The Compass campaign for education for the good society needs to broaden its horizons, and take in universities as well. Academic inquiry as it mostly exists at present, devoted in the first instance to the pursuit of knowledge, is an intellectual and humanitarian disaster. If we take seriously the idea that the basic aim of academia is to help us achieve what is of value in life - help us make progress towards a good world (or as good a world as possible), then the central task of academia is to articulate, and improve the articulation of, our problems of living, and propose and critically assess possible solutions - possible actions, policies, political programmes, philosophies of life. The pursuit of knowledge should emerge out of, and feed back into, the fundamental intellectual activity of improving our ideas about what our problems of living are, and what we need to do about them. The argument for the urgent need for a revolution in academia is spelled out in detail in my book "From Knowledge to Wisdom" (Blackwell, 1984; 2nd ed., Pentire Press,2007) and, more briefly, in papers available at philpapers.
Nicholas Maxwell (University College London)

I see this Publication is about equipping people for life in the Good Society rather than for partipation in the rat-race for riches which characterises the education system as it operates today. As such it is a much needed contribution to the debate in this vital area of policy and the authors are to be commended.

However I would like to have seen the chapter entitled Schools for Democracy concentrate more on equipping pupils for democracy rather than on increasing the democratic process within schools. Without helping pupils to think more clearly about democratic choices, more democracy can just become a vehicle for perpetuating the prejudices of whoever can shout the loudest in appealing to our emotions.

Does the political left have specific contribution to the education debate?

Education for the Good Society sets out to show that there is a coherent left-wing response. Perhaps there is but until it is understood and espoused by the general public it will remain an affair of a tiny minority of left-wing academics concerned about education. This point is illustrated by the restricted circles from which the authors of the booklet were drawn: 7 professors, 2 university lecturers, 2 consultants, 3 researchers from the New Economic Foundation, 1 MP on the Education Select Committee and the Chair of Compass.

The topics covered include historical perspectives, fairness, gender, well-being, sustainability, democracy, adult education, lifelong learning, the economy and how to campaign effectively. What is offered is not definitive solutions but as contributions to an on-going debate. No one should therefore be surprised that mutual consistency was not their first objective.

A thread running through the booklet is that education should be about more than qualifications and jobs. Education should focus on both individual and social well-being. It should provide young people with an experience of democracy and a desire to participate in social affairs. If there is one key theme of the booklet it is that we need an education that prepares young people to participate in democracy in all its forms as confident, well-formed individuals.

The authors collectively set out (1) to present a moral vision of what future education should be like and (2) to present the practical measures needed to realise the vision. This approach is variously described as “strong utopianism” or the construction of “real utopias”.
Lisa Nandy MP says in her Foreword that “... too often education equipped children for the workforce, not for life, and teachers complained that their skills and judgement were sidelined by central diktat”. Many will say that if the present system sets out to prepare children for work it is not doing it very well. The problem of extreme centralism is raised by many contributors and they do not fight shy from recognising that Labour governments have been part of the problem.
Neal Lawson and Ken Spours outline what they call a “new comprehensive vision”. They say that state education never had its founding moment as did the NHS in 1948 (it is unclear why they do not consider the passing of the 1944 Education Act to be that moment). They add that, unlike the NHS, state education failed to secure a place in people's hearts because “The comprehensive school movement remained underdeveloped, despite islands of inspiration”. They say that changes in education need to be paralleled by broader social changes including “... a different form of capitalism in which the market is controlled and socialised.”

There is an obvious tension between different concepts of comprehensive or common schools used by the various authors. Ken Spours talks of the “many dimensions” of comprehensiveness and suggests that a future “comprehensive” system might be one based on localism which includes free schools and Academies alongside “state schools.” The comprehensive element, he says, might be provided by building “strong areas” within which these different institutions collaborate.

Rebecca Hickman (Education and Fairness), on the other hand, argues that the current fragmentation of the school system is covert centralisation (through direct funding). She says that the international evidence on free schools shows falling standards and increased social differentiation. Finally, she argues that a fair system requires (1) a clear role for local authorities (e.g. for admissions, new schools and mergers, special needs), (2) abolition of grammar schools, halting free-school and Academy programmes and banning selective admission for faith schools.
Rebecca Hickman's points are unusually specific in a booklet in which the level of generality is sometimes difficult to distinguish from vagueness. This problem was illustrated at the London launch of the booklet at which the Shadow Education Minister Stephen Twigg spoke. When I asked about the difficulty of including faith schools as part of an integrative approach in an ethnically and religiously diverse society his response was “It's a very difficult problem. I am not saying that it should not be discussed. No one should be prevented from raising it, but it is a very difficult problem”. Two emails to him seeking for clarification have produced no reply.

Although Steven Twigg is not a contributor to the booklet his reluctance to deal with difficult current issues in any detail is also a feature of Education for the Good Society. Despite all the references to local democracy it is never clear who or what is being referred to. Given the major role played by local educational authorities since 1944 the failure to discuss them in any detail is striking. Despite the recognition of the importance of teachers there is no mention of the problem of their conditions of service (surely a major component of their “well-being”) and how this is being challenged by a fragmented system. Despite all the talk of school democracy and teacher-student inter-dependence there is nothing on the democratisation of school management. Despite all the talk of the importance of knowing the history of radical and socialist educational ideas there is nothing on the successes and failures of the struggle for good comprehensive schools.

