“Every year,” the association’s president told conference delegates, “figures show the appalling lack of staff in many schools.” One school, she went on, had been without a senior mathematics teacher for seven years. Another hadn’t been able to recruit a physics teacher for the last four years; another had been without a chemistry teacher for two years. Shortages of maths and science teachers were now generally accepted, but there were other subjects in which the position had rapidly deteriorated – notably English, geography and modern languages.
Schools were suffering from a constant turnover of staff. One school had only four staff who had been there for more than one year. What was needed, she told the hall, was “a coordinated campaign of recruitment”.
And the government, unfortunately, wasn’t helping. A recent report had included the view of one correspondent that schools were “breeding grounds for all juvenile delinquency”. “If such notions are widespread,” warned the president, “it is no wonder many people shrink from the thought of teaching as a career.”
Sounds familiar? With a few linguistic tweaks, this could easily have been an extract from an ASCL president’s speech this year. In fact, it comes from a speech by Nonita Glenday, President of one of ASCL’s predecessor organisations, the Association of Headmistresses, in 1960.
I’m not sure whether to be heartened or depressed by the fact that the problems we face today have been around for so long. What is wonderful, though, is to see the role that ASCL has played on behalf of our members, in influencing policy and holding policymakers to account throughout our 150-year history.
Radical thinkers
The Association of Headmistresses was established in 1874, at a time when some radical thinking about secondary education in England was taking place. Dorothea Beale and Frances Buss, the indomitable founders of the association, gave evidence at several parliamentary commissions – something almost unheard of for women at the time. One commissioner was apparently delighted by this, remarking, “We were all so much struck by their perfect womanliness. Why, there were tears in Miss Buss’ eyes!”
The commissioners were soon to discover that these ‘perfect women’ held some expert, powerful and sometimes differing views about education, and particularly girls’ education. Asked whether she believed “there is … a distinction between the mental powers of the two classes as to require any wide distinction between the good education given to a girl and that to a boy”, Miss Buss responded tartly, “I am sure girls can learn anything they are taught in an interesting manner, and for which they have a motive to work.” Miss Beale was more circumspect. She was clear that she thought it was “good for boys and girls to have similar tastes that their minds may not be entirely bent in different ways, so that in their after life they should understand and be interested in the same things”. However, she wasn’t entirely convinced that this view should extend to higher education, suggesting, “I have had some boys as pupils in mathematics, and, as far as I can judge from these and the public schools they attended, I do not think that the mathematical powers of women enable them generally (their physical strength I dare say has a great deal to do with it) to go so far in the higher mathematics as boys.”
By the late 19th century, members of the Association of Headmistresses had started to take up positions as members of commissions, not just as witnesses. Sophie Bryant, who would later become president of the association, was appointed as one of three female members of the Royal Commission on Secondary Education, which produced its final report in 1895. The commissioners highlighted some “considerable strides” that had been made over the previous 30 years but were concerned that “many … schools remained insecure, with some suffering fluctuating pupil numbers and others in a state of decline. This was mainly … due to poverty, but other factors included geographical position, the inefficiency of some headmasters, and growing competition from higher grade schools.” Ongoing social stratification in education meant that “Jude was still likely to remain obscure”. The commissioners recommended a number of improvements to the system, including the provision for more pupils of “a literary type of secondary education … alongside the scientific and technical type”, more “systematic and thorough” training of teachers and the establishment of “a central education authority which, while leaving freedom of action to local bodies, could supervise the general interests of secondary education as a whole”.
Fluctuating pupil numbers, the impact of poverty, concerns about competition between schools, the place of the arts, the importance of teacher training and discussions about local versus central direction. That really does sound familiar.
The here and now
Back in the 21st century, our engagement with policymakers over the last few months has touched on many of those same themes. With thoughts now firmly turned towards the upcoming general election, most likely in late autumn this year, the ASCL policy team has been focusing on fleshing out, and encouraging all parties to adopt, the proposals in our manifesto (
www.ascl.org.uk/manifesto).
We’re particularly positive about the discussions we’ve been having with both Ofsted and the Labour party. On inspection, while there is much still to do, we’re heartened by the constructive conversations we’ve had with Sir Martyn Oliver and his team since he took over as His Majesty’s Chief Inspector (HMCI), and the changes he has already begun to make. With Labour, we’re in regular contact about a whole range of issues, including its plans for a new ‘report card’ to replace single-phrase inspection judgements, what the remit of its promised curriculum and assessment review might be and the many challenges currently facing schools and colleges.
If the polls are to be believed, 2024 will mark the beginning of a new political era. But, as this delve into the past reminds us, discussions about how best to educate the next generation are perennial. It’s a pleasure and a privilege to play a small part in ASCL’s long involvement in this debate.
Julie McCulloch is ASCL Director of Policy
With many thanks to ASCL Council member and Assistant Headteacher Rich Atterton for his help in sourcing these stories of ASCL’s influence over the decades.