Teachers
Accountability
In August 1974 the Department of Education and Science (DES) established the Assessment of Performance Unit (APU), with Brian Kay as its first head, amid 'suspicion in some quarters of the teaching profession (the National Union of Teachers in particular)' (DES 1976c:19).
Its terms of reference were:
To promote the development of methods of assessing and monitoring the achievement of children at school, and to seek to identify the incidence of under-achievement.
And its tasks:
1. To identify and appraise existing instruments and methods of assessment which may be relevant for these purposes.
2. To sponsor the creation of new instruments and techniques for assessment, having due regard to statistical and sampling methods.
3. To promote the conduct of assessments in co-operation with local education authorities and teachers.
4. To identify significant differences of achievement related to the circumstances in which children learn, including the incidence of under-achievement, and to make the findings available to those concerned with resource allocation within the Department, local education authorities and schools (DES 1974:16).
Teacher accountability would become a priority for successive governments - both Tory and Labour - following Callaghan's Ruskin College speech in 1976.
Houghton pay award
At the end of June 1974, Reg Prentice and William Ross, Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for Scotland, appointed Arthur (Lord) Houghton (1898-1996) to lead an inquiry into the pay of teachers in schools and colleges. It was the first independent review of teachers' pay in Great Britain as a whole, and the first in England and Wales since the McNair Committee's report, The supply, recruitment and training of teachers and youth leaders, in 1944.
Houghton's terms of reference were: 'to examine the pay of non-university teachers in Great Britain; and to make recommendations' (Houghton 1974:1).
The ten members of his Committee included Maurice Kogan and Lady Plowden.
The Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the pay of Non-University Teachers was published six months later in December 1974. It recommended extensive changes to the salary structure for teachers and substantial increases in their pay.
Despite the Wilson government's need to cut public spending, it accepted the Committee's recommendations and, in 1975, teachers received pay increases averaging 27 per cent.
However, over the following years the government's 'Social Contract' eroded the gains that had been made so that, by 1979, 'the pressure for an increase to restore Houghton levels was overwhelming' (Morris and Griggs 1988:5).
Militancy
The success of workers in publicly-owned services - the mines, the railways and the electricity industry - in bringing down the Heath government, argues Maurice Kogan, prompted some teachers' leaders to take on 'the postures and the colouring of the more radical politics of other mass professions' (Kogan 1978:80).
Thus, while the Houghton Committee was sitting in 1974, the main Scottish teachers' union, the Educational Institute of Scotland, ran a campaign which was 'raucous, unreflecting about the general good, and to some extent successful in bullying an already sympathetic government' (Kogan 1978:81). A series of three-day strikes disrupted the schools and, in the opinion of some, damaged the examination prospects of many pupils.
The action was a sign of the increasing unionisation and politicisation of the education service. The rhetoric of a 'partnership' between central and local government and the teachers was weakened.
Now education was coming into a far more combative period in which strike action and militancy became an important mode of expression and in which the formalised negotiations could no longer be relied upon as binding on the main partners (Kogan 1978:81).
London's teachers went on strike 'very many times' (Kogan 1978:81) between 1974 and 1977. They were concerned that cuts in the education budget meant not only fewer jobs and poorer promotion prospects for teachers but also increases in, or failure to decrease, the size of classes. 'They were thus protesting on behalf of their clientele as well as of their own employment interests' (Kogan 1978:81).
Teacher training crisis
The recession coincided with a falling birth rate in England and Wales: from a peak of 876,000 in 1964 to a trough of 584,000 in 1976. This resulted in the number of teacher-training places being severely cut - from almost 120,000 in 1972 to fewer than 36,000 in 1980. The problems caused by reorganisation and contraction were exacerbated by DES mismanagement:
Plans for closures and mergers were rife - the whole system thrown into disarray. Articles appeared in The Times Higher Educational Supplement from college principals and their supporters denouncing these plans as outrageous and dictatorial. The DES was criticised for its 'strong-arm methods'; the whole exercise defined as 'a disastrous mistake' (Simon 1991:436).
As a result, the provision of teacher training faced a looming crisis.
Comprehensivisation
In February 1974, maintained comprehensive schools catered for 62 per cent of secondary pupils: 'there was, therefore, still a long way to go' (Simon 1991:434). In its manifesto for the election held that month, Labour promised to:
Expand the education service by the introduction of a national scheme of Nursery Schools, including day care facilities, and by a big expansion of educational facilities for 16-18 year olds, by finally ending the 11+ and by providing additional resources for children in special need of help. We shall speed the development of a universal system of fully comprehensive secondary schools. All forms of tax-relief and charitable status for public schools will be withdrawn (Labour Manifesto 1974).
A few days after the election, the new education secretary, Reginald Prentice, issued a statement on comprehensive education. The government was determined, he said, to end selection as fast as possible: Circular 10/70 would be replaced and consultations on this were already under way. From 1 April 1974, the newly-reorganised local authorities would be invited to resubmit proposals which had been rejected by Thatcher. There would, however, be no new legislation.
The announcement received 'overwhelming support', reported The Times Educational Supplement (15 March 1974). After years of frustration, many authorities were 'overjoyed'. Birmingham, whose ambitious plan had been 'torn apart' by Thatcher, announced its intention to resubmit it, and other authorities took similar action (Simon 1991:433).
Circular 4/74
The organisation of secondary education
Circular 4/74 was issued on 16 April. It stated that
The Government have made known their intention of developing a fully comprehensive system of secondary education and of ending selection at eleven plus or at any other stage. The Secretary of State looks to local education authorities (and to school governors) to secure under his control and direction the effective execution of this policy. Circular 10/70 is accordingly withdrawn (DES 1974a para 1).
In a DES Press Statement, Prentice described the Circular as a 'tough document' and warned that legislation would follow if it proved necessary. 'We shall be using our full powers under existing legislation', he said, 'to secure the co-operation of local authorities and voluntary bodies in making the fastest possible progress to a fully comprehensive system' (quoted in Simon 1991:433). Building allocations for secondary schools would be made only if needed for comprehensive reorganisation.
Shadow education minister Norman St John Stevas lost no time in launching a bitter attack on the circular, but a Commons motion calling for its withdrawal was defeated by 285 votes to 271 (Simon 1991:435).
Right-wing hostility to the new circular was fuelled by the grammar school lobby, which promised 'the most mammoth-scale objection ever raised to any educational proposals' (The Times Educational Supplement 5 April 1974 quoted in Simon 1991:434). Resistance was led by, among others, Rhodes Boyson, a former champion of comprehensive schools but now a right-wing Tory MP. He claimed that Maoist-Trotskyite cells were being formed in London's comprehensive schools, and that 'neighbourhood ghetto' schools were a disaster (The Teacher 10 May 1974 quoted in Simon 1991:434).
In June 1974, ILEA, now Labour-controlled, decided to draw up plans for the final abolition of selection throughout inner London. After a two-hour debate, it was agreed - by 46 votes to seven - that London's 49 remaining (mostly voluntary aided) grammar schools must either go comprehensive or lose financial aid. The decision was welcomed by NUT members but bitterly opposed by the few Tory members of ILEA.
