James (1972)

Notes on the text
Preliminary pages Membership, Contents

Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 2 The third cycle
Chapter 3 The second cycle
Chapter 4 The first cycle
Chapter 5 Organisation and development of the system
Chapter 6 Summary of the report
A note of extension

Appendix 1 ATOs and other bodies supplying reports
Appendix 2 Sources of written evidence
Appendix 3 Sources of oral evidence
Appendix 4 Visits made by members of the Committee
Appendix 5 Training institutions and the teaching force 1962-70
Appendix 6 Examples of course structure for the DipHE
Appendix 7 A possible distribution of Regional Councils
Appendix 8 Training institutions: size and status
Appendix 9 List of recommendations

Index

Report by a Committee of Inquiry appointed by the Secretary of State for Education and Science, under the Chairmanship of Lord James of Rusholme

London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office 1972
© Crown copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland.

Appendix 7 A possible distribution of Regional Councils
[pages 99 - 104]

1. The criteria mentioned in paragraph 5.23 of this report could be satisfied if England and Wales were divided into 15 regions. Within such a pattern, an average region would contain a total population of about 3m, a student population of teachers-in-training amounting on present figures to 7,900, 6 or 7 LEAs and about 10 colleges, together with other training institutions and institutions of higher education. If the Governing Council of each RCCDE were constituted as suggested in paragraph 5.25, the average Governing Council would contain 35 members.

2. It would be desirable that the whole of Wales should be covered by one RCCDE and the size of such a Regional Council would be very close to the average size defined above. The situation in London, however, is highly complex and atypical. The University of London Institute of Education is not only concerned with the post-graduate training of more teachers than any other UDE in Britain, but is also the centre of the largest ATO, comprising no less than 36 training institutions, and responsible for as much as 20 per cent of the teachers-in-training in the whole of England. It has two other important functions: it is the largest centre for educational research in a variety of fields in England and it attracts a very large number of overseas students. The Inner London Education Authority is surrounded by many relatively small LEAs which may tend to look for some purposes outwards to the neighbouring counties as well as inwards to the centre. It might therefore be appropriate to base one RCCDE on the area covered by the ILEA, to include the University of London and the City University, as well as those polytechnics and colleges of education which fall within the ILEA boundaries. The outer London boroughs could be associated with adjoining counties in the appropriate RCCDEs. It is assumed that the ILEA would be represented, as an additional LEA member, on those RCCDEs which included the colleges they maintain outside their own boundaries. The same principle would, of course, apply elsewhere in the country where an LEA has an interest as a providing body in an institution situated within the area of another RCCDE.

3. The pattern presented below is not intended to be prescriptive or to be interpreted as a recommendation of this report. It is the result of 'paper' exercises, designed to establish that a division into 15 regions would not result in unacceptably wide variations in size and composition.

4. Sheet A below links the LEA areas, proposed in the forthcoming reorganisation of local government, with the suggested RCCDEs.

5. Sheet B is a statistical analysis showing the approximate total population in each of the 15 regions, the present number of students on teacher training courses, the number of colleges of education, universities and other institutions and the size of RCCDE Governing Councils derived from the model constitution described in paragraph 5.25 of the report.

6. Sheet C shows for each of the suggested RCCDEs the number of colleges of education, analysed by function and by type of providing body.

7. Sheet D gives the distribution of the present number of places in teacher training institutions.

8. The following is a key to the abbreviations used in Sheets B-D:

Sheet A: Possible RCCDE Areas

I Durham, Northumberland, Teesside, Tyneside
II Cumbria, Lancashire, Merseyside
III North Yorkshire, West Yorkshire
IV Derbyshire, Humberside, South Yorkshire V Cheshire, Greater Manchester
VI Salop, Staffordshire, West Midlands (except Districts (I) and (g))
VII Gloucestershire, Malvernshire, Northamptonshire, Warwickshire, West Midlands (Districts (I) and (g))
VIII Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire
IX Avon, Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Somerset
X Bedfordshire, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Hampshire, Oxfordshire and Wiltshire together with the outer London boroughs of Ealing and Hillingdon
XI Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Norfolk and Suffolk together with the outer London boroughs of Barking, Barnet, Brent, Enfield, Haringey, Harrow, Havering, Newham, Redbridge and Waltham Forest
XII East Sussex and Kent together with the outer London boroughs of Bexley and Bromley
XllI Surrey and West Sussex together with the outer London boroughs of Croydon, Hounslow, Kingston, Merton, Richmond and Sutton
XIV ILEA
XV Wales

Sheet B: Statistical analysis of each of the 15 regions

Sheet C: Analysis of colleges of education within RCCDE areas

Sheet D: Distribution of existing places (approximate numbers) in training institutions