History of Education in the Uk free essay sample

When the 1870 Elementary Education Act was instated it was the first government legislative act that made elementary education available and, in successive years, compulsory for all children. Elementary education consisted of the three R’s ‘reading, ‘riting and ‘rithmetic’, Biblical knowledge and ‘morality’. (Haralambos 2004). Renowned author HG Wells argued that this was â€Å"an act to educate the lower class for employment on lower class lines. † (Cited in Taylor et al 1997). An evolutionary act, not revolutionary, that made no effort to break down the barriers of class based education as but instead provided appropriate schooling for labour class children whilst providing a much needed ‘babysitting’ service as the Factory Acts prohibited children under 10 from working. The development of Britain’s education system was antiquated and lagging behind rival competitors in industry. Broadly up until World War Two, the three types of schooling; public schools for the upper classes, grammar schools for the middle classes and elementary schools for the working class, remained largely unchanged until World War Two. Haralambos 2004) Towards the end of and especially after World War Two the idea of meritocracy arose and with it the desire to rebuild society on meritocratic foundations, starting with education. Rad Butler (conservative MP and president of the board of education education) piloted the 1944 Education Act, often referred to as the Butler act, through parliament. (Derek Gillard 2011). Stephen Moore (2001) proposes that the 1944 Education Act was a part of a large welfare state provision roll out that was put into effect in successive years in the post war period influenced by the 1942 Beveridge Report. Haralambos (2004) highlights the philosophical and ideological underpinning of the 1944 Act as an idea of educational meritocracy and a realisation that the nation wasn’t making use of the talents of its people. â€Å"The nature of a childs education should be based on his capacity and promise and not by the circumstances of his parent. † (Cited in Derek Gillard 2011). The state reorganised the structure of education into three stages; primary education up until the age of eleven, secondary from the age of eleven to fifteen (from 1973, 16) and further or higher education beyond this new leaving age. Taylor et al 1997). Derek Gillard 2011 states that Cyril Norwood publishing the Norwood Report in 1943 directly shaped the landscape of secondary education. Using the prevailing theories of psychologists and educationalists (namely Cyril Burt) of the 1920’s and 30’s understanding of intelligence that held the, now debunked, view of intelligence as fixed and her editary; there were different ‘types’ of pupils, differing in ‘aptitudes and abilities’ and a child’s ‘type’ of intelligence could be found using intelligence testing. Taylor et al 1997). A national intelligence test was introduced, called the 11 plus, and was used as a selection tool for allocating the right ‘type’ of school for the right ‘type’ of child. This method of selection was seen as a scientific way of making sure that each child was receiving an education based on his or her ability. The test was taken on a single day at the age of eleven and this moulded educational trajectory of that child. A tripartite secondary education structure was born; three types of school, for three types of children; grammar schools for the bright and academic, secondary technical schools for children with aptitudes in technical subjects and secondary moderns for the less academic and more practical children. (Haralambos 2004). Taylor et al (1997) puts forth that the tripartite system was designed to provide separate yet equal types of schooling that was geared towards a child’s ability and that each type of school should have a parity of esteem. Parity of esteem was an idea and wasn’t mirrored by the reality; 75% of children who failed the 11 plus were disproportionately working class and consigned to substandard secondary moderns and the ‘top’ 20% who passed were disproportionately middle class who had the opportunity to gain a high quality grammar school education. Very few secondary technical schools were ever built due to their expense and only 5% of children attended them. The 11 plus was perceived as a ‘pass or fail’ test, (failure caused low self-esteem for most schools and the children attending them) and not the selection aid for a merit-based flavour of secondary education it was advertised to be. Derek Gillard’s (2011) argument of classism in the classroom is brought to light by the Attlee government increasing the barrier to entry into grammar schools, declining secondary moderns from introducing C. S. E. exams and rejecting numerous proposals from local authorities to introduce comprehensive schooling. The initial notion of ‘equal chance and opportunity’ education was increasingly viewed as more of a bipartite system of selective schooling; reinforcing the social class division within society rather than flying the flag for educational meritocracy. Criticisms that the tripartite system was wasting talent and not providing the education and skills needed for economic growth, combined with a change of government (from Conservative to Labour) in 1965 led to the