He was reluctant. Isnt this a party matter, Prime Minister? A meeting with the Party Chairman and the Chief Whip?
Its also a government matter, I told him firmly. It concerns our education policy.
Bernard is a stickler for detail. The governments? Or the partys?
Its the same thing, Bernard! I was getting testy with him.
Neil, the Party Chairman, whos looking rather overweight and breathless, foolishly interfered. With respect, Prime Minister, theyre not the same thing.
Jeffrey [Jeffrey Pearson, the Chief Whip] joined in. Thats why we want the meeting.
Bernard tried to slide out of the room again. Well, it seems to be a party matter, so if youll excuse me
Sit! I commanded him. He sat. Hes quite obedient really, and impeccably trained. You would try the patience of a saint, Bernard, I told him. Now stay!
He stayed. I turned to Neil and Jeffrey and asked what the problem was.
Education, said Neil succinctly.
I was feeling belligerent. What the hell do you think I can do about it?
Youre the Prime Minister, said Jeffrey. I knew that already. But so what? The Prime Minister has no direct control over education. I cant control the curriculum, the exams, the appointment of Head Teachers -- nothing! But the voters are holding me responsible for everything thats going wrong.
You do have influence, said Neil.
And Im utterly fed up with it, I remarked. I thought that when I became Prime Minister Id have power. And what have I got? Influence! Bloody influence, thats all! I have no power over the police, the rates, EEC directives, the European Court, the British courts, the judges, NATO, the falling pound What have I the power to do?
Neil eyed me beadily. You have the power to lose us the next election.
Which you will, said Jeffrey nodding solemnly. Unless we do something aobut education.
I wonder if they overstate the seriousness of it. Maybe not. I told them I was listening.
The voters, said the Party Chairman, beads of sweat appearing on his forehead, want something dones about low academic attainment, the non-competitive ethos
You meant the three Rs, I said, cutting him short. I got the point.
He nodded gloomily. Kids are being taught about Marxism, sexism, pacificism, feminism, racism, heterosexism
Bernard chimed in. Its all the isms. Theyre causing schisms. I think he was trying to get me to tell him to go. But I wouldnt!
Id not heard of heterosexism. Neil explained that its the idea that children are being taught not to be irrationally prejudiced in favour of heterosexuality. This has come up before, I remarked. But I see the problem. We dont want prejudice.
Neil exploded. Prejudice! he shouted. You cant describe it as prejudice to teach kids to be normal. His face had turned a curious mauve colour. I thought he was going to have a heart attack. I wasnt very bothered, to tell you the truth -- I was thoroughly fed up at his suggestion that I might lose the next election. Hes the bloody party chairman, and all he ever does is criticise me. I may be out of a job after the election -- but he may only have to wait until I reshuffle.
He was still ranting on about normal. I silenced him. It all depends, Neil, I explained, on how you define normal. Im certainly not against homosexual teachers per se. And Im not against sex education. Now calm down.
He tried. He took a deep breath. Im not against teaching kids the facts of life in the classroom. But not homosexual technique. Nor heterosexual technique, come to that.
Where should they learn it then? I asked curiously.
Behind the bike sheds, said Neil firmly. Like we did!
This was a whole new insight into Neil. Did you? I asked with interest.
Jeffrey, our Chief Whip, was not remotely interested in Neils adolescence. Never mind about the sexual technique. Some of our schools are teaching more Hindi than English.
This was even trickier. Perhaps its lucky that I have no power over education. I agree that English is more important than Hindi. But I cant say it in public -- I'll be accused of racism. Only last week, while I was receiving a deputation from the Ethnic Awareness Council, I looked at my watch while a black woman delegate was speaking. I was immediately accused of racist body language. And sexist body language. And I only did it because I was bored rigid!
Still, Id got their message and I didnt see what I could do. So I asked them to be specific.
Get Patrick [Patrick Snodgrass the Secretary of State for Education] to get a grip on the Education Department.
You know it cant be done, I replied. Theyve got Patrick completely housetrained.
Then sack him.
I cant have another Cabinet convulsion. Not yet.
Then, said the Party Chairman, invite the Leader of the Oppositions wife round to Number Ten.
Why? What could she do? I was puzzled.
Neils face was a little less puce but no less grim. She can start measuring up for carpets and curtains.
[Hacker turned to Sir Humphrey Appleby for advice, believing that Sir Humphrey would be a believer in excellence for its own sake. But Sir Humphrey had his own hidden agenda, as this note in his private diary makes clear Ed.]
Wednesday 12 December
B.W. had a private word with me. He told me the Prime Minister has a problem with Education. Ive known that for years. But its a bit late for him to do anything about that now, especially as hes got to Number 10 without any.
But apparently I was mistaken. The Prime Minister was not concerned about his own education (or lack of it). That would be too much to hope for. No, it was the education system that was on his mind -- and in my view its a bit too late to do anything about that either.
He thinks, Bernard told me, that Education is going to lose him the next election. This is indeed a possibility, but it is my view that worse things could befall the nation.
Furthermore, there is nothing to worry about. Our education system does all that most parents require of it. It keeps the children out of mischief while theyre at work. Most of them, anyway.
It must be conceded that it does not, as Woolley pointed out, train their minds or prepare them for a working life. But then some of our local authorities would be most unhappy if it did.
When Bernard quoted the Party Chairmans paper, which suggests that the whole comprehensive system is breaking down, I sent him away with a flea in his ear. Hes clearly been got at by the enemy -- the Prime Ministers Chief Policy Adviser [Dorothy Wainwright] to be precise. I will not put up with Bernard Woolley standing in my office telling me that as comprehensive education was an experiment, it ought to be validated. Of course it should -- but on no account should it be invalidated.
Comprehensive education was not introduced with the idea of improving educational standards. It was to get rid of class distinction. But the impression has been allowed to develop, quite wrongly, that the intention was to remove class distinction among children.
Nobody at the DES [Department of Education and Science], however, ever mentioned children. They never have. Comprehensives were introduced so as to get rid of class distinction in the teaching profession. It was to improve the living standards of teachers, not the educational standards of children, and to bring the NUT [National Union of Teachers] in primary and secondary-modern schools up to the salary levels of their rivals in the National Association of Schoolmasters who previously taught in the Grammar Schools.
When there is a Labour government the Departments official line is Comprehensives abolish the class system. When there is a Conservative government the Department says: Comprehensives are the cheapest way of providing mass education. Thus the DES takes the view that selective education is divisive (if youre Labour) or expensive (if youre Conservative).