Class war in the classroom

The free schools say they are all-inclusive. But by making Latin compulsory or stressing church attendance, will they be operating selection systems by stealth?

By Alice Miles Published 14 September 2010

Teacher: What do you think les dents are?
Boy: Doughnuts.
Teacher: La gorge! What is a gorge?
Boy: Something you like.
Teacher: Derrière?
Girl: Isn't derrière a cheese?
Boy: That's Dairylea.

Welcome to a modern foreign languages class for 12-year-olds. We are doing "parts of the body", with all the pitfalls that holds. "What's the French for pussycat, miss?" asks one boy - let us call him Michael - all wide-eyed innocence. "Un chat," replies the teacher, equally sweetly.“How do you make 'pussy' out of that?" Michael whispers loudly to his mate.

Michael is not stupid but he is male, working class and dyslexic. None of these factors, it seems, bodes well for foreign language learning. I don't suppose that when the journalist Toby Young, progenitor of the most high-profile "free school" announced by the government on 6 September, declared that all students at his new school would have to learn Latin between the ages of 11 and 14, he imagined having many Michaels in his west London classroom.

In the class I attended, at a genuine mixed-ability community school, the boys were bored, the girls mostly concentrating on labelling the pictures in front of them in French. "What one's that? Her boob?" "No, there's no boob on it," the teacher replied patiently.

Language barrier

Numerous studies have shown that languages are a class and gender thing. Children from lower socio-economic backgrounds are less likely to be encouraged to learn them by their parents, less likely to see the point of them and less likely to have parents at home who can help with their homework. It is a particular problem for boys, whose parents are more likely to encourage them in science than in languages.

Foreign exchange trips are expensive, as are the holidays abroad that might open a child's mind to the use of languages. So when Young launches a school with compulsory Latin and Michael Gove invents a special certificate for those who pass a foreign-language GCSE as well as maths, English, a humanity subject and a science, these aren't classless acts. What Gove's new "English baccalaureate" will do is give another prize to those who win them all already at GCSE and A-level. When Young says that all children will have to learn Latin at Key Stage 3 (and either Latin or a modern language after that), he excludes the kids of parents for whom Latin is a frightening prospect. So much for comprehensive entry.

The free schools experiment sounds so positive: this school is going to open late to allow parents to work; that one is being started by the son of a Bradford bus driver; that one by a concerned group of parents. All of them insist that entry will be fully inclusive - yet five of the 16 given the go-ahead on 6 September will be faith schools, which are known to be selective, and another two have a religious element.

Back at the community school, where all the children have to learn a modern language (as that is the school's specialism), we are trying to remember how to order a meal in Spanish. Shane, 14, doesn't want to learn any Spanish; his ambition is to go to jail, he tells me with great bravado. Jimmy has kicked over a chair. Ryan is shouting out random words in a made-up language. Ryan's profound dyslexia makes foreign languages torture for him and his teacher thinks that being forced to learn Spanish is undermining his confidence. Do you think Ryan and Shane will be at that Latin-specialist school in west London? Somehow I doubt it. Many of these free schools are going to operate selection systems, even if these are disguised as church attendance requirements or a keenness for one's child to learn Latin.

And yet, I have to admit, if I had a child who was faced with a choice between sitting in class with Ryan or joining Young's children learning Latin, my child would be in the Latin class. I know, because I have been reading Danny Dorling's book Injustice (it's very good), that this makes me a nasty elitist and possible eugenicist who, in the past, would have made black people sit at the back of the bus. There's no middle position, it seems, for a middle-class conscience.

Empty symbols

So I turned to the candidates for the Labour leadership to tell me what to think. Nothing. They have no new school policies (it was pretty hard to find any policies, full stop). Andy Burnham proposes wider ballots on grammar schools; David Miliband wants to end tax breaks for private schools. This is just symbolic stuff. What about the comprehensives? What about that community school? What would they do for Ryan and Shane?

I don't see how more of the same can possibly be defended by any Labour candidate. The annual education report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has just been published, showing that after years of Labour's "education, education, education", the proportion of private-to-public expenditure on post-primary, pre-tertiary education rose between 2000 and 2007 from 11.3 to 21.9 per cent. That is a higher proportion spent privately on children's education than in any OECD country except Chile and South Korea. (In the US, surprisingly, it is just 8.6 per cent.)

