An Inspector Calls – and Then Tells You What to Think

J.B Priestley’s An Inspector Calls is a Left-wing manifesto that students are forced to read for GCSE. In the play, Priestley uses younger characters to illustrate to his readers, especially the young, the importance of adopting the same views and to criticise the upper and middle classes, represented in the play by the Birling Family. They are a microcosm for exploitative and selfish behaviour.

An Inspector Calls was one of our prescribed GCSE texts. I enjoyed studying the play – we all follow the same structure and learn the same themes within the play (social responsibility, capitalism vs socialism, gender, patriarchy). But we are prohibited from expressing our own opinions about these topics. Instead, we are directed by our teachers towards what the curriculum wants us to learn. For example: “Priestley wrote An Inspector Calls to highlight the flaws in a patriarchal, capitalistic society. He advocates for a socialist society, which will be fairer and more equitable for all.” If we state an opposing view, such as “socialism does not work’ or “Arthur Birling was right to sack his workers”, then our teachers tell us to ‘correct’ it.

The exam board states that students will not be penalised for opposing the play’s key message. However, they will lose marks for misreading the question or misunderstanding the play. If true, why are teachers so obsessed with preventing us from disagreeing with the essential message of the play, which promotes socialism? In theory, we should not be worried about taking a different stance on Priestley’s messages or the Inspector’s morality; but we are. I do not remember teachers asking if anyone did not agree with the premise of the play.

Peter Hitchens, on the latest Alas Vine and Hitchens podcast, tells a story about a student studying An Inspector Calls for his GCSEs. The student stated in his essay: “Priestley is trying to make an argument for socialism”. His teacher marked the essay and criticised him for this line as she suggested that he could not say this because it suggest Priestley may be failing. The student insisted that he was failing because it was a “bad argument made badly”. He was told that he could not say that in the exam as he would be marked down. Despite the Gove reforms to education of 2013 which encourage ‘critical thinking’, the student was not allowed to provide his own interpretation of the play’s overall message. He duly complied in the exam – telling a lie effectively – fearing that he would lose marks.

I have just finished my GCSEs and, as expected, An Inspector Calls came up in one of the English papers. I duly included everything I was told, rather than what I thought, just like the student in Peter Hitchens’ story. I was lying to gain marks.

This is not just confined to English. In French, we learned about how humans contribute to global warming (which I wrote about in these pages) and how we should act to “save the planet”. We were given a text on climate change in Year 9 which we had to learn in sections. We never discussed how to counter the claims made in the text, such as “taking public transport is better for the environment”. In PSHE, we learned about gender reassignment and equality. But we were never taught the dangers of puberty blockers or sex change operations.

Bias infests the curriculum. We are being encouraged to adhere to groupthink and discouraged from expressing our own beliefs. Schools should stick to providing education, personal development (including critical thinking), socialisation, preparation and opportunities to learn. They should not be centres of cultural and political indoctrination.