An article by Jo Littler on March 24th this year in the Guardian Weekly savaged the concept of meritocracy. Meritocracy, a word that only dates back only to 1956, was originally a word of abuse, describing a ludicrously unequal state that no one would want to live in. Now it is espoused by Theresa May (grammar schools) and Trump (merit-based immigration), and other politically right-wing politicians trying to persuade the public that society should be based upon merit, not privilege.
Since Thatcher, Britain has had a “meritocratic” financial sector which succeeded in driving the economy into a ditch in 2008. In a 1958 essay the philosopher, Hannah Arendt argued that meritocracy contradicts the principle of equality……no less than any other oligarchy”. You can’t re-introduce grammar schools and claim you are promoting equality. On the contrary, grammar schools divide children and offer even more privilege to the privileged. The problem is that rich parents will always spend money on tutoring to give their kids a leg-up into the best schools. In America an unknown number of students owe their presence at Harvard and Yale to strategic donations (a statistic known by the university administrators, but not the public). The beneficiaries then find well-paid jobs in financial companies and perpetuate inequality. The Trump government want to dismantle public education and make schools private. Given the dismal record of most American private schools, this is a recipe for consigning America to the dunces corner of the world.
Neoliberal meritocracy has been responsible for extending entrepreneurial competition into every aspect of life, claiming to be dismantling hierarchies of privilege. Politicians have been characterising the population as either “strivers” or “skivers”, the latter being regarded as morally inferior. On the surface meritocracy is attractive, holding out the promise of moving up in the world. Actually it is a smokescreen for inequality.
In my last year at school the debating society debated the abolition of public schools (for Americans, this is British double-speak for private schools). I spoke passionately for the abolition of these schools and an equal playing field for everyone in a supposed democracy. I was not the most popular person in the school, but I expected it and was glad I said what I said. We should be raising the standards of State schools to that of the best private school, which means recruiting top teachers with top salaries – the best investment we could make. That would encourage the poor, but bright. In the real world the third-rate standard of education for the English poor and not-so-poor has helped to create the catastrophe of Brexit. Similar problem in America. equal opportunity is a core value of Epicureanism. If only we could stop people voting against their own best interests…..
I agree with the basic premise of this article. The idea that the UK or US economies are meritocracies is nonsense considering that some children start off with so many more advantages than others. There were many structural factors that have many me successful that many people won’t have access to, regardless of their hard work or talent. I attended a sixth form college rated Outstanding by OFSTED- these sorts of schools, be they grammar or comprehensive, are far more common in wealthier areas. My upbringing was a loving, stable one, where I was taught to read, write and do sums well before the usual age. The vast majority of my friends were in a similar position. But if you grow up in a deprived, post-industrial town, you are far less likely to attend a good school, or have a stable and educational upbringing. Overall, there is a broad correlation between income equality and social mobility, which is why countries like Denmark and Sweden are far more socially mobile than the UK or the US. The more equal our starting life chances, the more significant a role effort and talent plays in our chances of success later in life.
I mostly agree with you on grammar schools. If you grow up in a poor area, and you get into a grammar school, there’s no denying that they improve your chances of success. But if you live in a poor area and don’t get in (which happens to most people), your chances of success worsen. Grammar schools don’t improve social mobility on the whole. Nor do they solve the problem of the wealthy achieving a higher educational attainment than the poor. Kent, which has a grammar system, is far less socially mobile than mostly-comprehensive London. (Though grammar schools aren’t the only reason why that is the case.) I also don’t think it’s right to put 11 year old children under that much stress.
I don’t think it is entirely fair to characterise Trump’s school reforms as privatisation. Every child in America will still get a right to an education. What he is proposing is greater school choice- giving vouchers to parents so they can afford to educate their children how they choose. But there is no guarantee of success. Sweden implemented similar reforms a few years ago, and since then they have been in rapid decline in the PISA international education performance scores.
I don’t know why American private schools are that bad. But in Britain, they are excellent, which is why the number of international students attending them is rapidly increasing. Amongst other things, they are brilliant at getting their students into universities outside the UK. Graduates from the top British private schools often go on to universities like Harvard, Columbia, Sciences Po or ETH Zurich.
I’m afraid it simply isn’t realistic to raise the performance of UK state schools to the standard private schools currently enjoy. That would require a monumental increase in funding which we simply can’t afford. There’s also the human rights argument that people have a right not to be educated by the state- something which many people hold dear for religious reasons, or simply because they don’t trust the government with their children’s education. Abolishing private schools would only worsen the education of those who currently attend them.
In the UK, the wealth gap in educational attainment is caused by the comprehensive system. The top 10% wealthiest children in state schools achieve far better results than the bottom 10%. This isn’t entirely the fault of the schools- children who grow up in difficult families will always be far less likely to get good results. But even thought I don’t believe in crude segregation by academic ability, I do think the comprehensives need to be more like the grammars- academically rigorous, pushing every child to achieve the best they can. There’s a culture of mediocrity in many schools. Children are not encouraged to apply to Oxford, Cambridge, or the other good universities. The curriculum is too easy. Language learning is not encouraged. Now I agree that improving the comprehensives will be require a bit of extra funding. But ultimately schools will only improve if every child is pushed to achieve the best they can.