HC Deb 17 December 1948 vol 459 cc1579-94

2.12 p.m.

Commander Maitland (Horncastle)

I am grateful for this opportunity of raising the question of the age at which external examinations in secondary schools may be taken. It is a very controversial point, but it is not a party political controversial point. Many people have argued from both sides about this question, and I am not going to put any fresh points to the Minister today. I know this subject pretty well, as he himself does, and I am not likely to tell him things which he has not heard before from people far better qualified than I am to talk or write about these matters. In the same way, I believe that I could make his answer for him; so we both know where we are in this matter, and if I skim over the points it is because I want to be quick and give other hon. Members the opportunity of speaking. The right hon. Gentleman will realise the ones I miss out, and will probably take them as read.

I am particularly glad to raise this matter at this time because I know that on the 31st of this month the right hon. Gentleman is to make a speech to the Joint Four Conference on this whole question. This is a very controversial matter and a great deal of interest is taken in it. The right hon. Gentleman is the Minister appointed to put forward this point of view and to explain and amplify his position if necessary. I must say that I think that the right place to do that is in this House and not at conferences, however important it may be.

I propose to deal with this question of the minimum age from the point of view of the school. I hope that the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) may have an opportunity of speaking for a few moments later from the point of view of the universities. In 1947, as the House well knows, the Secondary School Examination Council reported to the Minister and made certain proposals for fundamental changes in the examination system. These proposals were accepted, almost in their entirety, by the Minister in Circular 168, where he proposed to introduce the new system. Here comes the crux of the matter. The Minister laid down that from 1950 onwards the minimum age at which the external examinations can be taken should be 16. That applies in the year 1950 to the present school certificate, and from 1951 onwards to the new general certificate of education, slightly ascending in age and educational value as the years go on.

I believe most sincerely that this age bar is absolutely indefensible educationally. It means that the fitness of the boy or girl to take the examination will be judged by rigid chronological tests, in the operation of which no account can be taken of the individual aptitudes and efficiency of pupils. In this respect, the Minister's proposals go against the expressed views of the report of the Secondary Schools Examination Council. I was very interested to read in that report, in paragraph 30: The schools alone are in the position to decide what is best for their pupils, and they need the utmost freedom and flexibility to give effect to their judgment. Again, in paragraph 18, it says: The schools will be the best judges of the suitability of a course, and the examinations should serve and not dictate school courses. Surely the whole tendency for a long time has been to try to treat boys and girls as individuals, with individual capacities and limitations. I believe that this step must tend to hold back those who could go on on their own. It will inevitably have the effect of levelling down children and forcing them into a mould, which is a highly retrograde step.

Let me turn to another effect which, I think, these proposals will have. Whatever may be the form of these new examinations, they must create considerable difficulties in grammar and independent schools as they will require a reorganised syllabus. In all schools, children have to be divided into forms, and it seems to me that under these proposals it will be necessary for the same syllabus to be operated for at least two years, as it may be expected that in the first year, about half the form may take the examination, and the other half will have to wait till the following year. Thus, many will be penalised and unable to take the examination that their mental development calls for; simply because of the accident of their date of birth.

I do not think I made it clear that one of the proposals which the Minister has made is that the examination shall take place only once in the year. These difficulties in the grammar schools and independent schools will place a heavy burden on the staffs. There are other things in these days which place heavy burdens on the staff who are not, of course, easy to get, such as lack of accommodation and overcrowding. It seems to me that that in itself is a bad thing. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that this pressure on the staff is going to work more hardly against the grammar schools than against the independent schools, because in the independent schools the staffing ratio is more liberal than in the grammar schools.

I now turn to the effect of this examination on the sixth forms. This proposal must have a bad effect on the sixth form boys and girls who may expect to go to the universities. If they are to take the examination at a later stage, they will obviously have to waste time keeping up subjects in which they are required to pass to indicate to the universities that they have had a good general education. That must inevitably detract from the time which can be spent in the development of their special talents. It will mean that the standard of entrance to the universities will be lower and this must affect, in the long run, the whole standard of the universities.

There is a paradox about this because I think it will mean that to keep up these "Pass subjects" there will have to be less time spent on lectures on general subjects which are more suited to the age and mental development of sixth form boys and girls. The right hon. Gentleman knows that in all schools worthy of the name very great care is taken to see that sixth form boys and girls who are specialising have the best possible opportunities for lectures on general subjects, and there will be less time for them if they have to keep in touch, as it were, to try to maintain that present ability, in order to satisfy the universities that they have a general standard of education.

