Tripartite System

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Tripartite System, known colloquially as the grammar school system, was the structure by which Britain's secondary education was organised in England, Wales and Northern Ireland between the 1944 Butler Education Act and 1976. Secondary schools were divided into three categories, Grammar schools, Technical schools and Modern Schools. Pupils allocated to each according to their performance in the Eleven Plus examination. It was the prevalent system under the Conservative governments of the 1950s and 60s, but fell into disfavour under the Labour government after 1965. It was formally abolished in 1976, giving way to the current Comprehensive System, although elements of similar systems persist in several counties. The merits and difficulties of the system proved a contentious subject, and continue to divide public opinion in the UK.

Contents

[edit] Structure

[edit] Organisation

Under the Tripartite System there were three categories of state-run secondary schools. Each was designed with a specific purpose in mind, aiming to impart a range of skills appropriate to the needs and future careers of their pupils.

  • Grammar Schools - These schools were intended to teach a highly academic curriculum, teaching students to deal with abstract concepts. There was a strong focus on intellectual subjects, such as literature, classics and complex mathematics. Generally considered the apex of the Tripartite system, places in grammar schools were highly sought after. Around 25% of children went to a grammar school, although this varied substantially across the country.
  • Technical Schools - The technical school was designed to train children adept in mechanical and scientific subjects. Planned as an equal tier of the system alongside the grammar schools and the secondary moderns, shortages in funding led to technical schools being provided on a limited scale. Catering for around 5% of the school population, the focus of the schools was on providing scientists, engineers and technicians.
  • Modern Schools (known as Secondary Moderns) - Pupils at these schools were trained in practical skills, aimed at equipping them for fairly undemanding jobs and home management. Although explicitly not presented as such, the secondary modern was widely perceived as the bottom tier of the tripartite system. They suffered from underinvestment and poor reputations, in spite of educating around 70% of Britain’s school children.

Alongside this system existed a number of public schools and other fee-paying educational establishments. These organised their own intakes, and were not tied to the curricula of any of the above schools. In practice, most of these were educationally similar to grammar schools but with a full ability range amongst their pupils.

[edit] The Eleven Plus

For further information, see the main article on the Eleven Plus

To allocate students between the three tiers, all students were given an exam at the age of 11. Three tests were given; one tested mathematical ability, one set an essay on a general topic and a third examined general reasoning.

Originally, these tests were intended to decide which school would be best suited to a child’s needs. However, because of the lack of technical schools, the eleven plus ultimately became a measure of whether or not a child was worthy of a place at their local grammar school. As such, ‘passing’ the eleven plus came to be seen as essential for success in later life.

The eleven plus has been accused of having a significant cultural bias. This was certainly true of early papers. ‘General reasoning’ questions could be about classical composers, or the functions performed by domestic servants - subjects which children from working class backgrounds would be less able to answer. This criticism was to become less valid as the years passed, and the science of IQ testing became more advanced and class biases decreased.

[edit] Examination systems and relationship to further education

Different types of schools entered their pupils for different examinations at age 16. Grammar school students would take O levels, while children at secondary moderns initially took no examinations at all. Instead, they worked for a Schools Certificate, which simply indicated they had remained at school until age 15.Then some of the secondary modern schools offered qualifications that were set, for example, by regional examination boards, such as the Union of Lancashire and Cheshire Institutes and the Northern Counties Technical Examinations Council. The latter exam was taken after four years at secondary school. Such examinations were comparable with the Certificate Of Secondary Education [CSE] which was introduced in 1965. Less demanding than GCE O-level, results in the GCE and CSE exams were graded on the same scale, with the top CSE grade, grade 1, being equivalent to a simple pass at GCE O level. Secondary moderns did develop O level courses for brighter students, but in 1963 only 41,056 pupils sat them, roughly one in ten. Some of these pupils` results were very good. Secondary modern schools continued in existence into the 1970s, and as time progressed more attention was given to the need to provide more challenging examinations, and to adopting the same approach to mixed abilities as the modern comprehensive system which existed at the same time.

