Steven Cowan

Raising the participation age in historical perspective: policy learning from the past?

The raising of the participation age (RPA) to 17 in 2013 and 18 in 2015 marks a historic expansion of compulsory education. Despite the tendency of New Labour governments to eschew historical understanding and explanation, RPA was conceived with the benefit of an analysis of previous attempts to extend compulsion in schooling. This paper assesses the value of a historical understanding of education policy. The period from inception to the projected implementation of RPA is an extended one which has crossed over the change of government, from Labour to Coalition, in 2010. The shifting emphases and meanings of RPA are not simply technical issues but connect to profound historical and social changes. An analysis of the history of the raising of the school leaving age reveals many points of comparison with the contemporary situation. In a number of key areas it is possible to gain insights into the ways in which the study of the past can help to comprehend the present: the role of human capital, the structures of education, in curriculum development and in terms of preparations for change.

The British Conservative Government and the raising of the school leaving age, 1959-1964

This paper establishes and explains the important role of the Conservative Government of 1959–1964 in supporting the raising of the school leaving age in Britain from the age of 15 to 16. This was a significant and high-profile national issue that generated much educational, social and political debate around conflicting priorities during this period, and was emphasized in both the Crowther Report of 1959 and the Newsom Report of 1963. The Treasury was strongly opposed to the proposal due to its high financial cost. There was a large element of electoral opportunism involved in the Conservative Government’s approval of raising the school leaving age (ROSLA), announced in January 1964, but it also highlighted deeper complexities and reservations in Conservative attitudes to ROSLA as well as a long-term ambition to consolidate education as a Conservative issue.

Secondary Education and the Raising of the School-Leaving Age

1. Introduction 2. The School Leaving Age in International Perspective 3. Framework for ROSLA: Establishing Compulsion 4. ROSLA and the Emergence of Secondary Education 5. Forward With ROSLA, 1951-1964 6. Waiting for ROSLA, 1964-1968 7. Preparing for ROSLA, 1968-1972 8. Achieving ROSLA 9. Raising the Participation Age: Policy Learning from the Past? 10. Conclusion

Democratic Governance for Inclusion: A Case Study of a Greek Primary School Welcoming Roma Pupils.

ABSTRACT The focus of this paper is how changes in school governance in one state primary school in a city in central Greece have resulted in a significant degree of inclusion for Roma children. This inclusivity runs counter to the disturbing occurrence of the social and ethnic segregation of a group of locally resident Roma children within schools. This paper reports from a case study that took place in one primary school with a large number of Roma pupils in a city in Greece. We argue for the importance of democratic governance as a pedagogic approach and as a method for the inclusion and empowerment of disadvantaged groups within educational settings. We initially define democratic governance by highlighting the human rights framework that underpins it. We describe the historical and social context of the research field before discussing the school routine and the methods the teachers adopt so as to contribute to Roma inclusivity in the classroom. Our account is informed by an interview conducted with the school’s head teacher and various stakeholders’ narratives. This paper suggests that positive educational initiatives designed to include the parents and children of disadvantaged groups like Roma communities can succeed. We argue that when core principles of democratic governance extend beyond the school and into other community political structures, progress towards inclusion is possible.

From HORSA huts to ROSLA blocks : the school leaving age and the school building programme in England, 1943–1972

This paper examines the connections between the school building programme in England and the raising of the school leaving age (ROSLA) from 14 to 15 in 1947 and then to 16 in 1972. These two major developments were intended to help to ensure the realisation of ‘secondary education for all’ in the postwar period. The combination led in practice to severe strains in the education system as a whole, with lasting consequences for educational planning and central control. ROSLA was a key issue for the school building programme in terms of both finance and design. School building was also a significant constraint for ROSLA, which was marred by temporary expedients in building accommodation both in the 1940s with ‘HORSA huts’ and in the 1970s with ‘ROSLA blocks’, as well as by the cheap construction of new schools that soon became unfit for purpose. Together, school building needs and ROSLA helped to stimulate pressures towards centralisation of planning that were ultimately to undermine postwar partnerships in education, from the establishment of the Ministry of Education’s Architects and Building (A&B) Branch in 1948, through the Crowther Report of 1959 and the Newsom Report of 1963, to the assertion of central state control by the 1970s. The pressures arising from such investment and growth in education again became a key issue in the early twenty-first century with the Labour Government’s support for raising the participation age to 18 combined with an ambitious ‘Building Schools for the Future’ programme. The historical and contemporary significance of these developments has tended to be neglected but is pivotal to an understanding of medium-term educational change in its broader policy and political contexts.

