X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

Blogs Coffee House

The Trojan Horse affair illuminates a vital difference between the Tories and Labour.

10 June 2014

10:01 AM

10 June 2014

10:01 AM

The reaction to the Trojan Horse scandal has, in my view, been as interesting – and telling – as anything in the scandal itself. It is not, of course, surprising that opposition parties, including the Liberal Democrats, should seek to make capital from the drama in Birmingham but the manner in which they do so remains valuably illuminating.

Gove-bashing plays well with the loyal remnants of the Lib Dem base and given the choice between pandering to his base or defending liberalism Nick Clegg must these days pander to his base. So be it.

The case of Tristram Hunt is more interesting. The dismal thing about Ed Miliband’s leadership of the Labour party is the manner in which he appears determined to abandon the noblest parts of his inheritance.

Despite 2008 And All That, Miliband was bequeathed a workable, even in some respects admirable, legacy. On a number of fronts including, but not limited to, playing by the EU’s rules on free movement of labour and the establishment of Academy schools Labour had a record of which it could be proud. It seems drearily typical that Miliband’s instincts are to disown the better parts of Labour’s record in government.

Hence the evident suspicion with which he views Free Schools. Labour would, perhaps will, scrap them if they think they can get away with it.

[Alt-Text]


In this sense the Trojan Horse scandal reminds us that for all that we talk about narrowing differences between the warring Tory and Labour tribes there remain significant – and significantly important – philosophical differences between the two parties.

In broad terms, the Conservatives will trust you and Labour won’t. Nowhere is it written, or even thought, that every Academy or Free School will be a great success. Giving schools the freedom to succeed necessarily means granting them the freedom to fail too. That’s the way of the market. But it is a view predicated on the belief that, in time and in general, giving schools greater freedom will produce many more winners than losers.

It does not mean eliminating failure. How could it? Free schools don’t fail because they are free; they fail because some schools fail. But we trust that fewer will do so if more schools are free.  It contrasts with a Labour tendency to excuse failure if that failure is state-approved. Many leftists will conclude that the problem in Birmingham is a lack of local authority control. What they mean, whether they mean to mean it or not, is that failure is fine if it is licensed by the state. Move along, heehaw to worry about here.

Which, naturally, is precisely the kind of attitude Blairism fought against. The Blairites are in retreat, however, and for proof of that we need cite no-one other than Tristram Hunt.

It would be best if no schools ran into trouble, best if all free schools were exemplary. It is the nature of things, however, that not all will be. But that’s the risk that comes from trust. Better that, though, than the alternative worldview which insists unaccountable local education authorities always know best. Better the freedom to fail – and be seen to fail – than maintaining the pretence there is no failure at all.

Sometimes those failures will prove embarrassing. Sometimes they will discredit the whole idea of free schools. But they are, forgive me, a necessary price. There will always, in any system, be troublesome or otherwise under-performing schools. What then matters is how those problems are addressed. For for too long the preferred approach was to pretend there were no problems at all. What, working with clay like this, could you expect anyway?

It’s that smug complacency that Blair (and Adonis) and now Michael Gove have tried to combat. The horrific fatalism that says improvement is impossible and probably hideously elitist too.

Which is why this controversy is actually an opportunity for the Conservatives. It can be used to remind voters that Labour’s instincts are once more to side with the bureaucracy against the individual. Its instincts are to prefer a bad school under local authority control to a good school that’s free of local authority control.

It’s a point of view, certainly, but not a noble one.

Give something clever this Christmas – a year’s subscription to The Spectator for just £75. And we’ll give you a free bottle of champagne. Click here.


Show comments
Close