The introduction of selection at the age of eleven was an attempt to eradicate the inequality of opportunity caused by parental ability to pay for education. At the time it was believed that selection on ability was a fair process. The reality was that few technical schools were developed and secondary moderns, which catered for the majority of children, were badly under-funded. Criticism of the system was rife from its inception. Obtaining a place at a grammar school was deemed to provide greater opportunities than secondary modern, or technical schools. Grammar schools were the route to higher education which led to better paid job opportunities. The table below shows the proportions of children admitted to South West Hertfordshire and Middlesbrough grammar schools in 1953 from different social backgrounds.
Table 1. Displaying social backgrounds of boys admitted to Middlesbrough and South West Hertfordshire grammar schools.
The relevance of this chart is that, although figures alter annually, it shows that in this particular year, in two different areas of the country, there is a massive disparity in the number of children admitted from middle class and manual labour backgrounds. If you were the son of a professional or businessman in Middlesbrough, you were seven times more likely to gain a place in a grammar school than the son of an unskilled labourer.
The tripartite system could be seen to be an acceptance of the commitments of a capitalist society. In effect the system was a method of allocating children from different social classes to schooling suitable for their future role in society. Social mobility and life chances for children from working class family backgrounds, was limited by the very structure of the education system. Structural differentiation was built into post war educational systems. In an attempt to rectify the problem of class inequalities the comprehensive school was adopted as the most effective model of educational equality. Comprehensive schools were developed in an attempt to provide equal opportunities in education for all.
Issues of social inequalities and restrictions of life chances have clearly been central to government policies regarding education systems. Thus far I have highlighted how social inequalities and class differences have been reinforced by the structure of the education system. I am now going to investigate whether the contemporary education system still reinforces social class differences through its policies. Is there still a form of selection taking place in secondary schools, favouring children from traditional middle class backgrounds?
Since 1992 it has been a statutory requirement for schools to publish their examination results. Target grades for secondary schools are between A* and C. Grades falling outside of these parameters are generally not considered to carry any weight with employers or higher education establishments.4 If a school is asked to justify its performance, the figures that are usually quoted are the number of pupils that have passed their GCSE’s with five or more A – C grades. Much criticism has been levelled at the requirement to publish examination results. Original publication of school results is from the Department for Education and Employment, schools are arranged into local education authorities and listed in alphabetical order. However, the national press has few problems in rearranging the school results in order of their success at pupils achieving five grade A – C’s, thus effectively creating league tables of schools performance. The major criticism of education league table is that they compare academic achievement of schools without taking into account any other factors, such as whether the schools use a system of selection, whether they are local education authority funded or privately funded. As a result enormous pressure is placed upon schools to educate the greatest percentage of children possible to the level of five grade A-C GCSE’s.
This necessity for schools to attain as high a percentage of A – C grade passes as possible, has resulted in widespread use of selection in accordance with academic ability. Pupils are streamed in different subjects, partly because some teachers believe their particular subject does not lend itself to mixed ability teaching and partly to concentrate resources on the more, apparently academically able children capable of attaining A-C grades5. This policy has been actively supported by the Labour government.
Children are not all of the same ability, nor do they learn at the same speed. That means ‘setting’ children in classes to maximise progress, for the benefit of high fliers and slow learners alike.
Labour Party (1997), New Labour: Because Britain Deserves Better (The Labour Party Manifesto). London:The Labour Party
The Department for Education and Employment further supported the case for academic selection in 1997 through their document Excellence in Schools. A clear case for streaming and selection is asserted.
The demands for equality and increased opportunity in the 1950’s and 1960’s led to the introduction of comprehensive schools. All-in secondary schooling rightly became the normal practice, but the search for the equality of opportunity in some cases became a tendency to uniformity. The idea that all children had the same rights to develop their abilities led too easily to the doctrine that all had the same ability. The pursuit of excellence was too often equated with elitism.
Department fir Education and Employment (1997), Excellence in Schools. London:HMSO
Trends towards increased use of setting appear to be on the increase in both primary and secondary schools according to reports from the Office for Standards in Education.6 Secondary schools have been actively trying to identify pupils who may possibly borderline between grade D and C, to provide them with additional help and support. This concentration of resources on pupils possibly capable of achieving A – C grades leads inevitably to a reduction in funding in other areas, mainly for children seen as having little hope of attaining a C grade. Strategies such as this are used to effectively concentrate limited resources in order to raise schools externally judged standards and help lift their place in the league tables. These strategies do without doubt help to improve schools examination grades in the A-C bracket. Years of improving results nationwide are testament to this.
Table 2. Demonstrating the steady increase in pupils attaining five or more ‘higher grade’ GCSE passes (A*-C), England 1988 – 98. Source: Department for Work and Employment
Although there has been an overall improvement in examination results grade A-C, evidence seems to indicate rising inequalities between social classes. Evidence produced by S. Demack, et. al. appears to show increasing distinctions between the performance of children from middle and working class families.
Table 3. Children of different social classes, both sexes, gaining five or more A-C GCSE passes 1988-93. Demonstrating the widening difference in performance of children from working class and professional backgrounds.
Derived from, Demack, S. et. eal., (1998), Myths about underachievement: gender, ethnic and social class differencesin GCSE results 1988 -1993. Belfast
The process of streaming children, placing them in groups with others of the same imputed ability, may in fact reinforce class distinctions. Research by D. Gillborn(1997)7, S. Hallam and I. Toutounji(1996)8 shows consistently that setting children according to perceived ability does not deliver a net improvement in attainment. It does however reinforce social and minority ethnic disadvantage. Setting usually takes place through a mixture of ‘objective’ academic tests and teachers ‘subjective’ impressions of individual pupils. Teachers’ subjective views of ability may be influenced by deep rooted perceptions of race, gender and social class, though this is obviously very hard to prove.
