The proposals for secondary education following world war two in Britain intended to eliminate the inequalities that were evident in the education system. Although there had been an increase in the number of free places at grammar schools in England and Wales between 1913 and 1937, the majority of parents would have to decline these offers due to other expenses involved in excepting a place. Throughout this essay, I will discuss conservatism in Britain’s education system and what led to the circular 10/65 I will begin with the establishment of the 1944 Education Act also known as The Butler Act, and how it made way for a Tripartite education system. Continuing by exploring some of the reorganizations of the education system, the responsibility of the Local Education Authorities (LEA) is to submit plans for the type of school they deemed appropriate for the area. Furthermore, viewing various policies and reports that were introduced such as the Newsom report that influenced the education system in Britain, finally, discussing the introduction of the Circular 10/65 and its intention to abolish the separation of pupils at age 11, the attention it attracted and the fact that it was short-lived with the victory of the Conservative party in 1970 and the establishment of the Circular 10/70.
The first post-war election in 1945, saw the labor government elected, this shaped a government led by the then Prime Minister Clement Attlee, there was an indication of a prevalent aspiration for change. The 1942 Beveridge Report subsequently summarized a model of the welfare state, embracing proposals to transform the current school system into a more self-governing model, the report had attracted extensive support throughout the country, and the emerging Labour government had planned to bring about the Beveridge reforms, such as his recognition of the giant of Ignorance as an indication of contemporary Britain transpiring from the turmoil and divides of the world war (Galvani, 2010). McCulloch (1998) suggests that the organization of widespread secondary education was not revolutionary modernism, but chartered endorsements of the 1938 Spens Report, although it had been a time-honored aspiration of the Labour Party since the 1920s. As a result, the specified requirements of the 1944 Education Act involved the establishment of a transparent division between primary and secondary education, abolishing the elementary sector, for children aged 5 to 14, and introducing secondary education for all for children aged 11 to 15, and eradicating tuition fees for children attending publicly financed schools, furthermore, determining independent funding to local authorities and to other school divisions. However, the act failed to stipulate the types of schools that were to be made available. Alternatively, Local Education Authorities (LEAs) were provided with the assignment of creating development strategies suitable for their local area (Galvani,2010). Following the passing of the 1944 Act, children were to continue in primary education until age 11, at which point they would transition into secondary education.
This separation instigated copious amounts of trepidation and debate throughout the planning of the specifications of the Act. A prominent delegate of the planning commission, Griffiths G. Williams, the head of the secondary branch of education, asserted that secondary education ought to begin at age 11, while members of the planning commission presented the judgment that at age 11 children were too young to make fundamental decisions about their future career, suggesting that alternatively, children should start secondary school at 13 (Galvani,2010) The majority of LEAs decided that secondary education would be structured within a tripartite system which included secondary grammar, secondary technical and secondary modern schools these decisions were mainly influenced by the proposals laid out in the 1938 Spens report and 1943 White Paper, Educational Reconstruction, also known as the Norwood Report (Rubinstein and Simon, 1973) (McCulloch, 1998). All schools were to adhere to a curriculum. The Tripartite system was centered around selection, with pupils of age 10 or 11 having to endure an examination known as the 11 plus, the results of which would determine the type of school they would attend (Alcock, 2008).
The tripartite system was well developed by the end of the decade for the majority of LEA although some experimented with various differing measures (Galvani,2010) The education minister Ellen Wilkinson and members of the Labour Party in general, maintained their support of the tripartite system of education, regardless of total confidence in multilateral schools, and at an annual conference in 1942 It was indicated that a system constructed around selection brought Wilkinson’s socialist principles into dispute, however, Wilkinson responded by abolishing maintained school fees, confirming that Tripartism assured that selection was on merit rather than fees (Rubinstein and Simon, 1973). However, the establishment of the tripartite system did not develop without hostility, numerous LEAs abandoned the proposal suggested by Norwood and instead proposed substitute schools including multilateral or bipartite (McCulloch, 1998). Furthermore, The Trades Unions had contended prior to the 1944 Act that social class separation would be preserved by the separation of schooling alongside the division of labor (Galvani,2010). Crooks (2002) suggests that it is a widespread fallacy, that the 1944 Education Act permitted a tripartite secondary school system.
Alternatively suggesting that the Act itself did not state how secondary schools should be controlled or structured. In actual fact, this was the task presented to the LEAs, whereby, they had to determine and report to the Ministry of Education in a development proposal. Furthermore, successive Ministry directions to LEAs hardly recognized the prospect that an LEA could possibly establish comprehensive schools during its administrative process. comprehensive schools were assumed to be feasibly suitable in densely-populated areas or as cautious thought-out experiments. However, between 1946 and 1949 the Ministry of Education approved the joining of pre- war Senior and Central School buildings in order to establish eight temporary ‘experimental’ London comprehensive schools. Although in 1948, the Minister for Education, George Tomlinson, refused to obligate himself to a profound position when his fellow Labour MPs, Ralph Morley, and Alice Bacon, insisted that comprehensive schools be positively supported (Crook,2103). In 1949 in Holyhead on the Welsh island of Anglesey the first genuine British comprehensive school was founded and was done so without disagreement or debate, which led to widespread positivity regarding the future of comprehensive schooling. However, in the urban districts, the dominant Ministry opinion was that a comprehensive school required the capacity to house between 1500 and 2000 students in one destination if they intended to maintain feasible municipal examination classes.
