What is education for?

Do you really think the Tory, Liberal and “Labour” parties give a flying fig about educating everybody to a high standard?

Since the discussion about mass education began seriously, say from the 19th century, the “capital gains” class has been very much against educating the general population. That class was also, and for similar reasons, vehemently opposed to enlarging the franchise. It was a widely held belief amongst the well-catered-for that the vote, combined with education, would lead more or less directly to communism!

For many people, education, or at least the "sharp-elbowed middle class” version of it, is something that will help push you (or your child) further up the social hierarchy.  In this view, education is little more than something to help you, “get ahead” and (as my old mum used to say) “do well for yourself”.

That’s one answer - and not an unreasonable one in this society. But it implies that education is little more than a kind of preparatory training for work. Schools as exam-passing production lines - at least for the majority.

But there’s no point in thinking about education in the abstract. Education takes place in this particular society, a society organised in a particular way. A capitalist society. Capitalism doesn’t need a highly educated workforce. It needs workers who can read and write; and often they will require very specialised skills and knowledge. But as to needing a broader education – one including history, art ...?

It is the “training for work” style of education that has led to different kinds of education - eg “vocational”, “classical” - and different kinds of schools - eg “public” schools, grammar schools, technical colleges, etc.
Their class nature is immediately apparent.

During 1918 (and many times since), when the government was considering an Education Bill, requiring compulsory education for children under 14, employers argued that industry couldn’t possibly bear the cost of the absence of those children - who would no longer be working “productively” in factories, but would be idling away their time in schools!

The then Federation of British Industries recommended to the government that they should be careful about over-educating children. They said in a memorandum that, “in selecting children for higher education, care should be taken to avoid creating, as was done in India, a large class of persons whose education is unsuitable for the employment which they eventually enter.”

Stripped of the cant and twaddle that education policy is usually draped, its purpose - to quote R H Tawney from a contemporaneous article - “is not to enable human beings to become themselves through the development of their personalities, nor to strengthen the spirit of social solidarity, nor to prepare men for the better service of their fellows, nor to raise the general level of society...”.

Its purpose is, he said, to prepare children and young people, as is appropriate to their social standing, for a suitable role in industry and commerce. In other words, a basic education for “factory fodder” workers; perhaps a “grammar school” type of education for future managers; and, needless to say, an elite learning environment for those  burdened with the “destiny” of leadership.

One last thing. Forget all the guff about educational standards, curricula, teacher motivation, etc etc. The single, most fundamental factor in determining educational results - is class size.  Do you suppose expensive, exclusive “public” schools have class sizes of 30 or more?