 |  |
| www.dg.dial.pipex.com | 287 readers since 18 Aug 2008 |
| |
| www.dg.dial.pipex.com | 287 readers since 18 Aug 2008 |
Taylor (1977) Notes on the text
Chapter 1 Introduction
Notes of extension and dissent, minority report Appendix A Evidence
|
The Taylor Report (1977)
A new partnership for our schools 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
Notes of extension and dissent, minority report Note of extension
Parents' rights and responsibilities We welcome the Committee's recognition of parents' aspirations, both collective and individual, to a status and a part to play in the education of their children. The Committee has recommended that parents have rights to an equal share with other interests on school governing bodies, and a right to form associations based on the school. Their need to express their collective views is therefore well provided for. The Committee has also recognised that individual parents have a need for information, explanation and consultation about the education of their own children, and has suggested that a good school will meet this need and that governing bodies will be responsible for ensuring that arrangements made for the purpose are satisfactory. This is all set out in chapter 5, and we think that the further step we suggest completes the logic and harmonises with the spirit of that chapter. We suggest that it is not enough that an individual parent's access to information should be expressed as a 'reasonable expectation'. It should be a right. It is the individual parent who in law has the duty of seeing that his child is properly educated, and we think that the law should also give him the right to satisfy himself that he is carrying out that duty responsibly. If the governing body is a partnership, there should also be a partnership extended to the relations between individual parents and schools, and the parent must have all the means to play his part. We therefore ask the Secretaries of State to consider giving each individual parent the right in law to the information relevant to the performance of his legal duty. This should include information and explanation about the school generally, regular consultations and reports on his child, the opportunity to see teachers at other times by reasonable arrangement, guidance about how he can best support the school, and access to information relevant to his own child's education, including records kept in a permanent form in the school. This right should be given formal expression by properly structured arrangements made in the school, the governors being responsible for ensuring that they are adequate to give effect to the parent's right, and also that they are not abused by the individual.We should like to emphasise that this request represents no threat to the individual teacher or to the orderly running of schools. We do not intend that a parent should have access to classrooms, teachers or written material except in accordance with arrangements made by the school and approved by the governors. On the contrary, we consider that if the parent knows he has a right to information there is less danger that he will seek it in an arbitrary and unreasonable way. In the long run the well-informed parent is the best protection and support for the work of the school.
Note of dissent
In expressing my dissent from some of the Committee's recommendations, I wish to make it perfectly clear that I accept most of the recommendations and the new approach to school government as set out in chapter 3 of this report. My disagreement is confined to the Committee's recommendations in respect of the functions to be allotted to the new governing bodies, in particular their financial responsibilities, and their involvement in the appointment of junior staff. I have not dissented without a great deal of thought, and after satisfying myself that my alternative recommendations would in no way weaken the working partnership or power sharing envisaged by the Committee. In my opinion the essential criteria for the success of the new partnership arrangements are that they should be realistic, workable, and provide a better and more satisfying job for the governing body. I believe that most of the recommendations satisfy these criteria, but I think that those contained in Chapter 7 Finance are unrealistic, unworkable, and would add little to the satisfaction that the governing bodies will undoubtedly have in exercising their other functions. It may be true that the 1945 model envisaged that governing bodies should have a large measure of financial responsibility, but it does not follow that the Committee should slavishly follow the model in every particular in 1977. There were good reasons why very few authorities followed the model, and these reasons are fully set out in para. 7, chapter 7, of this report. By today the difficult economic situation has made it necessary to have a greater rather than a lesser measure of centralised financial control. In my view there are also many practical difficulties which militate against the involvement of governors in the field of finance to the extent suggested by the Committee, e.g. preparation of estimates. One of these difficulties would be the infrequent meetings, and the very tight budget timetable to which most local authorities have to work. I found little evidence that there was an overwhelming body of opinion who were in the least worried about this lack of financial involvement, and most witnesses