The rise of the New Right
Black Paper Three
Brian Cox and Anthony Dyson were clearly delighted by Labour's election defeat and hoped that the new Tory government would end comprehensivisation, progressive teaching in primary schools, and all the other examples of egalitarianism which they had railed at in their first two Black Papers (details in the previous chapter). Their third Black Paper, gleefully entitled Goodbye Mr Short, was published in November 1970.
It comprised twenty-one articles, of which five attacked comprehensive schools and four 'progressive' primary schools; one criticised the concept of the 'comprehensive university'; another defended the direct-grant grammar schools.
The first two articles - by Cyril Burt and Richard Lynn - expressed the authors' strong support for streaming and selection.
Burt, who was 'soon destined to be seen with his feet in a mire of fraudulent research, a totally discredited, indeed crooked, propagandist' (Morris and Griggs 1988:5), claimed that 'nearly one-third' of primary school children 'seem to be moved from one stream to another in the course of the first four years' (Burt 1970:24). In fact, as noted in the previous chapter, Vernon and others had shown that transfer between streams was minimal - about two per cent.
For Lynn, meanwhile,
The crux of the egalitarian argument ... is that streaming is part of the system of training children to be competitive. To egalitarians this is an objectionable trait, and their hope is that an egalitarian system of education will produce a less competitive society (Lynn 1970:25).
However, he argued, 'much of the country's economic malaise seems to arise because the British are not competitive enough'; and he concluded that
To achieve anything worthwhile, in school as in life, one has to work hard, and this is one of the important lessons that children learn from streaming (Lynn 1970:29).
In fact, the only lesson children learned from streaming was that if you were in the C stream you had very little chance of being promoted to a higher one and no chance whatsoever of passing the eleven plus.
The local authority journal Education commented:
The first Black Paper, according to its editor, C.B. Cox, was 'a forthright polemical onslaught on extremists', the second 'substantiated the arguments' and the third ... 'pleads for a settled policy of moderate reform'. The reader would be hard put to discover just what these moderate reforms are. It is almost entirely the mixture as before, a somewhat petulant plea for a return to the status quo ante bellum ... If there is any change it is towards an outright and enthusiastic political identity with what most of the contributors believe the policy of a Conservative Government ought to be. Whether many thinking Conservatives either at national or local level will embrace the black paper-weight message with the same enthusiasm is another matter (Education 27 November 1970 quoted in Simon 1991:403).
The preservationists
Meanwhile, the right wing of the Tory party was dominated by the 'preservationists', whose main aim was to defend the grammar schools. They rejected Heath's brand of Tory progressivism, inspired by the Macmillan-Butler tradition, and feared that his 'Quiet Revolution would not give expression to their particular educational vision' (Knight 1990:62).
The preservationists were 'not successful in turning Tory education policy in a sharply right direction during the period of the Heath government', but their ideas - promoted by the Black Paper writers - attracted 'increasing Party support and interest' (Knight 1990:68).
The first three Black Papers published in 1969 and 1970 were a vehicle for those Conservatives who wanted to put back the clock: to the days of formal teaching in the primary schools, of high academic standards associated with a traditional grammar-school education, and of well-motivated, hard-working and essentially conservative university students (Chitty 1992:11).
Edward Boyle's withdrawal from politics early in 1970 marked a change in relations within the Conservative Research Department that 'critically altered the direction and shaping of education policy formation' (Knight 1990:65).
Knight argues that the incorporation of Black Paper views on education into Conservative Party thinking and policy began with Margaret Thatcher's speech to the Annual Conference of the Association of Education Committees (AEC) at Scarborough on 28 October 1970. She told delegates 'We must avoid becoming preoccupied with systems and structures to the detriment of the actual content of education' (quoted in Knight 1990:68).
Thatcher's position had been informed partly by her private correspondence with Black Paper editors Cox and Dyson, and partly by her contacts with the Tories' National Advisory Committee on Education, which was 'now playing a much more decisive role in the formation of Conservative education policy' (Knight 1990:68).