Prentice approved plans from seven local authorities in his first month in office, and further plans later; he rejected Buckinghamshire's proposal to enlarge its grammar schools.
With another election looming, St John Stevas advised reluctant authorities to wait for the Tories to 'resume' office (Simon 1991:437). He was to be disappointed: the election held on 10 October 1974 resulted in a Labour majority of three. Narrow though this was, 'the opportunity seemed to present itself of a longish period of stable government' (Simon 1991:437).
Direct grant schools
On 11 March 1975 Prentice announced in the House of Commons that the government intended to implement the Donnison Committee's recommendation regarding the direct grant schools. Central government funds would be withdrawn and the schools would either have to become comprehensive or go fully independent.
DES Circular 7/75, Phasing out of direct grants to grammar schools, issued on 30 July, explained how the Direct Grant Grammar Schools (Cessation of Grant) Regulations 1975 would be implemented. It concluded:
It is the hope of the Secretary of State that the schools and local education authorities will, as quickly as is consistent with a proper consideration of the courses of action open in particular cases, reach decisions of principle and carry them into effect so that prolonged uncertainty about the future of the schools can be avoided in the interests of all concerned (DES 1975:7-8).
Of the 154 direct grant schools, 51 agreed to become comprehensive schools within the maintained system; the rest opted for independence. 'If this was scarcely a satisfactory solution, at least it put an end to this anomaly which had remained a contentious issue since the war' (Simon 1991:439).
The Tories began considering how they could use public money to support the schools while ensuring their continued 'independence'.
1976 Education Act
A survey undertaken by The Times Educational Supplement (21 March 1975) showed that, ten months after the publication of Circular 4/74, little progress had been made. Of the 104 newly-reorganised local authorities, only twenty were fully comprehensive; between seven and fourteen were determined not to go comprehensive unless forced to do so by the government. Of the children in maintained secondary schools, 70 per cent were now in comprehensive schools; only 9.5 per cent in grammar schools. But a quarter of all pupils were still having to sit the eleven plus (Simon 1991:439-40).
One of the problems was the cost of remodelling schools at a time when overall public expenditure was being reduced. In August 1975 the government made an extra £23m available for rebuilding, but it was clear that more drastic action was necessary to complete the reform.
In December 1975, therefore, Mulley produced an education bill which would empower the Secretary of State to require the submission of proposals in order to complete the process of reorganisation.
The 1976 Education Act (22 November) received the Royal Assent almost a year later. It said:
local education authorities shall, in the exercise and performance of their powers and duties relating to secondary education, have regard to the general principle that such education is to be provided only in schools where the arrangements for the admission of pupils are not based (wholly or partly) on selection by reference to ability or aptitude (Section 1(1)).
The principle, then, was crystal clear: no selection. However, the rest of the Act hedged about this principle with so many conditions and loopholes that its effect was negligible. 'There was no legal requirement to end selection, and the Act produced no visible effect' (Benn and Chitty 1996:11). It was repealed by the Tories in 1979.
The DES was determinedly upbeat, however, and issued two circulars on 25 November, just three days after the Act received the Royal Assent.
The first, Circular 11/76, Education Act 1976, quoted a Commons statement made by the Secretary of State in which she stated that
At last the principle of fully comprehensive education is written into the law. It is a long time since the unfairness, the divisiveness and the wastefulness of selection for secondary education were first recognised, and over the last twenty years there has been accelerating progress towards a comprehensive system under Labour and Conservative governments alike. ...
Parliament has given the Government powers to complete the task as fast as is realistically possible. We have always preferred to proceed by agreement with local authorities and voluntary bodies, and we still wish to do so. Indeed I should emphasise that even where the powers given under this Act have to be used, it will be for local authorities and voluntary school governors to propose whatever pattern of comprehensive education seems best for their areas, consistent with the resources available and the need to complete the job with all reasonable speed. We are not going to force unsatisfactory schemes on anybody, but we do expect authorities and voluntary bodies to comply responsibly with the law. I am confident that they will do so (DES 1976a).
The Secretary of State had already asked eight recalcitrant authorities to submit their proposals within six months, and the position of other authorities who had not yet completed reorganisation was under review.
The second circular, 12/76, Education Act 1976: Support by Local Education Authorities of Education in Non-Maintained Schools, drew the attention of local authorities to the provisions of Section 5 of the Act and explained that any arrangements they made with non-maintained schools must be 'consistent with the Government's policy of abolishing selection for secondary education' (DES 1976b: para 2).
By April 1978, 38 local authorities had been required to submit plans for comprehensivisation. Of these, 33 had done so and two others (Avon and Barnet) were about to do so. The remaining three were Birmingham, Redbridge and Kirklees. Birmingham faced legal action; the others were declared to be in default of statutory duty and were directed to submit proposals by 1 June. Shirley Williams announced her satisfaction at the progress being made: more than four-fifths of secondary pupils were now in comprehensive schools.
Percentage of maintained secondary school pupils
in comprehensive schools, 1975-79
| 1975 | 68.6 |
| 1976 | 74.8 |
| 1977 | 79.3 |
| 1978 | 83.4 |
| 1979 | 85.9 |
(Figures from DES Statistical Bulletin 13/79, November 1979
quoted in Simon 1991:468)
Parental choice
Williams was committed to the principle of parental choice and wanted to see greater differentiation between comprehensive schools. In 1977 she planned to draft a new education bill whose chief provision would be to guarantee places for children at the secondary schools of their parents' choice. Cabinet colleagues - notably Tony Benn, then Secretary of State for Energy - objected, partly on the grounds that the proposed bill would raise expectations that could not possibly be met, and partly because there was a danger that the bill would be seen to legitimise eleven-plus selection - which the 1976 Act had effectively just outlawed.
Williams was forced to back down. In a letter to the Prime Minister dated 28 October 1977, she accepted that her proposals were impracticable and argued only that
(i) admissions procedures 'take account of parental wishes';
(ii) authorities set out their admissions criteria clearly; and
(iii) appeals machinery be made uniform (quoted in Chitty 1989:158).
For the Labour government, with its 'uneasy and, at times, equivocal support for the comprehensive principle', parental choice was a problem. Most admissions procedures were working perfectly satisfactorily, but the issue 'remained one which could be exploited by right-wing critics of the comprehensive system' (Chitty 1989:158).
Policies relating to parental choice and diversity of provision would be adopted enthusiastically by the Thatcher governments after 1979.
Hostility
Comprehensive schools had been established rapidly - nearly 400 in 1974-75 alone. They 'opened new opportunities' but 'reflected the conflicts, antagonisms - in short the whole gamut of circumstances in which the mass of the people lived in the wider society' (Simon 1991:440).
Inner-city schools in particular - now generally attended only by the most deprived and poverty-stricken section of the population - faced enormous social as well as educational problems in the attempt to realise the advantages of reorganisation (Simon 1991:440).
Such schools were easy targets for critics who were wilfully ignorant of the problems they faced and who peddled misinformation and simplistic solutions.
