A New Partnership for our Schools: Report of the Taylor Committee
| Author | Malcolm Grant |
| Date | 01 March 1978 |
| Published date | 01 March 1978 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1978.tb00796.x |
REPORTS
OF
COMMITTEES
A
NEW
PARTNERSHIP
FOR
OUR
SCHOOLS:
REPORT
OF
THE
TAYLOR
COMMITTEE
Background
to the Report
The Education Act
of
1944
has enjoyed unusual longevity, due
largely to its flexibility, and, perhaps perversely, to its distribution
of power. Although there are limited powers
of
overview vested in
the Secretary
of
State for Education and Science, the main respon-
sibility for school education in the public sector rests with local
education authorities. The statutory strength of their role was
underlined by the Tameside litigation,' and reflects the conviction
of the Rt.
Hon.
R. A. Butler, when introducing the second reading
debate
on
the Bill in
1944,
that it would
"
depend absolutely for its
success
"
upon
"
the continued zeal and devotion
"
of those
administering it locally.2
But it was never intended that the power of education authorities
should be absolute. The fear
of
political dictation of educational
policy and ideological control over curriculum was too great. A
buffer was needed between authorities and their schools, and a
convenient precedent existed in the form of the managing bodies
of the old public elementary scho~ls,~ the governors
of
secondary
schools,' and the governing bodies of the public schook5
So
the
Act made provision for establishing managing bodies for primary
schools and governing bodies for secondary schools. It prescribed
minimum rules for their constitution and proceedings. The bodies
were to enjoy an independent position, and their precise relationships
with the head teacher and his
staff,
and wi'th the education authority,
were to be spelled out in articles and instruments promulgated by
the authority.e
The setting up of the Taylor Committee
in
April
1975,
and
the
publication of its Report' two years later, were responses to a
1
Secretary
of
State
for
Education and Science
V.
Metropolitan Borough
of
Tameside
[
19761 3
All
E.R.
665,
particularly the comments in the House of Lords as
to the impotence of the Secretary
of
State
to
enforce national policy upon unwilling
local authorities:
per
Lord Wilberforce, at p.
682;
and Lord Diplock, at p.
694.
2
H.C.Deb., Vol.
396,
col.
209
(January
19, 1944).
3
Statutory provision had been made for managers by the Education Act
1921,
s.
30;
and the Third Schedule of that Act, dealing with constitution and proceedings,
was clearly used as a model for the Fourth Schedule
of
the
1944
Act.
4
The Regulations for Secondary Schools
1902-03
flrst stipulated that schools
must be conducted by managing bodies. The change to the term
"
governors
"
was
brought about by the new regulations for
190445.
5
The comprehensive powers
of
these bodies had also received statutory backing
in the Public Schools Act
1868.
6
Education Act
1944,
ss.
17-21.
The Act required that proposed Articles for
county secondary schools should flrst be confirmed by the Secretary of State, but
otherwise left their content largely
to
local authority discretion.
7
A
New Partnership
for
our
Schools.
H.M.S.O.
1971.
184
To continue reading
Request your trial