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 6 Curriculum
[pages 47 - 61]

6.1 In this chapter we set out the basic issues involved in assigning responsibility for the school curriculum, outline our general approach to those issues and describe its application in concrete terms.

The 1944 arrangements

6.2 Section 23 of the 1944 Act provides that the secular instruction to be given to pupils shall, subject to the school's rules of management or articles of government, be under the control of the local education authority. The model articles provide for the local education authority to 'determine the general educational character of the school and its place in the local education system'; subject to this, for the governors to 'have the general direction of the conduct and curriculum of the school' and, subject to this and other provisions in the articles, for the head to 'control the internal organisation, management and discipline of the school' (the full text of the provision is given in Appendix E). When the relevant legislation was before the House of Commons in 1944 the then President of the Board of Education, Mr RA Butler, explained the division of responsibility as he saw it: '... the local education authority will have the responsibility for the broad type of education given in the ... school ... and its place in the local system ... The broad picture will be governed ... by the needs of the district and the needs of the children ... The governing body would, in our view, have the general direction of the curriculum as actually given from day to day, within the school. The head teacher would have, again in our view, responsibility for the internal organisation of the school, including the discipline that is necessary to keep the pupils applied to their study, and to carry out the curriculum in the sense desired by the governing body.' (1)

Evidence

6.3 Responsibility for the school curriculum was described by many witnesses as the most difficult, sensitive and controversial of the issues we had to consider. Even so, despite the wide range of views on this topic and the variety of definitions of the term curriculum, the evidence revealed a good deal of unchallenged common ground.

6.4 Many witnesses considered the wording used in the model articles to be 'vague', 'woolly,' and even 'meaningless'. In their view the manner in which the responsibilities are set out in the model articles is too blurred to be of any practical value in the event of a dispute between the three parties involved: to avoid confusion and harmful demarcation disputes, the responsibilities of those concerned should be clearly differentiated and defined (2). On the other hand a number of witnesses claimed that the 1945 wording, by virtue of its vagueness, had important advantages: the absence of strict boundaries encouraged people to cooperate and made it possible for new initiatives on the curriculum for an individual school to come from any of the interested parties.

6.5 There was no suggestion that the local education authority should not retain its present statutory responsibility for the secular instruction given in the schools in its area. Similarly, witnesses were generally agreed that the head and the other teachers should play a leading part in formulating and implementing the curriculum of their particular school. There was, however, no such consensus on the role of the governors. At one extreme it was held that governors should be completely excluded from involvement in curriculum matters. At the other it was argued that governing bodies should not only oversee the implementation of the school's curriculum but also help in its formulation and development.

6.6 It should be noted that when referring to governors in this context, most witnesses, even those who favoured the appointment of teachers as governors of their own schools, seem to have in mind people not employed as teachers in the school concerned. The fundamental question at issue therefore was whether subject to the overall guidance of the local education authority, responsibility in this field - requiring professional skills but also with broad social and personal implications - should be borne by the school's teachers alone or be subject to some degree of external guidance and participation.

6.7 In the following brief review of witnesses' answers to this question we shall take in turn the views of organisations and individuals belonging to the four major interest groups. Most of the teachers' associations, including the National Union of Teachers and the National Association of Schoolmasters/ Union of Women Teachers, took the view that the curriculum should remain, as in their opinion it had become in practice, essentially the preserve of the school's own teachers. Some individual teachers who submitted evidence were less certain that such an approach was justified.

6.8 The bodies representing local education authorities, as well as the authorities which submitted evidence individually, tended to favour the retention of the existing arrangements.

6.9 Most organisations representing parents considered that governing bodies - reconstituted to include a greater number of parent governors - should have a say in drawing up the general educational aims of the school, and should have greater access to information on the school and education in general and more opportunities for questioning the teachers on specific matters. Though some of the individual parents and governors who submitted evidence urged a greater degree of parental involvement, on our visits we met a large number of parents and governors who did not question the convention that they should defer to the head teacher on all educational matters.

