Grammar Schools

[James]

Traditionally, the english left was against grammar schools. They were seen as elitism. I was wondering what members thought on the subject.

This (http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/pressAndI...rust_report.htm (http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/pressAndInformationOffice/newsAndEvents/archives/2005/LSE_SuttonTrust_report.htm)) is a reasonably interesting and short article on social mobility. If you scroll down you will find numerous links to similar articles with such findings.

Grammar schools seem to have INCREASED such mobility, contary to what was origionally thought.

This of course coincides with the recent revelation that the current government has spent £1 million on what has been dubbed an anti grammar school campaign (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../11/ngram11.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/09/11/ngram11.xml)).

This may be an example of an element of the labour party which is firmly against them on principle (does anyone agree with this principle?), gaining power within the education area of government.


Personally i'm all for them coming back. Having finished at a comprehensive school 3 years ago, i think they are rather a bad idea, sprung from a good theory. They try to be all things to all people. Evidently though (speaking from my own experiance), some people are more "academic" than others. Likewise, some people are great at art, whilst others are not. Personally, i was appalling at music.

What confuses me most though, is that this elite are against grammar schools, yet don't seem to be against "setting" (whereby students in a year group are divided into higher, middle and lower sets in different subjects depending on ability) in comprehensive schools. I would have thought that they would be against this as well.

What's everyone opinion? Personally i'm all for them being reestablished (currently no new ones can be built) nationally on a large scale. I think that this could also improve behaviour in many classes.
I'd be very interested in debating with anyone who is against grammar schools.



A side note
wasn't sure what forum to post this in. Politics and ideology tempted me (politics because decisions regarding them are "political", and take place in a political environment). I think theory is probably the best place for it though. Although i understand if it is moved to another forum.

[YKTMX]

Completely and totally opposed to them.

Grammar schools create a two-tier education system. Those who pass the entrance exam, which used to be taken at the age of 11, get in - everyone else is sent to the "bog standard" schools. How can anyone possibly gauge which children are more "able" than others at that age? All this talk about "ability" is nonsense, all children have academic ability, what these things test is not intelligence, it's social standing - you can guess for yourself who these tests are biased for and against.

The idea that it increases social mobility is also totally false. Middle class children will be able to practice and be tutored for any entrance exams, working class children won't. What the people who support Grammar schools are in favour of is a completely academic education for the middle class and a few token working class children, who can then become doctors, lawyer, teachers, professors etc, leaving the "proles" to learn "vocational" things like plumbing and brickwork.

It's a perfect way of recreating the class structure: allow a little mobility so it appears fair, but not so much that societie's forms are perfectlt recreated.

Comps might not be great (I know my experience wasn't great), but they are the most equitable and fair system we have.

[James]

Grammar schools create a two-tier education system. Those who pass the entrance exam, which used to be taken at the age of 11, get in - everyone else is sent to the "bog standard" schools. How can anyone possibly gauge which children are more "able" than others at that age? All this talk about "ability" is nonsense, all children have academic ability, what these things test is not intelligence, it's social standing - you can guess for yourself who these tests are biased for and against.

Two things.
One: so are you against the use of "sets"? I think all of my classes at comp were setted. With a few minor exceptions, it was the same people in each set.

Two: i totally disagree with you regarding the 11plus. True there are issues with testing a child at 11 (personally i think like with sets, there should be the ability to move from comp to grammar/ grammar to comp). You can't make this a "class issue" though. My mother's family were farm labourers; classic sort of ten children. My mother got into grammar: but sister didn't. Class has got nothing to do with it. Indeed, as the articles point out, grammars give a chance to all to get the best education available: to put them on an equal level with public schools (which are of course a matter of "class").




The idea that it increases social mobility is also totally false. Middle class children will be able to practice and be tutored for any entrance exams, working class children won't.

What do you base that on? All middle class children being given tuition at home? I only know of a handfull of people in my year who had private tuition.
Also: how did my mother get into grammar: she certainly didn't have tuition.


