The Wilson/Heath/Callaghan years were a kind of low point in the UK’s 20th century history.
None really left a mark external to the British Isles. Yes, even allowing for entry into the European Community.
Wilson in particular seems disappointing. After years of tired Tory role, he bequeathed only a slogans about white heat, a retreat from “East of Aden”, a panicked devaluation, and shitty labour relations.
Yet he was an incredibly clever man. Where did it all go wrong?
He didn't take the UK into Vietnam.
He also abolished the death penalty, decriminalised gay sex, started rebuilding the British railway system and began a serious effort at co-ordinated government.
He was also a liar, hypocrite, fantasist and cigar-smoking brandy-swilling poseur but it's a bit harsh to say he was 'disappointing.' Ultimately, the situation he faced was an impossible one for all sorts of reasons.
He also began the process of replacing most of the grammar schools with comprehensives, was too cosy with the unions, taxed and spent too heavily and had to be bailed out by the IMF
On a point of fact - it was Attlee 'began the process of replacing grammar schools with comprehensives,' although Wilson revived an idea that had gone nowhere from 1951-64 and ran with it.
As far as I am aware there was not a single comprehensive introduced until after Labour won in 1964. Had Home been re elected in 1964 he had a manifesto commitment to keep selective education and grammar schools
Then you are aware wrongly. The first ones opened in 1950, including the former Newent Grammar School which first my father (1958-62) and somewhat later, I both attended.
They weren't called 'comprehensives,' they were called 'combined' schools, which may be throwing you off.
Can't have been many of them then. 'Indeed, not only was the Attlee government fully committed to the tripartite system, it made matters even worse by restricting entry to grammar schools, by refusing to allow secondary modern schools to run exam courses, and by rejecting proposals from several local authorities to introduce comprehensive schools.' https://education-uk.org/history/chapter10.html
As against that, I give you Peter Mandler:
'Labour [under Attlee] was ambivalent about the grammar school...it was inherited by the Labour government and gingerly defended by Ellen Wilkinson...for the first few years after the war...[but] Labour party conference began to pass motions in favour of comprehensivations as early as 1950.'
The truth is that actually the Butler act was deliberately vague in terms of what education should look like - the key was that all areas should provide an education up to the age of 15 from the rates. In most cases that was based on selection, but it did not have to be and Labour (and for the matter of that, the Conservatives, but I imagine you don't want to mention that) had quite a long tradition of doing that through single schools rather than a split system.
The comprehensive system as it began in 1950 was actually a compromise put forward between those who thought there should be no selection at all and those who thought secondary moderns (as your author notes) shouldn't be forbidden to run courses other than practical ones (which I might add very rapidly became Conservative policy in the 1950s because it was far too many of their target vote in the lower middle class had children who did perfectly well in the 11+ but couldn't find a place at a grammar school).
Yet the Tories retained the existing grammar schools still throughout their period in office from 1951 to 1964 regardless of cross party agreement to allow academic subjects to be studied in secondary moderns.
The 1964 Tory manifesto was clear 'The Socialist plan to impose the comprehensive principle, regardless of the wishes of parents, teachers and authorities, is therefore foolishly doctrinaire. Their leader may protest that grammar schools will be abolished ' over his dead body", but abolition would be the inevitable and disastrous consequence of the policy to which they are committed. Conservative policy, by contrast, is to encourage provision, in good schools of every description, of opportunities for all children to go forward to the limit of their capacity.' http://www.conservativemanifesto.com/1964/1964-conservative-manifesto.shtml#:~:text=Their leader may protest that,to which they are committed.
Although again, it was actually Edward Boyle who laid the groundwork for their abolition under Macmillan. When Boyle replaced Eccles in 1962, he was told 90 of 163 LEAs were planning to abolish the 11+ and just 33 planned to retain it - but he did nothing to stop it. Be careful of just taking one slightly atypical manifesto under Home as gospel.
(In fact, I should point out that the Borough of Southampton effectively abolished selection by moving it to 16 in 1959, and Leicestershire moved it to 14 in the same year, with the approval of the then minister David Eccles which involved the conversion of a number of schools to de facto comprehensives. So your statement is not entirely true.)
