Skip to main content

Not Compulsory

"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival." W. Edwards Deming

This is a week all about education. As the British Parliament debates further changes to the education system, it is clear that the place of education is rising up the political agenda. I have no particular quarrel with treating students differently based on academic ability. I am sceptical about schools selecting on that basis- frankly the grammar school system I have seen in operation in Buckinghamshire is not an advert for good schools. I am more familiar with streaming or "setting" within comprehensive schools, and to my mind this both helps kids who might not get support from middle class parenting and it concentrates on brain power rather than social exclusivity. Class based schools are not a good thing for an open economy. Certainly in my own industry of finance, I see people of well below average intelligence managing to maintain managerial level jobs, despite being very unsuited to them, solely because they attended the "right" English public school. I may say that I do not think that these people are particularly satisfied with life.

Indeed it is the fact that the white collar parents have been so much more successful in getting their kids into education in France and Germany that has undermined the effectiveness of the education system in those countries. The Lisbon Council report on European education is damning, in France, Germany and Italy, class distinction is a major cause for concern:

"Europeans from difficult socio-economic backgrounds don't receive the same educational opportunities as children from rich and middle-class families," the Council said. "In many countries, the data suggest that European schools reinforce existing socio-economic inequities."

The conclusion is that unless education is provided to kids, regardless of social-economic background, then economies can start to fall behind in terms of international competitiveness- indeed the Lisbon Council already thinks that this is happening to the European Union as a whole. They point out that Korea is already much better educated than the European average, while both India and China are producing science and technical graduates in the millions. Although France, Germany and Italy are particularly criticised, the fact is that the UK has not much to be happy about either. British technical education at high school level is neither rigorous nor particularly broad. There remain serious flaws in the teaching of maths and science subjects, and even the liberal arts are taught without, for example, a detailed knowledge of English grammar. As for language skills, the United Kingdom has almost abandoned effective teaching of modern languages even at high school level.

Unless the European Union can drastically improve access to education, the consequences could be critical. As Asia advances up the value added curve, Europe will possess increasingly dated brands with less innovation behind them. The restrictive labour laws and expensive labour rates in Europe will make inward investment ever less attractive as Asia provides more and better workers. Asia will provide ever greater markets, while the European demographic decline will increase costs and reduce opportunities. Meanwhile the European uneducated underclass will grow ever more fractious as they are completely excluded from economic prosperity. In the global economy, Europe could be reduced to Latin American levels of relevance as the power houses of South and East Asia come to challenge the economic power of even the United States.

Yet it is not just an economic or social benefit that we receive from education after all, there is a moral purpose to education too:

"There are more men ennobled by study than by nature". Marcus Tullius Cicero

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...