SOCIETY TODAY

Education

The public schools' fatal rigidity Richard Ryder

The presence of public schools Within our educational system is not altogether consistent with modern Tory philosophy. Their Purpose has become outmoded by current social developments, and their own traditional impotence to recognise or adjust to society's Changing standards. Modern conservatism leans on the conviction that individuality and enterprise are intertwined. The rigid, corporate nature of Public Schools imposes uniformity and discourages individuality among that very section of the community upon whom the capitalist system is most dependent. Yet the chief reason for Britain's economic malaise throughout the Past hundred years has been the capital classes' timidity to take the necessary entrepreneurial risks that are vital to capitalism if it is to operate effectively.

We are still suffering from this Peculiar legacy of the new urban Victorian middle classes. The Main historical reason for public school growth," wrote Donald McLachlan in Black Paper I, " was the need to civilise and discipline the rich. The methods were devised to harness the crude vigour and materialism of the mid-Victorian middle class with the landed gentry and the professions." This is a well-stated half-truth, because the Victorian middle class succeeded in establishing a rigid social barrier which helped to consolidate their newly acquired social status. This barrier was represented by the public school rash of the mid-nineteenth century, including Cheltenham 1841, Marlborough 1843, Rossall 1844, F(adley 1847, Lancing 1849, Wellington 1853 and Malvern 1865.

But mere wealth and a public school education were insufficient qualifications to acquire that Pitch of real social status. Hence the public school ethos was aimed at quelling features of individualistic behaviour, and parents were induced to dispatch their Manufactured children into the army, professions, civil service, church or land. In these spheres enterprise was unimportant, and again individuality discouraged by prevailing social values.

Those enriched by the Industrial Revolution at the highest level, like the Strutts and Marshells invested their capital in

land; and by the outbreak of the first world war the general bourgeoisie were content to consolidate their social standing, rather than risking capital in an effort to improve it. Despite some outstanding exceptions like the Levers and the Beechams, the most notable entrepreneurs sprang mainly from a social background unconnected with public schools.

Traditionally the ideal public school product is one trained in, and willing to accept meticulous routine duties. His intellectual freedom and aspirations are contained by the discipline of community living. A state of mind well suited to empire and the status quo. But to be fair, some headmasters during the inter-war period sensed these fundamental deficiencies, and tried to remedy them.

The most remarkable of these men was J. F. Roxburgh, the first headmaster of Stowe, but he was not alone. Coade of Bryanstan, Kut Hahn of Gordounstown, and Thring of Uppingham, all strove towards encouraging each boy to develop according to his individual aptitude. As Noel Annan explained in his excellent biography of Roxburgh, "the implication that intellectual endeavour was a selfish pursuit, and the highest ac

tivities were ti-that hastened

team spirit," a nonsensical

notion, refuted ;y Roxburgh. He believed respect for a boy's individuality was a schoolmaster's foremost duty, and to suppress it was a manifestation of failure. Even if this entailed sacrificing the more corporate aspects of school life. Roxburgh affirmed that this would stimulate a boy's imagination, arouse his ambitions, and eventually mould a more creative personality.

Unfortunately, the batch of post-second-war headmasters were unsympathetic to Rox burgh's ideas or methods; and in the main his laudable objectives have failed to enthuse current headmasters. Thus a boy's natural qualities might well be diagnosed as idiosyncrasies at school, and therefore suppressed and pro. bably deadened without being given a chance to flourish on reaching adulthood. But where does all this fit into Tory politics? Well, our capitalist society requires greater social mobility, if it is to survive in its present state. In fact, it is a prerequisite of the Prime Minister's ' Quiet Revolution.' We have advanced to a stage where a new form of entrepreneurship must emerge to meet the challenge of our entry into Europe. This prospect can only be made attractive to every sector of society, if it evokes some curiosity, interest or ambition. So artificial educational impediments to movement between classes must be removed. In many countries a dominant race or elite often monopolise responsible positions, and are sheltered from reality. In Britain, public schools provide this shelter, and the predicament has been observed, in print, by at least one Tory member of Parliament.

Timothy Raison, Tory MP for Aylesbury, in his book, Why Conservative?, conceded: "The existence of the public and private schools illustrates most vividly the potential clash between the principle of freedom and one nation." The principle of One Nation has been treated with awesome reverence by successive generations of Tory politicians. The clearest and most recent exposition of this doctrine, or myth, was provided by the Prime Minister himself at the 1970 Tory Party Conference, "We have been summoned to the service of the nation — a nation seeking fresh outlets for its energies, a nation looking for new opportunities for its people: more encouragement, greater reward for its activities, happier conditions for the community at large." The Prime Minister's vision depends upon the social ladder being accessible to people with talent and ingenuity, regardless of background.

But the reader may have detected a possible flaw — university entry is judged entirely on merit, and that alone is expected to produce a social system based on an aristocracy of talent.' This is simply invalid. The public school product starts with several educational and cultural advantages. But the significant point to my contention is that he already possesses (or is likely to receive) some inherited capital. The argument rests on how this capital should be employed. We have established the fact that public schools dredge individuality, and discourage intrinsic characteristics associated with risk taking. Thus our capitalist society is failing to deliver an adequate quantity of entrepreneurs. Upon r this juncture the article has deduced three clear premises.

Firstly, in every sphere of British life, economic, cultural and social, we require men with greater originality. They have not been, and are not forthcoming, from the public schools. Secondly, despite exceptions like Roxburgh of Stowe, the public school system eradicates individuality to society's detriment. Thirdly, and politically, a Tory dilemma exists between the ideal of' One Nation,' and freedom of parental choice in education.

The public schools give our social structure its peculiar charac

ter, where the accent is on preservation rather than change. The Tory Party must acknowledge the clash between 'Freedom of Choice' and 'One Nation' remains at the crux of this issue. And it would be inconsistent to deny that society has become the demented victim of its own creation. The Prime Minister values individual initiative as highly as Roxburgh, but while he allows the two contradictory Tory myths ' One Nation' and Freedom of Choice' to exist simultaneously his Quiet Revolution' vision will be unattainable. The anomaly will remain fortified by a party professing to unite the nation. But the latter are now too sophisticated to digest this chimera any longer; economic philosophy is worthless unless some equal attention is paid to social thinking. This is where the Tory Party currently lacks ideas and inspiration.

Perhaps somewhere to be unearthed there lurks a trace of overreaction to sociologists. Who knows?

Richard Ryder is a former chairman of the Cambridge University Conservative Association and lecturer at Swinton Conservative College.