Talk:History of education in England

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "2013confirm" :
    • [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6254833.stm School leaving age set to be 18] news.bbc.co.uk, [[12th January]] [[2007]]
    • [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6254833.stm BBC NEWS | Education | School leaving age set to be 18<!-- Bot generated title -->]
  • "2013proposal1" :
    • [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6135516.stm School leaving age may be raised] news.bbc.co.uk, [[10th November]] [[2006]]
    • [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6135516.stm BBC NEWS | Education | School leaving age may be raised<!-- Bot generated title -->]
  • "politicsbrief-120607" :
    • [http://www.politics.co.uk/issuebrief/education/schools/school-leaving-age/education-leaving-age-$474737.htm Politics.co.uk: School Leaving Age Brief]
    • [http://www.politics.co.uk/issuebrief/education/schools/school-leaving-age/education-leaving-age-$474737.htm Education leaving age brief] Politics.co.uk, [[12th June]] [[2007]]
  • "neet-oct06" :
    • [http://readingroom.lsc.gov.uk/lsc/National/45_-_2006_NEET.pdf NEET graph] readingroom.lsc.gov.uk
    • http://readingroom.lsc.gov.uk/lsc/National/45_-_2006_NEET.pdf

DumZiBoT (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Examinations

There should be somewhat more about the development of examinations. Jackiespeel (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional links

The National Archives page at [1] or links therefrom should be added as appropriate. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From 1926 to 1980, there were 2 types of schools : which ones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.220.209.57 (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC) What exam did children take till the 1960s at the end of primary school? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.220.209.57 (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC) What sorts of schools disappeared in the 1980s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.214.1.209 (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing side

Reading the sources for Frederick William Sanderson brings home the point that there's a whole missing side to this article. Whilst it lists and discusses the legislation, and forms a history of education legislation in England, it doesn't discuss the reformist movements (such as the Committee on the Neglect of Science blaming Britain's lack of success in WW1 on poor science education, mid-war); the various investigations, government and private committees, and things like the Hadow Reports; and the economic and social pressures that motivated reform, from the Victorian period onwards. There's a fair amount of stuff on these in the history books. Uncle G (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Butler Act, 1944

There are two things about this article that worry me. The first is the naming of 'Rab' Butler. Certainly that was his nickname but it was based on his initials and was never his actual name. Would it not be better at the first mention of him in the article to provide his full name Richard Austen Butler, known as RAB?

The second thing that jumps out is the last "The 1944 Act should have been brought into effect as from September 1939; it was not implemented because of the effects of the Second World War, but was eventually enforced from April 1947". It makes no sense. How can an Act passed in 1944 have been intended to commence five years earlier? What I assume the author was trying to say was the passing of the Act was shelved because of more pressing business occupying Parliamentary time, thus the implementation of its new elements was delayed until April 1947, after hostilities had ceased... or words to that effect?Moonraker55 (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too worried about Butler's name - his article is linked - but please feel free to amend. The point about 1939 is more serious. There are two sources given. One is a deadlink and the other does not support the text. It is about the school leaving age, and it says that a rise to 15 wad considered in 1939. I'm sure we can say more on the Butler Act. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow there is such a lot to correct here. As a teacher trianing in the 1970- H.C.Dent book, the Education Act 1944 was required reading. I have a copy of the 12th edition SBN (sic) 340 09458 3. Dent refers to him as Mr R.A. (now Lord) Butler. The RAB and never Rab, was a term of affection used by the political right wing only. To say it was implemented in 1947 is wrong- it prepared the way for reform- but the 1948 Education (Miscellaneous provisions) Act, was the first of many Acts needed to enforce its provisions. The Act had five parts- each important. Part 1 (s1-5) central administration, Part 2 (s6-69) statutory education, Part 3 (s70-75) private schools - which wasn't implemented until Sept 1957. Part 4(s76-107)finance, inspections parents rights, voluntary agencies etc Part 5 THe interpretation clause and details of implementation. The section as written has two references and gut instinct makes me suspicious on both of them- We can do better than this. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He was frequently known as "Rab" as if it were his first name, much more commonly than "RAB" actually.Paulturtle (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC) It was actually a childhood nickname.Paulturtle (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tense and historical hindsight

Everything from # Labour, from 1997 to 2010, is written in the future tense, and predictions need to be evaluated against reality - any takers? ClemRutter (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of education in England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of education in England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Funding of voluntary schools under the Butler Act.

