Education . and commonsense
Sir: What refreshing commonsense Dr Rhodes Boyson talks about education! His articles are like draughts of clear, cold water after the turgid verbosities of the sociologists and social theorists who today masquerade as educationists. It is patently obvious that neither the raising of the school-leaving age nor the arbitrary imposition on the whole country of a compulsory, comprehensive system is going to contribute one iota towards that improvement of general educational standards which is so desirable and necessary. Indeed, so far as the latter is concerned, this may well have the opposite effect and hasten the decline in standards, which is already causing much concern.
What is perhaps not sufficiently appreciated is that this is precisely what the Labour Party and those members of the left-wing intelligentsia who formulate its educational policy want. Recognising that equality and excellence make strange bedfellows, they, are prepared to throw excellence out' of the window. A few years ago the Oxford Union Society passed a motion proposed by the late Richard Crossman that "the purpose of education is not excellence but equality." To my no doubt incAirably old-fashioned mind the very thought of an education system which does not encourage excellence is an absurdity. Nevertheless, however absurd, this is their policy and they make no bones about it. The most disturbing feature of the 'anti-elitist' movement is that highly intelligent, literate people such as Tyrrell Burgess should appear to wish to destroy the system which has enabled them to achieve distinction and excellence.
Last year Roy Hattersley when Shadow Minister of Education admitted that his Party were no longer interested in equality of opportunity but in creating 'the opportunity for equality.' The present Minister now proclaims his intention to abolish all types of selection at any age, which can only mean that the comprehensive university will succeed the comprehensive school. This is all of a piece with a statement recently made by the headmaster of a comprehensive school in South London; when asked why Latin was not taught in his school he replied "because it is a divisive subject." In other words A should not be taught anything which B and C cannot understand; like the wartime convoys we must all proceed at the pace of the slowest. The continuous process of sacrificing quality to quantity and of ability to mediocrity in a levelling down operation of gigantic proportions over many years will no doubt eventually usher in that blissful age when all men will be truly equal — all equally unable to read or write, add or subtract.
Some comfort is, however, afforded by a recent letter in the Times from Iris Murdock where she expresses —
somewhat belatedly, it is true — her disenchantment with the current educational philosophy of the party she supports. One can only hope that others may see the error of their ways and follow her example so that sanity may be restored to the educational scene before irreparable harm is done to those intellectual and cultural values itich are at the heart of our civilisation and the quality of life of generations yet unborn is irremediably worsened.
Robin Howard
St Upfield, East Croydon
Previous page
