95
and at this particular point in time, the government perpetuated in a new form
the old separation between elementary and secondary schools.
(Simon 1991: 115)
While that may have been the effect, it was not, as has been shown above, necessarily
the objective. The other issue stirred by the new Regulations was the concern among
grammar schools over a perceived threat to their pupils’ pass rates. The new
examination was to have a ‘pass’ set at the standard of a School Certificate ‘credit’;
this meant that many would fail the new examination. The issue was the subject of
widespread debate. The Times Educational Supplement claimed that “ft was a
political and not an educational argument"' (Quoted in Simon 1991: 114). This
distinction strikes an unexpected note from the perspective of the 21st century, where
all educational arguments have become political.
Because of these concerns, it seemed that virtually no one except the examining
boards took particular note of the final clause of Circular 113, issued in June 1946.
This announced that the Minister was assuming full responsibility “for the direction of
policy and general arrangements in regard to school examinations”. Because of “new
statutory duties imposed on her under the Education Act, 1944, the Minister is no
longer justified in limiting her functions to those of a Co-ordinating Authority”
(Quoted in Simon 1991: 112). This signalled a significant shift in the balance of
power from the Boards to the centre, yet there was virtually no contemporary
comment on the development. Thirty years later, Gosden’s analysis detected
indications of a climate fostering such a shift within the ranks of Board of Education
staff prior to the 1944 Act:
The acceptance by the senior staff of the Board of the idea of leading rather
than merely advising and watching was both a reversion to the attitude adopted
in the early years of the century at the time of Morant, and a harbinger of the
greatly increased powers to be conferred on the minister of education in the Act
of1944.