The press
The media had generally dealt 'fairly, even sympathetically (and sometimes enthusiastically) with the early comprehensive schools' (Simon 1991:440); but a drastic change now occurred. Newspapers began claiming that Britain's schools were in crisis: teachers were failing to uphold standards, while governors and inspectors seemed unable - or unwilling - to exercise control.
The journalist Ronald Butt launched a ferocious attack on London's comprehensive schools in The Times (18 July 1974); and The Guardian published an article by the feminist Jill Tweedie which began:
My eyeballs are gritty and swollen. My head rings like a gong. I am jumpy and irritable, my stomach curdles with indigestible emotions. I have spent the day in a large London comprehensive school (The Guardian 9 December 1974 quoted in Simon 1991:441).
Tweedie went on to claim that 57 per cent of the school's pupils were illiterate. Apart from acknowledging the 'absolute devotion of the teachers', she had virtually nothing positive to say about the school.
Three days later The Guardian published a reply by author and journalist Hunter Davies. He wrote:
What on earth are you doing? ... How can a reputable paper let a reputable journalist like Jill Tweedie write a smearing, sneering, class-ridden, prejudiced, cliché-ridden article on a comprehensive - without even naming the school? ... What borough is the school in? Is it really comprehensive? In the ILEA there are no comprehensives since grammar schools exist (The Guardian 12 December 1974 quoted in Simon 1991:441-2).
A year later, Hunter Davies published a sympathetic study of Creighton School, in Haringey, North London, a comprehensive with 1,500 pupils.
Black Paper 1975
The first three Black Papers, published in 1969 and 1970, had attacked progressive teaching methods, comprehensive education, and egalitarianism in general. Written by right-wing educationalists and politicians and supported by the right-wing press, they had deplored the lack of discipline in schools, blamed comprehensivisation for preventing 'academic' students from obtaining good examination results and condemned the progressive style of education being developed in the primary schools as 'a main cause not only of student unrest in the universities but of other unwelcome tendencies or phenomena' (Galton, Simon and Croll 1980:41).
Encouraged by the media attacks on comprehensive schools, Brian Cox and Rhodes Boyson now produced a fourth Black Paper, The Fight for Education (1975), which went beyond 'the cautious conservatism of the first three documents' (Chitty 2009a::46).
Presaging doom, havoc and general chaos if existing trends were not reversed, the editors proposed tests for all at seven, eleven and fourteen; those failing at fourteen should promptly leave ... The voucher system 'could be tried in Britain'; so far from there being a common curriculum within comprehensive schools (as the hated 'progressives' were then asking), each large comprehensive should offer 'at least four distinct courses' (Simon 1991:443).
It attacked developments in all stages of education from primary schools to universities, with two articles focusing specifically on comprehensive education.
As in the earlier Black Papers, there was confusion in the fourth between what the authors would have liked to be true and what was actually true. Thus Boyson argued that
Widespread dissatisfaction with progressive primary schools and concern about falling standards of discipline and academic achievement in secondary, particularly comprehensive schools, must force educationalists and administrators to look for some means of improvement. Minimum national standards, as a further expansion of monitoring by examinations, is one method. The other method is to put the parent (and older pupils) as consumers in charge of schools (Boyson 1975:27).
In fact, there was no 'widespread dissatisfaction' with progressive primary schools, and opinion polls showed that around 80 per cent of the public supported comprehensive schools.
Education vouchers, Boyson suggested, should be trialled in at least two areas:
The time would seem ripe for the establishment of at least two full voucher experiments in Britain where local education authorities were anxious to co-operate, as some have already indicated. A non-transferable voucher could be issued for each pupil and the parent would be able to pay it into the school of his choice, either state or private. ... Popular schools would continue and expand and unpopular schools would decline and close (Boyson 1975:27).
Other contributions contained the familiar mix of bizarre claims and contradictory ideas. Iris Murdoch, for example, stated that 'I am not an opponent of comprehensive schools as such, unless they are by definition non-selective' (Murdoch 1975:7); while HJ Eysenck rehashed his outdated psychometric theory in an article 'suffused by classic biological reductionism' (Simon 1991:443). Most people interested in this field, he claimed, would by now be 'familiar with the estimate of 80% of the total variance being due to genetic causes' (Eysenck 1975:39).
Like its predecessors, this Black Paper received extensive media coverage.
Asked by Tory MP Robert McCrindle to respond to the Black Paper's proposals, Prentice told the Commons 'I welcome discussion on educational issues but I have not found the Black Paper helpful or constructive' (Hansard House of Commons 6 May 1975 Vol 891 Col 1189). He went on:
The answer to the criticisms levelled at the comprehensive system is to be found in the experience of the comprehensive schools themselves, which have provided such a successful service to our children for many years (Hansard House of Commons 6 May 1975 Vol 891 Col 1189).
In July 1975 the Conservative Political Centre published How to Save your Schools, a handbook giving guidance to activists on how to 'save the grammar schools'. Written by St John Stevas and fellow Tory MP Leon Brittan, it called for an all-out attack on comprehensive reorganisation, with petitions, meetings and marches (Simon 1991:443-4).
Panorama
One of the most scandalous examples of misinformation (from an organisation which should have known better) was BBC television's Panorama programme about Faraday High School in Ealing, which was a social priority school. The programme, broadcast in March 1977, focused on the work of probationary teachers and presented an image of 'chaos, crudities, incompetence, lack of concern, confusion as to aims and purposes, squalor, dirt and general failure' (Simon 1991:442).
Pupils and staff were furious when it was revealed that several sequences in the programme had been contrived, including one scene showing girls smoking - not in the school, as the programme implied, but in a nearby block of flats: they had apparently been invited to do so by the television crew (Simon 1991:468). Despite this revelation, the damage had been done.
(Ten years later the BBC attempted to restore its reputation by presenting a fair and even-handed series of programmes on Kingswood School in Corby.)
While all this was going on, the Labour government was facing continuing economic and political problems, and an attempt by members of the secret service to discredit Wilson and destabilise his government.
1975 Bullock Report
Two reports by the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER), The Trend of Reading Standards (1972) and The Reading Standards of Children in Wales (1973), had been interpreted by some as indicating a decline in reading standards among certain groups of children. The resulting media furore had led Margaret Thatcher to appoint a Committee of Enquiry, chaired by Sir Alan Bullock, to make recommendations on the teaching of English. It was given the following brief:
To consider in relation to schools:
(a) all aspects of teaching the use of English, including reading, writing, and speech;
(b) how present practice might be improved and the role that initial and in-service training might play;
(c) to what extent arrangements for monitoring the general level of attainment in these skills can be introduced or improved;
and to make recommendations (Bullock 1975:xxxi).
Alan Bullock (1914-2004) (pictured) was born in Wiltshire, the son of a gardener and a maid. He first came to public notice in 1952 with his biography Hitler, A Study In Tyranny. He went on to write a three-volume biography of Ernest Bevin, the post-war Labour foreign secretary, whom he much admired.
