Bullock (1975)

Notes on the text
Preliminary pages Foreword, Membership, Contents, Introduction

Part 1 Attitudes and standards
Chapter 1 Attitudes to the teaching of English
Chapter 2 Standards of reading
Chapter 3 Monitoring

Part 2 Language in the early years
Chapter 4 Language and learning
Chapter 5 Language in the early years

Part 3 Reading
Chapter 6 The reading process
Chapter 7 Reading in the early years
Chapter 8 Reading: the later stages
Chapter 9 Literature

Part 4 Language in the middle and secondary years
Chapter 10 Oral language
Chapter 11 Written language
Chapter 12 Language across the curriculum

Part 5 Organisation
Chapter 13 The primary and middle years
Chapter 14 Continuity between schools
Chapter 15 The secondary school
Chapter 16 LEA advisory services

Part 6 Reading and language difficulties
Chapter 17 Screening, diagnosis and recording
Chapter 18 Children with reading difficulties
Chapter 19 Adult literacy
Chapter 20 Children from families of overseas origin

Part 7 Resources
Chapter 21 Books
Chapter 22 Technological aids and broadcasting

Part 8 Teacher education and training
Chapter 23 Initial training
Chapter 24 In-service education

Part 9 The survey
Chapter 25: I Introduction
Chapter 25: II Primary commentary
Chapter 25: III Secondary commentary
Chapter 25: IV The questionnaire forms (not online)
Chapter 25: V Technical notes (not online)

Part 10 Sumary of conclusions and recommendations
Chapter 26 Conclusions and recommendations

Appendix A Witnesses and sources of evidence
Appendix B Visits made
Glossary
Index

Report of the Committee of Enquiry appointed by the Secretary of State for Education and Science under the Chairmanship of Sir Alan Bullock FBA

London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office 1975
© Crown copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland.

Chapter 16 LEA advisory services
[pages 238 - 242]

16.1 Local authority advisory* services and their role in support of the school are an appropriate conclusion to this part of the Report. The first thing that needs to be said is that in national terms this support is inadequate in extent. In November 1971 the Arbitration Tribunal deciding the Soulbury Salary Scales for Inspectors and Advisers asked local authorities for information about the numbers of posts in all subjects. 130 of the 147 LEAs in England gave the following details of the numbers in their employ at that time.

The Education Committees Year Book (1) of 1973/74 shows 22 authorities as having English advisers, though four of these are listed as English with Modern Languages, English and Drama, English and allied subjects, and General and English. In addition, six authorities have advisers for Humanities which presumably includes responsibility for English. To these can be added some general inspectors and advisers who maintain an interest in English, but the figures for these are not known since this information is naturally not included. There has thus been a slight growth since 1971, but the fact clearly remains that there are far too few advisers with an interest in English and a recognised responsibility for supporting the schools in this area of their work. In view of the central importance of English in the whole educational process we find this situation a matter for great concern. We strongly recommend that local authorities should give urgent consideration to appointing advisers with this specific responsibility where they do not already exist.

*Various authorities use different forms of designation. Some distinguish between 'inspectors' and 'advisers'; some use the term 'adviser' for all such posts, and the word 'organiser' is sometimes to be found. For the purposes of this chapter we have chosen to use the term 'adviser' throughout.

16.3 It is important at this point to define the kind of advisory support we think necessary. In using the term 'English' here we envisage an area of responsibility which extends from language and reading in the early years to English studies at the highest level of the secondary school. This at once raises questions. Is it feasible, or for that matter desirable, for one person to have responsibility for advising across such a wide spectrum? What is the position of the general primary adviser who already has a keen and active interest in reading? Let it be said at once that the general advisers in many authorities have done exceptionally good work in promoting reading and language work in primary schools. Without their continued involvement the cooperative or 'team' concept we are proposing could not operate. This in itself provides the answer to the first question. It is clearly both unrealistic and limiting to think in terms of one person taking sole responsibility for all English advisory work throughout an authority's schools. The 'team' should involve a number of people able to make contributions from a variety of points of strength. It should have a specialist English adviser, and should draw for its membership from the general primary and secondary advisers, advisory teachers on secondment from schools, and specialists in reading, learning difficulties, drama and 'immigrant' language teaching.

16.4 In appointing their general primary advisers some authorities try to ensure a coverage of those aspects of the curriculum not accounted for by the specialists in music, physical education etc. Thus, in addition to their general assignments some advisers will promote the interests of mathematics across all the primary schools, while others will take a particular interest in environmental studies or in English in at least some of its aspects. There is, of course, wide variation in the depth of knowledge general advisers bring to this side of their work. Some of those with a particular concern for English have developed a special interest in children's talking and writing, while others have a detailed knowledge of books for children. Many primary advisers, whatever their other curricular emphases, have had experience in the teaching of reading and maintain their interest in it. Moreover, since language pervades the curriculum they are concerned with children's ability to handle it in various contexts. It is clear, therefore, that the involvement of the general primary adviser in the work of the English advisory team is vitally important.

