Message promotion in state secondary schools? For a good proportion of them, the teachers will be spending their time trying to take back control of the class. Others will be struggling with the functionally illiterate. For the lucky few, who have an attentive, well-behaved class, they will be spending 40% of their time on preparing their students for the plethora of exams. I would be happy if the youth of today were promoted any message.

Or am I being cynical?

Posted by: lascivious at September 29, 2005 09:04 PM

Mr Bartholomew, I write as a parent of one of the boys who attended your talk at St Paul's School today. I heard about your talk from my son earlier today and have read your article entitled 'History as Pro-Statist Propaganda.'

When, may I ask, was history ever taught without an ideological charge behind it? Can the teaching of history ever be devoid of propaganda? And how, may I know, do you define what you claim to be the 'truth' as regards the past or even as regards a comprehensive overview of the present? All knowledge is contingent upon point of view and surely you realize that the boys at St Paul's -- an elite school, I agree, but one that gains its status not merely from the bank balances of its pupils' parents but, in fact, from the sheer excellence of its teachers and pupils -- are bright enough to question the basis upon which you uphold the 'truth.' You state that teachers at St Pauls are strongly left-wing, if not Marxist. What is more, you make this out to be a criticism, as if it were a crime for a teacher to be left-wing (your use of capitals for this term is laughable in itself!). Is the basis for this statement the mere fact that you were, in my son's view, entirely unable to adequately respond to the challenges thrown at you by the boys or by their history teacher?

Your response, your unjust and biased summation of the teaching that takes place in this undoubtedly exemplary school, speaks volumes. I take what you state in your article to be a comment that you are, in fact, making of yourself, one that coincides with what how my son, for one, perceived you: namely, that you see teachers who disagree with you or challenge the basis for your arguments as left-wing precisely because your line of vision comes from the extreme right. Your derogatory comments on my son's school -- not to mention your attacks on the welfare state -- serve extremely well to provide the boys with a first-hand experience of seeing fascism in flesh and blood (and I insist that from my 'sadly' left-wing, dare I say, Marxist, point of view, the papers that you write for are exemplary tokens of fascism that is alive and well in this country). For this I thank you. Despite what you perceive to be the paltry education meted out to the boys at this school, I have no doubt that at least some of the young men who stood their ground against you today will become leaders in their fields one day (as you achnowledged at the start of your talk). The flaws in your political views (and they are, I repeat, views, not the truth!) that you exposed so embarrassingly this afternoon, your alarmingly extreme statements coming from the far-right, your apparent inability to convince or to respond will all serve to educate the boys on the dangerous limitations of the ultra-conservative and to so keep fascism and the extreme right under control in our midst.

Lastly, and to return to the question of history as taught at school: far better, don't you think, to learn history with all its ideological weight than to be swamped by that tried and tested denial of history as expounded by fascists, i.e. the myth of 'truth?'

Posted by: Dr Nair at September 29, 2005 11:36 PM

Having just commented on the ignorance of St Paul's student in your article regarding our guesses, or politically motivated assumptions as you suggest they are, at historical data, I must hasten to highlight your blatant hypocrisy in YOUR assumption that our left wing views are inspired by the words of those who teach us. This couldn't be further from the truth. When teaching, are teachers are very careful not to impose their political views on us, but if they are not allowed to voice their opinion regarding a subject because it is "too left wing" that is a basic breach of human rights and freedom of speech. I must also hasten to add that you did not mention in the article your inability to effectively challenge the questions at the end of your talk. Many students left the affair wondering why you had made the United States seem so socialist and the Scandinavian countries so capitalist for the sake of argument? Perhaps if you based your ideas on fact rather than manipulated truths your talk would have had a better response.

Yours sincerely,

Jamie Whitby, St Paul's Student

Posted by: Jamie Whitby at September 30, 2005 10:33 AM

A visitor to this site posted an essay by Robert Nozick called 'Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism?'

