Topic 6: Education and Social Policy

What was the Tripartite System and how did it impact education?

• Before World War II, education access was largely limited to the middle and upper classes.

• The 1944 Butler Education Act introduced free secondary education for all up to age 15.

• The Act created the Tripartite System, which had 3 types of schools:

  • Grammar schools: Academic curriculum, access to higher education, for those who passed the 11+ exam.

  • Secondary modern schools: Practical curriculum, geared towards manual work, for those who failed the 11+.

  • Technical schools: Vocational education, existed in some areas, for those who failed the 11+.

Criticisms of the Tripartite System

• Reproduced class inequality by sending middle-class and working-class children to different schools with unequal opportunities.

• Discriminated against girls—often had to score higher than boys on the 11+ to get into grammar schools.

• Justified inequality through the belief that ability is inborn, rather than shaped by upbringing and environment.

• In reality, social class background had a big influence on a child’s performance.

Support for the Tripartite System:

• Benefited many middle-class families and still exists in some parts of the UK today.

• Provided social mobility for the working-class students who did make it into grammar schools.

• Some argue it gave working-class pupils more chances than the current system.

Why was the comprehensive system introduced and what were its goals?

• By the 1950s, there was growing dissatisfaction with the limitations of the tripartite system.

• The tripartite system failed to create equality of opportunity.

• Comprehensive education aimed to:

  • Abolish selection at age 11, and

  • Educate all children together, regardless of class, ethnicity, gender, or ability.

• In 1965, the Labour government asked local authorities to submit plans to reorganise into comprehensive systems.

• Facilities were improved so that comprehensives could offer a broader curriculum and more sporting/recreational activities.

Did comprehensives solve the problem of class inequality?

• Although comprehensives helped reduce the class gap in achievement, they still reproduced class inequality for two main reasons:

  1. Streaming

     • Many comprehensives used streaming (grouping by ability).

     • Middle-class pupils were more likely to be placed in higher streams,

     • Working-class pupils were often placed in lower streams, limiting their academic progress.

  2. Labelling

     • Even where there was no formal streaming, teachers often labelled working-class pupils negatively.

     • These labels restricted pupils' opportunities and reinforced class-based expectations.

     • Ball (1981) and others have shown how these labels can lead to self-fulfilling prophecies.

The Myth of Meritocracy

• Comprehensive schools legitimated inequality by promoting the illusion that all students had an equal chance.

• Since everyone now attended the same type of school, it appeared that opportunities were fair, even though class-based inequalities still existed.

How did the 1988 Education Reform Act change education?

• The 1988 Education Reform Act (ERA), introduced by the Conservative government under Thatcher, aimed to introduce market principles into education—an idea supported by the New Right.

• Later, New Labour (1997–2010) under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown continued similar policies, focusing on standards, diversity, and parental choice.

What is marketisation?

• Marketisation refers to introducing market forces of consumer choice and competition into state services (e.g. education).

ERA created an education market by?

• Reducing direct state control over schools.

• Increasing competition between schools.

• Encouraging parental choice.

Parentocracy (Miriam David)

• Describes the shift of power from producers (schools/teachers) to consumers (parents).

• Claims it promotes school diversity, raises standards, and gives parents more power.

Policies to Promote Marketisation

• League tables and Ofsted reports – give parents data to choose schools.

• Business sponsorships – schools funded by private businesses (Rikowski calls this the ‘business takeover’).

• Formula funding – schools receive funding per pupil.

• Opting out of LEA control – schools gained more independence.

• Competition between schools to attract pupils.

Does marketisation reduce or increase inequality?

• Critics argue marketisation increased social class inequalities, especially favouring middle-class families who can make better use of the system.

• Ball and Whitty argue that policies like league tables and formula funding help reproduce and legitimate inequality.

Exam League Tables

• Schools with better results rank higher → more popular with parents.

• These schools become more selective, recruiting high-achieving, middle-class pupils.

• Working-class pupils often end up in less successful schools, reinforcing inequality.

The Funding Formula

• Popular schools get more students → more funding.

• More money = better teachers and better facilities.

• Unpopular schools lose pupils → lose funding → struggle to attract quality staff/resources.

• This creates a cycle of underperformance and disadvantage for working-class students.

Do all parents really have equal choice?

• Sociologists argue that marketisation reproduces and legitimates inequality by hiding its true causes.

• Stephen Ball:

  • Marketisation creates the illusion of parentocracy (free choice for all).

  • But this is a myth—not all parents have equal freedom of choice.

• Gewirtz:

  • Middle-class parents have more economic and cultural capital, helping them:

    • Move house to catchment areas with better schools.

    • Understand and navigate the school system better.

• The myth of parentocracy:

  • Hides the role of social class in school success.

  • Makes inequality seem fair and natural.

How did New Labour try to reduce inequality while keeping marketisation?