Did you read the LSE's findings? And all the supporting articles?
Also: the public like them: surely in a democracy this means we should have more of them?

[YKTMX]

can't make this a "class issue" though.

Everything is a class issue.


One: so are you against the use of "sets"?

I am in favour of mixed ability classrooms.



Indeed, as the articles point out, grammars give a chance to all to get the best education available:

Why can't this be done in Comps? The state badly underfunds the state education system for decades and then complains that the problem the type of schools. I am in favour of free, high quality education for everybody, not Grammars.


My mother got into grammar: but sister didn't.

Good for her...so what? Everyone has individual instances of some unlikely thing, doesn't mean they're not meaningless when it comes to debate.


All middle class children being given tuition at home?

If there was a test then those who can afford to tutor their children will do so, those who can't, won't. It seems like a pretty plain fact.


And all the supporting articles?


I've read Cohen's article before. It's reactionery bollocks dressed up in lefty worlds, just like his support for the Iraq war.


Also: the public like them: surely in a democracy this means we should have more of them?

Britain isn't a democracy.

In any case, the Great British Public is in favour of loads of things, from the death penalty to ID cards.

[James]

Everything is a class issue.


To me it (grammar school) is simply the same as "setting": but full blown setting, as opposed to finding some half way house. Base on ability. True, rich people can throw money around; but if the kid is a bit thick, they will still do crap. This shows why private schools don't produce straight A's for everyone.
When you look at GCSE's for example, those who get the high grades are generally speaking, the ones who are brighter students. I know people who got straight A's without any extra tuition; and people who got tuition and managed to do significantly poor.


I am in favour of mixed ability classrooms.

Surely though everyone has the same ability? You said "mixed", suggesting a range of ability.
So do you recognise a difference in intelligence and ability amoungst pupils, or are you actually saying that you simply want school classes, to be of mixed social/economic class?

Are you completely against the use of sets in comprehensives? At mine sets were used in nearly every class, if i remember correctly. Indeed i experianced mainly top sets, but also lower sets in german and RE. I must say, there was a significant difference in the ability of the students.
This was reflected by the results each student got. As i said earlier, the sets were not a reflection of student's social/economic standing, but ability.



Why can't this be done in Comps? The state badly underfunds the state education system for decades and then complains that the problem the type of schools. I am in favour of free, high quality education for everybody, not Grammars.

Well essentailly they attempt to do so in comps, don't they? With sets. But like i said, they try and go for a halfway house.

Did you seriously not find a difference between upper and lower sets?

Did you see that a teacher union has called for a return to grammars?


Good for her...so what? Everyone has individual instances of some unlikely thing, doesn't mean they're not meaningless when it comes to debate.

Pardon? Indeed following your comments i've been talking to her about it, and she told me that her mother loved the fact that she had got into a grammar school, and another local rich girl hadn't (despite alot of extra paid for education).

Are you honestly saying that it was the rich kids that got to go to grammars, with a few exceptions?
If you are, then i think your ideology is blinding you.
If i kid has the ability, it is rather obvious. If they havn't, it is equally obvious.



If there was a test then those who can afford to tutor their children will do so, those who can't, won't. It seems like a pretty plain fact.


If a kid is clever, they are clever.
You yourself admited the existance of difference in ability.

True, extra tuition would benifit some: but smart kids will be able to pass the test. Although of course this depends on how the 11 plus is framed. Indeed: my support of grammar schools does not mean that i automatically support the concept of a 11plus. As i said, their should be mobility between the two.

Do you honestly think that a teacher can't tell a students ability after teaching them for a year?



I've read Cohen's article before. It's reactionery bollocks dressed up in lefty worlds, just like his support for the Iraq war.

Well its a LSE article, with supporting evidence. I personally didn't find that the most interesting aspect of the link though. I found the articles linked from the LSe site more interesting.
It is worth reading them a bit, different authors, of different ideologies.