A further push to the right would become evident later in the decade, as the so-called 'voucher men', who advocated new ways of providing education, gained influence in the party.
It was only in the last two Black Papers published in 1975 and 1977 that support was given to the introduction of educational vouchers and to the idea of much greater scope for parental choice of schools. By the mid-1970s, the politics of reaction had been replaced by the politics of reconstruction. The Old Right had given way to the New (Chitty 1992:11).
Comprehensivisation
In 1970 only 35 per cent of secondary school pupils were in comprehensive schools: 'Grammar and secondary modern schools ... still largely dominated the maintained system' (Simon 1991:414). However, all but fourteen of the 163 local authorities in England and Wales had either submitted plans for comprehensivisation or were intending to do so. Thus, if the Conservative government wished to prevent comprehensive schools becoming the norm, now was the moment to halt - or at least slow down - the reorganisation process.
Heath himself was somewhat ambivalent on the issue of selective secondary education.
In opposition, he had made it clear that, in view of the many parental protests over the selection system, he did not want the Conservatives to be seen as 'the Party of the 11+'. He told the Conservative National Advisory Committee on Education in June 1967 that
we accept the trend of educational opinion against selection at 11-plus. If the transfer from primary to secondary education is now to be made without selection, this is bound to entail some reorganisation of the structure of education (report in The Sunday Times 18 June 1967 quoted in Simon 1991:295-6).
On the other hand, like Labour's post-war education minister, Ellen Wilkinson, he clearly valued his grammar-school education:
I had benefited enormously from my time at Chatham House Grammar School in Ramsgate, and I wanted to ensure that others could have a similar opportunity in future (Heath 1998:448).
These two apparently contradictory standpoints were represented in the Conservative Party, some of whose members were determined to preserve the grammar schools, while others, notably in the local authorities, were committed to comprehensivisation.
From the beginning, Margaret had a political problem with this. In many cases, the proposals to end selection were coming not from socialists, but from Conservative-led authorities. Mostly they wanted to economise by replacing boys' and girls' grammar schools, which generally had large catchment areas, with co-educational comprehensives (Heath 1998:449).
Circular 10/70
Despite the divisions in the party, Thatcher was determined to stem the tide of comprehensive reorganisation by cancelling Labour's Circulars 10/65 and 10/66 (details in the previous chapter).
On 30 June, less than a fortnight after becoming education secretary, she issued Circular 10/70, The organisation of secondary education, which argued that it was 'wrong to impose a uniform pattern of secondary organisation on local education authorities by legislation or other means' and that therefore local authorities would now be 'freer to determine the shape of secondary provision in their areas'. Where a particular pattern was working well, the Secretary of State did not wish 'to cause further change without good reason' (DES 1970b:1).
Authorities whose plans had already been approved could go ahead, or notify the Department of their wish to change them. Those whose plans were in the process of being considered by the Department could decide whether they wished to withdraw them. The Secretary of State would be 'pleased to consider any new plans which may be submitted'.
Heath regarded this as a reasonable compromise: 'we left individual authorities free to decide for themselves what system they wanted, and we encouraged a policy of diversity' (Heath 1998:449).
Margaret Thatcher's ... circular set out a gentle but firm presumption against unnecessary disruption or change. ... Henceforth, each plan would be judged non-ideologically and on its individual merits, according to the needs of the locality. In practice, if an LEA wanted to end selection, then the onus was still on supporters of the threatened local grammar schools to put the contrary case - for, given the 1970 government's belief in the discretionary powers of local government, the Secretary of State would need to demonstrate good reasons for overruling any LEA (Heath 1998:449).
Brian Simon argues that
The circular was not directly confrontational, in the sense that it neither demanded a return to selective systems nor prohibited the development of comprehensive schemes. It was, however, a clear indication to local authorities to retain existing selective systems and to draw back from comprehensive reorganisation - and was so recognised at the time (Simon 1991:408).
