Foundation stones for the next Prime Minister
Roy Blatchford

Click here for a print version of this article.

Wednesday 18 October 2006 marked the 30th anniversary of Prime Minister James Callaghan’s foundation-stone laying ceremony at Ruskin College, Oxford. The building he launched stands proud today in Walton Street, but what is the legacy of the educational changes he initiated that day?

Reading back over Callaghan’s speech it is notable how tentative he was in his suggestions for change, and in the language he employed. Having tiptoed around his subject (‘I ask all concerned to respond positively and not defensively’) and made a number of digressions to praise the work of unions (‘the work of a trade union official becomes ever more onerous’), he finally warmed to his subject. He presented the case for a core curriculum, questioned the methods and aims of what he quaintly called ‘informal instruction’, indicated there might be national performance standards, and as good as told the inspectorate that they needed to have a sharper eye on the outcomes of the nation’s schools.

He went further to argue for fundamental changes to the 16+ examinations system, for new models of governance and management of schools, and for an improvement in relations between industry and education. After a nervous opening, the agenda for change was panoramic.

History is not traced in straight lines, but in jagged and discontinuous strokes. The outcomes of Callaghan’s speech resonated through the following decades, and shaped the educational debate for both Labour and Conservative governments. The advent of a national curriculum, GCSE and standardised testing, national strategies, Ofsted and devolved power to schools might all be traced back to that 1976 text.

His speech was firmly of its times yet unerringly accurate in its diagnosis of what the state needed to do with its schools. The speech made a remarkable difference and led to changes fit for three school generations. What of unintended consequences? He could not have foreseen the coming of the choice and diversity agenda which so gripped Margaret Thatcher, nor Tony Blair’s mantra of modernising public services.

Today’s political times demand another formative speech, one to shape the next thirty years of educational change and development. Will Cameron or Brown take this on? All political parties are rooted to the centre ground for fear of any radicalism being interpreted as intellectual aberration. Their joint rhetoric currently extends to expanding Saturday morning schooling, perhaps raising the school leaving age to 18, giving power back to the profession, and, half-heartedly, narrowing the funding gap between state and independent schools.

Beyond the comfortable orthodoxies shared in the Westminster village and Whitehall, there are pressing questions which arise regularly at gatherings of teachers and headteachers, especially those immersed in building learning and schools for the future. Given the massive government investment in rebuilding and refurbishing schools, these questions demand coherent policy making in return. From the viewpoints of practitioners, political prospectuses over the coming months must address the following and involve the professionals, students and parents in seeking answers.

• What does the consumer and local community want from their education providers, both formal and informal? What are the key purposes of a primary and secondary education system in the 21st century? And what should the state or individual spend on a child’s and young person’s education?

• What makes for effective pre-school and early years education? How should providers work with, and for families, particularly those who experience social and economic disadvantage? What do families and children want from extended schools?

• What should and should not be in the national curriculum for the compulsory school years? And how can we move away rapidly from national tests and examinations which are age-related?

• How can the academic/vocational apartheid be challenged? How are we, with real vision, organising our schools and preparing the future workforce for the skills needed in a global economy? What do we really mean as a society by ‘inclusion’?

• Why do we remain obsessed with testing and targets? Does the examination system fail both to challenge the more able and needlessly reinforce failure for too many sixteen year-olds?

• How should we harness the power of the media and information technology in learning and teaching, both at home and in institutions?

• Are current systems of governance in schools any longer appropriate? Does inspection make a difference? Are we over-regulated?

Three decades ago the then Prime Minister infamously stepped into the teachers’ secret garden and prompted a transformation in the landscape of schools. Potential PMs today should take a similar lead. Education is firmly in the marketplace, tied into relationships with business and the third sector. Voters want to know where the billions earmarked for education are being invested, and to what end.

Opening up a fresh debate on the future direction of the nation’s schools, health and collective civic well-being would be timely. The debate may lead to some jagged historical strokes but it may also provide much-needed new foundation stones.

Roy Blatchford

Back to the top of the page