As we have seen, the first attempt at making education in this country available to all children was a very important Act of Parliament, in 1870. At the time, W.E. Forster was vice president for the Department of Education and this act was the start of the modern education system we have today. This act was made to enable people to provide schools where the National Society had not been able. ‘School Boards’ were set up to take over some National Schools, which didn’t have enough money to keep going. The School Boards were committees of people elected by the ratepayers and children who went to these ‘Board Schools’ paid the equivalent of about 1p per week, if their parents could afford it. But an Act of Parliament passed in 1891 did away with these payments, following the Mundella Act (1880), which made schooling compulsory. In 1891, the law said that a child could leave school at the age of 10 if he or she had reached Standard 5 by that age. However, as we saw earlier, with this system boys and girls were not only taught separately but were taught a different curriculum. Boys’ education was geared towards professional careers and paid employment whilst girls’ education included what was known as the 3 R’s (reading, writing and arithmetic), and needlework, and was geared towards them becoming nothing more than good homemakers.
The next major attempt at making schooling equal was the Butler Act (1944), which introduced the tripartite system. This act stated the “government’s commitment in principle to providing an educational system suited to each child’s ‘age, aptitude and ability’”, (O’Donnell 1997, page 101), and provided totally free secondary education for all children. The tripartite system consisted of three stages of education; Primary for the ages 5 to 11; Secondary for the ages 11 to 15 and Tertiary for those who wanted to progress in Further Education, Polytechnic’s or University’s. Secondary schools within the tripartite system were also divided into three categories; Secondary Grammar for the more ‘academic’ children; Secondary Modern for the vast majority of children and Technical Schools which provided practical, vocationally-oriented courses, although the numbers of children going into Technical Schools were very few. Entry into the Grammar Schools was decided by means of an exam or test, known as the 11+ (eleven plus), and only those who passed this exam would go onto Grammar School. However, there were many problems with the tripartite system of schooling. Firstly, 11 years of age was seen as being too young to determine the future of any individual and doubts were raised as to whether or not an 11 year old child would realise the seriousness of the 11+. The child could also have an ‘off day’ during the period of the 11+ exam or could simply be a late developer. For the middle classes this wasn’t such a problem because middle class children were disproportionately selected for the Grammar Schools and those who failed the 11+ and weren’t offered a place were sent to private schools by their parents. The Secondary Modern schools were seen as inferior to the Grammar Schools and the 11+ itself was criticised for being culturally biased against working class children as we will see when I discuss ‘Codes of Language’. It was also made easier, in some areas, for boys to pass than girls whilst some areas had more Grammar Schools than others and so more Grammar School places. Finally, Grammar Schools had better facilities and better teachers than Secondary Modern and children who did not make it into Grammar School were deemed as ‘failures’.
When you consider the criticism, put forward mainly by the Labour government, that the 11+ exam discriminated against working classes it is not surprising that by the 1950’s the tripartite system was seen to have failed in its aims and despite many middle class parents wanting to hold on to it, it was abolished. What followed was the ‘Comprehensive System’ and those who favoured this system did so because they believed the damaging, unfair stigma of the ‘eleven plus failure’ would be removed. It was thought that by enabling children of different social backgrounds to mix with each other that a cultural ‘rub-off’ effect would occur and that it would be of particular benefit to the working classes. However, with this system, the schools and the class sizes were too large and impersonal and more children were held back as the teachers had more children to focus upon. The system has also been criticised for not breaking down the class barriers. Children of working class backgrounds tend to mix with other children of working class backgrounds in the lower academic groupings, whilst children of the middle classes, in the higher academic groupings, tend to mix with other middle class children. Also, the aim of the Comprehensive System was to improve academic results but the results are fundamentally unchanged. Instead they reappear in new guises as the educational environment changes.
The final and most recent attempt at providing equality within the British education system came with the 1988 Education Reform Act. This saw the introduction of various new schemes nationwide. In particular, the Government laid down, for the first time, a ‘National Curriculum’ that required both boys and girls to study both sciences and languages. Previous to this, boys would tend to study sciences and girls would tend to study languages. This act also introduced a new qualification known as the ‘General Certificate of Secondary Education’ or ‘GCSE’, which replaced the previous two tier system of ‘O’ Levels for the more academic pupils and CSE’s for those judged less able; it meant that all students would now be entered for the same exams. The National Curriculum also meant that all subjects, nationwide, would contain the same core content and students would be taught the same regardless off the school they went to or where they lived.
All of these changes have been encouraging students of all backgrounds to stay in education and attain more academically. In 1900, just 1.2% of 18 year olds entered full time further of higher education: by 1990, 36% of 16-18 year olds were in full time education, (Haralambos and Holborn, page 725). However, A.H. Halsey argues that education fails to offer the same opportunities to lower classes as it does to higher classes. Halsey’s work indicates that children with less material resources are found disproportionately among the ‘failures’ of the education system.
It would be safe to say that an individuals IQ level should determine their educational attainment. However, Bowles and Gintis have found this isn’t the case. They argue that IQ accounts for only a small part of educational attainment. Realistically two students with similar IQ’s should attain the same but after examining a sample of individuals with average IQ’s, Bowles and Gintis found a wide range of variation in educational attainment which led them to believe that there is hardly a relationship between IQ and academic qualification. Instead, they found a direct relationship between family background and educational attainment. They argue that the higher up the social classes the student’s parents are, the more likely the student is to stay in education and develop their IQ. They conclude that IQ is a consequence of educational attainment and that educational attainment is not a result of high IQ. Halsey et al found that a boy whose father was either a professional, an administrator or a manager was 10 times more likely to be still in education at the age of 18 than a boy whose father was of working class, ie. a manual worker in industry or agriculture.
