Major changes occurred in the secondary sector. Intelligence testing, 11-plus exams, could identify different types of pupils, with differing aptitudes and ability. Based on this, the 1944 education act introduced a national test for 11-year-olds – the 11-plus test – as a means of allocating children to one of three types of secondary school. The three types of secondary school were grammar schools, technical schools and secondary modern schools. This became known as the tripartite system of secondary education.
Grammar schools were intended for the bright and academic pupils and they accounted for around 20% of the school population. Technical schools were intended for pupils with an aptitude for technical subjects and they accounted for around 5% of the school population. Finally we have the secondary modern schools, which accounted for most of the school population. These children were seen as less academic and more practical. They were given basic education with little opportunity to take external exams until CSEs – a lower level exam that was introduced in the 1960s.
Marxists would once again say that the tripartite system is beneficial towards the ruling class because if there was a parent that was upper class and their child got into a secondary modern school, they would not let them stay there as they can afford for their child to go to public schools instead of a poorly rated state school. Also feminists would say that the tripartite system benefits the male pupils because the pass mark for the 11-plus exam was made higher for the female pupils than their counterpart males as they thought since that girls matured earlier, then their pass mark should be higher than that of boys.
There are many criticisms of the tripartite system. These include the fact that there was no parity of esteem – secondary modern schools were seen as second rate by parents, pupils and employers. Grammar schools always had higher status because they specialized in academic subjects that led to well-paid, higher-status occupations. As a result, there was no parity of esteem – no equality of status – between the schools in the tripartite system. Another criticism is that although one of the aims of the 1944 education act was to widen educational opportunities for working class pupils. But the class divide in education remained. The study by Halsey et al indicates that two-thirds of boys from middle-class backgrounds went to grammar schools compared to only a quarter of boys from working-class backgrounds.
The tripartite system was clearly not providing equality of educational opportunity. A well-educated workforce leads to economic growth. The tripartite system wasted talent. This reduced people’s contributions to the economy, which meant that everybody suffers. Instead of three different schools the comprehensive system introduced one school for everyone. Those who agreed with the comprehensives hoped it would it would improve the exam results of working-class children compared to those of middle-class. Those who supported the comprehensives also hoped that social mix would help to break down class barriers.
There was a lot of hope riding on comprehensives. To some extent, this hope was justified. But it was too much to expect comprehensives to compensate for the inequalities in the wider society and provide equal opportunities for all. Critics of the comprehensive system claimed it would lower educational standards. They believed that the ‘high academic standards’ of the grammar schools would be diluted in the comprehensives.
Although there was more equality, Marxists would still say that this benefited the ruling class because public schools still existed and as long as they did, there would never be equality within the educational system. Ball also said that streaming still existed in comprehensives. Many comprehensives divide pupils into ability groups. A disproportionate number of middle-class pupils are placed in the top streams and a disproportionate number of working-class pupils in the bottom streams and sets. Some see this as another form of selection, not unlike the tripartite system.
The 1988 education reform act is the most important and far reaching educational legislation since the 1944 education act. It established a national curriculum for all state schools in England and Wales and a national system of testing and assessment. It gave greater control to individual schools and their governing bodies. It established city technology colleges and grant maintained schools, both independent of local authority control.
The education reform act increased competition and choice because part of the thinking behind the education reform act can be seen from a government circular entitled Our Children’s Education: The Updated Parents Charter (Dept of Education, 1944). It tells parents that, ‘Your choice of school directly affects that school’s budget; every extra pupil means extra money for the school’. And ‘the right to choose will encourage schools to aim for the highest possible standards’. From this point of view parental choice means that schools will compete in order to attract pupils and (and money) and in the process standards of education will rise.
In an attempt to offer real choice, the education reform act encouraged diversity. It introduced two new types of schools; grant maintained and city technology colleges. Grant maintained schools were self-governing and parents voted to withdraw the school from local authority control. Governors and headteachers made decisions on staff to employ, the curriculum, and the way pupils are selected for entry. The idea was to free schools to specialize – for example, in particular subjects or particular types of pupils such as the ‘more academically able’. In this way, the choice for parents was seen to be widened. City technology colleges were for 11 to 18 year-old and are financed by central government and the private sector sponsorship. Located mainly in the inner-city areas, they teach the national curriculum while concentrating on maths, science and technology. The downside to the city technology colleges was that sine they were governed by the private sector, they had a say in what went on in the schools.
Marxists would still stick with their argument that everything benefits the upper class. This would still apply because even though there are all these new policies and new schools being introduced, it still doesn’t change the fact that public schools still existed throughout this whole phase and will always continue to exist and while there are any public schools around, there will never be equality.