I didn't think I should publish the whole essay since it would be in breach of Robert Nozick's copyright. However, it interesting to consider why intellectuals (a category which here would certainly include teachers along with university lecturers, vicars, publishers and even journalists) do tend to tend towards the Left. Here is an excerpt from Nozick's essay:

"What factor produced feelings of superior value on the part of intellectuals? I want to focus on one institution in particular: schools. As book knowledge became increasingly important, schooling--the education together in classes of young people in reading and book knowledge--spread. Schools became the major institution outside of the family to shape the attitudes of young people, and almost all those who later became intellectuals went through schools. There they were successful. They were judged against others and deemed superior. They were praised and rewarded, the teacher's favorites. How could they fail to see themselves as superior? Daily, they experienced differences in facility with ideas, in quick-wittedness. The schools told them, and showed them, they were better.

"The schools, too, exhibited and thereby taught the principle of reward in accordance with (intellectual) merit. To the intellectually meritorious went the praise, the teacher's smiles, and the highest grades. In the currency the schools had to offer, the smartest constituted the upper class. Though not part of the official curricula, in the schools the intellectuals learned the lessons of their own greater value in comparison with the others, and of how this greater value entitled them to greater rewards.

"The wider market society, however, taught a different lesson. There the greatest rewards did not go to the verbally brightest. There the intellectual skills were not most highly valued. Schooled in the lesson that they were most valuable, the most deserving of reward, the most entitled to reward, how could the intellectuals, by and large, fail to resent the capitalist society which deprived them of the just deserts to which their superiority "entitled" them? Is it surprising that what the schooled intellectuals felt for capitalist society was a deep and sullen animus that, although clothed with various publicly appropriate reasons, continued even when those particular reasons were shown to be inadequate?"

I don't think this argument is sufficient to explain the phenomenon, but it might be a part of the answer.

I suspect that another part is that teachers, along with employees of the state and journalists, generally do not see the operation of capitalism from the inside. They do not generally experience the genuine pressures on businesses - large and small - to survive, let alone to make profits that could be called 'explotative'. If you asked most people what is the gross profit margin of Tesco, they would not have a clue. Yet they might well still regard Tesco - as a recent BBC report did - as an example of exploitative business.

With this ignorance of the reality of capitalism, it is easy for people to imagine all sorts of conspiracies and nastiness.

Of course businesses are perfectly capable of conspiracies, nastiness and greed, too. But Marks and Spencer, for example, would have loved to go on growing and being supremely successful. Yet, no amount of conspiracy or anything else has enabled it to go on "exploiting the workers". Why? Because it failed to go on providing what the workers wanted at the price they wanted. So the workers went to another store.

It is the ability to go to another store that makes capitalism - a flawed, unpleasant system in various ways - nevertheless much better than any known alternative and certainly far better than socialism. Socialism offers no choice, no competition and - as I remember from my visits to Irkutsk, Romania and elsewhere in the communist bloc in 1982 - has a terrible record of providing people even with sufficient food, let alone a good quality and variety.

For a reminder of just how awful the results of socialism have been, it is worth reading Victor Kravchenko's book 'I Chose Freedom' which includes a first-hand account by him of taking part in the imposition of collectivisation of the farms under Stalin.

No exploitation (except by corrupt officials) but starvation.

Posted by: James Bartholomew at September 30, 2005 12:09 PM

Dear Dr Nair, since when does criticism of socialism equate fascism? It is very unfortunate that you feel the need to keep this under control in your midst, as that sounds more like a trait of fascism.

Fascist governments were a form of socialist governments (indeed - National _Socialist_ German Workers Party) blended with authoritarian nationalism.

And finally, which parts of Mr Bartholomew's view of history are provable myth? It is amazing how every socialist who encounters his arguments flys into a rage about "how dare you criticise the welfare state you fascist" without providing any evidence to the contrary.

