher as­so­ci­a­tions and such-like may be useful for raising money which the gov­ern­ment is too parsi­mo­ni­ous to pro­vide and ar­ran­ging so­cial activ­ities for those who have nothing better to do, but, in my ex­peri­ence they in no way benefit the edu­ca­tion of the chil­dren and can become a posit­ive {{p|287}}nuis­ance because of their in­abil­ity to resist the temp­ta­tion to inter­fere. Cer­tainly, many parents are ignor­ant about edu­ca­tion, but is it the teach­er{{s|r}} busi­ness to in­struct them? If so, let classes be ar­ranged and the teach­ers re­muner­ated. But parents can­not plead ignor­ance and at the same time demand the right to inter­fere with those who have been pro­perly trained to carry out the edu­ca­tion of their chil­dren.</blockquote></font> | <font size="2"><blockquote>{{tab}}When the child of one of these parents goes into hos­pital for an oper­a­tion, do they demand a meet­ing with the sur­geon at a time con­veni­ent to them­selves and then criti­cise his methods? I con­sider myself as highly trained and as ex­peri­enced in my work as any sur­geon, and I resent this in­tru­sion by the ignor­ant, who ap­par­ently have no faith in my abil­ity to do the job for which I am paid. Parent-teacher as­so­ci­a­tions and such-like may be useful for raising money which the gov­ern­ment is too parsi­mo­ni­ous to pro­vide and ar­ran­ging so­cial activ­ities for those who have nothing better to do, but, in my ex­peri­ence they in no way benefit the edu­ca­tion of the chil­dren and can become a posit­ive {{p|287}}nuis­ance because of their in­abil­ity to resist the temp­ta­tion to inter­fere. Cer­tainly, many parents are ignor­ant about edu­ca­tion, but is it the teach­er{{s|r}} busi­ness to in­struct them? If so, let classes be ar­ranged and the teach­ers re­muner­ated. But parents can­not plead ignor­ance and at the same time demand the right to inter­fere with those who have been pro­perly trained to carry out the edu­ca­tion of their chil­dren.</blockquote></font> | ||
− | {{tab}}Obvi­ously the writer of this letter would be not only hostile, but deris­ory about our view that the form of edu­ca­tional organ­isa­tion which we should see as our aim is one in which con­trol of the schools is in the hands of as­so­ci­a­tions of parents and teach­ers. For teach­ers, as Sir {{w|Ronald Gould|Ronald_Gould_(trade_unionist)}} once put it, {{qq|neither love nor trust the parish pump.}} The vehe­mence with which London teach­ers op­posed the in­tended break-up of the {{w|LCC|London_County_Council}}{{s}} edu­ca­tion service shows how strongly they prefer the remote and im­per­sonal control of {{w|County Hall|County_Hall,_London}} to the near-at-hand inter­fering bureau­cracy of {{qq|the office}} which teach­ers in many other parts of the country suf­fer and resent. We can car­tainly under­stand, in view of the sheer number of bosses which the organ­isa­tion of edu­ca­tion has set over them, why they regard en­croach­ment by parents beyond a cer­tain point and beyond cer­tain topics, with sus­pi­cion. And when you see some of those self-con­fid­ent high-income con­sum­ers in some of the AASEs, who quite obvi­ously regard the teach­ers as their servants and not as their partners, you can see the point of this sus­pi­cion. | + | {{tab}}Obvi­ously the writer of this letter would be not only hostile, but deris­ory about our view that the form of edu­ca­tional organ­isa­tion which we should see as our aim is one in which con­trol of the schools is in the hands of as­so­ci­a­tions of parents and teach­ers. For teach­ers, as Sir {{w|Ronald Gould|Ronald_Gould_(trade_unionist)}} once put it, {{qq|neither love nor trust the parish pump.}} The vehe­mence with which London teach­ers op­posed the in­tended break-up of the {{w|LCC|London_County_Council|London County Council}}{{s}} edu­ca­tion service shows how strongly they prefer the remote and im­per­sonal control of {{w|County Hall|County_Hall,_London|County Hall, London}} to the near-at-hand inter­fering bureau­cracy of {{qq|the office}} which teach­ers in many other parts of the country suf­fer and resent. We can car­tainly under­stand, in view of the sheer number of bosses which the organ­isa­tion of edu­ca­tion has set over them, why they regard en­croach­ment by parents beyond a cer­tain point and beyond cer­tain topics, with sus­pi­cion. And when you see some of those self-con­fid­ent high-income con­sum­ers in some of the AASEs, who quite obvi­ously regard the teach­ers as their servants and not as their partners, you can see the point of this sus­pi­cion. |
