During the early 1980's I was trying to hold on to a collapsing marriage. The woman I loved, indeed still love, was a teacher. Clever Trevor decided that he, too, would take up that noble profession. We would then be able to spend more time together, to rebuild the ideal state. If that perfection had ever existed.

This asrticle was written in 1998, so be tolerant, but I still believe in the principles outlined then.. 

I did not collect my postgraduate teaching certificate. To be honest there was not one to collect for I did not submit the last grommet that the system required to make me into a water-tight teacher. My life was a trifle chaotic at the time and none of the decisions I took were rational. I was depressed, mad as a hatter, and drinking far too much Scotch whisky. Yet beneath all the tension could be sensed the undeniable conviction that I must not inflict myself upon several generations of hapless children. Nor should I be party to the dreadful curriculum taught in English schools.

School does nothing to prepare children for the life they will face. In the broadest sense, life skills are not taught. The most basic skills, such as those within Domestic Science have become increasingly ignored. The rot is now deeply entrenched. Over 30 years ago my sister-in-law was told to take packets of frozen chips, frozen peas and hamburgers to school for her Domestic Science class. Today, little has changed, the basic skills required to sustain life appear to incorporated into a curriculum of CDT, craft, design and technology. A Tomorrows' World sort of subject that is invariably taught by men who are obsessed with toys. Men like toys. They may start with pea-shooters and toy train sets (well, they used to!) but they soon progress to fast cars, tanks and big guns.

That foray into teaching made me ask a few questions. Having been a policeman in central London for many years I was convinced that school failed many bright, yet disadvantaged children. Particularly young boys, although increasingly girls as well as they became more enfranchised. These clever young things often turned to crime. We live in a materialistic society where possessions are considered important. Crime, drugs, prostitution, racketeering promised a better return than school.

One simple answer was to release these youngsters from the yoke of school. From that place where they had been allowed, even expected, to fail. No-one had seen the necessity of ensuring that they acquire some basic life skills. Could they wash and dress themselves? Yes of course, our present generation of young people take more care of their personal appearance than ever before. However, most of them are unfit, many are overweight. Perhaps fitness and general physical well-being are not important. We are living longer, have better health care available and the technology to cure. Perhaps.

Could they read and write? Undoubtedly too many fail. How can a society allow a percentage of its young to enter the social whirl without having such basic skills? No child should be allowed to leave school until they can read and write to an acceptable standard. Those skills open doors for they open minds. It may be argued that we are moving into an audio-visual age where TV, computers and other electronics can interrelate to humans without using the written word. Too many households do not contain any books but they do have a plethora of audio-visual aids. Is this our future?

The acts of reading and writing are important to the processes of ordering thought. Our random action minds need some structure, and for now the 3 R's, reading, w'riting and a'rithmetic remain fundamental. It is too early to anticipate the effects of digital TV and the Internet, although there are signs that children are more motivated to learn using computers than they are facing a teacher, who may not know very much anyway, and whose determinants are often not those of the child.

Our education system does not measure failure. It looks instead at success. Instead of asking why some children are failed by the system it ranks schools in order of the success of their pupils at passing examinations. To do so assumes there will be failure. It is my belief that such failure is totally unacceptable. That a growing number of children can obtain 'A' grade passes in higher calculus is of far less importance than the extremely high rates of truancy and that an estimated 20% of children cannot read and write acceptably.

The education system fails because it faces the wrong way. It teaches a curriculum that is often determined by the universities instead of considering the needs of the child. It does not impose any order upon the lives of those children who do not understand the need for discipline. In order to live happy and contented lives we need order, we need structure, we need some degree of discipline. Schools, if they are to exist at all, must teach children to think. At present they fail. They only have success because inside most of us there is a restless curiosity, a need to know and understand. They can rely upon that curiosity in much the same way as the physician can rely upon the body's will to survive. Whether they add very much to the process is questionable.

It should be possible to set a basic standard that all members of our society can attain. We all need to be able to read, to write, to understand some basic mathematics. Add science, some geography, some history, a taste of literature, performing arts, craftsmanship and artistic endeavour, together with some understanding of our social patterns, of the limits imposed upon us all as citizens, of how to live our lives in conjunction with others without conflict. Let schools be given ten years to bring every child, every child, to that agreed standard. Let there be measurement of these achievements if it keeps everyone happy.