It has often been argued that this measure will tend to avoid early specialisation, and that there will be a tendency to force children to do more than they are able to do. All my own experience shows that headmasters and headmistresses, if they are worthy of the name, are dead against forcing specialisation at too early an age. The answer to that particular vice is: if they do it they should be got rid of, because they are not the right sort of people to be headmasters or headmistresses of our grammar or independent schools. As far as this question of early specialisation is concerned I think the argument is overstated.

We come, therefore, to the view that it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the postponing of examinations until after normal school-leaving age, must be connected with the perfectly proper and natural desire of secondary modern schools to avoid the criticism that children cannot take the present school certificate from these schools. Personally, I do not believe that this is the right road to "Parity of Esteem." Parity of esteem in itself is a most estimable object, but it certainly cannot be achieved by lowering the efficiency of one of the partners.

In recent answers and speeches the Minister has laid great emphasis on the fact that this is an entirely new system, and that these are new examinations. He may point out in his reply today that the school certificate dies after 1950. Well, he is perfectly justified in doing that if he likes. But I doubt very much whether that is really so in fact. I would remind him that in paragraphs 14 (a) and 16 (a) of Circular 168, and again in paragraph 35 of the Report, the criterion of the existing school certificate examination is specifically mentioned. If it does not mean that, then the Minister should explain what it does mean.

The fact is that the Minister has placed an impossible task on the universities and examining bodies if they are to conform to his proposals and at the same time conserve the high standards of education which we have reached in this country. The recent report on University Awards foreshadows an ever-increasing number of university students. The vital need for men and women with the highest academic qualifications has never been so acute as it is now. Speaker after speaker mentioned that in the previous Debate. Their abilities may well be the deciding factor on whether we survive as a nation.

I agree that administrative convenience will be achieved by these proposals. They may make it possible to pay lip service to parity of esteem. But I believe that the price which has to be paid to achieve these objects is, in effect, to impose a restraint on talent and I cannot think that that is a proper price to pay. By all manner of means, let the Minister try to make his case on 31st December; let him do his very best to gain acceptance of his views; but if he fails, let him remember that in the past many great men have changed their minds and the world has been a better place for it. Let him follow their example and reconsider this whole question.

2.24 p.m.

Mr. Corlett (York)

I am sure that we are all very grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) for raising this subject. It is not very often that I disagree with him on educational matters, but on this occasion I disagree with him profoundly. Surely, the age at which a grammar school pupil should sit for an external examination should be decided by the place of the external examination in the grammar school. Now the question of the place of the external examination has been discussed for many years. The Minister very properly referred this matter to the reconstituted Secondary Schools Examination Council in 1946. That is a very appropriate body to discuss it and to decide, being composed of representatives of the Ministry, the universities, the several teachers' associations and the local authorities. On this particular remit it reported unanimously in favour of this proposal. There was no minority report, no dissentient voice of any kind. We all know that any report of that kind must be a compromise, but in this case there was as I say, no minority report or dissent.

Surely, the Minister is entitled to consider very carefully a report by a competent body set up for this particular purpose. He has considered it very carefully over a period of months, and he has paid this body the very great compliment of accepting its report. I should imagine that he has been influenced largely by the fact that the report was unanimous. It is not a scrap of use hon. Members being so naïve as to say that the report was a compromise. That will not do at all. All the interested parties were there, and they could and should have had their say. They had plenty of time before the Minister accepted the report to say what they wanted.

For the first time, we now have the place of the external examination in the educational field. We have always known that it had no place in the nursery school, the infants' school, the junior school and the modern school. At no price would they have it. That battle was won long ago. We also know that it has no place whatever in the universities. Incidentally, I must point out that the universities themselves never allow a student, no matter how brilliant he is, to sit his examination before his less brilliant colleagues. Never, I am perfectly certain therefore, that they would be the last to argue that a brilliant child in a grammar school must, merely because he is brilliant, sit his examination before his less able colleagues. They could not possibly sustain that attitude. So we have this position, that the external examination has one small place in the whole educational field, and that is in the grammar schools, and only for that very small section of grammar school students who are going forward to institutions of further education, or who wish for exemption from university or professional examinations.

We are also told in this authoritative report that these children must sit for that examination towards the close of their school careers. What does the report say?— In general we consider that the external examinations should be taken as late as possible in the school career, and therefore as close as possible to the change to further education or entry into a career with which they are associated. That is categorical. The report goes further and makes clear what is meant by "as late as possible," and says: The child must be at least 16 years of age. So now, for the first time, we know exactly the place of the external examination in the educational field. It is for a very small number of children who must be at least 16.

