By 1944 it had become obvious that the state education system was failing the working classes and something had to be done. The war had brought different classes together somewhat and it was realised that a fairer education system was needed to provide social justice and reduce class inequality. The Act introduced the 11+, an exam sat by 11 year old children to determine the secondary school they went to. Three types of schools were available; grammar schools (for those who passed the 11+), secondary moderns (for those who failed the 11+) and secondary technicals (for those who had a specific technical ability). This was known as the tri-partite system.
The tri-partite system was praised by many for judging children in terms of their academic ability as opposed to their material wealth. However, The 11+ exam was seen to be biased in favour of middle class children (as it was written by the middle class) who received greater help in preparation for the test and benefited from being socialised into middle class norms and values. In addition to this, material deprivation meant that many working class children who did pass the test could not afford the transport or uniform costs of attending the nearest grammar school. In this respect, the tri-partite system failed to reduce social class inequality in education.
Further educational reform came in 1965 under a Labour government, with the introduction of comprehensive schools. Comprehensive schools put students in different classes according to ability. They aimed to take an inclusive approach – all pupils in a local education authority were to attend the same type of school, regardless of potentially dividing factors such as social class.
Many argue, however, that the 1965 act did not go far enough- private education is still an alternative option for more affluent families and divisions are often evident within schools due to streaming/banding/setting. Catchment areas can also be seen as maintaining social class inequality, with schools in wealthier areas having more middle class pupils and performing better in exams. Research by Butler and Hamnetta (2007) has shown that a school’s performance directly corresponds to the number of middle class pupils that attend it.
When Margaret Thatcher came to power in 1979, she sought to bring about marketisation of the education system. This involved forcing schools into competition with each other, with the aim of improving educational standards. While in theory this sounded a good idea, in practice it meant that the less attractive schools (often in deprived, urban areas) were not popular and became sink schools, struggling to attract students and receiving less funding as a result. The best schools remained in the richer areas and class inequality was maintained as a result.
New Labour have introduced a number of measures to try and reduce social class inequality in education. Educational Maintenance Allowance (EMA) is a form of compensatory education designed to try and persuade more working class pupils to remain in school after 16. Up to £30 a week can be awarded to students from low income families, supposedly to be spend on educational resources, transport, lunches etc.
Critics of EMA argue that the government use it as a way of reducing unemployment statistics by encouraging more young people into further education. There is also no control on how students spend the allowance, which could mean that it may not benefit their education anyway.
All in all, there have been a number of changes to the British education system. Many have been instrumental in creating a more meritocratic society, although it can be argued that not all were in the best interests of working class students. However, it cannot be denied that the last century has seen a huge shift away from the educational system of the 19th century which only benefited the richest in society.
