| Education (Scotland) Act 1918 | |
|---|---|
| Act of Parliament | |
| |
| Long title | An Act to make further provision with respect to Education in Scotland and for purposes connected therewith. |
| Citation | 8 & 9 Geo. 5. c. 48 |
| Territorial extent | Scotland |
| Dates | |
| Royal assent | 21 November 1918 |
| Other legislation | |
| Relates to | Education Act 1918 |
The Education Act 1918 (8 & 9 Geo. 5. c. 39), often known as the Fisher Act, is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It was drawn up by H. A. L. Fisher. Herbert Lewis, Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, also played a key role in drawing up the Act. The Act applied only to England and Wales; a separate "Education (Scotland) Act 1918" applied for Scotland.
This raised the school leaving age to fourteen and planned to expand tertiary education. Other features of the 1918 Education Act included the provision of ancillary services (medical inspection, nursery schools, centres for pupils with special needs, etc.).
Industrialists, landowners, and the Church of England resisted the Act, which raised the school leaving age from 12 to 14, made it much harder to employ children under 12, and put in place scholarships to fee-paying grammar schools.[1] The Act promised compulsory part-time education from 14 to 18, but this was never implemented because of the Geddes Axe (spending cuts) of 1921. Teachers’ pay was also cut at that time and again in the May Committee cuts of 1931.[1][2]
By the 1920s, the education of young children was of growing interest and concern to politicians, as well as to educationalists. As a result of this rising level of public debate, the Government of the day referred a number of topics for enquiry to the Consultative Committee of the Board of Education,[3] then chaired by Sir William Henry Hadow. Altogether the Hadow Committee published three very important reports – 1926, 1931 and 1933.
These reports led to major changes in the structure of primary (known as "elementary" at the time) education. In particular, they resulted in separate and distinctive educational practice for children aged 5–7 (infants) and those aged 7–11 (juniors).
The reports recommended child-centred approaches and class sizes of no more than thirty. These recommendations marked a triumph of 'progressive' educational thought and practice over the more 'traditional' ideas and proved to be popular with many policy makers and teachers alike.
