The Unfree School Movement

I have recently caught up with Start Your Own School, which chronicles Toby Young in his quest to form The West London Free School. It has created quite a reaction.

This project is very interesting for me because it is moving things towards, but not embracing completely our Party policy on Education[1].

Ealing is a London Borough with a larger population than Iceland, yet the only schools with anything other than a fleeting space or two available are at best only “Acceptable” to OFSTED, which, for me at least is, well, unacceptable.

I will not give you a blow-by-blow account of the programme, for it is on iPlayer for you to watch, but just pick out a few strands that caught my eye – surplus spaces, who decides, and arrogance.

Before I do, I want to make it clear that I do not wish to appear as if I am trying to tell Toby how to pursue his project or criticise how he has done so. Evidently, he did many things right as he has achieved his goal and, more importantly, he got off his backside and did it, whereas I am on mine typing this.

First was the rebuttal given to Toby from Ealing Council that they already had enough places in their plans and Toby’s scheme would “take children away” from other schools.

Toby did try to placate them, but to no avail. I believe that this is trying to fight on their ground. It is almost impossible to resist that temptation and no fault of Toby’s.

By saying you are not about providing a surplus of spaces, one falls into the trap of being then accused of providing a school that the Council decrees is not acceptable to them or the parents they say they represent. If there is no surplus, some children may have to go to the West London Free School even if they do not like it. This allows people to say you are forcing your views onto others. It is rather tragic that those same Council representatives do not appear to see that many parents in Ealing are already forced to send their children to schools they do not like, using pedagogy they do not support and precisely for that reason – a lack of surplus spaces.

Having surplus capacity is vital to enable parental choice to organically affect, improve and evolve educational provision. Right now, even the worst school in Ealing can survive because it will be running at near capacity and all because the number of spaces borough-wide is kept close to the demand.

If The West London Free School was created in addition to the existing provision, then no child would be forced to go to this new school. Parents and Education Officers would not be worried into a heap over the thought that children are going to be thrust into an academically focused arena and exposed to The Classics. Or is it that they are worried that few would go to one of their schools? I think the latter is the case.

By not trying to limit spaces you remove the argument about parents and children not wanting the school or “taking away” from others, particularly in an environment that only provides schools with funds per pupil, as in a voucher mechanism, and is not concerned with capital projects[2].

Not standing in the way of new schools forming in addition to existing provision is precisely the way to do it. If existing state schools are providing what parents want - a good learning environment - as we are told, then they will continue with healthy rolls. Even if those schools do lose some children, that will enable in-year admissions to be accommodated rapidly, so enabling children to move into the area and be able to receive education from one of these fine establishments nearby.

Of course, this means parental choice and a market, not the LEA calling the shots. One needs to think who, on average, knows best for the children - the collective wisdom of the LEA or the collective wisdom of parents? Ealing now has a Labour Council, who did give the impression that they were open to listen to Toby, but it is a relief that Ealing did not get a Liberal Democrat council judging by the attitude of those I met, who exuded arrogance and contempt for the notion that anyone but themselves should decide. As we know, they are neither Liberal nor Democratic.

By moving the Arbiter on who can open a school from the LEA to the Secretary of State, the West London Free School has been able to move forward. However, this does not really solve the problem, as you still have an Arbiter and now a national bottleneck. If a school wanted to open formed by a Teachers’ Mutual[3] who wished to emphasise Collectivism and revisionist view of History[4], one wonders how that would be processed by Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Education. While the new arrangement might suit one persuasion or ideological group, another could be stymied. We need to remove the scope for a monoculture and you will not do so when one decides on behalf of all others.

The same goes for parents. In the programme you saw a couple talking about how they do not wish to have their children go to such a school as the West London Free School, but want their children to be educated in an inclusive diverse environment or similar boilerplate. That is fine in a way, as, referring to above, if there is a surplus, such parents will not be forced to send their children to the West London Free school. What is chilling, however, is that they indirectly imply through their views that they want other children forced to go to the same school as theirs to benefit of their own children and support of their ideology and declaring that it is for the good of all the children (so forced). How dare they. The conceit, the arrogance, the steaming Authoritarianism. Other peoples’ children are not pawns for the betterment of another’s. This smug, self-satisfied, faux-liberal attitude is not unique. Some people want “inclusiveness” imposed upon others for their own reasons and to not have their error exposed. An extreme form of denial.