Home's manifesto was quite clear, had the Tories been re elected they would not have allowed conversion of grammars to comprehensives. Hence in 1964 the vast majority of LAs still had grammars and secondary moderns but by 1970 a majority had already moved to comprehensives
In fact, a majority still had not, but almost all of them were planning to. Thatcher rescinded Labour's order to LEAs to bring forward plans for comprehensive systems, but she didn't order them to stop. In fact, in overseeing the conversion of over 2000 schools, she proved more energetic in conversions than Labour had even though she was personally in favour of grammars.
The more amusing story is that where referendums were held on retaining grammars they were usually lost.
Even more amusingly, one of the counties where such a referendum was held (and lost) - Gloucestershire - was both one of the earliest adopters of the comprehensive model and is now one of the last counties with significant numbers of grammars.
1970 was different as by then over half of LAs had already converted to comprehensives and Heath, in whose government Thatcher was Education Sec, had no manifesto commitment to stop grammars being turned into comprehensives, especially by Labour councils, as Home had had in 1964.
Not true to say that referendums on retaining grammars were all lost. Ripon had a ballot on retaining its grammars in 2000 and parents voted 2:1 to keep them
Basically - there were around 200 comprehensives in England and Wales by 1964, following an early tranche opened in 1949-50 (he mentions London, but there were others as I noted) and many of them were opened by Conservative councils, including Anglesey and West Yorkshire where it was nearly impossible to maintain two systems, never mind three.
Thatcher was Education Secretary in the 1970s not the 1960s.
Heath was a hypocrite, having come from a working class background and used the grammar he attended to get to Oxford, the civil service and Parliament he then did nothing to preserve them as Tory leader and PM. He was more of a liberal than conservative there as in most else.
With a few exceptions it was Labour councils which mostly pushed comprehensives, the few remaining grammar schools today are almost all in areas with Conservative councils not Labour councils
[Deleted because I know full well the answer to the question was 'yes.']
We were talking about the original mass transformation of the grammar/secondary modern schools. That lasted from around 1958 to about 1975. Most of the actual conversions happened in the period 1966 to 1973, for practical reasons. But there were a significant number of earlier ones, numbering in the hundreds by 1964, which flatly contradicts your earlier claim that the transformation happened only after 1964 (which is where we started). Many of them were in Conservative-run areas, because actually where you don't have enough children to justify two sets of schools, it makes sense to go with one combined school, which also exploded your claim that it was only Labour that wanted them. Finally, even where selection was maintained there were places where it was moved so far as to be effectively eliminated, further damaging your claim that it was all pickled in aspic from 1951-64.
Thatcher was the longest serving EdSec in that period, so oversaw much of them.
But there were some LEAs which tried to resist the Labour pressure for uniformity, via referendums, which were usually lost. The irony being that one of those areas is still selective.
I hope that is now clear for you. Sorry if the facts conflict with your deeply held beliefs. They remain facts.
Even you have stated that most of the earlier ones happened under the Attlee government of 1945-51. There were barely any conversions at all from 1951 to 1964 under the Tories.
It was only under the Labour government of 1964-1970 that conversion to comprehensives expanded significantly.
Where grammars remained, eg Kent, Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire and Solihull are Conservative controlled county councils and fully selective still it was mainly in Tory areas.
Thatcher could only do what Heath told her as Ed Sec, as PM however conversions to grammars halted and by 1997 there were more pupils in grammar schools than there had been in 1979.
As I also told you the only area which had a referendum on the local grammars under New Labour, Ripon, voted overwhelmingly to keep its grammar schools.
No they are not all facts, just your usual left liberal blog education ideology
The Wilson/Heath/Callaghan years were a kind of low point in the UK’s 20th century history.
None really left a mark external to the British Isles. Yes, even allowing for entry into the European Community.
Wilson in particular seems disappointing. After years of tired Tory role, he bequeathed only a slogans about white heat, a retreat from “East of Aden”, a panicked devaluation, and shitty labour relations.
Yet he was an incredibly clever man. Where did it all go wrong?
He didn't take the UK into Vietnam.
He also abolished the death penalty, decriminalised gay sex, started rebuilding the British railway system and began a serious effort at co-ordinated government.
He was also a liar, hypocrite, fantasist and cigar-smoking brandy-swilling poseur but it's a bit harsh to say he was 'disappointing.' Ultimately, the situation he faced was an impossible one for all sorts of reasons.
He also began the process of replacing most of the grammar schools with comprehensives, was too cosy with the unions, taxed and spent too heavily and had to be bailed out by the IMF
On a point of fact - it was Attlee 'began the process of replacing grammar schools with comprehensives,' although Wilson revived an idea that had gone nowhere from 1951-64 and ran with it.
As far as I am aware there was not a single comprehensive introduced until after Labour won in 1964. Had Home been re elected in 1964 he had a manifesto commitment to keep selective education and grammar schools
Then you are aware wrongly. The first ones opened in 1950, including the former Newent Grammar School which first my father (1958-62) and somewhat later, I both attended.
They weren't called 'comprehensives,' they were called 'combined' schools, which may be throwing you off.
Can't have been many of them then. 'Indeed, not only was the Attlee government fully committed to the tripartite system, it made matters even worse by restricting entry to grammar schools, by refusing to allow secondary modern schools to run exam courses, and by rejecting proposals from several local authorities to introduce comprehensive schools.' https://education-uk.org/history/chapter10.html
As against that, I give you Peter Mandler:
'Labour [under Attlee] was ambivalent about the grammar school...it was inherited by the Labour government and gingerly defended by Ellen Wilkinson...for the first few years after the war...[but] Labour party conference began to pass motions in favour of comprehensivations as early as 1950.'
The truth is that actually the Butler act was deliberately vague in terms of what education should look like - the key was that all areas should provide an education up to the age of 15 from the rates. In most cases that was based on selection, but it did not have to be and Labour (and for the matter of that, the Conservatives, but I imagine you don't want to mention that) had quite a long tradition of doing that through single schools rather than a split system.
The comprehensive system as it began in 1950 was actually a compromise put forward between those who thought there should be no selection at all and those who thought secondary moderns (as your author notes) shouldn't be forbidden to run courses other than practical ones (which I might add very rapidly became Conservative policy in the 1950s because it was far too many of their target vote in the lower middle class had children who did perfectly well in the 11+ but couldn't find a place at a grammar school).
Yet the Tories retained the existing grammar schools still throughout their period in office from 1951 to 1964 regardless of cross party agreement to allow academic subjects to be studied in secondary moderns.
The 1964 Tory manifesto was clear 'The Socialist plan to impose the comprehensive principle, regardless of the wishes of parents, teachers and authorities, is therefore foolishly doctrinaire. Their leader may protest that grammar schools will be abolished ' over his dead body", but abolition would be the inevitable and disastrous consequence of the policy to which they are committed. Conservative policy, by contrast, is to encourage provision, in good schools of every description, of opportunities for all children to go forward to the limit of their capacity.' http://www.conservativemanifesto.com/1964/1964-conservative-manifesto.shtml#:~:text=Their leader may protest that,to which they are committed.
Although again, it was actually Edward Boyle who laid the groundwork for their abolition under Macmillan. When Boyle replaced Eccles in 1962, he was told 90 of 163 LEAs were planning to abolish the 11+ and just 33 planned to retain it - but he did nothing to stop it. Be careful of just taking one slightly atypical manifesto under Home as gospel.
(In fact, I should point out that the Borough of Southampton effectively abolished selection by moving it to 16 in 1959, and Leicestershire moved it to 14 in the same year, with the approval of the then minister David Eccles which involved the conversion of a number of schools to de facto comprehensives. So your statement is not entirely true.)
