h1

Towards a Blue Labour Agenda on Schools Part 1

July 13, 2014

Last weekend I went to the Blue Labour Midlands Seminar for a day of discussion about “Blue Labour” ideas. Blue Labour is the movement that developed out of the ideas of Lord Glasman. Despite Glasman being an academic and and member of the House of Lords, the core Blue Labour ideas, roughly speaking, revolve around the idea of a Labour party rooted in working class communities (including faith communities) rather than in Westminster and the chattering classes. I intend to blog about what ideas were discussed that were most relevant to education debate in the next day or two. However, I remembered that I had already written about this for the now defunct “Old Politics” blog in a response to another blogpost that also is no longer available.

I have to give a few warnings first. I wrote this in July 2011 for a political blogger. As such, it is more political than my usual comments and for an audience not familiar with my arguments. Also, I clearly was more prone to jargon then than I am now, and I apologise in advance for the phrase “managerialist quasi-market” which sounds like the sort of thing that I’d criticise the BERA social justice blog for using . At least one link won’t work (but I haven’t edited it out). If you are more interested in the education discussion than the politics, please don’t be put off by the first few paragraphs, it does become easier to read.

 

 

So far, schools are an area where Blue Labour appears to have been least able to make a contribution to policy. Blue Labour is sceptical of the possibility that the paternalistic middle classes can genuinely meet the interests of the working class through public spending on the part of the state. The British state school system is a public service which is dominated by middle class interests, beliefs and concerns, yet decisive in its power over the interests and aspirations of the working class in a way that is the antithesis of Blue Labour thinking. However, in this case, Blue Labour cannot even appeal for rescue to a pre-welfare state tradition of education, because while there may be positive things to be said about the contribution of church schools, workers education societies and other forms of education that existed independently of the state in the late nineteenth century or early twentieth century, nobody can suggest that these bodies were not either equally paternalistic or equally inadequate at empowering the mass of the working class.

That said, a scepticism about the existence of a state education system is not a credible position for Blue Labour thinkers either. The middle classes desire education for themselves and are willing to pay for it. The withdrawal of the state from the education system would not create comprehensive community-run civil institutions, it would create a free market in which the lion’s share of the good of education was captured by the well-off with a small amount saved for the most able.

Indeed, perhaps the easiest argument that can be made about a Blue Labour position on education is that it would object to the commodification of education, whether through a free market or a managerialist quasi-market, in which parents and children simply become customers of educational service providers. Blue Labour is in a position to suggest an increase in the influence of communities on education, for instance, Maurice Glasman suggested the following administrative changes:

…what Blue Labour would say is that there should be a third, a third, a third. A third of power with parents, so that the schools are genuinely places where they have power over the education for their children; a third with the teachers so that we can really honour the vocation and expertise of teachers and then a third with the funder, whether that would be the local authority or the state. A third, a third, a third.

Given the gulf that exists between teachers and governors, and often between parents and the parental representatives on governing bodies, this idea could well be an improvement on the status quo. However, it leaves untouched the difficult issues of schooling: the questions of what should be taught to whom and where. In the absence of Blue Labour having any obvious policy positions on this, we have seen a couple of attempts to navigate a Blue Labour direction in schools policy, where those involved have simply tied themselves to existing masts.

Firstly, in his chapter of “The Labour Tradition and the Politics of Paradox” James Purnell declared (admittedly with some caveats which I have not quoted):

Mutuality, reciprocity, and organization are good guides to what is insufficient about empowerment. But they do not replace it. For example, they’re not a guide to renewing education policy. In fact, in education, we need to go further in a New Labour direction, not turn around… people should be able to choose a school for their child

More recently, in their article [no longer available] on the Blue Labour Blog two ex-teachers Jim O’Connell-Lauder and Jamie Audsley argued for a social engineering model of schooling, actually using the phrase “a tool of social justice” and suggesting that individuals (parents, children and even teachers) can, through reforming schools into democratic institutions, be transformed into “democratic citizens”.

This notion of schooling, where the state and its enlightened administrators decide what type of people the masses should become is an extension of the Every Child Matters agenda that became dominant in the later years of the last Labour government, which in turn was simply a new manifestation of the progressive tradition in education, where academic aims are side-lined by political, cultural, social or emotional concerns. It is also in the opposite direction to Blue Labour’s confidence in the existing values of working class communities, and scepticism of middle class liberal values.

So, having set out how little Blue Labour has so far been able to say about education, where do we go from here? At the very least, perhaps the following questions are worth considering (and I make no pretence that these questions don’t heavily reflect my own personal concerns and beliefs about education):

1) How can we ensure that the educational outcomes for working class children are not simply what middle class professionals think are appropriate for “children like these”? Much educational debate, for instance the debate over selection, or over the value of qualifications, assumes that there is a significant class of usually working class “non-academic” children who must be appreciated for being different rather than given greater opportunity to succeed. Not everyone can become a professor at Oxford, but it should not be the role of Labour politicians to cap working class aspirations.

2) How do attempts to “include” badly behaved children in the classroom, regardless of their behaviour, reflect the values of working class communities? If Blue Labour respects the conservatism of working class parents, then there can be little reason for letting a child from a disciplined home environment, where the authority of adults is respected, endure the chaos of a permissive school environment run by middle class liberals where poor behaviour by a child is seen as a social or emotional problem to be treated therapeutically, rather than an attack on the interests of other children.

3) How can Blue Labour change the top-down culture of schools? While some comment has been made about central government initiatives that create paperwork or interfere with school management, very little attention has been given to the way in which classroom teachers are managed. How many teachers in a school should have a management responsibility? How much of a teacher’s work should be open to continual scrutiny by managers?