{{tab}}Nor would it be wise to as­sume that it is a ques­tion of pro­gres­sive parents and re­ac­tion­ary or time-serving teach­ers. It is much more often the other way round, as every­one who has tried in humble ways to intro­duce pro­gres­sive methods into the schools has found. When Teddy O’Neill was head­master of {{w|Prestolee|Prestolee}} School in {{w|Lanca­shire|Lancashire}} and set about trans­form­ing it, it was with the sup­port of the local edu­ca­tion au­thor­ity and of the In­spect­orate, and against the hostil­ity and abuse of local parents—and it took him years to win them over. | {{tab}}Nor would it be wise to as­sume that it is a ques­tion of pro­gres­sive parents and re­ac­tion­ary or time-serving teach­ers. It is much more often the other way round, as every­one who has tried in humble ways to intro­duce pro­gres­sive methods into the schools has found. When Teddy O’Neill was head­master of {{w|Prestolee|Prestolee}} School in {{w|Lanca­shire|Lancashire}} and set about trans­form­ing it, it was with the sup­port of the local edu­ca­tion au­thor­ity and of the In­spect­orate, and against the hostil­ity and abuse of local parents—and it took him years to win them over. |
Revision as of 02:21, 26 September 2021
Reflections on
parents, teachers
and schools
The theoretical application of our ideas to the organisation of education is clear enough. The autonomous self-governing school is the aim, and in view of the obvious limits within which children may be said to govern themselves, this means in practice a school controlled by teachers by virtue of their functional responsibility to children, and by parents because of their biological responsibility for them. But the issue is more complicated, for in both primitive and complex communities it is recognised that all adults have a responsibility towards children, which because of the vagaries and vicissitudes of individual parentage, may have to be exercised on its behalf or on the child’s behalf. Once that is admitted, we have of course admitted that education is the concern of the community. But what community? The state as in France, the local authority as in the United States, or a mixture of the two as in Britain? And where does the responsibility of the community begin and end?
Should education be compulsory anyway? (And is the compulsion to be applied to the child or to the parent?) Bakunin saw the question dialectically:
The principle of authority, in the education of children, constitutes the natural point of departure; it is legitimate, necessary, when applied to children of a tender age, whose intelligence has not yet openly developed itself. But as the development of everything, and consequently of education, implies the gradual negation of the point of departure, this principle must diminish as fast as education and instruction advance, giving place to increasing liberty. All rational education is at bottom nothing but this progressive immolation of authority for the benefit of liberty, the final object of education necessarily276being the formation of free men full of respect and love for the liberty of others. Therefore the first day of the pupil’s life, if the school takes infants scarcely able as yet to stammer a few words, should be that of the greatest authority and an almost entire absence of liberty; but its last day should be that of the greatest liberty and the absolute abolition of every vestige of the animal or divine principle of authority.
Eighty-five years later, Ethel Mannin in her utopian survey Bread and Roses took a more absolutely “libertarian” line:
At this point you perhaps protest, “But if there is no compulsion, what happens if a child does not want to attend school of any kind, and the parents are not concerned to persuade him?” It is quite simple. In that case the child does not attend any school. As he becomes adolescent he may wish to acquire some learning. Or he may develop school-going friends and wish to attend school because they do. But if he doesn’t he is nevertheless learning all the time, his natural child’s creativeness working in happy alliance with his freedom. No Utopian parent would think of using that moral coercion we call ‘persuasion’. By the time he reaches adolescence the child grows tired of running wild, and begins to identify himself with grown-ups; he perceives the usefulness of knowing how to read and write and add, and there is probably some special thing he wants to learn—such as how to drive a train or build a bridge or a house. It is all very much simpler than our professional educationists would have us believe.