Reaction
The Circular was condemned by a wide range of organisations and individuals, but it was in the Tory-controlled local authorities that the greatest anger was seen. The Guardian reported that 'in some authorities mini-caucuses on the political right hope to use circular 10/70 for some angry hatchet work at the educational crossroads' (quoted in Simon 1991:409).
Tory-controlled Bedfordshire withdrew its comprehensive plan following the issue of 10/70. Divisions immediately appeared, the chair of the education committee warning that
It was a black day for the whole county when this decision was made. Before the war we were among the backwoods in education. Our own special comprehensive system would have put us in the forefront. Now we are back to square one (The Teacher 18 September 1970 quoted in Simon 1991:409-10).
According to The Teacher, Bedfordshire's teachers were said to be 'seething with discontent' and the county's education committee was preparing to oppose its own council: a 'battle royal' was expected at the October county council meeting. A meeting organised by an 'action committee against selection' was attended by 500 and addressed by the head of Dunstable Grammar School whose staff had overwhelmingly expressed their support for the county's comprehensive scheme.
Meanwhile, Surrey's Stop the Eleven Plus group (STEP) ran a well-organised campaign which included a series of public meetings, a county-wide petition, car stickers and deputations, and a demonstration at County Hall attended by, among others, coachloads of students. The Times Educational Supplement (11 September 1970) reported that the county's teachers had 'formally threatened to boycott the 11-plus if the county does not go ahead with comprehensive plans' (quoted in Simon 1991:410).
Richmond in Surrey, a Tory authority which had not responded to Circular 10/65, now decided - ironically in response to 10/70 - to abolish selection. The 3,000 members of the borough's parents' association warmly welcomed the move.
And councillors in Conservative-controlled Barnet decided (by 40 votes to 20) to abolish selection and create fourteen all-through comprehensive schools. Eighty per cent of the borough's parents and teachers supported the decision.
In the autumn issue of its journal CASE Notes, the Campaign for State Education argued that
the anti-comprehensive backlash this summer has been real enough but it is possible to exaggerate the consequences. Most of the local authorities are conservative controlled and most are proceeding with comprehensive reorganisation (quoted in Simon 1991:410).
Thatcher faced hostility, not only from Conservative-controlled local authorities, but from members of the Bow Group of moderate Tory MPs. In their journal Mentor, they argued that her withdrawal of Circular 10/65 had 'immensely strengthened reactionary forces within each education authority'. It was 'a classic case of an unnecessary decision being badly taken for reasons of political dogmatism': Thatcher had done 'nothing to help progressive authorities and much to bolster reactionary ones'. It was bad for education, and equally bad for the Conservative Party (The Guardian 7 October 1970 quoted in Simon 1991:411).
In her speech at the Conservative Party conference that autumn, Thatcher deflected attention from the Circular 10/70 row by focusing on primary schools, and a 'largely anodyne resolution' (Simon 1991:411) welcoming the withdrawal of Circular 10/65 was agreed by an overwhelming majority.
A year later, shadow education secretary Edward Short declared that Thatcher 'was making a mockery of secondary education for tens of thousands of children for ideological, elitist reasons' (Education 12 November 1971 quoted in Simon 1991:421).
In fact, the most significant result of Circular 10/70 was 'to trigger a powerful grass roots fightback' (Simon 1991:412). Pro-comprehensive pressure groups were established - often by middle-class parents - around the country, notably in Bedfordshire, Birmingham, Buckinghamshire, Norfolk, Reading and Surrey.
In early November, public attention focused on the meeting of Bedfordshire's county council, at which, after a debate lasting five hours, chairman Leslie Bowles had to use his casting vote. When he voted in favour of the comprehensive plan, there was 'a massive uplift of arms and hands and a prolonged burst of clapping from a packed audience gallery'. It was 'The most dramatic victory to be won by comprehensive pressure groups so far' (The Times Educational Supplement 6 November 1970 quoted in Simon 1991:413).
