Michael Gove claims that private schools' domination of positions of power is "morally indefensible" - so why is he doing so little to encourage social cohesion?

Allan Beavis's picture
 65
The Guardian today reports that in a speech at Brighton College, which has just been named “Independent School of the Year”, Michael Gove declared that the dominance of public schoolboys in the upper echelons of politics, business, the arts and sport was “morally indefensible”.

At first glance, his speech seemed to suggest that Gove had seen the error of his and his party’s ways and that Cameron had entrusted him to step out of the inner circle into the limelight to apologise for policies which have widened social divisions, increased child poverty, dragged us into a double dip recession, driven unemployment figures to sky high levels and forced through educational policies which clearly favour the already advantaged.

But no. All Gove did was to use the occasion to give yet another insubstantial and unconvincing extended sound bite about how his schools policies were going to
make sure that all children would reach their potential, no matter how disadvantaged their background. Implausibly claiming to believe in “social justice”, he states that “this stratification and segregation are morally indefensible."

Actually, what is morally indefensible is his party’s savaging and abandonment of the poor in this country, upon whom they have inflicted welfare cuts and the withdrawal of many vital public services and tax benefits at a time when his public school educated multi-millionaire Chancellor and Prime Minister have stubbornly pushed ahead with an austerity budget, with zero growth, which has tipped even more people into unemployment and poverty. The austerity budget has not affected the wealthy – in fact, they are the ones enjoying tax relief in Cameron’s “Big Society” in which the richest are most certainly “not in it together” with the rest of us.

If he truly believed in social justice, Gove might look at the state of the large numbers of dilapidated schools up and down the country in urgent and desperate need of renovation and maintenance, many in areas of deprivation where the children go from one unhealthy environment to another. But no – he chooses to let these schools rot, instead incentivizing schools with large cash payments to cut themselves adrift from local authorities to face an uncertain future as Academies.

Instead of spreading the depleted capital budget on saving schools from rack and ruin, he will end up giving hundreds of millions of pounds to a small number of so-called Free Schools educating a tiny minority of children, a sizeable number of which are fee paying schools “downgrading” or taking advantage of the way Gove has redefined what a state school is. How lucky for those struggling to pay the fees to have their children stay on at what has now become, literally, a free school. Quite how the local poor get into these ex-private schools remains a mystery and, in any case, survey after analysis shows that free schools are not serving the most disadvantaged.

Gove might like to put his social conscience where his mouth his and start with closing down private schools and, in one remove, dismantling the educational and social barriers that have inhibited social mobility for decades. But he won’t do this because the very foundations of the Tory party – built for, paid by and to sustain the pillars of wealth, privilege and hierarchy - would crumble.

His speech wasn’t really about private schools’ contribution to maintaining an unjust society. I suspect that what he is doing is pointing a vaguely unflattering light on private schools so that, when we realise more and more of them are sponsoring (or interfering with) Academies and Free Schools we should doff our caps and feel grateful that our betters have condescended to sort out the “mess” that is our “broken” state school system.

Morally indefensible also is Gove’s unpleasant and barely concealed attack on those he would no doubt dismiss as “Trots” –such as the entire editorship of the Guardian, the BBC, left-wing commentators such as George Monbiot, Seamus Milne and Laurie Penney, all of whom have been a constant and painful thorn in the side of Gove and the shared ideology of his cabinet and party cronies. Yes, they were privately educated (as are some in the Labour party, which he gleefully and foot-shootingly points out) but, admirably, they also want to challenge the system and the status quo of inherited privilege.

The whiff of hypocrisy doesn’t pervade these writers or anyone else born to greater privilege who campaigns for greater social equality. The hypocrisy is Gove’s, for shedding crocodile tears for the poor and helpless that his own party is casually and coldly pushing over into social oblivion. Get ready for the Tory condemnation of the young who will riot in years to come, the explosion of a lost generation of both educated and uneducated people who may never work. They will blame bad schools, bad parents, bad gangs but it will be their policies which separate master from servant, rich from poor that will force the excluded from society onto burning streets, so they can grab a little of what has been denied them and been handed over willingly to the included.

Instead of a speech which fetishises public school boys (where are the privately educated girls? Don’t they count in Gove’s social landscape, or are they as insignificant as Nadine Dorries’ contributions in the House?), Gove might like to present some concrete evidence or even argument that his policies have some chance of increasing attainment and social mobility in this country when his high stakes, test driven, discipline-heavy, punitive measures have failed elsewhere.

