Page 3, 29th July 1977

29th July 1977
Page 3
Page 3, 29th July 1977 — Great debate gives birth to a mouse
Close

Report an error

Noticed an error on this page?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it.

Tags


Share


Related articles

Threat Of Apathy To Religious Education

Page 3 from 9th November 1973

Don't Blame Vatican Ii For The Failure Of Catholic Education

Page 11 from 13th January 2006

Mr St John Stevas Said It Was His Final Appearance

Page 3 from 24th November 1978

Dare Our Political Leaders Risk A Referendum?

Page 5 from 7th June 1968

Opposition Re Views

Page 2 from 7th April 1978

Great debate gives birth to a mouse

Keywords: Teacher, Teaching, Education

Norman St John-Stevas

SO AT LAST we have it: the Department of Education's .Green Paper on education summing up the fruits of the last year's non-stop debate in which

politicians, teachers, educationists and even parents have been taking part. Never has there been so much talk about education, never so many conferences and certainly never so many television and wireless programmes.

Has it all been worth it? If the Green Paper be taken as the prize the Government evidently intended it to be then I fear the answer must he a negative one. in expends, I instinctively resort to Latin and this time call Horace in aid to express my feelings: Parturiunt monies nascentr &Beaus main the mountains have laboured and given birth to an absurd mouse.

After all those outpourings we could have expected something more structured, more thought through, above all more definite than this. The Green Paper is greener than most and it will certainly settle hardly any questions. Heaven preserve us, but its most likely outcome is to give birth to yet another great debate I

This is not to say that I consider the paper a disaster. I do not. There are two things in particular which 1 welcome. First there is the stress on standards, and this is the beginning of wisdom in the educational sphere.

I am delighted that the Labour party at last is returning to a part of its tradition of which, in its mad, foolish and wicked crusade against

the grammar schools, it has been in danger of losing sight — the impor tance of learning as a key to moral and social progress. So two cheers then for Shirley for initiating what one hopes will turn out to be a great return.

Second, I applaud the attempts, however restrained, to throw the public spotlight on the teaching profession. A school is as good as its teachers, and especially its head

teacher. Some people seem under

the illusion that you need to build a skyscraper to construct a formula.

You do not. All you need to be a good teacher is to have a teaching nature.

Furthermore it must be recognised that in the great expansion of the colleges of education that took

place after the war a number of people entered the profession not

only with no vocation for teaching but who have turned out to be a positive liability.

Mrs Williams, albeit in ever so muffled a manner, has recognised

this and has begun the first tentative moves towards grasping the nettle. If there is a gain from the great debate it will be that the teaching profession will have to recognise (as the best teachers already do) that they are accountable to the nation for their successes and thei: failures.

Education is too important to be left to the teachers, and, let us face it, too expensive, too. We are now spending something like £6000 millions on education each year. the major part of which goes on salaries and wages and the nation is right to demand that it gets value for money.

Yet the Green Paper constitutes a great missed opportunity. In the words of the Prayer Book it has left undone those things which it ought to have done, and the chief sin of omission is the failure to put forward any concrete proposals to increase parental influences and choice in education.

Yet the right to educate children belongs inalienably to the parent. True, in the complex conditions of modern society the exercise of the right has to be delegated to others, but the right itself is not forfeited. Everyone in the world of education from the Secretary of State down to the humblest dinner lady helping out with a school meal is there to serve the parents. The cry should be not, We are the masters," but "We are the servants now." I regret very much that there are no proposals to increase the number of parental governors on school boards. They should number between a third and a half.

Rigid zoning for schools introduced at a time of population explosion and pressure on scarce schools resources is no longer needed: the Green Paper should have declared its abolition. An appeals system should 'have been outlined for parents dissatisfied with educational decisions. Once again the silence has been deafening.

And talking about deafening silences, why have we not heard anything from our episcopal leaders during the whole of the great debate'? There has been virtually nothing said on religious and moral education: surely the most importaro part of education for every committed Christian.

Surely, on this subject we had the right to expect an authoritative statement to fill the gap left by the Secretary of State. Never since the war have we been so bereft of a lead from those whose function it is to speak out clearly about the importance of the moral issues at stake in education.

We do not want bishops to lay down the law, but we wish to see the ends, both social and educational, defined clearly by those whose very office calls them to this form of service in the Church. And if the hierarchy is silent one can hardly blame the Secretary of State for being silent in her turn.

Yet unless a warning he given, unless positive moral goals are laid down for the guidance of the people the clockwork orange society will turn From a fantasy into a reality. To allow this to huppen would be a real troilism, des dere.




blog comments powered by Disqus