Topic 6 - Educational policy and inequality - Educational policy in Britain before 1988

Before industrial revolution (late 18the century, early 19th century), no state schools, ed only available to minority.

Industrialisation increased need to be educated - late 19th century, state became more involved in ed. State made schooling compulsory from ages 5-13 in 1880.

Type of ed received depended on class background. Did little to change ascribed status. M/c academic curriculum - careers in professions/office work. W/c schooling to equip w/ basic numeracy + literacy skills needed for manual labour eg factory work - instil them an obedient attitude to superiors.

From 1944 - ed influenced idea of meritocracy - that individuals should achieve status through own efforts + abilities, rather than ascribed status.

1944 Education Act - brought tripartite system, b/c children were to be selected + allocated to 1 of 3 types of secondary schools, according to aptitudes + abilities. Identified by 11+ exam:

• Grammar schools - academic curriculum, access to non-manual job + higher ed. For pupils w/ academic ability, passed 11+. Mainly m/c.
• Secondary modern schools - non-academic, practical curriculum, access to manual work, failed 11+, mainly w/c
• Technical schools - existed in few areas only, more of a bipartite than tripartite.

Tripartite system + 11+ reproduced class inequality rather than promoting meritocracy. Put 2 classes in 2 schools, unequal opps. Also reproduced gender inequality - required girls to gain higher grades to get into grammar schools. System legitimated inequality through ideology that ability inborn. Argued ability measured early in life, through 11+. Reality, environment affect success.

Comp system intro'd from 1965. Aimed to overcome class divide of tripartite system + make ed more meritocratic. 11+, grammars + secondary moderns to be abolished, replaced by comp schools - all pupils in area would attend.

Left to local ed authority to decide whether to 'go comp' - not all did. Grammar-secondary modern divide still exists in some areas.

Argue comps promote social integration - bring children of diff classes together in 1 school.

See system as more meritocratic as gives pupils longer period to develop + show abilities, unlike tripartite system, which tried to select pupils based on ability at age 11.

Criticisms:

• Ford (1969) found little mixing b/ween w/c and m/c pupils - largely b/c of streaming.

Argue comps not meritocratic, but reproduce class inequality from one gen to next through continuation of practice of streaming + labelling. Continue to deny w/c equal opp.

By not selecting children at 11, camp may appear to offer quality chances to all. 'Myth of meritocracy' legitimated class inequality by making unequal achievement seem fair + just, b/c failure looks like the fault of individual rather than system.