Some of us think it is not that simple. But the point is academic, for in practice the decision is that of the parents. Nowadays it is only highly sophisticated and educated people who bother to argue about whether or not it is desirable that children should learn the three Rs. The law in this country does not in fact require parents to send their children to school; it imposes an obligation on them to see that their children while within the compulsory age, are receiving “an appropriate education”. The occasional prosecutions of recalcitrant parents usually reveal a degree of apathy, indifference or parental incompetence that hardly provides a good case for the opponents of compulsion, though they do sometimes rope in highly conscientious parents whose views on education do not happen to coincide with those of the local authority. (Mrs. Joy Baker’s account of her long and in the end successful struggle with the authorities will be reviewed in a coming issue of anarchy). Usually, apart from a few of the rich, with their governesses and tutors, there are not many parents with the time or skill to teach their children at home, and of those who could, many must feel it unfair to deprive their children of the pleasures and social experience of belonging to a community of their peers, or may cherish the right of parents to have the kids out of their way for some of the time—and the reciprocal right of their children to be outside the parental atmosphere.
The notion that primary ecucation should be free, compulsory and universal is very much older than the English Act of 1870. It grew up with the printing press and the rise of protestantism. The rich had been educated by the Church and the sons of the rising bourgeoisie in the grammar schools of the Middle Ages. From the 16th century on arose a gradual demand that all should be taught. Martin Luther appealed “To the Councilmen of all Cities in Germany that they establish and maintain Christian Schools”, observing that the training children get at home “attempts to make us wise through our experience” a task for which life itself is too short, and which could be accelerated by systematic instruction by means of books. Compulsory universal education was founded in Calvinist Geneva in 1536, and Calvin’s Scottish disciple John Knox “planted a school as well as a kirk in every parish.” In puritan Massachusetts free compulsory primary education was introduced in 1647. The common school, writes Lewis Mumford in The Condition of Man:
… contrary to popular belief, is no belated product of 19th century democracy: I have pointed out that it played a necessary part in the absolutist-mechanical formula. Friedrich Wilhelm I of Prussia, following Luther’s precept, made primary education compulsory in his realm in 1717, and founded 1,700 schools to meet the needs of the poor. Two ordinances of Louis XIV in 1694 and 1698 and one of Louis XV in 1724 required regular attendance at school. Even England, a straggler in such matters, had hundreds of private charity schools, some of them founded by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, which had been incorporated in 1699. Vergerious, one of the earliest renaissance schoolmasters, had thought education an essential function of the State; and centralised authority was now belatedly taking up the work that had been neglected with the wiping out of municipal freedom in the greater part of Europe.
All the rationalist philosophers of the 18th century thought about the problems of education, and of them, the two acutest educational thinkers ranged themselves on opposite sides on the question of the organisation of education: Rousseau for the State, Godwin against it. Rousseau, whose Emile postulates a completely individual education (human society is ignored, the tutor’s entire life is devoted to poor Emile), did nevertheless concern himself with the social aspect, arguing, in his Discourse on Political Economy (1755) for public education “under regulations prescribed by the government”, for
If children are brought up in common in the bosom of equality; if they are imbued with the laws of the State and the precepts of the General Will … we cannot doubt that they will cherish one another mutually as brothers … to become in time defenders and fathers of the country of which they will have been so long the children.
If the education of our youth be entirely confined to the prudence of their parents, or the accidental benevolence of private individuals, will it not be a necessary consequence, that some will be educated to virtue, others to vice, and others again entirely neglected?