I've removed from the article an uncited claim that Voluntary Controlled Schools (ie. absorbed into the state system, with some remaining notional CofE involvement, eg. the local vicar sitting on the Board of Governors alongside the LEA appointees) received two-thirds state funding and that Voluntary Aided Schools (Board of Governors much more independent, with control over admissions, staffing, curriculum etc - basically the ancestors of today's Faith Schools) received one third funding.

Everything else I read on this - the Anthony Howard and Michael Jago biogs of Rab Butler, and the books cited in articles on voluntary schools - says that VC schools were fully funded by the taxpayer, and that VA schools had their running costs met and 50% of capital works paid for (the percentage is higher nowadays).

I fully realise that (a) writers copy one another without checking every last detail and that (b) these numbers may very well have been oversimplified versions of what may in practice have been complicated funding formulae, with many local exceptions etc. However, I really don't see any contortion of arithmetic by which the uncited claims in the article can be reconciled with the details in other books.

Feel free to get a discussion going or add back if a proper citation can be found.Paulturtle (talk) 12:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulturtle: I have lived through this dilemma as an retired governor, with a father who was a school manager of a VC, then a teaching career and with grandchildren now in the system and memory (failing rapidly). I am sure my father fumed after manager meetings about his inability to get capital schemes under way due to an intransient vicar, bishop- and lack of LA funding- but he didn't share all the details with a nine year old! But then in an optional module on Systems of Education, that I avoided as an undergraduate, we were introduced to Dent (details in section above or https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/search/ref=sr_gnr_fkmr1?rh=i%3Astripbooks%2Ck%3ADent+Act+1944&keywords=Dent+Act+1944&ie=UTF8&qid=1527491833 I have a later 1968 edition). Page 12-22 discuss the historic compromise'. Page 18 names the three categories of voluntary schools- controlled, aided and special agreement schools. "The managers or governors of a controlled school do not have to finance any expenditure, capital or current on the school. This is done by the local authority.¨ It then goes onto describe the responsibilities of managers and governors of an aided or special agreement school with the reference to Section 15 (3)(a) and (b) as amended by the Education Act 1946.
The special agreement school was a product of the 1936 Education Act, it encompasses the Extended Elementary Schools. 519 agreements were in place (289 were RC schools) but only 37 materialised- 144 revived this but our article does not mention them. They were important as (from memory) they had blocked previous rationalisation, and it was William Alexander who found this method of sidelining this disruption.They still confuse tabloid historians.
Back to the VA and SA contributions. The original grant was 50%, the 1959 Education Act raised this to 75% and the 1967 Education Act to 80%. (p19 footnote- my 1968 Edition).ClemRutter (talk) 07:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Butler Act and "tripartite system" - common delusion

