Tension in the Local and National Control of Secondary Education - Report Example

Education Act of 1944 Tension in the Local and National Control of Secondary Education In the United Kingdom’s government quest for a good and effective education system, friction between central government and local authorities were inevitable. Through the years, the central government was trying to influence and control the course of education through national authorities’ intervention. Consequently, the Local Education Authorities cannot do anything but to coordinate and apply national policies to their respective community. Since the 1980’s, LEAs underwent hasty and momentous changes in regards to their functions and tasks. They tried their best to accommodate the changes and minimize the growing tension arising from the persistent pressures of the central government. Unwavering and filled with passion for children, LEAs went on serving the community notwithstanding relentless scrutiny and perpetual devaluation of their performance in the eyes of the central government. The discussion on this paper will focus on two things remarkably relevant to children’s secondary education. The first part will uncover the significance of Education Act of 1944. It will try to clarify and explain some of the Act’s controversial policies through analysis and literature review. It will also impart the irrefutable contributions of the Act to the spiritual, moral, mental, and physical development of children and the community. The next segment will centre on the brewing tension between local education authorities and the central government due to the latter insidious efforts to control education. It will reveal the deliberate attempts of the central government through a series of Acts and circulars over the years, to reduce LEA’s authority and depreciate its mandated power. In the end, the discussion will briefly touch the current development in educational policies and the new role of LEAs in raising the standards and achievements in schools. In 1944, while the country is still at war and access to education was limited, RA Butler’s Education Act was given a Royal Assent. The Act recognized the significance of education for economic advancement and social welfare. It was intended to address student’s personal and academic development by providing secondary education for all children so that everyone has the opportunity to obtain a place in the grammar school (Bell 2004, p.1-2). Through the Local Education Authorities (LEA), the Act intends to provide child’s ability based schooling and a state-funded education for students up to the age of 15. Along with the plan is the tripartite secondary school system of grammar, technical, and secondary modern schools. To ascertain and classify student’s ability, an objective examination called 11-plus1 was set up. This is to establish the level of their intellect and skill in English and Mathematics. Consequently, three groups were categorized based on ability. On the first category are the academic students that are more intelligent and skilful, and qualifies for the grammar school and would have better chance for higher education. Next in the category are the practical students with lesser ability and only eligible to take occupational or technical based learning. Last, are the students that barely meet the requirements (mostly coming from working class) and only suitable for secondary modern school’s basic education. However, in reality, since only a handful of technical schools were established, the system developed as a bipartite where most of the students went to secondary modern schools (Chan and East 2002, p.4). The Education Act of 1944, although maintains that a tripartite secondary educational system promoting three types of schools for various classes of students is different but equal, 111-plus is an examination given to children when they reached the age of 11. allegedly failed to maintain the equality of value and prestige according to its critic. Apparently, with the 11 plus test in place, the competition to enter the grammar school became intense, as it is the only route to a professional career. Moreover, the Act’s tripartite approach reinforced the imprecise theory that kids of a lower social class had inferior intelligence (Chan and East 2002, p.4). According to Hargreaves (1994), the problem with the tripartite system is not grammar schools standard, but rather that majority of students who failed the examination went to the secondary modern school which perceptibly would not received the “parity of esteem”2 initially planned for them by the 1944 Education Act. However, the British schools system as a whole was changed greatly since 1944, as free secondary education is a big leap towards national growth. Unfortunately, the Education Act of 1994, predominantly arising from its “ability” based policies in education, has created an atmosphere of discontent and discrimination that only favours the white, men, middle class, and the physically fit. For the disadvantaged, immigrants, females, and physically disabled, the educational institution is no longer a place for development but a haven for bigotry, aggravation, and shattered dreams 3(18). Even with some negative impressions arising from social parity issues, the Education Act of 1944 is the opposite of its alleged offensive image. The actual problem here is not with the Act but in the misinterpretation of its policies by the authorities concerned. For instance, the Act specifically indicates the provision for sufficient schools, and to provide students with “instructions and training as may be advantageous in view of their different ages, abilities, and propensity” (Bell 2004, p.2), but these provisions never materialized in actual practice. On the other hand, when the Act was reinterpreted correctly in the 1960’s4, comprehensive education 2 – phrase usually use in politics to describe a theory to prevail over an inter-communal disagreement.. 