You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Educational policy in England has been transformed repeatedly since the Second World War, and each transformation has carried a different answer to the central question of the whole unit: should education be organised to promote equality, or to serve the economy — and can it do both at once? This lesson traces the policy story from the 1944 tripartite system, through comprehensivisation and New Vocationalism, to the watershed 1988 Education Reform Act that introduced marketisation. For each phase you must be able to state its aims, explain how it actually worked, and evaluate its impact on educational equality from several sociological perspectives. The skill examiners reward most highly is the ability to read each policy through theory — to see the tripartite system as a Marxist machine of reproduction, comprehensivisation as a social-democratic project, and marketisation as the triumph of the New Right — and to show that, beneath the changing rhetoric, social class has proved remarkably resilient at reproducing itself in each new form the system has taken.
Key Definition: Educational policy refers to the plans, strategies, and legislation governments introduce to organise and regulate the education system. Policies are never neutral: they reflect the ideological assumptions and priorities of the government that introduces them, which is why the same policy can be praised as promoting opportunity and condemned as entrenching privilege.
Spec Mapping: This lesson maps to AQA A-Level Sociology (7192), Paper 1, Section A: Education — specifically the requirement to understand and evaluate the significance of educational policies, including selection, comprehensivisation and marketisation, for the experience and achievement of different social groups. It supplies the historical and structural backbone for the post-1997 policy lesson that follows, and it is assessed through 10-mark "applying material from the Item, analyse two…" questions and 30-mark "applying material from the Item and your knowledge, evaluate…" essays.
Synoptic Links: Policy is the unit's most theory-laden topic. The tripartite system illustrates Marxist reproduction and legitimation (Althusser; Bowles & Gintis) and functionalist role allocation (Davis & Moore — Lesson 1); comprehensivisation expresses a social-democratic politics of equality of opportunity; marketisation is the applied New Right programme (Chubb & Moe) and connects to beliefs in society (neoliberal ideology) and to stratification (the reproduction of class advantage). New Vocationalism links directly to the relationship between education and the economy. Methods in Context is engaged whenever we assess the evidence for a policy's effects — Douglas's longitudinal cohort study of the 11-plus, Gewirtz's qualitative interviews with parents — so the validity and representativeness of that evidence is itself examinable as evaluation.
The 1944 Butler Education Act introduced free, compulsory secondary education for all children for the first time — a genuine landmark. But it organised that education through the tripartite system, which divided secondary schooling into three types of school and allocated pupils to each on the basis of the 11-plus examination sat at the end of primary school. The intention was to match each child's schooling to their supposed type of intelligence; the effect, sociologists argue, was to sort children largely along class lines at the age of eleven.
| School Type | Purpose | Typical Pupil | Curriculum |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grammar schools | Academic education for the most able | Roughly the top fifth of 11-plus scores | Academic subjects; preparation for university and the professions |
| Secondary modern schools | Practical education for the majority | Pupils who did not pass the 11-plus | Less academic; practical skills for manual and clerical work |
| Technical schools | Technical and vocational education | Pupils with technical aptitudes | Science, engineering, and technical skills |
In practice very few technical schools were ever built — only a small minority of pupils ever attended one — so the system became in effect a bipartite divide between grammar schools and secondary moderns, sharpening its either/or character.
The 11-plus was presented as an objective, meritocratic test of innate intelligence, resting on the then-influential assumption that intelligence is fixed at birth and can be reliably measured at age eleven. Both assumptions are now heavily discredited: ability develops at different rates, is shaped by environment, and cannot be captured by a single test on a single morning. Yet the test's apparent objectivity was central to its legitimating function — it made a class-patterned outcome look like the impartial verdict of science.
The clearest way to evaluate the tripartite system is to set the perspectives against one another:
| Perspective | Reading of the tripartite system |
|---|---|
| Functionalist (Davis & Moore) | Performs role allocation — sifts the most talented into the most demanding schools and, ultimately, the most important jobs; meritocratic in principle |
| Marxist (Althusser; Bowles & Gintis) | Reproduces class inequality (middle-class children dominate grammar schools) and legitimates it by dressing class-based selection as natural ability |
| Social-democratic / Labour | Socially divisive and inaccurate — the 11-plus mislabels late developers and stigmatises the majority as failures at eleven |
From a functionalist perspective, Davis and Moore (Lesson 1) would see the system as performing role allocation, channelling the most able into the most demanding schooling and, eventually, the most functionally important roles — meritocratic in principle, even if imperfect in practice.
From a Marxist perspective, the system reproduced class inequality and legitimated it. Middle-class children were far more likely to pass the 11-plus because they enjoyed greater cultural capital, more books, and private coaching; working-class children were disproportionately consigned to secondary moderns. By presenting this class-patterned outcome as the result of measured "ability", the system persuaded working-class families that failure was their own, fairly assessed, fault — a textbook example of Althusser's ideological function.
From a social-democratic / Labour perspective, the 11-plus was simply unreliable — it did not accurately measure ability or potential, and many who "failed" it went on to demonstrate high ability later in life — and the system was socially divisive, creating a two-tier structure in which grammar pupils received a superior education while secondary-modern pupils were stigmatised from the age of eleven.
Evidence against the system. Douglas (1964), in his longitudinal cohort study The Home and the School, found that the 11-plus was not a reliable measure of ability and that social class had a significant impact on results. Transfer between school types after eleven was rare in practice, so a child's life chances were effectively fixed at the end of primary school. There was also a striking gender dimension: in some areas girls had to achieve higher 11-plus marks than boys to win a grammar-school place, because there were fewer girls' grammar schools — a clear demonstration that "meritocratic" selection was shaped by factors having nothing to do with merit.