But i suspect you have made a "principled stand" on them. Which is fair enough i suppose.


Britain isn't a democracy.

In any case, the Great British Public is in favour of loads of things, from the death penalty to ID cards.


Must we have a debate about democracy? Democracy isn't one "thing". It can be interepreted many different ways. There are numerous different forms of democracy.
The people have had a say on the issue though, and overwhelmingly support them when asked.

Or do you know better than the brit public what is good for them?




So far your argument has rested on the theme of rich parents buy access for their children into different schools. The 11plus in your opinion requires extra tuition to pass, with a few general exceptions. You seem to argue that ability is not different amongst children: but is something bought by richer parents. Yet you are in favour of "mixed ability classes": suggesting that you recognise the mixed ability of pupils. You also know better than the general british public.

I'm sorry, but i'm not convinced by your argument.

[James]

One more thought, your argument is essentially that grammars are bad because rich parents buy access, and buy extra tuition, thus get better grades? Surely though comprehensives don't benifit the poorer, because the rich will still buy extra education, therefore still leave the poor behind. Grammars at least offered further opportunities to a fair amount (more than just the "odd exception to the class rule") of those without the money to buy private education?

Surely?



Did you read this link?
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/sto...1539682,00.html (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1539682,00.html)

Especially this bit:

All the efforts by New Labour to redistribute wealth, all the Sure Start schemes and working families' tax credits, have merely slowed the process, while the great expansion of the universities has left the gap between working- and middle-class participation in higher education wider than ever.

Economists produce thousands of papers on the reasons why. The education system has to be high among them, unless you believe education doesn't matter. The liberal-left never has believed that since the Enlightenment, although I do hear rather a lot of liberals dismissing education today.

Their denial is an excuse for a failure of idealism which has left education as the largest cause of hypocrisy and mystification for my class and my generation. In public we deplore elitism. In practice everyone knows that the grammar schools, which at least selected by ability, have been replaced with private and comprehensive schools which select by parental wealth. If you are rich and have a bright child, he will go private and although he will have to pass exams, he won't face competition from children whose parents can't afford the fees. If you are rich and have a dunce, you select by house price and move into the catchment area of a good school or get your nanny to drive your child to a good school in another borough or lie to vicars and send your child to a good church school. Again, you know your child won't face competition from brighter children whose parents can't afford to buy houses in the right area or don't have the knowledge to play the system. The result is that in the inner cities we don't have comprehensives but a universal system of secondary moderns.

The refusal to be honest about money makes serious debate impossible. The children of the rich stay rich. The children of graduates graduate. The children of the working and lower-middle classes sink into financial and cultural impoverishment. Yet most of the time when education is discussed the speakers refuse to admit that, uniquely in Europe, Britain has private schools with higher intellectual standards than their state rivals.

If they did, conventional political certainties would evaporate. Before he left the education department, Charles Clarke (Highgate School and Kings College, Cambridge) wanted to force successful schools to take disruptive pupils, even though the teaching would inevitably suffer. It sounded like a tough socialist measure which promised equality of misery. Yet Clarke couldn't force the private schools to take excluded pupils, so you could look at him another way and say here was a public school boy stopping the best state schools competing with his alma mater. Clarke didn't mean that, anymore than another public school Labour minister, Tony Crosland (Highgate School, and Trinity College, Oxford) meant to give the private schools their greatest boost ever when he began the civil war in state education with the promise to 'destroy every fucking grammar school in England, Wales and Northern Ireland'. None the less, both Crosland and Clarke were the objective friends of the children of the wealthy because they handicapped the competition.

The LSE economists report to Gordon Brown. Tony Blair's Downing Street Policy Unit has thought about increasing inheritance tax and freeing-up education by ending selection by house price. Although they don't want the grammar schools back, both know that this is a more class-ridden country than when the grammar schools were in place and I guess both know that unless the brightest in the working class get an elite education the Today listeners will always win.

