X Close

IOE Blog


Expert opinion from IOE, UCL's Faculty of Education and Society


IOE at 120: the parallel lives of the Institute and the ILEA, 1982-1992

By Blog Editor, IOE Digital, on 30 September 2022

Newsam Library. Credit: Matt Clayton.

This blog is the ninth in a series of 12 exploring each decade in IOE’s history in the context of the education and society of the times. Find out more about our 120th anniversary celebrations on our website, and follow us on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and LinkedIn to keep up with everything that’s happening. 

Peter Mortimore.

During the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher’s Government sought to wean education away from anything tinged with progressivism to something more in tune with the Conservative Party’s traditions. In London, this meant mounting an attack on the two dominant and interactive players: the University of London’s Institute of Education (as it was known then) and the Inner London Education Authority (ILEA). By the end of the decade only one would have survived.

IOE, founded in 1902, had increased in size and reputation, as readers of the earlier blogs will know, and, by the beginning of the decade, was the largest university establishment dedicated to education in the country. In 1983 Denis Lawton was appointed Director. An ILEA teacher, he had come to the Institute in 1963 as a research officer for Basil Bernstein and his Institute career had developed over the years. He became a professor in 1974 and the deputy director in 1978.

Like all universities, IOE had suffered cutbacks in funding due to the oil price shocks of the 1970s. Several London University institutions had merged in order to (more…)

A leaden jubilee?

By Blog Editor, IOE Digital, on 9 January 2013

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 20th 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.
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