As plans for the first state-funded Free School, staffed entirely by ex-soldiers, begin to take shape, the UK's current love affair with its armed forces seems to be moving in a worrying new direction.
The claim made by the proposed Phoenix School in Oldham, along with Tom Burkard, author of the Centre for Policy Studies report Troops to Teachers, is that military discipline is the answer to the apparent woes of UK state education. For the Phoenix School, a "child friendly but not child centered approach" with a no nonsense attitude to discipline, is the answer to a failing system based on what they caricature as "the touch-feely, cuddly-bunny ideals of our 'progressive' educators."
The Troops to Teachers initiative reflects a wider engagement between military values and the Conservative Party's idea of a morally, as well as financially bankrupt 'broken Britain'. In the 2011 Theos Annual Lecture, former Chief of the General Staff, General Lord Richard Dannatt argued that new recruits to the army often lack "an understanding of the core values and standards of behaviour required by the military from their family or from within their wider community and the UK armed forces". For Dannatt, it seems that the military can act as a moral guide to help address decaying values in broken Britain.
Employing ex-soldiers as teachers is seen as the key to ensuring that, presumably through fear of punishment, children from deprived backgrounds fall in line at school. Burkard suggests that:
"Even though the individual soldier may not actually be proficient in combat, unarmed or otherwise (soldiers from the logistic and support corps are often devoid of any of the martial virtues), it is the image that counts. Whether we like it or not, children from more deprived neighbourhoods often respond to raw physical power".
Sounding suspiciously like "all they understand is force", it seems that raw physical power is obviously what liberal educators, myself certainly included, seem to be missing out on...
No doubt some ex-service personnel would make excellent teachers and it is the responsibility of the government to help them make the transition to a rewarding career on their return to civilian life. However, the suggestion that ex-soldiers, by nature, would make effective teachers is based overwhelmingly on their supposed aptitude for instilling discipline and 'respect'.
The deaths of four soldiers at the Deepcut Barracks between 1995 and 2002, alongside the 2006 death, from heatstroke, of Private Gavin Williams during a 'beasting' - an informal army punishment comprised of strenuous and exhausting physical activity - suggest that the army discipline and training regime is not something to which schools should aspire.
The proponents of Troops to Teachers argue that public perceptions of military training and discipline as brutal and inhumane are outdated. Burkard is quick to note that the Deepcut deaths "should not be considered as typical", glossing over the possibility that these events may be related to more serious systemic problems in the army training regime.
Even if we accept their claim that military education involves more carrot than stick, military discipline, whilst perhaps necessary to protect a democratic society, is still misplaced in its education system. Rigid discipline and obedience sits uneasily with of the goal of developing and encouraging reflective, free-thinking individuals. Military training and discipline cannot be disconnected from its role in preparing individuals for obedience to the chain of command, unquestioning acceptance of orders and, ultimately, conditioning them to overcome the moral prohibition on killing other human beings.
It's difficult to see exactly how challenging accepted wisdom and innovative, critical thinking, intellectual qualities essential in education, business and public service, can be fostered by educators who structure their teaching around militarised conceptions of discipline and obedience. Tolerance and respect for others are always essential, but education is much more than ingesting knowledge in a disciplined and obedient fashion.
Seeing military values as an antidote to a decadent and overly permissive liberal system is a worrying trend, and one that was characteristic of totalitarian movements during the 20th century. Military discipline, first designed to prepare individuals for participation in political violence, will not create tomorrow's free-thinking, morally responsible global citizens.
The idea that liberal education might learn from the practices of the military could in fact be turned on its head. The British Army is currently engaged in a counterinsurgency and stabilisation mission in Afghanistan, where reflection and cross-cultural engagement are key skills. Empathy, compassion, understanding and free enquiry, the hallmarks of a liberal education, may be much more important in these missions than selfless commitment and unquestioning obedience.
Perhaps we should be asking not what the military can do for liberal education, but what liberal education can do for the military?
What I am trying to suggest is that the Deepcut deaths suggest that the military training regime may itself have systemic problems and not be something from which approaches to school education should necessarily learn. Similarly, the kind of training and discipline used to prepare recruits to participate in political violence, is misplaced in a school environment aimed at fostering independent thought.
As the post suggests, whilst tolerance, good manners and respect for others are important, I'm unconvinced that being able to challenge accepted wisdom is particularly compatible with military-style discipline and obedience to the chain of command. I simply don't believe that children should be scared of their teachers or learn through fear of punishment. Are the most innovative and creative workers driven by a fear of their boss or of dismissal?
As for falling standards and a poor work ethic...as far as I am aware, A-level and GCSE results improve year on year and the UK has some of the longest working hours in Europe. All of this without compulsory national service and with a 'liberal education'.
I have never seen a greater example of meaningless management-speak.
As for his closing remark:
"Perhaps we should be asking not what the military can do for liberal education, but what liberal education can do for the military?"
No thank you, I've seen what years of a Liberal education has done to the UK.
U NO WOT I MEAN M8.
Moreover, I do not see the link between having ex-soldiers as school teachers and conditioning to break down prohibitions of killing other humans. So you are suggesting that because kids will be taught by soldiers, suddenly our next generation will think it more acceptable to kill each other? Another vacuous point.
You may have the most incredibly knowledgable teachers and children with exceedingly inquisitive minds, but if you have not got discipline in the classroom, you have got very little. Discipline should be the foundation of education, with free, critical thinking built upon it.
Just because you have discipline and a respect for higher authority does not mean you cannot think 'outside the box' or have to compromise on the best elements of a 'liberal education'.
Unfortunately, the 'liberal education' has been tarnished by falling standards, a lack of discipline and respect, both of which leave students unprepared for the work place where respect for the chain of command, punctuality, good manners, integrity and a high work ethic are important requirements, all of which are fostered by the military.