by Swithun Dobson
Independent Schools: Arms of the State
The Proposed New Independent Standards for Schools (PNISS) are a bigger threat to educational liberty than the National Curriculum and will effectively mean all independent schools will become arms of the state.
Here are the most egregious passages with some brief comments.
1.c)
“strengthening the spiritual, moral, social and cultural (SMSC) standard to require proprietors to actively promote the fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance for those with different faiths and beliefs; and encourage students to respect other people, with particular regard to the protected characteristics [Ed. Age, disability, gender
reassignment,
marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race,
religion or
belief, sex and sexual orientation] set out in the Equality Act 2010 ”
Predictably nowhere in this document are key terms defined. Let’s take democracy: do they mean just the present-day UK parliamentary democracy? If so, would it be contrary to fundamental British values of democracy to advocate proportional representation or other procedural changes? So what do they actually mean by democracy? Athenian democracy, Swiss democracy, direct democracy, federal democracy, limited franchise, universal franchise? Obviously, democracy is used here purely as a positive adjective as opposed to anything concrete: its meaning will be changed when politically expedient.
The most laughable of the above values is individual liberty: by the terms of the proposed changes I will no longer by able to set up my own independent school to teach values which would have been the norm even thirty years ago. Further, I severely doubt the Educational Authorities would take kindly to any promotion of the works of Lysander Spooner or Murray Rothbard.
3.2.1
“The changes also include new requirements that the curriculum and teaching do not undermine the fundamental British values that are set out in section 1.1(c) above, and that the teaching does not discriminate against students contrary to the Equality Act 2010 (for example by girls being made to sit at the back of classes or teaching of intolerant attitudes). Although independent schools are subject to the Equality Act 2010, the only remedy directly provided by that Act is through the Courts; the new standards would allow the Department to take regulatory action against the school for failing to meet them.”
If parents wish to pay to send their daughters to a school where they sit at the back of the class that is the parents’ choice; note that the Trojan Horse related issues were at a state, not an independent school. If we accept large numbers of immigrants with a foreign culture, it is obvious that parents will wish to inculcate their children with their own cultural values. If the authorities dislike these values they ought to look at their immigration policy.
Notice again the lack of definition of intolerant. Am I intolerant for arguing that everywhere and always 2+2 = 4? How about that murder is always wrong? Moreover, what about propagating fundamental British values as the only fundamental values for Britons? Surely that makes me a fundamentalist and thus a danger to society!
3.2.2
“The proposed changes to Part 2 are aimed at making it clear to independent schools that the proprietor must actively promote the fundamental British values that are set out in section 1.1(c) above and that schools must actively promote the specified principles, including furthering tolerance and harmony between different cultural traditions and encouraging respect for democracy.
A minimum approach, for example putting up posters on a notice board and organising an
occasional visit to places of worship would fall short of ‘actively promoting’.Schools will be expected to focus on, and be able to show how their work with pupils is effective in embedding fundamental British values. ‘Actively promote’ also means challenging pupils, staff or parents expressing opinions contrary to fundamental British values.
The new requirement for schools to actively promote principles which encourage respect for persons with protected characteristics (as set out in the Equality Act 2010) is intended to allow the Secretary of State to take regulatory action in various situations: for example where girls are disadvantaged on the grounds of their gender; failure to address homophobia; or where prejudice
against those of other faiths is encouraged or not adequately challenged by the school. We intend to update and reissue the current guidance on this standard to reflect these changes.”
Effectively, all recalcitrant views are to be challenged into silence and everyone must be convinced that the Egalitarian God is the one true God. Even expressing a heterodox belief by a parent in ear shot of staff members could easily lead to a letter informing them of their “troubling/prejudiced etc.” views. If a school fails to actively promote this then they will be faced with action, not via the courts as it would at present, but by the Secretary of State himself. I do wonder how the democratic free schools, such as Summerhill, will fare with these updated regulations since the whole point of the schools is that they don’t explicitly teach the children anything, allowing them to follow their own interests. If you were thinking that you could run an underground school, see this paragraph from the Letter from Lord Nash: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/318944/IS_reform_statement.pdf
“We have agreed with the police and Ofsted the arrangements for prosecuting individuals or groups that are conducting unregistered schools.”
What will come after these changes, which will more than likely pass, is renewed calls for a central registration of all home educators. For how otherwise can they determine whether parents are actively promoting fundamental British values? The next step will be for children to be removed from their parents for holding and teaching “unholy” views. If you think this is far fetched this is what the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, said in March of this year:
“At present, there is a reluctance by the social services to intervene, even when they and the police have clear evidence of what is going on, because it is not clear that the ‘safeguarding law’ would support such action.
“How do we make sure the kids in London are not growing up with these kind of nightmarish ideas in their heads?”
“A child may be taken into care if he or she is being exposed to pornography, or is being abused – but not if the child is being habituated to this utterly bleak and nihilistic view of the world that could lead them to become murderers.”
“I have been told of at least one case where the younger siblings of a convicted terrorist are well on the road to radicalisation – and it is simply not clear that the law would support intervention.
“This is absurd. The law should obviously treat radicalisation as a form of child abuse.
“It is the strong view of many of those involved in counter-terrorism that there should be a clearer legal position, so that those children who are being turned into potential killers or suicide bombers can be removed into care – for their own safety and for the safety of the public.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26413024
Once the principle has been established that the state can remove children from their parents due their beliefs it can and will be extended to more and more “intolerant views”.
