Taylor (1977)

Notes on the text
Preliminary pages Membership, Preface, Contents

Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 2 Present arrangements for school government
Chapter 3 A new approach to school government
Chapter 4 Membership of the new governing bodies
Chapter 5 Communication and cooperation
Chapter 6 Curriculum
Chapter 7 Finance
Chapter 8 Appointments
Chapter 9 Other functions
Chapter 10 Training the new governors
Chapter 11 Procedural arrangements
Chapter 12 The government of voluntary schools
Chapter 13 Recommendations and implementation
Summary of recommendations

Notes of extension and dissent, minority report

Appendix A Evidence
Appendix B History of school managers and governors
Appendix C Visits
Appendix D Education Act 1944: selected extracts
Appendix E Administrative Memorandum No 25 (1945)
Appendix F Letter to parents
Appendix G Aims into practice

Index

Report of the Committee of Enquiry appointed jointly by the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Wales under the chairmanship of Mr Tom Taylor CBE

London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office 1977
© Crown copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland.

Chapter 1 Introduction
[pages 1 - 4]

Formation and mode of operation of the Committee

1.1 In the House of Commons on 27 January 1975, the then Secretary of State for Education and Science, Mr Reg Prentice, announced the government's intention to establish an independent enquiry into the management and government of schools in England and Wales. In a further announcement on 27 February, Mr Prentice and the Secretary of State for Wales, Mr John Morris, set out our terms of reference:

'To review the arrangements for the management and government of maintained primary and secondary schools in England and Wales, including the composition and functions of bodies of managers and governors, and their relationships with local education authorities, with head teachers and staffs of schools, with parents of pupils and with the local community at large; and to make recommendations'.

1.3 In a supplementary letter to the Chairman on 5 May 1975, Mr Prentice, who was writing also for Mr Morris, suggested that we should not concern ourselves with those aspects of voluntary school management and government which reflected the present structure of the 'dual system' of county and voluntary schools. The relevant part of the letter is quoted in chapter 12 where we consider the position of the voluntary schools. In the first eleven chapters we concentrate on the management and government of county schools.

1.4 In the same letter Mr Prentice also referred to the question whether the arrangements for the management and government of schools should impose an obligation on the head teacher to consult his staff on matters relating to the internal organisation, management and discipline of the school. We deal with this matter in chapter 5.

1.5 We held our first meeting in May 1975 and in July of that year invited evidence from interested organisations and individuals and from the general public. Over 400 submissions were received. A full list of witnesses is given in Appendix A. Their evidence has been of great assistance to us and we have taken it fully into account in formulating our recommendations.

1.6 We thought that those reading our report might find it helpful to be reminded of some of the more important developments in the development of the concept of school managing and governing bodies. We therefore invited one of our number, who was personally involved in some of the events that led up to the introduction of the present arrangements for school management and government, to prepare an account of the period prior to 1945. His account is reproduced in Appendix B.

1.7 We decided at an early stage that a wholesale survey of current school managing and governing practice, authority by authority, would not be helpful, especially in view of the reorganisation of local government in the previous year. In any event a comprehensive study, financed by the Department of Education and Science, had been undertaken by the Department of Educational Administration of the University of London Institute of Education from September 1965 to April 1969 (1). We decided to use this study as a starting point and to obtain up to date information, which would throw light on more recent developments as well as supplement the considerable amount of information likely to emerge from written evidence, by carrying out a programme of visits to selected areas (details are given in Appendix C). We greatly valued the opportunity of seeing at first hand something of the arrangements in these areas and of discussing their effectiveness with those concerned. The names of all those who took part in these discussions have not been listed but the Committee is grateful for the contribution they made to its work. The Committee's thanks are also due to the local education authorities who organised the meetings.

1.8 For comparative purposes we took a number of opportunities to examine relevant aspects of the government of further education colleges and also different approaches to school government in countries other than England and Wales. The Scottish Education Department, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the British Council provided us with up to date factual information about the arrangements in Scotland and a number of other countries. We were also able to discuss arrangements in Scotland and in France, Germany, Norway, Sweden and the United States of America with experts from these countries.

1.9 In addition to the discussions in the course of our visits we have held 21 full meetings, some extending over two days and two residential weekend conferences.

The William Tyndale Schools Inquiry

1.10 Our deliberations have coincided with a further growth of public interest in school management. To some extent this can be attributed to the wide publicity given to the events at the William Tyndale Junior School. When Mr Auld's report (2) appeared in July 1976, we were enjoined in numerous articles in the press to take full account of the lessons of Tyndale. By that time we had been sitting for over a year and the particular basic issues highlighted in Mr Auld's report had already been put before us both in written evidence and in the course of our area visits. We had not, however, previously found such a concentration of so many of these issues in a single school over such a relatively short period. These factors invested Mr Auld's report with a special interest for us and though, obviously, care must be exercised in drawing lessons of general applicability from such a concentration of incidents in a single school, which we are satisfied was in many ways exceptional, we have nevertheless taken full account of Mr Auld's report.

Assumptions underlying the report

1.11 We have made a number of assumptions which should be clearly stated at the outset since they underlie our recommendations. These assumptions relate to three main areas - the roles of central and local government in the provision of education, the current debate about devolution of central government functions and the need to avoid unjustifiable public expenditure.

1.12 We assumed at the outset that the roles of central and local government as specified in the 1944 Education Act would remain unchanged. When subsequently national attention was drawn to the topic by the Prime Minister's speech at Ruskin College in October 1976 we had already considered some of the issues that he opened up for general discussion. We were aware that the specific questions for discussion in this context would be fundamental and would cover the school curriculum, the assessment of standards, the education and training of teachers and school and working life. We were concerned lest basic changes in the relationship between central and local government might result that would radically affect our work. We were therefore glad to be reassured on this point by the present Secretary of State for Education and Science, who stated in a letter to the Chairman on 5 November 1976:

'... There is no question of the government contemplating the introduction of a detailed central control of the school curriculum which would deny teachers reasonable flexibility or diminish the contribution which local education authorities and the managers or governors should make to the conduct of the schools'.

'I have consulted the Secretary of State for Wales on this matter and it seems to us that, while an indefinite continuation of the present structure of local government cannot be assumed, the Committee would be facing an impossible task if it sought to devise arrangements for school management and government that would not need review in the light of possible future changes in local government structure. We are sure that the Committee's recommendations will be heavily influenced by the need to ensure that any arrangements for school government and management ought to be flexible and capable of adaptation to different circumstances. If and when the need arises, the position can be reviewed by the government.'

1.14 Finally, we have assumed that the country's present economic circumstances required us to make proposals which are realistic and which, in particular, involve the maximum use of existing facilities and resources. Where our recommendations involve additional expenditure we are convinced of the value which will be derived from their implementation. In such cases we have where possible provided an estimate of the cost and in chapter 13 we set out our recommendations in a way which indicates our views on their order of importance and how their phased implementation might best be achieved. In this way we hope that a new and improved system of school government can be brought into being smoothly without any large, sudden increase in public expenditure.

Footnotes

(1) Baron George and Howell DA, The Government and Management of Schools. Athlone Press, 1974.

(2) lnner London Education Authority. William Tyndale Junior and Infants School Public Inquiry conducted by Robin Auld QC, ILEA 1976.