Policies to Reduce Inequality:

• Education Action Zones (1998):

  • Partnerships between LEAs and local businesses.

  • Targeted under-performing schools in deprived areas.

  • Provided funding for IT, resources, and better teachers.

  • Later incorporated into the Excellence in Cities scheme.

• Excellence in Cities (1999):

  • Aimed to:

    • Raise aspirations and achievement.

    • Tackle disaffection, exclusion, truancy, and discipline issues.

    • Improve parental confidence in schools in deprived areas.

• EMA (Education Maintenance Allowance):

  • Weekly payments to low-income students to encourage post-16 education.

• Raising the school leaving age:

  • Proposed to raise school leaving age to 18 by 2015.

  • Aim: reduce the number of NEETs (Not in Education, Employment or Training).

Policies to Increase Diversity and Choice:

• Specialist schools:

  • Schools could specialise in subjects (e.g. science, languages).

  • By 2007, around 85% of secondary schools had specialist status.

  • Promoted choice and raised standards by focusing on school strengths.

• Academies:

  • Mainly created from under-performing schools in working-class areas.

  • Aim: raise standards and achievement for disadvantaged pupils.

  • Target of 200 academies by 2010.

What are the criticisms?

• Geoff Whitty (2003):

  • Points out that despite aiming to reduce inequality, many of Labour's policies still relied on marketisation.

  • He argues that:

    • Some initiatives helped individuals but did not remove class inequalities.

    • The focus on standards and choice sometimes benefited the middle class more.

Were New Labour’s changes meaningful?

• Geoff Whitty (2003) argues many of New Labour’s reforms were cosmetic—they appeared different but continued Conservative policies.

  Examples of cosmetic changes:

  • Increased privatisation of educational services (e.g. school meals).

  • Expansion of specialist schools—still allowed some selection.

  • Continued emphasis on competition to improve standards.

  • Grammar schools were allowed to stay unless parents voted to convert them to comprehensives.

• Impact on inequality:

  • These policies allowed the middle class to exploit the system for their advantage.

  • For example, selection by aptitude (e.g. music, dance) was used to favour academically able middle-class children.

• Curriculum criticism:

  • Labour retained a traditional curriculum and even narrowed it.

  • Introduced prescriptive teaching methods (e.g. how to teach literacy and numeracy), reducing teacher autonomy.

What are Coalition Policies

Conservatives + Liberal Democrats coalition under David Cameron. Main aims: marketisation, choice, standards.

Expansion of Academies: (Coalition Policies)

• All schools encouraged to convert to academies (not just underperforming ones).

• Gave schools independence from local authorities, more control over curriculum/budget.

Free Schools: (Coalition Policies)

• New schools set up by parents, charities, or businesses.

• More choice and competition in the system.

Pupil Premium: ( Coalition Policies)

• Extra funding to schools for pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds (e.g. on free school meals).

• Intended to reduce inequality of opportunity.

Changes to Curriculum and Exams: (Coalition Policies)

• More traditional academic content (e.g. emphasis on grammar, British history).

• Introduction of linear A-levels and reforming GCSEs to make them harder.

Raising School Leaving Age:

• Compulsory education or training until age 18 by 2015.

Evaluation

• Ball: These policies increased fragmentation and privatisation of education (schools are no longer under local authority control, and more services are outsourced).

• Pupil Premium: Ofsted said schools often didn’t use the money effectively to support disadvantaged students.

• Free Schools: Criticised for benefiting the middle class and draining funds from existing schools.

Conservative Policies (2015–present / 2030)

Focus on discipline, knowledge-based learning, and skills for the economy.

Further expansion of Free Schools and Academies: (Conservative Policies)

• Plan for all schools to become academies eventually.

Grammar Schools return: (Conservative Policies)

• Renewed interest in selective education, arguing it increases social mobility.

Knowledge-rich curriculum: (Conservative Policies)

• Greater focus on core academic subjects (English, maths, sciences, history).

• Encouraged schools to follow the English Baccalaureate (EBacc) – a set of subjects considered vital for higher education and jobs.

Tougher GCSEs and A-levels: (Conservative Policies)

• Shift from coursework to final exams.

• More rigorous grading system (9–1 at GCSE).

Skills and Vocational Training: ( Conservative Policies)

• Creation of T-levels (technical A-level equivalents).

• More apprenticeships to address skills shortages in the UK workforce.

Discipline and Behaviour: ( Conservative Policies)

• More powers for teachers to discipline students and enforce school uniform rules.

• Focus on “zero tolerance” behaviour policies.

Evaluation

• Increased inequality?

  • Critics argue academisation and selection favour the middle class and widen class gaps.

  • Grammar schools may increase social mobility for some, but often exclude disadvantaged students.

• Curriculum reforms:

  • Supporters say they improve standards and rigour.

  • Critics say they ignore creativity, increase stress, and do not suit all learners.