Godwin’s answer is:
The injuries that result from a system of national education are, in the first place, that all public establishments include in them the idea of permanence. They endeavour, it may be, to secure and to diffuse whatever of advantage to society is already known, but they forget that more remains to be known … But public education has always expended its energies in the support of prejudice; it teaches its pupils not the fortitude that shall bring every proposition to the test of examination, but the art of vindicating such tenets as may chance to be previously established … This feature runs through every species of public establishment; and, even in the petty institution of Sunday schools, the chief lessons that are taught are a superstitious veneration for the Church of England, and to bow to every man in a handsome coat … Refer them to reading, to conversation, to meditation, but teach them neither creeds nor catechisms, neither moral nor political …
Secondly, the idea of national education is founded in an inattention to the nature of mind. Whatever each man does for himself is done well; whatever his neighbours or his country undertake to do for him is done ill. It is our wisdom to incite men to act for themselves, not to retain them in a state of perpetual pupillage. He that learns because he desires to learn will listen to the instructions he receives and apprehend their meaning. He that teaches because he desires to teach will discharge his occupation with enthusiasm and energy. But the moment political institution undertakes to assign to every man his place, the functions of all will be discharged with supineness and indifference …
Thirdly, the project of a national education ought uniformly to be discouraged on account of its obvious alliance with national government. This is an alliance of a more formidable nature than the old and much contested alliance of church and state. Before we put so powerful a machine under the direction of so ambitious an agent, it behoves us to consider well what we do. Government will not fail to employ it to strengthen its hands and perpetuate its institutions … Their view as instigator of a system of education will not fail to be analogous to their views in their political capacity: the data upon which their conduct as statesmen is vindicated will be the data upon which their institutions are founded. It is not true that our youth ought to be instructed to venerate the constitution, however excellent; they should be instructed to venerate truth … (Even) in the countries where liberty chiefly prevails, it is reasonably to be assumed that there are important errors, and a national education has the most direct tendency to perpetuate those errors and to form all minds upon one model.
Godwin’s arguments are worth quoting at this length, not only as the classic statement of an anarchist position on this issue, but because they have had such ample subsequent justification. On the other hand he does not really answer the question of how we can ensure that every child can have free access to whatever educational facilities will suit its individual needs.
It is surprising, and certainly saddening, considering the number of people interested in “progressive” schools, how few of them there are and how they seldom inspire other people to start them. For example, the publication of Summerhill a compilation of the writings of A. S. Neill brought about a great deal of interest in his school and his ideas in America; there was an embarrassing procession of overseas visitors to Neill’s little school in Suffolk, but how few of the admirers and visitors set about starting more schools on similar lines. A few did: one of the contributions in this issue of anarchy comes from people who are trying to.
Why shouldn’t the parents of a group of babies in the same age-group get together and plan a school for them well in advance, so as to accumulate the funds required before they are needed? They could as several groups of parents do, run their own nursery school when their children reach the appropriate age and then develop from the primary stage onward. The wealthy who are also intent on educating their children in independent schools, have found a variety of ways for financing them by way of Deeds and Covenant, endowment policies and so on. (John Vaizey estimates that at present something like £60 million a year is spent on school fees and £15-£20 million of this is found by tax-avoidance).
Many of us on the other hand, are more concerned with changing the ordinary primary and secondary schools which the vast majority of children attend, changing the teaching methods and changing parental and social attitudes. Some will simply say that this cannot be done—this would be the view of the secondary modern school-teacher who contributes an honest account of his problems elsewhere in this issue. But others will say that it would be foolish not to try to take advantage of the present wave of interest in education and in the state of the schools.
The anarchist, seeking functional, as opposed to political, answers to social needs, and contrasting the social principle with the political principle, sees in the state’s control of education a usurpation of a social function. (Historically of course, the Education Act of 1870 didn’t “usurp” anybody’s function, but if you accept the conception of an inverse relationship between the state and society—the strength of one resulting from the weakness of the other—you can see how the social organisation of popular education was, so to speak, atrophied in advance, by its political organisation. That this has not been the disaster—though some would say it has—that anarchist thinkers likeFunctionally, the administration of the school is the concern of parents and teachers, and if we really seek a society of autonomous free associations we must see such bodies as parent-teacher associations as the kind of organisation whose eventual and “natural” function is to take over the schools from the Ministry, the County Councils, the Directors, Inspectors, Managers and Governors who, in a society dominated by the political principle are inevitably their controllers. I don’t know whether schools so administered would be any better or any wrose than they are at present, but I do believe that a “self-regulating” society would run its schools that way. Among independent schools in this country which exemplify this kind of organisation, there used to be Burgess Hill School (described by one of the parents in this issue of anarchy) which was owned by a Friendly Society of parents and teachers and there still is King Alfred School, governed by a society of people interested in modern educational methods and “administered by an advisory council of pupils and staff”. I have not heard of any parent-teacher associations in the ordinary school system which aspire to such functions, though with the development of a variety of organisations in the last few years concerned with interesting parents in education, one can imagine the members reflecting after a time on whether their own intense “participation” had not rendered the usual complicated and expensive bureaucracy of school administration superfluous.