Blair and Brown can't do much because Labour MPs still cling to the Sixties' settlement. It's only when they notice that the rich are getting all the gravy, that they will help the poor with brains.

[Roses in the Hospital]

To me the big flaw is that the best teachers are obviously going to be tempted to the schools with the better working enviroments, which are obviously going to be the grammer schools, leaving the less able, but not necessarily less deserving, children with less good teachers and thus a sub-standard education. I recommend reading 'Teechers' (sorry I forget who it's by) for a satire on the British grammer school system in the eighties...

[James]

That happens now.
The crap schools have a shortage of teachers, made worse by the publication or results and standards which makes hiring teachers even harder.
There is a general shortage of teachers: the government is attempting to bribe (called a golden hello) people to become teachers in certain subjects.


The the problem you mention is already a problem.

[Roses in the Hospital]

The the problem you mention is already a problem.

I don't doubt it, but with grammer schools it will be significantly worse...

[YKTMX]

True, rich people can throw money around; but if the kid is a bit thick, they will still do crap.

What's your evidence for that? And I suppose "crap" is a relative term. Doing "crap" in a school were most are getting A's might be diffirent than "crap" in a Comp.


This shows why private schools don't produce straight A's for everyone.


No, it doesn't. The inequality in education isn't between "thick" and "bright" children, it's between standards and quality of education. Now, the way to bridge this gap is close private schools and dramatically increase funding and support for Comps. Now, I know that isn't going to happen right now, but Grammars certainly aren't the answer.


I know people who got straight A's without any extra tuition; and people who got tuition and managed to do significantly poor.


I don't mean to rude here, but these stories of "people you know" and family members mean nothing to me. I KNOW there are individual examples. My mother grew up in a totally under educated house, but she did brilliantly at school and then studied Chemisty at Glasgow Uni. However, for the purposes of a discussion on national education systems, they mean SQUAT.


Surely though everyone has the same ability? You said "mixed", suggesting a range of ability.

Mixed ability classrooms at 15 and 16, based on the progress a pupil is making in the course of their academic career, are a MILLION miles away from testing 11 year olds and labelling them "thick" or "bright" on the results - a MILLION miles.


So do you recognise a difference in intelligence and ability amoungst pupils, or are you actually saying that you simply want school classes, to be of mixed social/economic class?

I don't recognise inherent diffirentials in intelligence. However, it would be silly to say that all 16 year olds are of equal ability at maths or English. What I'm saying is that of course people have diffirent talents, but that is not a reason for traumatising pre-pubescents and labelling them for the rest of their existence. And make no mistake about it, that's what it creates, that what it did create.


As i said earlier, the sets were not a reflection of student's social/economic standing, but ability.


What do you mean by "ability". Are you trying to posit that some kids are born stupid and some bright, regardless of class?


With sets. But like i said, they try and go for a halfway house.


No, it's completely diffirent. You see, it's not just a question of the classroom, it's also a question of schools. The Grammars with all the "bright" kids and middle class parents will be highly funded, proud institutions. The other schools, with the dregs of 11 year olds, will have badly motivated teachers, worse funding and parents who simply can't/choose not to become involved in the school. The children will KNOW what school they're in, they'll know they are the thick ones, the worthless ones.

Say what you like about Comps, but they completely avoid this.


Did you see that a teacher union has called for a return to grammars?


I bet they have.


Are you honestly saying that it was the rich kids that got to go to grammars, with a few exceptions?

Well, that is a matter of historical record, regardless of what I say on the matter.


i kid has the ability, it is rather obvious. If they havn't, it is equally obvious.


So is rampant class prejudice.


: my support of grammar schools does not mean that i automatically support the concept of a 11plus

Well, there has to be some kind of test so we can seperate the stupid 11 year olds from the bright 11 year olds.


As i said, their should be mobility between the two.


Ridicilous. Are you suggesting we have pupils moving schools every few months? I can't see being great for anyone's education. If you support seperation of young children on the basis of "intelligence", just say it.


