Talk:Education Act 1944
|WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
The suggestion that the Act "made secondary education free for all pupils" might be confusing. Wasn't this already provided under the 1870 Act? While certain church schools were outside the state provision they were certainly funded by the Rates before 1944.
The statement is essentially correct. The 1870 Act was about elementary education: there were no statutory provisions about secondary ed. Prior to 1944, grammar schools routinely charged for attendance, and Butler's act changed that. Heathorn (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- I have rephrased the section and added a link to the original text. The Act set the leaving age at 15 but included a provision to increase the age to 16, "as soon as the Minister is satisfied that it has become practicable". Road Wizard (talk) 01:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, the 1870 Act did not make education free for all, although it did make it universally available. Completely free state education was not a reality until the Free Education Act of 1891. Indeed, it was not compulsory until the Mundella Act of 1880. So it was the combination of these three Acts: 1870, 1880 and 1891, that eventually gave us universal, compulsory and free state education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Education Monkey (talk • contribs) 09:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The act contains no reference to the transfer age from primary to secondary, nor does it discuss selection at 11, nor does the phrase 'grammar school' appear. Transfer age and whether have selective secondaries were matters for local authorities and autonomous schools. Adamsez (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
One of the ground-breaking results of the Act was to educate and mobilise women and the working class. It opened secondary school to girls, and the working class, and as a result, a far higher percentage attended higher education after secondary school. This newly found education increased working class awareness of their disadvantaged social position and created a bitter class division between the working and middle class. Such division was illustrated in the theatrical works of John Osborne in the late 1950s.
The quotation offers an element of truth in its general assertion, but is incorrect in its details. For instance, the manual working class attendance at universities rose to only 3% of all students in the 1950s compared to less than 1% prior to World War II. (Source, Floud, Halsey and Martin, Social Class and Educational Opportunity, London, 1956). This is hardly a 'far higher' percentage and is too small a number to justify the claim that it increased broader working class awareness of social divisions. But it is evident that many from the working class who did manage to go to university in the 1950s and 60s had _their own_ class awareness raised (and in the case of Osborne, much bitterness). Heathorn (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- the RS say: "The situation changed with the passing of the Education Act, 1944. In determining the structure of the SMS, the Act made it a duty of LEAs to: (i) provide school meals and milk (the LEA could remit the charge for the meal in cases of hardship)...." Harry d Hendrick (2003). Child Welfare: England 1872-1989. Taylor & Francis. p. 185.Rjensen (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- For anyone watching this page ... I think: the IP user above is correct; Rjensen (talk · contribs) is correct; the article is wrong. As RJ says: the 1944 Act "made it a duty of LEAs to: (i) provide school meals and milk", but the 1946 School Milk Act made it free. I'll edit the article to cite RJ's book and another source for the School Milk Act. I'll also redirect School Milk Act 1946 here Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)