Pittock’s paradox: Why Scottish education needs to be more Scottish

IN THE FINAL PAGES  of his new book The Shortest History of Scotland, Murray Pittock lays out a disconcerting irony: Scotland, once the world’s great educator, now has an education system that is less Scottish than it has ever been. This raises a rather perplexing question: how did we end up with a Scottish education system that isn’t Scottish?

It was because of its deep historical ties with the national Church that Scotland’s education system was not united with England’s system as part of the 1707 Union. For over two centuries, our system retained a distinct character, rooted in the parish school tradition and the democratic ideal of the “lad o’ pairts”. Post-war, however, it began to take on more and more the appearance of a tartan-clad English system.

It might seem that the problems facing our education system today are the result of the ironically named Curriculum for Excellence and the doubling down of post-devolution egalitarianism. But the problems stem from a deeper historical malaise: the failure to resist the post-war comprehensive consensus, which was itself rooted in a particular crisis of post-imperial Scottish identity. The “Scottish” education system that we have today is, in large part, the product of that mid-twentieth century convergence.

Pittock deepens the irony by pointing out that whilst the English system has evolved to provide a greater range of opportunities, successive Scottish devolved administrations have continued to defend an ossified system based on a British Labour comprehensive-school agenda that has remained fundamentally unchanged since the 1960s. South of the border, the Academies and Free Schools reforms advanced under Westminster’s Conservative administrations, and in particular the work of Michael Gove and Nick Gibb, have introduced pluralism, autonomy and competition, with measurable gains. England has moved forward and improved; Scotland has stood still and fallen behind.

To criticise the current settlement too forcefully is to risk being framed as attacking Scotland itself

This history creates a profound double bind that entrenches mediocrity. The SNP, a secessionist party wedded to an egalitarian vision, finds itself structurally incapable of pursuing the current English route. We might follow Finland, or whichever other nation is the system du jour, but if it’s English it cannot be followed, simply because it’s English.

Adopting free schools and academies-style reforms would mean conceding that the auld enemy actually has something valuable to offer. Such an admission is anathema to a political mindset built on resentment and division. Instead of choosing what is best for Scotland, successive secessionist Holyrood administrations have ended up fiercely defending, in the language of Scottish distinctiveness, a system that is more Anglicised than the pre-war Scottish tradition. They cannot initiate real reform because doing so would require acknowledging the historical fact that the greatness of the Scottish education system was not built on uniformity.

One-size-fits-all was never the successful Scottish way, but the SNP’s egalitarianism forbids its leaders from admitting this, let alone doing anything about it.

The traditional pro-Union parties, particularly those steeped in the Better Together tradition, face a parallel inhibition. To criticise the current settlement too forcefully is to risk being framed as attacking Scotland itself. Questioning the post-1960s comprehensive model can too easily be portrayed as unpatriotic, dismissive of Scottish institutions and, perhaps worst of all, elitist. Having remained largely silent, they are complicit in the nation’s educational decline.

Genuine national self-confidence means judging policies by their results rather than their national origin

Here lies what might be called Pittock’s knot: the SNP resists serious change because the most successful recent reforms look English. Unionists hesitate to offer anything meaningful because challenging the status quo might be misconstrued as anti-Scottish. Both sides, for diametrically opposed tribal reasons, converge in defence of a mediocre system.

Scottish children pay the price for this stasis; Scottish society pays the price for a poorly educated citizenry.

The paradoxes of Pittock’s knot also help explain why the Scottish Conservatives never developed a truly distinctive or disruptive education policy. They were trapped in the same defensive dance as the secessionists, unwilling to break the consensus for fear of alienating the very ground on which the unionist case has often rested. The result has been timorousness masquerading as conservatism.

The egalitarian Scottish education system of today has drifted far from the rigorous, opportunity-driven tradition that once distinguished it. This is where Reform MSPs have a uniquely patriotic opportunity. Unencumbered by the accumulated sclerotic reflexes of the old Holyrood parties, they can make a simple argument: the current Scottish education system is simply not Scottish enough.

Genuine national self-confidence means judging policies by their results rather than their national origin. England is no longer our enemy. England is simply another country which, in this particular field, has pulled ahead of us by rejecting the straitjacket of the post-war consensus. The genuinely patriotic stance is to recognise that our nearest neighbour has lessons worth learning.

This does not mean that we should slavishly copy what happens down south. It simply means that we should learn the lessons that will restore, for every child, the excellence and breadth of opportunity that once made the Scottish education system uniquely world-class and uniquely Scottish.

Untangling Pittock’s knot requires a willingness to break out of tribal comforts. The traditional Holyrood parties have shown that they will not do so; Pittock’s knot explains why they cannot do so. A real “Scottish” education system would be one with its roots firmly in its own traditions. It would champion a knowledge-rich curriculum, genuine vocational parity and the school pluralism that England’s reforms have demonstrated actually work.

The opportunity now exists for Reform’s MSPs to argue for a different approach: one which rejects both secessionist Anglophobia and unionist timidity. For the renewal of Scottish education, the way forward may be to return to our roots.