The mention of parent-teacher associations—in theory an epitome of the kind of social organisation which anarchists envisage—reminds us of their greater development in America, and the fact that this has not had exactly the results that we as anarchists would find desirable. In his book On Being Human, writing about the school as “a most important agency in the teaching of the art and science of human relations”, the anthropologist and biologist Ashley Montagu declares:
But the kind of thing that happens when this point of view filters into the school system is discussed by David Riesman in his “Thoughts on Teachers and Schools”. The teaching function, he observes, “has been extended to include training in group co-operation, manners, the arts, and self-understanding, as well as large residues of the traditional curriculum”. For Human Relations has in fact already become a classroom subject, but somehow not in Montagu’s sense. “The school is implicated and embroiled”, says Riesman, “in the changing formsWe must shift the emphasis from the three Rs to the fourth R, human relations, and place it first, foremost, and always in that order of importance as the principal reason for the existence of the school. It must be clearly understood, once and for all time, that human relations are the most important of all relations. Upon this understanding must be based all our educational policies … Our teachers must, therefore, be specially qualified to teach human relations …
Montagu writes that “A society such as ours, in which human relations are submerged in the economic system, can rescue itself only by submerging its economy in the matrix of human relations … And this is the task that the schools must assist in undertaking, no less that the rescue of man from his debasing enslavement to the principles and practices of an aquisitive society”. But how does the attempt work out? We may gain a clue from the book Crestwood Heights: A North American Suburb by Seeley, Sim and Loosley. Crestwood Heights is built around its modern, well-equipped and enlightened schools. It is particularly “child-oriented” and the Crestwood Heights parents “appear to have accepted nearly all the values which the humanists, the liberals, and the psychiatrically oriented speakers and writers have advocated over the last fifty years.” All the right adjectives are used. “In the city”, writes William J. Newman, “competition is open, acknowledged, and brutal; in the suburb toleration, permissiveness, and individual choice are the rule. The child is brought up as an autonomous spontaneous individual: thus the open glass school. The suburb will provide the arena in which the family and especially the children can emerge as ‘free’ and ‘responsible’, ready to take their place in the world.” But the well-meaning parents of Crestwood Heights are pursuing for their children two contradictory goals, “success” and “psychological maturity”. The authors observe that:
The child must be free in accordance with democratic ideology; but he must, by no means, become free to the point of renouncing either the material success goals or the engineered co-operation integral to the adequate functioning of an industrial civilisation.
And Newman comments:
But it is not only the functioning of an industrial civilisation which provides the drive behind the overmastering of individual choice; it is the urge to go from status to status, for one generation to achieve in the eyes of their peers what the other could not, which is the motive force of American life in the suburb. The child ‘is forced into the position of having to choose those means which will assure his ultimate entrance into an appropriate adult occupational status’. Since it is a choice made on the sly through an omnipresent culture, the child ‘sees no authority figures against which to rebel, should he feel the desire to do so … The child has therefore, only one recourse—to turn his attacks against himself.’ A pleasant society this, a new society, in which freedom is institutionalised, where choice is dictated.
So this “free and progressive” education becomes, with the best of intentions, no better than Rousseau’s system which Godwin described as “a puppet-show exhibition, of which the master holds the wires, and the scholar is never to suspect in what manner they are moved.”