In May 1971 Thatcher told the Commons that local authority plans had 'no statutory significance', and there was now 'no obligation to submit them' (Education 14 May 1971 quoted in Simon 1991:414). From now on, proposals to alter the status of a school would have to be made individually, and would be considered according to the procedure set out in Section 13 of the 1944 Act.
Her determination to end - or at least to slow down - the process of further comprehensivisation was, however, doomed to failure. Over the next three years, local authorities continued to submit plans: the number of proposals received by the DES reached 1,400 in April 1972 and 3,612 by December 1973 (Simon 1991:414). Thatcher approved most of them, with the result that the number of comprehensive schools increased from 1,250 in 1970 to 2,677 in 1974 - 'that is, more rapidly than at any time before or since' (Simon 1991:414-5). She could hardly have done otherwise, since it was mostly Conservative authorities who were submitting the plans, so she attempted to nullify their effect by insisting on the retention of specific grammar schools.
In Barnet, for example, she refused to sanction two grammar school amalgamations, despite protests from parents, effectively preventing implementation of the borough's plan. The leader of the council told a meeting in July: 'We are faced with a minister who is determined, come what may, that the spread of education shall be reserved for the privileged few' (The Times Educational Supplement 16 July 1971 quoted in Simon 1991:415).
Thatcher went on to thwart comprehensive schemes in Surrey, where she refused the scheme for Walton-on-Thames, and Lancashire, where she vetoed the inclusion of Ormskirk Grammar School in the town's comprehensive plan.
At their annual conference in April 1971, members of the National Union of Teachers voted overwhelmingly to support a campaign to bring all selective schools within the comprehensive system; and in June, the National Association of Head Teachers called for a fully comprehensive system of secondary education.
Labour regained control of a number of key authorities - including the Inner London Education Authority (ILEA) and Birmingham - in the local elections in May 1971. The Birmingham result was particularly significant, since Labour had promised to implement a radical comprehensive plan for the city.
In February 1972, the 4,000 members of the Surrey Teachers' Association urged Heath to dismiss Thatcher because she was 'proving to be an educational disaster' for the county and for the country as a whole (The Times Educational Supplement 2 February 1972 quoted in Simon 1991:417).
A month later, the local authority journal Education noted that Thatcher had refused to approve Worcestershire's scheme and had prevented ILEA from completing comprehensive reorganisation. These and other similar decisions, the journal said, pointed to 'a quite negative attitude to the elementary necessities and to a reckless application of indigestible doctrines' (Education 3 March 1972 quoted in Simon 1991:417).
Undeterred, Thatcher then refused to allow the amalgamation of a grammar school and a secondary modern school in Trowbridge (Wiltshire), despite the fact that no objections had been made.
Members of the Association of Education Committees agreed a resolution demanding that local authorities should have the right (within certain conditions) to organise secondary education on comprehensive lines. Their schemes, it said, 'should not be modified by the Secretary of State so as to interfere with this concept' (Education 30 June 1972 quoted in Simon 1991:417).
Such opposition, however, appears to have encouraged Thatcher to adopt an even more confrontational approach. At the Conservative Party Conference in October 1972, she encouraged parents to submit objections to schemes which involved the loss of grammar schools.
Her object, of course, as in the case of Florence Horsbrugh twenty years earlier, was to ensure that these objections persisted. These gave her the necessary legal pretext for preserving grammar schools, and so resisting the establishment of genuinely comprehensive local systems (Simon 1991:418).
The National Union of Teachers (NUT) responded with What is Mrs Thatcher up to? (November 1972), a pamphlet expressing the growing concern of teachers about her actions.
Confrontation
The conflict between Thatcher and the teachers and local authorities came to a head in 1973.
In May, NUT conference delegates called for a vigorous campaign for the withdrawal of Circular 10/70, and urged the executive to support members who refused to take part in selection procedures after September 1975, except in areas where reorganisation was accepted in principle and applied in practice.