It is surprising that in a publication that places so much importance on the idea of taking the high moral ground and of setting out a vision for an inclusive future for education which will prepare young people for active participation in society, there is so little by way of specific ideas about what an education of the future would look like in pedagogical, institutional and curricular terms.

Reading the document I found it difficult to avoid the impression of academics talking to each other. The text is peppered with unreferenced comments about what “research shows”. Many of the references are to articles which are not accessible by members of the public without paying £20+ each time. There is even a reference to an out-of-print book by H. G. Wells which is to the 1909 edition rather than to a free Internet download. This is trivial in itself but is an indication of a less than total commitment to opening the debate to the widest possible audience.

Ideas such as fairness, equality, localism, are used throughout the booklet as if they had an agreed common meaning. This makes it difficult to distinguish the intended meaning from the Government's use of the same terms. Indeed, Michael Gove has been able to gain political traction for the introduction of centrally funded independent schools by using just such language.

Given that Labour's cupboard of educational ideas currently shows every sign of being bare the booklet's attempt to launch a debate is to be welcomed and I hope that that it succeeds in that.

Moving the debate beyond university/research circles would enliven and deepen it. A viable left-wing educational alternative will need contributions by teachers, parents, local politicians and others. It would also reflect on what has and has not been achieved by the efforts to build a comprehensive education system in the last 60 years. It would discuss in some detail what children should be doing in school, the training and conditions of service for teachers and the democratisation of school management.

The Labour Party in general and Steven Twigg in particular doesn't have, as far as I can tell, a clue. The logic of Labour's stance, and unfortunately of some of the contributors to this booklet, is that it will continue to move in the Conservatives slip-streams. I really wish this could be different but when a left pressure group like Compass is so unclear about the issues as appears to be the case in th

Stan Rosenthal says

"However I would like to have seen the chapter entitled Schools for Democracy concentrate more on equipping pupils for democracy rather than on increasing the democratic process within schools."

And

"Without helping pupils to think more clearly about democratic choices, more democracy can just become a vehicle for perpetuating the prejudices of whoever can shout the loudest in appealing to our emotions."

(1) I think the idea in the booklet (which I am not in a hurry to defend) is that experiencing democracy in school will provide a basis of interest and understanding/motivation for the complex issues of democracy outside school.

(2) Second point. If democracy is understood as nothing more that majority voting then he would be right. However modern discussion of democracy (with roots going back to the American founding fathers) has a rather more complex view of democracy.

Beyond that it has to be said that the booklet is remarkably weak on school democracy insofar as it involves a set of people earning their living and trying to run the institution. No discussion of the problem of head teacher dictatorships, no discussion of making academic decisions with a school academic council (or some such). In fact teachers hardly get a look in in this booklet. This may be because it was written by university academics with careers which have left that sort of thing far behind. Or there may be some other explanation. Whatever the explanation is I can see how such an enormous topic could have been left out of the booklet.

Stan Rosenthal says

"However I would like to have seen the chapter entitled Schools for Democracy concentrate more on equipping pupils for democracy rather than on increasing the democratic process within schools."

And

"Without helping pupils to think more clearly about democratic choices, more democracy can just become a vehicle for perpetuating the prejudices of whoever can shout the loudest in appealing to our emotions."

(1) I think the idea in the booklet (which I am not in a hurry to defend) is that experiencing democracy in school will provide a basis of interest and understanding/motivation for the complex issues of democracy outside school.

(2) Second point. If democracy is understood as nothing more that majority voting then he would be right. However modern discussion of democracy (with roots going back to the American founding fathers) has a rather more complex view of democracy.

Beyond that it has to be said that the booklet is remarkably weak on school democracy insofar as it involves a set of people earning their living and trying to run the institution. No discussion of the problem of head teacher dictatorships, no discussion of making academic decisions with a school academic council (or some such). In fact teachers hardly get a look in in this booklet. This may be because it was written by university academics with careers which have left that sort of thing far behind. Or there may be some other explanation. Whatever the explanation is I can see how such an enormous topic could have been left out of the booklet.

A friend of mine commented on the lack of response to comments by authors of the Education booklet. He has a point. When I read the booklet, and even more when I went to the launch meeting I had a strong impression of academics and full-time politicians/activists talking to each other.

If even among the self-selection of the people who join Compass or follow its affairs a decent discussion cannot be generated then this surely should give rise to some concern about the willingness of most of the booklets authors to talk about local democracy while ignoring local government. We have structures of local democracy which, with all their problems, do provide a framework for determining local issues democratically. The booklet, on the other hand, seems to pin its hopes on undefined local interest groups (presumably mainly parents with children currently at school in the case of education). This sounds so close to the image of self-interested democracy advocated by the Coalition that it makes me wonder about Compass's direction of travel.