Do you honestly think that a teacher can't tell a students ability after teaching them for a year?

Teachers have their own prejudices.


Or do you know better than the brit public what is good for them?


Oh, absolutely. The Daily Mail and the Telegraoh also know what's good for them. Sadly, they have more influence than me ;)


I'm sorry, but i'm not convinced by your argument.

Well, we shall see about that! Yuri, get this man to the Salt Mine, immediately! Give him ten years to think it over...

...Sorry.

:lol:

[monkeydust]

I actually went to a Grammar school. I wasn't particulalry rich, nor did I "buy" my way in. There were another 3 in my town, so I know what they're like. Perhaps I have a bit of a different perspective on the issue.

To be perfectly honest, it's never been a major issue for me. I'm not strongly for or against them. If they didn't exist, I wouldn't be too fussed; but since they're here, I'm not going to clamour to get them all closed down.

The argument that it's a "class issue" seems to me rather absurd. Yes, richer families can afford tuition to get their children a better chance of getting in, but the same is true for any examination. Richer children, with private resources and home tuition, have a far better chance of getting good GCSE and A-leve grades, and thus a greater chance of getting into a top university, but no one's calling to abolish these exams or universities in general for this reason.

Nor are grammar schools elite, well-funded institutions. Mine was pretty run-down, the teachers were no better paid than others, and their most recent building grant from the council had been the first in nearly two decades.

I simply see little argument to the point that Grammar schools are a bastion of middle class elitism. The general idea seems to be to associate bright kids with others in order to keep them working hard and stimulated. This doesn't seem to me much worse than the kind of streaming seen regularly in comprehensives.

We should concentrate our time, if on anything, against private schools. For all I care the grammars can stay.

[YKTMX]

The argument that it's a "class issue" seems to me rather absurd.

Once again (I can't believe I'm repeating this to so-called "Marxists") EVERYTHING IS CLASS ISSUE!.


Yes, richer families can afford tuition to get their children a better chance of getting in, but the same is true for any examination.


Yes, and? You've just completely talked yourself in a circle there.

It's not a class issue, but middle class people can afford tuition to help their kids in exams? Don't make sense, I'm afraid. If middle class parents can buy their kids exam results, surely we should be reducing the importance and amount of exams, not increasing?


but no one's calling to abolish these exams or universities in general for this reason

No, but we are calling for the abolition of classes.


Mine was pretty run-down, the teachers were no better paid than others, and their most recent building grant from the council had been the first in nearly two decades

Maybe, but they were no were near as bad as the schools everyone else was going to.


The general idea seems to be to associate bright kids with others in order to keep them working hard and stimulated.

And the fact that 90% of the "bright kids" at age 11 will be middle class is just coincedince, is it? And don't push me on this point. I am not making these figures up; I'm not "blinded by ideology", these are facts.

Now, if either of you want to posit that middle class children are INHERENTLY, i.e they're born that way, more intelligent than working class children, then say so. Stop using code like "bright" and "able".

The idea that you can test general intelligence at any age is absurd, a fabrication of bourgeois ideology. Doing this at age 11 in order to seperate kids is something else...venal.

[Vanguard1917]

I think we should defend grammar schools. They set levels of excellence for all other schools to aspire to. And they give kids from working class backgrounds the opportunity to excel.

You have to remember that calls for abolishing grammar schools stem from a climate that celebrates a culture of dumbing-down.

[monkeydust]

You might make the point that it has something to do with class. But to say that the issue has something to do with class is not quite the same as saying it is a specifically class issue. I expect the "dogging" phenomenon might have something to do with class, but this is not to say it is a "class issue". This is a distinction that I feel needs to be made if the words we use here are to have any real relevancy and precision.

I agree with you that there's some general trend for middle class children to be more likely to pass their eleven plus and get in to the school, but I think in the same way it's true that middle class children will be likely to get into the top sets in comprehensive streaming, and to get better examination results generally. The problem is a systemic component of education in capitalist society, and, until we can abolish that society altogether, there's not much we can do about it.