In June, the Association of Education Committees declared its strong support for the principle of comprehensive education and its concern that the continuation of selective systems in many areas was resulting in 'inequality of opportunity, social divisiveness ... and wastage of resources' (Education 29 June 1973 quoted in Simon 1991:418).
A few days later, Thatcher rejected plans from Labour-controlled Birmingham and Liverpool, causing enormous resentment both locally and nationally.
Education commented
The rejection by Mrs Margaret Thatcher of Birmingham's proposals for secondary reorganisation last week represents one of the biggest and most hostile confrontations between central and local government hitherto in Mr Heath's administration (Education 6 July 1973 quoted in Simon 1991:418-9).
It was clear, said Education, that there was no national policy other than preserving the status quo. The DES's response to Birmingham not only reflected ideological prejudices, it was also 'grossly inept'.
These developments ... indicate that it was not only the 'new middle class' in the south of England that was now making the running, as is often suggested. The great industrial cities of the Midlands and the North, where the whole movement had originally been initiated nearly twenty years earlier, were now determined to carry through effectively their earlier policy decisions (Simon 1991:419).
Thatcher remained determined: later in July she rejected the plan submitted by Burton-on-Trent's Labour council.
In August 1973, Surrey's chief education officer confirmed that the authority was seeking legal advice as to whether it could mount a High Court challenge to Thatcher's use of Section 13 of the 1944 Act. Birmingham and the NUT were considering similar action.
The row over Surrey, Harrow and Barnet smouldered on through the autumn. ... At Birmingham, Liverpool, Lancashire, Burton-on-Trent; in Buckinghamshire, Wiltshire, and now the North Riding and Sutton, the authorities, parental pressure groups, teachers, were licking their wounds - determining how best to achieve the local system desired by the elected representatives of the area (Simon 1991:420).
Thatcher was now rejecting a far higher proportion of plans: in October 1972 she had refused 92 out of 2,300 proposals; in November 1973 she rejected 326 out of 3,612 (Simon 1991:420).
Nonetheless, local authorities continued to submit schemes - presented as individual school plans - which she accepted. Indeed, she sanctioned more comprehensivisations than any other education minister before or since, and the halfway point was passed during her period of office: there were now more children in comprehensive schools than in selective ones, and 'the proportion of secondary schoolchildren in comprehensives consequently rose from 32 to 62 per cent' (Heath 1998:451).
The direct grant schools
It is clear, then, that 'The defence of selective education, particularly the grammar schools, and at almost any cost, was ... the government's major aim in education' (Simon 1991:423). This applied particularly to the 179 direct grant schools, which were funded directly by central government.
The Donnison Report (see the previous chapter), published in January 1970, five months before the Heath government took office, had argued that these schools should either become comprehensive schools under local authority control, or go fully private. The Report
was not only well researched, it was a closely argued, highly rational document, strongly supportive of comprehensive education. In a real sense it augured the death sentence on this particular category of schools, now seen as an historical anomaly (Simon 1991:423).
The Tories, however, were committed to supporting the direct grant schools, and in November 1971 it was announced in the Queen's Speech that their funding would be increased by £2m a year - roughly the amount Edward Short (the previous Labour education secretary) had withheld in 1969. Members of the Headmasters' Conference, representing the private schools, were naturally delighted. But there were 'bitter exchanges in the House of Commons both then and later. Labour's opposition was unyielding' (Simon 1991:423).
Other school matters
School building
The 1970 Conservative manifesto had promised an increase in spending on primary school buildings and the new government made this a priority. It was undoubtedly true that such an increase was desperately needed. 'The argument that primary building had been neglected historically compared to secondary was incontestable' (Simon 1991:420).
However, the announcement that more than £48m had been earmarked by the DES for the improvement and replacement of old primary schools in 1973-74 annoyed local authorities, because decisions on the use of capital resources had previously been made locally.