The consultation for most important sections finishes this Monday (4th August). I doubt they’ll listen but if we can get enough hostile responses in, they may delay the introduction. Further, if you know any Church, Mosque or Synagogue leaders please pass the links on.
To respond to the consultation follow https://www.education.gov.uk/consultations/
All the documents relating to the consultation below:
The Letter from Lord Nash
Showing Proposed Changes in Statute
The Consultation
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“So what do they actually mean by democracy?”
As in German Democratic Republic I assume?
(PNISS? Really? Come on.)
A VERY important post.
As someone recently out of a state high school, I can tell all older libertarians who may think the education system is unjust and inefficient in theory but that teenagers have never had it so good in practice that this is one hundred percent untrue.
State high schooling is a highly depressing and demotivating experience; the atmosphere of a police station, a hospital, and an asylum all in one. The teachers are conceited, overpaid dullards. The kids are usually already hopeless morons as a result of their prior state primary schooling, but willing to accept whatever the teachers say as the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In this sense, teachers have never had it so good.
The similarities between state schools and the NHS are undeniable. They attract simpletons. They both ought to be pretty violently shut down.
Now, this may always have been the case – at least *relatively* so. Thus, state school teachers, while they were undoubtedly far superior fifty or sixty years ago to the trash we have now, even then the private school teachers would have been better. Ditto with doctors. Many libertarians have noted that when you nationalise something, it takes a generation for the rot to set in. For, while the market forces no longer work, there are still professionals who worked in the private sector running the state industry – people who have been conditioned to satisfy consumers and who have at least some dignity left. Alas! we are well and truly past this point now.
Not only this, but there seems to have developed a natural tendency for the morons running state education and state healthcare to become more and more self-obsessed – perhaps because of their constant success in demanding pay rises which of course the State won’t refuse because it needs its army of mental and physical poisoners. They have lost their dignity and replaced it with vanity. Nay, they are proud. They cannot understand how anyone would not listen to their every word with bated breath. Thus, teachers become increasingly authoritarian and doctors become increasingly political and vice versa, too.
When you come to power, Sean, make sure these people are the victims of a good deal of ostracism and black-balling for a decade or so until they have lost their Hitler reflex.
Good comment. You should consider changing the first and last paragraphs and making it into a regular post.
PNISS, they are calling it ISS but I prefer to call it ISIS.
As for your schooling I entirely agree with you, I’m not yet 30. In fact I have a view from the inside as I teach Economics in the state sector. Teachers in my experience are conceited, controlling and have an entitlement mentality. Firstly, they all accept egalitarian dogma as given and will not hear it questioned: one teacher claimed that Oxbridge was racist and sexist by the mere fact that “not enough” girls and non-Whites entered. Also they vastly over estimate their own importance.
Secondly, since they plan in minute detail lessons which the children don’t want to attend but they believe is good for them (they have to rationalise their work somehow- I do it by mentioning an Austrian economics approach and emphasising the extent of government failure)
Thirdly, since teachers seem to historically had quite a cushy job and pensions any changes are held in contempt. It is true some changes are bad and management unreasonable but they do seem to be a bit of a dour lot.
Please, teachers of the world, buy this person a drink and put him in charge of your schools.
It shall be done.
“Independent” schools already are arms of the State, happy to accept priveleges like charitable status and a cosy relationship.
I must admit that, libertarian that I am, I don’t see this measure as particularly sinister. It’s generally illibertarian, but what isn’t in our society, currently? It is really little more than a (certain to be ineffectual) sticking plaster to attempt to placate the public who have woken up to the demographic disaster inflicted on us by previous governments of both notionally “Left” and “Right” over the past few decades. As such it is best understood as not so much a sinister expansion of State power, as a futile attempt to bolt the stable door when the horse has already vanished over the horizon.
Ian,
I agree with you that most of the independent schools are in fact arms of the state however this will stamp out the last bastions of educational freedom. Further, it is a further slide to registration of home educators.
Regarding the reason for the change one could take two views- yours, the incompetence view which is plausible which will lead to unintended effects or the more conspiratorial view which is the one I share: the consistent theme of educational policy over the last 25 years has been to centralise power in Westminster. The National Curriculum, “free schools”, incorporated further educational institutes etc. have all taken power out of the hands of the Local Educational Authorities. I think the powers that be have taken a politically expedient moment to further extend their power over even the ostensibly “independent sector”.
[…] ← Education: Another Step to the Total State […]
[…] below is from the comments section of this post by Swithun Dobson. Aside from the layout making it a challenge to read, I found it highly […]
Ian – there is a massive difference between many really independent (i.e. fee paying) schools and state schools (of course real independent schools must not be confused with the government “free” schools – but even these are better than the “bog standard” government schools).
Saying “it has charitable status and that comes with strings attached” is true to some extent – but one must not over stretch it (yes there are strings – but it is not the same).
I think many of you Libertarians are missing the “Libertarian” principle here judging by your comments. I think the title itself is a stab at reasoned ‘sarcasm” when it says; “Education: Another Step to the Total State” Successful to in my opinion! e.g. Your Parliament defines itself as the non-libertarian state. Parliament is already the ‘total state’ and no further ‘steps’ are needed. Stop fretting,that train left the station many decades ago.