6.10 Those witnesses who can be regarded as representative of the communities and wider society served by the schools were a widely assorted group and we have found it difficult to generalise about their views. Nonetheless, there was a general tendency amongst them to advance the claims of members of the community not engaged in teaching to take some part in decisions about the school curriculum.

6.11 To conclude this brief summary of the evidence received on this topic, it should be mentioned that, although we heard arguments in favour of an exclusively teachers' control of the curriculum, we received no evidence suggesting that teachers should be formally excluded from decisions on the curriculum at the level of the individual school, as they are in some other educational systems.

Teachers' control or shared control?

6.12 We first consider the claim that the curriculum should be regarded as a preserve of the school's teachers. This does not imply, as is sometimes suggested, that the teachers would have complete freedom to decide the curriculum to be offered and how it should be taught. Although England and Wales do not have the centralised control of the curriculum that characterises some other educational systems, there are important constraints upon the freedom of head teachers and their staffs to decide what teaching and other educational activities should be carried on in their schools and how the schools should be organised. Every teacher must take account of the physical and intellectual characteristics of the pupils and the resources available to him. At the secondary level the teaching will be influenced by the public examination system controlled by the GCE and CSE examining boards and by the qualifications required for entry to various occupations. Both primary and secondary schools may be helped or hindered by the successes and problems of other schools in their area. Their curricular decisions may also have implications for the curricula of the other schools. Furthermore, each local education authority will have an overall policy that includes a view on the curriculum and it will also influence the decisions of individual schools through, for example, the work of its advisory service. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the above constraints and influences, a very real power of decision over curricular matters remains at the level of the individual school.

6.13 In their written submissions to us, most of the teachers' associations claimed that teachers alone should exercise this power of decision on the ground that, to quote the evidence of the Assistant Masters' Association, the curriculum 'best falls within the competence of professionally trained, experienced and practising teachers'. On our visits we took the opportunity to ask head and other teachers if they could justify such claims. The answers we received stressed the professional training and experience of the teachers and their objective understanding of the abilities, aptitudes and needs of the children they teach. It was claimed that these qualities offered the best basis for curricular decisions and it was suggested that people not engaged in education tended to oversimplify complex educational problems.

6.14 We do not believe that these arguments justify regarding the curriculum at school level as the responsibility solely of the teachers nor are we convinced that it is right for teachers to carry this responsibility alone. In a recent communication to the Schools Council the Secretaries of State have pointed out that curricula must meet, and be responsive to, the needs of society. In our view a school is not an end in itself: it is an institution set up and financed by society to achieve certain objectives which society regards as desirable and it is subject to all the stresses to which society itself is subject. It is vital therefore that teachers have the support of people outside the school in the increasingly difficult task of attaining those objectives and dealing with those stresses (3). If ordinary people do not, as some teachers suggest, understand what schools are trying to do, it is in part because they have traditionally not taken an active part in determining the educational policy of the schools. Certainly there are substantial difficulties involved in fostering such participation, especially in the early stages, but we think that it will eventually promote fuller understanding, better relations and a wider knowledge and appreciation of the education provided by schools and of the skills which teachers bring to a difficult task.

6.15 A basic difficulty in evaluating the evidence on this subject was that different witnesses meant different things by 'the curriculum'. One of the main reasons for this diversity of interpretation, in our view, is that over the past thirty years most people not directly involved in education have for various reasons not kept abreast of new ideas and developments in the classroom. Although a great deal has been done in many parts of England and Wales to improve links between home and school and community and school, when adults come to examine (whether as parents, prospective employers, or rate/tax payers) the performance of schools today, their starting point may well be a comparison with memories of their own schooling when, in many cases, the approach to teaching was of a basically 'instructional' kind and the curriculum was viewed somewhat narrowly as a range of separate subjects for study. It is also important to bear in mind that anyone who is today aged 45 or over attended school when compulsory education ended at fourteen. Not surprisingly some of these people find it difficult to understand the new problems which face schools in providing an education for all young people up to the age of sixteen.

