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
Forward To Part 2
Of course, where Nick and Karl diverge is in the interpretation of what "under the control of local communities" means in practice.
ReplyDeleteI don't imagine Clegg is advocating the return of LEAs, accountable to the local electorate, nor of school collectives organised by the teaching unions.
David,
ReplyDeleteI'm sure he doesn't mean what Karl meant, or as I say later know that he's even agreeing with him. The headline was obviously written tongue in cheek.
However, Marx wasn't talking about LEA's having control either. He'd have seen control by the LEA as control by the local state. His position actually was closer to the Free School idea.
My view has always been that for education as for Health and other such services, you would need a dual structure preferably.
Firstly you need a locally owned an controlled commissioning Co-op. It would be made up of workers in a particular area, who would pay their contributions to it, which would form the commissioning budget.
Second, you would have worker owned and controlled producer Co-ops. For example, here Teachers Co-ops, who would bid to provide education etc.
I think that in the transitional period between now and Socialism, competition between such service provision Co-ops is necessary to prevent rent-seeking by Co-ops. But, this would be completely different than capitalist competition, because the commissioning Co-op is made up of workers, and so are the producer co-ops.
I would expect this competition to go side by side with a large degree of co-operation on all sides, including the sharing of best practice. The focus would be on competing over quality more than cost.
It would be preferable for workers to have a national social insurance fund under their ownership and control as they had with their Friendly Societies, but we might have to work towards that from the development of such local initiatives.