â€Å"reorganising of secondary education along comprehensive lines† (Haralambos 2004, p132). A comprehensive education system would bring the tripartite system under one roof, merging three schools into one; educating all children of all abilities regardless of class background. Pupils were all given the same opportunities; there was no ‘selection aid’ (11 plus) as each school had a catchment area that would enable children in the area to attend. Derek Gillard (2011) stated that the ideological driver was to promote social cohesion and abolish ‘classism in the classroom. The move to a comprehensive education system facilitated the pressure for primary schools to teach for the 11 plus was removed and they began to experiment with more liberal child centred teaching methods. (Derek Gillard 2011). According to Taylor et al (1997) the 1960’s and 70’s saw a period of regular governmental change; yo-yoing between Conservative and Labour. It would seem that the determining factor in the rate of change from selective to comprehensive education was th e government in power. The abolition of capital punishment in 1965 and decriminalisation of homosexuality 1967 (www. nationalarchives. gov. uk) was demonstrative of Labours strive for social justice and equality. Haralambos (2004) illustrates the labour party’s push for comprehensive education by highlighting that by the time the conservative party returned to power in 1970 a third of all young people in secondary education were attending comprehensives. Edward Heath’s newly elected conservative government wanted to run grammar schools alongside comprehensives effectively undermining to the very idea of a comprehensive education system. The governmental change back to Labour in 1974 saw that figure increase to 80% by the end of term in 1979. Critics of the comprehensive system of education feared that amalgamating three schools into one would hold back pupils of higher ability and dilute the high academic standards of grammar schools. These fears, however, were unfounded as standards were higher in 1983 (with 4% attending grammar schools) than in 1969 (when 21% were attending grammar schools). Taylor et al (1997). Although exam results improved, the hopes of breaking down class barriers didn’t meet expectations as setting and streaming by ability within comprehensives consigned a disproportional amount of working class pupils to lower streams and sets and the majority of middle class pupils to higher streams and sets. Haralambos 2004). The precursor to the 1976 Education Act that stated there was to be no selection process in education was Prime Minister James Callaghan’s Great Debate speech hinting that the purpose of education was for employment, â€Å"I do not join those who paint a lurid picture of educational decline because I do not believe it is generally true†¦ In todays world, higher standards are demanded than were required yesterday and there are simply fewer jobs for those without s kill. Therefore we demand more from our schools than did our grandparents†¦ The goals of our education†¦ are to equip children to the best of their ability for a lively, constructive, place in society, and also to fit them to do a job of work. Not one or the other but both†¦ (James Callaghan, Great Debate speech at Ruskin College, Oxford, October 18th 1976 courtesy of the Guardian). 1979 saw the re-election of a conservative ‘new right’ government that stayed in power for almost twenty years (until 1997). Led by Margaret Thatcher, the conservative party promoted free market values, privatisation and capitalism. The 1970’s was a time of high youth unemployment and schools and there was a backlash against the liberal teaching methods that were producing young people who lacked the skills required by industry. (Taylor et al 1997). The conservatives wanted an education system that would meet the needs of the market whilst raising standards of education; there was concern that the current system was run by liberal ‘loony left’ teachers and there was an overall lack of discipline. Stories like the William Tyndale Scandal highlighted the need for a return to traditional Victorian values whilst promoting competition. (Derek Gillard 2011). After the failed reinstatement of the selection process in schools (1979 Education Act), by underestimating the popularity of comprehensives, Thatcher’s government waged a war of attrition that spanned almost a decade and 10 legislative acts to weaken and undermine the areas of the current education system; the majority labour controlled LEA’s, the teachers and their unions, the curriculum. For example, the 1980 Education Act gave parents to have the ability to choose from schools from outside their catchment area, creating competition between schools and the ‘absolute freedom of choice by application. (Cited in Derek Gillard 2011). Industry and the free market values of capitalism were the major ideological drivers of the time and the result gave birth to New Vocationalism; the belief that education should serve the needs of the market. The government took the sole responsibility for providing training for work away from employers and in 1983 the creation of a nu mber of youth training schemes; vocational, work based courses for school leavers that would enable them to train and achieve qualifications. These