Waiting to be Integrated

By RICHARD RHODES JAMES

T TEACH in a public school. And so my world

is less certain than it was. There is, in fact, precious little hush in the close these days. With the twang of guitars are mingled the arguments of those who would destroy us, contending with the less articulate noises of others who rush to our defence. Life is less dull, but it is a good deal more confusing. Counsel is darkened with words.

The latest attack comes from the Young Fabian pamphlet Public Schools. It is logical, well argued, bolstered by statistics that look con- vincing, and rounded off with a constructive attempt at a solution. In the terms of this pamphlet, I teach in a system that is 'both morally and intellectually indefensible.' This system is a form of intellectual apartheid, isolat- ing in a damaging way, breeding irresponsible power and homosexuality. We are subsidised through the Rating and Valuation Act, 1961, covenants, and expense accounts, for which there can be no justification.

By this diagnosis my school takes more than its proportionate share of scarce educational re- sources. It has a teacher ratio and a teacher quality that is inequitable. Its facilities are far better than the State system's. Its academic. ad- vantages lead to greater academic success. It dominates positions of power and influence. (We are proud of our gaggle of MPs.) Its grip on industry will tighten. The key is its hold over the Oxbridge entry. The parents who send their boys to us are not buying education but privilege. 'Public schpols are a transmission belt for class privileges.'

All this, of course, is old hat. To quote the Bow Group pamphlet Whose Public Schools?, which has points of surprising similarity with the Fabians: The public schools attract a degree of envy and resentment which is unhealthy in a stable democracy.' What is not so well known is the reaction to these attacks within the public schools. The spokesmen of the system are the, headmasters. For some time it has been Mr. Dancy of Marlborough, more recently Mr. Wigram, retiring chairman of the Headmasters' Conference, and Mr. Chenevix-Trench of Eton. But what about the teachers, who have most con- tact with the daily workings of the system?

My colleagues tell me it is dangerous to generalise, and wild extrapolating affects edu-

cationalists as much as anyone else. But it is time somebody had a go.

The trouble, of course, is that we are too busy teaching. We find the intellectual, social, and to some extent the financial, climate so accept- able that we forget to join organisations to im- prove our lot or put our case. So headmasters put it for us and in doing so are obliged to strike attitudes that sometimes contain too large an element of public relations.

Are we content with the present system? The answer is not simple, because the teaching force of a public school is not a monolith. The older members, themselves educated by the system when it was unquestioned, do not easily move from the past. They tend to fret at novelties and question change. The change of Government has unsettled them. But there is an increasing element of young masters who knew not the ante-nuclear age or the middle-class security of the depres- sion years.

These men are thinking fairly furiously. They are experimenting. They are supporting efforts now being made to link up with the community —Outward Bound is merging gently into Volun- tary Service. When a headmaster has new ideas, they welcome them, asking only that they should be thought out. They are in favour of having girls around more frequently. Co-education is not such an exotic word. They do not look back on the good old days. They don't all come from Oxford or Cambridge.. Very few vote Labour, but many think Liberal. Their minds are not closed.

The plain truth of the matter is that the resistance to change lies elsewhere; with the boys. On the morning after the general election my form asked me with some concern whether the public schools were safe. One, who had been pondering the constitution, wondered if Mr. Wilson had a mandate for a change with so small a majority. Political debates in school are hopeless; often only the resident clown volun- teers fo be the Labour spokesman. The 'sixth- form rebellion,' so widely publicised a year ago, did not include the breaking-down of class prejudices. Loudly and persistently we expose their prejudices and invite them to open their minds. Some of the older boys, thinking of the world they are about to enter, go through the motions. For most it does not go beyond a

genuine regard for Oxfam. And a few shed tears for CND.

Perhaps this is how the system condemns itself. Mr. Dancy's remark, `The public schools can justly be called a divisive force in society,' is one that few of us would deny. And we do not attempt to do so, But the final .test is this : are we willing to throw open our doors to all and sundry?

At this stage common-rooms tend to break up in confusion, because it is a question that ex- poses second-hand affirmations. Nostalgia tends to return. We think of happy days, and splendid boys, and we contemplate cockneys with a cold unease. We think , of how we should operate a boarding school with boys who have never been taught the social disciplines that such a life entails. We wonder about the parents. We wonder about the sanitation. We try to conjure up Speech Day. We try to imagine what the old boys would say, that other great mass of. steadfast retrospection that has given us so much of their money, to support us.

Reappraisal hurts. For so long we have been lulling ourselves with platitudes about 'the things we value' in our system. We now have to dig below the heavy overburden of social attitudes and traditions and see the real ore. I pick out two genuine nuggets—intellectual discipleship and pastoral care, horribly trite phrases, but standing for something true. Can we transfer these to the sixth-form colleges and schools for the unan- chored that the Fabians and others recommend? I wonder.

Things are happening. With the Fleming Report in ashes, local authorities jettisoning eleven-plus and assaulting grammar schools, with the mount- ing attack on streaming by the avant-garde pres- sure groups, with Mr. Wilson engaged in his legislative coup de main at Westminster, the time is running out. Teachers in public schools would like to feel that people recognise that their minds are not shut. They hope too that, before their institutions are borne away, they will be consulted. We will, after all, have to run the new system.