In the very least, I don't view Grammar schools - as you seem to do - as some exclusively middle-class conspiracy to get "their kids" better education. They certainly don't get better funding. They're considered "better" only in terms of how they perform - the average student obviously being generally cleverer. And I'm pretty sure the intake includes a far more broad social spectrum than you would like to admit.

That final point is an empirical matter, I guess. I'm going on observation. You claim to have "the facts". If you can present those facts I might be more convinced, but, for the meantime, bear in mind the point that modern statistics are skewed by the fact that the only remaining Grammar schools there are are almost exclusively in middle class areas, i.e. the composition of the nearby population is disproportionately middle class, and the students tey represent will be socially disporopotionate accordingly.

[YKTMX]

Here is an essay I wrote for higher sociology last year, which I feel has a lot to do with what we've been discussing here:




Sociologists agree that central to any good analysis of British society is a clear understanding of the education system. The key questions for sociology must be; what is the nature of that education system and crucially, how do we explain differentials in achievement patterns, particularly between the social classes? To answer these questions I will look at both the Marxist and Functionalist perspectives, as well some classic sociological studies. I will also explain why I think the Marxist perspective offers a better insight into the education system in Britain.

Both perspectives concur that the British (or any liberal democratic model) educational system serves four clear purposes: A socialisation function, a political function, an economic function and a selection function.

The functionalists see the school as an agent of secondary socialisation, where pupils can learn to take their place in society and where they learn to adhere to the existing value consensus in society. It should also be the goal of the education system to promote a common political identity, chiefly a strong “national” identity. Pupils also learn the skills required by the countries’ economy, as well as themselves in order to earn a living. The fourth function, which is selection, is crucial because it ensures that pupils get a job appropriate to their abilities. This is done through examinations, which come, mainly, at the end of an educational experience that is fair and objective, ensuring that that those who “deserve” to succeed, do. Therefore, for functionalists like Talcott Parsons, the British education system is meritocratic.

The Marxist perspective offers a very different view of these four functions. For them, “socialisation” is not a benign or beneficial experience where pupils gain self-evident “values”. It is a means of social control, through which the ideology of the ruling class is taught to the working class. The political aim of the education system is to legitimate inequality as “natural” or “unavoidable”; those who fail do so because of their own faults and those who succeed because of their own hard work and ability. Marxists also argue that the economic function has nothing to do with “national efficiency”, but has everything to do with ensuring that the bosses get a subservient workforce who will make them profits. Marxists agree that selection does take place at school, but contest that it does not take place on the basis of merit or intelligence, but social class. The aim of the school system is to reproduce authoritarian social structures and maintain a docile proletariat.
With those basic perspectives in place, the main consideration for sociologists seeking to understand British social life by looking at the education system is: why do middle class children still do better than working class children at school? Well, firstly, what exactly does “better” mean?

The primary criterion for assessing performance in the educational system has to be examination results. In Scotland, 60% of children from a middle class background leave school with Highers. The corresponding figure for working class children is 30%. Predictably therefore, 75% of those who go to University are from middle class families, with the working class making up the other 25%. In England, the figures are just as striking. 8% percent of children from the lowest social class category go on to Higher Education. In the top social group, the figure is 51%. Statistics like these tend to be replicated at all times and in all countries similar to the Britain. What, therefore, is the problem and what is the solution?