I think the Minister was quite right to consider that report very carefully and to act upon it. What will be the result of its recommendations? It means surely that teachers in all secondary schools—and in the grammar schools now, for the first time in their lives—will all have the same freedom as teachers in every other type of educational institution. With that freedom, they will naturally have to assume the responsibility that comes with it. Their responsibility will be simple. It will be the responsibility for developing each child according to its individual ability. That will be their only responsibility. The only book of reference to which they need refer is the Minister's "Handbook of Suggestions to Teachers."

I had the privilege of speaking on this matter in the training college at Cologne in July with the former Dutch Minister of Education, and I shall never forget the look of astonishment on the students' faces when I said that here the Ministry merely makes suggestions, and does not give directions. We had won that battle long ago. The authorities, the Ministry and the teachers all agree on this freedom. The German students were very surprised when I said that this freedom was to be extended to grammar schools in the near future, so that they will be freed from any possible domination of external examinations which has so often largely influenced their curriculum and their methods of teaching, and has, on occasions, definitely sheltered bad teaching. They have the same freedom now as all their colleagues, and we hope they will welcome it. It will also be a good thing for the children, and particularly for the able children.

Everyone knows that many able children in grammar schools have suffered through early and excessive specialisation. The universities have sought to blame the grammar schools for this intensive competition, and the grammar schools have sought to blame the universities, but whoever is to blame, the child has suffered. As a result of the working party's report on University Awards, the universities are now given an opportunity to modify their entrance and scholarship examinations, so that there will be no excuse for any excessive specialisation in the grammar schools. All that will be needed is to provide specialisation for perhaps two-thirds of the sixth form time in a narrow field, and the rest of the time can be devoted to giving that general education which all children need.

That should be a grand thing for the able child, and particularly those potentially able children in the smaller grammar schools who will now have a greater chance of receiving recognition. We shall also be saved the experience of university professors telling us of brilliant boys who have not done more than one hour a week outside their mathematics and science in their last school year. This was bad for the successful boy and disastrous for those who failed. I hope the Minister will stick to his guns. He will be in good company with Whitehead, Livingstone, Norwood, Spens and countless others who all advocated this reform. Indeed, had he accepted the recommendations in October, 1947, he might have had the support of "The Times Educational Supplement."

2.34 p.m.

Mr. Hollis (Devizes)

I will not attempt to cover the whole field in the short time that is available for this Debate, and I will deny myself the pleasure of arguing with the hon. Member for York (Mr. Corlett) on the very interesting points he put forward. I will confine myself to the attitude of the universities. It is true that the Secondary Schools Examinations Council unanimously recommended the establishment of this age limit, but the hon. Member neglected to tell the House that also in this report is stated: The Council trusts they will not be thought to be going outside their province if they express the hope that the widest possible opportunity will be given for discussion of their recommendations before any detailed decisions are taken. They understand it is your intention to consult the universities to whom these recommendations are obviously of very close concern. That seems very pertinent and important to the Council's recommendations.

Mr. Cove

There were months of negotiations.

Mr. Hollis

The right hon. Gentleman will be replying to the Debate, and I am only asking certain questions. I want the right hon. Gentleman to tell us a little more about the protests at the headmaster's conference, although I will not deal with that in general, because my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horn-castle (Commander Maitland) has already referred to it, and about the universities. In Circular 168, we read that He"— that is the right hon. Gentleman— is led to believe that the universities will find it possible to relate their entrance requirements to the examination for the proposed general certificate of general education. The first question I want to ask is: who led the right hon. Gentleman? I have had many dealings with him, both outside and in school, and while he never fails to be courteous, I have found that he has never been a person to be lightly led. Who is it that has led the right hon. Gentleman to believe this? We are then told that the universities will find it "possible"; of course they will, but the question is whether or not they will find it advantageous. We know that the universities will not close down or come to an end, but are they going to find this reform an advantage? What is going to be the effect of their attempt to adjust themselves to this new policy?

Many strong things have been said on this topic. The late headmaster of Rugby, Dr. Lyon, said, in a letter which appeared in "The Times" in September, 1948, that he was perfectly certain that the universities would be the last to argue this. I do not know how he was perfectly certain, but there are certain facts, and history cannot he invented for the convenience—

Mr. Corlett

The universities can hardly maintain that the grammar schools should do what they themselves do not do.