Others saw the policy as another attempt to slow the rate of comprehensive reorganisation by diverting funds to the primary sector. Richard Bourne, education correspondent of The Guardian, argued that it would result in a complete halt to the refurbishment of secondary schools, which would have 'a negative effect on comprehensive school planning' (The Guardian 31 August 1970 quoted in Simon 1991:421).
London was particularly badly affected, as ILEA spokesman Canon Harvey-Hinds pointed out. 'We are literally out of business for ten years as far as building or improving any secondary schools in London is concerned,' he said. No new secondary schools were to be built unless it could be shown that there was a need for additional accommodation. ILEA had been planning to spend £40m improving 160 schools by 1980. These schools were decrepit, warned Harvey-Hinds, and the resulting situation was 'very serious' (The Times Education Supplement 15 October 1970 quoted in Simon 1991:421).
The new government was committed to reducing public expenditure. Richard Bourne (The Guardian 27 June 1970) reported that, in addition to the measures already announced (the reduction in the provision of free milk, the introduction of museum entry charges, and the embargo on secondary school building), the Treasury was calling for increases in the price of school meals, transport and library services.
The school leaving age
The raising of the school leaving age to sixteen, provided for in the 1944 Act, had been due for implementation under the previous Labour government in 1968 but had been postponed for economic reasons.
Now, almost thirty years after the passing of the 1944 Act, it was finally to be enacted. In fact, almost two-thirds of the relevant age group were already choosing to stay on for a fifth year in maintained schools, so was not so huge an undertaking as the rise from fourteen to fifteen had been in 1947.
Circular 8/71 Raising of the school leaving age to 16 (24 August 1971) required local authorities to submit reports on their plans for the raising of the leaving age:
Because the proportion of the age group remaining voluntarily at school after 15 varies between areas the impact of RSLA will differ greatly between one local education authority and another. All should examine the progress they have made so far, and consider what further steps may be necessary (DES 1971:3).
The circular urged local authorities to consider the implications of the change, not only for the provision of buildings, but for teachers and the curriculum:
Buildings are important; and teachers are more important still, but the raising of the school leaving age will be judged by the quality of the education provided. RSLA ought not to consist simply of tacking on an 'extra year' but should involve a review of the curriculum as a whole, so that the years up to 16 represent a coherent educational experience for all secondary pupils. Unless a school's approach meets the needs and retains the interest of its pupils, attractive buildings will not reconcile the reluctant minority to an additional year of compulsory education (DES 1971:5).
An Order in Council dated 3 March 1972 brought the measure into force in September of that year. RoSLA (as it was commonly known at the time) was 'very widely welcomed, particularly by comprehensive school proponents, who saw new opportunities in the full five-year course now available for all' (Simon 1991:422). It also had the effect of increasing the pressure for a single examination for all at sixteen.
Further and higher education
The Open University
The government's determination to cut public spending led to fears that the Open University, which had only just been established and was about to recruit its first students, would be restricted to enrolling 10,000 students, rather than the planned 25,000; and that building programmes for further and higher education would be postponed (Simon 1991:421).
Some in the Tory party, including former education minister Edward Boyle, favoured the complete abolition of the Open University, arguing that it would not attract enough students.
Heath himself had doubts as to whether it could achieve the standards of a 'normal university', but he supported its continuation, believing that it would appeal
not only to those seeking to advance their careers, but also to those, such as housewives or retired people, who simply wanted to improve themselves (Heath 1998:448).
Thatcher supported the Open University for economic reasons: it offered a highly cost-effective way of expanding the tertiary education sector because its students did not require grants to cover their living expenses.
'We stuck with the Open University,' wrote Heath in his autobiography, 'and helped to establish it as one of Britain's most cherished institutions' (Heath 1998:448).