He would do well to justify his support of social justice when he has given the green light for grammar schools to open up “satellite” schools in areas like Kent so that a few more people can exercise their democratic “choice” by disposing some of their income on preparing their children from age 5 on how to navigate their way round an 11+ paper, thereby negating the chances of a child from a family whose priority is to just put bread and tap water on the table.

Instead of focusing on an already “posh” sport – cricket – in a futile attempt to evidence that sport is similarly dominated by private schoolboys, Gove might like to ponder, then articulate the truth, that footballers don’t tend to bray “Yah” when they score a goal. Instead of pretending the arts and culture is brimming over with Chris Martins, he should educate himself and learn that the music industry is, in fact, populated by artists whose parents didn’t pay for their schooling – Adele, Jessie J, Professor Green. The arts has always been historically much more radical and inclusive – talent and originality count there for a lot more than whether you were born with the burden of a silver spoon in your mouth. Or silverplated, in Gove’s case.

Like so many of his type, he’s best left to pandering to the egos and bolstering interests of people like Rupert Murdoch and the ruling class. He lacks the vision, talent or originality of the great people – private or state educated - who challenge his party’s ideology.
Share on Twitter Share on Facebook

Be notified by email of each new post.





Comments

Allan Beavis's picture
Tue, 15/05/2012 - 23:05

Tim -

As I said, the Finnish education system and the country's excellence in social equality is so well known, so well documented and used so extensively as a model that it surprises me you still haven't understood it, choosing instead to cut and paste random pages you have lifted off the internet without putting anything of them in their wider context.

If you really want a summary of Finnish education, equality and how the Americans just don't get it, read this and learn something. Pasi features quite prominently. It's quite simple and factual and doesn't rely on posturing about Engels and name dropping Howard Gardner to pretend a depth of knowledge which isn't really there:-

What Americans Keep Ignoring About Finland's School Success http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/what-americans-keep-...

If you substitute "Americans" for "Tories/Gove/Tim Bidie", it is clear Gove is barking up the wrong Charter School/Free School/Academy Tree and how morally indefensible his policies and ideologies are

Paul Reeve's picture
Tue, 15/05/2012 - 16:15

In his book, ‘Chavs – The Demonization of the Working Class’, Owen Jones writes, ‘The Tories have, in modern times, been at pains to present themselves as standing above class and sectional interests. ‘One Nation’ was one of their most treasured phrases throughout much of the twentieth century. When David Cameron was elected leader of the Conservative Party in 2005, the Tories were, to begin with, full of fluffy rhetoric about understanding marginalised young people and even about narrowing the gap between rich and poor.

But as soon as they are safely behind closed doors, away from the cameras, the cuddly PR-speak can abruptly disappear. I witnessed the mask slip myself, when in my final year as an undergraduate. An extremely prominent Tory politician from the moderate wing of the party had come to deliver an off-the-record speech to students. So that he could speak candidly, aspiring student journalists were barred from reporting on the speech and we were sworn to preserve his anonymity. It soon became clear why. As the logs crackled in the fireplace on a rainy November evening, the Tory grandee made a stunning confession. “What you have to realise about the Conservative Party,” he said as though it was a trivial, throwaway comment, “is that it is a coalition of privileged interests. Its main purpose is to defend that privilege.” ‘


That's it!!

Tim Bidie's picture
Tue, 15/05/2012 - 17:11

Indeed, but that is, unfortunately, true of all political parties.


Allan Beavis's picture
Tue, 15/05/2012 - 17:53

No it isn't. It serves the Conservatives well to have a social and economic divide.


Tim Bidie's picture
Tue, 15/05/2012 - 18:21

Oh yes it is........

'The motive for groups developing links with political parties is clear. The UK
has a system of party government, in that governments are formed from the
leading party in the House of Commons. Influencing party policy can therefore
lead to influence on government policy. The most obvious way in which groups
influence parties is through funding and donations (‘he who pays the piper calls
the tune’). The best-known example of a link between a pressure group and a
political party has traditionally been the relationship between the trade unions
and the Labour Party. Affiliated trade unions not only provided the bulk of
Labour’s funding but also controlled most of the votes at the party’s conference.'

http://www.palgrave.com/PDFs/0230201733.pdf

Allan Beavis's picture
Tue, 15/05/2012 - 19:35

You have shifted gears totally but no worry, you have proved my point in your own words.