He was the founding master of St Catherine's College Oxford in 1960, and nine years later became the university's first full-time vice-chancellor. He was made a life peer in 1976 and continued lecturing until 1997.
The 22 members of his committee presented their wide-ranging report A language for life to Reg Prentice in September 1974.
Of the two NFER reports which had led to the establishment of their enquiry, the Bullock Committee commented:
It should be said at once that it is not easy to make accurate assessment of the results of such surveys without studying them in depth. Indeed, we found in taking evidence that informed people have interpreted the NFER researches in different ways. We accept both publications as responsible and accurate research reports. The limitations of their research ... are fully discussed in the publications by the authors themselves (Bullock 1975:16).
The Committee concluded that 'the standards of 15 year olds have remained the same over the period 1960-71' (Bullock 1975:20) and that, among 11-year-olds, there had been 'no significant change in reading standards over the decade 1960-1970' (Bullock 1975:25). But they warned that 'national averages almost certainly mask falling reading standards in areas with severe social and educational problems' (Bullock 1975:25).
The Bullock Committee listed 17 'principal recommendations':
- a system of monitoring should be introduced covering a wider range of attainments than has been attempted in the past and including new criteria for the definition of literacy;
- steps should be taken to develop the language ability of children in the pre-school and nursery and infant years;
- every school should devise a systematic policy for the development of reading competence in pupils of all ages and ability levels;
- each school should have an organised policy for language across the curriculum;
- every school should have a suitably qualified teacher with responsibility for advising and supporting colleagues in language and the teaching of reading;
- there should be close consultation and communication between schools to ensure continuity in the teaching of reading and in the language development of every pupil;
- English in the secondary school should have improved resources in terms of staffing, accommodation and ancillary help;
- every LEA should appoint a specialist English adviser and should establish an advisory team with the specific responsibility of supporting schools in all aspects of language in education;
- LEAs and schools should introduce early screening procedures to prevent cumulative language and reading failure and to guarantee individual diagnosis and treatment;
- additional assistance should be given to children retarded in reading, and where pupils are withdrawn from classes for special help they should receive appropriate support on their return;
- every LEA should have a reading clinic or remedial centre, offering a comprehensive diagnostic service and expert medical, psychological, teaching help and an advisory service to schools in association with the LEA's specialist adviser;
- provision for the tuition of adult illiterates and semi-literates should be greatly increased, and there should be a national reference point for the co-ordination of information and support;
- children of families of overseas origin should have more substantial and sustained tuition in English. More advisers and specialist teachers are needed in areas of need;
- a standing working party with DES and LEA representatives should consider capitation allowances and the resources of schools - a satisfactory level of book provision should be its first subject of inquiry;
- a substantial course on language in education (including reading) should be part of every primary and secondary school teacher's initial training;
- there should be more in-service education opportunities in reading and other aspects of English teaching, including courses at diploma and higher degree level;
- there should be a national centre for language in education, concerned with the teaching of English in all its aspects, from language and reading in the early years to advanced studies with sixth forms (Bullock 1975:513-15).
The Committee's findings were treated with scorn by the popular press. The Daily Mail described the report as 'whitewash' and added 'Sir Alan Bullock's report on the teaching of English shrouds the reality in trendy pieties' (Daily Mail 19 February 1975 quoted in Chitty 1989:64).
1976: Turning point
Five factors
Many have seen 1976 as a turning point: the moment when opposition to the progressive movements of the previous decade finally became overwhelming. Chitty suggests that there were five main factors for this:
(i) the economic crisis of 1973-75;
(ii) the employers' critique of secondary schooling;
(iii) the media campaign against comprehensives;
(iv) political considerations;
(v) the personality of Callaghan himself (Chitty 1989:56).
Recession
For thirty years, most British politicians had shared
a tacit governing philosophy which might be called 'Keynesian social democracy'. ... Both front benches in the House of Commons accepted a three-fold commitment to full employment, to the Welfare State and to the coexistence of large public and private sectors in the economy - in short, to the settlement which had brought the conflicts of the 1930s to an end. This post-war consensus disintegrated because it simply could not cope with the economic shocks and adjustment problems of the 1970s (Chitty 1989:57)
Employers' complaints
Employers complained that schools were failing to prepare pupils for entry into the world of work. They painted a picture of 'unaccountable teachers, teaching an increasingly irrelevant curriculum to bored teenagers who were poorly motivated, illiterate and innumerate' (Chitty 1989:60); and blamed the schools for the rising rate of youth unemployment. Their views received widespread media coverage.
According to a report by the National Youth Employment Council in 1974, many employers felt that young people were now 'more questioning', 'less likely to respect authority' and more likely to 'resent guidance about their appearance' (quoted in Chitty 1989:60).
These views were endorsed in articles for The Times Educational Supplement by the Managing Director of General Electric, Sir Arnold Weinstock, ('I blame the teachers' 23 January 1976) and CBI Director General John Methven ('What industry needs' 29 October 1976).
Media hostility
Misinformation and uninformed criticism of the country's schools had become endemic in the media, which appeared to be attempting to precipitate a crisis:
There were confident assertions that 'parents throughout the country are becoming increasingly frustrated by the lack of discipline and the low standards of state schools' (Daily Mail 18 January 1975); that 'literacy in Britain is marching backwards' (Daily Mirror 7 February 1975); that 'millions of parents are desperately worried about the education their children are receiving' (Daily Mail 27 April 1976). Children were said to blame progressive teachers and child-centred pedagogy for the rising rate of youth unemployment. Parents wanted a greater control of schooling by non-teachers and the return of the traditional grammar school (Chitty 1989:66).
Political interests
Both main political parties responded to the changing mood by adopting more right-wing policies.
On one side, right-wing Tories were beginning to discuss the notion of 'consumer-oriented education' (Benn and Chitty 1996:11). They also called for the abolition of the Schools Council, for more national testing, for the school leaving age to be put back to 15, and for national inquiries into 'everything progressive' (Benn and Chitty 1996:11).
And on the other, the Labour government took its own dramatic turn to the right and 'announced a sudden halt to the forward march of comprehensive change' (Benn and Chitty 1996:11-12). From now on, the DES would focus on curriculum reform and teaching methods with the aim of
bringing to a halt what seemed to be the spontaneous and deep-seated tendencies of the school system, towards localised, piecemeal, unsupervised, professionally led and progressive-influenced reform in primary schools and throughout the state system (Jones 2003:95).
Party political considerations weighed heavily in this, as Bernard (later Lord) Donoughue, Head of the Downing Street Policy Unit which Harold Wilson had set up in 1974, admitted in an interview with Clyde Chitty in January 1986. In the light of the increasingly hostile campaign in the media, he believed that if the government did not take the initiative, the Conservative Party would gain electoral advantage from the so-called crisis:
although I was a complete supporter of the comprehensive system, I was, in fact, very unhappy. My political finger-tips told me that unless we did something very soon, the whole state and comprehensive system would be discredited by its own failures. And that we had to pull it together pretty sharp. ... What had clearly become one of the great weaknesses of our system was its non-accountability. ... I didn't want to have central control of education - I still don't - but for political reasons I wanted greater accountability (quoted in Chitty 1989:67).