accepted that overall financial responsibility for the financing of schools must remain with the local education authority, although there were many who thought that more discretion in deciding the use of the resources made available to the schools by the local authority should be allowed at the school level. I am prepared to support such a view, and I believe that control of the allotted resources should be exercised by the governing body, in consultation with the head and staff. It is unrealistic to suppose that the control of expenditure beyond that covered by capitation allowances can be responsibly transferred to governing bodies. Far from leading to a much more satisfied governing body, I am sure the consequences would be a perpetual state of argument between the authority and the governing body about its estimates. I am also very much afraid that the suggested procedures as to draft estimates for each school will raise false expectations, and give governing bodies a completely misleading impression of the extent to which an individual governing body can finance its own plans. The evidence given by the Association of County Councils supports my view: 'Much of the spending of schools must be controlled centrally by the local education authority, and the Association doubt whether any useful purpose is served by the preparation of individual school estimates. Governors should, however, be enabled to represent to the local education authority particular resource requirements of their own school. Governors should be given as much freedom as is consistent with local education authority policy to control internal spending, upon the advice of the head and local education authority staff.'Similarly the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, and the Association of Education Committees expressed the view that there are very real limits to the delegation which can be afforded to governing bodies in matters of finance. I therefore dissent from the Committee's recommendations as set out in para. 13 of chapter 7, and would suggest the following alternative recommendations: 1. Local education authorities should so arrange their financial procedures that if governing bodies consider it necessary to make representations about any special needs of their schools they can do so at a point in time when those representations can be taken fully into account when the relevant decisions come to be taken.If the Secretaries of State, after concluding their consultations, formed the view that there was no objection to the Committee's recommendations in para. 13, chapter 7, I would respectfully suggest that the question of whether estimates should be prepared for each primary and secondary school should be left to the discretion of the local education authority and not made mandatory. My second point of dissent concerns the recommendation in paras. 12 and 13 chapter 8 where it is recommended that the appointments of deputy heads, higher scale posts and other teachers should rest with the governing body. I appreciate that the precise arrangements vary from authority to authority and that the Committee's recommendations have already been adopted by some authorities. Other authorities place the responsibility for appointing deputy heads on joint selection committees as in the case of head teachers. In my view there is great merit in this arrangement, as the post of deputy head can be regarded in part as a training for further advancement. In the case of junior teachers, the arrangements again vary from authority to authority, and some authorities and a great many teachers feel that the combined professional judgement of the Director of Education, his advisers, and the head of the particular school, results in better and more impartial appointments. This cannot always be claimed for appointments by governing bodies. I realise that there are many who would not agree with my view, but most informed persons would probably agree that there is no perfect system of appointments. I would, therefore, urge that in this particular field, the local education authorities should have the same discretion as they now have in deciding upon their appointment procedures. We must not regard a single solution as appropriate to everybody's problems, or insist on a multiplicity of detailed prescriptions and restrictions. Chapter 4. Para. 24 - Pupils I agree wholeheartedly that some provision should be made for some of a school's pupils to play a part in the government of the school. This is possible for the minority of pupils of 18 and over, who can legally be full members of a governing body, and there would be no illegality in allowing pupils over 16 to sit as observers, and even take part in discussions at governing body meetings. I must, however, with others, dissent from my colleagues in their desire to have the law amended to permit pupil governors from the age of 16. In my opinion the Committee's desire to draw on pupils' knowledge and ideas for the benefit of the governing body, can be adequately realised by giving pupils over 16 observer status extending to the right to take part in discussions at the meetings of governing bodies as is suggested in the latter part of para. 26. To allow pupil governors of 16 years of age the same right as parents, teachers and other adult members to inter alia appoint teachers, exercise disciplinary powers, etc, would, in my view, be most undesirable, and certainly not in the best interest of teachers or pupils.
