Chapter 21 2nd grammatical error

On my first day at the Ministry of Education, I brought with me about 15 points of action I had written in an old exercise book at Lamberhurst on Weekend.Having added the fifteen items, I tore out the pages and handed them to Bill Pyle.One that required immediate action was the cancellation of Tony Crossland's Circular 10/65 and Circular 10/66 issued the following year.The former requires local authorities to put forward a plan for reorganizing secondary education in accordance with the policy of thoroughly implementing comprehensive education, while the latter stipulates that all local education authorities that refuse to implement school integration must withdraw the capital construction funds issued to them.

The Ministry of Education must have known about this in my party's election manifesto - they always scrutinize the opposition's policies during election campaigns.But they apparently thought the policy would be watered down, or at least delayed.For me, I know that the promise to stop forcing local authorities to introduce comprehensive education is extremely important to our supporters, and any delay will be seen as a sign of weakness, so immediate action must be taken to end the state of indecision .I told the press even before handing over the 15 to Bill Pyle that I would immediately withdraw the two Labor notices.I even stated that it was intended to be done when the Queen spoke.It seems that the panic caused by this reached the Prime Minister's Office, because they reminded me that the implementation of this policy requires the approval of the Cabinet, although it is only a formality.

More seriously, I don't understand that when a notice is rescinded, a new notice must be issued, and issuing a notice is a highly technical exercise that is exploited to the fullest by those inside and outside the Department of Education who disagree with this policy.My civil servants have made no secret of their belief that the circular should be a voluminous statement of the Department of Education's view of what form secondary education should take throughout the country.This may take a long time; I don't think it's necessary.The essence of our policy is to encourage diversity and select talents, not to "plan" a system.Moreover, even if it is necessary for the central government to formulate a standard so that local authorities can use it as a basis for reorganization, it can be stated in general terms now and elaborated later.It's hard to convince them that I'm serious.In the end, I drew up a first draft myself.They immediately decided that a better way to show courage was to cooperate.As a result, on Tuesday 30 June, a very brief circular - known as Circular 10/70 - was issued, just in time for the education debate on the Queen's Speech on Wednesday 8 July.

Now I'm being savagely attacked by powerful people in education for not having "normal consultations" before giving notice.I don't feel the need to apologize.This is what I said when I spoke in the House of Commons: after all, we have "just concluded the biggest negotiation yet", which is the general election.But for those who, after the past 25 years, are convinced that only they know best.My speech was useless.Labor party education spokesman Ted Short (who himself was a secondary school principal) even suggested that teachers refuse to mark the entrance examination papers) in protest.A delegation from the National Teachers' Federation came to see me and expressed dissatisfaction with my actions.Significantly, they criticize me emphatically: "Abdication of responsibility in specifying the form of education".I don't think the National Federation of Teachers would like my explicit form for education if that were indeed my responsibility.

In fact, the policies I'm pushing now are far more nuanced than their caricatures paint - though more could have been said about some of the positions they derided. Circular No. 10/70 revoked the relevant notice of the Labor Party government and went on to say: "The minister hopes to take general considerations in education, local specific needs and wishes, and the proper use of financial resources as the main principles for determining the form of local schooling." The notice also clearly stated that , the envisaged reorganization should basically not lead to drastic changes: "If a particular form of organization works well and enjoys widespread support, the minister hopes that no further changes will be made to it unless there is a special reason."

Local education authorities used to send general restructuring plans for all the schools under their jurisdiction to the Ministry of Education, but, as strange as it may sound, neither these plans nor the Education Secretary's opinion on them had the force of law.The scheme will only come into legal effect after publication in accordance with Section 13 of the Education Act 1994.The section requires local education authorities to make public their intentions to close or open schools, significantly change the nature of schools or modify the school age for students - and notify the Department of Education.For localities, parents of students, school leaders and local residents can raise objections within two months.For the central government, I, as the Minister of Education, can intervene.The subsection states: "Any proposal made to the Minister under this subsection shall be subject to his approval, subject to such modifications as he may think fit."

The use of these powers to protect a few good schools from total reorganization is not only a departure from Labor policy, but also a deliberate breach of the line of Edward Boyle - who once called section 13 "reserved power".I am a lawyer myself and know that decisions to change or close schools are extremely sensitive to local public opinion, so I thought it would be better to base my policy on the powers conferred by Section 13 rather than relying on several notices. Advise.This may sound unreasonable, but in fact I am well aware that my actions are under the watchful eyes of the courts.My reasons for intervening are limited.And by the time the House of Commons debates the floor, I can articulate more clearly how the policy will be implemented.

There is another advantage of my doing so, although it is not very prudent to explain it politically.At a time when even some Conservative local education authorities are suffering from the germs of school integration, my approach offers the best chance of saving the last batch of good grammar schools in the area.The government also has its disadvantages: scrutinizing a large number of individual proposals necessarily delays responses.So it was inevitable that I would be attacked as being a filibuster in order to delay the closure of more grammar schools.But this criticism is unfair.I have paid great attention to trying to expedite the response.There are so many suggestions that I am overwhelmed.Another issue I had to grapple with in my first debate in the House of Commons as Education Secretary was an argument often made by advocates of indiscriminate full school integration.They considered it impossible to have a "mixed" system with both comprehensive and grammar schools.In fact, this is just a clever rehash of the best arguments of egalitarian educators.At first glance, however, it is somewhat convincing, for it is theoretically impossible after all to divide a group of children into grammar school pupils and modern secondary school pupils, and to mix them all in a comprehensive secondary school.Either don't pick them, or don't mix them.But this argument ignores the fact that, given the large area where designated enrollment is practiced, it is possible to have both schools that select students on the basis of aptitude and schools where students with varying aptitudes study together.As I pointed out in my reply to Ted Short during the debate:

Of course, in some very small rural areas, I don't think it is possible to have a comprehensive school and a grammar school at the same time, but it is possible in some very large urban areas because the grammar and direct grant schools Designated enrollment areas are completely different from those of comprehensive schools. [Honorable MPs shout, "Impossible."] Honorable Gentlemen of the Opposition say it's impossible, but here it is. Some of the best comprehensive schools are in areas with very good selective schools. The policy change, despite the political noise it generated, had limited practical impact.Throughout my tenure as Education Secretary we weighed some 3,600 proposals for reorganization - the vast majority of which were for integration - of which I rejected only 325, or about 9 per cent. In the summer of 1970, it appeared that More possibilities for local authorities to decide to overhaul or stop implementing their restructuring plans.For example, the Conservative Party-controlled city of Birmingham was one of the first education authorities to welcome Circular 10/70, fighting fiercely to save the city's 36 grammar schools.But by 1972, the Labor Party took control of the city and came up with their own integration plan. In June 1973, I rejected 60 of 112 proposals put forward by the city council, saving 18 grammar schools in the city.

The situation at Richmond Council in Surrey is largely similar.They had refused to propose a reorganization plan according to the Labor government's 10/65 circular, but in September 1970 they voted by a large majority to end the elective system.I have no choice but to agree to a reshuffle for the next year. Perhaps the most embarrassing decision I had to make was about the city of Barnet, within which my own constituency is located. In October 1970, the Barnet City Council controlled by the Conservative Party decided to implement comprehensive education.They had conducted a survey among the parents of the students beforehand. Seventy-nine percent of parents are clearly in favor of ending choice. (Indeed, other national polls show a great deal of confusion on the issue, with a majority favoring both comprehensive education and the retention of grammar schools.) There were strong opposition to Barnet's plans, January 1971 , I received a total of 5,400 letters of protest. In February, I approved the closure of two grammar schools, but kept a third on the grounds that a locally proposed amalgamation plan would result in the inconvenience of having one school in two places. In April, I saved another grammar school; in June, I blocked two more plans, thus saving a very good modern secondary school and another grammar school.The local Conservative Party was split and I was blamed by the city council.In September of the same year, in fact most of the urban secondary schools were converted into comprehensive secondary schools.Local authorities have repeatedly revised plans.Christ's Secondary School and Woodhouse Grammar School are at the center of the dispute. When I became Leader of the Opposition in 1975, the two secondary schools were still grammar schools.Labour's 1976 Education Act abolished Section 13 and sought to impose a comprehensive system from the center on England and Wales; 6th grade [top grade] private secondary schools.)

Looking back now, it is clear that there was an almost obsessive focus on educational structures, which characterized the 1960s and 1970s.Not to say that educational structure—whether to the administration or to the school—is unimportant, but educational theorists claim that there is a system which is superior to all schools in any case other systems.The self-confidence they displayed was not proven correct by the facts.When I was in the Ministry of Education and Science discussing the secondary school restructuring plan, the first thing I encountered was the prejudice against grammar schools.They even want to eliminate the practice of grouping students according to ability in schools.I tried to convince the Office of the Inspector of Her Majesty's Schools that, whatever their theories suggest, they should at least admit that grammar schools have a large number of excellent teachers doing first-class work, and the tone of many reports from the Office of the Inspector of Her Majesty's Schools dispelled Their best stuff. This unrealistic notion that a single structure can be designed and implemented is also repeatedly shattered, as I have heard from some parents.Some live in areas where crime is rampant and, according to local authorities, they must send their children to comprehensive "community secondary schools" at designated enrollment locations there.In desperation they had to emigrate.A lucky few families have Direct Grant schools nearby that they can send their children to. "But some local education authorities with socialist views objected on dogmatic grounds to schools not under their jurisdiction, refusing to accept their allotted places in direct grant schools. I had to intervene in this to ensure that there were students to fill up these vacancies) But in any case, only a few parents and children were able to escape the harsh conditions in this way; when I told those mothers that there was nothing I could do under the existing system, it was with a heavy heart. It was only after I became Prime Minister that I was able to give them some real help - first by implementing the "study grant scheme" and then by setting up "funding to maintain schools".This is still the case today, but not entirely satisfactorily.We should make it easier to open new schools so that parents have more school choices.There is now a growing debate calling for education-guaranteed loans.It will finally bridge the gap between private and state schools. Also, an idea I've appreciated in recent years.A Conservative defense of grammar schools is a local defense of an existing social institution that provides good educational opportunities for children of all backgrounds" and we are also defending the principle that the state The principle of selecting children by the sole criterion of ability and sending them to one of only two schools is far more consistent with socialism and collectivism than the spontaneous social order associated with liberalism and conservatism. The state chooses by ability Students are a way of coordinating human resources. Diversification of education and quality of education - this principle has a very solid foundation and is also completely tenable politically; parents prefer to choose schools, not countries according to ability The selection proved the correctness of this principle. Nevertheless, by the end of 1970 it was becoming clear that comprehensive education was not going away.