The comprehensive system was introduced, therefore, to overcome the basic inequalities of the 'tripartite' system. Ideologically, comprehensives continue the social-democratic theme of establishing equality of opportunity for every pupil whatever the social and intellectual background. Under this system pupils of all backgrounds study in the same classroom.
But comprehensives themselves have been problematic. Their large size made it impossible for staff to know pupils personally. This created discipline problems, and the talents of individuals were susceptible to neglect and under-development. where comprehensives drew their pupils from a certain neighborhood, the social class pattern of that neighborhood was reflected in the school. These schools have been termed 'sink' schools. According to Martin Johnson, author of 'Failing School, Failing City', "sink schools are defined by their intake: a preponderance of aggressive, disaffected children who are indifferent to education, reject authority, disrupt classes and deride and bully anyone who tries to work" (Johnson, 1999). Characteristically they are situated where there are two or more nearby schools that have greater success rates. These schools tend to drain the best pupils away leaving the 'sink' school to decay. For example, Kings Manor in Guildford made national headlines when it became the first school to be put in the private sector as a result of poor teaching and bad behaviour. It is "situated in an area of social deprivation" (Clare, 1998). And, according to Dr Paul Gray, Surrey's director of education, "the number of pupils had fallen by more than half because parents preferred to send their children to one of four neighboring schools, all of which were exceptionally successful" (dare, 1998). The aim of social mixing between children of different social classes is therefore defeated.
Neo-Liberalism was a direct response to the failure of the social-democratic model. Those who espoused it such as Margaret Thatcher, Keith Joseph and Kenneth Baker, claimed to be bringing education policy back down to earth. Right wing think tanks such as the Institute For Economic Affairs and the Adam Smith Institute (Alcock, 1996, p127) offered credibility and substance to the ideology, paving the way for a radically new direction. A sign of things to come was the introduction of the Assisted Places Scheme in 1980 (Budge, Crewe, McKay, Newton, 1998, p622). This scheme gave a small number of lower income parents a subsidised place for their child at an elite private school. By 1990-91, the scheme was offering over 33,000 places (Wilding, 1992, p399). The underlying argument was that children who were gifted were being sacrificed at the expense of 'political correctness'. For neo-liberals, 'practicality' over 'ideology' must be the overriding governing factor in education policy. The cornerstone of neo-liberal policy implementation was 'competition' on levels of the system, from the management culture to segregation on the basis of intelligence in schools. It was understood that if competition was brought in, then standards would automatically rise, similar to that of the telecommunications industry when British Telecom was privatised in 1984 (Hanks, 1989, p1586).
Critics argue however that the neo-liberal theory is destructive. Theoretically they believe it is short sighted. Selection by its very nature brings inequality For every child lucky enough to be chosen, another child is excluded. The more you segregate children on the basis of intelligence, the larger the 'underclass' becomes. The more that children feel excluded and have no ambition, the worse the problems of fighting in the classroom, truancy and delinquency. Therefore the chances of attaining the original aims of the education system - provision of individual, social and economic skills -decrease further.
The area where the neo-liberal perspective has been effective is on shifting political focus towards the 'economic' benefits that education can bring to society. That is, nurturing the brightest pupils for a more successful economy in the future. They did this by implementing policies that centered on administration efficiency. Both the 1986 and 1988 Acts devolved day-to-day management of schools to school governors. Schools were given the choice to opt out of local authority control. The 1988 'Education Reform Act' set up a core 'National Curriculum' by which all students had to study. It included attainment targets outlining what children were expected to understand, regular testing and publication of results so that parents could compare the success of schools. Supporters argue that 'selection' and 'diversity' in schools creates a rich basis from which parents can choose to send their child. The former Education Secretary, John Patten, said in July 1992, "specialisation, underpinned by the National Curriculum, will be the answer for some - though not all - children, driven by aptitude and interest, as much as ability" (New Statesman And Society, 1992: p20, 21).
Critics, on the other hand, identify major problems with such an approach. The nationalisation' of school curriculums and the 'privatisation' and 'devolution' of school management contradict each other - how can the government ensure that the 'National Curriculum' is effectively carried out when, in an economic sense, schools are not working to the same strategy? Don Foster, then education spokesman for the Liberal Democrats said he felt "uncomfortable" about private firms running schools, stressing that there needed to be representation from local education authorities in order for schools to be run successfully. Otherwise profit over quality may become a factor (Lightfoot 1998). The opportunity for
schools to 'opt-out' of local authority control has widened the gap in attainment standards between schools. In the worst case scenarios, those schools capable of 'opting-out' find many problems they have to contend with. They are put under immense strain to attract as many people as possible in order to maintain the balance of finances. Therefore, the school has to be sold to the public. Money from the schools resources is spent on glossy brochures trying to attract the fight people rather than have the money spent on books or new equipment. They have to attract the 'fight people' because results are published in league tables and parents are suddenly in a position to see where the bad schools are. Headmasters are no longer teachers but managers of businesses without the proper business training. They are put under undue stress; attention is focused on the teachers' performances subsequently creating atmospheres of tension and pressure. As a result morale among staff is lower than before and standards drop. This effects the league table positions which puts parents off and vital funding is lost. The gap between schools widens, and as government has removed responsibility from their shoulders, they are powerless to close this gap. Critics would also question the motive behind the 'privatisation' of school management. Was it for the benefit of Britain’s schools or simply another method of manipulation by Margaret Thatcher to reduce the power of the Local Education Authorities in the same vein as reducing the power of Trade Unions?
