Blog 10. The changes that came with the Conservative period 1951 to 1964

 

Blog 10. The changes that came with the Conservative period 1951 to 1964

In 1951 Attlee’s Labour Government was replaced by a Conservative administration that lasted until 1964. The first document that I found was a Parliamentary debateⁱ over Circular 242. it is interesting to note the differences in approach of Chuter Ede, speaking for the Labour Party and Florence Horsbrough the new Minister of Education. The former was concerned with the effects upon those being educated, the latter was concerned with economic policy. Both, in their different ways were concerned with the fabric of education.

Chuter Ede moved the motion “That this House views with grave concern the effects of the circulars issued by the Minister of Education on the estimates of local education authorities for the coming financial year, and calls for the restoration of all cuts which would impair the maintenance of the standards attained and the planned expansion of the service under the Education Act, 1944.” To his mind “the essential fabric of education consists of bringing as large a number of children as possible under the influence of skilled and sympathetic teachers in circumstances which will allow the nurture of these children in the essentials of education to proceed smoothly and efficiently, and also in making available for persons of very diverse tastes and aptitudes opportunities for access to the highest because of the increasing expenses of such things as forms of education in universities, technological colleges, agricultural colleges and other places, as their individual abilities and aptitudes afford”.

He noted that to provide books, essential materials and apparatus on an adequate scale there had to be an increase in the amounts that had been used in previous years . He gave detailed examples from around the country of the effects of the circular, including dental vacancies in Kent, shortages of books and stationery in Northamptonshire, increase in class size in Flintshire because they were unable to recruit enough teachers, and delays to school buildings. He expressed the hope that “we shall now be able to make provision for the non-bookish majority of our children, who do not get into the grammar schools, but who become the skilled craftsmen and designers upon whose activities in production we have to depend as a nation for our survival. It is high time that provision was made for them in the education system, in circumstances which will allow them to feel pride in their schools.

He referred to a further circular, 247, which deals with scholarships awarded by local education authorities to universities and other places of higher education, noting that the figures show such a diversity of opportunity that the right hon. Lady ought to give a little more guidance. He expressed the hope that “Circular 247 will not be another instrument of financial economy because I am quite certain that when we get pupils in our grammar and technical schools who can with advantage proceed to a form of higher education, it is not merely in their interests, but in the national interest that they should be encouraged so to go on.”

He closed by noting the situation in Somerset where “the most astonishing economies will have to be effected if the decision of the county council on the estimates is to be implemented. The education committee said at its meeting that it might have to dismiss between 220 teachers on one basis or 490 on another.”

The Minister of Education (Miss Florence Horsbrugh) replied on behalf of the Government moving an amendment “to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof: "recognises the duty of Her Majesty's Government in present circumstances to promote economy and welcomes their determination to maintain the essential fabric of the educational service."

She said that she agreed with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the essential fabric of education and about the relationship between teacher and pupil. She noted that she had had a flood of letters from people who had attended protest meetings and called for educational spending to be maintained. She also noted other who wrote saying that they were glad that we were cutting down as they felt they had been spending too much in their rates and not getting full value for the money.

She then went on to discuss the economic facts. Noting that the Estimates showed that local authorities will be spending in the coming year, 1952–53, over £14 million more than they will spend during the current year implying that there would not be a cut! The net increase, therefore, in the expenditure of the Ministry of Education is just under £6 million, because we have made certain economies. If we had not made those economies, the full increase of the extra £10 million to the local authorities would have been shown, practically an increase of 5 per cent. As we all know, the Estimates for education are the highest ever presented to Parliament...What we want to do is to see that we get full value for our money and to spend well. As we all know, the Estimates for education are the highest ever presented to Parliament. What we want to do is to see that we get full value for our money and to spend well. The reason for this increase is that there will be more children going to school and more teachers and we have had the full impact of the increased salaries. We are assuming that local authorities will be spending £14 million more than they spent last year and more than they have ever spent.

She the discussed some of the problems she faced when she became Minister of Education: the increase in the number of children going into the schools which would continue to about 1957, flatten out slightly, and then go down after 1961. We know also that, with our housing drive, there would be a further distribution of the population, and we realised that we must bear in mind the problem of the school accommodation which we could provide in the new towns and the new housing estates. This had to be done at a time when all parties have decided that our armaments must be built up and our exports must be increased. We are tackling this problem at a time of financial stringency and also of stringency in materials.

