Chapter 20 First impressions

On Monday, June 22, 1970, I went to work at the Ministry of Education and Science.It's a nice old-fashioned house in Curzon Street. (It's a pity that we moved from here in 1973 to our loathsome new premises in Waterloo.) I was greeted by the Permanent Under-Secretary, Bill Pyle (later Sir William Pyle), and the outgoing Permanent Under-Secretary, Herb Pyle. Sir Andrew's greeting.They gave me a warm welcome and took me to my very own office.Civil servants treat you with a "minister" on the left and a "minister" on the right. It is easy for you to be intoxicated by compliments again and again, but I am soberly aware that what awaits me is a difficult job.Overall, I'm happy with the leadership team I've been assigned: one friendly, one hostile, and one neutral.My old friend Lord Eccles the Comptroller was in charge of arts education, Ted's close friend Bill von Straubenzie was in charge of higher education, and Lord Berstead was in charge of liaison with the House of Lords.I was particularly pleased that the former Education Secretary, David Eccles, was by my side, albeit in a different building, to give me personal advice based on his experience working in the Department of Education.

However, the trouble I encountered in the Ministry of Education was not mainly due to different personalities, nor was it because of the conflicting work styles that emerged after the first culture shock - my administrative style was to make decisions quickly, while they were more used to each other consultation.In fact, I didn't know until I left the Ministry of Education that they only respected me reluctantly, because I have my own opinions, and I hope they will implement my decision as quickly and effectively as possible.So, broadly speaking, the real problem at the time was a political one.

I did not know, and did not seek to inquire, which party the senior civil servants around me voted for, but the ethos of the Ministry of Education and Science was that of self-righteous Socialism.Most of these people still instinctively believe that unified planners and social theorists have the power to create a better world.I don't mean to make fun of them when I say this.Many in the Labor Party have long since begun to doubt this, but these educators have retained their original sense of mission.Regardless of the practical consequences of egalitarian policies in some schools, they believe that educational equality is an absolute good and a stepping stone to social equality, which itself is unquestionably good.I soon realized that I had no friends around.

On the negative side, things are probably like this. Since I am determined to challenge traditional educational concepts, I cannot complain about encountering opposition.But on the other hand.Two points must be considered.First, the civil servants' advice to ministers must be honest, accurate, and fact-based, not old, biased ideas that the government (and voters) have rejected.Second, even if measured by the narrow standard that the work of government agencies must be sincere, selfless, and impartial, a government department that is too close to its work objects is extremely harmful. The federation relationship is exactly that.I have seen this very clearly for a long time. At a dinner held in a trade hall to celebrate the centenary of the National Federation of Teachers on Saturday, September 12, 1970, Ted Heath did not respond to the Lila Khalid incident. I was able to attend, and I read his speech for him impromptu. There were many senior civil servants of the Ministry of Education and Science in attendance. I immediately understood that they were very close to the National Teachers Federation. The cues and so-called "body language", these gestures express not general etiquette, but congeniality.

My troubles with the Department of Education civil servants were compounded by the ambiguity of a set of education policies that we came up with when we were elected in 1970. , During the election campaign, I have repeatedly emphasized the following seven points: Shifting focus to primary school; Expanding early childhood education (this fits with Keith Joseph's argument for stopping the "vicious circle"); In secondary education, local education authorities have the power to decide what schools are best suited to local circumstances, but they should be reminded not to "irrevocably alter good schools unless ... another situation is better";

Raising the school-leaving age to 16; Encourage direct funding of schools and preserve private schools; Expansion of higher and continuing education; Conduct a survey on teacher training issues. But those promises made during the campaign did not reflect a clear point of view.As I have pointed out earlier, different members and factions of the Conservative Party hold very different views on the direction of education in general and on secondary education and grammar schools in particular.On the one hand, there are Conservatives in favor of comprehensive education, which is no different from that of moderate socialists.On the other hand, the authors of the so-called 'Black Book' of education elaborate a very different point of view, emphasizing discipline, choice and standard (including the preservation of existing grammar schools of high standard).Their arguments rest firmly on a materially adequate critique of the present educational system.We are caught between these two opposing views.Although we often say that major policies should be consistent and decisions should be made with caution, the current administration has not even the slightest intention to resolve fundamental contradictions.I am well aware that in the struggle against the civilians in this department, the support of my colleagues in the cabinet may not be expected.