4) How much should teachers and schools be concerning themselves with non-academic aspects of children’s lives? Blue Labour criticises the bureaucratic welfare state, and should be the first critic of schools where the dominant culture brings to mind management consultants trying to frustrate social workers, rather than that of an academic institution.

 

About these ads

7 comments

  1. You describe Blue Labour as being about a Labour party being rooted in “working class communities”. Could you clarify what those are exactly?

    Does this mean there are clusters of working class people out there in certain areas, and then clusters of non-working class people too? How does one know whether one is part of such a community? Can one leave such a community, or enter it if one was not originally part of it? Also what is Blue Labour’s position on people who are not part of “working class communities”. Do those people matter at all?

    I enjoy your work Andrew but I’m frankly baffled by this piece. It’s 2014 for goodness sake.


    • Does this mean there are clusters of working class people out there in certain areas, and then clusters of non-working class people too?

      Yes.

      How does one know whether one is part of such a community?

      By income, education and family background.

      Can one leave such a community, or enter it if one was not originally part of it?

      It’s not really exclusive.

      Also what is Blue Labour’s position on people who are not part of “working class communities”. Do those people matter at all?

      Nobody suggested pandering to the interests of one particular class. It’s more the question of whether Labour politics continues to be something done in Westminster by well-off graduates (but, you know, on behalf of a wider constituency) or whether it is something that can actually involve directly the sort of people who habitually vote Labour.

      I’m not going to apologise for mentioning social class. I will never cease to be amazed at how it shapes our lives and opportunities, nor how often people are utterly oblivious to it. Not much point to anything I say about education if it doesn’t mention that where children come from tends to determine where they end up.


      • I’ll take research about social class more seriously when someone offers a realistic definition of what working classness actually is. Your offer is:
        (a) “Income” – so let’s hear some numbers then…
        (b) “Education” – more specifically? GCSEs/A-Levels/Degree? Does it matter whether you have educated yourself or been formally educated? etc.
        (c) “Family backgroud” – a meaningless statement
        Research about, for example, the link between family income and attainment is fine. But that’s exactly what it is – research looking at the link between family income and attainment. Once you start bringing in notions like social class you inevitably end up with the wishy-washy claptrap that you rightly criticise from BERA. Such “research” does no one any favours and has done absolutely nothing to actually improve the educational outcomes of those from so-called working class backgrounds. Yet, when someone comes along who actually tries to raise standards in the state sector (e.g. Gove), the one thing which actually might narrow the gap, the BERA contingent do nothing but whinge and continue to waste time spewing out their partisan guff which, as I say, never has and never will achieve anything.


        • If only it were that simple. Generations have struggled to create a society in which class inequalities could be eliminated; a society in which “class” lost any meaningful status…and you’ve done it within a paragraph or two by pointing out we lack an exact definition of “working class”. Think of the trouble that might have been saved if earlier revolutionaries had known of your methods.
          “But Vladimir Ilyich, there’s no need for a revolution…there’s no such thing as a clearly defined “proletariat” using income, FSM or even IDACI…so there’s no way we can create a dictatorship of the proletariat…give it up mate. Here have another pint and chill out.”


  2. “1) How can we ensure that the educational outcomes for working class children are not simply what middle class professionals think are appropriate for “children like these”? Much educational debate, for instance the debate over selection, or over the value of qualifications, assumes that there is a significant class of usually working class “non-academic” children who must be appreciated for being different rather than given greater opportunity to succeed. Not everyone can become a professor at Oxford, but it should not be the role of Labour politicians to cap working class aspirations.”
    Loved this, but how does this differ from Gove and his “blob” hypothesis? I happen to agree that all children need rigour, challenge, an appreciation that learning is hard work and a realisation that sometimes the satisfaction only comes through a sense of struggling through what can be an ordeal. I think my job involves instilling knowledge; not boosting self-esteem. I strongly believe that an (ultimately well-intentioned) liberal instinct towards progressive and child-centred education has led to a denuded and debased curriculum for most working class kids; who have been patronised and denied a chance to compete with their more affluent peers; especially those who’ve been privately educated.
    As it happens, I’ve believed all this for at least two decades. I’ve seen it again and again and heard all the sloppy unfounded justifications from progressive adherents. (Incidentally, have you noticed just how many orthodox preachers of the child-centred mantra got out the classroom ASAP, have no intention of ever going back and on whom you stake your last penny that they were pretty bloody hopeless in the first place.)
    My issue: it’d take more than a fag paper to fill the gap…maybe a packet of Old Holborn…but I’m just not too easy with how much I seem to be on Gove’s wavelength; especially regarding OFSTED’s myriad shortcomings. I’m a lifelong socialist you see. I know people will read this and roll their eyes and ask how I can make such a statement. So for anybody asking that question, here’s how: a) I’m a socialist: I want the best for working class kids b) you’re not: you’re a liberal who’s been brought up thinking ‘progressive’ and ‘left wing’ were somehow synonymous; they’re not; ‘progressive education’ is a sop to liberals who want to feel they’re saving the world by being ‘nice’ and understanding and ‘non-judgemental’. ‘Progressive education’ has been the greatest possible boon to those who wish to shut down social mobility, preserve the status quo and make sure their own kids don’t face competition from bright and hungry working class opposition.
    Just saying.


  3. what is the best part of this community.? i have no more idea about this community. i am just beginner in this field.


  4. […] I mentioned here, I recently attended the Blue Labour Midlands Seminar. Obviously my motivation was as much to do […]



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,580 other followers

%d bloggers like this: