EDUCATION

Tasks for the new broom

RHODES BOYSON

Dr Rhodes Boyson is headmaster of a London comprehensive school

Education may not have been a live issue on the hustings but the election result was cer- tainly important for education. The differ- ence between Mrs Margaret Thatcher and Mr Edward Short as the Secretary of State for Education is not just a difference of party, important as this is. One sees that Mrs Thatcher has a different set of beliefs and priorities from Mr Short. Mr Short was stolid and reliable yet imbued with certain peculiar egalitarian values and he was handi- capped by his membership of, indeed spon- sorship by, the National Union of Teachers. Mrs Thatcher is highly intelligent, she has honesty and toughness, and her view of society has much more of a competitive streak. Mr Short wished (but failed) to dis- tribute universal largesse. Mrs Thatcher is concerned not only with justice but the stimulation to a prosperous society which can arise from the right priorities in educa- tion.

Mrs Thatcher will have to be. very far- seeing, courageous and tactful if she is to steer education successfully over the next four years. The problems are immense—in school organisation, in higher education and in finance. Mr Macleod's agreement that education should have priority in increased expenditure is not enough: unless the right policy decisions are made, the cost of educa- tion will- be more than a Conservative gov- ernment committed to tax reductions could afford even within a dynamically expanding economy.

The Conservative election manifesto stated that 'we shall shift the emphasis in favour of primary schools' and the need for the expansion of nursery education was also recognised. The state and the local edu- cation authorities certainly cannot afford to finance the great increase of nursery school- ing in the small classes necessary if pre- primary education is to achieve the objects hoped. Economic nursery fees will have to be charged, with remissions made on a means test to enable provision to be offered to the large families in areas of social handicap who most need early assistance.

Emphasis on primary schools presumably means smaller classes and the replacement of old and unsatisfactory buildings instead of the 'roofs over heads' policy which, by concentrating expenditure on the need to house the enlarged and moving school popu- lation, has handicapped existing but unsatis-

factory primary and secondary schools ever since the war. Smaller classes and more re- placement building will be expensive, but are probably vital if the state is to ensure that its money is used to maximum effect.

The numbers of pupils in primary and secondary schools will increase by some 2,000,000 in the 1970s, so further additional expenditure will be required simply to keep everyone in school. This will obviously limit the money available for secondary school reorganisation. Indeed, it has been estimated that education needs an additional 6 per cent expenditure in real terms every year simply to maintain existing standards. This is twice the rate of increase for which the Labour party recently budgeted.

Secondary reorganisation is, in political terms, the most difficult nettle for Mrs Thatcher to grasp. Circular 10/65 requesting local authorities to submit plans for second- ary reorganisation on comprehensive lines has been withdrawn and the Labour Bill to compel comprehensive reorganisation is dead. Each local authority is to be allowed to decide its own secondary organisation provided its plans are acceptable on educa- tional grounds: this presumably means local authorities will be allowed to go comprehen- sive only when they have purpose-built buildings on one site. The plans of Labour authorities can thus be delayed and Conser- vative authorities could submit plans to un- scramble comprehensive schools in unsuit- able or separate buildings. The twenty-three authorities whose plans were never sub- mitted to or accepted by the Department will now be free to maintain and expand selective education if they so wish. Birming- ham has already made clear its determina- tion to make use of its new freedom.

The raising of the school leaving age is supported by all parties. This question has for some years been a sort of test of 'pro-

gressiveness'—if one agreed with raising the school leaving age one was a progressive, if

not one was a reactionary. In these terms I remain, along with the majority of teachers who teach the fifteen-plus age group, an unrepentant reactionary. Generous mainten- ance grants would allow all who wish to stay on at school to do so; but to compel the small minority who do not wish to do so to stay in school against their wishes will simply increase disciplinary and truancy problems

to such an extent that the money spent will

be totally wasted. If, however, the Govern- ment insists on going ahead with raising the school leaving age, it should make a careful evaluation of what is taught in the last two years of school to the lower ability groups.

`Outgoing' social studies courses without drill in the basic skills are a waste of time; there will, as in the West Riding, have to be special courses for unemployed and unemployable school leavers, to make them literate. The Conservative slogan 'Value for Money' could be used to test much of what goes on in schools in the name of education.

The second most delicate issue for Mrs Thatcher, and the one most important in financial terms, is higher education. Already 450,000 full-time students in universities, col- leges of education, polytechnics and tech- nical colleges cost the taxpayer and rate- payer £700,000,000 a year and it is proposed to double their numbers,(and thus the cost) by 1981. The country quite simply cannot afford this. Many of the subjects studied are not an investment for the future, but are likely, by producing a disorientated, unem- ployable intellectual class, to be completely counter-productive. Expansion should be limited to subjects like applied science and to those offering employment prospects. Student loans, made from non-profit-making institutions like building, societies, must be considered for the majority of undergrad- uates. This in itself will test demand.

Mr Short bequeathed Mrs Margaret Thatcher a most difficult problem on salaries.

After encouraging the local authorities to hold out for six months against the teachers' interim pay claim, he finally forced them to capitulate and give the teachers almost all they requested. Mr Short and the local authorities have already -agreed that the teachers will receive 'at least' £42,000,000

extra. in salaries from 1 April 1971 but the teachers, guided by the memory of Mr Short's recent capitulation, will expect an offer near

to the £230,000,000 they have requested. Fortunately it appears that Mrs Thatcher has not a great regard for the Burnham Committee and I hope that the next salary award may be used to build a proper career salaries structure instead of giving a little bit more to all.

Mrs Thatcher comes to education with no personal hostages to fortune and with far more public sympathy than one would realise by reading some of the educational journalists. Her success will be critical for both education and the Conservative gov- ernment. I wish her well.