youth training schemes (in 1986) graduated to the forming of National Vocational Qualifications (NVQ’s) which were set to solve the problem of the skills shortage in industry. There was a converse argument that a lack of employment was the problem not the lack of skills or training and vocational qualifications could be seen as a way procuring cheap labour. (Haralambos 2004). The 1988 Education Reform Act, sometimes referred to as the Baker act (after Kenneth Baker), was the most important educational act since the 1944 Butler act and marked the end of the post war consensus and the imposition of free market values on education. Grant maintained schools and city technology colleges that were run like businesses and could specialise to further widen parent choice were created; they circumvented LEA control, were funded directly from central government and had limited selection powers at age 11. A National standardised curriculum and system of testing controlled by the government was introduced with key stages were set in place to make sure that certain education objectives and standards were achieved. The 1992 Education Act saw the creation of league tables, the introduction of Ofsted and colleges and sixth forms taken away from LEA control. The results of standardised tests (SAT’s, GCSE’s and A Levels) and Ofsted inspections would have to be published in the league tables to advertise a schools success or lack thereof and in conjunction with Formula Funding (funding per student) would enable well subscribed schools to expand with parental choice further increasing competition and driving up standards. This had an effect on the economy with higher prices (an increase of 20%) for houses in desirable catchment areas. Ball, Bowe and Gewirtz (cited in Haralambos 2002) argue that not all parents were able to take advantage of the free market model of educational choice. Middle class parents (skilled privileged choosers) understood how the system worked in order to best benefit from it. For example, they had the funds to relocate to a desirable catchment or commute to ‘good schools’. The working class (unskilled chooser) had neither the funds not the understanding of the system to truly reap the benefits. When the labour government came back in to power in 1997 there was a perception that education would revert back to a more egalitarian comprehensive system with no selection but the education policy of Labour was seemingly indistinguishable from the previous conservative government with a continuation of parental choice and competition between schools. (Derek Gillard 2011) Ken Browne (2002) sees the comprehensive equality to free market competition values in education as a shift in priorities from child centred to school centred; the ‘image’ of a schools league table results has become more important than the traditional pursuit of equality of educational opportunity. The question was not ‘what you the school do for the student’ but ‘what can the student do for the school’. Weaker students (working class) were more likely to not be entered into exams for fear of the effect on the league tables and strong students (middle class) were not pushed urther if they already filled the stats of the A* to C bracket as this would be a waste of resources. The academy and free school movement is set to completely break education from LEA control. Academies are described as publicly funded independent schools making education in these schools the sole responsibility of the government and sponsors. They have the power to choose their own curriculum as long as it is ‘broad and balanced’. Alongside academies free schools will do much the same but with less funding and will be run by central government and volunteer and charity groups. Not all schools will become academies and free schools but this migration could be the end of ‘big society’ and mean fragmentation of society that is a haunting reflection of bygone era where the tripartite system entrenched social class division. In conclusion we can see a cyclical pattern in the education system starting in the 19th century with social class division and elitism to the continuation this into the 20th masked by the theory of intelligence rather than social class. In the 1960’s and comprehensive, liberal child centred, education was propped up by the notion of education equality. The tipping point can be seen as the 1976 Great Debate speech by James Callaghan where the emphasis was shifted to education serving the needs of industry. In turn this paved the way for Margaret Thatcher to replace the public service model of education with market forces of competition and a ‘back to basics’ model. And more recently we have seen further privatisation with the academy and free school movement forming the circle and ushering an era of Division all over again. Reference list Browne, Ken. (2002) Introduction to sociology for AS level, London, Polity Press. Gillard D. (2011) Education in England: a brief history www. educationengland. org. uk/history Haralambos and Longley. (2004) Sociology in focus for AQA AS level, Ormskirk, Causway Press. Haralambos and Holborn. (2002) Themes and perspectives, London, Colins. Moore, Stephen. (2001) Sociology Alive, Cheltenham, Nelson Thornes LTD. Taylor et al. (1997) Sociology in focus, Ormskirk, Causeway Press.