3 – idea came from Halgreaves (2004) report on page 8. 4- 1950s to 1960s was the decade of rapid educational provision all over the western world, commonly known as the years of “educational revolution”. rapidly expanded and subsequently, more types of schools have been established including specialist schools and academies. These changes enable the education sector to cater for students of various ages and abilities and enhance their innate inclination for the scientific, the arts, or the practical, which were apparently neglected before (Bell 2004, p.2). The issues surrounding secondary education, particularly admittance in grammar schools, was actually misread because it requires a difficult and discriminative ability test. In reality, the Education Act of 1994 is very compassionate to the working class, as its main objective is to provide entry to grammar school (which was exclusively for intelligent middle class alone) “regardless of family background” (Chan and East 2002, p.4). In similar fervour, elementary schools providing basic education for the underprivileged were replaced with a more socially uplifting education that are state-funded and free for all children regardless of economic status in life. Finally, the Act through LEA, (before Thatcher’s Conservative government removed them in 1980s)5 was providing free meals, milk, and medical assistance to schools which undoubtedly benefits the disadvantaged (Chan and East 2002, p.4). Another notable point of the Act is the fact that it did gave LEAs the duty to contribute towards religious, ethical, mental and physical development which is an indispensable modern-day purpose of education (Bell 2004, p.3). The Act conspicuously did not enforce compulsory Christian worship in school even though the church and school in England are traditionally closely correlated (Bastide 1992, p.11). In 1870, when Parliament approved the idea of compulsory education for all, religious groups built most schools. Consequently, they disseminate their own respective spiritual teachings. To ensure that religious instructions in states schools were inter-denominational, the Education Bill of 1870 was amended using the 5 – Referring to the provision of Education Act of 1988 to remove free meals and milk in school. Cowper Temple6 clause in 1876, that no religious catechism or particular denominational formularies shall be taught schools (Lourden 2003, p.12). The Education Act of 1944 mandatory Religious Instruction was in fact requiring what was already a common practice in schools, and its “mandatory” merely because it is inducing spiritual and moral development. Moreover, it cannot possibly favour any religion as it is against the law to enforce denominational formularies in state run schools. In fact, parents do have the right under the Act to opt-out from compulsory worship in school on the “grounds of conscience” (Bastide 1992, p.11) and for the benefit of their children. As seen by many, the Act’s emphasis on religion is a “symbolic act of piety” (British Humanist Association 2006, p.38) as there was no legal requirement for an act of worship before 1944 and adherence to a single religious denomination (Christian) was very common. The Educational Act 1994’s recognition of religion in schools has since changed the social context and in the 1960s and 1970s, many schools started to adopt generally acceptable reflections of a moral character as a replacement for religious elements in school assemblies. However, it did not last long, as the Education Act of 1988 reversed them and replaced the collective worship program with “mainly of a broadly Christian character” (British Humanist Association 2006, p.38) Arising from the misinterpretation and poor implementation of the Educational Act of 1944, the government gradually adopted the comprehensive school system in the 1950’s. Mainly rooted from sheer displeasure with the selective system’s ability testing, secondary modern schools were replaced by comprehensive systems. The move was encouraged by the notion that each child should be given a chance to realize his full potential over a broad range of activities 6 – William Francis Cowper Temple is a Liberal MP best known for the amendment of the 1870 Education Act. and skills. Consequently, children were accepted to these schools regardless of their ability or aptitude. On the other hand, students with high-academic ability still went to the grammar school and as a result, comprehensive schools struggle to justify their existence in terms of exam results. Finally, in 1965, the 11-plus exams were finally replaced by CSE (Certificate of Secondary Education), and LEA was asked by the Labour government to submit plans for reformation of schools into the comprehensive system. Here, the tension between the national and local authorities began and in 1976, disgruntled with the Assessment Performance Unit’s (APU) evaluation of children’s achievement in school, the