An explanation offered is the theory of “cultural deprivation”. This view asserts that there is something “lacking” in working class life that means they can’t succeed in the education system. The first “type” of deprivation may be the most obvious one – a financial deprivation. Working class families simply cannot afford the resources used by middle class families to advantage their children in the school i.e. tutors, computers. Halsey (1980) also noted that many working class families couldn’t afford their children to continue their educational career any longer than was necessary. The second form of “deprivation” is possibly a more abstract one – that is “intellectual deprivation”. It is claimed that middle class parents (who probably hold degrees) can help their children with homework and such, where working class parents may struggle in things like that. Although he wasn’t a functionalist, this idea may be likened to Bourdieu’s belief that middle class parents could invest their “cultural capital” (in the form of knowledge, experience etc) in their children. Basil Bernstein (1972) said he could explain working class failure by looking at linguistics. He argued working class families spoke in a “restricted code”, which hindered their children’s’ ability to explain or understand complex ideas. This may be caused by a tendency in the working class to speak to their children in a very matter-of-fact, “no-nonsense” manner. It is claimed that middle class parents explain concepts, meanings and give explanations to their children – he named this presumed eloquence “elaborated code”. Consequently, when they enter school, working class children are confronted with an “elaborated code” they aren’t used to, whereas middle class pupils feel very comfortable and at ease. The problem with Bernstein’s work is that it seems to presume that one “code” is superior to another. It may be argued that it is a problem for the schools to address if they can’t communicate with their pupils. Indeed, William Labov noted that black children he studied in New York were just as expressive and able to think logically as middle class children. Their problem was that the teacher’s weren’t able, or willing, to understand what they were saying and this made school an unattractive prospect.

In his classic study “The Home and the School” J.W.B. Douglas claimed that it was deficiencies in the working class home that caused the problem. He blamed a lack of maternal care in early childhood, family size and poor encouragement in early life and in the school years. He said working class parents were seen by teachers to be “less interested” because they didn’t show up to school meetings or seek conversations about their children’s progress. Middle class parents, on the contrary, took an active role in ensuring their children’s education was a good one. The problem with Douglas’s study is that he failed to ask any working class people how they actually felt; he merely relied on the perceptions of middle class teachers. Though the theory of “cultural deprivation” may offer some practical reasons as to why working class kids fail, it offers no real assessment of exactly what the role of the school is in the structure of society or who benefits from those structures.

The Study done by Marxists’ Bowles and Gintis is seen as the quintessential analysis of the structural role of the school in a capitalist society. They argued that the experience in school needed to “correspond” to the experience in the work place. They revealed that the students awarded the best grades were those who exhibited “favourable” personality traits, namely punctuality, perseverance, consistency and dependability – all traits highly valued by “employers”. They also argued that “deference to authority” was a big part of school. It was important for pupils to “know their place” in the structure. Pupils were compelled to expect “external rewards”. Education was merely a means to an end, not a self-contained activity. This is closely linked to the Marxist sociological concept of alienation. Bowles also suggests that a key function of the school is to “legitimate inequality”. It seeks to teach working class people that the people at the top of society “deserve” their place. It makes their lowly place in the structure seem “just” and “above board”. Some critiques accused Bowles and Gintis of being “deterministic” and argued that human beings were not simply drones to be programmed. Even the Marxist Paul Willis criticised them for this reason. In his 1977 study, ‘Learning to Labour’, he followed twelve ‘lads’ and assessed their behaviour and attitude to school. He rejected the notion that pupils were “passive receptors”, instead suggesting that they often rebelled against the injustices they saw in school. He said they were very aware of the unfair, discriminatory nature of school and were sceptical that qualifications or “hard work” in school would render any real material benefits. Unfortunately though, their “rebellion” in class i.e. having a “laff”, would ultimately lead to their failure at school and the reproduction of the class system.

Willis’s study is important because it seeks merge a structural Marxist analysis with one which pays attention to human agency. Though, his conclusions do seem rather fatalistic.

The Marxist analysis offers a real explanation of the ideological foundations of the British education system. It can explain both why working class children fail and why they accept failure. This, in my opinion, reveals just how important the British educational system is in maintaining the class structure of British society.

[red saint]

I'm 100% opposed to grammer schools, I used to hate the brats who went to them, and I don't remember many working class kids attending them, me and my mates used to rob the posh little feckers

All grammer schools and private schools should be smashed.

[YKTMX]

me and my mates used to rob the posh little feckers


:D Now that is real class war!