In 2008, the UK had below the EU and OECD average of adults with at least upper-secondary education and it's not looking any better for the future: enrolment rates for teenagers aged between 15 to 19 are lower than in any OECD country except Israel, Mexico and Turkey. Think about that. How can the current system be defended?

Yet how are compulsory Latin classes or an English baccalaureate going to get those missing teenagers back into school?

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

11 comments

Wed, 2010-09-15 13:37 — Greg (not verified)

"Michael is not stupid but he is male, working class and dyslexic."

Wow.... That's just.... wow....

Fri, 2010-09-17 02:46 — MrNoggins

What exactly is your point Daniele?

I said we should give kids more responsibility over their education - if a kid wants to learn a language then the school should do everything possible to support them in their choice to do so.

Similarly if a kid is interested in engineering then why not foster this at an early age? The only subjects which seem vital for a person to function in society is literacy- and even this does not necessitate schooling. I remember reading somewhere in John Stuart Mill's writings the proposal that a child's parents should be fined if a child at age 10 was unable to read or write. This money would then be used to send a child to school to learn these skills.

My point is individual choice should be maximised and I think that a mixture of private and state schools would facilitate this rather than a simple one modal fits all statist solution.

In fact the problem with statist solutions to education can be seen by your own country’s history- French schools were continually used by conservative, catholic and republicans in the 19th century to indoctrinate children into traditional gender roles and foster nationalism and racism. Not dissimilarly a few months ago their were debates in the British media about the influence of a right wing historian upon the national curriculum - these problems wouldn’t arise if children and parents were given more control over their education.

Hell if you really wanted to facillitate education as opposed to mere schooling in society why not set by for each citizen an annul fund which allows them to acquire access to educational institutions throughout their lives. For example if a person wanted to learn a language later in life or re-skill after the destruction of a particular industry?

Tue, 2010-09-14 13:27 — Andy (not verified)

I'm absolutely working class, born in a former mining village in south wales - father was a mechanic, mother a nurse, lots of miners in the family as well (naturally)

However, I think the idea of doing latin...or greek in schools is interesting. I've done a semester of ancient greek in university and done a bit of latin on the side, so I know how difficult those languages are. That said, I think it would probably be best to start teaching other languages at primary school level, introducing the basics of various languages (Welsh, French, Spanish, German, Latin, Greek) and then giving children the option of focusing on one or two during their comprehensive school days.

I'm also a great fan of introducing some basic philosophy in primary and secondary education. I think the point of education should be to help develop a fully rounded human being, with the ability to think, reason and understand the world around them.

Wed, 2010-09-15 19:29 — David Vinter (not verified)

They tried to teach me Latin at school, without much success. Much more use to me all my life was to learn to drive a van in a small field age 10. I also had a good understanding of the internal workings of a 4 stroke motorcycle engine, enjoyed maths and read almost anything,hated football, [why run about in a field when a local farmer would pay me to work for him tractor driving at weekends].
All worked out OK , got my degree at Nottingham as a mature student. It's learning to read on mother's knee age 3 that counts most.. Middle class? Well one granfather was a farm labourer, the other a docker!

Wed, 2010-09-15 20:25 — MrNoggins

The problem is that, no matter how much funding is provided, it is virtually impossible to teach a child another language if they see no reason to do so. I’m dyslexic, went to a private school and was forcibly schooled in Latin, German and French yet none have rubbed off on me. Nor do I particularly care since I don’t intend to work or study in Europe.

This attitude is pretty common amongst my classmates and our society in general. Perhaps we should be ashamed of this - but the fact is that its a cultural problem which cannot be solved simply by throwing money at it. Instead I think the whole British school system should be reformed so that children and parents are allowed to take responsibility for their own education.

For example- it seems unfair to me that parents who want to better the lot of their children should have to pay for it twice through taxation and private fees. Instead progressive taxation should be used to provide all parents with vouchers which can be used to pay for state schools or used towards fees for private schools.

Also, since religious and ‘free schools’ essentially select pupils based upon cultural discrimination why not simply make selection explicit? If a kid from a poor background is intelligent they should be given a bursary by the government to go towards a private tutor, educational material (books, computers etc) and/or private schooling. Not only would this be more meritocratic, it would mean less resources would be wasted upon prestigious cultural subjects like Latin and Religious Education and more dedicated to English, Maths and Science.