Minority report and letter to the Chairman
22 Chiltern Avenue
23 May 1977 Dear Tom I am sorry that I am unable to sign the report as produced by the majority of the Committee. This is regrettable after two years hard work because there are parts of the report with which I concur but too many fundamental points with which I disagree. In my opinion the recommendations are impracticable from the point of view of resources, (manpower, time, and finance) and they will lead eventually to the position where what goes on in schools will become the sole province of the teacher and this will not necessarily be in the best interests of the child and the community. I fail to see how the publication of this report will suddenly produce people who are prepared to fulfil the role of governors as envisaged when in fact they have not carried out a number of the duties within their jurisdiction that they have had since 1944 (chapter 2 para. 11 Main Report shows). I am a very firm believer in local government and would not wish to see any more authority taken away from the local education authority and the elected member who in the end is the only person held accountable. I also see the head teacher as the key figure within any school. The majority report, if implemented, will devolve to a non-elected unrepresentative body authority without any accountability and in my opinion diminishes the role of the local education authority and the head teacher. The crucial need for education at the present time is a restoration of confidence in our schools by parents and the community. The teachers are able to influence what goes on in schools through direct input, through their associations, examination boards and the Schools Council. What is needed is that more information should be made available to parents and there should be a greater involvement of parents and the community in schools. There should be an increase in the number of advisers and inspectors to monitor, assess and review what is happening in the schools so that parents can be assured that the schools are capable of preparing children for life after school. The concept of equal representation (one wonders how the 'proportional representation NUT' will square its conscience with this) does not help in bringing accountability any nearer a reality if experience in FE is anything to go by and I, therefore, forward with this letter the attached comments for inclusion in the report. Yours sincerely,
Committee of Enquiry into the Management and Government of Schools - Comments on Report The Committee was established in May 1975 at a time when the public at large were beginning to ask questions about education in general and what was happening in schools in particular. Whilst the Committee has been sitting further interest has been engendered, and to some extent the fires of controversy fuelled, by the Tyndale affair, the events in Tameside, the Prime Minister's Ruskin speech, the so-called 'Yellow Paper', the Bennett Report on 'Teaching Styles and Pupil Progress', and the debates and discussions relating to the proposed common examination at 16+ and the question of the core curriculum. It is clear to me that parents and the community in general, to a very considerable extent, have lost confidence in our schools. It is vital for the educational well being of the country that confidence is restored as quickly as possible. Teachers will say that this can be achieved by devoting more resources to education, yet expenditure on education has never been greater than it is at this time, the salaries of teachers were very greatly improved following the Houghton Report, class sizes are smaller and in very many other respects conditions are so much better than they were years ago. Industrialists and people from the commercial world will tell us that confidence will be restored when schools go back to showing a greater concern for achievement in the basic skills of numeracy and literacy; the ordinary man in the street will perhaps tell us that there needs to be greater concern for discipline and good behaviour. I believe that the restoration of confidence will only come about when the public are convinced on three points. Firstly that there is a good return on the massive investment in education. Secondly that the people in the education service are competent to identify and provide for the needs of children to fit them for life after school. Thirdly that schools can be made more accountable.The running of our schools and influence upon the curriculum hitherto has been left too much in the hands of teachers and of teacher dominated bodies like the Schools Council and examination boards. Governing bodies have had little if any, significant influence although, in theory, they have had control over the curriculum and finance (see chapter 2 paragraph 11). The education officers and advisers of the local education authorities have spent too little time in schools. For far too much of their time they have been office bound dealing with a mass of administrative matters. The burdens and pressures in this respect have increased markedly in recent years consequent upon new legislation, particularly that concerned with industrial relations and employment, with all the attendant codes of practice and procedures that relate to consultation, grievances, and the investigation of complaints. Many of the manifestations of corporate management in the post Bains era also appear to be very time consuming for professional staff in education departments as also the ever recurring budgetary exercises that the various economic crises seem to involve. I feel that in recent years far too much effort and attention has had to be devoted to staff conditions of service and questions of structure and organisation within schools and too little to the needs of children and to the assessment of the activities which are actually taking place. This I believe has much to do with the loss of confidence which a great many people feel. The remit of this Committee was to review the arrangements for the management and government of maintained schools. I do not think this can be done effectively except in a wider context. Three major factors will affect our schools in the immediate future. Firstly the likely shortage of resources for education (other services will take priority).Each of these factors suggests to me a need for a greater degree of central planning and management within local authority (or nationally) rather than devolution to thousands of non-elected, non-accountable bodies. It is unrealistic to expect that at a time when finance is so tightly controlled through rate support grant, when growth rates are determined nationally, when the possibility