6.16 The breadth of the aims towards which today's schools must strive is illustrated by the following statement which appeared in a paper (4) prepared by the Department of Education and Science in 1976:

'i. to enable children to acquire the basic skills of literacy, oracy and numeracy and to stimulate their curiosity and imagination.

ii. to enable them to acquire the basic knowledge, practice in skills and in reasoning to equip them to enter a world of work which is becoming increasingly sophisticated in its processes and techniques, which is competitive, and which is likely to demand the ability to adapt oneself to learn new processes from time to time.

iii. to leave children at the end of their period of compulsory schooling with an appetite for acquiring further knowledge, experience and skills at different periods in later life; and able to benefit from additional education to a variety of levels.

iv. to prepare them to live and work with others in adult life; and to develop attitudes enabling them to be responsible members of the community ...

v. to help them develop aesthetic sensitivity and appreciation, and skills and interests for leisure time.

vi. to mitigate the educational disadvantages that many children suffer through poor home conditions, limited ability or serious physical or mental handicap.'

6.18 Modern developments in curriculum theory and practice have puzzled and worried many people not involved in school education. They have, in our view, strengthened the case for bringing such people together with teachers to determine the school's educational programme. We think this must be entirely a joint enterprise because, as we shall explain, it does not seem to us feasible or desirable to make any clear-cut division between different functions and activities of the school, for the purpose of allocating responsibility for decision making.

6.19 Many teachers and governors to whom we have spoken seem to have attempted, explicitly or implicitly, to distinguish an element of essentially instructional responsibility to be assigned to the school's head and his colleagues, and other elements of a more administrative, social or political kind in which other people - be they governors or the local education authorities - might play an important part. In our view this approach implies an artificial distinction between the more obvious and less obvious (5) aspects of the education offered by the school and would hinder people other than the school's teachers in making a contribution to the development of the school as a whole. Nor can we see any logical way of dividing responsibility by defining different sets of functions at different levels of generality, for which final decision making might be assigned to the local education authority, the governing body and the head teacher respectively. We have concluded that there is no aspect of the school's activities from which the governing body should be excluded nor any aspect for which the head teacher and his colleagues should be accountable only to themselves or to the local education authority. It follows that the responsibility for deciding the school's curriculum, in every sense of that word, must be shared between all levels and between all those concerned at every level.

6.20 To sum up, teachers need informed support. The society of which schools are a part can and does question their performance, but schools in turn need the understanding and help of society in their difficult task. Only a working partnership can meet these needs. We believe that governing bodies can provide a most appropriate setting for the conduct of this partnership.

Nature of the partnership

6.21 We have no intention of suggesting that governing bodies be asked to perform tasks which can be carried out properly only by the school's own teachers in the course of their work. Members of the governing body should not in their capacity as governors assume the mantle of teachers, still less that of inspectors. We think of the governing body as a partnership bringing together all the parties concerned for the school's success so that they can discuss, debate and justify the matters which any one of them may seek to implement. This task will demand of its members, no matter what their personal background and experience may be, no more than can be reasonably expected of informed, interested and responsible lay people. Having said this we can go on to consider the way in which the governing body can be expected to deal with the educational matters before it.

Curriculum responsibility in action

6.22 As we have seen, our preferred concept of the school curriculum effectively comprehends the sum of experiences to which a child is exposed at school. Strictly speaking therefore in exercising, as we propose, responsibility for the education provided in the school the governors will always have the whole curriculum before them since no single aspect of the life and work of the school can be properly understood if considered in isolation. In practice, however, the planning and development of a school curriculum can be broken down into four basic, and to a large extent overlapping, stages;

i. establishing the school's aims;

ii. translating those aims into more specific goals and organising the school and developing teaching methods and other practical steps to achieve them;

iii. keeping the education provided under continuous review and making periodic appraisals of the school's progress towards its goals and aims;

iv. deciding upon and taking action to facilitate such progress.

Setting the aims of the school

6.24 We propose that when looking to the governing bodies to set the aims of the schools for which they are responsible, the local education authority should alert them to the difficulties experienced, first, by schools whose aims are too frequently questioned and changed and, second, by schools whose aims become unalterably fixed. We believe that both extremes could be avoided if the governing bodies were to reconsider the particular aims of the school periodically. We return to this point in paragraph 6.45.