Callaghan's background
Jim Callaghan replaced Harold Wilson as Prime Minister in April 1976. He was the only British Prime Minister born in the twentieth century who had not attended university.
He was always very conscious of having been brought up by his widowed mother in a very poor home in Portsmouth and of having been forced to leave school at the age of 14. He had a suspicion of overtly 'clever' people and suffered from an inferiority complex.
As a result of his own early struggles, he believed passionately in the value of education and in the need for rigorous educational standards to enable working class youngsters to rise above their circumstances (Chitty 1989:68).
He had a 'profound and old-fashioned sense of moral values' and believed that schools and ministers of religion should 'uphold the values of family life and teach young people to be honest and upright citizens' (Chitty 1989:68-9).
These five factors - the economy, employers' complaints, the media campaign, party politics and Callaghan's character - came together in 1976.
Events now escalated rapidly: Neville Bennett claimed that formal teaching achieved better results than informal methods; the 'William Tyndale Affair' gave ammunition to the traditionalists; and the 'Yellow Book', produced for the Prime Minister by the DES, challenged the view that only teachers had a right to decide what went on in schools. All this provided the context for the Ruskin College speech in which Callaghan called for a 'Great Debate' about education.
Neville Bennett's report
In April 1976, Neville Bennett's report on his research at Lancaster into primary school teaching methods was published. Teaching Styles and Pupil Progress was based on responses from around 750 schools, all in the north-west of England. Of these, it said,
a fairly generous estimate is that some 17 per cent of teachers teach in the manner prescribed by Plowden, while at the other end of the teaching continuum approximately one in four teaches formally. The majority of teachers use what have been termed mixed styles, incorporating elements of both formal and informal practice (Bennett 1976:149).
For Bennett, formal or traditional methods meant a passive role for pupils, regular testing and an accent on competition; informal or progressive teaching was characterised by integrated subject matter, an active pupil role, an emphasis on discovery techniques and little testing (Bennett 1976:38). He acknowledged, however, that most teachers employed 'mixed' styles, 'for which the progressive-traditional dimension provides inadequate description' (Bennett 1976:48).
He noted that there was a strong relationship between teachers' aims and opinions and the way they taught:
Teachers aim to engender different outcomes in their pupils. ... Formal teachers lay much greater stress on the promotion of a high level of academic attainment, preparation for academic work in the secondary school, and the acquisition of basic skills in reading and number work. Informal teachers on the other hand value social and emotional aims, preferring to stress the importance of self-expression, enjoyment of school and the development of creativity (Bennett 1976:151).
He found that the effect of teaching style was 'statistically and educationally significant in all attainment areas tested' (Bennett 1976:152) and that 'pupils of formal and mixed teachers' were around four months ahead of those taught using informal methods in reading, maths and English.
He ended, however, with a plea for informed debate:
This study has concentrated on what is rather than what ought to be. The latter is a much more difficult question since there is not, nor is there likely to be, consensus on what should constitute a primary education. Nevertheless it is hoped that the evidence presented will enable a more informed debate on primary school methods to be conducted. It is surely time to ignore the rhetoric which would have us believe that informal methods are pernicious and permissive, and that the most accurate description of formal methods is that found in Dickens's Hard Times (Bennett 1976:162-3).
Teaching Styles and Pupil Progress was given 'mass exposure in the media - and cleverly packaged, by an enterprising publisher, for just that purpose' (Simon 1991:446). It was presented by the media as 'a full-scale scientific study of "progressive" teaching methods which proved that they simply did not work' (Chitty 2009a::37).
However, it was widely criticised, partly for its use of oversimplified categorisation of teaching methods, and partly because it was based on a relatively small-scale research project in 'one perhaps atypical area' (Kogan 1978:57). Such objections were, predictably, largely ignored in the press.
Bennett disowned the exaggerated claims that were made for his limited research and, five years later, in 'Teaching Styles and Pupil Progress: A Reanalysis' (British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 51, June 1981), he withdrew his original findings and offered others much more favourable to child-centred methods. 'On this occasion, the media (mass and otherwise) showed no interest whatsoever' (Simon 1991:469).
The William Tyndale Affair
William Tyndale was a small ILEA primary school whose teachers set out to operate what some considered an extreme version of Plowden's philosophy of 'child-centred' education. Brian Simon suggests that
This interpretation is open to question. The Tyndale teachers rejected all structures. Although Plowden was weak on articulating its approved pedagogy, the committee certainly did not recommend what can most accurately be described as anarchic procedures in the classroom (Simon 1991:469).
Many of the (mostly working-class) parents protested; some removed their children from the school. But the teachers, apparently possessed by 'an apocalyptic vision as to the role of education in achieving social change' (Simon 1991:445), persisted. In January 1974, a new head and four new teachers were appointed, and 'new pedagogical schemes, involving egalitarian structures in pupil-teacher relations, were introduced' (Simon 1991:445). More parents removed their children.
When ILEA inspected the school in the autumn term 1975, the staff went on strike. Under pressure from the media, ILEA decided to hold a public enquiry, chaired by Robin Auld QC, who was 'shrewd and fair-minded' (The Times Educational Supplement 23 July 1976 quoted in Simon 1991:445). This opened on 27 October 1975 and lasted nine months, providing 'a great deal of sensational press copy' (Simon 1991:445).
The Auld Report - 309 pages plus appendices - was published in July 1976. It 'brought into the open several themes which illuminate the landscape of educational politics like flashes of lightning' (Kogan 1978:88).
Here was a small group of teachers who were determined to create a school in which the distance and difference between teacher and pupil should virtually disappear, in which teachers should be free to work out their own educational philosophy without control or 'interference' from the local authority appointed managers. By all accounts, except for those of the teachers committed to this course of action and a minority of the parents, the results were disastrous (Kogan 1978:88-89).
ILEA inspectors noted that:
A particular problem appears to be over children who wander, even sometimes disappearing altogether ... To the head misbehaviour in school is primarily a reaction to outside influences. If a child comes late, it is not he who is necessarily to blame. If obscenities are used in the home we may expect obscene language from the child ... There is perhaps no clear lead in the school - the head may not want a lead. The fervour of some staff may have led inexperienced teachers out of their pedagogical depth (Auld Report, Appendix XV, pages 6 and 7 quoted in Kogan 1978:89).
The inquiry found that the organisation, content and quality of the teaching was poor; that discipline was so bad that the work of the infants' school which shared the same building was seriously disrupted; that collective decision-making had broken down; that the head and some of the staff had lost the confidence of the managers and of many parents; and that educational policies had been introduced which were badly planned and implemented, and in some cases clearly impracticable.
It was highly critical of some of the teachers:
In persisting with their defiance of the authority to the extent of going on strike rather than being inspected, the junior school staff demonstrated how much importance they attached to the inviolability of their 'professional status' and how little thought they had for the children for whose education they were responsible (Auld Report para. 859 quoted in Kogan 1978:90-91).
Following the publication of the report, several teachers were dismissed and the school was reorganised.