National Union of Teachers protested the Government’s intrusion into the school curriculum (Chan and East 2002, p.2). The Labour Government’s Department of Education and Science circular asking LEA to submit a plan for school restructuring did not materialize, since LEA was not legally mandated to do so. The submission only happened when the Secretary of State for Education was finally authorized by the 1976 Education Act to force LEA to put forward its restructuring plan. Since then, changes to the Education Act of 1944 happen one after another including the school leaving at age of 15 was replaced by 16. Four years later, when over three million British were unemployed, the Conservative Party blamed LEA for its failure to provide the required skills for the industry (Chan and East 2002, p.12). Their first offensive move was to require all LEAs, which had not presented plans for restructuring to submit them, and later pass the Education Act of 1980. Then the new Act abolished the free meals and milk in schools and legitimized the Assisted Places Scheme (APS) where students can freely transfer to fee-paying independent schools with government paying part of the fees. Consequently, LEAs authority was reduce and could no longer provide primary, secondary, and higher educations for students outside its area. The government’s attack on LEA and teachers became extreme, and there was an apparent move toward centralized control over the curriculum, teachers training, and other parts of the education sector. Conversely, the APS scheme of Thatcher’s government received negative reviews as according to surveys, children benefiting from the scheme were largely from middle-class families, and only few ethic minorities are involved. In addition, they criticized the scheme for being more fascinated in padding places rather than catching the attention of academically talented children from deprived families to attend the fee-paying independent schools. In 1981, more than 20 Local Educational Authorities appointed a multicultural education advisor and compelled the government to produce reports about ethnic minority’s education underachievement in school (Chan and East 2002, p.13). Local Education Authorities have been directly providing services to schools for more than a hundred years and since 1944, it had experienced shaky partnership with the national government. In 1988, these unbalanced relationships involving various issues with central government have grown largely not only with the Department for Education and Skills but from the Office of Standards in Education. The tension arising from the various inspectors of government, the Audit Commission, and the Cabinet Office have been accompanied by the significant changes in funding mechanisms and the principles in which these mechanisms are grounded. It is followed by the re-conceptualization of the Local Education Authority in terms of leadership to support the national agenda rather than simply in terms of service provision. Since LEAs can effectively administer national policies, priorities and procedure, they have given considerable support to facilitate government intentions. However, they cannot ignore the feeling of deep anxiety of seeing the significant increase in the central control and the rapid reduction of scope for local flexibility, discretion, and innovation implied by the new arrangements. As part of Fletcher et. al. (2003, p.14) research, there were a number interviews conducted to support the evidence that current local officers are positively engaged in the implementation of national policies and at the same time vigilant about the outcome of such policies. Changes happened openly since the Education Report Act of 1988 came, and become an excuse for the series of transformation, which were predominantly on the roles of local authorities in education. There work description varies from different sources, depending on the relationship with their predecessors. For instance, the Audit Commission previously describe them as lead, partner, planner and provider of information, and a regulatory office but after ten years they were to articulate a vision with strategy to ensure high-quality education. They become the “vehicle” of improvement in standards, guardian of equity and inclusive system of education, and other descriptions that was not there before. Although LEA took these roles quietly with no argument, the tension was still there, as the school autonomy and the expectation that the LEA would intervene when it is evident that a school could not serve its clients effectively while following the “zero tolerance of under-performance”7 policies of DfEE (Department for Education and Employment). In the following year, LEAs role has been transformed from a mere service provider to a planner and implementers of Education Development Plan (EDP). The perception of local education authorities was as expected sensitive to the demands of the central government but they hardly ever have reservations about the government’s education agenda, as they are prepared and capable to facilitate the delivery of national programme to the communities across the country. However, LEAs insist that ministers of the central government should stop being sceptical about their capability and let them get on with their work. Other 7 – This is a policy promoting success for all where pervasive failure must be eradicated. members however feel that they can the job without central