Posted by: pl at September 30, 2005 01:02 PM

Mr Bartholomew,
As one of the students present at your talk yesterday, I can safely say that I've never before been presented with such a plethora of misleading statistics and unfounded social commentary.
Your suggestion that the average of 5-7 years of education received by children living in the 1860's proved that this country could have done better wihout the state education system, was astonishing. Almost half of Britain's youth now go on to higher education. When they leave university they will have been in some form of education for over 16 years, and despite these large numbers there is still excess demand by employers for graduates.
The 'vast and miserable slums' of the 19th century which I described in the talk are not to be dismissed as historical fiction. One need only take a look at the writings of Rowntree or even Dickens to see the awful plight of those inhabiting the slums of London or Glasgow in the latter years of that century. The new inhabitants of council housing, from the 1920's to today, are provided with flush toilets, running water and separate bedrooms for all members of the family. In the 2 up 2 down terraces of East Glasgow, toilets were shared between four families, each of whom slept in a single bedroom, often a single bed.
I have no doubt there is an extremely reasonable, perhaps even truthful argument to be made against the consequences of the creation of the welfare state. As far as I'm concerned, your talk singuarly failed to address it, and relied on stastical bombardment and anti-state rhetoric to carry its largely baseless point. The phenomenons of family breakdown and anti-social behaviour have their roots in many causes totally unrelated to the welfare state.
I hope you will address these in any future publications, and also take note that the politics and economics teachers at St. Paul's provide the highest standards of impartiality in their teaching, reserving their diverse political opinions for commentary outside the lessons. Our so-called 'Marxist' viewpoints, among those of us who hold them, are entirely of our own creation.

Posted by: St Paul's student at September 30, 2005 01:07 PM

I do find it remarkable that a learned individual such as yourself could base his detest for the teaching methods of a school, on what must at the most, have been an hour and a half's worth of experince in one department.
I also apologise for our now much publicised ignorance in your field, and promise that in future, we will only invite speakers who talk about subjects we already know everything about.
Or would that make such an activity pointless?

Posted by: Pauline at September 30, 2005 01:10 PM

You should be able to realise that the answers that intelligent kids call out upon light questioning, on a subject they may not necessarily have been taught, are not going to translate into preconceptions that they carry and act on throughout life.

The aim of your talk was to educate the kids about what they did not know: otherwise why did you give the talk in the first place?

Posted by: Anonymous at September 30, 2005 01:35 PM

St Paul's Student:

You said

"The phenomenons of family breakdown and anti-social behaviour have their roots in many causes totally unrelated to the welfare state."

Could you tell us what these causes are?

Also "statistical bombardment" is more usually referred to as "supporting evidence". Personally speaking, I tend to find it more convincing than mere rhetoric.

Posted by: Bishop Hill at September 30, 2005 07:34 PM

Having seen the comments on this thread I can only thank God that my parents sent me to a far better school than St Paul's. The suggestion by one pupil that teachers keep their opinions to themselves and don't allow their views to influence what they teach is patently ridiculous - these are human beings after all, not automatons.

On the subject of the answers given to your questions: is it not more likely that the source of the pupils' preconceptions about Britain pre- and post-welfare state is more likely to be our mass media? We are daily bombarded by pro-welfare statist propaganda from all media sources - but especially from the BBC. There is an underlying assumption in any broadcast about the welfare state that before its inception people were left to starve in the street if they lost their job or would receive only the most rudimentary health care unless they could afford private treatment.

Posted by: Mike D at September 30, 2005 09:36 PM

Mr Bartholomew. Unlike most of the Paulines that have posted comments thus far, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you.
It is a rare occasion at the polecon meetings to get a chance to meet a real hardcore fundamentalist, and seeing as we cannot get members of Hamas or Al-Qaeda to come and speak, it was a pleasure to listen to one of the Tory party's extremists.
You proved, to great effect, that we paulines are actually just mere mortals, ignorant of all that goes on in society, such as the date that St Barts was founded. I apologise that you had to be subjected to the same Marxist teachers that constantly brainwash our bourgoise minds, and i hope in the short space of time that you spent with them, they did not manage to contaminate you with 'Far-Left' disease.
It has come to my attention that the Tory party are desperate for a new leader to bring them into the 21st century. The way you managed to manipulate information, dodge questions and reject any logical counter-arguments against your case, made me realise that you could be just the man for the job. For the good of Britain, and the rest of the world, I sincerely hope you make Prime Minister,
Best of Luck

Posted by: joe bloggs at October 1, 2005 12:37 AM

Many of the points made on this thread demonstrate the extent of the decline in our society resulting from the pernicious spread of socialist ideology. To think that this intellectual decay has now reached one of our top private schools suggests that its corrosive damage has spread throughout our civilisation from top to bottom.

Dr. Nair, (a parent at the school), seems to think that the seven questions quoted by James Bartholemew, all of which called for a specific factual answer, not discussion or interpretation, were somehow invalid because, “All knowledge is contingent upon point of view.” Poppycock Dr. Nair, this is a display of classic relativism always used by those who wish to rewrite history.