As I mentioned earlier, ‘Codes of Language’ also play a part in determining educational attainment. Basil Bernstein discovered two forms of dialect which he termed as ‘restricted code’ and ‘elaborated code’. In general, he says that working classes are limited to the use of restricted code whereas the middle classes use both. He says that restricted code is a kind of shorthand speech that is characterised by being short, grammatically simple and often with unfinished sentences. People who have shared the same experience may often use restricted code as long explanations are not always necessary but an outsider or someone who has not shared the experience may not fully understand. In contrast, the elaborated code would specifically spell out in precise detail meanings which are taken for granted with the restricted code. The listener need not have experienced the same event in order to fully understand. According to Bernstein, formal education is conducted in terms of an elaborated code and so working class children are immediately placed at a disadvantage. Also, the elaborated code of language makes it easier for middle class children, who are encouraged to explore their vocabulary, to acquire the skills demanded by the education system.
Another important aspect of education concerns the way a teacher might respond and react to a pupil’s behaviour. Teachers and pupils alike may have different ideas about what makes an ideal teacher or pupil. These views can vary from teacher to teacher as they can from pupil to pupil and not all will be able to live up to what the other might perceive as the ideal. Teachers will also, on first introduction to the pupil, have a limited knowledge of the pupil but may, for instance, know the area in which the pupil lives. Based on this and a few other factors, including appearance and personality, the teacher may judge the pupil and label them as being a particular type. This can lead the pupil to live up to the expectations of the teacher which are based primarily on trivial factors and not on academic ability. For example, two pupils of similar academic ability may be labelled as an ‘achiever’ because of a middle class background and as a ‘trouble maker’ because of a working class background. These two pupils would then ‘achieve’ and ‘make trouble’ accordingly.
Sociological research of recent years has also shown that students of ethnic minorities do less well than other members of the population. The Swann Report (1988) outlines the differences in academic attainment amongst all pupils and noted that West Indian children particularly do less well than ‘others’, (whites). Within the Swann Report study, only 5% of West Indian students passed at least one ‘A’ Level and just 1% went on to university compared with 13% of others getting at least one ‘A’ Level and 4% going on to university. Arthur Jenson and Hans Eysenck have both argued that “blacks have genetically inherited levels of intelligence which are lower than those of whites”, (Haralambos and Holborn, page 779). However, I personally don’t agree with this and feel very strongly in opposition. A much more plausible explanation is that of various cultural factors and material deprivation. One such cultural factor is that of language. As I have already discussed, formal education is conducted in elaborated code and for many ethnic minorities, English is not their first language and would therefore more than likely use a restricted code. Research has also shown that West Indians also have family life which fails to encourage the children to do well in education and for one reason or another, fails to provide adequate books, materials and stimulation from the parents. It has also been suggested that a large number of West Indians in Britain are one parent families in which the parent is in paid employment and the child is left without close parental supervision for the early years of its life.
Over the years, sociological research into educational attainment has focussed mainly on class. However, gender has attracted an increased interest of recent years. Under the Tripartite System, 1944, girls achieved higher average scores in the 11+ exam than boys, but to ensure the Grammar Schools weren’t dominated by girls, their scores were marked down and the boys’ scores were weighted. Girls have been accepted into universities since 1877 but Oxford didn’t accept girls until 1920 and it wasn’t until 1948 when Cambridge gave full membership to girls. Until the 1970’s, boys were more successful at ‘O’ Level than girls and until the 1990’s, boys were also more successful at ‘A’ Level. Then, in 1975, the Sex Discrimination Act prohibited sex discrimination in admission to schools, appointing teachers and in giving careers advice. It also specified that neither boys nor girls should be refused access to courses or benefits based solely on their sex. Since this act, the achievements at both ‘O’ Level and ‘A’ Level have been reversed, however, males still achieve more at university. Until 1997, the majority of university students were male with 80% of university professors being male. It has been suggested that that there is a difference in innate ability between boys and girls. However, while researchers have looked for evidence suggesting girls have lower levels of ability than boys, they have found that if anything, it’s the boys with the lower innate ability. Although, this could be because girls generally mature quicker than boys but by the age of 16, the boys have again overtaken the girls. Therefore, it seems apparent that of previous years, girls have been held back during the earlier years of education.
In conclusion, it seems as though some sociologists claim that inequality within education has a biological rather than a cultural basis which returns us to the nature/nurture debate. Within the education system today, all students have access to the same educational provisions regardless of social backgrounds but only if everyone has equal opportunity to succeed can the system be seen as a meritocracy. The sheer existence of a private, independent education sector to which access is restricted according to income and social background is clearly not meritocratic. Also, labelling and typing, which is done on the basis of social class and/or race, is strongly linked to educational achievement.
Essentially, today in Britain, the education system is a meritocracy although not completely and it hasn’t always been. It still fails some families but the number of pupils leaving school without any qualifications has fallen considerably suggesting more have been able to develop. More students are now taking ‘A’ Levels and the proportion of students in higher education has risen from about 10% in the 1960’s to around 40% in the 1990’s.
Bibliography
Haralambos and Holborn. (1995). Sociology Themes and Perspectives, 4th edn. London: Collins.
O’Donnell, Mike. (1997). An Introduction to Sociology, 4th edn. London: Nelson.
Pearson, Martin. (2003). The a-History Group [on line]. Bristol: M.S. Pearson.
. Accessed 19 February 2003.
Rouncefield. (2003). Meritocracy [on line]. London: Rouncefield.
. Accessed 02 March 2003
Thomas, Karen. (2003). Sociology – Education. Class Handouts. NPTC.
Thomas, Karen. (2003). Sociology – Education. Notes. NPTC.