In 1965 the Labour government issued Circular 10/65, requesting — but not requiring — Local Education Authorities (LEAs) to submit plans to reorganise secondary education along comprehensive lines. The aim was to abolish the tripartite divide and educate all pupils, regardless of measured ability, in a single neighbourhood school. The fact that the circular only requested reorganisation is itself examinable: it explains why comprehensivisation was patchy and incomplete, leaving grammar schools surviving in some areas to this day.
Strengths. Comprehensives did reduce some of the overt social divisiveness of the tripartite system and widened working-class access to academic education and to public examinations. Ford (1969) found some evidence of improved social mixing, and supporters point out that overall attainment and staying-on rates rose over the comprehensive era.
Limitations. Ball (1981), in his study of Beachside Comprehensive, found that comprehensives frequently reproduced inequality internally through streaming and banding: middle-class pupils dominated the top streams while working-class pupils were concentrated in the bottom ones, effectively recreating a "grammar school within the comprehensive." Ford's own findings on social mixing were modest, suggesting integration was limited in practice. The system was never fully implemented — a number of grammar schools survive in England today — and because comprehensives recruit from their local area, those in affluent neighbourhoods attracted more middle-class pupils and achieved stronger results, while those in deprived areas struggled, so catchment-based segregation reproduced class differences between schools even after selection at eleven was abolished. Marxists add that comprehensivisation could never fundamentally challenge class inequality because the education system as a whole still served capitalist interests — changing the structure of schools left the function of reproduction intact.
Methods in Context note. Evaluating any of these policies depends on the evidence used to judge them, which is itself an examinable issue. Ball's Beachside study used participant observation, which gives rich, valid insight into how banding actually worked day to day but rests on a single school and is hard to generalise. Douglas's verdict on the 11-plus rested on a large-scale longitudinal cohort study, which is far more representative but, by relying on official measures of "ability", risks importing the very class biases it sets out to detect. Judgements about whether comprehensives "raised standards" depend on official examination statistics, whose meaning is contested because grade boundaries, entry patterns, and the qualifications on offer all changed over the period. A sophisticated answer therefore treats claims about policy "success" with appropriate caution, recognising that the method used to evaluate a policy shapes the conclusion reached.
From the late 1970s, against a background of rising youth unemployment, governments increasingly argued that education was failing to prepare young people for work. The New Vocationalism movement introduced a range of work-related courses and training schemes intended to close this supposed "skills gap" between school and the economy.
The Youth Training Scheme (YTS), introduced in 1983 under the Conservative government, provided one year (later two) of work-based training for 16-17 year-old school leavers not in employment or further education, with the stated aims of tackling youth unemployment and equipping young people with employer-valued skills.
Evaluation (AO3). Supporters argued YTS gave young people genuine practical skills and work experience and a route off the dole. Critics argued it supplied cheap labour to employers, offered poor-quality training, and overwhelmingly recruited working-class youth. Cohen (1984) influentially described it as "warehousing" — a means of storing unemployed young people to keep them off the unemployment statistics. From a Marxist standpoint, Finn (1987) argued that New Vocationalism was really about teaching working-class youth to accept low-paid, low-status work and to blame themselves for unemployment rather than questioning an economic system that had failed to provide jobs — a vocational version of the legitimation thesis.
The Technical and Vocational Education Initiative (TVEI), launched in 1983, injected more practical and vocational content into the school curriculum for 14-18 year-olds, while GNVQs (General National Vocational Qualifications), introduced in 1992, offered a vocational alternative to A-Levels. Critics argued these created a two-track system in which vocational routes carried lower status than academic ones and were taken disproportionately by working-class pupils — so "parity of esteem" between academic and vocational qualifications was promised in rhetoric but rarely delivered in practice.
Because policy is so heavily theory-laden, it helps to set the three governing political perspectives side by side, since each phase of reform is best understood as the application of one of them. This framework is itself an examiner-rewarded device: it lets you organise a long historical answer around ideas rather than merely listing dates.
| Perspective | Core belief about education | Preferred policy | View of the others' policies |
|---|---|---|---|
| Social democratic | Education should actively promote equality of opportunity and social integration | Comprehensivisation; compensatory funding; widening access | Selection (tripartite, grammars) entrenches privilege; marketisation deepens it |
| New Right / neoliberal | A state monopoly is inefficient; competition and choice raise standards | Marketisation: league tables, open enrolment, academies, free schools | Comprehensivisation lowers standards and removes accountability |
| Marxist | Education reproduces and legitimates class inequality whatever its form | None of the above truly works; structural change is needed | Every reform leaves the reproduction function intact |
The social-democratic position — associated with thinkers such as A.H. Halsey and the post-war Labour tradition — held that education is a powerful lever for reducing inequality and building a more integrated society, provided the state intervenes actively to widen access and compensate for disadvantage. It therefore championed comprehensivisation and, later, programmes such as Education Action Zones and Sure Start. Crucially, this view stops short of the Marxist claim that reform is futile: social democrats believe a fairer education system is achievable within capitalism, which is exactly why Marxists criticise them for treating symptoms rather than causes. Setting these three perspectives against the historical phases — tripartite selection (a Marxist target), comprehensivisation (the social-democratic project), and 1988 marketisation (the New Right programme) — gives a 30-mark answer its analytical spine.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.