Yes - The Tories exist to defend their privileged interests. The Labour Party exists to give voice to the underpriveleged. Without that voice, the Tories would still be trampling over the serving classes as if the 1960s had never occured.

Tim Bidie's picture
Tue, 15/05/2012 - 19:55

Not so much a change of gear as an empathetic response:

'37 trade union general secretaries and chief executives received remuneration
of more than £100,000 in 2009-10.'

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/tradeunionrichlist0611.pdf

You'd think, with that kind of salary, they could send their children to private schools!

No!

Harriet Harman, wife of trades unionist, Jack Dromey was:

Ruthlessly sacked early in Tony Blair's government after a dispute over welfare, this cousin of aristocrats who maddened Alastair Campbell by sending her children to private schools provoked nothing but sneers and raised eyebrows in New Labour's laddish circles. "She's not up to it," they would whisper, in the classic formula used about female politicians.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/public-accounts/2010/01/labour-party-h...

Tim Bidie's picture
Tue, 15/05/2012 - 22:48

And the Labour Party looks after the immensely privileged trades unions:

The most recent annual report of the Certification Office for trade unions and employers associations (2009-10) is probably the definitive source for information on the pay and benefit packages of union general secretaries....... RMT firebrand Bob Crow’s combined package amounted to more than £113,000, while mild-mannered Dave Prentis’ salary was just below £95,000 with a benefits package worth a further £35,136. These figures are added to by various other perks such as the million pound plus grace and favour mansion claimed by the now retired joint general secretary of Unite, Derek Simpson which passes to his wife on his death for as long as she lives.

http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/3377

Do you achieve social cohesion through excellent education or excellent education through social cohesion?

Evidenced response, please.

Allan Beavis's picture
Tue, 15/05/2012 - 20:49

Tim -

What on earth are you going on about? There is still nothing in your response that disproves the fact that the Tories look after the privileged. Cutting and pasting old articles a propos of nothing that might illustrate or support a reponse that shows the Tories promote social cohesion achieves nothing.

Allan Beavis's picture
Tue, 15/05/2012 - 22:56

The trades unions represent the interests of ordinary people, most of whom would not, by any definition, be deemed as privileged in the way that Cameron and Osborne are privlleged by virtue of great wealth, family connections and droit de seigneur. Nothing you still say shows that Gove's comments do not betray the hypocrisy at the heart of this government's pretence of supporting social cohesion. No "evidenced response" needed when you have deliberately twisted the meaning of privilege when it was clear from the outset that was meant was wealth and social advantage.


andy's picture
Tue, 15/05/2012 - 18:25

Yes, Gove touts hypocritical soundbites about the private sector but the answer lies in the operation and application of the Charities Commission laws relating to charitable status. The changes made by the last labour government caused much consternation amongst the private school fraternity. As a former Bursar and Clerk to the Governors at such an institution, I recall in 2000 the frentic activity within ISIS regarding capturing data of bursaries and exhorting members to fund more places. The DfES at the time authored a document on bridging the gap between private and public through joint ventures (chiefly focused on the private sector making their facilities and teaching expertise more readily available to local public schools). The private sector were very unsettled at the thought of losing their chairtable status. At my school I set about preparing a report to the Governors on a phased approach to relinquishing the status, and whether the school could survive it. We were not alone.

It was true then a remains so today that if charitable status were to be removed from private schools:

1. The public sector does not have the capacity to absorb the displaced students.
2. A significant number of private schools would continue even without the benefit of charitable status. This is amply evidenced by Chris Woodhead's venture with the Cognita private school chain, which are not registered as charities and not only exist but have grown (including buying out ailing private schools).
3. The number of parents that currently afford and opt into private education would not significantly change - even with an increase if fees post removal of charitable status.
4. Several larger private school chains and individual schools e.g. UCST, Woodard Trust, Wellington, Dulwich, Eton, Harrow have successfully established themselves in the labour led acadamies explosion (e.g. ULT and Woodard Academies Trust). This almost certainly means that they would retain their charitable status becasue through the academies they are providing free education for all comers.

On top of that no government can simply pass a piece of legislation making non-publicly funded education illegal.

Just a thought or two to ponder ...