Research undertaken by D.Gillborn and D. Youdell identifies the current GCSE examinations which use a system of ‘tiering’, as substantially limiting the life chances of certain pupils, mainly from ethnic minorities and working class backgrounds. The tier system can effectively limit the possible grades that a child can achieve in the exam. An example of the tier models are given below.
As can be seen in the three tier model, if a pupil is placed into the lower tier it becomes impossible for them to obtain a grade C pass. Gillborn and Youdell’s study of two secondary schools found that black pupils and children in receipt of free school meals (economically disadvantaged), were significantly more likely to be placed in the foundation tier exams, limiting their possibilities of obtaining grades that can facilitate their progression to further education. Gillborn and Youdell found quite pronounced differences in attainment on grounds of ethnic origin, class and gender. The table below show the number of pupils at Taylor Comprehensive that achieved at least five GCSE passes that include the core subjects of maths, science and English Language. The results are arranged into ethnic origin, class (based on those receiving free school meals and gender.)
These distinctions are being reinforced by the A-C culture. I would argue that these contemporary policies are the modern day equivalent, in terms of strengthening class divisions and inequalities, of the post war tripartite education system. Modern education which is supposedly based on individual ability, and a provision of equal opportunities of life chances, seems to have deep rooted social class distinctions still prevalent within.
As we have seen, children from lower social groups generally do not do as well at school as children from middle class families. Reasons for these trends cannot be blamed entirely on the education systems structure and strategies, though they do have to take partial responsibility. I would argue that many children’s life chances have already, to an extent, been predetermined by home based, family factors. A child does not enter the education system at five years old as a ‘blank canvass’, ready to be provided with opportunities. Many children come from home environments that suffer problems of poverty, poor housing, large families, missing parents and environmental deprivation. Such is the complexity of factors underlying social class differences in achievement that alterations in the education system alone cannot rectify them. While the education system to an extent can provide children with the opportunity of life chances, it cannot effect the large scale social and economic changes necessary to remove all class differences in education. Without a doubt education is the key to upward social mobility, higher earning potentials, higher status jobs and better life chances. Education alone does not determine life chances, it may be a key facilitator in making life chances available to children, but social factors define just how effective education can be in providing opportunities.
Reference:
1. Dewy, J. (1916), Democracy and Education, Macmillan, 1916. Cited in: Morrish, (1972) The Sociology of Education: An Introduction, London: George Allen and Unwin.
2. Education Act 1944
3. Mortimore, J and Blackstone, T. (1982), Disadvantage and Education. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.
4. Rogers, R. (1986), Education and Social Class. Philadelphia: The Falmer Press.
5. Mays, J.B. (1962), Education and the Urban Child. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
6. Davis, A. (1948), Social Class Influences on Learning. Harvard University Press
7. Gillborn, D. (1997), Race and Ethnicity in Education 14 -19, cited in: Tomlinson, S. (ed). Education and Critical Perspectives. London: Athlone Press.
8. Hallan, S., Toutounji, I. (1996), What do we know about the grouping of pupils by ability? A Research Review. London: University of London Institute of Education.
9. Gillborn, D., Youdell, D. (2001), The New IQism: Intelligence, ‘Ability’ and the rationing of education. Cited in, Demaine, J. (ed), Sociology of Education Today. London: J. Palgrave
Bibliography
Ball, S. (1986), Education. New York: Longman Inc.
Banks, O. (1976), The Sociology of Education. London: B.T. Batsford Limited
Barton, L. and Walker, S.(ed), (1984), Race, Class and Education. London: Croom Helm Ltd.
Blackledge, D. and Hunt, R. (1991), Sociological Interpretations of Education. London: Routledge.
Bruner, J.S. (1972), The Relevance of Education. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.
Cole, M. (ed) (1989), Education for Equality. London: Routledge.
Craft, M. (ed) (1970), Family, Class and Education. London: Longman Group Ltd
Davis, A. (1948), Social Class Influences on Learning. Harvard University Press
Demaine, J. (ed), Sociology of Education Today. London: J. Palgrave
Hallan, S. and Toutounji, I. (1996), What do we know about the grouping of pupils by ability? A Research Review. London: University of London Institute of Education.
Havighurst, R.J. and Neugarten, B.L.(1976), London: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
Hirst, P.H. and Peters, R.S. (1987), The Logic of Education. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul
Jeffreys, M.V.C. (1972), The Aims of Education. London. Pitman Press
King, R. (1977), Education. NewYork: Longman inc.
Mays, J.B. (1962), Education and the Urban Child. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
Morrish, J. (1972) The Sociology of Education: An Introduction, London: George Allen and Unwin.
Mortimore, J and Blackstone, T. (1982), Disadvantage and Education. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.
Rogers, R. (1986), Education and Social Class. Philadelphia: The Falmer Press.
Silver, H. (1978), Equal Opportunity in Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Spring, J. (1980), Educating the Worker-Citizen. New York: Longman Inc.
Tomlinson, S. (ed). (1974), Education and Critical Perspectives. London: Athlone Press.
Winch, C and Gingell, J. (1999), Key Concepts in The Philosophy of Education. London: Routledge
