Dramatic educational reform is being carried out without a proper debate, says a north London school’s chair of governers Penny Wild

Education and Democracy – a Tribute to Caroline Benn by Clyde Chitty & Melissa Benn
Continuum, £14.99

THIS collection of essays, written as a tribute to the long years of campaigning for comprehensive schools by Caroline Benn, the wife of the veteran politician Tony, makes sobering reading in the context of the General Election.
Although differing in subject matter and scope, the 17 essays give an indication of the arguments, educational experiences and social demands which have driven the development of comprehensive schools.
They outline the history of non-selective education and its long battle for acceptance, covering professional concerns within the system; admissions; academic achievements, and international comparisons.
They reflect the central democratic and egalitarian ethos of comprehensives and challenge the constant attempts of governments and others to rubbish the achievements of the schools, which educate 90 per cent of our youngsters.
Most importantly, the essays affirm the conviction of the contributors that comprehensive education provides a necessary and, on the whole, successful underpinning for a fair provision of education.
This contrasts with infamous “bog-standard” jibes of politicians and those who demand a selective system to support the hierarchies of our society and reflect the global marketplace.
And here lies the rub. Despite the loudly proclaimed progress and self-congratulation of recent administrations, the climate of targets and initiatives, constant inspections and growing central direction has generated a narrowing of goals.
These are at odds with the egalitarian needs of a modern society, and the ever widening educational competences generated by sophisticated economies.
The impression is of an education philosophy cloned from the current TV advert for Microsoft in which a child called Fiona is seen striding into the land of opportunity of her school and with the aid of Microsoft, emerging as top of the class and in receipt of standing ovations.
The problem is what happens to Fiona’s peers. Labour’s promise of ‘education for the individual’ is an avoidance of the classic challenge of full social advance in education.
Reading these essays serves as a salutary reminder that those in charge of education policy and strategy are talking about a different world from the one envisaged by Caroline Benn and those who struggled with Clement Atlee’s team to set up a non-selective system after World War Two.
Don’t bother with the Labour manifesto because it does not say what is happening, although the rhetoric and vision can look okay if you stomach the management-speak. The Financial Times recently revealed the huge extent of private investment in the state provision of education.
There are budgetary targets running to 2010 to expand the private take of educational activity. They cover the supply of teachers, managers, inspectors, possession and direction of both teaching, buildings and administration.
Headteachers might find themselves time-sharing their buildings with social services and private contractors for sports and leisure, all under the direction of a private foundation.
And this is not even a traditional private school model. Fee-paying schools are educationally dedicated charitable trusts. Labour’s private invasion is bringing shareholders who want a market return, not even stakeholders who are tied in. Parents beware: your fellow stakeholder could turn out to be an international service company funded by venture capitalists. Is this fantasy? Well, isn’t that what’s happening to the NHS?
If this is where some people see things heading, shouldn’t there be an open debate? Educational reform by stealth is not acceptable.
There are well canvassed and understood reforms of the comprehensive system which build on democratic principles and extend equality of resources. For example, instead of private management for so-called failed schools and privileged academies with sparkling private buildings and no public accountability, funds could have meant schools in poor areas had the same teacher/pupil ratios as the fee paying sector.
At the other end of the system, the traditional universities – the elite Russell Group – could follow the idea that every secondary school should be allocated a quota of places at these universities. At least this would mean parents with Oxbridge aspirations would not be so prone to avoid their nearest schools.
The resources question is crucial: if the state system was targeted to have a similar pupil/teacher ratio as the private system, we would be on the road to real educational progress.
Labour, I fear, is driving an ever more market based system.
Look at what has happened to the Tomlinson Report. This would have – even if controversially in some areas – extended the comprehensive principle. It would have been supported by all the writers in this book, and arguably there was a consensus for the changes. It was summarily shelved before the election. Modernisation? Those who have power in educational decisions are traditionalists, comfortable and smug and ever eager to implement the lowest common denominator thinking of the commercial marketplace for the rest of us.

• Penny Wild is chairwoman of governors at Camden School for Girls.