TWO FUTURES FOR WORKING CLASS EDUCATION No one in Britain speaks for working class education anymore. The ruling class parties are interested only in how to shape education for the needs of capitalism. The teacher unions accept this agenda; what little opposition they once offered has long since been abandoned. The social democratic left and parent groups limit their protests to more resources and te defence of comprehensive education. It would appear there is no alternative for the working class. A recent book by Michael Barber, guru of New Labour education thinking, seems to confirm this dismal prospect. Another new book, however, about education in Cuba, demonstrates there is a radical and liberating alternative once the working class take control of their own future. JIM CRAVEN examines the arguments. Schooling the Revolution, by Theodore MacDonald, recounts the remarkable advances in Cuban education since 1959. MacDonald tells us how illiteracy was virtually wiped out within a year in what he describes as 'one of the truly great achievements of mankind'. Later, these workers were able to take part-time courses to improve their skills and to enter special new colleges - opportunities they couldn't have dreamed of just five years before. Within ten years, every Cuban child had access to primary education, 90 per cent had pre-school places and over 80 per cent were enrolled in secondary schools: figures that are comparable to most rich nations and are way ahead of any other poor Third World country. In the first three years following the revolution university entrants increased fivefold, while between 1960 and 1980 there was a tenfold increase in the number of students matriculating from secondary schools. But it doesn't stop there: lifelong learning is a reality in Cuba. A staggering three out of every five Cuban adults has enrolled in some form of part-time education. However, it is not just the facts and figures that make the story of the Cuban revolution in education so impressive. The greatest achievement of Cuban education is the way it has affected people's lives. From the beginning, its primary motive was the right of Cuban people to be free from ignorance and oppression. It was a matter of human dignity, of human development. MacDonald tells the story of Angelo, who remembered schools before the revolution with boxes for seats and a drunken teacher, where the only thing he learned was that England still had kings and queens like Spain. In 1960, after the revolution, he achieved the whole of his primary schooling in two years. We hear of Isabel, an arrogant little rich girl, who found some sense of humanity through the revolution; of Yolanda, who lived in a hut before her father died, who was found a home by the revolution and then taught to read and write when she was 11 years old in a makeshift school set up in the old gambling casino. Yolanda now works as a financial analyst for the Department of Trade. She remembers promising to model herself on Che and says 'Even now that is my ideal.' MacDonald points out the ideology behind the Cuban system. 'From the beginning, the guiding principle was the fairly simple one that it is immoral to make education available to only a select few.' He elaborates by quoting Che: 'We are building a new society - a just and humane society in which exploitation of man by man will have no part. As part of that our schools need to form the New Man - one who is not motivated by greed or self-interest but by the good of all.' These sentiments translate in practice to a set of principles which underpin the whole Cuban educational system. These principles include: * emulation, not competition. There is a belief that most children are capable of achieving the highest standards and that everyone should help each other to do so. * The integration of mental and physical labour. Even preschool children help out in the school gardens. Ivory towers have been torn down. * Collectivity and internationalism, not individualism. This holds just as much weight as academic achievement in judging a child's success. * Openness, democracy and integration with the community. The purposes, aims and policies of education are discussed openly. Parents and children, local factories and farms are closely involved with schools. In these ways, everyone becomes involved in education. Education responds to revolutionary developments in society and in turn drives those developments forward. As MacDonald points out, 'What has been achieved in Cuban schooling cannot really be separated from its total revolutionary context and experience, and any society which would learn from the developments of Cuban schooling must ineluctably also learn from its social revolution.' It is illuminating to compare MacDonald's inspiring view of education in socialist Cuba with Michael Barber's book The Learning Game, which, according to the subtitle, also claims to be 'arguments for a revolution in education'. The Cuban revolution was based on optimism. At the heart of Barber's thinking, however, is fear - the same fear that is shaking so many of Labour's middle class supporters; the fear that their cosy and privileged world is under threat. As the capitalist crisis deepens, chaos looms. Barber fears the consequences of the vast divide between rich and poor; he fears the growing isolation, alienation and indifference among young people (which Barber regards as a moral dilemma); he fears the rise of what he calls 'the underclass'; he fears the economic strength of the Far East; he fears environmental catastrophe. Barber's only solution to these 'problems', however, is education. Like so many other middle class intellectuals, he has to believe that education alone can change the world. He will not consider radical political and economic change, the overthrow of what is at the root of all his fears - capitalism - for he will not risk losing his privilege. Indeed, Barber will not even contemplate a different order of things. For him, the 'globalised market economy' is taken for granted as the only conceivable world order. Not surprisingly, he misses no opportunity throughout the book to sneer at socialism. You might expect that Barber's educational plan to save the world would be a radical departure. In fact, his ideas sound painfully familiar. No one should remain in any doubt that the Labour Party will be even more ruthless than the Tories in forcing education to follow the dictates of capitalism. Barber wants a massive and rapid increase in academic standards. The curriculum must be reformed once more, as must testing arrangements and the exam system. Primary schools will have to concentrate on the basics, whilst at secondary level vocational training and links with industry must increase. Parents must take greater responsibility for their child's education and 'worthies' from business and industry should play a greater role in school as 'education associates'. Teachers and schools will be expected to constantly update their methods in line with current research and any teachers or schools that fail to make