The Tyndale affair raised a number of crucial questions about the control of the school curriculum, the responsibilities of local education authorities, the assessment of effectiveness in education, and the nature of pedagogy - what was meant by 'progressive' education? Because the teachers were identified with militant left-wing groups, a connection was made, in the public eye, between 'progressivism' and the hard left.
The overarching issue was that of accountability. The teachers had claimed total professional autonomy in the face of objections from parents and ILEA inspectors.
To whom were the teachers responsible - or accountable? In theory the head had responsibility for the school and was accountable to the governors. These, in their turn, were, in theory, responsible to the local authority. That authority itself employed inspectors who were directly responsible to the Chief Education Officer, and so to the education committee - in this case the ILEA. And what about the DES? The role of HMI? And ultimately the Secretary of State? (Simon 1991:446).
The Tyndale affair caused 'immense damage ... to the teaching profession as a whole' (Simon 1991:446). Teacher control of the curriculum was now called into question.
The Yellow Book
Background
The mass media and right-wing politicians and commentators claimed that there was now widespread public concern about the state of education. This was not true: opinion polls had shown that, in 1971, 83 per cent of parents were 'satisfied or very satisfied' with their children's primary schooling; by 1975 this had risen to 87 per cent; and a Gallup poll for the National Consumer Council in 1976 produced a similar figure (Simon 1991:469).
Nonetheless, the 'propaganda crisis' had reached 'alarming proportions' (Simon 1991:447). In response, Callaghan sought to present himself as a man who shared concerns about disorder and falling standards and thus 'to reassure audiences well beyond the Labour Party' (Simon 1991:447).
On 21 May 1976, soon after taking over as Prime Minister, Callaghan met Education Secretary Fred Mulley to raise four areas of concern:
- the basic teaching of the three Rs;
- the curriculum for older children in comprehensive schools, particularly science and mathematics;
- the effectiveness of the examination system; and
- the provision of further education for 16- to 19-year-olds.
Mulley was 'surprised to learn that the Policy Unit was drafting a major speech on education for the Prime Minister to deliver later in the year' (Chitty 1989:73), but agreed to prepare a lengthy memorandum on the issues Callaghan had raised.
The result was School Education in England: problems and initiatives (known as the 'Yellow Book' because of the colour of its cover), produced by the DES with input from the Downing Street Policy Unit. It was not intended for public consumption and was circulated to a small number of people in July 1976.
Misconceptions
In his notes which accompany the online version of the Yellow Book, Clyde Chitty suggests that there have been two popular misconceptions about its authorship and influence: that it represented the thinking of Her Majesty's Inspectorate (HMI) on the state of school education in the mid-1970s; and that it was the inspiration for Callaghan's Ruskin College Speech.
With regard to the first, Sheila Browne, who was Senior Chief Inspector of Schools from 1974 to 1983, told Chitty in July 1986 that the book was the work of DES officials and that there was no significant HMI input. Chitty argues that
the Document's criticism of many of the new trends in primary-school teaching would not have been made by an Inspectorate which had done so much to pioneer 'progressive' methods, in the wake of the 1967 Plowden Report. And Sheila Browne's version of events is substantiated by a close examination of the style and language of the Yellow Book itself where we find a number of phrases, which also appear in other DES publications of the period (Chitty 2015).
(Note: For a contemporary account of the history, role and organisation of HM Inspectorate, see HMI Today and Tomorrow, published by the DES in 1970.)
The second misconception - that the Yellow Book was the inspiration for Callaghan's Ruskin College Speech - probably arose because sections of the book were deliberately leaked to The Guardian, which carried a front-page article about it on 13 October under the headline 'State must step into schools', and The Times Educational Supplement, which published a three-page report on 15 October, just three days before the speech was given.
The Guardian report focused on the introduction of a national curriculum for secondary schools, even though this was not actually proposed in the Yellow Book:
A plan to introduce a basic national curriculum for Britain's secondary schools has been put to the Prime Minister in a memorandum from the Department of Education and Science.
This proposal, which at a stroke would end 100 years of non-interference in state education, is made in a confidential document specially commissioned by Mr. Callaghan. Its sixty-three pages constitute a severe indictment of the failure of secondary schools to produce enough scientists and engineers, and the memorandum calls for drastic measures to change the attitude of children entering schools, and for much tighter control by Inspectors of the education system ...
The central theme of the memorandum is to argue for a return to an agreed 'core curriculum' in secondary schools which, after agreement from local education authorities and teachers, should be introduced to ensure improved standards and a return to the study of mathematics and science (The Guardian 13 October 1976 quoted in Chitty 1989:82).
The Times Educational Supplement noted that the quality of education had become a major political issue and suggested that the approach adopted in the Yellow Book was preferable to that of the Tory party:
Both parties now believe that there is a political time-bomb ticking away in the schools. The Conservatives think public anxiety must favour them. They strike attitudes in defence of basic standards in the belief that this is the way to exploit the anxiety. Mr. Callaghan and Mrs. Williams may well have reached a not dissimilar political assessment, and believe they must defuse the time-bomb before it has time to go off. This they hope to do by bringing curricular issues into the open. Most people in the education service - including those whose initial reaction to the Yellow Book will be hostile - will prefer this approach to the Black Paper postures which Conservative education spokesmen have begun to assume (The Times Educational Supplement 15 October 1976 quoted in Chitty 1989:84)
The Times, meanwhile, welcomed 'the beginning of a government drive to bring back standards into teaching, concentrating on the basic skills of reading, writing and arithmetic':
That this initiative should come from a Labour Government is ironic, since all the groundwork in recent years has been made by the Right. Mr. Callaghan is stealing Tory clothing (The Times 14 October 1976 quoted in Chitty 1989:83).
The leaking of the Yellow Book was 'obviously intended to prepare Callaghan's audience for what they were about to hear' and 'gave credence to the view that the two documents must be intimately connected' (Chitty 2015).
In reality, Donoughue wanted the Speech to be seen by the media as a forthright statement of the need to make schools and teachers more accountable, and as a direct challenge to the teaching profession in general, and to the National Union of Teachers in particular (Chitty 2015).
Content
Chitty argues that the Yellow Book was an important policy document and can be seen as an attempt by the DES to restore public confidence in the state education system, at a time when it was regularly coming under attack from sections of the media.
Of its many themes, three stand out as being of particular significance: the need to establish generally accepted principles for the composition of a 'core curriculum' for the secondary school; the need to make suitable provision for vocational elements within the curriculum; and the need to challenge the view that 'no one except teachers has any right to any say in what goes on in our schools' (Chitty 2015).
The Yellow Book began by arguing that
the achievements of the education service look impressive. We have, despite economic difficulties, coped with an 80% increase in school population; raised the school leaving age twice. For these purposes massive building programmes have been carried through and the teaching force greatly expanded. For the first time, over the last generation, we have set out to provide a genuinely universal free secondary education, and to that end have put in hand, and largely carried out, the greatest reorganisation of schools in our educational history (DES 1976c:5).