Waiting for ROSLA 1964–1968

With the key decision having been made to proceed with the raising of the school-leavingage (ROSLA) to 16 by 1970–1971, active planning now went forward to a new phase. Enthusiasm was expressed that the measure paved the way for the full realization of secondary education for all. At the same time, there were significant underlying difficulties that hampered preparations. One key set of issues was around the curriculum, and the new Schools Council for Curriculum and Examinations set out to establish guidelines in this area. It had limited powers in comparison with teachers and local education authorities (LEAs) but there was a widespread expectation that a new curriculum would address the problem of disaffection among young people. Providing sufficient buildings and space for the additional pupils also sparked considerable debate. In the general election of 1964, narrowly won by the Labour Party, ROSLA had received relatively little attention, and moves to encourage comprehensive education were most prominent at this time. Yet there continued to be hesitancy over ROSLA. Traditional allies such as the Guardian newspaper began to show ambivalence over the measure, and in Scotland in particular there was open opposition. These doubts and reservations came to the surface by 1967 as economic problems grew, leading to the decision by the Labour government at the beginning of 1968 to delay implementation of ROSLA until 1972–1973.

The School-Leaving Age in International Perspective

The raising of the school-leaving age (ROSLA)1 has been a historical process common to many countries. The school-leaving age lends itself to international comparisons and often serves as a marker of progress and educational development. In recent decades, the extent of compulsory education has become tied into key discourses in international arenas and reflects the increased worldwide interest in education, not least by bodies including the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and the World Bank. Within nations, comparative performance tables can stimulate both the fear of being left behind as well as offer the reassurance that the seemingly intrepid step toward raising the leaving age is in fact tried and tested. Although it appears relatively straightforward to make international comparisons on school-leaving ages, the reality may be more complex. This is because, for example, differential enforcement rates may exist, the duration of schooling does not necessarily translate into quality of experience, and countries with a low official leaving age may in fact record high levels of participation and achievement.

Raising the Participation Age: Policy Learning from the Past?

The historical processes through which the school-leaving age came to be increased, to 16 in particular, bequeathed a complex educational inheritance to future generations that intensified a number of tensions at the heart of secondary education. These were not always understood to be connected to the raising of school-leaving age (ROSLA) because the issue was rapidly subsumed under the shifts in educational policy that took place in the years after 1972. ROSLA to 16 was not simply a case of extending what was there already, but implied widespread systemic change that would eventually impact upon the policy of raising the participation age (RPA).

Forward with ROSLA 1951–1964

Over the 13 years of Conservative government between 1951 and 1964, the position and prospects of the ROSLA project were transformed. At the beginning of this period, at a time of acute shortages, there was a strong reaction against the raising of the school-leaving age (ROSLA) to 15, which had been achieved in 1947 but was compromised by the partial implementation of secondary schools for all. ROSLA could appear to be an expensive mistake and many groups looked to other educational priorities rather than follow up on the commitment that had been made in the Education Act of 1944 for ROSLA to 16. By the end of the 1950s, though, the general indifference and suspicion of ROSLA had changed to widespread enthusiasm for this cause. This was largely due to the efforts of the Central Advisory Council for Education (England) (CACE), which led to a strong endorsement of ROSLA in the Crowther Report, 15 to 18.1 Over the following five years, reservations remained across the political spectrum and even within the government itself, over both the financial cost involved and the educational implications of such a commitment, but at the start of 1964, Sir Alec Douglas-Home’s brief tenure as prime minister was marked by an undertaking that ROSLA would go ahead by 1970–1971, with all the preparations that this would involve. This debate was of clear significance educationally, for example, in terms of assumptions about ability and arguments concerning selection and common schooling.

Framework for ROSLA: Establishing Compulsion

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, a system that developed to meet the social class interests of Victorian elites continued to shape educational discourses and practices.1 During this period, legislation was introduced to compel parents to send their children to school. This was continually subject to challenge and opposition over extending the age of compulsion, which was entangled with other key social issues. Schooling came to be seen by many as the preferred institutional setting in which to place working-class children deemed too young to work. The expansion of a national schooling system underpinned by legislative requirements upon parents to send their children to school entailed an historic rebalancing of social relations between individual independence and the rights of parents and families on the one hand, and agencies of the state, both locally and nationally, on the other. With the advent of elected school boards to coordinate educational provision locally, following the 1870 Education Act, issues of schooling and childcare became linked inexorably with political processes. The establishment of compulsion in this broader social and political context provided the framework for the raising of the school leaving age (ROSLA).