1972 James Report
In 1970 Thatcher invited Eric James (Lord James of Rusholme) (1909-1992) to chair a Committee of Inquiry on Teacher Education and Training. Its terms of reference were:
In the light of the review currently being undertaken by the Area Training Organisations, and of the evidence published by the Select Committee on Education and Science, to enquire into the present arrangements for the education, training and probation of teachers in England and Wales and in particular to examine:
(i) what should be the content and organisation of courses to be provided;
(ii) whether a larger proportion of intending teachers should be educated with students who have not chosen their careers or chosen other careers;
(iii) what, in the context of (i) and (ii) above, should be the role of the maintained and voluntary colleges of education, the polytechnics and other further education institutions maintained by local education authorities, and the universities
and to make recommendations (James 1972:iii).
James (pictured), a well-known advocate of meritocracy and academic rigour who was 'known to be critical of teachers and teacher training' (Lawton 1988a:163), had taught science at Winchester College from 1933 to 1945 and was High Master of Manchester Grammar School from 1945 to 1962. In 1962 he became the first Vice-Chancellor of the University of York, remaining there until he retired in 1973.
The seven members of his committee submitted their report to Thatcher on 14 December 1971 and it was published in January 1972.
Teacher Education and Training 'expressed dissatisfaction with the existing quality and structure of the teacher training system' (Lawton 1988a:163) and argued for a broader role for the higher education colleges.
It proposed a new three-cycle system consisting of a two- or three-year period of personal higher education, a year of pre-service professional training, and continuing professional education for the rest of a teacher's career, including a term's study leave every seven years.
It also recommended the abolition of Area Training Organisations (ATOs), 'thus weakening the university connection but supposedly encouraging greater autonomy for the colleges' (Lawton 1988a:163).
The government rejected the three-cycle structure but agreed that the ATOs should be abolished. This was implemented by the Labour government in 1975, though 'no effective replacement was set up to co-ordinate teacher education on a regional basis' (Lawton 1988a:163).
James made 133 recommendations, including:
- teacher training should be organised in three consecutive 'cycles': the first, personal education; the second, pre-service training and induction; the third, in-service education and training;
- a new two-year qualification, the Diploma in Higher Education (DipHE), together with new three-year degrees based on and developed from it, should be introduced into the first cycle, initially in the colleges of education and the polytechnic departments of education;
- teacher training should be administered and planned by Regional Councils for Colleges and Departments of Education (RCCDEs);
- a National Council for Teacher Education and Training (NCTET), linked with the RCCDEs and representing all branches of the teaching profession, should be established;
- in the third cycle, all teachers in schools and full-time staff in FE colleges should be entitled to paid release for in-service education and training for not less than one school term every seven years;
- there should be a national network of 'professional centres';
- teachers in schools and colleges should have opportunities to take part in curriculum development projects;
- initial training should not attempt to cover aspects of professional training which, although desirable, are better left until they can be built on school experience and personal maturity;
- theoretical studies of education, although a desirable feature of many first cycle courses, should be included in the second cycle only in so far as they contribute to effective teaching;
- for applicants with postgraduate qualifications and for mature graduates, there should be special arrangements for their immediate recognition and employment as licensed teachers (this proposal was opposed by the NUT);
- first cycle courses leading to the DipHE should combine the advantages of study in depth with those of a more broadly based education.
Thatcher commissioned two other Committees of Enquiry. In 1972, she appointed Sir Alan Bullock to lead an enquiry into the teaching of English; and in 1973 she invited Mary Warnock to chair an investigation into special educational needs. Their reports were published in 1975 and 1978 (details in the next chapter).
1972 White Paper
In 1971, the Planning and Research Branch (or Unit), which had just been established within the DES, began work on a major white paper. It would, announced Thatcher, set out an ambitious ten-year programme of expansion. She told the annual conference of the NUT in April 1972 that a significant increase in public spending on education was already taking place and that the budget for the school building programme alone had risen from £2bn in 1969-70 to £2.5bn in 1971-72. Spending on nursery education was also rising and would continue to do so. Given that the Heath government had been elected on a programme involving severe cuts in public expenditure, this was, suggests Brian Simon, something of a paradox (Simon 1991:424).