6.25 It is not for us to draw up model aims since this might limit the initiative of governors. It might be useful, however, if local education authorities were to draw the attention of governing bodies to some general statement such as the one quoted in paragraph 6.16. This would at least provide a starting point for discussion on the particular aims of the school concerned. The head and his colleagues might then be invited to submit a first draft of the school's aims for the governing body's consideration. The procedures adopted and the time spent upon them will probably vary from area to area and school to school and the only specific RECOMMENDATION we would make is that in setting the school's aims the governing bodies should give consideration to constructive suggestions made by any individuals or organisation with a concern for the school's welfare.

Translating the school's aims into practice

6.26 When the governing body has reached conclusions on any of the aims which it wishes its school to follow, it should consider whether the organisation, teaching methods, disciplinary practices and other measures used in the school are appropriate for the pursuit of their aims. Obviously there can be no question of a simple, staged progression from an agreement on the aims of the school, in their totality, to the preparation and adoption of a 'master plan' for pursuing them. We have in mind a fluid procedure in which action on any aim could be initiated as and when it was agreed by the governors.

6.27 We RECOMMEND that the governing body invite the head teacher in consultation with his staff to prepare papers setting out the means by which they propose to pursue the aims adopted. In the case of well-established aims, the school's existing practice might need no revision but where some new aim was being considered it would be necessary to examine whether its pursuit required the introduction of new activities into the school. After discussion and consideration of any alternative suggestions it would be for the governing body to decide whether to adopt (or confirm) these proposals.

6.28 In considering the arrangements for pursuing the school's aims, the governing body's attention would focus upon the setting of specific goals or objectives and upon the school's organisation and teaching methods, examining both the educational experience and pastoral care available for the children and the educational and social effects of particular ways of arranging the provision of teaching.

6.29 These operations would, in our view, be of considerable educational value. Teachers would have an opportunity to discuss, explain and justify their decisions in terms which could be understood by people not belonging to the teaching profession; their skill as professionals can only grow from such an experience. Lack of confidence may often have lain behind the reluctance of many teachers in the past to discuss their work with people from outside the school. The latter also would come to recognise the importance and difficulty of reconciling the different objectives of the school and of producing unified plans for achieving them. We do not wish to lay down detailed procedures for governors to follow. As a practical aid we have set out in Appendix G a number of examples which illustrate how governing bodies might approach the sort of issues which they can expect to have put before them. We also wish to draw particular attention to the governors' role in respect of teaching methods, school timetables, and school discipline.

6.30 As regards teaching methods we must draw a distinction between the methods adopted by the individual classroom teacher and broader questions of method which affect the education provided by the school as a whole (or at least large departments within it). Obviously the individual teacher should continue, subject to the constraints noted in paragraph 6.12, to be responsible for deciding how to teach the members of his class, in the light of his own capacities and any general teaching policies adopted generally in the school. Nonetheless we believe there are at least two other considerations which should influence and could limit the making of decisions by individual teachers or even by the school's teachers in general. First, all decisions involving questions of consistency of approach and continuity of method are likely to be of sufficient importance to concern the governing body (6). Second, we believe that people not engaged in education have an important contribution to make in expressing public opinion and concern generally on how children are taught and we hope that the governing body will become the forum for considering the suitability of new educational ideas and methods for the school. Proposed innovations might originate within or without the school. The governing body should encourage a two-way flow of ideas, examining developments initiated by its own teachers and discussing with them the implications of developments elsewhere. We believe that the governing body should concern itself with the professional development of the teachers in its school and should be active in promoting this, for example by encouraging them to take full advantage of opportunities for in-service training.

6.31 The construction of a timetable for a secondary school is a complicated task which is properly carried out by senior teachers; the purpose is clearly to provide the organisation within which teachers can teach and children can learn. It might be thought that this is a technical process which concerns only the teachers and pupils. But in fact there are often much wider issues involved, including the ordering of curricular balance and priorities to secure the fair distribution of opportunities for children of all abilities. The effectiveness of the timetabling from both the educational and the social points of view is, we believe, a matter of concern for the governing body.

