Michael
Gove’s (Conservative Education Minister) main focus is the lack of social
mobility within this country. He
bemoans the fact that civic life is filled with white upper class men. Gove blames this trend on the working
classes lack of cultural capital. If
‘vocational’ is a key term within Stephen Twiggs education strategy. The main word in Gove’s tool kit is
‘excellence’. This word get repeated
throughout the text. Excellence is linked to academic knowledge/learning. For
example, excellence is linked to the knowledge of the literary canon and other
traditional subjects taught in a traditional way. He has critiqued contemporary subjects such
as computer and media literacy.
He believes
that this more traditional mode of learning would empower the marginalised
groups, breaking through their ‘ignorance’ and enabling them to play a greater
role within society. I have several issues with this view. Firstly, I must
question Gove’s individualistic view that this country’s lack of social
mobility may be blamed entirely on the individuals lack of cultural
capital. I would state that the lack of
economic capital plays a role in the inequalities faced by many people in this
country today. In addition, I would
argue that; the lobbyist driven, old boys club that is Westminster excludes
many who do not conform to the norm. Secondly, what does he want the student to
focus on. The traditional cannon excludes many of those whom he wishes to
include. Thirdly, I would suggest that, given the power of technology and mass
media/new media, that it might be a good idea for students to be given an
understanding of these information sources.
Gove uses
two quite surprising reference points as a base for his thesis. I never thought that I’d hear a Conservative
politician reference Jade Gooding and Gramsci in a speech on education.
Remembering Jade Gooding, Gove speaks of his anger at those critics who mocked
Jade for her lack of intelligence/cultural capital. Gove argues that the critics should turn
their attention away from Jade to the education system that produced her. It
was the Comprehensive system, with its lack of; discipline and high brow
content, that failed Jade Gooding and not her own failings.
Then, to
root his arguments in a firmer theoretical footing, Gove turns to the writings
of Gramsci. Gove argues that Gramsci
criticised theorists, such as Rousseau, who called for an education system that
allows the child to shape their own learning.
Gove and Gramsci argue that this style of education disadvantages the
disadvantaged whose families may not have a high level of cultural
capital. They, therefore, need education
to provide a thorough base. Gove and
Gramsci argue that they will receive this from a traditional education; that is
based on excellence, based on traditional subjects and cannon, and taught in a
disciplined manner. Therefore, an education system, like the system created by
Rousseau, stops the working classes from achieving success.
Grove argues
that Gramsci's thoughts have been justified by our current situation which has
an education system that espouses subjects that have a lower level of academic
rigour at the detriment of those classical subjects that involve a high level
of academic excellence. This system does
not give students a knowledge of culture that is needed to succeed in public
and civic life. He argues, mirroring the thoughts of Gramsci,that this has left
the disadvantaged without the cultural capital that they require to succeed in
life.
We need to
question Gove’s individualistic views of social mobility. For him, a person’s ability,
or inability, to succeed rests upon their own access to cultural capital,
ignoring the social aspects that help or hinder a person's ability to succeed.
It ignores the way that our cultural/social/political environment, with its
lobbyists and old boys network, inhibits or aids a person's progress.
It must be
said that Gove's views are not simply academic. He focuses some of his
attention on vocational education. Like Twigg, Gove bemoans the skills gap that
exists within the United Kingdom. In addition, like Twigg, Gove places an
emphasis on apprenticeship schemes. Moreover, he mirrors Twigg in his views
that an emphasis be given to vocational skills and training. If we read another
speech of Gove, we get a glimpse of one flaw in Gove's argument.. He seems not
to acknowledge those industries that combine brains and brawn, such as computer
game design and new media. In fact, we have seen, in his policy and rhetoric
that he has a low opinion of subjects, such as media studies, which combine
theoretical and practical skills.
It may seem,
on the surface, that Gove, with all his pop references and talk of socialist theorists,
is making a radical departure from traditional Conservative rhetoric. However,
if we look more closely, we see that Gove’s views coincide with Conservative
policy. Firstly, there is a strong emphasis on traditional subjects, canon and
values that coincides well with his party's drive to conserve these very values
and institutions. Secondly, his views of
education seem to opine for the Grammar school system favoured by the
Conservative Party, in which academically oriented students receive a traditional
education, leading to university. While, those students who do not have an
aptitude for, or seem not to have an aptitude for, academic learning are pushed
towards vocationally orientated technical schools, leading towards
apprenticeships and a job. Once again mirroring the Labour Party’s policy, we
see that this policy dichotomizes students and the subjects which they are
encouraged to study. We see that some students are pushed towards the academic
at the expense of the vocational skills that they will need to compete in, or
understand, the world of work. While others, will be vocationally adept but
will not have the cultural, or political capital to play a full role within the
civic/political arena. We are in danger, if we follow this path of having
politicians, who make the decisions that will control our future who have no
understanding of work and the new technologies that are rapidly becoming the
driving force of our future. While others, who have those skills will not have
the skills needed to shape the policy that shapes the future of the
technological forces; that they understand, that we use everyday and that will
increasingly drive our future.
This
dichotomy seems to be at the heart of both parties education policy. I fear
that it will limit the possibilities open to both future citizens and the
country that they will serve
