fbpx

Bludgeoning Aspiration to Get to Equality

There is no more fateful failure of modern political thought than its failure to distinguish between elitism and social exclusivity. From this failure stems an enormous, costly, and increasingly intolerant attempt to rectify what is not wrong in the first place. One fights chimeras the better to avoid confrontation with real enemies.

In Britain, there has been a long and expensive struggle over selective education—that is, the provision of different kinds of education and schools suited to different kinds of abilities. The fanatics of formal equality of opportunity have triumphed over the moderates of at least some real opportunity for all. Why? Because in the world of modern democratic politics, a declared aim is more important than an actual effect.

In the pre-reform British state educational system (in which 95 per cent of the population was educated), children were divided at the age of 11 into two main streams: the smaller academic stream and the larger vocational stream. The schools for the former were known as grammar schools, and there were such schools even in the poorest areas, though fewer of them than in middle-class areas.

I will leave aside the question of whether this differential reflected mere social prejudice or the greater concentration of high ability in the middle class. The point is that attendance at a grammar school in a poor area was a virtual guarantee of its pupils’ social ascent into the middle class. In these schools, the education given was self-consciously not “relevant” to the pupil’s experience. It was often precisely his experience that held him back, that forged the man-made manacles to which William Blake referred in his poem London. The learning of French, say, might not be of much use in the slums, but it was not supposed that the pupil would stay in the slums forever; at the very least, learning it would broaden his outlook on the world.

Needless to say, this education reflected, and required, a cultural and even a mildly ideological confidence on the part of those who transmitted it. The preceptors believed that there were higher intellectual attainments that were worthwhile in themselves, and that assisting the low-born to ascend the social ladder was a worthy and even a noble end.

The system came under attack for two reasons, one practical and the other political.

The practical reason was the correct observation that the education offered in the non-grammar schools was often, or usually, of a wretched standard, neither academic nor even properly technical. A large part of the population, then, was left semi-literate and semi-numerate. This left them difficult to train to become skilled workers.

Now the mentality of a large and increasing bureaucracy such as that which ran and runs the British educational system, faced with a part that functions well and a part that functions badly, will always choose the destruction of the part that functions well as the solution to supposedly improving the whole. It is their equivalent of Joseph Schumpeter’s creative destruction, except that it is destructive destruction. After all, it is easy to destroy (success is almost certain) but difficult to improve. Moreover, it ought never to be forgotten that, all judgment being comparative, the good always throws a lurid light on the bad. Equality of mediocrity assures the peaceful existence of a bureaucrat.

The political attack on the system was from two main directions. First, it was increasingly denied by intellectuals that there were any higher intellectual attainments that were worthwhile in themselves. The hierarchy of such attainments was based upon a foundation that, being metaphysically assailable, was therefore deemed not to exist. This eventually affected pedagogy profoundly, once the attitude had made its long march through the institutions.

The second political point of the “reformers” was that social ascent was undesirable, and beyond that it was positively harmful in so far as it reinforced the whole structure of an unjust society that was in need of total destruction, not mere amelioration. Offering poor children the opportunity for social ascent, as the grammar schools had done, was like treating cancer with an anti-depressant. Aspiration in an unfair society only preserved the unfairness.

Keep in mind there was no demand from below for the amalgamation of good and bad schools. As with so many reforms, the demand came almost entirely from the intellectual wing of the political class. The meritocratic system was destroyed in the name of undermining social exclusivity, the theory of it being so much more important than the practice. Then, once the destruction started, resistance crumbled. Prime Minister Thatcher, herself a product of the system, did much—perhaps more than anyone else—to forward the destruction when she was Minister of Education. She did not even try to reverse it.

The result: a class society came to look more like a caste society. If the teaching of grammar, for example, were abandoned on the theory that no form of language was superior to any other, an enormous additional advantage was now handed, almost ex officio, to middle class children for whom Standard English was their native tongue. In addition, the middle classes were able to avoid or evade prevailing low standards.