Further suggesting where comprehensives were too small, they would be unable to obtain an appropriate sixth form, resulting in students being disadvantaged with regard to having the prospect of accessing university (Crook,2013). However, discussions concerning the potential of comprehensive education continued throughout the period of 1945 – 1951, although Wilkinson and Tomlinson did not express any consideration to comprehensive education, but alternatively dedicated their backing of the new secondary modern schools for non-academic students as a suitable alternative to grammar schools. Nevertheless, debates surrounding comprehensive education continued in the wider perspectives of the internal Labour Party struggles between the supporters of Aneurin Bevan, and the Labour politician Hugh Gaitskell.
The Bevanites were dedicated to promoting socialist change in order to develop the previous achievements of the Labour government, whilst Gaitskell advised attention and self-control. Education policy was starting to become entwined in this broader struggle (McCulloch, 2016). Gradually, throughout their years of political opposition from 1951 to 1964, the Labour Party made explicit its outlook on comprehensive schools, and In 1953, Labour’s National Executive Committee produced a robust policy document ‘Challenge to Britain’, within which they consigned themselves to abolishing the 11-plus examination and the various kinds of schools in secondary education, instead supporting the idea that all pupils between ages 11-15 would benefit from sharing both the academic and societal advantages offered by one secondary school (McCulloch, 2016). Then in 1958 Hugh Gaitskell, specified in the pamphlet ‘Learning to Live’ his intent of requesting that local authorities present plans to eliminate the separation of pupils into different kinds of schools at the age of 11 years, further, stating that the Local Authorities would have the autonomy to decide how and when it was to be organized (Crook, 2013). In March 1956 the Minister for Education, David Eccles, requested that the CACE investigate the education of pupils aged 15-18, in relation to the varying social and industrial essentials of the population, and the requirements of individual citizens. Paying specific attention to the stability at different stages of education for those aged between 15-18, also observing the interrelationships at the different stages (Crowther, 1959).
The report known as the Crowther report was submitted to the then Minister of Education Geoffrey Lloyd in 1959, The Crowther report, considered the later years of education, making various recommendations including, increasing the age a child would leave school, and the implementation of examinations for 16-year olds (Alcock,2008). However, by the 1960s, Conservative ministers were conscious of the increasing levels of discontent with the 11 plus, and consequently in 1964, under the direction of its Secretary of State for Education, Edward Boyle, the Conservative government established Legislation to abolish the compulsory obligation for school transfer at age 11 years. The 1964 legislation paved the way for local authorities aspiring to reorganize secondary education, including the establishment of the middle school for children aged 9 to 13. This was viewed as a desirable option as it could be accomplished with a limited amount of disturbance, and without the need to close schools, also allowing for the reality that it permitted grammar schools to preserve their academic courses and sixth forms (Sumner,2010).
Numerous Local Authorities used this to their advantage and began to establish some form of comprehensive education, however, this was typically in particular areas and on a limited scale. Nonetheless, the number of comprehensive schools in England and Wales more than doubled between 1960 and 1965. However, this still only accounted for less than ten percent of the secondary population. Additionally, Boyle was the first Education Secretary who indicated that he had no intentions of obstructing future plans for local comprehensive education systems, instead, he ushered his support for individual comprehensive schools that had been articulated by his predecessors (Sumner,2010). In the 1964 General Election, the Labour Government won and Harold Wilson became Prime Minister, on taking office Wilson made changes to the positions of his Shadow ministers of Education and Housing. Crossman was to be repositioned in Housing, whilst, Michael Stewart, was transferred to the Department of Education accompanied by Reg Prentice as his junior Minister, and Lord Bowden as Minister of State in charge of higher education. There were fundamental motives behind Wilson's decisions. During the 1950’s Stewart had been recognized as the extremely articulate education spokesman on Labour's benches. Furthermore, as a former teacher, he was strongly associated with the most influential teaching union, the NUT, and he had constantly displayed his support for comprehensive schools (Dean,1998) However, there was the mounting realization that the Newsom Report had been out dominated by promotion of Robbins' proposals.