I should like to take, first, the subject of teachers, because whatever we say about all the other difficulties, the main pivot of the entire system is the provision of teachers. I entirely agree with what has been said today about the size of classes. When a teacher is trying to teach children in enormous classes, it is not teaching but is what has been described as mass instruction. The size of these classes is, I think, the greatest blot on our educational services today, and I do not think anybody will disagree with that. It is a blot which I have inherited. The National Advisory Council on the training and supply of teachers have been considering this problem. They gave me no hope whatever of doing that in the years to come while there is this increase in the number of children.

I now come to the subject of buildings. My predecessor calculated that between 1947 and 1953 there would be a need for 1,150,000 extra places. He calculated this in consideration of the extra number of children who were in schools because of the raising of the school-leaving age and on account of the increase in the birthrate and movements of the population to new housing estates. He said that some desirable things would have to be postponed suggesting there might be no ​ new provision for nursery schools, except in very special cases. I am convinced there is no use whatever in merely adding to the size of the programme and getting more starts unless we feel that the programme can be carried out, that the industry will not get overloaded and that the architects will be able to give sufficient supervision to the work being done. I do not think that any hon. Member would consider that we can demand more steel to the detriment of housing, or exports, or of the rearmament programme.

She move d on to the question of opportunities noting that she wanted to keep the full opportunity open. There will be the same number of State scholarships as there were last year. There will be more students going up to university this year, because so many were deferred and did not take up their scholarships last year. We are considering now with representatives of the universities and of the local authorities what should be the right maintenance rate. Turning to further education and technical education her wish was to provide more and better technical education for all grades of workers. We know the interest taken in it by both sides of industry, and of the increase in daytime students taking the national certificate.Her message to those in charge of technical education is that, in this new building programme, priority must be given to new buildings in connection with mining, engineering, textiles and the building industry. We are not applying any cuts to the other branches, but  ​simply saying that their premises cannot be increased by more new buildings. It is my view that recreational classes should be made self-supporting, and I do not think that anybody will disagree about that.

The building programme also includes more places in special schools. I am particularly anxious to see that we should give a priority, if possible, to deaf and partly deaf children. She spoke of strengthening the dental service. She looked to reducing administrative costs with regard to school meals, but, challenged by Alice Bacon, assured her that this would not put extra burdens on teachers. Her policy on Nursery Schools was the same as her predecessor. we cannot build more and we cannot get more people to staff them, but I mean to maintain them. I have said to the local authorities that there can be no indiscriminate closing of nursery schools.

In considering the initial stages of this debate, we have draw out the lines of argument which our, mainly, two Party system has taken over the years. Much of what is contained within the debate has been repeated whenever this type of situation arises. We should note the attempt by the Minister to transfer as much blame as she could to her predecessor. We should also note that she was able to point to steps taken by her predecessor to prepare the grounds for her action. She praises the earlier steps to economise, but criticises the fact that such action was not taken earlier. We can also note the clear priorities that the Government adopts when she states that we cannot demand more steel to the detriment of housing, or exports, or of the rearmament programme. On the importance of housing no one would disagree providing it is social housing for the majority, exports are more dubious, as far as armaments are concerned it was, is and has always been a false priority compared to social provision. The opinion regarding recreational classes is another of the class biased opinions expressed by Conservatives, she exemplified Ballroom dancing, but there are many aspects of so called recreational education which provides a cultural experience to working class people which for the richest element of society is readily available and affordable but which for working people is only available within the education system.

In contrast to the economic approach taken by the Minister, the Labour spokesman highlighted the difficulties which were being experienced. He took a fairly balanced approach but the Minister failed to address any of the concerns that he raise. His approach was based on human need, her approach on the needs of the economy. I noted above that the Labour Party in Parliament and Government was not without fault in this matter, but the documents that I examined during their period in power had much more to say about how we should educate our people. This document was in essence an economic document, I will be interested to see, as I delve further into the education documents during this period of Conservative rule, the approach taken to educational principles and policies.

Scribar 16.11.20

i http://www.educationengland.org.uk/history/timeline.htmlI