ABSTRACT
The argument about whether the state, that is to say, the population as a whole, should provide an education service for all children was won more than a century ago. The debate that continues is about the length, content and degree of uniformity that should characterize that provision and the levels at which responsibility and control should be exercised. Two consequential issues relate to resourcing the service and to the formation of judgments about its nature and effectiveness. No central Government and no Parliament could properly abdicate its responsibility for the service but, equally, neither must suppose that the service should be set in stone, identical for each child either at a time or over time. One of the most corrupting myths to excise is that there is one ideal way of doing things. The task is not simply to improve the efficiency of the service but to adapt it to different and changing circumstances. Recent years have seen a much more overt interest by central Government in the detail of the service, notably in seven connections:
(i) the introduction of the National Curriculum for schools and the periodic assessment of children’s performance;
(ii) the establishment of OFSTED with the purpose of checking on the effectiveness of individual schools and, now, of local authorities;
(iii) the training of teachers, including the establishment of the Teacher Training Agency and a National Curriculum for teacher training;
(iv) the introduction of the local management of schools and changes in the status and functions of schools and local authorities;
(v) provision for the increased involvement of parents and others locally in the government of schools;
(vi) the increased integration of pupils with special educational needs into mainstream schools;
(vii )
provision for the under-5s.
