What is a ‘military ethos’? Labour are suggesting it as a new model of schooling, proposing to establish military schools across England in order to ‘raise aspirations in poor areas’. There is, however, little explanation as to what that ethos is beyond ‘character formation’ and ‘high ethical values’. There are two problems which this business highlights. The first is the reliance on key words designed to suggest toughness and ease the more conservative elements of the electorate, the kind of people who say that what children today need is discipline. The second, however, is more worrying and has to do with how we view education in general and secondary school in particular.
The primary purpose of the armed forces is war and, by extension, killing our enemies. I do not have a problem with this – there are people who mean us harm and, in some cases, military force is the only way of protecting ourselves and others. It may be regrettable, but it is occasionally necessary. However, the ethos that is drilled into new recruits is not in the main about character formation or high moral standards, it is about obedience.
Troops are trained to obey orders. This is not about citizenship or ethics or any of these noble goals, it is about obedience. Whatever one’s personal feelings, if your superior tells you to do something, you do it. On the battlefield, this is absolutely necessary not only to accomplish objectives effectively but also to at least try to ensure that our troops make it home alive. This is why one of the first things the army teaches new recruits is drill – it teaches obedience to the word of command. This sort of obedience also requires faith in one’s commanders – that they have made the right decisions, which among other things ensures the sanity of the professional soldier – if one is being asked to kill, one has to believe it is for a good reason (unless one is a psychopath).
This is all fine as far as the armed forces go. It should not come as a galloping surprise if I say that education is not the same thing as war. Indeed, the best education depends on the exact opposite of blind faith and obedience to authority. Rather, it relies on a curious, questioning mind. One that is not content simply to swallow what those in authority (teachers) tell it, but that will argue if it disagrees. In short, it depends on exactly the sort of behaviour that on the battlefield will probably get you and your mates killed. The two are not compatible.
None of this seems to have entered the thinking of Labour’s education policy people. The problem, they believe, is about discipline rather than education and casts teachers as simply crowd control rather than mind-trainers. Worse, military schools are not being touted as a model for everyone, but rather for poor students alone. While their richer contemporaries will receive something approaching a proper education, we will be content if those in poorer areas simply refrain from setting fire to things, and it does not matter what promising minds we brutalise in the process. It appears that deep within Labour’s policy unit, the prospects of poorer students have already been written off and the bar set so low that a real education is out of the question. This is not the spirit of the Labour Party.
Left Turn 