The Butler Act did not introduce the split into grammar schools, secondary moderns, and technical schools. There is no reference to anything on these lines in the Act. There's an article here pointing that out. If I recall correctly, it was a departmental circular of the Attlee government that strongly encouraged LEAs to adopt that system. The only tripartite system in the Butler Act was the division into Primary, Secondary, and Further education. DuncanHill (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is useful. Most of Butler's efforts were taken up with negotiating with the churches - like many great Parliamentary achievements he was actually tidying up messes which had been around for years and which people could no longer be bothered to argue about, namely whether CoE schools should be funded by the taxpayer. I had always wondered why his biographers paid so little attention to the academic selection split. I'm all in favour of knocking popular myths on the head so perhaps we can cite the article until something better comes along.Paulturtle (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know I've read a much more detailed article on it, but can't for the life of me find it again! I'll keep looking and report back when I get more. DuncanHill (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's this on the Fabian Society website, which isn't the article I was thinking of, but could be helpful. DuncanHill (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chapter 9 and Chapter 10 of Education in England: a history by Derek Gillard are highly relevant, and there's a quote from Chuter Ede. "Chuter Ede pointed out in a speech reported in The Times of 14 April 1944: I do not know where people get the idea about three types of school, because I have gone through the Bill with a small toothcomb, and I can find only one school for senior pupils - and that is a secondary school. What you like to make of it will depend on the way you serve the precise needs of the individual area in the country (quoted in Chitty and Dunford 1999:20)" DuncanHill (talk) 13:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also Education Under Siege by Peter Mortimore, relevant part on Google Books here. DuncanHill (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Peter Mortimore book (I've just read the extracts) does seem to be peddling a political case quite hard: I'd be inclined to be a bit wary of any suggestion that there was much demand for comprehensive schools in the 1940s, even though the 1943 White Paper explicitly kept that option open. He is also on quite flimsy ground when he says that Butler missed a chance to "stand down" the CofE schools: that was never on the cards. They were a powerful vested interest (and besides parents often quite like faith schools - they are prepared to put up with a bit of superstition in return for higher standards). Butler and his officials refused to offer any more than 50% capital payments to the voluntary aided schools: they were paying hardball to ensure that as many Anglican schools as possible had to accept being fully controlled, ie. nationalised in all but name. I'll post some stuff about this shortly. I'm sure the book is accurate as far as the bare facts go, though.Paulturtle (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC) Slight tweak to the above as I've now just learned that there were Labour Party conference motions in favour of "widespread experimentation" with comprehensives in 1942 and 1943. My comments about church schools still stand.Paulturtle (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was just coming here to mention the conference motions! While faith schools have been very good at promoting the idea that they have higher standards, it's not a claim that really stands up to scrutiny, and certainly part of the deal over VA and VC schools was a recognition of the poor state of buildings at many church schools, and the unwillingness of diocese to fund repairs or improvements (something that went back many years). I'd also be very cautious about claiming popularity for them at the time of the Butler Act without some good sourcing. I don't think anyone has ever written a book about education in Britain that didn't peddle a political case of some sort. DuncanHill (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Gillard book is detailed and useful, even though again it is obviously peddling a case - a good deal of the "background" which he provides about Thatcher is for example nastily slanted and in places plain wrong. But RS are only RS for the things the writer is focussing on, not things to which he makes tangential reference. As far as comprehensives go, clearly there were a lot of demands from some Labour activists and local authorities. However, we are not being told whether there were demands the other way, or what public opinion was. You are quite right about the poor state of repair of church schools - that was the carrot which Butler held out to Archbishop Temple to enable him to make a dignified surrender and accept de facto nationalisation: there had been demands, particularly from the NUT/TUC and nonconformist opinion for outright nationalisation but that was a political non-starter. But as for the voluntary aided schools (autonomous but with significant state subsidy), a surprisingly large number of CofE schools chose this option. They didn't have a captive audience the way the RC schools did, so clearly they were appealing to somebody, which may well in some cases have been parents who, then as now and rightly or wrongly, thought their kids were going to do better in such a school. I don't have a source that says so explicitly though.Paulturtle (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have here H.C.Dent(1968) The Education Act 1944 Unibooks University of London Press.p 91, Mentions Circular 73 12.12.1945- Organisation of Secondary Schoold suggrest that LEA should plan for a 70/75 to attend modern schools and 20-25 to Grammmar and Technical. Goback to p12 Ir says that section 7 is the most important in the act. It was about recasting the public education system. This is where selection should have been discussed. Under the old system- you had elementary education and higher- education which meant the rest. Elementary Education was complsory until 14, but secondary education started at 11, and junior technical at 12 or 13! Only about 20% would recieve secondary education- the rest continuing to receive extended elementary education. Section 7said that public education shall be orgainsed in 3 progressive stages- primary secondary and further and it was a duty of the authority to provide at all three levels- not just at elementary. Section eight makes it a duty of the LEA to provide full time education "suitable for the needs of senior pupils". So there we have it- no further forward- but an area ripe for interpretation. ClemRutter (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC) (real life has now intervened).[reply]
See my recent comments on Talk:Secondary_modern_school#History. The so-called "Green Book", prepared under Butler's predecessor Herwald Ramsbotham and published in June 1941, recommended separate grammar, technical and "modern" schools (s.5). However, the 1943 White Paper, from which the 1944 Butler Act was prepared, stated (s.31) that there should be three types of "school" but that they could in principle be on the same site or even in the same building, ie. keeping open the possibility of comprehensive schools. Butler later quoted that passage in his memoirs, and it reads like an elastic compromise drafted after lobbying. However, I don't have any information on why it was changed between 1941 and 1943.Paulturtle (talk) 03:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Latin in education

Hi there, I think there needs to be a bit more information about the use of Latin in education in this article. As I understand it, most education was through the medium of Latin in schools until 1600-1650s, when it began to wane. That is to say, until quite late, pupils learnt Latin, spoke Latin, wrote or delivered oral examination in Latin. Latin was the medium of University education in this period, and subject-depending, continued to be for some time. It waned more quickly than in many other countries, such as Germany and the Netherlands, where Latin was the medium of much education into the 1800s. The shift away from Latin as a spoken to purely written or read language was also controversial, not least because it gave worse results in terms of Latin competence according to many educationalists at the time.

I have a few sources for this but they aren't especially modern (nineteenth and early twentieth century) so if anyone has any pointers for further info on this topic please do let me know before I start editing. Jim Killock (talk) 08:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_education_in_England"