AS Level Sociology: Education: Comprehensivisation

Copyright Mark Peace (2006) - www.LearnSomeStuff.com26

IntroductionFrom its inception in 1944, dissatisfaction with the Tripartitesystem grew. Discontent centred on the way in which the systemtended to channel students into the different schools based ontheir social background rather than their ability - thus effectivelyreproducing the class system and limiting social mobility. Thissituation was seen as unacceptable for two main reasons:

The system was, for some at least, morally wrong - limitingthe life-chances of some members of society, simplybecause of the social background of their parents.It was an inefficient way of organising labour. If theprimary “sorting principle” was social background and notability, then talent was obviously being wasted.

Discontent over the tripartite system came to a head in the 1960s- spurring a grassroots revolution in the education system. Themanifold problems of the tripartite system seemed to stem fromits selective nature - and from the unequal quality and status ofthe three types of school. The solution therefore seemed simple;abolish selection, and educate all student in the same school -providing a “grammar school education for all”. Thecomprehensive school was consequently born.

Comprehensives were organised so that, rather than selectingstudents on the basis of examination results, each was assigned acatchment area - a geographical region surrounding the school.All children living within this area, regardless of social class orability, would then attend the local comprehensive. Themotivation behind the reform was to realise equality ofopportunity in its most literal form - every student would receiveexactly the same opportunities throughout their educationalcareers, thus dispelling existing class biases. Furthermore, it was hoped that by ensuring that children ofdifferent backgrounds mixed within school, social barriers wouldbe broken down. Advocates of the comprehensive movementargued that, for instance, aspirations amongst the working-classwould rise - with a university education not seen to be the solepreserve of the middle-classes.In addition to these changes to the structure of the school system,the 1960s also saw important reforms of the qualification system.Prior to this period, only the most able students were able to sitnationally accredited examinations - in the form of the GeneralCertificate of Education. This provision expanded, however, in1965 with the introduction of the Certificate of SecondaryEducation (CSE) alongside the existing GCE. These, slightlyeasier, examinations aimed to ensure that every student, not justthe most able, were able to sit some examinations, and leaveschool with a nationally recognised qualification.

The Growth of ComprehensivesAs noted earlier, the initial move towards a comprehensivesystem began at the grassroot. From its very beginings, someLEAs (including Anglesey and parts of London) refused toimplement the Tripartite system; instead creating mixed-ability,mixed-background schools. Towards the end of the 1950s andduring early 1960s, increasing numbers of LEAs rebelled, andfollowed this lead - dismantling their Grammar and SecondaryModern schools to create comprehensive systems.The movement finally gained government backing when, in aWhite Paper circulated in 1965, the ruling Labour Party “stronglyencouraged” LEAs to reorganise their school systems alongcomprehensive lines. Despite this initial encouragement,however, the progress towards a fully comprehensive system waspunctuated in the years that followed by changes in the politicalparty governing the country. In general:

The Labour Party - with an underlying concern for socialjustice and equality - pushed for expansion ofcomprehensivisation, whilstThe Conservative Party were more concerned withproviding an “appropriate” education for all - recognisingthat everybody has different talents and abilities, andproviding an education system which allows them to fullydevelop these aptitudes.

By 1979 - and after stop-start expansion - over 80% of secondaryschool pupils were educated in comprehensives. However, it isimportant to note that the Conservative governments which werein power during this expansion implemented policies which,some argue, resulted in a system which could never be trulycomprehensive. In 1970, for instance, a circular was issuedwhich gave permission for LEAs to allow selective Grammarschools to co-exist with their comprehensives.