Ashley Montagu, in another book, The Direction of Human Development writes of the coming together of parents and teachers in the complementary task of developing the potentialities of the child:
The parents would contribute what the teachers ought to know, and the teachers would contribute what the parents ought to know, for the benefit of the child as well as for the benefit of all concerned. The teaching the child receives at home and the teaching it receives at school must be joined and unified. The teaching of the elementary skills of reading, writing and arithmetic is important, but not nearly as important as the most important of all skills—human relations.
But David Riesman again, in his book Individualism Reconsidered makes this observation on the children of Crestwood Heights:
This really frightening description pulls us up with a jerk. Accustomed to think of parent-teacher co-operation as a Good Thing, we seldom consider its possibilities as a tender trap, a well-intentioned conspiracy against the child. For where home and school are two separate worlds a child unhappy at home might find a means of escape in the different life of a school, and a child who is miserable at school might find consolation in the atmosphere of home. But if home and school are “joined and united”, all avenues of escape are closed. AfterTheir parents want to know how they have fared at school: they are constantly comparing them, judging them in school aptitude, popularity, what part they have in the school play; are the boys sissies? the girls too fat? All the school anxieties are transferred to the home and vice versa, partly because the parents, college graduates mostly, are intelligent and concerned with education. After school there are music lessons, skating lessons, riding lessons, with mother as chauffeur and scheduler. In the evening, the children go to a dance at school for which the parents have groomed them, while the parents go to a Parent-Teacher Association meeting for which the children, directly or indirectly, have groomed them, where they are addressed by a psychiatrist who advises them to be warm and relaxed in handling their children! They go home and eagerly and warmly ask their returning children to tell them everything that happened at the dance, making it clear by their manner that they are sophisticated and cannot be easily shocked. As Professor Seeley describes matters, the school in this community operates a “gigantic factory for the production of relationships”.
In this country the pioneer of parent-teacher co-operation was the Home and School Committee of the New Education Fellowship. Another body, the National Federation of Parent-Teacher Associations was founded in 1956, linking together many existing bodies. Some of these associations have sprung up in a negative way to resist, and in some cases successfully avert “closing-down” orders for schools. In the case of one independent school in London (St. Paul’s Junior School, Hammersmith) due to be closed down because the existing building could not economically be kept in repair while the trustees could not find the money for a new building, the parents successfully raised loans for it, announcing that they “would accept financial and educational responsibility for a new school”. Other associations connected with both primary and secondary schools have provided their schools with swimming baths, or have seen their function in improving the school’s equipment—providing such equipment as record-players, film-projectors, stage-lighting and so on. On the pitfalls and possibilities of this kind of organisation, the staff at one school reported that:
… the progress of several children in arithmetic was being impeded by well-intentioned efforts to help them at home. At a series of evening meetings, the staff worked through specimen arithmetic papers with the fathers and mothers, explaining the particular methods in use at the school. Similarly, the headmistress of a village school introduced italic handwriting, a move which appeared to perturb some parents. As a result of discussion several mothers became interested and asked her to arrange evening classes so that they might learn it for themselves.
Formal association between parents and teachers does face certain difficulties, on occasion it may provide a hunting-ground for the committee-minded man or woman, and a trap for the excellent teacher who may be less adept at committee work. Another criticism is that it does not necessarily bring in the type of parent with whom contact is most needed: for example those whose children present particularly difficult problems, perhaps because of their home background.
Another of the difficulties frequently met in the relations of parents and teachers is the narrow concern displayed so frequently by the anxious middle-class parents in little Johnny’s 11-plus or GCE prospects, to the exclusion of an interest in the class or the school or the age-group as a whole. The attitude may be understandable, but it is nevertheless primitive to those who see as one of the pleasures of parenthood an enlargement of sympathy and concern from one’s own biological offspring to children in general. Two other more recent developments in educational organisations may help to bring about this wider view which is certainly a prerequisite for the parent-teacher control of education which we see as an eventual aim.