Mr. Hollis

That is very interesting but it would take me another half an hour to deal with that. The headmaster of Rugby said: I do not know of any responsible teacher in the field of grammar school education who supports it. Of the universities, he wrote: They can either insist on their present requirements, which will mean that the most able children will have to continue the study of two or three subjects for one or two years after they ought to have abandoned them; or they can limit their demands and so run the risk of encouraging undue specialisation; or—almost worst of all—they can revert to the system of individual differing examinations from which the Certificate Examination set us free. It is the second thing which, in one form or another, they will do. They will set up some sort of examination that has to be passed in two subjects at a high level and two subjects at the ordinary level. The great danger is that it will encourage people to pseudo-specialise in some bogus subjects like history and English rather than in the classics—[Interruption.]—I have no hesitation in saying that a boy who can do the classics is much better advised to do classics than to do history. A professor was telling me the other day that the present situation in the university world is that the quality of classical scholarship is as high as ever, but that the quantity has diminished. It would be a great calamity if more boys and girls were to move out of the classics and into history as a result of this—[Interruption.] This is not a party point. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what were these negotiations with the universities.

2.39 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Morley (Southampton)

We have just had an interesting admission from the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis). I do not know whether he represents the views of Members opposite in this respect, but, if he does, we can only conclude that they, like Mr. Ford, think that history is bunk.

Mr. Hollis

I think the best way to teach a person to be a historian is to give him a classical education.

Mr. Morley

I dare say that a classical education would be most useful to an historian, but there is nothing in these examination proposals to prevent a boy or girl from taking the classics.

I want to answer as rapidly as I can some of the points made by the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland). I think we cannot too much emphasise the fact that the recommendations of the Secondary Schools Examinations Council were unanimous. The hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle said he was concerned with schools. All types of schools were represented on the Council. The joint four had their representatives—the Assistant Masters', the Assistant Mistresses', the Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Associations. We know that the representatives of these four organisations are concerned with schools. Did not they wish to make representations in the best interests of schools? All four signed the report of the Examinations Council. The Headmasters' Conference was represented on the Council. The hon. and gallant Member said that difficulties would be put in the way of the universities, but he did not specify exactly what those difficulties would be. I would point out to him that the universities were represented on the Examinations Council, on which sat men and women representing every type of school and educational institution in the country.

Commander Maitland

I did say that in the past great men have changed their minds.

Mr. Morley

Yes, but if representative people like that, after having given attention to the matter for weeks, changed their minds with such startling rapidity I do not think we would say that their minds were great. As I say, the recom- mendations were unanimous and after the report of the examinations council was published considerable negotiations took place between those interested in this matter and the Minister of Education. I believe it is correct that the Minister received deputations from practically every body which represents teachers and schools in this country. My right hon. Friend thoroughly and exhaustively discussed all the implications with them, and it was only after he had gathered their opinions and had carefully considered the report of the Council that he decided to implement that report. I believe that most educationalists are glad that he decided to take that action.

The hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle said the clever boy might suffer as a result of this change in the examinations system. I say that the clever boy will not be handicapped at all. Future examinations are to be in three tiers—ordinary, advanced and scholarship. No one is obliged to take the ordinary examination before he takes the advanced stage, or obliged to take the advanced stage before taking the scholarship stage. The clever boy of 14 may reach the stage in which he would be able to take the ordinary stage examination. He will continue his studies, and by the age of 16 he may be able even to take the scholarship stage. He will not be retarded in his studies by the fixing of the age at the minimum of 16.

During the 40 years or more in which I have been connected with educational politics in this country, I have heard strong complaints from secondary and grammar school teachers that the curricula and methods of instruction in our secondary schools have been "cabin'd, cribb'd, confin'd" by the necessity to prepare for the external examination. The new system will provide freedom to vary curricula, make methods of instruction more flexible and allow the child to develop according to his ability and aptitude. The hon. and gallant Member made a suggestion which, I think, was rather unworthy, especially as I have very considerable respect for him. He said that what had been done had been done to protect the modern secondary school and its staff from invidious comparisons with the grammar school. That is complete nonsense. No one would dream of comparing the results obtained in a modern secondary school with those obtained in a grammar school. The modern secondary school is composed of boys and girls after about 25 to 30 per cent. of those with the best intelligence have been "creamed off" to go to the grammar school. No one should believe that we ought to get as good results, in the academic sense, from the modern school as from the grammar school. So that argument completely falls to the ground.

