Nick Clegg - “I Agree With Karl” - Part 1

Nick Clegg has come out in opposition to elements of the Government's  "Free Schools” policy. The rift follows a damning report by Inspectors into the Madinah free school in Derby, which was deemed “Inadequate” in every category of the inspection. Clegg has come out to support the idea that schools should be “free” from state control, and under the ownership and control of local communities, but that they should have to comply with the National Curriculum, and comply with other basic national standards. In other words, Clegg is basically saying “I agree with Karl Marx, and the First International.”

In The Critique Of The Gotha Programme Marx states clearly,

“"Elementary education by the state" is altogether objectionable. Defining by a general law the expenditures on the elementary schools, the qualifications of the teaching staff, the branches of instruction, etc., and, as is done in the United States, supervising the fulfillment of these legal specifications by state inspectors, is a very different thing from appointing the state as the educator of the people! Government and church should rather be equally excluded from any influence on the school. Particularly, indeed, in the Prusso-German Empire (and one should not take refuge in the rotten subterfuge that one is speaking of a "state of the future"; we have seen how matters stand in this respect) the state has need, on the contrary, of a very stern education by the people.”

Marx's model was indeed very similar to that proposed by Clegg, whereby schools were to be established by, and under the ownership and control of local communities, with the only role for the state being to establish a national curriculum, and minimum national standards, along with their supervision. He looked to the situation in the US for that model.

In a speech on education to the First International, Marx described the situation in Massachusetts.

Marx didn't oppose the creation of education factories by the
capitalist state, but he didn't advocate it either.  He thought the
state's involvement was "wholly objectionable", but we have to
start from where we are not where we want to be. 

“In Massachusetts every township was bound to provide schools for primary education for all the children. In towns of more than 5,000 inhabitants higher schools for technical education had to be provided, in larger towns still higher. The state contributed something but not much. In Massachusetts eighth of the local taxes went for education, in New York one-fifth. The school committees who administered the schools were local, they appointed the schoolmasters and selected the books. The fault of the American system was that it was too much localised, the education given depended upon the state of culture prevailing in each district. There was a cry for a central supervision. The taxation for schools was compulsory, but the attendance of children was not. Property had to pay the taxes and the people who paid the taxes wanted that the money was usefully applied.” 

In fact, Marx was so concerned about interference by the state in education that, even on this basis, he was in favour of limiting what could be taught in such schools to only those subjects which were not susceptible to class bias. That included opposition to the idea of “faith schools”.

“As to Mrs. Law’s Church budget it would be good policy for the Congress to declare against the Church. 

Cit. Milner’s proposition was not suitable to be introduced in connection with the schools; it was a kind of education that the young must get from the adults in the everyday struggle of life. He could not accept Warren as a bible, it was a question upon which few could agree. We might add that such education cannot be given at school, but must be given by adults. 

Nothing could be introduced either in primary, or higher schools that admitted of party and class interpretation. Only, subjects such as the physical sciences, grammar, etc., were fit matter for schools. The rules of grammar, for instance, could not differ, whether explained by a religious Tory or a free thinker. Subjects that admitted of different conclusions must be excluded and left for the adults to such teachers as Mrs. Law, who gave instruction in religion.”

Forward To Part 2