Janet Downs's picture
Wed, 16/05/2012 - 08:51

andy - it is likely, as you say, that many private schools would continue if stripped of their charitable status because they would become profit-making. You give as an example Cognita, the chain set up by Chris Woodhead. Cognita was accused of "milking" one of its schools for profit. The problem has now been solved but cost Cognita dear (TES 20 September 2011, not available on line). Chris Woodhead told TES that his involvement with Cognita was not altruistic but an investment - the profit would be realised when the firm is sold on.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/apr/10/private-firm-profits-fre...

You mentioned Woodard Trust. Its sponsored academy failed its Ofsted.

http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6167581

ULT (the academy arm of UCST) was banned from running any more academies by the last Government. Mr Gove removed the ban and handed the Emmanuel Schools Foundation's four academies over to ULT - a move that was criticised by John Burn, OBE, ex-principal of one of the academies, in his evidence to the Education Bill committee.

http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6060781

In November 2011, ULT was criticised for its £1m PR bill paid by the taxpayer.

http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6124265

Which academies are sponsored by Eton and Harrow?

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Thu, 17/05/2012 - 08:53

Andy

Out of interest, could you make an informed guess, on the basis of your experience, of how much private school fees would need to rise to compensate for loss of charitable status?

andy's picture
Wed, 16/05/2012 - 14:06

Janet:

My comment was focused on the top page issue and in no way was a defence of private schools. Rather it was intended to contextualise the implied message that the panacea strategy was to withdraw charitable status. Neither was it intended therefore to promote any of the private school chains, whether Cognita or private school group sponsored academies. The latter can and have failed Ofsted under the labour irrespective of their sponsor. ULT were told they couldn't open any more under Brown because of its 2 Sheffield Academies.

The focus of my comment was, and remains, that even the loss of charitable status will not cause the total demise of the private sector in education. Indeed, through the willingness of some to sponsor academies they almost certainly meet the rigour of the charity commission regulations and retian the status.

andy's picture
Thu, 17/05/2012 - 10:34

I was half expecting that question to arise. The multi-faceted nature of the issue makes it rather difficult to provide a detailed response (i.e. put figures on it). Without wishing to insult anyone the key factors were (and undoubtedly remain the same):

1.Endowed schools are better placed to withstand such a financial jolt
2.The impact on a school’s revenue would need to take account of the input and output VAT. Only then could they ascertain the starting point for determining the options for fee increases.
3.A lot depends on whether the withdrawal of charitable status was implemented in a single hit in the immediate future (e.g. 6 April 2013) or phased by dint of being given a future date for withdrawal (e.g. 6 April 2016). The latter permitting a more structured/phased approach to fee increases.
4.Schools would need to negotiate with their staff on salary increases (e.g. wage freeze and/or cap and for how long and/or redundancies)
5.Whether to reduce/stop operating the bursary scheme as a way of reducing the impact on fee increases (this was and undoubtedly remains an important factor for those schools that operate large scheme – whether the amounts involved and/or the number of places)
6.Increasing the student to teacher ratio

Based on this template the school I was last at, which was a small pre-preparatory, preparatory and infants’ school, I presented to the Governing Body a case that they could adopt a mixed approach:

A.Hold a series of parent events to air the issues (and prepare the way forward)
B.Hold meetings with all staff to propose:

1.Year 1 – Pay freeze
2.Year 2 – Pay increase capped at 1.5% (subject to confirmation of student numbers)
3.Year 3 – Review with options for maintaining or lifting cap on pay

NB: These meetings would also cover the obvious issues of impact of closure v pay
restraint v redundancies

The proposed impact on fees produced figures around:

Year 1 – Breakeven + 1% margin (= 3.5% overall)
Year 2 – Breakeven + 1.5% margin (again subject to final bums-on-seats figures)
Year 3 – Review situation

None of this takes account of the impact of whether individual schools fully own their estate and buildings and the percentage of any monies borrowed against the real estate value. Clearly, a school that is mortgage/loan free will be better placed to raise capital with which to ease the transition.

The scenario I was working with was in 2000/01, when the labour government beefed up the Charity Commission and there were a lot of job losses in white collar professionals and the high street was under pressure with significant impact on the self-employed market place (e.g. garment suppliers to M&S). Thus many schools were worried about the double whammy of loss of charitable status and pupil withdrawals.

Pages

Add new comment

Already a member? Click here to log in before you comment. Or register with us.