Chapter 23 Section 4 Supplying Milk Incident

A few years in the Ministry of Education provided, in at least one respect, an excellent preparation for his later tenure as Prime Minister.I was constantly being attacked violently, and those attacks had little to do with my fault. But it didn't start out that way.I have recounted earlier the debate over grammar versus comprehensive schools.Yet these debates have troubled me very little, partly because many people, not only Conservatives, agreed with me, and partly because I brought good news to quite a few people in other ways.For example, I was credited in a gentle way for saving the Open University.On the opposition side, both Ian MacLeod and Edward Boyle have spoken out against the Open University, arguing that there are many educational institutions that need government help more than it.The election manifesto did not call for the university to be abolished, and many wanted it dead.But I'm really interested in this concept called "Aerial University" because I think it's a way for more people to get higher education cheaply, because I think trainee teachers in particular can benefit from it, because I'm very Concerned about using technology to give students the best possible educational opportunities, especially since it provides many with a second chance at a lifetime education.In any case, the Open University is about to enroll the first batch of students this autumn, and the closure of the university will cause great economic losses and at the same time dash the hopes of many people.In the circumstances, I agree to a temporary reduction in enrollment and other means of saving money, on the condition that my cabinet colleagues allow the Open University to continue.

In the fall of 1970, there was much discussion about government spending.The Treasury has a list of austerity education funding - including fees for libraries, museums, school meals and milk.From my own experience at Grantham, I know how important it is to use books.I therefore persuaded the Cabinet to scrap the library fee proposal, while reluctantly agreeing to charge admission for museums and galleries (remaining free one day a week).But the pressure to cut more spending continued, and I had to make a list of projects to cut spending first. I have to admit that school meals and milk are the first cost-saving items that can be considered.There seems to be no reason why families who can afford it should not contribute a little more to cover school meals.I think I can make an argument for cutting school meals as long as I can show that some of the savings will go toward building elementary schools (a priority we've identified).Within the Ministry of Education's budget, education should be allocated first, followed by "welfare", which should in principle be borne by Keith Joseph's Department of Social Services.

As for the supply of milk in schools, there have long been different views on the benefits of supplying milk for health reasons.When I was at primary school on Huntingall Road my parents paid me two and a halfpence a week for my milk at school and had no complaints about it.By 1970, no family was so hard-pressed that school-supplied milk became an essential food for child nutrition.Tony Barber (who took over as Secretary of the Exchequer in July 1970 after Ian MacLeod died) asked me to abolish free milk in schools entirely.But I'm more cautious because of political and welfare considerations.I'm trying to draw the line: raising the price of school meals while eliminating free milk for schoolchildren over the age of seven.To prevent discontent, the modest reforms added a stipulation that children who needed milk for medical reasons would continue to be supplied until they entered secondary school.In short, I have effectively protected the education budget.

The reaction from the press has also been good. The Daily Mail called me "the new heroine". The Daily Telegraph reported on my plans to renovate 460 dilapidated primary schools. The Guardian noted, "This attack on the education budget has been minimal, with school meals and milk being the main targets. Mrs Thatcher won a battle to keep a big plan to build a primary school and turn it into a dilapidated primary school." If this situation can be maintained.That's delightful. The trouble is that this doesn't last long. Six months later, we introduced a bill that relieved local education authorities of the legal obligation to supply milk to students free of charge and allowed them to charge small milk fees at their discretion.This provides an opportunity for Labor to create trouble in Parliament.

But even before that, the press had included some of the material they had unearthed in their stories about school board costs.There has been a report that some local education authorities will charge students for bringing sandwiches to school for lunch. The Sun headlined "Children punished for carrying sandwiches".Labor was also joining the chorus in Parliament.I give notice prohibiting such practices.But that story has reignited public attention over school meal increases.Overnight, the number of students eating at school has become a politically sensitive indicator.When I was a parliamentary secretary in the 1960s, I often heard the discussion that it was a "disgrace" to receive benefits based on the results of the family's financial situation. This kind of discussion is now starting to appear again.Some say poor kids who qualify for free lunches feel humiliated when their richer classmates pay for their own meals.Speaking on TV - probably unwisely - I suggested that to avoid this, parents might as well put the meal money in an envelope for the child to hand over to the school, and the teacher would put the change home in the envelope.Underprivileged kids who qualify for free meals can drop some coin change in an envelope to hand to the school.Then the teachers will return them in full.This suggestion, of course, only makes the problem more difficult.