government’s intervention because the local authorities are big enough for innovation work and more importantly, they are sufficiently close to the end-user to want and to be able to join up provision. In addition, head teachers themselves testify about their good working relationships with LEA and they too are confident that they can raise standards of achievements in their respective schools (Fletcher et. al., 2003 p.19). The next wave of tensions came in 1992 when education was again the central issue in the general election campaign. John Pattern’s white paper “Choice and Diversity: A New Framework for Schools” formed the basis for complex new legislation later that year that would soon become the Education Act of 1993. The main thrust of the Act was to make it easier for schools to opt out of local education authorities control while making it almost impossible to LEA to stop them. The Secretary of States’ duty to promote education and to control bodies that are state funded particularly LEA, was retained by the Act. The other provision of the Act is to allow special schools to opt out of LEA’s control, a code of practice for local authorities including national guidelines for issuing statements. As expected, the Act was heavily criticized and leaders of LEA called for a new Education Bill to clear up the confusion. Sir Ron Dearing interim report on the NC (National Curriculum Council) criticized the central government for going too far in reducing LEAs authority input into education. At this point, the education system in England and Wales was described by The Observer “as one of the most centralized, undemocratic educations in the western world” (Chan and East 2002, p.21-22). The Education Act of 1944 clearly states the LEAs duties and responsibilities and it should be under the control and supervision of the Minister of Education. However, this was seen as a centralist approach to education and later in 1988, it came to be seen as preserving local authorities’ relative independence. By 1993, another Act came to introduced a doomsday sounding phrase ‘clause zero’ which after fierce debate went to obscurity and forgotten by many. Since LEAs exclusive authority came from the Education Act of 1944, it is not surprising that it will undergo extreme scrutiny from the central government whose interests in education were normally based on political agenda. It is quite apparent that before the Education Act of 1996 was formed, the central government’s interests is not entirely focus on educational reforms but get rid of the Local Education Authorities exclusive control of education as well. The Education Act of 1988 and 1993 attest to their desperate attempts to improve education directly through the national government, ignoring the importance of local intervention and direct end-user interaction. Their assumptions were wrong and since then, alongside with the changes in leadership in government, the tension over the control of education gradually subsided. After years of tension and struggle, the Education of Act of 1996 brought new hope to LEA, as it clearly emphasized the general responsibilities of LEAs in section 13 once again. After two years, a favourable amendment was made and added a new section (13A) in the Act setting out LEA’s were to have an explicit duty to use all the educational functions to promote the high standards of education (Parker et. al. 2006, p.4). Lastly, in 2006, in another turn of favourable events, the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (EIA 2006) extended its duties to secure high standards of education and to embrace the wellbeing of the whole child and children beyond school. In the end, the 2006 Act brought back the lost elements of LEAs authority and extends its functions beyond its expectations. Bibliography Bastide Derek, 1992, Good Practice in Primary Religious Education , Published by Routledge, 1992, ISBN: 1850006342 Bell David, 2004, Change and Continuity: Reflections on the Butler’s Act, [A Speech by Chief Inspector of Schools David Bell to commemorate the 60th Anniversary of the Education Act of 1944] British Humanist Association, 2006, A Better Way Forward –BHA Policy on Religion and Schools, Gower Street, London WC1E 6HD, Available online at www.humanism.org.uk Chan Sui-Mee and East Pat, 2002, Primary and Secondary Education in England and Wales: From 1944 to the Present Day, 8th Edition, August 2002, [Booklet] EIA, 2006, Education and Inspection Act of 2006: Chapter 40, Printed in the UK by The Stationery Office Limited under the authority and superintendence of Carol Tullo, Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office and Queen’s Printer of Acts of Parliament Fletcher, Campbell and Lee, 2003, A Study of the Changing Role of Local Education Authorities in Raising Standards of Achievement in Schools, National Foundation for Educational Research, Research Report RR453, DfES Publications, Sherwood Park, Annesley Nottingham, Department for Education and Skills, ISBN: 1 84478 052 X Hargreaves David, 1994, The Mosaic of Learning: Schools and Teachers for the Next Century, Published by Demos, York Road, London, ISBN: 1898309450 Lourden Louis, 2003, The Conscience Clause in Religious Education and Collective Worship,The Culham Institute ,15 Norham Gardens ,Oxford OX2 6PY Parker, Duncan , and Powler, 2006, Inspection and Education Act 2006: The Essential Guide, Publications Unit, NFER, The Mere, Upton Park, Slough, Berkshire Read More