The Newsom Report was received by Edward Boyle in August 1963, although it was his predecessor David Eccles in March 1961 who requested that The Central Advisory Council for Education (CACE) “advise him on the education of pupils aged 13-16 of average and less than average ability” (Newsom,1963, P.v). the fundamental idea being that all children receive an equal educational opportunity in order for them to develop their skills and capabilities (Newsom, 1963). Whereas the Robbins report was concerned with the development of university higher education provisions (Alcock et al., 2008). Furthermore, in 1963, Sir Edward Boyle requested that CACE reflect on all the attributes and features of primary education and the transition of pupils aged 11 to secondary education. However, by the time the report was submitted in 1966 The Labour government where in power, and it was Crosland who was to receive the report (Plowden, 1967). The Plowden reports main focus was primary schools, specifically, the trepidations that some children were not performing as well as other students. The report maintained that this was a direct result of social and cultural factors (Alcock,2008). Following his changes, Harold Wilson's Labour government requested that local education authorities produce plans to restructure their schools on the basis of a comprehensive system, and in 1965 the circular 10/65 was passed, with the intention to abolish selection at eleven plus and to end the separation of pupils in secondary education (DES,1965). The circular 10/65 declared that it was, “conscious of the need to raise educational standards at all levels, and regretting that the realization of this objective is impeded by the separation of children into different types of secondary schools, notes with approval the efforts of local authorities to reorganize secondary education on comprehensive lines which will preserve all that is valuable in grammar school education for those children who now receive it and make it available to more children; recognizes that the method and timing of such reorganization should vary to meet local needs; and believes that the time is now ripe for a declaration of national policy”(DES,1965, P1).
Circular 10/65 was aware of the requirement to encourage fairness in the education system and emphasized the significance of making those from less educated households aware of such information, although, it failed to openly reference equality, the circular continued to affirm that the Government trusted that the division of pupils into various kinds of secondary schools hindered the nurturing of educational standards and that in order for all pupils to have access to the type of education that had previously only been accessible through grammar school they should be restructured on the basis of comprehensive education (Sumner,2010). Substantial guidance was made available to Local Authorities with regards to instigating the Circular, although a significant number of paradigms were proposed that would denote fulfillment of the Government’s policy. These included the conventional comprehensive schools whereby pupils aged 11-18 go all the way through, alternatively was the ‘two-tier’ school system which entailed pupils moving from junior comprehensive to senior comprehensive at age 13 or 14. The Circular advised against focusing on external examinations, declaring that this could have a detrimental impact on the curriculum (Sumer, 2010). The circular 10/65 attracted a significant amount of attention leading to the publication of various newspaper articles, The Times published an article on the 8th February 1965 entitled ‘government firm on schools but no hasty change’ with an article reported on Crosland’s speaking in Manchester about his future intentions for education, suggesting that establishing a widespread comprehensive secondary education would take a substantial amount of time, further stating how Crosland had asserted that, unlike the Conservative government, the Labour government were determined not to allow education to become a sufferer of an economic crisis (1965b).
In another Times article published on the 8th of April 1965, Sir Edward stated that he was not opposed to comprehensive schools, in fact, that in some circumstances comprehensive schools would be more appropriate. However, he did assert that he was against the despairing urgency to abolish good schools including secondary moderns and grammar schools (1965a). a further article issued by The New Stateman on the 10th September 1965, described how comprehensives had played a fundamental role in indicating the misconceptions of selection stating the headline ‘11 plus “failure “goes to university’ was becoming too widespread to be classed as important in local papers, additionally how some comprehensives testified that around fifty percent of their A Level achievements and university entrants had developed from the lesser educated (Jones, 1965). Although the circular 10/65 had become an official paradigm, the policies produced by the conservative government were starting to expose the bigotries and the personal partialities of Margaret Thatcher. The Conservative party went on to win the general election in 1970, the then Prime minister Edward Heath and the Secretary of state for Education and Science Margaret Thatcher, issued the circular 10/70 which affirmed that from then on, there was no longer going to be a uniformed system inflicted centrally, instead Local Authorities had the freedom to decide and inform the type of schools they trusted to be most appropriated (Simon,1992). In July 1970, there was an article in the weekly news entitled ‘Labour Cant v Commonsense in Education’ the article described how the conservative manifesto made it explicit that the conservatives were extremely against the Labour government’s efforts to force Local Authorities to restructure on a totally comprehensive basis, Margaret Thatcher instead suggested that comprehensive and grammar schools could both be established and that were comprehensives may be suitable in one area, a grammar school may be more appropriate in another area (1970) It is evident through the literature cited in this essay that the circular 10/65 which was introduced on the 12th July 1965, had transpired from long-standing debates over comprehensive education, although it exposed the desires and support, it also revealed the questions and uncertainties that had surrounded the restructuring of education over the previous 25 years or more. It could be suggested that Circular 10/65 was a direct result of the 1944 Education Act, formed around the recommendations outlined in the Act and developed in agreement with its prerequisites. The Labour government was confident that the separation of pupils at age 11 needed to be abolished, in order for pupils to have equal access to the education previously only available through grammar schools, making a comprehensive education system the most appropriate. However conservative governments continued to disagree instead favoring a system of selection and grammar school education, consequently, in t 1970 the Conservative government issued the Circular 10/70 which meant that there would no longer be a uniform system, giving Local Authorities the autonomy to decide the type of school they deemed the most appropriate for their area.