The second of these new trends is the springing-up of Associations for the Advancement of State Education. This movement again began in Cambridge in 1960, when a group of parents tried to hurry along improvements to a Newnham primary school. They found that the poor conditions were more widespread than they had realised and that restrictions in educational expenditure prevented anything from being done. From the original pressure group, others sprang up in different parts of the country and today there are bout 90 such associations with a total of 10,000 members federated in CASE, the Confederation of Associations for the Advancement of State Education, which has been conducting national enquiries on a variety of educational topics. Undoubtedly this movement—co-existing, not competing, with Parent-Teacher Associations—has helped to widen people’s field of concern from one child in one school, to the schools of the city or county and of the country.
Before getting too excited about this trend of course, we should attend an association meeting, to discover, once again, the solidly middle-class attendance and the disconcertingly vocational attitudes to education expressed from the floor. However, what better forum could there be for the education of parents? And is it inconceivable that some, without adopting an attitude of patronage or superiority, could devote themselves to bringing others in?
Certainly the phrase “Advancement of State Education” is unfortunate from our point of view (and is an indication of the middle-class origins of this movement since it is people who normally think in terms of private education who most frequently refer to the “council” schools as “state” schools). Continual use of the phrase in The Observer led to a protest recently from Mr. Terence Kelly who wrote:
I am sorry to see references to State education in your columns from time
285to time. In less happy lands the Minister of Education (or of Public Instructions) determines what is taught in every school. In this country the State—thank God—does not own or run a single school. Those which are not independent of direct grant are maintained by local education authorities, who, with their various sub-committees and divisional executives on which teachers are represented, run an education system which is the envy of the world.
I understand that there are even societies for the advancement of State education. Do these good people know what they are asking for? Do they really want a State system on the Communist or Fascist model?
In case anyone should think this is an idle quibble on words, I ask you to consider, Sir, what the view of your readers would be if you began referring to the State police.
It is not an idle quibble from another point of view: because we tend to be hypnotised by the idea of an educational monolith we take far too little advantage of the local autonomy that does exist, nor of that degree of autonomy (differing widely from place to place) which individual head teachers have, or could demand. Informed local pressure from parents and teachers is a weapon which we have hardly learned to exercise.
Are there ways in which parents can push further into the decision-making bodies on education? The original Cambridge Association for the Advancement of State Education put up two members as independent candidates for the county council elections. One was elected and is now on the education committee. This is hardly a procedure which fits into an anarchist approach to the problem, although one of our frequent contributors, Paul Goodman is proud to be a School Board member in New York. But what about parents as school governors or school managers? (Readers interested will find an article on what their functions are and how they are appointed in Where? No. 10). Discussing parent-teacher relations in a letter to the New Statesman in March this year, Mr. John McCann made an interesting point which most of us never knew and which should provide useful ammunition in arguments with local authorities: that back in 1944 the government gave a pledge that parents would be properly represented on the managing bodies of the schools attended by their children. Mr. McCann says:
At the Committee stage of the 1944 Education Act the government gave an undertaking to see that parents would be properly represented on the managing bodies of primary schools. It was stated that they were not to be “drawn from a different social stratum from that in which the pupils of the schools are found, but that some, at least, of the Managers will be people who live the daily life of the village or town, who are in close association with the parents, and can make the wishes of the parents known to the Managers and to the teachers.” This admirable principle was laid down in the form of an undertaking which is binding—for it was on that assurance that a Member of Parliament withdrew an amendment he had proposed.
This undertaking has not been implemented. Some authorities try to see that parents are genuinely represented, some pay lip service to the principle, some regard the principle with suspicion. The bodies which appoint Foundation Managers of voluntary schools often come into the last category. Hundreds of years of strife over electoral representation have shown that there is only one way to achieve adequate representation; that is for the people concerned to elect their own representative. No nomination from above is going
286to work or to satisfy the people who want to be represented.
The government undertaking could be honoured very simply, without any change in the law, if the Minister of Education would ask local authorities to appoint one Manager who had been elected at a meeting of parents convened by the headmaster. The parents should have the right to elect one of themselves or any other person (other than those already disqualified—teachers at the school, tradesmen supplying the school, etc.). Local education authorities appoint one, two or four Managers according to whether it is an Aided, Controlled or County school. I am suggesting in all cases that this election procedure be applied to the appointment of one LEA Manager.