This report, which has been implemented by the Minister, is a charter of freedom for our grammar schools. It gives grammar school teachers freedom to vary their curricula and methods according to the intelligence and ability of the child. I am sure that teachers in our grammar schools will warmly welcome it, as does the National Union of Teachers, which is the most influential teaching organisation in the country. Our grammar schools will, in future, have the freedom they have lacked in the past.

2.47 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson

I speak again with the leave of the House. I do not think it is sound to deal with the minimum age in isolation; it is only one element of the new examination scheme, and needs to be considered in relation to the whole scheme and to the educational policy which underlies it. There is not time to deal with this matter in full now, so I propose to answer a few questions which have been raised, some of which seem to be disturbing some sections of the educational world.

First, the modern school, I have been accused in some quarters of imposing an age limit to protect the modern school. There is no truth in this, and anyone who reads the report of the Secondary Schools Examinations Council will see that in devising the new system of examinations they had all types of secondary schools in mind. The fact that they provided for the examination to be taken after the child has left school indicates its universal application. From one point of view, I admit, the age limit may serve the interests of the modern school in encouraging a tendency which is already showing itself—to remain beyond the statutory leaving age. If it does that I shall be glad to have been the means of encouraging that tendency.

The second question put to me is: why cannot children take an examination when they are ready for it? The answer is simple. We do not have children for examinations, but examinations for children. After all, what is the special virtue of the age of 15. Surely, the real point is, what the examination is for. A question which is complementary to this is: Will not the bright children be held back? That has already been answered, but I shall re-emphasise it. I believe the new examination will make it possible for them to advance as far and as fast as they can in each subject.

The whole idea of the new system is to look at the needs of the individual child and to visualise his secondary school course as a continuing whole. When, for some reason, he needs to obtain a certificate of what he can do in one or more subjects he takes an examination in that subject at the level that he has achieved. My hon. Friend has pointed out that the bright boy who can carry his subject forward need not, because he will not be called upon to be tested in it until he is 16 years of age, begin at the bottom. He can take the subject and the examination at the stage at which he has arrived. Let hon. Members contrast this plan with what takes place at the present time. The student must of necessity attain approximately the same level in a group of subjects. Which of these two systems is the more likely to hold the bright boy back? I suggest that it is the present system rather than the new system now suggested.

Mr. Henry Strauss (Combined English Universities)

Is the Minister suggesting that the curricula of sixth forms will not be affected at all by what he is doing?

Mr. Tomlinson

I will deal with the sixth form now.

The fourth question with which I wish to deal is whether sixth form work will or will not be wrecked by preventing sufficient concentration on main subjects. The idea behind this is that the scholar should arrive at a given stage—some hon. Members have suggested 15 years of age while others have suggested 14; I have even heard it suggested that some very brilliant individuals could arrive there at 13 years of age and that, having reached that stage they should forget all about three or four subjects and con- centrate upon the remainder. The universities themselves—the hon. Member who interrupted me just now is a representative of the universities—for a long time have questioned whether sixth form specialisation has not gone too far. Time and time again in my short term of office this question has been put to me. For my part I want the schools to turn out complete persons and not just physicists, chemists or historians. In any case, I do not believe that the high standard of work in the special subjects will suffer in the least. The bright boy will not be deterred by the fact that he has to spend a few hours a week keeping up some general studies. If there is anything at all in this idea that the passing of an examination is an incentive, the very fact that he has to pass an examination will encourage that boy in his studies.

Finally, I come to what is perhaps the key to the whole problem. People say that the minimum age will bring the new examination into conflict with the matriculation examination of universities. I should imagine that the universities need to ascertain what the prospective student knows just before he starts his university course and not what he knew four or five years previously. The universities are reviewing their matriculation requirements. I am sure that they appreciate fully the principles of the Education Act and the necessity to ensure a proper general education as a basis for later specialisation. I want to see universities and schools getting together on this problem. They both have the same end in view. Given good will and co-operation I am convinced that the new examination can be made to serve the true interests not only of the schools and their pupils but of the universities also.

There are just two general points with which I should like to deal. The criticism of the minimum age is based upon an assumption that the new examination is the old system under a different name. But in fact it is a new examination and it is designed to serve an entirely different purpose; unless this purpose is understood the age limit cannot be seen in the right light. The second point is that the present examination system was intended to establish standards for the State secondary schools when these were in their infancy and still had to justify themselves. The school certificate and the higher certificate have served their purpose, but they have, as has been often said, cramped and limited the freedom of the schools. Now the schools have established their standards they must have freedom, and the new examination is designed to give them that freedom, the freedom to educate children according to their age, ability and aptitude, as laid down in the Act of 1944.