Evaluating ComprehensivisationComprehsivisation brought with it a number of importantstrengths. Most importantly, equality of opportunity wasindubitably widened by the abolition of selection undercomprehensivisation. In particular, the new system avoided theculturally-specific eleven-plus, and consequently did notinherently discriminate against the working class. Furthermore,it did not disadvantage late-bloomers, as any developing talentscould be built-upon without the difficult process of changingbetween different schools.The introduction of the CSE was also ensured that almost everystudent had the opportunity to leave school with aqualification - a considerable improvement on the previoussystem.Finally, the attempt to break-down social barriers by enablingstudents of different backgrounds to mix in one school was also alaudable (if optimistic) aim - as it would encourage students totake on each other’s aspirations (for instance, working classstudents would aspire to middle-class jobs), and to build up usefulsocial contacts and networks for the future.

COMPREHENSIVISATION

Key Term: Egalitarianism

Underpinning the comprehensive movement was the notion thateducation could be used to engineer a free, fair and equal society -an ideal which is called egalitarianism

16. Identify two ways in which comprehensives improved thelevel of equality of opportunity within the education system.

17. Explain why some critics might argue that comprehensivessimply represent "the tripartite system under one roof".

18. Why might it be idealistic to assume that catchment areaswould ensure that people of different backgrounds mix?

19. What might have been the effect of a good comprehensive onthe housing surrounding it? How might this have reinforcedexisting class structures?

20. Give one way in which the reputation of differentcomprehensives might impact on their standard of teaching?

21. Give one argument in support of the view that mixed schoolingresults in a poorer quality education for all abilities.

22. Examine the views of the political parties outlined above.Identify one strength and one weakness of each.

23. How does the co-existence of comprehensives with grammarschools undermine the basis of the movement?

24. Which other type of school continued to exist, furtherdampening the possibility of a truly comprehensive system?

25. Summarise the key features of the comprehensive movementin a diagram on the next page.

AS Level Sociology: Education: Comprehensivisation

www.LearnSomeStuff.com - Copyright Mark Peace (2006) 27

However, there were also serious flaws to the system. Supportersof the tripartite system - for instance - argued that attempting toeducate students of all abilities in one school helped nobody.Rather, the brightest students were not able to develop their fullpotential, whilst the less able were left struggling to keep up.Furthermore, comprehensives were typically very large.Consequently, they were extremely impersonal - and studentscould easily become alienated and disenchanted with education.Teachers, on the other hand, found it very difficult to get to knowthe students sufficiently well to cater for their individual needs.One of the most damaging criticisms of the comprehensivemovement was that it never really attained its main aims - andsimply “recreated the tripartite system under one roof”. WithinComprehensives, teachers often struggled to cope with mixedability classes. The result of this was that many such schoolsimplemented setting and streaming, splitting students by ability.As tends to be the case in any measure whilst divides students by“ability”, this resulted in the working-class being overlyrepresented in lower sets - taking the less prestigious CSEexaminations and being filtered into working class jobs.

Furthermore, the notion that comprehensives would bringtogether people of different social backgrounds was somewhatidealistic - as cachement areas themselves were not mixed.Furthermore, the competition to get into the catchment of “good”comprehensives distorted the housing market in the surroundingareas; affectively pricing less affluent families out. This notion isknown as “selection by mortgage”.The weighting of social backgrounds within comprehensives hada knock-on effect on their reputations. Schools withpredominately middle-class demographics were perceived to bethe “best” schools - and they consequently attracted betterteachers, and thus higher standards of teaching. Students withinthese more prestigious schools also developed a higher self-esteem and self-confidence which, in turn, was translated intobetter results.Finally - and perhaps most damagingly - the comprehensive idealwas undermined by the continued existence of both private andgrammar schools (which were allowed to coexist by theConservatives). This situation allowed the brightest students tobe “creamed” from the rest - ensuring that standards incomprehensives were kept artificially low. Effectively, thismeant that comprehensives simply became large secondarymodern schools with a different name.

Key Terms: Setting and StreamingSetting is the term used when this students are grouped by abilityin individual subjects, whilst streaming (or banding) occurs acrossthe entire curriculum (e.g. setting by form).

Summary of the Nature and Effect of the Comprehensive Movement