Despite this success, the press and the media, 'reflecting a measure of genuine public concern', were 'full of complaints about the performance of the schools' (DES 1976c:5). Why was this? Had something gone wrong? And if so, how was it to be put right?
Primary and secondary schools were then examined in turn. In the former, only a minority of schools had adopted the 'child-centred' approach, yet its influence on teaching methods was said to be widespread. 'In the right hands this approach is capable of producing admirable results' (DES 1976c:6). However, these 'newer and freer' methods could prove
a trap to less able and experienced teachers who failed to recognise that they required a careful and systematic monitoring of the progress of individual children in specific skills, as well as a careful planning of the opportunities offered to them (DES 1976c:6).
The time was therefore 'almost certainly ripe for a corrective shift of emphasis' (DES 1976c:7).
HM Inspectors have for some time stressed the need to make teachers conscious of the importance of a systematic approach. The trainers of teachers, and the local advisers, increasingly accept this view and its adoption should be made easier by the increased stability and experience of the teacher force (DES 1976c:7).
With regard to secondary schools, the criticism was 'more diverse':
In part they follow the same lines as the criticism of the primary schools and are based on the feeling that the schools have become too easy-going and demand too little work, and inadequate standards of performance in formal subjects, from their pupils (DES 1976c:7).
Some of these problems, the Book argued, had resulted from the process of comprehensive reorganisation, and were likely to be overcome. But there were shortages of adequately-qualified teachers in specialist subjects; rapid expansion of the teaching force had resulted in there being a 'disproportionate number of young and inexperienced teachers' (DES 1976c:9); and some teachers and schools 'may have over-emphasised the importance of preparing boys and girls for their roles in society compared with the need to prepare them for their economic role' (DES 1976c:10). It was unfair to blame the schools for this, because they had been responding to the mood of the country and to the priorities of successive governments. Nonetheless, 'the time may now be ripe for a change' (DES 1976c:10).
The Schools Council had proposed a Certificate of Extended Education for first-year sixth formers and the replacement of GCE O level and CSE by a new common exam. On these matters, the Yellow Book was 'exceedingly cautious' (Chitty 1989:80).
The Certificate of Extended Education was strongly advocated by the NUT, but the Department and Inspectorate had 'misgivings about its merit' (DES 1976c:13):
The demand for it has almost certainly been overstated and the educational programmes followed by some pupils in the target group are of doubtful relevance to their needs. The new examination would not be useful as a stepping-stone to a further education course (nearly all of which are geared to entry at either 16 or 18). On general grounds the onus should be on the proposers to show it is worthwhile to add to the financial and other burdens of external examining in schools (DES 1976c:13).
As to a single system of examining at 16+, the Yellow Book was equally unenthusiastic:
In principle the creation of a common system of examination at 16+ would eliminate some difficulties associated with the present double system. But the Schools Council have not succeeded in demonstrating that the considerable technical and educational difficulties of examining over a very wide spectrum of ability have been solved, and they have not offered an agreed and workable plan for the administration of the proposed new examination by the existing examining bodies. The Department's reservations are shared by important sectors of the educational world (DES 1976c:13).
The Yellow Book stressed the importance of the work of HM Inspectorate, which was 'without doubt the most powerful single agency to influence what goes on in schools, both in kind and standard' (DES 1976c:15); criticised the Schools Council, whose 'overall performance', it said, had been 'generally mediocre' (DES 1976c:18); and argued that the scope of the Assessment of Performance Unit should be broadened and its programme accelerated, 'so far as the intrinsic disciplines of its work and the availability of competent research and development workers permit'. Here, the major problem was 'to persuade the teaching profession that this is all to their advantage; we shall need also to staff the Unit appropriately' (DES 1976c:24).
It concluded that
It will also be good to get on record from Ministers and in particular the Prime Minister, an authoritative pronouncement on the division of responsibility for what goes on in school suggesting that the Department should give a firmer lead. Such a pronouncement would have to respect legitimate claims made by the teachers as to the exercise of their professional judgment, but should firmly refute any argument - and this is what they have sought to establish - that no one except teachers has any right to any say in what goes on in schools. The climate for a declaration on these lines may in fact now be relatively favourable (DES 1976c:25).
Morris and Griggs argue that the Yellow Book
gave the Prime Minister a distorted picture of schools and teachers, and of the Schools Council, whose efforts to reform and democratise as well as broaden secondary school examinations it undermined. It cast doubt in the most biased way on the work of the comprehensives and gave an utterly false impression of the impact of informal methods in the primary schools. Central to its thesis was the assumption of poor performance and declining standards. What might be wrong with education, it argued, was overemphasis on preparing young people for their role in society rather than their economic role. This was the nub of the Yellow Book's case (Morris and Griggs 1988:6-7).
The Ruskin College Speech
This, then, was the political, economic and educational context in which the Prime Minister called for a 'rational debate based on the facts' in his Ruskin College speech in Oxford on 18 October 1976.
Background
Callaghan adopted 'the bluff, common man approach at which he was past master' (Simon 1991:450). He was well-placed to do so since, like the great majority of his fellow citizens, he 'owed little to formal education himself' (Simon 1991:450).
In his memoirs, Callaghan wrote:
My general guidance for the speech was that it should begin a debate about existing educational trends and should ask some controversial questions. It should avoid blandness and bring out the criticisms I had heard, whilst explaining the value of the teachers' work and the need for parents to be closely associated with their children's schools. It should ask why industry's status was so low in young people's choice of careers, and the reasons for the shortage of mathematics and science teachers (Callaghan 1987:410 quoted in Chitty 1989:93).
For Donoughue, the speech was an opportunity to raise questions about:
the need for more rigorous educational standards, for greater monitoring and accountability of teachers, for greater concentration on the basic skills of literacy and numeracy, and for giving greater priority to technical, vocational and practical education ... (Donoughue 1987:111 quoted in Chitty 1989:93)
Content
After some introductory comments about the achievements of Ruskin College, Callaghan began by taking it for granted that no one would claim exclusive rights in the field of education.
Public interest is strong and legitimate and will be satisfied. We spend £6bn a year on education, so there will be discussion. But let it be rational. If everything is reduced to such phrases as 'educational freedom' versus state control, we shall get nowhere. I repeat that parents, teachers, learned and professional bodies, representatives of higher education and both sides of industry, together with the government, all have an important part to play in formulating and expressing the purpose of education and the standards that we need (Callaghan 1976).
He then focused on a number of specific issues. He was concerned by 'complaints from industry that new recruits from the schools sometimes do not have the basic tools to do the job that is required'; and by 'the unease felt by parent and others about the new informal methods of teaching which seem to produce excellent results when they are in well-qualified hands but are much more dubious when they are not' (Callaghan 1976).
He urged employers, trades unions and parents, as well as teachers and administrators, to make their views known. He said he had been 'very impressed ... by the enthusiasm and dedication of the teaching profession', but he acknowledged that there was 'criticism about basic skills and attitudes' and he argued that there was 'a need for more technological bias in science teaching' (Callaghan 1976).