of specific grants is being canvassed and when Policy and Resources Committees are exercising such a firm control over expenditure in the local authorities that they will feel able to involve governing bodies in budgeting and finance to the degree proposed in the report. It is unrealistic to believe, also, that with such emphasis now being placed upon the need to improve standards that local education authorities will be content to give the governing bodies the powers to organise, structure and vary the curriculum as envisaged in the report. (How can it be consistent with democracy if a local education authority determines a particular general policy and a governing body is then able to frustrate that general policy by its determination of aims for a school and by the manner in which those aims are pursued and realised?) These considerations lead me to the view that local education authorities will have to involve themselves much more directly in the management of schools in the future than they have been accustomed to do in the past. I see a need, the more so in a climate of general retrenchment, for better management of resources both human and material. I believe this is more likely to be achieved if there is more direct interaction between the education department of the local education authority and the schools. The role as now envisaged for governors will absorb too much professional expertise and dissipate effort which could more usefully be employed. There was very little evidence presented to us that indicated that more people want to participate actively in the government of schools where this involves the making of decisions and the shouldering of responsibility. My impression is that people are seeking rather a role that will enable them to influence rather than to control. There was evidence of difficulties and apathy in areas where parental elections are held. I recognise, nevertheless, that all but a small number of parents want to be involved with the education of their children in school. They want information that will help them to encourage and support their children so that they can realise their full potential. They want to know how the school is organised and why. They want to know about options and the possible consequences of making particular choices. They want to know about external examinations and the currency of CSE. Above all they want to know what can be done about inadequate incompetent teachers. (It would appear that there are a great many more of these in our schools than some would have us believe.) Concern about the problem posed by the incompetent teacher was expressed throughout the county [sic country?] and this appears to be confirmed in the reports of the 'Great Debate'. I feel that part of the outcome of the review of the management of schools should be the introduction of a system of annual assessment for teachers. The responsibility for dismissing a teacher should rest solely with the local education authority which could take into account any views expressed by the governors as necessary. The present procedure for suspension and dismissal which involves hearings before governors and the authority is cumbersome and protracted. Recent employment protection legislation affords safeguards which should enable the procedures currently embodied in the teacher's contract of service to be revised and simplified. I have referred earlier to my assessment of what parents essentially are seeking in relation to schools. The vast majority are not concerned to secure representation by a very small number of them on a governing body. Their interest and concern is very much more immediate and personal and it all boils down to how the school affects their child. If we are to have governing bodies, and I came very close to saying that we could do without them altogether, I would recommend a body that would act as a 'watchdog' to ensure that the local education authority and the school fulfilled certain functions. This governing body would consist of three or five members constituted as follows: One parent; one member of the community in general who would desirably reflect local industry or commercial interests; and one elected member of the local education authority who would be the chairman.In view of the fact that circumstances differ so widely in different areas any decision whether or not to group a number of schools under one governing body or to establish individual governing bodies for each school should be left to the discretion of the local education authority. Similarly the arrangements for the election or appointment of governors should be a matter for local discretion. The duties and responsibilities of the governing body would be as follows: (i) to ensure that the aims and objectives of the school as determined by the local education authority are carried out;The head teacher would have a major role in providing administrative services for the governing body and the officers and advisers of the local education authority would also be responsible for giving advice including advice about standards of achievement within the school. The governing body would not need to meet formally more than about twice each year since day to day management and control would rest with the head teacher and the offices of the local education authority, complemented and supported by the consultative sub-structure within the school. In conjunction with a system of school government of this type I would lay a responsibility upon each local education authority to hold a series of public meetings throughout the authority, possibly just after the budget has been determined, to inform the public about the policies that were being pursued and the resources available. Such meetings would be attended by the Chairman of the Education Committee and the Chief Education Officer or their representatives. I would also require each local education authority to establish one or more industrial and commercial advisory committees to report annually to the Education Committee, perhaps through the medium of a Careers Advisory Committee. In sum, it is my firm opinion that the proposals that I have outlined would ensure that local education authorities set aims and objectives for their schools; monitored performance and maintained standards that were reasonably consistent throughout the area; effected the necessary changes in response to newly ascertained needs; kept parents and the public in general fully informed and afforded them ample opportunity to be involved in school affairs if they so wished. I believe, furthermore, that such a system would help in no small way to restore the confidence in our schools which has so recently been lacking. 
|