6.32 We stress throughout this report the indivisibility of a school's activities. To be effective the learning experience must be supported first by an organisation which directs resources in accordance with the needs of each child, second by sensitive pastoral care, and third by the encouragement, through precept and example, of the consideration for others which alone in the long run can ensure pleasant and orderly behaviour. Put conversely, the best guarantee that high standards of conduct will be observed by the majority is a curriculum devised to give every child experience of success, and a structure of care which not only seeks to deal with any personal problems which jeopardise that success, but also makes him feel valued as an individual. We therefore regret that so often 'discipline' should be equated with the treatment of indiscipline, and urge that part of the governors' responsibility is to ensure that theirs is the kind of school in which the more positive concept outlined above is consciously promoted. We also emphasise - and have set out elsewhere - the need to involve parents and the community in supporting schools in their task. In such conditions we believe that pupils will increasingly be encouraged to become identified with the work of the school, to participate fully, and to feel responsible for their own conduct. The growth of such involvement we consider to be vital to their development as individuals and to the success of their school.

6.33 Accordingly we RECOMMEND that within the framework of any general policy made by the local education authority the governing body should have the responsibility for formulating guidelines which promote high standards of behaviour and for making such minimum rules and sanctions as are necessary to maintain such standards in the school. It must also be their responsibility to ensure that staff, parents and pupils are made fully aware of these policies and rules and the reasons for them and have an opportunity to express their views. In this way we should hope to bring about not a weakening of the head's authority, but rather an increase in the support he received in a task which is not becoming any easier.

Keeping under review the life and activities of the school

6.34 As a first step in keeping under review the degree to which the school is achieving its goals and making progress towards its aims, the governing body will want to decide what information and advice it will need in respect of those activities of the school which it considers of particular importance as indicators of the school's progress.

6.35 The primary source for this information and advice will be the head teacher and especially his staff, and the success of the operation will depend upon their contribution. Like all other organisations, schools produce in the course of their everyday business a great deal of information about many aspects of their work. Often this serves a single, specific purpose and is then discarded. Even when preserved it is not always in a form which facilitates its further use. We think that this represents a lost opportunity. The information flowing into and within the school, on those matters which can indicate progress in important respects, should be assembled and processed in such a way that it can be readily used by the governing body. Whilst the information required by the governors will vary from school to school it might be helpful to mention a few obvious items which we would expect to be collected. In all schools information about applications for places at the school, records of attendance and suspensions would be helpful, together with records of out of school activities including details of school societies and educational visits. In the case of primary schools information about relevant secondary provision and, in the case of secondary schools, information about examination results and employment opportunities in the area, might be added. In addition to basic information of this kind, the governors would no doubt also wish to have periodic reports of a more qualitative nature on the major departments of the school and its pastoral system as well as the head teacher's assessment of the school's general progress.

6.36 The governing body would also be concerned to obtain information on how the school is seen by the community which it serves. It would be for the governing body to decide upon the type of information required and the means of obtaining it but again, for purely illustrative purposes, we note some possibilities: the views of the school's parents, pupils and supporting staff: the pre-school provision available locally; the views of the governing bodies of other schools, to which pupils, in the case of primary or middle schools, normally transfer; the views of local people (based on observation and experience) and, in the case of secondary, schools, the views of employers and institutions of higher and further education.

6.37 We believe that it will help individual governors to gain insight into the nature of the educational opportunities being provided and into the complexities of the teacher's task if they visit classes in progress. We therefore RECOMMEND that where the governing body considers it appropriate and desirable and has worked out with the teachers procedures for the purpose, individual governors should have the opportunity of seeing classes at work. It should be emphasised that governors should not see themselves in the role of inspectors. Where the attention of a governor is drawn to difficulties affecting a particular class or teacher, he should inform the chairman in order that the matter can if necessary be taken up in the first place with the head teacher and perhaps with the local education authority adviser concerned.

6.38 The total number in the local education authority advisory/inspection service has grown substantially in recent years to the present level of about 1,800 advisers in England and Wales. The purpose of the advisory service is to promote high standards of performance by teachers and of attainment by pupils both in basic skills and studies and in education in its wider sense. This purpose is principally achieved through the provision of advice, based on wide experience and knowledge, to head and other teachers and by reference to example to show where and how high standards are achieved and maintained. Whilst the relationship of advisers with teaching staff will normally be one of mutual support, the advisory team exercises a leadership role in the area of curriculum innovation, in-service training and staff development programmes. In those circumstances where the efficiency of a particular school or teacher is giving cause for concern, the advisory team may assume an inspectorial role and report as required to the governing body and to the local education authority.

6.39 Viewed overall, the local education authority advisory service has developed in a haphazard way. In the past a local interest in, or current concern about, a particular area of the curriculum, for instance mathematics, modern languages, English, physical education or religious education, often resulted in the appointment of a specialist adviser to work in this field. This has led to the local education authority advisory service having at present in some areas a certain imbalance. Although the opportunity presented by local government reorganisation was taken to achieve a better balance and improved structure, there nevertheless remains a preponderance of advisers who are primarily subject specialists rather than general advisers who, in addition to having a specialist role, are able to take an overview, to assess and to give advice upon the school as a whole, its organisation, overall development and progress, following the tradition and practice of HM Inspectorate. The Inspectorate has become smaller (there are now only about 300 HM Inspectors available for work in approximately 28,000 schools in England and Wales) and there are heavy demands upon it to assist in preparing policy advice on national issues for the Secretaries of State, as well as for HM Inspectors to concern themselves with the work and standards of individual schools. We therefore regard it as a matter of urgency that more general advisers should be made available through the local education authority advisory service. This will be essential if the role we have envisaged for the new governing bodies is to be filled.

6.40 We have considered the important question of the level of local education authority advisory service which ought to be provided. Because of the variations between local education authorities in the organisation and function of their advisory teams and the differing demands made on them at present and likely to continue in the future, we have concluded that the level of provision must ultimately be a matter for each local education authority to judge in the light of its own circumstances and requirements. We have noted the view of the National Association of Inspectors and Educational Advisers that a reasonable establishment is one adviser for each 20,000 population, so that, for example, an authority of 500,000 would have an advisory team of 25. We consider that this level of provision should be an immediate objective for the local education authorities. Money used in providing a balanced and effective advisory team is in our view money well spent and should be high in the priorities of any local education authority.

6.41 We recognise that any increase in the number of general advisers will also mean a substantial extension of the in-service training programme for advisers at present in post. At the same time, it is clear to us that if any general adviser is to work effectively, this adviser must be able to call on support from, and work within, a well-balanced advisory team.

6.42 We therefore RECOMMEND that:

a. Every local education authority should take steps to ensure that the services of a general adviser are regularly available to each of its schools and that the general adviser will be available for consultation with, and report to, the governing body on request.

b. All local education authorities should review the adequacy of their advisory/inspection service in the light of the requirements which we propose for the new governing bodies and should take early steps to strengthen these services as necessary, aiming at a minimum of one adviser to every 20,000 of its total population at the earliest possible date.

c. Local education authorities, grouped on an area basis and in collaboration with HM Inspectorate, should establish panels consisting of local education authority advisers, HM Inspectors, and other appropriate agencies to arrange in-service training to assist local education authority advisers to identify and to develop the necessary skills to work more effectively as general advisers.

6.44 In paragraphs 6.35 to 6.43 we have indicated the major sources from which the governing body will derive its information and advice on the life and activities of the school. We RECOMMEND that this material should be brought together in each school with the purpose of creating an effective but unobtrusive information system for the governing body. Individual governing bodies will have their own views on what is best in their local situation and we do not suggest that there should be any standard pattern. We RECOMMEND that the head teacher be made responsible for developing the governing body's information system, working with general guidance provided by the governing body about the aspects of the school's activities on which information is required and the form in which it is required.

