Education is political in at least two different ways. First because it is one of a number of different services competing for scrrce public resources. The allocation of resources both between education and other services, and within the education service itself, requires some determination of priorities; and this necessarily involves politics. But education is political also, in that men legitimately disagree about the proper aims of educational policy; and this disagreement is not one to be resolved by an appeal to the higher authority of experts, for it reflects a difference of values and not of techniques. It is from this fact that the education service, unlike e.g. the armed services, has no single aim, but a multiplicity of conflicting aims, that the central problems of how education should be administered arise. This article attempts to deal with some of the issues involved in the local administration of education, in the light of the recent reform of local government. After discussing the relationships between the size and efficiency of education authorities and the effects of the growth of local party politics upon education, it will be possible to reconsider the case for education remaining a national service locally administered. From the fact that education is political in the above senses, it follows that some institutional method must be found of resolving conflicts. But the choice of a particular institutional method will tend to promote certain values at the expense of others. For example a state in which decisions are made through the whim of a dictator will probably hold a very different view of the nature and purposes of education, from a state in which decisions are made democratically. But even if we restrict our range of comparison to democratic states, we will still find that variations in institutional methods may lead to different political outcomes. It may be the case, for example, that an areal division of political power such as the federal system in the United States or the system of elected local government in Britain, militates against equality of educational provision. Is a system of 'healthy' local self-government compatible with 'territorial justice'? Is it correct to argue that A far greater degree of territorial justice could be achieved if some of the assumptions underlying our present system of central-local relations were amended ?1 Or, to take another example, is it the case that an areal division of powers slows down change to an unacceptable degree, thus delaying the diffusion of educational innovation?
Read full abstract