16.5 It might be argued that since there is clearly so much experience and interest already available in the person of the general adviser the need for a specialist is reduced. Indeed, it is doubtless this view that has influenced so many authorities to rely upon their non-specialists. We regard this argument as untenable for a number of reasons. Apart from the fact that it takes no account of the needs of the secondary school it demands more of the general primary advisers than they can reasonably be expected to give. Their duties are numerous and wide-ranging and often involve administrative work. In the schools themselves they are concerned with educational progress in its widest sense, and the amount of time they can give to children's literature or the growth of language, for example, is limited. This is true of those general advisers with a special interest in English; it is even more true of their colleagues. Furthermore, though their combined knowledge is valuable it will not necessarily include an expert understanding of children's language development. When one considers the secondary school the case is even stronger. General advisers for secondary education come from a wide variety of subject fields. An unpublished survey carried out by NATE suggests that in only a relatively small number of cases do their general duties include a particular interest in English. Moreover, the general adviser for secondary schools is quite likely to have even less time to devote to any particular subject. It seems to us unsatisfactory for a local authority to depend upon such a person on the strength of his personal interest in the subject rather than appoint a full-time adviser.

16.6 If English in all its aspects cannot be left to the general adviser it is equally true that it cannot be left solely to the specialist. English advisers already in post have for the most part displayed great adaptability. Their own background is generally that of the secondary school, but they have become increasingly interested in language development in general. Nevertheless, few would feel confident that they could cover alone all aspects of their field from early reading to A Level literature. However committed to professional renewal they could not maintain a knowledge of every element at the same high level. It is for this reason that we advocate the notion of cooperative action, where the specialist English adviser is supported by the experience and knowledge of his general colleagues and by a number of advisory teachers. We envisage the advisory teachers as being drawn from among those whose appointment we recommended in paragraph 13.23 and from English teachers in secondary schools. They would be seconded for a period of 2-3 years, and one of their most valuable functions would be to work alongside teachers in their classrooms. They would help in providing in-service training and stimulating local development work. There are, of course, advisory teachers already employed in some authorities, though not necessarily in the field with which we are concerned here. In some cases they work in cooperation with advisers, but in others they are a substitute for them. We regard this second course as unsatisfactory. A specialist adviser is essential to the kind of cooperative activity we are recommending.

16.7 It was suggested to us in evidence that authorities with large numbers of children from families of overseas origin should have appropriate specialist advisers. We have described in Chapter 20 the language problems of these children, who represent in some areas a considerable proportion of the school population. It seems to us essential that schools in these areas should have the support of an adviser with special knowledge of the needs of Caribbean dialect speaking pupils and of teaching English as a second language. It would be unreasonable to expect the English adviser to command this kind of knowledge, and a specialist appointment would be necessary. At the same time it would be unfortunate if the 'immigrant specialist' were to work in relative isolation. It is as important at the advisory level as in the school that the work of the specialist should be related closely to the curriculum at all points. We therefore recommend that where an authority appoints an adviser with such responsibilities he should work with the advisory team responsible for all aspects of English. As an expert in language in general as well as in specialised terms he would have a valuable part to play in its work.

16.8 There is scarcely need to list the possible activities of the 'team', since the compass of these is contained in the pages of this Report. At the most fundamental level its role would be to support teachers throughout the age range, keeping them informed of new developments, disseminating good practice, and providing in-service training. In cooperation with the warden(s) of teachers' centre(s) it would encourage teachers in such activities as the development of new materials and the study of children's spoken and written language. Where the authority provides an independent language centre the English adviser might have overall responsibility for it and for links with the teachers' centre(s). Equally, where a language centre is in a college of education the team should have a close working relationship with the staff of the college. One of the advisory team's most valuable services would be to support teachers in their induction year in cooperation with professional tutors.

16.9 The following is a sample of the activities in which the team would be involved. It has been selected from the Report in such a way as to indicate the wide range of concerns that would be brought - for the first time in most authorities - into the same field of vision:

(i) Language development in the early years, and support for the kind of initiatives recommended in Chapter 5.

(ii) Involvement in the screening procedure advocated in Chapter 17. This system would be the product of cooperation between the English advisory team, the Schools Psychological Service, and the schools themselves. The advisers and the educational psychologists would be jointly concerned with guidance to the schools on professional observation to be made during the infant years, administration of the test in the junior school, and follow-up support for the teachers at both stages. We have emphasised that a screening system is of value only if it results in appropriate help for every child who needs it. This would be the most important element of the joint responsibility.

(iii) Support for schools in improving the teaching of reading and the evaluation of new materials. This would extend beyond early reading and include the development of higher order skills in primary and secondary schools and reading within the 'content areas'.

(iv) Advice on books of various kinds and in particular recently published children's literature. Cooperation with the various agencies, e.g. the School Library Service, in exhibitions and the kinds of activity recommended in Chapter 21.

(v) Encouraging the adoption of a 'language across the curriculum' policy in secondary schools. This would entail consultation with general secondary advisers and advisers in other subjects, whose cooperation would be to the mutual advantage of all involved.

(vi) Responding to requests for advice from secondary school English departments on the devising of syllabuses in CSE and other examinations in which they may be approved.

(vii) Providing professional advice when new buildings and extensions are being planned. The team should be consulted on accommodation needs of the kind discussed at various points in the Report.

16.10 The notion of cooperative activity needs to be properly interpreted if it is to be recognised as a workable proposition. It is obvious from an examination of its area of work that the various members will have widely different contributions to make. We see the team as a group of people brought together for a particular purpose but working in a variety of ways to achieve it. Some have major responsibilities which lie outside it, but their involvement is essential to its success. We believe that English in all its aspects, different as they may seem, should be recognised as a unity, and that the various contributions should come together in this way to give it expression as such.

References

1. Education Committees Year Book 1973-74 Councils and Educational Press Ltd.