How a cursory history of British education helps us formulate solutions for the future | Alex Brown
Education in the UK has come a long way in the 100 years. From the ‘Balfour act’ of 1902 to the academizsation of the entire secondary system under the coalition, swathes of changes have been made to the point that this system is almost unrecognizable from its previous incarnations. Yet, have these changes been positive? What mistakes, if any, have been made? And is it that we may have lost some of our most important assets in the education system? In this article and report, I endeavor to examine the history of the UK’s education system, and contrast it to where we are now, as well as give some thoughts on where the future of British education must go if we, as a nation, are to thrive and not simply survive.
Early and mid-20th Century - mistakes and progress
Prior to the 1902 ‘Balfour’ act, education was compulsory to all from ages 5-10 and was mainly given by local school board authorities and the Church of England (CofE), but it was the duty of the parents to ensure they attended. Alongside this, technical colleges had by now been established through taxation; meaning government was beginning to recognise the importance of a uniform workforce who had been taught of the same/similar methods, as well as being able to pass this knowledge on.
The aforementioned act was of paramount historical significance to our country; it established local educational authorities- which would only come to accumulate futher political power over the 20th and 21st centuries, until, eventually, being powerful enough to hold government itself to ransom. These authorities had tax setting and levying power. Moreover, the act provided increased funding to CofE schools and voluntary institutions. The Balfour act was a key benchmark in education because it legitimised local authorities as the powerhouses of this policy area, yet crucially also, it enshrined religious teachings into the education system- even as the 20th century moved boldly forward. Such legitimisation of local authorities would be a crucial error of Balfour’s act as it would lead to much militancy across the 20th century as these authorities and trade unions sought to control the educational agenda.
Moving to what is one of the most important educational moves of the 20th century, ‘the Tripartite system’ established a classification precedent where one would fall into either secondary modern schools, technical schools or grammar schools. The Triparte system itself isn’t a terrible system, it was merely implemented poorly since not enough resources were made available, technical schools were criminally underused, and grammar schools remained inaccessible to the vast majority of people regardless of ability due to regional imbalances. But for me, whilst the issues surrounding grammar schools have broadly been solved since, there remains a vast sea of failure concerning technical schools, now known as apprenticeships, and this all began with the failure in the triparte system in this respect.
After much controversy surrounding grammar schools, and the inherent cultural bias that existed in the ’11 plus’ entry exam at the time, the system fully fell apart- and by 1965 most local authorities had either already moved or were planning to move to the state comprehensive system. The case for a multi-layered system had been permanently weakened by this point and the government had lost the will to fight the battle as well as public opinion shifting against it. This was the true failure above all since a multi-layered educational system (by theoretical design) allows for classification based on ability, meaning more focused teaching ensues.
A.J. Balfour.
1979-1997 – Thatcher and Major
By the later stages of the 20th Century, heavy industry in Britain had began to decline- accelerated as Thatcherism took hold of government- and with this came the decline in numbers of apprenticeships, particularly in areas like engineering, manufacture and industry development. This, again, reinforced the inequality between manual education and universities, and laid the groundwork for Tony Blair to set the goal of getting 50% of all young people into universities. Doing so, seriously overcrowding and inflating the UK’s higher education sector.
Thatcher tried to champion ‘vocationalism’, yet much of what she legislated achieved poor uptake and lacked the funds to make real changes to people’s lives, especially for the people of poorer communities in the UK. Meanwhile, these people were in the midst of one of the greatest social upheavals to livlihoods since the advent industrial revolution; with the decline of primary and secondary industry, the modernization of the economy, and the shift services industries (particularly finance) in the city for the major sources of national income. As opposed to modes of employment accessible to, and utilising, the skills of instead of working class, industrialized areas.
So, whilst what they advocated may have been to some extent just and potentially necessary, there was little desire to make change beyond superficial design alterations. The limitations of such an approach can be explained fundamentally ideological nature to the Thatcherism project; it prides personal liberty beyond all else- to make drastic changes (unconducive to immediate market demands) to the system in place, is likely to have been seen to have been an infringement of liberty. Thatcher sought some nominally conservative reforms such as making religious reforms broadly pro-Christianity and the establishment of the national curriculum (something that still lives to this day).
However, these are overshadowed by the creation of formula funding, which is to allocate funding to a school based on the number of pupils that attend each institution. This sounds good in theory, but not only does this marketise education, it heavily politicises too. A basic education ought not be something to be marketised for everyone, it is a right to all. This does not mean fee-paying schools and universities shouldn’t exist however, it simply means that a good education should not be out of anyone’s reach, for when one begins to marketise even the most basic of education like that for everyone up to the age of 16, we lose sight of quality and focus more on quantity and simply making pupils number in a machine.
Some more important changes were made by Major though such as increasing parental responsibility pertaining to their child’s attendance at school as well as the establishment of the first modern apprenticeship system. This system however, like Thatcher’s, received poor uptake- but unlike hers was actually very poor in design as it effectively rehashed previous years of education and retaught them. All of this meant Major never made his mark on education. This led to the seizing of the topic by New Labour and Tony Blair who famously noted his three priorities as “education, education, education”.