Beyond that curriculum, that programmed timespan within which to teach basic skills, let us allow every one of our new citizens another eight years of full-time education. To take in whatever form they will, which will also become an integral part of their obligations as citizens. To be taxed in the same way as they are for health and education within England today. Free at the point of use. With every citizen (and that label needs to be properly defined) entitled to use such resources. Some may choose to use education in one big lump, taking the pathways as now, to GCSE, through A Level to university. Others could leave school once the basic standards had been achieved. Get out into the big wide world, taste the forbidden fruits, before coming to the realisation they still have an opportunity to learn, to improve their lot. If indeed they need to do so. Upon their return they should be able to use their educational chances for many different reasons. For carpentry, for philosophy, for car mechanics, for astronomy. Whatever they decide. Let the customer decide?

However the education system must realise that revolution is already afoot. Teachers may not be required once the basic steps have been outlined to tomorrow's children. Nor should they be confined to the restrictions of curriculum. The ways of communicating are changing. Like publishers teachers may well find they are being asked, 'who needs you?' To survive they must bring added value to the process. At present they dictate the process through curriculum. That must end.

My view of the learning process is probably Baconian. Education does not rely upon any outside influence. It comes from within ourselves. We all learn, all the time. Within the broad band of human endeavour I would argue that most of us are capable of doing anything and everything. Some restrictions must be placed upon that assertion, but the labourer often has sufficient intelligence to run the company, they merely lack the opportunity. How we apply that learning is the measure of how we succeed. Our present system engineers for failure, as it only recognises success. Instead it should be giving us all an equal start then letting us determine our own lives.

Nowadays increasing numbers of people wish to opt out of the present societal structures. They do not want to work as wage slaves. They want to live their lives in harmony with the wider world, to be part of Gaia. They want the world to be self-sustaining. They yearn for an end to conflict. They do wish to love their neighbours. Present systems, particularly economic, make those dreams difficult to achieve.

Since the French Revolution allowed the middle classes to obtain some education the horizons for most people have been steadily broadened, within the Western world at least. Most people there have access to some form of education, but we still have far too many failures. Perhaps matters have got steadily worse. The subjugated peasantry are no longer prevented from reading and writing. Instead they are thrown sufficient slops from the table to keep them amused and satiated. Revolution is no longer a problem for the ruling elite. Instead the stable majority are kept in check by television, mortgages, package holidays and the need to work at the mundane in order to obtain an increasing list of goodies advertised as necessary.

Is all this a problem? The populace seem happy enough. There are no active signs of revolt. For the time being we appear to be moving peaceably out of this century of war. It has been a bloody, senseless, century. Too many stupid wars. Too many lives ruined. For now we can look with interest upon minor squabbles that have little effect upon the rest of us. This is a time of peace, we can comfortably contribute to the relief funds.

Take heed of the arms manufacturers starving in their newly constructed garret. They will demand to be fed in the accustomed manner. A century of corpulent greed fed by death and misery will not be dismissed lightly. They will be encouraging conflict.

Where to next? We have too many people. Whatever the churches and multi-national corporations may say, we have too many people. We must reduce our population. The numbers game only makes sense for religions and corporations who are content to take tithe from us all. For us, as individuals, we will live better lives if surrounded by fewer people.

It also makes sense to become more parochial. To play our small part in rejecting the global economy. This is not to argue for nationalism, or to support racism in any way. It just makes sense to buy our vegetables locally, to support our local manufacturers. As individuals we gain nothing from goods being transported halfway round the world, not when those items can be grown or made locally. None of us gain from such stupidity.

For the moment this essay will close. It is intended to promote discussion. Some say the Internet lacks purpose. My hope is that it will allow us, the people, to make real choices, to make real contributions. My country became embroiled in two world wars during this century. Looking back at those times it is difficult to understand the stupidity of our politicians. The Internet offers true democracy. It is the mere suggestion of a dream at present but I have an innate belief in the intelligence of the people. Even without education.