Home's manifesto was quite clear, had the Tories been re elected they would not have allowed conversion of grammars to comprehensives. Hence in 1964 the vast majority of LAs still had grammars and secondary moderns but by 1970 a majority had already moved to comprehensives
In fact, a majority still had not, but almost all of them were planning to. Thatcher rescinded Labour's order to LEAs to bring forward plans for comprehensive systems, but she didn't order them to stop. In fact, in overseeing the conversion of over 2000 schools, she proved more energetic in conversions than Labour had even though she was personally in favour of grammars.
The more amusing story is that where referendums were held on retaining grammars they were usually lost.
Even more amusingly, one of the counties where such a referendum was held (and lost) - Gloucestershire - was both one of the earliest adopters of the comprehensive model and is now one of the last counties with significant numbers of grammars.
1970 was different as by then over half of LAs had already converted to comprehensives and Heath, in whose government Thatcher was Education Sec, had no manifesto commitment to stop grammars being turned into comprehensives, especially by Labour councils, as Home had had in 1964.
Not true to say that referendums on retaining grammars were all lost. Ripon had a ballot on retaining its grammars in 2000 and parents voted 2:1 to keep them
Basically - there were around 200 comprehensives in England and Wales by 1964, following an early tranche opened in 1949-50 (he mentions London, but there were others as I noted) and many of them were opened by Conservative councils, including Anglesey and West Yorkshire where it was nearly impossible to maintain two systems, never mind three.
Thatcher was Education Secretary in the 1970s not the 1960s.
Heath was a hypocrite, having come from a working class background and used the grammar he attended to get to Oxford, the civil service and Parliament he then did nothing to preserve them as Tory leader and PM. He was more of a liberal than conservative there as in most else.
With a few exceptions it was Labour councils which mostly pushed comprehensives, the few remaining grammar schools today are almost all in areas with Conservative councils not Labour councils
[Deleted because I know full well the answer to the question was 'yes.']
We were talking about the original mass transformation of the grammar/secondary modern schools. That lasted from around 1958 to about 1975. Most of the actual conversions happened in the period 1966 to 1973, for practical reasons. But there were a significant number of earlier ones, numbering in the hundreds by 1964, which flatly contradicts your earlier claim that the transformation happened only after 1964 (which is where we started). Many of them were in Conservative-run areas, because actually where you don't have enough children to justify two sets of schools, it makes sense to go with one combined school, which also exploded your claim that it was only Labour that wanted them. Finally, even where selection was maintained there were places where it was moved so far as to be effectively eliminated, further damaging your claim that it was all pickled in aspic from 1951-64.
Thatcher was the longest serving EdSec in that period, so oversaw much of them.
But there were some LEAs which tried to resist the Labour pressure for uniformity, via referendums, which were usually lost. The irony being that one of those areas is still selective.
I hope that is now clear for you. Sorry if the facts conflict with your deeply held beliefs. They remain facts.
Even you have stated that most of the earlier ones happened under the Attlee government of 1945-51. There were barely any conversions at all from 1951 to 1964 under the Tories.
It was only under the Labour government of 1964-1970 that conversion to comprehensives expanded significantly.
Where grammars remained, eg Kent, Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire and Solihull are Conservative controlled county councils and fully selective still it was mainly in Tory areas.
Thatcher could only do what Heath told her as Ed Sec, as PM however conversions to grammars halted and by 1997 there were more pupils in grammar schools than there had been in 1979.
As I also told you the only area which had a referendum on the local grammars under New Labour, Ripon, voted overwhelmingly to keep its grammar schools.
No they are not all facts, just your usual left liberal blog education ideology
Comments
It was only under the Labour government of 1964-1970 that conversion to comprehensives expanded significantly.
Where grammars remained, eg Kent, Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire and Solihull are Conservative controlled county councils and fully selective still it was mainly in Tory areas.
Thatcher could only do what Heath told her as Ed Sec, as PM however conversions to grammars halted and by 1997 there were more pupils in grammar schools than there had been in 1979.
As I also told you the only area which had a referendum on the local grammars under New Labour, Ripon, voted overwhelmingly to keep its grammar schools.
No they are not all facts, just your usual left liberal blog education ideology