Shortcomings aside, change was necessary in the 1980's and it has been effective if not necessarily fair. Although the culture of the market place is not appropriate in the area of education, it cannot be ignored that many children have benefited from increased competition. According to a recent report by the Independent, "there are more than 2400 independent schools in the UK" (Jewel 2000). The report stresses that no longer is it the case that only the rich and privately educated send their children to independent schools. The ISIS Guide to Accredited Independent Schools reveals further evidence. "More than half the children entering independent schools have parents who were educated in the state system - children come from every background" (Jewell, 2000). Evidence like this adds weight to the neo-liberal argument that 'comprehensives' are too restrictive in that they suppress talent by bringing all pupils down to one base level. By encouraging independence and publicising the best schools, far more pupils have a greater chance of a quality education. A development such as this was not happening under the social democratic consensus.
The greatest signifier of the influence of neo-liberalism on the development of education has been the oppositions' response now that they are in power. It is overwhelmingly clear that the social democrats under 'New Labour' have adopted the ideology rather than rejected it. They are committed to streaming pupils within schools, as Ben Marsden argued by suggesting that "the continuation of streaming in a comprehensive school is damaging to pupils morale and educational performance" (Marsden, 1969). Labour has introduced tuition fees in higher education ("the Conservatives were already drawing up plans to this effect before their defeat in 1997 "Budge, Crewe, McKay, Newton, 1998, p623). They also brought in another element of competition with regards to teachers -Performance Related Pay as outlined in David Blunkett's speech to the party conference in 1998. The labeling of grant maintained schools as 'foundation' schools only serves to heighten their differences and subsequently appear superior, as the former deputy leader of the Labour Party, Roy Hattersley has pointed out (Chitty, 1997, p21). The Labour government has also begun inviting multi-national companies to run schools where standards are low. Graham Lane, chairman of the Local Government Association has stressed that "this is the end of local government. These are not the education action zones we envisaged as partnerships between local authorities, business and community. What is planned would be extremely dangerous for the future and stability of education. It could lead to the beginning of the privatisation of the education system, the break up of education authorities and the destruction of local government" (Lightfoot, 1998). While he welcomed the input of business, he stressed that Education Action Zones directed at struggling schools would not work "if they are going to be run by people used to making a profit" (Lightfoot, 1998). After five years in power 'New Labour' has continued the 'National Curriculum', charged students in higher education and now threatens to increase the burdens on the students of tomorrow, encouraged 'selection' from within schools whilst showing no signs of tackling 'selection' between them and have gone significantly further than the Conservatives in embracing private finance. This is concrete proof that neo-liberalism remains the guiding ideology regarding education policy throughout the latter years of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first.
Neo-Liberalism made a huge impact on education policy in the 1980's and it has continued to this day. But how do we define success? The Thatcher administrations undoubtedly achieved considerable change in all spheres of social policy and their legacy is very much evident and is perhaps furthered by the current New Labour government. The current administration is a second consecutive landslide majority Social democratic government that has no problem with the culture of privatization, under a leader who appears comfortable acknowledging the importance of many aspects of the Thatcherite revolution. It is true that the more extreme perceived goals of the Thatcher years never managed to win the hearts and minds of the public, hence the continuing existence and dominance of health provision by the National Health Service for example. However, the shift from the old consensus on welfare provision looks like a permanent one, and perhaps it could now be said that if there is a new consensus emerging in British politics it is that the old consensus did not work.
Thus the debate has moved on to the minutiae of management structure within the NHS, education, social security and housing. Before 1979 the debate on any of these social policy areas would have boiled down to a question of how much public spending was needed or justified. During the Thatcher years it became a question of universality versus choice. Five years into what is likely to be a similarly long run in office for New Labour, the debate is now often not a case of ideology versus ideology but of how best to utilize private resources and market based structures to achieve the much needed improvements to our public services. In the recent Queen’s speech the government proposed the introduction of a number of foundation hospitals. Iain Duncan Smith responded by arguing that all hospitals should be made foundation hospitals. On such blurred lines the battle is now fought. If the aim of the Thatcher reforms was to dismantle wholesale the welfare state then it must be viewed as a complete failure. If however the aim was to cause a seismic and long lasting shift in the focus of social policy in British politics away from the dogmatic constraints of the past then the battleground of the next general election may yet be the most telling tribute to it’s success.
Bibliography
Alcock, P. (1996) "Social Policy In Britain” Macmillan Press. (p 127)
Budge, I. Crewe, I. McKay, D. Newton, K. (1998) "The New British Politics”. Addison Wesley Longman (p622, p623)
Cahill, M. (1994) The New Social Policy Blackwell
Chitty, C. (April 1997) "Choose... Education?" Sociology Review (p20,21) dare, J. (23 October 1998) 'Failing
School To Be Put In Private Sector" Electronic Telegraph.
Hanks, P. chief ed. (1989) "Collins Concise Dictionary Plus "C Collins. (p1586)
Jewell, 5. (24 February 2000) A Far Cry From Billy Bunter And St Trinian's" Independent Newspaper Website: Education Supplement.
Johnson, M. (1999) 'Failing School Failing City", in Woodhead, C (26 March 1999) "We Cannot Let Underachievers Sink". Electronic Telegraph.
Lightfoot, L. (7 January 1998) "Government Seeks Firms To take Over Poor School " Electronic
Telegraph.
Marsden, B. (1969) "Comprehensive Education " Article, No.13, in Nobbs, J. Hine, B. and
Fleming, M. (1975) "Sociology "C Macmillan Education. (p99)
Nobbs, I. Hine, B. and Fleming, M. (1975) "Sociology” Macmillan Education. (p83)
Patten, J. (17 July 1992) "Who's Afraid of The 'S" Word " New Statesman And Society. (p20,21)
Sullivan, M. (1992) The Politics Of Social Policy Harvester Wheatsheaf
Wilding, P. (1992) "The British Welfare State: Thatcherism's Enduring Legacy", in O'Donnell, M (1993) 'New introductory Reader In Sociology" (p390).