In October 1972 Thatcher gave more details to the Conservative Party conference. There would be a £41m building programme for polytechnics and other further education colleges, more money for nursery education, and priority would be given to areas of social handicap, as had been recommended by Plowden.
The White Paper Education: A Framework for Expansion was published in December 1972. It began by declaring that the previous ten years had seen 'a major expansion of the education service' and that this must continue for the next ten 'if education is to make a full contribution to the vitality of our society and our economy' (DES 1972:1). It listed five areas in need of special attention: nursery education, school building, staffing standards in schools, teacher training and higher education. Each of these posed 'difficult decisions about the allocation of resources if, within those available, a balanced programme of advance across all five is to be achieved'. The White Paper therefore focused 'on matters of scale, organisation and cost rather than educational content' (DES 1972:1).
Total government expenditure on education, it said, would rise over the next ten years (1971-72 to 1981-82) from £2.162bn to £3.120bn (DES 1972:49), representing an annual growth rate of 3 per cent - higher than the 2.5 per cent achieved in the 1960s. Expenditure on schools would rise from £1.475bn to £2bn; while that on higher education would be almost doubled from £687m to £1.12bn.
In the schools, the aim was to reduce the overall staff-pupil ratio from 1:22.6 in 1971 to 1:18.5 in 1981. This would involve expanding the teaching force from 364,000 in 1971 to 510,000 in 1981 (DES 1972:14-15). There would be a significant expansion of nursery education, particularly in areas of disadvantage.
The bulk of the White Paper focused on the expansion of higher and further education. The number of students in full-time higher education would rise from 463,000 in 1971-72 to 750,000 ten years later, representing 22 per cent of the age group. 'If this had in fact been achieved,' argues Brian Simon, 'Britain would have been on the edge of a break-through to mass higher education, as was already the case in the United States and the Soviet Union' (Simon 1991:425). The aim was for the polytechnics and other non-university institutions to recruit some 335,000 students in England and Wales by 1981 (DES 1972:41). The universities would be expected to cater for 375,000 students, an increase of about 100,000 (DES 1972:38).
The James Report's suggestion that there should be a two-year Higher Education Diploma was accepted, but not its recommendation for a four-year degree course for teachers: instead, there would be a three-year course (for the BEd), to include at least fifteen weeks' teaching practice (DES 1972:21).
The main significance of the White Paper, argues Brian Simon, lay in its 'clear determination ... to use this expansion to sharpen, and harden, the binary divide' (Simon 1991:426).
DES Circular 7/73
Three months after the publication of the White Paper, on 26 March 1973, the DES issued Circular 7/73, Development of higher education in the non-university sector. If the target numbers of students proposed for 1981 were to be attained, it said, 'individual local authorities should lose no time in considering possible developments within their own areas' (DES 1973:1).
Most of the extra places needed would be provided by the polytechnics, but 'other colleges of further education and the colleges of education ... would require provision for a further 17,000 students (DES 1973:1). At the same time, 'the number of full-time students in initial teacher training will be reduced from some 114,000 to 60-70,000' (DES 1973:1).
What is called for therefore is not merely the planning of a marginal expansion of higher education, additional to that already under way, in the polytechnics and certain other institutions, but rather a major reconsideration of the future role of colleges of education both in and outside teacher training, their relation with universities, polytechnics and other institutions of further education offering advanced courses and the selection of appropriate institutions which, either singly or in association with others, will provide the additional numbers required outside the polytechnics in the period up to 1981 and a basis for further expansion thereafter (DES 1973:2).
The timetable for managing the process presented 'serious difficulties', partly because local authorities were preoccupied 'with all the problems arising from local government reorganisation' (DES 1973:3).
The Conservatives, led by Edward (Ted) Heath (1916-2005) (pictured), won the election held on 18 June 1970 with a Commons majority of 30.
Heath had appointed Margaret Thatcher (1925-2013) (pictured) shadow education secretary in January 1967 and she held the post of Secretary of State for Education for the full four years of his government.