Wed, 2010-09-15 22:44 — Shona (not verified)

Latin Liberates! As the first and only female of a mining and farming background in Lanarkshire, attending a small village school to go to university, I loved Latin so much I went onto university in England to read Latin and English. I have been teaching Latin, again in a state comprehensive in Scotland, for over three decades. Latin is not elitist but an invaluable subject and should be available to all.Latin is more than a language as those who have had the chance to study it can testify.

Thu, 2010-09-16 18:58 — Daniele1

Tell you what:
Look at the parents' jobs, only bother with the middle class kids, the others are a waste of time really.You educate those properly and the rest, well, they don't really need to be educated , a little bit of reading and writing maybe, the rest is irrelevant to them, you know. The girls should be taught sawing and cooking and the boys... well to drive a van and mess about with engines maybe.
French, German?? what's the point? they will never travel beyond their village anyway!
We should try that and see if it works. Oh But hang on!...
Thanks Shona for helping make my point.

Sun, 2010-09-19 01:55 — Daniele1

@MrNoggins:
One slight problem with your"choice" solution.There are some kids who would never received ANY education, because their parents are too ignorant /selfish to see any point in education for their kids. I know, I met plenty when I was a teacher in tough comprehensives. Don't tell me about choice. Children are not equipped to make choices regarding their education and to leave it to parents is to take the risk of abandoning children to lifelong ignorance.
This cliche of freedom of choice sounds good but only benefits yet again the social classes who have the means,knowledge and money, to make the right choices.
You are obviously not concerned with equal opportunities. I am.

Wed, 2010-09-15 02:05 — Daniele1

I despair of the British media people commenting on the Education system in this country.!
Alice Miles:
How utterly condescending of you to assume that, in effect, because of their working class background, it is a complete waste of time, trying to teach certain children Latin or Foreign languages. This attitude confirms my view that there is a solid Educational Apartheid in this country.
The sad thing is Alice Miles thinks she is writing IN DEFENCE of those kids while all she is doing is reinforcing the prejudices and low expectations that schools have of their working class kids. How dare you decide that certain areas of knowledge are simply irrelevant to some kids?
Sure these children reject the idea of learning a Foreign language and would laugh at Latin.Have you asked yourself why? It is because THEY know that these subjects are not for them, that University is not for them, that all that cultural stuff, their own culture is not for them.They get that message every day from people like you and of course it becomes a self fulfilling prophesy.
In other European countries where there are no private system of schooling, apart from religious schools with very low fees, all the children are EXPECTED to follow the same curriculum and to achieve the same results. Children of all classes in France, Germany, Holland, all learn not one but 2 sometimes 3 Foreign languages. In Holland all the bus drivers speak English for Goodness sake! The knowledge of a Foreign language should be part of a basic curriculum and it is an absolute disgrace to say that underprivileged kids simply can't cope with languages or other academic subjects.
Because my parents did not speak another language and couldn't help with my homework Ms Alice Miles would probably had decided that Learning a language was not for the likes of me!
Thank God I was educated in France where no one thinks like her and where everybody is given a chance, no matter what their background is.
I know for sure that Mr Gove couldn't care less about those "poor kids" either and that once again, whatever reform he embarks on, they will benefit the Middle class kids and the others will lose out.
The horrendous inequalities of opportunities in the British Education system is the elephant in the room.
Meanwhile the very rich will continue to send their kids to expensive private schools where they will ALL,the clever, the stupid and the dyslexic, learn Latin and a Foreign language.Because in those schools EVERYONE is EXPECTED to succeed.

Fri, 2010-10-15 17:05 — Assia W. (not verified)

If British Children, regardless of their gender or class are not made to learn and know at least 1 foreign language
they will grow up to be xenophobic ignoramuses with a very high chance of being unemployed in adulthood because of a limited (i.e non-existent) capacity in an increasingly globalized world. The real reason why o many Britons are unemployed right now is because, unlike their European counterparts they do not speak other languages and therefore, cannot migrate for employment and job-seeking purpouses as those other people. I tried enrolling on an adult advanced German class in my local university the other day and was told that only the basic level was being taught because there weren't enough pupils to run the Advanced programme. Outrageous! Britain really needs to sort it's woeful record on foreign language knowledge out otherwise it will not only be left out of a global labour market and global opportunities for it's youth but raise a it's very own, British generation of neo-nazis. Why aren't there charities helping poor kids go abroad? Why aren't foreign languages a priority here? Self-protectionism is not going to save Britain in the future - just damage it.