Sir Herbert Butterfield famously diagnosed and disembowelled the ”Whig interpretation of history”. His target was historians who presumed an upward trajectory, events building up in an ascent towards a congratulatory culmination - history as the vehicle for the perfection of man in society, defined exclusively in western liberal democratic terms.
History elided with progress, and it became possible to conceive a conclusion - hence Francis Fukuyama’s much later pronouncement of the ‘end of history’.
Sir Herbert opposed this teleological, triumphalist trope, offering a “tory” interpretation. History, in this view is far messier and more reactive, with events often contrary and colliding, rather than pre-ordained or articulated.
On this contested terrain, historical figures were often as conflicted as historians.
Not all “progressive” legislation was initiated by those who identified as progressives. The 1867 Reform Act, and some landmark pieces of social and industrial legislation, were passed by Conservative ministries, responding to short-term tactical exigencies.
The history of education, at least until the mid-twentieth century, gives itself easily to a whig interpretation.
Universal free education - elementary, later secondary (and even for a marvellous time tertiary) - was hard-won. Piece by precious piece, the foundations were laid, reducing class and gender inequalities in access to schooling. As a whig narrative, it should have had a glorious ending, but somewhere it stalled.
We can gain some purchase on the reason for the loss of momentum if we apply the whig/tory dualism not to historians, but to politicians and policy-makers and their muddled milieux.
Many of the movers of education reform in the late nineteenth century - like W E Forster and T H Huxley - were genuine visionaries, seeing their activity as contributing to the movement, pushing state education further down a pre-ordained path, motivated by progressivism and a sense of purposeful, cumulative change.
They were not interested in the moderate mantra - the cautious reform of proven abuses.
Put partisan politics to one side: “liberals” like Robert Lowe were reactionary when it came to popular education, while conservatives like R A Butler (in the twentieth century) had a system-wide vision.
Most politicians today start off with a (whiggish) dream of cumulative structural change - not surprising given the desire to make a difference, and the egregious evidence of failings in the system. Once in power, and regardless of party tribe, they lose their whiggism and become “tory” in their approach.
It’s not a deficit of moral fibre; it’s a lack of time. The effective political horizon, determined by the election cycle, is short enough.
More truncated, the career of secretaries of state for education is less a path than a revolving door. Only mayflies have shorter lives. The focus is on quick wins and eye-catching initiatives, broad but shallow in their impact.
Education policy is political - justifiably, given its central importance to society and state. But it should not be partisan, nor short-term. It should not be subject to stop-go policies and handbrake turns. It deserves politicians committed to consensus-building around a long term vision of a progressive and sustainable future.