It is sometimes said that School Managers have no powers. At Aided schools they have very real powers, at all schools they have duties. Managing bodies vary greatly in the extent to which they fulfil their duties, but in the most successful schools they perform a valuable service particularly in the field of parent-school relationships.
And how do teachers react to all this? Many of course are delighted to make contact with the parents of their pupils and to feel that they have a shared concern. Their only regret is that the parents whom they most need to meet are the very ones they never see at open-days, parent-teacher functions and so on. Relations are closest in the infants’ school and seem to dwindle away later. “What happens then” asks Jean Rintoul, “that this close parent-teacher relationship should be broken as the child gets older until, in the later secondary years, it is worse than non-existent? Is the teacher to blame and, if the teacher is, will a brief talk with a parent at an appropriately-spaced ‘surgery’ suffice? The answer to that is in the answer to another question: ‘Who are the parents who are going to attend the surgery?’ That’s an easy question and every teacher can answer it. They will be the same parents who attend the parent-teacher association meetings, the school prize-givings, the school concert or play; the same parents whose children are readily identifiable in every class because such children exhibit all the well-being and confidence that a privileged home provides.” This is one of the problems of parent-teacher relations for which a solution has not been found.
There are teachers too, who have a deep suspicion of parental encroachment on their functions and their autonomy. Their point of view was put with more-than-usual frankness by Mr. G. B. Corrin in a letter to the Times Educational Supplement (10/4/64). Commenting on a proposal by an AASE secretary that time for evening meetings with parents should be written into the teacher’s conditions of service, Mr. Corrin asked:
When the child of one of these parents goes into hospital for an operation, do they demand a meeting with the surgeon at a time convenient to themselves and then criticise his methods? I consider myself as highly trained and as experienced in my work as any surgeon, and I resent this intrusion by the ignorant, who apparently have no faith in my ability to do the job for which I am paid. Parent-teacher associations and such-like may be useful for raising money which the government is too parsimonious to provide and arranging social activities for those who have nothing better to do, but, in my experience they in no way benefit the education of the children and can become a positive
287nuisance because of their inability to resist the temptation to interfere. Certainly, many parents are ignorant about education, but is it the teachers’ business to instruct them? If so, let classes be arranged and the teachers remunerated. But parents cannot plead ignorance and at the same time demand the right to interfere with those who have been properly trained to carry out the education of their children.
Obviously the writer of this letter would be not only hostile, but derisory about our view that the form of educational organisation which we should see as our aim is one in which control of the schools is in the hands of associations of parents and teachers. For teachers, as Sir Ronald Gould once put it, “neither love nor trust the parish pump.” The vehemence with which London teachers opposed the intended break-up of the LCC’s education service shows how strongly they prefer the remote and impersonal control of County Hall to the near-at-hand interfering bureaucracy of “the office” which teachers in many other parts of the country suffer and resent. We can cartainly understand, in view of the sheer number of bosses which the organisation of education has set over them, why they regard encroachment by parents beyond a certain point and beyond certain topics, with suspicion. And when you see some of those self-confident high-income consumers in some of the AASEs, who quite obviously regard the teachers as their servants and not as their partners, you can see the point of this suspicion.
Nor would it be wise to assume that it is a question of progressive parents and reactionary or time-serving teachers. It is much more often the other way round, as everyone who has tried in humble ways to introduce progressive methods into the schools has found. When Teddy O’Neill was headmaster of Prestolee School in Lancashire and set about transforming it, it was with the support of the local education authority and of the Inspectorate, and against the hostility and abuse of local parents—and it took him years to win them over.
In looking for the roots in our existing society for a different kind of organisation, we have found pitfalls and dangers everywhere—for children, for parents and for teachers. This is not surprising, for our society is riddled with these problems of status and hierarchy, and the concept of social organisation which most of our fellow-citizens understand, is one in which one lot of people order another lot of people around. But somehow, somewhere we have to develop the germs of a non-authoritarian method of co-operative social organisation. Where better to make the attempt than in the schools?