In any case, for the first time in a while, the debate over board was dwarfed by a massive "milk din".The paper, which had praised my success in protecting the education budget by cutting milk and board expenses, suddenly changed its tune. The Guardian described the Education (Milk) Bill as "a punitive measure that should never have been brought before Parliament". The Daily Mail asked me to "reconsider". The Sun wanted to know: "Is Mrs Thatcher human?" A speaker at the Labor party's annual conference suggested a catchy headline: "Mrs Thatcher, the Milk Snatcher".

Once the press discovers a news bonanza, it will naturally dig to the bottom.Editors and reporters make a living from news, after all, and politicians are their perfect prey.As a result, new reports appear in newspapers almost every day.For example, a municipal council of the Labor Party in a certain place is considering buying a batch of dairy cows to supply milk to local children; some local education authorities have replaced milk with dairy drinks in order to avoid implementing relevant laws; Powers under the Government Act to initiate steps to provide milk to children aged 7-11.Only in Scotland and Wales is it illegal for councils to act like this, but that's a matter for my colleagues in the Scottish and Welsh offices in the cabinet, out of my hands.But on whom all these accusations end up falling is beyond question.The campaign against me culminated in November 1971 when The Sun branded me "Britain's least popular woman".

Perhaps I was too naive to think that doing what is generally considered to be very good for education would be taken into account when arguing about the sacrifices made for it.Local authorities are reluctant to sell milk to children for nakedly political reasons, and forcing them to do so is next to impossible.I learned valuable lessons.I have incurred the greatest political notoriety for petty political interests.My colleagues and I have suffered a lot during the months of fighting with the local authorities; during this time we have been constantly sniped and stabbed in the back by the news media, all for the sole purpose of saving £9 million when basically Cutting that amount from the construction budget will have little impact.I am determined not to make the same mistake again.In the future, if people criticize you, it should be for important events, not for trivial matters, let alone for a glass of milk.

Now I feel sad, distressed, kind of sad, but wiser than I used to be.It is probably true that a woman, even a professional woman living in a man's world, is more emotionally vulnerable than most men when she is physically insulted.I am happiest when I am only with my children, and I am deeply hurt by the way my opponents and the press paint me as a ruthless violator of the welfare of children and adolescents.But any politician hoping to hold high office must be mentally prepared to go through the test, and some get knocked down and others get stronger.Dennis is a sensible man.He handled it all amazingly and I got through it because of his love and support.Later, I developed the habit of not paying attention to the reports and introductions about me in the newspapers.I turned to briefings and excerpts to stay informed.That way, if the report is not true, I ignore it; if it is true, it is something I already know.

Throughout 1971, just as I was under increasing attack over the school milk problem, I was also deeply involved in a bitter struggle in Cabinet over government spending.I advocate the continuation of the primary school program as originally conceived, which is key to a general policy focused on primary education, as well as to my arguments on school meals and milk.So I objected to the initial suggestion in the department to compromise with the budget-cutters in the Treasury, and in April 1971 I handed Bill Pyle a note with the last line of defense we must hold: "We Proposals that are below last year's budget in real terms cannot be accepted."