6.45 The governing body would be able to put the information collected to short, medium and long-term use. We would not wish to lay down any firm guidelines on how governing bodies should use their information systems in the short and medium terms. By quickly reflecting any substantial changes over a wide range of the school's activities it would be an important aid in keeping the school under continuous review. When any particular question arose, the governing body could look to the school's information system to provide up to date material with a helpful bearing upon the matter. In the course of each school year we think the governing body should ask the head teacher to arrange for the relevant information to be brought together in reports on particular sectors of the school (e.g. the school's pastoral system or a teaching department). Finally, the system would be the basis on which at longer intervals the governing body would ask for the production of a complete and coherent picture of the school so as to appraise the school's progress as a whole and consider the extent to which its development matched their intentions. This would also be an appropriate occasion for a periodic general reconsideration of the school's aims and objectives (see paragraph 6.24).

6.46 In considering how often governing bodies should appraise the progress of their schools in this way, we must distinguish between the first and subsequent occasions. In general we think it unlikely that the information for a first complete appraisal would be available for several years after the introduction of this approach. Some governing bodies will find it relatively easy to conduct such an appraisal sooner than this but we would not wish others to feel obliged to do likewise. We think that each governing body should be encouraged to work at a pace which it finds appropriate to its particular situation. Nonetheless we think it important to set a limit to the time spent by any governing body in producing its first appraisal of its school's progress. We therefore RECOMMEND that every governing body produce a first general appraisal, however incomplete, within four years of its formation. We are reluctant to specify a term for subsequent appraisals as the experience of the first few years will provide the only basis for a well-informed decision. We hope that governing bodies would be able to appraise their school's progress in total every two or three years, and certainly not less often than every four years. We RECOMMEND that the exact term should be decided by the local education authority after consultation with the governing bodies of the schools in its area.

6.47 The procedures outlined in paragraphs 6.34 to 6.46 have two advantages to which we wish to draw particular attention. First, neither the continuous reviewing nor the periodic appraisals of the school's progress should interrupt the normal running of the school. Second, the direct involvement of the teachers and others working in the school would, we believe, not only improve the quality of the review and appraisal processes but also facilitate the staff's acceptance of proposals for any action needed in consequence.

Deciding upon action to facilitate the school's progress

6.48 Throughout all the stages of planning and developing the curriculum, the head teacher and his colleagues must of course continue to exercise their responsibilities for the day to day running of the school. As we made clear in chapter 3, we believe that if the head teacher and his colleagues are to be able to do their work efficiently they must take 'day to day' decisions. We accept that this discretion could, if consistently abused, vitiate policies determined by the local education authority or the governing bodies. Nonetheless we think it is unnecessary, and in any event impractical and undesirable, to attempt to define the exact limits of the teachers' discretion: unnecessary because we believe that the vast majority of teachers will wish to cooperate constructively in the implementation of the policies adopted in whose determination they will have had an effective voice; impractical because it would be impossible to prescribe procedures sufficiently comprehensive to guide the teachers in dealing with every question which might arise in a school; and undesirable because such procedures would deny trained and experienced teachers the right to exercise their proper professional judgement.

6.49 In exercising their discretion, the teachers would have regard to local education authorities' policies and the general policy framework provided by the governing body in setting the school's particular aims. They would also be able to draw guidance from previous decisions reached by the local education authority and their governing body. When confronted with an important curriculum issue for which this external guidance proved insufficient, the head teacher would refer to his governing body. We do not wish to propose specific procedures since much will depend upon the importance and urgency of the question at issue. However, it might be generally accepted that the head teacher should consult the chairman of governors on such questions, and, if the latter agreed and if time allowed, a special meeting of the governing body should be convened. In the absence of such a meeting the governors could be informed of developments at their next scheduled meeting. Where the resolution of the problem was not of great urgency, the point at issue could be referred to an ordinary governors' meeting.