Jamie Whitby (at least this time only a pupil who may yet grow older and wiser) tells us that if the left wing teachers aren’t allowed to re-interpret history it is, “….a basic breach of (their) human rights.” Jamie, a teacher doesn’t have a human right to indoctrinate. If anything, you have a human right NOT to be indoctrinated. Sadly, your eyes are firmly closed and you are unaware what is happening to you.

Finally, Anonymous, another St. Pauls student, is proud that half of Britain’s youth now go to university, and assures us that there is still an excess demand by employers for all of these graduates. Anonymous, I hadn’t heard that McDonalds are to run a recruitment campaign, but I’ll take your word for it.

James B, keep fighting your corner. Good luck.

Posted by: John East at October 1, 2005 10:03 AM

"All knowledge is contingent upon point of view …"

Oh dear, yet another lemming hurling itself upon the rocks of irreducible subjectivity. If the knowledge of Marx was contingent upon a point of view, then, logically, only those who shared his economic, intellectual and social experiences were free to call themselves Marxists. Other than this, Dr Nair, who must be getting on a bit, was doing rather well - if a little ponderously - until we got to the eye-bulging anarchist stuff about "exemplary tokens of fascism that is alive and well in this country". Strewth! Imagine having a dad who comes out with lines like that. The embarrassment of it!

Posted by: Phil J at October 1, 2005 01:41 PM

What capitalism did.-

In the 20 years before the factory system was widely established in England, over 74% of London’s children died before the age of 5, mainly from starvation. After the factory system was widely established, that mortality rate dropped to less than32%.

The average income of the lowest 10% of those living in the 10 most capitalist nations is nearly 2½ times as high as as the average income in the 10 most socialist countries in the world.

What socialism did. -

120 million people murdered by the state in socialist countries in the last century.

Of course there always exists a ruling elite in socialist countries who benefit from the suffering of the ordinary people. How sad that the next generation of such people seem to be being educated at one of our leading Public Schools.

Shame on you.

Posted by: Rob at October 1, 2005 06:35 PM

The Welfare State isn't socialism. It's merely an acknowledgement that those best off have a responsibility to those who aren't as fortunate as them. To equate the British welfare system to the repression of the Soviet Union is the same as equating the United States to the Nazi regime in Europe.

But you probably think that America's the neo-soviet union.

So far your responses have used selective quoting of facts to support arguments which do not rely on those statistics. Looking on these comments I have witnessed nothing more than childish ad-hominem attacks, with you and others screaming "Red!" whenever anyone contradicts you. Senator McCarthy did the same thing, and America suffered for it.

The "arguments" of those on the right here have certainly changed my beliefs: I am now leaving the Conservative Party (and I used to worship Milton Friedman).

Posted by: Benjamin Gray at October 2, 2005 11:58 AM

Benjamin, this Milton Friedman you used to worship wouldn’t by any chance be the one who is on record as advocating limited government. You know, the one who said, "Government has three primary functions. It should provide for military defense of the nation. It should enforce contracts between individuals. It should protect citizens against crimes against themselves or their property….Government should be a referee, not an active player.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman)

Or was it the Milton Friedman who said this last week, “I think the performance of our school systems is disgraceful. I think roughly a quarter of the population never graduates high school. We have a lower level of literacy today than we had a hundred years ago. That's not despite, but because of the poor schools, particularly in low-income areas.” (http://www.rightwingnews.com/interviews/friedman.php). Admittedly he is talking about schools in the USA here, but I think you will find that the fashions and fads in education often spread through the English speaking world.

Posted by: John East at October 2, 2005 04:38 PM

Benjamin

Let me get this right. Until yesterday (before you had your moment of enlightenment when reading the comment section of this blog) you were a commited Conservative who "worshipped" Milton Freidman. Now as a result of reading these comments, the scales have fallen from your eyes and in a flash you have become a socialist. All I can say to your new found co-religionists is, dont expect him to be around for very long - someone with such a fragile sense of what he beleives will probably be a Moonie next week.

Posted by: Rob at October 2, 2005 05:02 PM

As a school student, I can say that the ideas about the importance of and the need for the State courses through every subject like a purple-stained river.

