A Cultural Misstep of Alarming Proportions

Lola Salem writes:

The Department for Education’s decision to scrap financial support for Latin provision in state schools is a cultural misstep of alarming proportions.

The announcement came packaged as a matter of budgetary prioritisation, but it is a false economy. Its implications extend far beyond the balance sheet.

This retreat is a self-inflicted wound, deepening the divide between state and private education. It reinforces the unfortunate perception that certain domains of knowledge – Latin, classical music, and the arts in particular – are exclusive indulgences for the wealthy.

Latin is derided as elitist, a language dismissed as a dusty relic with no practical utility in the modern world. Yet removing it from state school curricula cements that elitism, ensuring it becomes the gilded domain of those who can afford private tuition.

Critics of Latin fail to recognise its role. It is not merely an academic exercise; it is a gateway to the legal, philosophical, and literary foundations of Western civilisation.

To study Latin is to grapple with the roots of our own language, to see how ideas and values have been transmitted across centuries. It fosters intellectual curiosity and analytical thinking. These are not esoteric skills for an elite; they are the bedrock of a well-rounded education. Stripping Latin from state schools is to tacitly admit that such an education is only for the few.

Humanities are increasingly treated as ornamental luxuries rather than integral to education. The rationale is framed on a pure economic basis: Stem subjects are perceived as more valuable because they ostensibly align with the needs of the job market.

The reduction of education to quantitative metrics erodes its purpose, replacing meaningful engagement with mechanistic efficiency. This “governance by numbers”, to use the term of philosopher Alain Supiot, culturally impoverishes and means people are unable to engage with the ideas that underpin institutions born from the classical liberal tradition.

And it does not even protect them from being replaced by machines.

The purpose of education is not merely to prepare individuals for the work force; it is to prepare them for life. Education should challenge us to think critically, to engage with complexity, to understand our place in the world.

Latin, as unfashionable as it may seem, does precisely this. It demands discipline and rewards perseverance. It connects the individual student to a broader cultural and intellectual tradition. To dismiss it as irrelevant is to misunderstand what education is for.

The decision to cut Latin provision in state schools sends a dispiriting message to students and teachers. It signals that certain forms of knowledge are not worth pursuing, that the state will not support the aspirations of those who wish to engage with the deeper currents of our shared history. This is not merely a loss for the students who are denied access to Latin; it is a loss for society as a whole. If the decision is led by economics, then the Department for Education should recalculate the bill. The long-term damage of such decisions will far outweigh the immediate savings.

Private schools invest in these subjects not out of nostalgia, but because they recognise their enduring relevance. In scrapping support for Latin, this Labour Government is not merely making an economic decision; it is making a philosophical one. The state sector tacitly concedes that it cannot – or refuses to – offer the same depth and breadth of education as its private counterparts, and that some forms of knowledge are expendable.

This is a mistake. Teachers, parents, and concerned citizens must resist this narrowing of educational horizons. The value of Latin – and the humanities more broadly – cannot be measured in immediate economic returns. Their value lies in their ability to enrich, to challenge, to connect.

The question is not whether we can afford to teach Latin, or Greek, or music, or visual arts, and so on; it is whether we can afford not to.