Underlying the speech was the feeling that the educational system was out of touch with the fundamental need for Britain to survive economically in a highly competitive world through the efficiency of its industry and commerce:
I do not join those who paint a lurid picture of educational decline because I do not believe it is generally true, although there are examples which give cause for concern. I am raising a further question. It is this. In today's world, higher standards are demanded than were required yesterday and there are simply fewer jobs for those without skill. Therefore we demand more from our schools than did our grandparents (Callaghan 1976).
Despite his criticisms, Callaghan was keen to dissociate himself from the rantings of the Black Paper writers:
These are proper subjects for discussion and debate. And it should be a rational debate based on the facts. My remarks are not a clarion call to Black Paper prejudices. We all know those who claim to defend standards but who in reality are simply seeking to defend old privileges and inequalities (Callaghan 1976).
Nonetheless, he argued, there was now a good case to be made for 'a basic curriculum with universal standards', and he concluded:
I have outlined concerns and asked questions about them today. The debate that I was seeking has got off to a flying start even before I was able to say anything. Now I ask all those who are concerned to respond positively and not defensively. It will be an advantage to the teaching profession to have a wide public understanding and support for what they are doing. And there is room for greater understanding among those not directly concerned of the nature of the job that is being done already (Callaghan 1976).
For Brian Simon, Callaghan's intention was clear:
On the political level, to steal the thunder of the Black Paperites and their colleagues (and these included St John Stevas and the radical right in the Tory Party), but, on a deeper level, to assert new forms of control over the social order - to issue a clear warning that educational developments should not get out of hand; in short to slam the lid and screw it securely down (Simon 1991:451).
Chitty argues that the Ruskin speech 'has to be viewed on a number of different levels, all of them interrelated' (Chitty 1989:95). It marked
the end of the phase of educational expansion which had been largely promoted by the Labour Party and at the same time it signalled a public redefinition of educational objectives. Its timing was, in part, a response to immediate events: the acute economic crisis, escalating unemployment and a declining birth-rate. The days of expansion were clearly over; there had to be more skilful use of existing resources. It was also an attempt to wrest the populist mantle from the Conservative Opposition and pander to perceived public disquiet at the alleged decline in educational standards (Chitty 1989:95).
It also indicated 'a clear shift on the part of the Labour leadership towards policies which would facilitate greater government control of the education system' (Chitty 1989:95).
But above all, the speech represented
a clear attempt to construct a new educational consensus around a more direct subordination of education to what were perceived to be the needs of the economy (Chitty 1989:95-6).
Reaction
The speech was viewed with suspicion by many teachers, who still held the view enunciated in 1954 by National Union of Teachers General Secretary Ronald Gould that democracy itself was safeguarded by 'the existence of a quarter of a million teachers who are free to decide what should be taught and how it should be taught' (quoted in Timmins 1996:323).
Alec Clegg, the progressive Director of Education for the West Riding, whose primary schools were 'internationally renowned' (Kogan 1978:66), responded to the implication in the Ruskin speech that standards had declined. If it is true, he argued, that 'we can no longer teach children to read ... I am puzzled by the fact that Puffin Books increased their sales from 600,000 in 1961 to 6 million in 1975' (quoted in Kogan 1978:66).
The Times Educational Supplement broadly welcomed Callaghan's initiative as 'a major speech by a Prime Minister to serve notice on the schools that they are accountable to the public and can reasonably be expected to give an account of their stewardship':
Until each school, and each local authority, can produce evidence of systematic curriculum planning and evaluation, with careful attention to basic skills, the public will continue to feel that a gigantic cover-up is going on. The teachers' unions' paranoid reaction to any legitimate public concern about standards simply increases the suspicions, and gives added incentive for politicians, whether national or local, to meddle in teachers' professional concerns.
The public remains to be convinced that teachers know what they are doing. Unless it is convinced, there is the danger of an imposed 'core curriculum' that will distort, rather than underpin, important objectives of schooling (The Times Educational Supplement 22 October 1976 quoted in Chitty 1989:97)
Predictably, the Tories poured scorn on the speech. In a four-page critique, they claimed that
Ever since the late 1960s there has been growing evidence of a serious decline in academic standards, and the resulting concern has led to continuous public discussion. It is strange that the Prime Minister should have been unaware of this (quoted in Knight 1990:103).
Equally predictably, right-wing commentators saw the speech as a vindication of their views. In the last of the Black Papers, Cox and Boyson argued that
In October 1976, Mr Callaghan, the Prime Minister, attempted to steal our clothes, which have always been freely available. He repeated our assertions that money is being wasted, standards are too low, and children are not being given the basic tools of literacy and numeracy (Cox and Boyson 1977:5).
Callaghan was critical of the response to his speech, particularly that of The Times Educational Supplement which, he said, 'was both scornful and cynical about my intention', treated him as 'no more than an amateur educationalist', and argued that the debate should be 'conducted by those who knew what they were talking about' (Callaghan 1987:410 quoted in Chitty 1989:96).
Arguments about the relationship between the Yellow Book and the Ruskin speech, and about the authorship of the speech, rumbled on for years. In an article in The Times Educational Supplement (29 May 1987), Bernard Donoughue claimed that he had instigated and largely written the Ruskin speech. Three weeks later, former NUT President Max Morris accused him of distorting the facts:
It is ... quite extraordinary to read an account of the provenance of the Ruskin speech which makes no mention whatsoever of the secret Yellow Book prepared for the Prime Minister by the DES and leaked to The Times Educational Supplement which public-spiritedly published its tissue of distortions, half-truths and plain whoppers. It was the Yellow Book which was the occasion for the speech, which was hyped to the skies in advance ... Lord Donoughue claims the credit for drafting the speech. He is welcome to the credit for a very poor effort which was, in fact, drafted by a DES official who will now be grateful to be relieved of the responsibility by such a distinguished writer of fiction (Letter to The Times Educational Supplement 19 June 1987 quoted in Chitty 1989:90).
Chitty argues that
We are probably very near the truth if we argue that a number of separate papers were prepared for the Ruskin speech. The most detailed papers came from the Policy Unit, but there was also an input from the DES incorporating presumably some of the ideas put forward in the Yellow Book. Bernard Donoughue then had the task of coordinating all the material (Chitty 1989:92).
Following the inconclusive general election in February 1974, Harold Wilson (pictured) formed a minority Labour government. In the hope of gaining a Commons majority, he called another election, which was held on 10 October and resulted in a Labour majority of just three seats.
Wilson resigned in April 1976 (he said he had always intended to do so at the age of 60) and was replaced by Jim Callaghan (1912-2005) (pictured).
Born in 1929, Tom Taylor (pictured) became a member of Blackburn Town Council in 1954 and was its Leader from 1972 to 1976. He was a founder member of the Council of Lancaster University and served as its Deputy Pro-Chancellor from 1972 to 1995. He became a peer (Baron Taylor of Blackburn) in 1978. He was suspended from membership of the Lords for six months in 2009 after being caught up in the 'cash for questions' scandal.
Mary Warnock (1924-2019) (pictured) had already held several university posts, a seat on Oxfordshire's local education authority, and the headship of Oxford High School for Girls.