In English, we read Dickens's 'Hard Times' but any student who fails to understand the more complex themes in the book will simply conclude that the Victorian age was one of unbridled evil where the workers were left to rot, implying - as this conclusion does - that the workers need the help of the State.

In Religious Studies, we are taught in glowing terms about the moral virtue and the religious foundations of the Welfare State, and when asked, "What services do you think the government has a duty to provide for its citizens?" only one of us deigns to suggest, 'None'.

In Geography, we discuss the problems of deforestation in northern Africa or the dangers of transnational corporations running rampant, and always come to the conclusion that governments must always step in.

But despite all of this, I disagree that education is to blame. The idea of State supremacy is so deeply embedded in our whole society that only when that changes can our education respond. Only when politicians and decision-makers can convince the public why the State is bad will the millions who still rely on the State or rely on the knowledge that the State is there for them become enlightened.

Posted by: Mark O'Brien at October 2, 2005 05:34 PM

"Almost half of Britain's youth now go on to higher education. When they leave university they will have been in some form of education for over 16 years, and despite these large numbers there is still excess demand by employers for graduates."

Nope. There is demand for competent graduates who can do useful things.

Twas ever thus. When I was at University the Electronic Engineers were being wined and dined to be employed (literally), the English Literature mob signed on to the dole.

It's worse now ; in an attempt to fudge the numbers (again) there's umpteen inane courses with zero entry requirements (virtually).

All that we have is devalued exam results and degrees, and a supposedly over-qualified work force.

If you read the website owner's book you'd have come across the example of someone being offered a degree place with a couple of AS levels.

Most of what he says about education, that basically it's dead easy compared to 20 years ago, is bang on, any teacher will tell you that (unofficially).

What he doesn't mention is two things ; that marks are inflated by blatant cheating on coursework (not excluding teachers doing it themselves) and retaking of modules until you get a decent mark, and that league tables are inflated by giving noddy courses ludicrous GCSE equivalence.

The most obvious example is Thomas Telford school. You will see they are always at the top of the GCSE tables with A-C, but mysteriously not very high on the A levels.

This is because they have their own noddy GNVQ IT courses "worth" 4 GCSEs (to the school not the pupil), so if you take this course you only need one more A-C to get the magic 5A-C level which is the sole blunt measurement.

I think virtually all schools that make "stunning improvements" have some similar scam.

I'd also read Melanie Phillips' book - and things are *worse* since then. It needs updating to be even more horrible :)

Posted by: Paul at October 3, 2005 09:49 AM

Mark O'Brien forgot "citizenship" ; aka New Labour studies.

Posted by: Paul at October 3, 2005 12:39 PM

Paul,

Clearly a lot has changed since you were at university. Nowadays it's the electronics engineers who are on the dole (electronic engineering has one of the highest graduate unemployment rates). Students on mickey mouse courses are generally OK.

Why? Because the electronics industry in the UK has collapsed (high costs and international competition). But if you've got a social science (sic) degree, it's fine because there are public sector jobs galore and no worries about fierce international competition - you get paid out of taxes.

The result, of course is slow productivity growth and a huge and unsustainable trade deficit, but from an individual perspective, you'd be a fool to do an engineering degree these days.

Posted by: HJHJ at October 3, 2005 05:34 PM

Yes, it has. I went to University over 20 years ago.

Whether it'll last is another thing. It seems to be a pyramid scheme to me, and the SS graduates seem to produce nothing.

I don't know how this can be economically sustainable. Not that Gordo and Blair care.

One wonders if at some point the tax burden is going to become so bad that it will impinge on their voters, and then we'll need another Thatcheresque bonfire of the quangos.

I've worked with some of these quangos ; they do and achieve f--- all, basically, it's all supported by PR,

Posted by: Paul at October 4, 2005 09:27 AM

James,

I think that you were wrong to expect sixth formers to know the answers to the questions you posed. I'm sure that this isn't covered in their A level history syllabus at all.

I also think you're wrong to blame bias on their teachers. Yes, most history and politics teachers are a bit lefty, but so are most young people who inevitably are somewhat idealistic, inexperienced and prone to be attracted to the simplicity of many left wing ideas for humane reasons. They would not have got this from their teachers. It is very difficult to explain and justify contrary views - they perhaps require more life experience and the greater understanding of complex economic and social incentives. This is perhaps why you were not able to answer their objections quickly and simply to their satisfaction.