When you have an unnatural, forced limit on spaces, that gives a perverse justification for “the consensus” to force others to comply with a monoculture. It leads to a certain group – who, I am sure, entertain that delusion of being “the consensus” – dictating to others. These people are all the more dangerous, for they have the impression they are “doing good”, with all the risks of boundless enthusiasm and lack of introspection and consideration for the views of any who might dare to offer dissent.

Dictating to others is fine when you are the ones doing the dictating. Now Free Schools are on the horizon, you see the anger and hatred emerging from those people who see their dominion challenged. This is not even a case of another regime changing what exists, just that their Totalitarian view is being threatened by competition. If they were secure in their beliefs, in the strength and value of their approach, this would not disturb them but might, if it did anything, inspire to achieve more and prove their superiority. It does not, so one cannot be blamed for drawing the obvious conclusions.

This arrogance was manifest at other points in the programme.

The NUT representative had a few words and it was pure Authoritarianism, that only they knew best and everyone had to like it or lump it. This was to be expected, I suppose, but it is a shame that Teachers, of all people, who’s very profession is to open the minds of their charges, tolerate a Union hierarchy that appears to put narrow-minded self-serving dogma before curiosity, voluntary experimentation and liberty in general.

We had a rather bizarre interlude of a few very self-assured teenagers dismissing Latin[5], something they did not know of nor understand, saying they did not want to know about it. One wonders how they come to get such an attitude. How are they expected to progress and thrive in the big wide world with an attitude like that? I would not employ people like that, for they act as if they can’t be told anything because they know it all and have made up their minds and they don’t like it, even before spending time trying to understand it. It is not their fault, for they have been failed. Failed by a system the West London Free School is rocking and threatening.

And where do they get such a dreadful attitude? If the programme was anything to go by, they got part of it from - an admittedly unrepresentative group - of teachers at a state school called Quentin Keniston. They really should look back at their car crash of priggishness, arrogance and superciliousness and learn how not to appear. One wonders if the attacks on Toby Young were included to expose the monumental inertia of knuckle-headed bigotry that the West London Free School project faces or was an echo-chamber comfort zone for the BBC and associated Fabians? Who knows. One teacher complained that the school would not “reflect the community”, as if the school must be just like the outside - as one of many slices of seaside rock. Has it occurred to that person that some kids might want to ESCAPE their “community”? Has it occurred to them that they may aspire to do better, to leave that behind and progress, to be labelled by their ability and aptitude, not their postcode? It is fine by me that those teachers want to have a school that reflects what they think is best, good luck to them, but when it is the only option imposed by threats of imprisonment, it becomes a real problem - an arrogance that is never tested in the cold light of day.

An horrific example of what happens when you rock the boat, when you speak out of turn can be seen in the treatment of Katharine Burbalsingh. This Deputy Head dared speak out at the Tory Conference about falling standards. BLASPHEMER! Ranks have been closed, but the adverse publicity has, I hope, created a minor Ceausescu Moment in the Staff Room.

The problem in the Educational sector is a coerced monopoly. End the coerced monopoly, this 60+ year long Unfree School Movement and parents, Heads, Teachers and children across the country will demand the best and reject the rest. Those without the means or ability will gain the benefits just as they do in every other sector that has competition. This requires surplus spaces and will expose or endorse the views on either side.

The winners will be, for once, the children.


[1] LPUK policy is of a voucher system, but limited intervention by the State, focusing on delivery of numeracy and literacy (incorporating critical reasoning and communication). Home Educators will only have to comply with proof of improvements should they request Taxpayers money. See http://www.scribd.com/doc/30632138/Libertarian-Manifesto
[2] If schools were built to last, as they used to be, the current need for rebuilding would not be so acute.
[3] Who take it in turns to be acting Head Teacher for the week, with a simple majority in the case of operational affairs, but a two-thirds majority in the case of curricular or pedagogy affairs.... On a serious note, the LPUK has no issue with Mutuals, or other forms of voluntary collectivism, only coercion.
[4] Of course, if a School taught lies, then that is another issue and for the Courts, not politicians to decide.
[5] Unlike Toby, I did study Latin and it was one of my favourite subjects. I learnt not just the language but culture, history, lifestyle, law and mythology. That world was as far away from those kids in Acton as it was from me in the borderlands of North East of London and to deny it them this is an outrage.