Status
Differences
Various
forms of status difference exist within our educational system and the
evidence in this section focuses on a small number of such differences. In the
main, these explore evidence related to the basic structure of the
schooling system, considered in terms of things like different types of
school (both historical variations and present-day variations),
differences between private and State schooling and, finally, status
differences in Higher Education.
One form of the hidden curriculum that has implications across the
class structure is that of the relative social standing ("status")
of different types of school. Historically, we can see this idea most clearly in relation to
the 1944 Butler Education Act which attempted to establish a tri-partite
("three-part") system of universal education in Britain:
- Grammar
schools (focused on an academic form of education)
Secondary Modern schools (focused on explicitly vocational forms of education).
Technical schools (very few actually established).
The basic philosophy underpinning this system was:
a. Different types of pupil would benefit from different forms of education (this idea was based largely on the work of Sir Cyril Burt in the late 1930's - much of which has now been questioned / discredited).
b. Grammar and Secondary Modern schools would be viewed as "separate
but equal" in status.
That this did not happen (Grammar schools almost immediately became associated with higher status) came about because of the association between academic skills / qualifications and access to Higher education, professional forms of high-status employment, etc. In this respect, a dual form of status difference became apparent:
- Failing the
11-plus intelligence test required to enter Grammar schools
established a status divide between "academically-able" pupils and
those not considered "academically-able".
- Grammar schools became dominated by the middle / upper classes as it
became apparent that it was vital for children to receive this type of
education if they had aspirations to highly-paid professional employment.
From the
mid-1970's onward, the tri-partite system was progressively replaced
by a Comprehensive
system (although,
for various reasons, grammar and secondary modern-type schools still exist in
some parts of the country).
Comprehensive schooling was intended to
negate class and status
differences by providing an environment within which all children - regardless
of "ability" - could be educated within a common system. This
involved things like all children:
- Being
taught in the same school.
Having access to the same level of resources.
Being taught by the same standard of teachers.
However,
although this was the intention, Comprehensive schooling still maintained status differences in relation
to:
a. Streaming, banding / setting within schools, where pupils of "different abilities" are given different classes and different teachers for various subjects.
b. The fact that the catchment areas for different schools make some "more desirable" than others. Comprehensives in some areas get a reputation for being "good" (i.e. they achieve good examination results), whilst others get a reputation for being "bad" (i.e. they don't produce good exam results...).
Further status differences between schools in the State-maintained sector
also started to arise over the way schools were funded. Conservative
governments between 1979 and 1997:
Encouraged schools to "opt-out" of LEA control by
introducing a system of direct funding of schools from central government
resources. These schools were called "Grant Maintained"
schools (since "abolished" - see below).
Introduced City Technology Colleges into the education system.
These were schools set-up to focus on the integration of Information
Technology into all areas of the 11 - 18 curriculum.
Published "League
Tables" of raw examination results to
provide parents with information about the examination successes / failures of
schools.
The Labour
government elected in May 1997 has built-upon these educational reforms (apart
from abolishing the distinction between Grant-Maintained and Local Education
Authority funded schools - although this too is perhaps debatable given the
development of "Foundation Schools" whose only fundamental difference from
Grant-Maintained schools is that they are no-longer directly (and unequally)
funded by central government) and has proposed or added a few
of its own. For example:
- The
closure of schools deemed, by the Office for Standards in Education
(Offsted) and Secretary of State for Education, to be "failing".
- The
continuation of a scheme whereby schools can select up to 10% of their
intake on the basis of "ability".
- The
introduction of a "parental ballot system" over Grammar schools
in a particular locality (although the actual system has been
characterised as hopelessly biased towards the preservation of the status
quo by campaigners against Grammar schools).
The extent to which these changes will reinforce status differences
within the education system is not clear, although the implications are that
status differentials will be further enhanced by these changes.
While status differences exist in the
State-maintained educational
sector, perhaps the largest status differences exist between State schools and
the private, fee-paying, Independent schools (approximately 2000 schools are currently
part of the Independent sector). This sector can be divided into two basic
categories:
a. Well-known
Public schools such as Eton, Harrow, Winchester, etc.
b. Lesser-known Independent schools.
Within the Independent school sector, therefore, status differences
occur between those (elite) schools who are part of the Headmasters'
Conference of Public Schools (a kind of pressure group or Professional
Association accounting for approximately 200 schools) and those who are not.
Approximately 7% of all pupils are taught in the Independent sector,
although this proportion increases with age. For example, according to
"Social Trends", 1994, 18% of boys and 15% of girls aged 16+ are
taught in this sector.
The significance of these figures in class terms, given the fact that
Independent schools cater mainly for the sons and daughters of the upper and
middle classes, is the relationship between such schools, Higher Education and
high status employment. In basic terms, pupils who attended Independent
schools have:
a. A far greater chance of reaching
Universities such as Oxford and
Cambridge (the highest status Universities in Britain). Approximately 50% of
students in these two Universities had a private school educational
background.
b. A far greater chance of achieving high status, professional, employment.
The Assisted Places
scheme, introduced in the 1980 Education Act (and since abolished in
1999),
provided State funding for "able children of poor parents" to
attend Independent schools. By 1990, 34,000 children were part of this scheme.
Although the ideological rationale for the scheme was to help
"disadvantaged" children attend Independent schools (with the
implicit idea that such schools provided a higher standard of education than
State schools - another aspect of the hidden curriculum):
Selection for a school place
involved interviews with parents and
children, which places working class families at a disadvantage.
There is evidence to suggest that it
was the middle classes who
predominated on the scheme, rather than children from working class
backgrounds. One reason for this was that middle class parents were better-placed to
take advantage of the scheme (knowing of its existence, for example). Another
reason relates to the norms existing in such schools. Children from
deprived backgrounds are more likely to find the experience of attending a
private school populated by the sons and daughters of the wealthy socially
daunting and educationally disruptive...
Finally, in Higher Education in Britain, clear status differences exist between:
a. Universities, Polytechnics and Colleges of Higher Education (although this distinction has been largely abolished, with all such institutions being able to call themselves "Universities").
b. Different Universities: Oxford and Cambridge ("Oxbridge"), for example, have a higher social status than Universities such as Kent, Lancaster and York. In turn, the latter have higher status than the "new" Universities (ex-Polytechnics) such as Bournemouth.
