EDUCATIONAL REFORM
| Author | Paul Meredith |
| Date | 01 March 1989 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1989.tb02818.x |
| Published date | 01 March 1989 |
LEGISLATION
EDUCATIONAL REFORM
1.
INTRODUCTION
THE
Education Reform Act received the Royal Assent on July 29,
1988 amid vigorous opposition from many who were outraged not
merely by the substance
of
the Act itself but also by the
inadequacies
of
the pre-Parliamentary consultative processes
adopted by the government and by the attenuated opportunities
for full Parliamentary discussion afforded by the government in its
determination to push this most controversial legislation through.
This was one
of
a group
of
Acts, including the Local Government
Finance Act, which dominated the 1987-88 Parliamentary session
and which lay at the heart
of
the government's programme of
reform. The consultative process took the form of a series
of
documents issued by the Department
of
Education and Science
(D.E.S.) in July 1987, at the beginning
of
the holiday season, with
requests for comments to be submitted during September.' Despite
the limited time available for submitting observations, the volume
of responses generated was estimated to be greater than for any
other consultation exercise by a Secretary
of
State for Education.2
The Bill itself was introduced on November 20, 1987, and the
Parliamentary discussions were subjected to two guillotine motions:
after some
88
hours
of
discussion in Standing Committee, the
government introduced a timetable motion on February
1
to
facilitate progre~s.~ The second guillotine motion afforded an even
more graphic illustration
of
the government's disregard for genuine
Parliamentary discussion: consideration by the House
of
Commons
of
some 569 amendments by the House of Lords-including such
profound amendments as those concerning religious education, the
balloting
of
parents on proposals that a school should seek grant-
maintained status, and academic freedom in Universities-was
limited to just two allotted days in July, an allowance according to
Mr Jack Straw, the chief Opposition spokesman on education,
of
some 70 seconds per amendment.4 These closing stages
of
the
Parliamentary discussion
of
this enormous Bill were, indeed, hailed
I
These includcd
The National Curriculum
5-16:
a Consultation Document; Admission
of
Pupils
to
Maintained Schools; Financial Delegation to Schools; Grant Maintained
Schools.
See Stuart MacLurc
in
Julian Haviland (Ed.),
Take Care Mr Baker,
London (1988)
p. xi. This volume gathers together selected responses
to
the consultation documents.
The House
of
Commons was told during a debate on
a
guillotine motion by
Mr
John
Wakeham that some 17,000 responses had been received and considered before the Bill
was introduced: see H.C. Deb., Vol. 126, col. 722 (February
I,
1988).
'See H.C. Deb., Vol 126, cols. 717-769 (February
1,
1988).
This
motion was
subsequently varied: see H.C. Deb., Vol 127, cols 1083-1097 (February 17, 1988).
'
H.C. Deb., Vol. 137, col. 791 (July 18, 1988).
215
216
THE
MODERN
LAW
REVIEW
[Vol. 52
by its critics as a highpoint
of
“elective dictator~hip,”~ a striking
paradox in view of the celebrations taking place on those very
same days
of
some
300
years of Constitutional Monarchy and
Parliamentary Democracy since the Glorious Revolution.
The Education Reform Act introduces the most wide-ranging
and profound changes
to
the system
of
education in England and
Wales6 since the Education Act 1944 introduced by R.A. Butler. It
fundamentally shifts in the direction
of
the centre the balance
struck in that Act between the central department and local
education authorities (L.E.A.s)~; and it subjects the provision
of
education to competitive market forces in the search for improved
standards, efficiency and accountability. In these two essential
respects it accords with what Professor McAuslan has called
the “dominant political-cum-constitutional” and the “dominant
administrative-cum-economic” trends of the late 1980s--centralisa-
tion, authoritarianism and public choice.8 These essential themes
underly the bulk
of
the provisions
of
this wide-ranging and diverse
Act. This article will examine the major provisions of the Act: a
comparatively brief review
of
such a diverse piece of legislation
inevitably involves some selectivity
of
treatment.
2.
THE
NATIONAL
CURRICULUM9
Religious education was the only area
of
the school curriculum for
which the Education Act 1944 made express provision.
lo
Section
23
otherwise vested curricular decisions in the hands
of
the L.E.A.s,
subject to more detailed elaboration
of
responsibility spelled out in
schools’ articles
of
government. It would be misleading to suggest
that this led to extreme variations across the country in the secular
curriculum, but there have indeed been differences
of
opinion and
of
emphasis, and differential provision has resulted from the
uneven impact
of
expenditure constraints. The government sought
in its 1985 White Paper,
Better
Schools”
to
set out a programme
for the establishment of a broad consensus over the aims
of
the
secular curriculum, and noted in its consultation paper on the
curriculum preceding the introduction
of
the Education Reform
Bill that considerable progress towards a consensus had been
achieved. It wanted, however, to accelerate progress towards
Ibid,
col
193.
Some sections, mainly concerning Universities, cxtcnd
to
Scotland and Northcrn
Ireland:
see
s.238(3)-(6).
For application to Walcs,
scc
ss.227-229.
’
Estimating the number
of
ncw powers vesied in the Secretary
of
Statc became
a
re
ular fcaturc
of
Parliamentary discussion
of
the Bill.
’
See
Patrick McAuslan, “Administrativc Justice-A Necessary Rcport?”
[
19881
P.L.
402
at p.
403.
The provisions on religious worship and education came into force at the beginning
of
the
1988
school year; the secular education requirements will be broughi into forcc in
sta es,
as
the neccssary orders and regulations are made.
Ifi
ss.26-28.
”
Cmnd.
9469 (1985).
SCC
cspccially Chap.
2.
To continue reading
Request your trial