Frankly, the people I knew who were right wing at that age were often selfish and couldn't care too much about the welfare of the less well off. The more thoughtful right often suffers from seeming to be in the same camp as these people. Nobody at that age thinks that you can be right wing for humane reasons.

So in reality, the best you could have done was to make people think by challenging a few preconceptions and let them mull it over in their own time, perhaps over several years. Put the thought in their minds that the whole issue is much more complicated than seems apparent as a teenager. Accusing them of being educated in history as pro-statist propaganda was bound to elicit the reaction you got as it denied their ability to think independently (and most people would take offence at that).

Posted by: HJHJ at October 6, 2005 09:27 PM

Having just read through the further posted comments regarding this topic, I am only further irritated at the patronising tone, and lack of empathy, of many of JB's supporters' tones. I am inclined to suggest that if you really want to convince the future generation as someone put it, that you present your arguments with respect for the young, but undoubtedly intelligent students that you complain about. Perhaps the reason we are all so "socialist" is that those who present left wing arguments do so with far more aplomb and respect. JB has become something of a legend at St Paul's: a running joke and subject of much hilarity, not because of his views, but because of his ridiculous presentation of argument, and complete disregard for other viewpoints. I must also hasten to add that if providing benefits to those in need is regarded as a socialist principle then the majority of world countries must suddenly be somewhat socialist states.

I must also ask, as I'm sure many have done before, those who question the "welfare state", to imagine what life would be like without a comfortable income. Why don't you go and try urban life on the minimum wage and then make your judgement? Such a blatant lack of gratitude for your privileged upbringings is a sad, sad reflection on humanity.

Once again, Mr. John East, I must stress that I have not been "indocitrinated" by my teachers. It is an insult, and a repulsive generalisation, to assume that I am stereotypically young and impressionable enough to have my political views subconsciously manipulated. Have you ever been in a lesson at St. Paul's, or even taken into account the fact that my parents may have influenced me instead?

I think, as a final point, that it is interesting to highlight that JB took a room of thirty people as an accurate representation of the entire school. Is this perhaps similar to the way that he gathered his figures for his book? Funnily enough, St Paul's IS largely Conservative. Indeed without the teachers' vote in the mock elections, the Conservatives would have won. The point is, is that the thirty odd people who attended JB's talk did so because they are a prime example of intelligent, interested Pauline's, and took the initiative to learn more about their subject. The fact that so few (if any)Conservative students attended perhaps suggests that those with left wing views are more passionate about politics, and more promising university students?

So, my dear fellows, if you do wish to patronise me in future, make sure it is not at the same time as trying to argue a point. I have since lost what little respect I had for your arguments, and seen the Conservative stereotype of the haughty, stubborn old man fully realised.

Yours sincerely,

Jamie Whitby,
at least this time only a pupil who may yet grow older and wiser.

Posted by: Jamie Whitby, Pauline at October 9, 2005 01:10 AM

Jamie, it's little snippets like this one from you, "Indeed without the teachers' vote in the mock elections, the Conservatives would have won.", that suggest James' hypothesis has some foundation.
I'm surprised that you have fallen back on the line of argument which goes something like, "Because you lot criticise the welfare state, you want to remove it completely, send children up chimneys, leave the poor to starve etc.” I suggest that you read the main post from JB posted on 8th Oct. which specifically refutes this weak argument.
We are not against welfare. We are against state waste, cronyism, corruption, ineptitude, and (in the educational sphere) state imposition of social engineering, dodgy theory and ideological dogma which is not supported by any impartial research. In fact, in the case of many new educational initiatives the arrogance of the educational elite is such that no one even bothers to pretend that the latest crack pot ideas have been tested and assessed before implementation. Surely you can see the risks in running education in such a cavalier fashion.

Posted by: John East at October 9, 2005 12:30 PM

I must also congratulate Mr. Bartholomew on allowing comments that criticise him to be published: I wouldn't expect such lack of censorship from a facist.

Yours again,

JW

Posted by: Jamie Whitby at October 10, 2005 12:04 AM