Although the Butler Act offered further education for all, including students from secondary moderns, only children who went to grammar schools had a realistic chance of getting into university. Secondary moderns did not offer training for A levels. Although students could obtain this elsewhere, few did and in 1963 only 318 secondary modern pupils sat the exams.[1] Only grammar schools offered facilities for students who were preparing for the entrance examinations required to go to Oxbridge.

[edit] Guiding principles

The basic assumption of the Tripartite system was that all students, regardless of background, should be entitled to an education appropriate to their needs and abilities. It was also assumed that students with different abilities were suited to different curricula. It was believed that an IQ test was a legitimate way of determining a child’s suitability to a particular tier.

It was intended for all three branches of the system to have a parity of esteem. However existing beliefs about education (see below) and the failure to develop the technical schools led to the grammar schools being perceived as superior to the alternatives.

[edit] History

[edit] Origins

Prior to 1944 the British secondary education system was a fundamentally ad hoc creation. Access was not universally available, varying greatly by region. Schools had been created by local government, private charity and religious foundations. Education was often a serious drain on family resources, and subsidies for school expenses were sporadic. Secondary education was mainly the preserve of the middle classes, and in 1938 only 13% of working class 13 year olds were still in school.[2]

Many of the schools created since the 1870s were grammar schools, which offered places based on an entrance test. Places were highly desired and seen as offering a great chance at success. These schools were widely admired, and were to become the model by which education would be reformed from the 1940s.

There was also a strong belief in the value and accuracy of psychometric testing. Many in the educational establishment, particularly the psychologist Sir Cyril Burt, argued that testing students was a valid way to assess their suitability for various types of education. Similar conclusions were drawn in a number of other countries, including France, Italy, Germany and Sweden, all of whom operated a state-run system of selective schools.

The 1926 Hadow Report had recommended that the education system be formally split into separate stages at eleven or twelve. Before this point, there had been no defined barrier between what are now known as primary and secondary education. The novelty of this break would encourage the establishment of selection at the point when pupils were changing schools.

[edit] The Butler Act

The 1944 Butler Education Act radically overhauled British education. For the first time, secondary education was to become a right, and was to be universally provided. It would also be free, with financial assistance for poor students. This was part of the major shake-up of government welfare in the wake of the Beveridge report.

In addition to promising universal secondary education, the act intended to improve the kind of education provided. Children would be provided with the type of education which most suited their needs and abilities. Calling their creation the Tripartite System, education officials envisaged a radical technocratic system in which skill was the major factor in deciding access to education, rather than financial resources. It would meet the needs of the economy, providing intellectuals, technicians and general workers, each with the required training.

The Act was created in the abstract, making the resultant system more idealistic than practical. In particular, it assumed that adequate resources would be allocated to implement the system fully.

[edit] Implementation

The Tripartite System was arguably the least politically controversial of the great post-war welfare reforms. It had been written by a Conservative, and had received the full backing of Prime Minister Winston Churchill. Even the most aristocratic Tories saw it as a way of reinvigorating upper class control of society.

“[Churchill said that] we must reinforce the life-blood of the ruling-class – though he said he disliked the word ‘class’. We must not choose by the mere accident of birth and wealth, but by the accident – for it was equally an accident – of innate ability.” [3]

Many in the Labour party, meanwhile, were enthusiastic about the ability of the Tripartite System to enable social mobility. A first rate education would now be available to any capable child, not simply a rich one. The tripartite system seemed an excellent tool with which to erode class barriers.

In spite of this broad approval, the resources for implementing the system were slow in coming. The logistical difficulties of building enough secondary schools for the entire country delayed the introduction of tripartite education. It was not until 1951, and the election of a Conservative government, that the system began to be widely implemented. Some Historians have argued that tripartite education was the Conservative answer to the attractions of the Welfare state, replacing collective benefits with individual opportunities.

Even so, there was still a dramatic shortfall in resources for the new education system. Grammar schools received the lion’s share of the money, reinforcing their image as the best part of the system. Modern schools were correspondingly neglected, giving them the appearance of being ‘sink schools’. The Newsom Report of 1963, looking at the education of average and below average children, found that secondary moderns in slum areas of London left fifteen year olds sitting on primary school furniture and faced teachers changing as often as once a term.