What follows is more than political realism.I realized that my colleagues in other ministries hadn't handed over the painfully saved money that our ministries had, and it ended up getting them through.In return for cutting back on meals and milk, my plan to build an elementary school was agreed a year in advance.But because it takes years to go from planning to building a primary school, the funding for this pledge also spans several years.Other ministries are allowed to expand spending throughout the five-year period of the government spending plan (the so-called government spending commission system).In addition, our Ministry of Education is now handing over to the Treasury over £100 million of cut savings from higher education, while the Cabinet spends vast sums on industrial subsidies. I could not agree with the then First Secretary of the Treasury, Maurice Macmillan.So I lodged a complaint with the cabinet - every cabinet minister has the power to do so.But to my annoyance, I learned that the Prime Minister's Office had decided not to allow me to formally submit the papers.I wrote Ted a sharp letter pointing out the pressure I was under to announce the budget for the 1973-1974 elementary school project.The end of the letter reads: "You often urge me to improve the work of my department, but the current capital construction is preventing me from improving my work. I urgently need to get a satisfactory budget for the construction of primary schools in 1973-1974. The third, fourth, and third The five-year budget could be considered by the Government Expenditure Committee meeting, but I hope to be able to agree with them by then." This letter may be too simple, but you will have problems if you write it too long.Can I see you when you come back from Paris? He allowed me to present my budget plan in June 1971—I was in control.Later in the month, the cabinet contained almost everything I needed for my plans to build an elementary school.This coincided with an announcement at the annual meeting of the Federation of Boards of Education in Eastbourne; newspapers ran the headline: "Record program to improve dilapidated small schools". Once I got to work at the Ministry of Education and Science, that was my only priority.Because of this consideration, as I said earlier, I had to make (or at least had to accept) a decision to cut education spending, a decision that made life extremely difficult.At that time, some school classrooms leaked rain, the equipment was simple, and the toilets were located outside the houses.In my opinion, this phenomenon should no longer exist in the 1970s.Moreover, now that the problem of "inflation" of school children has been basically solved (the school enrollment peak was in 1973), there is still some financial surplus that can be used to improve the conditions of dilapidated primary schools that are still in use. However, my visit to a new school in South London has vividly shown to me that there is much more to be done in education than just bricks and mortar.The teacher who showed me around was obviously a novice with no formal business training.A teacher told me that children at this school were very upset to see their friends have to go to an old school nearby.Most of the children, obviously pre-taught, agreed with this statement in unison.So when a child stood up and disagreed, it was very embarrassing for the teacher present.The kid said, "Oh, I don't agree with that statement. Before I came here, the school I went to was older and smaller than here, but it was more comfortable. The classmates were friendlier, and they knew how we were perceived." As time went on With the passing of , I also became more and more aware of the importance of small schools.Over the next few years, I also began to think that we all used to focus too much on "inputs" (new school buildings, expensive equipment, and especially more and more teachers) and neglect "outputs" (quality of education, teaching effectiveness and standards of conduct). Strange to say, I've grown to form my own opinion about the ills in the educational system—and the institutions that depend on it—not primarily by reading thought-provoking analysis, not by sharp-eyed not critics' debates, but through (almost by accident) actual exposure to what actually happened in schools. Take primary education, for example.No one would dispute that these first years of schooling are essential to a child's development.But what exactly should these children be taught?How to teach the law?The Proud Report, commissioned by former Conservative education secretary Edward Boyle, is considered by almost everyone to be the most authoritative source of expert opinion.It strongly advocates group teaching, even one-on-one teaching, and does not advocate teaching as a class.When I came to the Ministry of Education and Science, I did not have mature views on this issue.The report was controversial at the time.But I now suspect that this report led the elementary school astray within a generation.Also, after visiting some elementary schools, my doubts started to arise.I have found that in fact individual children often do not participate in small group activities, let alone whole class instruction, and basically let them play with their own things (not necessarily very useful things).I saw in a large classroom with an open floor plan) children divided into several groups were noisy and disorderly, and the more timid children did not know what to do and were even threatened by other children.When I returned to the department, I told the architectural design department in the department not to encourage such open classrooms. From the outset I objected to the notion, popular among middle-class and specialists alike, that children learn best by self-discovery.This belief throws away our generation's way of learning as just "rote learning".In fact, any valuable teaching method includes imparting knowledge, training memory, applying what has been learned, and the self-discipline required to do this.In the fever of theory, these truths are forgotten.