Educational Policy: Selection to Marketisation
Educational policy in England has undergone dramatic transformations since the Second World War. The AQA specification requires you to understand the key policy phases — from the 1944 tripartite system through comprehensive education to the 1988 Education Reform Act and the introduction of marketisation. For each policy, you must understand its aims, how it worked, and its impact on educational equality. You must also be able to evaluate each policy from different sociological perspectives.
Key Definition: Educational policy refers to the plans, strategies, and legislation introduced by governments to organise and regulate the education system. Policies reflect the ideological assumptions and priorities of the government that introduces them.
The 1944 Education Act: The Tripartite System
The 1944 Butler Education Act introduced free, compulsory secondary education for all children for the first time. It established the tripartite system, which divided secondary education into three types of school, allocating pupils to each based on their performance in the 11-plus examination taken at the end of primary school.
The Three Types of School
| School Type | Purpose | Typical Pupil | Curriculum |
|---|
| Grammar schools | Academic education for the most intellectually able pupils | Top 20% of 11-plus scores | Academic subjects; preparation for university and professional careers |
| Secondary modern schools | Practical education for the majority | Pupils who did not pass the 11-plus | Less academic; focused on practical skills for manual and clerical work |
| Technical schools | Technical and vocational education | Pupils with technical/practical aptitudes | Science, engineering, and technical skills |
In practice, very few technical schools were ever built (only about 5% of pupils attended one), so the system effectively became a bipartite system of grammar schools and secondary moderns.
The 11-Plus Examination
The 11-plus was designed to be an objective, meritocratic test of intelligence. Children sat the exam at age 11, and their performance determined which type of school they would attend. The assumption was that intelligence was fixed and could be reliably measured at age 11.
Evaluation of the Tripartite System
From a functionalist perspective:
- Davis and Moore would argue that the tripartite system performed role allocation — identifying and channelling the most talented pupils into the most demanding schools and, ultimately, the most important roles.
- It was meritocratic in principle, if not in practice.
From a Marxist perspective:
- The system reproduced class inequality. Middle-class children were far more likely to pass the 11-plus because they had greater access to cultural capital, books, and coaching. Working-class children were disproportionately allocated to secondary moderns.
- The system legitimated inequality by presenting class-based allocation as the result of natural ability.
From a social democratic / Labour perspective:
- The 11-plus was unreliable — it did not accurately measure ability or potential. Many children who failed the 11-plus went on to demonstrate high ability later in life.
- The system was socially divisive — it created a two-tier system in which grammar school pupils received a superior education while secondary modern pupils were stigmatised.
- It was not truly meritocratic because middle-class children had significant advantages in the 11-plus.
Evidence against the system:
- Douglas (1964) found that the 11-plus was not a reliable measure of ability and that social class had a significant impact on results.
- Few working-class children who failed the 11-plus had the opportunity to transfer to grammar schools later.
- Gender inequality: in some areas, girls needed higher 11-plus scores than boys to gain grammar school places, because there were fewer girls' grammar schools.
The Comprehensive System (from 1965)
In 1965, the Labour government issued Circular 10/65, requesting (but not requiring) Local Education Authorities (LEAs) to submit plans for reorganising secondary education along comprehensive lines. The aim was to abolish the tripartite system and replace it with comprehensive schools that would educate all pupils in the same institution, regardless of ability.
Aims of Comprehensive Education
- Social unity: Bringing together children from all social classes in the same school would promote social mixing and reduce class divisions.
- Equality of opportunity: All children would receive the same quality of education, rather than being separated into different types of school at age 11.
- Removing the stigma of failure: The 11-plus created a pass/fail division at age 11 that labelled the majority of children as failures. Comprehensive schools would eliminate this stigma.
- Late development: Recognising that children develop at different rates, comprehensive schools would allow later developers to reach their potential, rather than having their future determined at age 11.
Evaluation of Comprehensive Education
Strengths:
- Comprehensives did reduce some of the social divisiveness of the tripartite system.
- They provided more opportunities for working-class pupils to access academic education.
- Ford (1969) found some evidence of improved social mixing in comprehensive schools.
Limitations:
- Ball (1981) found that comprehensive schools often reproduced inequality internally through streaming and banding. Middle-class pupils dominated the top streams, while working-class pupils were concentrated in the bottom streams — creating a "grammar school within a comprehensive."
- The system was never fully implemented — approximately 163 grammar schools remain in England today.
- Comprehensive schools in affluent areas attracted more middle-class pupils and achieved better results, while those in deprived areas struggled — reflecting the influence of the local social composition.
- Marxists argued that comprehensives did not fundamentally challenge class inequality because the education system as a whole continued to serve capitalist interests.
New Vocationalism
From the late 1970s, governments began to argue that the education system was failing to prepare young people for the world of work. The New Vocationalism movement introduced a range of work-related courses and training schemes.
Youth Training Scheme (YTS)