The creation of the state education system, the tripartite and the comprehensive system Flashcards
what does educational reform mean
Laws, policies and programmes for education
introduced through Acts of Parliament or by the
DfE.
Education before 1870
There are NO state schools so most children did
not receive an education.
Whether children were educated or not depended
on their social class background and their sex
Forster Education Act 1870
The Education Act of 1870 created the state education system
in the UK by establishing elementary schools (primary
schools) for 5 to 11 year olds.
Children were taught basic literacy and numeracy skills.
what were the reasons as to why the FEA 1870 was introduced
The Industrial Revolution created a need for an educated workforce. An industrial society required a numerate and literate pool of labour.
To improve the effectiveness of Britain’s armies - soldiers who could read, write and count would form a more successful fighting force and better administrators for the Empire.
To re-socialise the aimless, feckless poor and reduce street crime – Many Victorians felt that the working classes lived immorally, it was thought that educating them would make them into law-abiding citizens.
To ward off the threat of revolution – the French revolution and the writings of Karl Marx caused concern for the ruling classes that the w/c were going to rebel. Free education would make the ruling classes appear generous and teach the masses respect for authority and train them to follow instructions and to follow rules.
To provide a ‘human right’ – Liberals believed it was the correct thing to do
Criticism of the Education Act
1870
Education Act 1870 made little difference to the
lives of working class children.
Success in life still depended on ascribed status as m/c
children were sent to fee paying grammar schools where they
received academic curriculum for professional careers, while
the w/c children got elementary schooling where they learnt
only the basic skills needed for factory work.
Butler Education Act 1944
It brought in the tripartite system – 3 different types of
secondary schools:
Grammar
Secondary modern
Technical
Children were allocated to one of these schools on the
basis of how well they performed in the 11+ exam.
Grammar school
Accepted what were considered to be academically
bright pupils who had done well in the 11+ plus exam.
Such schools taught a wide range of academic subjects
including Latin and in some cases Greek.
These schools entered their pupils for public
examinations which were needed for any pupil that wished to attend university.
Twenty per cent of students attended these schools.
Secondary modern schools
Accepted most students in the country, 75% of children went
to secondary modern schools.
Such children would not have performed as well in the 11+
plus exam as those from grammar schools and as a result they
would receive a basic education with a more practical
emphasis.
Up until the 1960s there was very little opportunity for public
examinations to be taken in such schools meaning that the
opportunity to go to university was effectively ruled out if
you went to such a school.
Technical schools
Only accepted about 5 per cent of students in the
country at that time.
Such schools were designed for pupils that excelled
in technical subjects and consequently emphasised
vocational skills and knowledge.
These schools taught subjects such as woodwork,
metalwork, crafts etc.
However, they were expensive to build and very
few were actually set up.
Criticisms of the tripartite system
Girls’ 11+ scores were marked down because it was assumed that boys matured later.
Middle class children dominated grammar schools, as they performed best in the 11+. The problem with IQ tests is that they can be culturally-biased in favour of middle-class pupils. That meant that the majority of grammar school pupils came from the middle classes. Far from providing an equal education for all, the tripartite system reflected the existing social divisions in society as the influence of material deprivation and cultural deprivation was ignored.
The self-esteem of working class students was damaged by the inferior status of secondary modern schools.
Few technical schools were actually built due to the cost.
‘Parity of esteem’ did not exist between these three types of school. Parents, teachers and students saw the
grammar schools as superior to the other types of schools. This could mean that some parents, some teachers and some students could see themselves as failures if they were involved in any school that was not a grammar school.
Comprehensive education, 1965
Comprehensive education was introduced in 1965 by the Sheffield Council which was run by Labour.
They decided that the tripartite system was unfair, especially to to w/c students, and that it needed to change.
The 11+ exam was abolished and grammar, secondary modern and technical schools were replaced with comprehensive schools.
Admissions to comprehensive schools were based on the catchment area – the local area surrounding a school so children were admitted to the school that was closest to where they lived.
Once the Sheffield Council introduced this change,
all other Labour run councils around the country
followed, but there was no actual law passed by
Parliament to abolish grammar schools and create
comprehensive schools.
why was comprehensive education seen as meritocratic
Comprehensive system is seen as meritocratic as
all schools are the same – they teach all students
all subjects and enter all students for exams, not just the ones
who are seen as clever.
Why were comprehensive schools
introduced?
It was thought that they would break down social barriers
as children of all classes, religions, ethnic backgrounds
and gender would mix together and this would promote
tolerance.
There were no entrance exams, so no student is labelled a
failure and has their self-esteem permanently damaged at
the age of 11.
They are seen as meritocratic as all children are entered
for GCSEs and taught a wide range of subjects.
Strengths of comprehensive education
-better at addressing the demands for equal opportunities as children of different backgrounds attend comprehensives so there is more potential for social mobility.
-students’ self-esteem is not damaged by the stigma of going to an inferior school.
-Research has shown that high ability students do as well in comprehensive schools as in grammar schools and that low ability students achieve more than they did in secondary modern schools.
-Comprehensive schools provide a wide range of examination options such as GCSEs as well as BTEC and vocational courses.
-Comprehensive schools are large schools so they can provide a wider range of facilities for sport, drama, technology and science.
Limitations of comprehensive edu
Independent sector and grammar schools still exist. They tend to cream-skim the most able students away from local comprehensives. This makes the comprehensive school
more like a secondary modern.
Comprehensives were meant to break down class barriers and create a social mix in schools, but catchment areas are usually class based
Many comprehensive schools allocated students into streams with middle class students ending up in top streams. This may lead to labelling of students in low streams as failures thus leading to their underachievement. Therefore, this is a form of selection, similar to the tripartite system
There was limited parental choice. Parents had to send their child to the local school, no matter how good or bad it was.
Comprehensive system legitimate social inequality by creating the myth of meritocracy. It makes it look as if all students have the same chance to succeed, but some will always have an advantage, e.g. cultural capital.