the grade will go. Most of these ideas have already been incorporated into Labour Party policy. What Barber fails to tell us, however, is how all this is supposed to solve the problems he talks about at the beginning. His unelaborated assertion seems to be that if people are more educated, somehow the world will be less nasty. He makes no link between the idea and the reality. He doesn't tell us where the extra jobs will come from. He doesn't tell us how education will bring security and vitality to the increasing number of mind-numbing, de-skilled, part-time and temporary jobs. And he doesn't even begin to explain how more education will solve the environmental crisis. Everybody else but Barber seems to understand that it is not ignorance that is killing our planet - it's the uncontrolled greed of capitalism. Barber outrageously maintains that his plans are for the good of everyone. This serves merely to hide his central concern - the education of the middle class and the survival of the state system from which they derive their privilege. Barber recognises that 'the end users of education are the employers'. With capitalism in crisis, the ruling class will not continue to fund state education unless it delivers the goods. Indeed Barber, in a recent interview, explicitly recognised that unless 'standards' improved, schools would be privatised. As it is, more and more of the middle class will desert state education unless they can be assured of a more secure and privileged position within that system. Barber tries to obscure this central concern by suggesting special out-of-school learning centres and incentive bonuses for teachers to work in deprived areas. But with limited resources for state education, more for the middle class means less for the working class. He does not say where the money for these and other resources will come from. Indeed, Barber emphasises several times what we already know from Labour's plans, that public spending will be just as restricted as under the Tories. Barber's only hope, again in line with New Labour policy, is to go cap-in-hand to private industry. But since when did capitalists give back their ill-gained profit in order to provide for the working class? That's where they stole it from in the first place. Anyhow, there is far more to working class educational disadvantage than teachers and study space. This disadvantage stems partly from working class children's deprivation - poverty, homelessness, malnutrition, lack of transport, the stresses and strains of unemployment, overcrowding and low pay; and partly from the cultural limits to their world - their expectations, ambitions and social confidence. When it comes to getting the best out of the system, the middle class are far better equipped. These disadvantages for the working class are endemic to the class system. They stem from the social and economic relations of capitalism and can never be totally overcome without revolutionising those relations. Compensatory education was tried in the 1960s and 1970s. Its impact was marginal. Barber's egalitarianism is a sham. It is the social democratic substitution of equality by equal opportunity which, even if it operated fully, simply allows those in a privileged position to keep in front and feel morally justified in doing so. Barber says not a word about ending Britain's elitist system; about ending private education, grammar schools and other forms of selection. In fact, at the heart of his drive for improved standards is a most reactionary, individualistic plan - the Individual Learning Promise, or 'fast tracking', as Blair calls it. This must sound wonderful to all those middle class parents who want their child to 'get on' without having to be bothered with working class 'troublemakers'. In contrast to the principles of Cuban education, Barber's principles boil down to competition, individualism and elitism. His attempt to reduce the gulf between academic and vocational education is only to better serve a decadent and dehumanised capitalism, and his 'partnership' between schools and parents is little more than an attempt to discipline wayward teachers and parents. Barber talks a lot about improving school organisation, teaching methods and the quality of teachers, and these may have some transient impact on academic standards. However, his hope for a better society that inspires people to new educational heights is not one that capitalism can fulfil. Education is more than filling up people with facts and figures that they can exchange for credentials and the possibility of access to some more privileged sector of the labour market. In Schooling the Revolution, MacDonald points out that in order to learn, people must feel involved in the process; education must have a meaningful purpose for them. Only a small part of this purpose is to do with immediate personal economic gain. Education must also give people a greater sense of dignity and help them to control their own lives. It must help people to relate to a society which they value and which values them. A revolution in education must be part of a liberating experience. This cannot occur if people remain economically and socially oppressed. The prospects for the majority of working class people is few jobs, low pay, poor conditions, alienating work, stress, insecurity, the prospect of repeated redundancy and retraining, declining health and social services, scarce housing and the threat of a lonely old age. This is the reality facing the majority of people in Britain today and the situation is not going to fundamentally improve under capitalism. Without an alternative vision of society, large numbers of people may participate in the educational rat- race in the hope that their prospects might not decline quite as fast as they otherwise would. By participating these people lend legitimacy to the system. But this scrambling to keep on the treadmill could hardly be described as a liberating educational revolution, even if it does result in more students getting more marks in more exams. People will not find a sense of dignity and value in a society that treats them as 'flexible labour'. They might go through the motions, but how will they find satisfaction and purpose in training for skills that may never be used? In learning for and about a world order bent only on exploitation and destruction? Large numbers of working class kids have always understood and resisted the debilitating reality of state education under capitalism. Even if it is wrapped up in the hypocritical terms of 'equal opportunities' and 'fulfilling a child's potential', any attempt to impose a 'revolution' in capitalist state education will be met with the same stubborn resistance. END (Professor Michael Barber has resigned from his post as Dean of New Initiatives at the University of London's Institute of Education to become David Blunkett's Special Adviser on Standards and Effectiveness in schools.) * Schooling the Revolution, Theodore MacDonald , Praxis Press 1996, £12.99 * The Learning Game, Michael Barber, Gollancz 1997, £12.99