Margaret Thatcher, herself a former grammar school student of working class background.
1997- The Present– New Labour, Cameron, May and Johnson
With New Labour, predictably, came new ideas, and not necessarily good ones. Though some are certainly worthy of praise. The focus in education was shifted to specific needs of students. The establishment of ‘specialist schools’ now meant schools had a specialism and could select up to 10% of their students. Blair believed that by creating these schools, one could establish less common subjects like business studies and art, and by doing this one could diversify education, and eventually, the employment pool. This was a very good idea again in theory but when put into practice it led to students becoming passionate about less common or useful areas. When went into further study with it, and gained a degree in Art, for example, it had little transferability.
Early years work was a cornerstone of New Labour and something I think Blair really succeeded in. They established the ‘Every Child Matters’ policy document which created more safeguards for young people especially young children as well as increasing the support for young families. Furthermore, the creation of ‘Sure Start’ centers to support families is great as it established a precedent of positive state intervention in family life. Not typically thought of conservative in any sense, Blair must be given credit where he is due it and this is one of the areas, he is certainly due it. I believe state intervention can be used appropriately and is something generally thought of as wrong in the conservative world, but In fact if used properly and in reserved yet crucial areas, the state and be more than a force for good, it can be a force for societal shift.
The coalition saw what is both one of the best and worst changes in educational history ever in academisation. This programe of marketisation meant that schools would begin to be converted to academies which had more autonomy but were run like business’ which was the downfall. You had people who had little experience in education running entire ‘academy trusts’ like business which led to the failure of schools financially as debts were run up with trusts. The upside to this policy was the autonomy that schools now had in their curriculum which did mean you got schools like ‘the Michaela Community school’ achieve fantastic results both socially and in genuine GCSE stats.
However, the successes were far and few, though were fantastic when they did happen. One of the successes of the coalition was ‘pupil premium’ which saw financial help for poor students in the form of resources and meals being paid for them which was a nice addition for this group who saw some of the worst of the austerity program however it didn’t target the core problems that lay at the heart of these poorer families which was there was little to no engagement from parents in their child’s education as well as a growing culture of disrespect from younger people towards authority figures such as teachers.
May and Johnson’s time in office has been marred by crisis’ too big to ignore – Brexit for May and COVID-19 for Johnson. This has sadly led to education being left in the shadows of modern politics. May tried to re engage with the grammar schools’ debate but had to abandon all plans when she won a minority government and her grip on power hung by a thread after the 2017 snap election. Johnson has so far made little notable commitment for education apart from some generic promises, but with him and his Education secretary stuck in the middle of a grades fiasco, as well as one of the most globally-shaking pandemics the world has ever seen, it’s unlikely they can recover from this anytime soon.
The Future – A Brief three Point Plan
If education in the UK to progress from the dire state that it is in several things will need to happen. The first of which is most crucial; the number of universities in the UK must be decreased. As noted previously, specialist schools and increased university accessibility have led to extreme increase in the number of university students year on year. This has decreased the value of the degree and lead to the watering down of these institutions. I believe on this issue is what the government must take a hard line on; meaning they must make a legally binding distinction between Russell group universities and the rest of the institutions, and the degrees they award.
Doing this more will is likely to cause students to either strive for excellence and to attend Russell group universities or will simply opt for a different path other than this one meaning universities will close and the number will decrease.
Secondly, massive reform of the apprenticeship sector must take place in order to rejuvenate the British workforce which has become stagnant, full of degree holding individuals who don’t utilise them and are misplaced. Apprenticeship reform will ensure that these individuals don’t waste their time, money and energy as well as the governments. This reform should take the form of a new ‘Union of Apprentices’ as advocated and designed by me before. But as well as this, we must strive for great societal cohesion and appreciation, which is why alongside the Union, national service must be rolled out in full scale to all those not doing an apprenticeship.
Finally, there must be a cultural shift in attitudes towards education across all ages from parents, teachers and politicians. For too long these groups have sought to politicise a fundamentally non-political issue They have consistently sought to seize education as a ‘political football’ to be tossed about such as teachers striking, parents deflecting blame for bad student behavior and politicians making hollow promises. For education to begin to genuinely improve, it must be treated as the necessity to continuity in society, as it actually is, instead of an interchangeable political cause to be fought for when suitable.
This does not mean opinions won’t be discussed and debates had at the political level (as they ought), it means that all should be constructive to education rather than critical to ideas. Parents must take a greater role in their children’s life and the government must arrange with schools for clubs and meetings to happen on a more regular basis to both engage with and discuss a child’s school life.
Education is at the heart of Britain’s civic life and culture; we are talking about tomorrow's bricklayers, plumbers, and builders, as much as its scientists, doctors, and politicians. Not every child is extraordinarily gifted, and nor should they be, but that doesn’t mean they are any less valued in the country, or that they are due any less attention to help them fulfil and thrive- for themselves, and society at-large. My three-point plan is but a brief snapshot of many policy ideas I have in improving British education. It is my hope you agree, and have found this history of British education as well as my thoughts on each period informative, entertaining and enlightening. Let us use torches today so that they may light tomorrow.
–
If you liked this article and want to help our organisation expand, please consider donating. Every little helps.