6.50 Whatever the exact procedures adopted, the head teacher and his colleagues should look to the governing body for general guidance on the exercise of their responsibility for the day to day running of the school. We are confident that most head teachers would welcome guidance of this kind. Today's head teachers are increasingly called upon to explain and justify their own and their colleagues' decisions. A head teacher today can base his decisions upon his authority as the person appointed by the local education authority to run the school; or as the agent of the school governing body; or as the leader of the school's teaching staff; or as the adult responsible for his pupils in loco parentis. In our view, it is desirable that in each of these capacities the head teacher should have the guidance and support of his governing body.

Consequences for the local education authority

6.51 For the local education authority the sum of the consequences of a firmer relationship with governing bodies is considerable. Education departments will need to take full account of the new approach to school government. We envisage (see paragraphs 6.38-6.43) that the chief education officer and his staff will be mobilised to support schools and their governing bodies in a systematic way as developments at school level proceed. This does not entail more work or more administrative staff for education departments; it may well mean a readjustment of effort and emphasis. Education departments may expect to have to treat the aims of the school curriculum, and the means to help schools to achieve them, as a priority.

6.52 The education committee in turn will need to develop its responses and linked processes. Reports from governing bodies concerned with the educational needs and qualities of their schools will call for matching judgement and evaluation from the committee, so that it can form a view about the total character of the education effort for which the local education authority is providing resources. Movements to realise schools' aims and objectives, as expressed through the reports of individual governing bodies will come together to be assessed as a collective movement towards the achievement of the general education policies of the education committee and the local education authority.

6.53 It is not for us to discuss in detail how these processes should be translated into structure by education committees. But we do suggest that they will need to consider seriously what analysis or research function, and what definition of local education authority aim and objective, should be established. We also suggest that, just as we expect governing bodies to communicate continuously with their supporting local communities, so on a larger scale should education committees aim to communicate effectively with the population and interests in their areas.

6.54 We expect too that education committees will be looking for the means to relate performance in their own areas to standards revealed elsewhere. Cross referenced in this way education committees' analyses would be a major contribution to that body of knowledge about the state of the nation's schools which we think must be available to central government for the purposes of the supervisory function given to the Secretary of State by statute.

6.55 We RECOMMEND that the governing body of every school should send the local education authority a short report upon the completion of its periodic general appraisal. This would provide the local education authority with a regularly updated record of the progress of its schools. It is not for us to prescribe how the local education authorities should handle these periodic reports but we would hope that selected aspects could be distilled into papers to be presented to the education committee. In this way committee members would be given progress reports from the field on the implementation of particular local education authority policies. In this connection, we would advise caution as to the publication of the reports of individual schools. Whilst we recognise the benefits of publicity in certain cases, we believe that a general commitment to publish the reports in full might not be in the interests of the schools. In submitting their reports to the local education authority the governing body should specify any items which they would wish to be withheld in the event of publication.

Footnotes

(1) Hansard. House of Commons. Vol. 397 10 March 1944. Column 2363.

(2) We have noted that the difficulties of the William Tyndale Junior School were exacerbated by the confusion about the respective roles of the LEA, the managers, the head teacher and the local inspectorate; William Tyndale Junior and Infant Schools Public Inquiry - see especially Chapter X. (See 1.10 footnote).

(3) A Schools Council Working Party has accepted the 'controversial and negotiable nature of the curriculum', believing that pupils, parents, teachers and society should acknowledge each other's legitimate expectations and responsibilities and seek to effect a reconciliation of view. Schools Council, The Whole Curriculum, 13-16 (Working Paper 53) Evans/Methuen Educational 1975.

(4) Department of Education & Science. Getting Ready for Work (Report of Conference 23/24 March 1976) DES 1976. This statement can be applied, with different emphasis, to the curricula of both primary and secondary schools.

(5) The less obvious aspects of the curriculum are often referred to as the 'hidden curriculum'. The essence of this notion is that the preparation and management of lessons, planning syllabuses and timetables, organising resources and assessing pupils are the surface aspects of the curriculum; the total curriculum is however much wider. It includes also the hidden elements - the incidental acquisition of values as well as academic learning arising for example from the interaction with other pupils and staff, from the variety of situations which arise at school, and from the written and unwritten rules and procedures by which these are governed.

(6) Such a decision is considered in Example a of Appendix G.