Chris Husbands
She established more comprehensive schools than any other secretary of state for education. She raised the school leaving age.  She set up the Bullock Committee which produced a ground-breaking report on language and learning still held in awe by teachers of English.  She accepted the James Report on teacher training and in-service education recomend that teachers should be released for in-service training for periods equivalent to one term in every 7 years of service. Her most substantial White Paper –  Education, A Framework for Expansion –  envisaged that within ten years “nursery education should become available without charge to those children of three and four whose parents wish them to benefit from it” , that the number of teachers in schools would increase by 10% above the number required to maintain existing class size.  She was given a standing ovation at a National Unions of Teachers conference.  She set up the commission which produced the  Warnock Report on special educational needs, and the legislation based on the report introduced the concept of statementing to secure appropriate provision for children with additional learning needs.  Her government funded the most lavish programme of technical and vocational curriculum development the country had ever seen.
She did not introduce local financial management of schools – that had been done by local authorities such as Solihull – but the 1986 Education Act extended financial management to all schools. She did not introduce parental choice – which still does not exist as a legal right in England – but the 1981 Education Act gave parents the right to express a preference on which school their children should go to. She introduced the first statutory entitlement to a broad and balanced curriculum England had seen.  Her 1988 Education Act introducing this national curriculum was, at the time, the largest single piece of legislation Parliament had enacted, though she subsequently regretted the excessive detail the act had introduced. She introduced national testing at 7, 14, 11 and 16.  The ‘City Technology Colleges’ introduced in 1988 prefigured City Academies;   ‘grant maintained schools’ – for all practical purposes revised as converter academies in 2010 – were harbingers of autonomous schools. She abolished tenure for university academics. For many years she was nicknamed ‘milk snatcher’ for the 1972 decision to remove free school milk for children over  the age of 7.
This was the education legacy of Margaret Thatcher. As an expansionist secretary of state for education in the Heath government of the 1970s and as a dominating Prime Ministerial figure in the 1980s she straddled two quite different eras in educational politics:  the period of confident expansion and investment which preceded the economic crisis of 1976, and the period of painful adjustment to financial realities of the 1980s.   Her legacy shapes education:  universal nursery education, prefigured in the 1973 White Paper is now seen as a cornerstone of social policy. The education participation age raised in 1973 is now being raised again.  No British government will ever abandon the idea of a National Curriculum, nor will local financial management ever be rolled back. Her legacy defines the education world which we all operate in and it was not substantially changed by John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron nor any of the ten secretaries of state for education who have held office in the twenty four years since she left Downing Street.
Her legacy remains divisive: divisive between those who see competition, market forces and the accompanying accountabilities  as drivers of higher efficiency, improved performance and greater transparency,  and those who see them as corrosive of collaboration, community and professional integrity. But however divisive the debates remain, the 1973 White Paper and the rather different 1986 and 1988 Education Acts continue to shape the debate about education. It was an earlier Conservative minister for education, David Eccles, who in 1960 spoke of the curriculum as a ‘secret garden’ into which politicians should not venture.   Margaret Thatcher, as secretary of state and as Prime Minister tore down the walls of the secret garden – well, comprehensively.

Denis Mongon
Twenty-five years ago, the winter of 1987/88, a cold wind bit into an educational establishment which had become too comfortable in its own clothing. Parliament was debating the Great Education Reform Bill, which by July became the Education Act 1988. The “Gerbil“, the most radical reform of education in a generation, was the culmination of a decade of Thatcherite tinkering. It abandoned the One Nation post-war consensus, such as it was, around the roles in schooling of central government, universities, local authorities, headteachers, teachers and parents. In passing, the Inner London Education Authority, University Grants Committee and tenure in Higher Education were to be shut down. The Act still reverberates through a system which seems to have been unable to find steady state in any two consecutive years since.
In 1988, the existing service was difficult to defend: attainment was low, inequality high and outcomes too variable. Explanations were at odds with one another. The Government’s targets included “loony left” teachers producing “politically correct” curricula, engaging in a series of recent teacher strikes and ineffectively managed by their local authority employers – all caricatured within the surviving rump of pan-London local government, the ILEA. A thread of dissatisfaction with schools would provide Kenneth Baker, the Secretary of State, with political cover for central control focussed on enhancing consumerism.
The 1988 Act legislated for innovations which are now largely take for granted even if the detail isn’t:

• a National Curriculum;
• national assessment (at 7, 11 and 14 – an earlier Act required schools to publish GCSE results);
• open enrolment – parental choice exposing unpopular schools by requiring popular schools to admit pupils to their accommodation capacity;
• delegation of school budgets from LEAs direct to governing bodies and based mainly on pupil numbers;
• opting out – allowing schools to become “grant maintained” outside the day to day control of the LEA;
• City Technology Colleges – CTCs were to be privately sponsored, state funded secondary schools with a focus on high tech curricula.

The ideological interpretation and political wrestling which accompanied their implementation undermined the potential which every one of those provisions could have contributed to school improvement and higher attainment.
Curriculum and assessment
What might have been a simple guarantee of core entitlement and progression for every child bloated into a corpulent National Curriculum. Its unnecessarily micro-designed syllabuses structured around discrete, traditional subjects, were applied clumsily. They decimated project and topic work and inhibited curriculum innovation at just the point in the 20^th century when, some would argue, those were most needed. League tables and the Ofsted framework overwhelmed the opportunity for improving formative assessment with a flood of summative requirements to be game played.
Governance
The responsibilities of governors, headteachers, local authorities, HMI and central government had become an opaque and sometimes dysfunctional mess badly in need of reinvention. The government’s response was to nationalise the service. The Act took power from LEAs triumphantly and from schools surreptitiously (claiming to “liberate” them). It then invested unprecedented power over school organisation, the content of teaching and the evaluation of performance in central government.
Parental choice
The benefits of parental involvement in children’s education are axiomatic but the mirage of parental choice is not the same thing though easier to legislate even if under a misleading banner. The best the system has been able to do is to accommodate parental preferences. The preference for most parents, to have an excellent local school, is a policy driver that has currently and contentiously arrived at the Free Schools experiment. Even in a data rich system, the extent to which parents form their preferences on the basis of sound information and whether that operates fairly across social groups remain moot points.
Elitist or utilitarian markets
Open enrolment, the delegation of budgets and “opting out” were expected to force the education service to embrace market disciplines. Contractual obligation between “stakeholders” was to become more significant than community cohesion. This shifted the headteacher’s role towards institutional management as well as paving the way for Academies. Many schools still seem to prefer some pupils rather than others simply because parental background remains the most significant correlate with student attainment and therefore institutional success. The result is a distorted market place which can be manipulated by some suppliers and some consumers to their advantage and, more damagingly, to the disadvantage of others.  Admissions might yet be the schools’ LIBOR scandal.
Looking forward
The education landscape is still dominated by the effects of the 1988 Act. It bulldozed the existing terrain. It transformed the surface features leaving the major contours still defined by the underlying geology, not least corrosive poverty and variation of performance between staff and departments within schools.
In his last blog of 2013, Chris Husbands wrote about assessment that “At root, society needs to decide what it wants to hold schools to account for…”  He could have been writing about almost any aspect of schooling. If the past 25 years have taught us anything it is surely that, as a country, we have been incapable of conducting a debate about education outside the expediencies of the political agenda and its short term calendar.   Unless we can loudly, articulately and with some degree of agreement answer the question “as a profession, what is it you profess?”, politicians will continue to do it for us – and for the children we claim to care for. After 25 years we seem no nearer and might even be further from,

• A core curriculum entitlement based on contemporary skills and social empathy
• Assessment which informs next steps in learning and can report progress as well as attainment
• Governance which nurtures community responsibility for the education of young people, families and neighbourhoods as co-producers as well as consumers of education.

Happy Anniversary GERBIL.
Denis Mongon is visiting professorial fellow at the London Centre for Leadership in Learning, IOE