I have looked forward to this occasion with some trepidation, and indeed am rather surprised to find myself in this position. This is the fourth annual conference of BERA, so three presidential addresses have so far been delivered. Two were by presidents who happened (by some chance) also to be the current chairman of the SSRC's Education Research Board men familiar with the corridors of power, and adept at wearing different hats (as the saying goes). The third was Ed Stones who I think of, in relation to BERA, as our founder and progenitor. By comparison, I am a mere maverick and, if I have more than one hat, they are rather different ones. Those -who were at last year's presidential address will know that I never succeeded in gaining my M.Ed. at what was, in the later 1940s, the power house of psychometry, Manchester University's Department of Education; even though I apparently sat on the same benches as last year's president who gained a distinction. One might have thought there would be some kind of ripple effect. But I fled to Leicester, a Department of Education applied to on two negative critiera; first, that it was not involved in psychometric studies in any way whatsoever; second, that the professor was not a member of a group known to initiates then as 'Moberley's underground' (a move to Christianise, rather than measure, education which also by-passed the key issues). As a matter of fact Leicester was about the only department left after applying these criteria. But there was also a positive pull that it appeared to be primarily interested in education per se. Here, against the background of active educational work, I turned to historical studies as the context necessary to an understanding of the social function of education and the nature of educational change. But, as it turned out, both educational and historical concerns contributed to focussing attention on a particular area of applied psychology which I began to tangle with both intellectually and practically when teaching in schools in the Manchester area on both sides of the selective division; those interests account for the publication in 1953 of what was no doubt a jejune critique of mental testing. Because this seemed to have become pivotal to the whole school system, indeed to educational thinking at the time to such an extent as to exclude other forms of diagnosis or analysis. No one offered me an M.Ed. for this illicit product of my Manchester studies. Indeed the then consultant to the NFER, A.F. Watts, described the book as 'too silly to merit rational consideration, except perhaps in the pages of a journal devoted to psychotherapy'. But most other reviewers thought the case deserved a serious answer criticism had been forthcoming from specialist circles and responsible educational psychologists were worried about the misuse of testing. Hence a working party specially set up to review the matter by the British Psychological Society, mainly, I think, at the instigation of Professor Philip Vernon. The outcome, in 1957, was the symposium, Secondary School Selection, an uneven and sometimes contradictory compilation but in some aspects of seminal importance historically in contributing to the breakdown of streaming, early selection and the tripartite system of secondary schools. For those interested in Gestalt psychology it may be worth recording that my moment of insight came when Professor Warburton characteristically in shirt and braces turned to the blackboard, in that rather dreary building
Read full abstract