The grammar schools had cultural as well as educational effects: They kept aspiration alive where it was so easily lost (all the more so as jobs for an unskilled working class evaporated). And they suggested a hierarchy of achievement, in which celebrity and football (soccer) had little place, let alone the complete hegemony in the minds of the poor that they now have. (Surveys of British children show increasingly that the word “talent” is associated by them with either pop music or football, and nothing else.)

Of course, elitism and social exclusivity are more than passing acquaintances. Elites tend to reproduce themselves, which is as it should be when you stop to think about it by comparing it with the alternative: a society in which parents do not care specially about their children and make no efforts to secure them the advantages that they themselves have had or achieved.

But a class society is not therefore a closed society. The latter is what attempts to bring about a type of equality other than equality under the law usually eventuate in.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on August 23, 2016 at 14:14:51 pm

Stunningly incisive.

"The hierarchy of such [higher intellectual] attainments was based upon a foundation that, being metaphysically assailable, was therefore deemed not to exist."

could do with some enhancing description of that "foundation" (and perhaps its sources).

read full comment
Image of R richard Schweitzer
R richard Schweitzer
on August 23, 2016 at 15:17:15 pm

It is their equivalent of Joseph Schumpeter’s creative destruction, except that it is destructive destruction.

Oh, Dalrymple, what would your grammar school teacher say to this? Clearly the line you were reaching for was "It is their equivalent of Joseph Schumpeter’s creative destruction, only without the creative part."

Now write this on the chalk board ten times before you take your dinner.

read full comment
Image of nobody.really
nobody.really
on August 23, 2016 at 15:44:24 pm

Poor Dalrymple: He is at once both *incisive* and a terrible grammarian.

Then again, I suspect he did attend *grammar* school and should be able to adequately fulfill your imposed punishment - He CAN write, after all.

I however, would have imposed a penalty in the fifties (as a reminder of my own grammar school days,HA!)

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on August 23, 2016 at 17:54:42 pm

"Poor Dalrymple: He is at once both *incisive* and a terrible grammarian."

So too is many a Marine Corps DI -but it IS effective.

read full comment
Image of R Richard Schweitzer
R Richard Schweitzer
on August 23, 2016 at 19:03:50 pm

luvv'd it!

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on August 29, 2016 at 21:37:17 pm

On a personal note I, as a product of a crummy U.S. public school education, was fortunate enough to spend two years in the English Grammar School system. I recall being a little taken aback by the crude and rusty blade that the English system used to separate the university bound wheat from the vocational chaff. Most of my High School buddies from Grafton High School would never have made the cut.But the educational experience was central to my future success. And that is what cannot stand in this odd world we now inhabit.

A brilliant,brilliant piece. "After all, it is easy to destroy (success is almost certain) but difficult to improve. Moreover, it ought never to be forgotten that, all judgment being comparative, the good always throws a lurid light on the bad. Equality of mediocrity assures the peaceful existence of a bureaucrat" . Explain so much.

read full comment
Image of Patrick Shanahan
Patrick Shanahan
on August 29, 2016 at 22:59:50 pm

You say grammar schools "kept aspiration alive ... And they suggested a hierarchy of achievement" beyond sports and celebrities.
Similarly in the United States "tracking" children, with brighter children being in classrooms that emphasized more traditional educational tracks (classical readings from the Shakespeare to Robert Frost continuum as one example), was abandoned in several larger minority-dominated big city school districts. Even though studies showed that minority children in those classrooms found personal validation in being part of this tougher track, and as a result they worked harder and persistently outperformed their economic and social background. If we want to restore opportunity to rise from poverty from generation to generation, we need to pick educational models that let personal effort result in economic success ... not conceal different levels of ability in a morass of poor educational efforts.

read full comment
Image of Colorado Guy
Colorado Guy

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.