There was a severe regional imbalance, with many more grammar school places available in the South than in the North, and with fewer places available for girls. This was partly the result of a historical neglect of education in the north of England, which the tripartite system did much to correct. Nevertheless, in 1963 there were grammar school places for 33% of the children in Wales and only 22% of children in the Eastern region [4].

The most important result of the lack of money was the disappearance of the third part of the system- the technical schools. Very few existing schools could fulfil the technical role, and the priority remained grammar and modern schools. The tripartite system was, in effect, a two-tier system with schools for the academically gifted and schools for the others. Without technical schools, the eleven plus became seen as a pass-or-fail exam, either getting children to the grammar or consigning them to a secondary modern.

[edit] The Fall of the Meritocracy

In 1958 the sociologist Michael Young published a book entitled The Rise of the Meritocracy. A mock-historical account of British education viewed from the year 2033, it satirised the beliefs of those who supported the Tripartite System. Young argued that grammar schools were instituting a new elite, the meritocracy, and building an underclass to match. If allowed to continue, selective education would lead to renewed inequality and eventually revolution.

This reflected a growing dissatisfaction on the left with the results of the Tripartite System. Whereas the previous generation of Labour politicians had focused on the social mobility afforded to those who passed their eleven plus, now concern became focused upon those who were sent to secondary moderns. Once the Tripartite System had been implemented, the middle classes were found to be much more likely to win places at grammar schools. It was feared that society was being divided into a well-educated middle class elite and a working class trapped in the Modern schools, or “eggheads and serfs”. To some on the left, such as Graham Savage of the LCC, it became an article of faith that the only way to bring about equality was by putting everyone through the same schools.

In July 1958 the Labour leader Hugh Gaitskell formally abandoned the Tripartite system, calling for “grammar-school education for all” [5]. The party’s fiercest opponent of the Grammar school was Gaitskell’s protégé, Anthony Crosland.

Experiments with comprehensive schools had begun in 1949, and had taken hold in a few places in the UK. London, Coventry, the West Riding and Leicestershire had all abolished the Tripartite System in the 50s and early 60s, for a variety of reasons. They offered an alternative to the existing system which was seized upon by its opponents. Comprehensives were held up as less divisive, and pupils were said to benefit from the abolition of selection.

Paradoxically, at the same time as Labour was attacking the Tripartite System for its inequalities, some in the middle class were increasingly upset at the social mobility it fostered. As educational testing became more exact and subject to less class bias, an increasing proportion of middle class children were being sent to secondary moderns. The Tripartite System fell victim to its own elitism, as the traditional supporters of the grammar schools began to worry about their own children’s educational future.

[edit] Abolition

By 1965 the Tripartite System was on the way out. 65 LEAs had plans to switch to comprehensive schools, and another 55 were considering it. Over the next few years this grassroots change would be reinforced by central government policy.

Labour had won the 1964 election, and Anthony Crosland became Secretary of State for Education in January 1965. He was an adamant critic of the tripartite system, and once angrily remarked "If it’s the last thing I do, I’m going to destroy every last fucking grammar school in England. And Wales. And Northern Ireland" [6]. Soon after he came to office he issued Circular 10/65. This asked Local Education Authorities to begin planning the switch from the Tripartite System to the Comprehensive System, withholding funding for new school buildings from those that did not comply. This change would be reinforced by the 1968 Education Act.

Initially the move generated little opposition. It was portrayed foremost as an effort to raise standards in secondary moderns, and Prime Minister Harold Wilson had promised that no grammar school would be closed “over my dead body”. It became increasingly apparent, however, that this would not be the case. Some grammar schools were closed, and many were amalgamated with nearby secondary moderns.

The promise of grammars for all rang increasingly hollow, as it became apparent that Comprehensivistion meant levelling out standards, rather than raising them. Opposition developed, mainly on a local level in protest of the treatment of a particular grammar school. Particularly strong opposition was noted in Bristol, after the LEA ended all grammar school education in 1964.

However, there was little nationwide organisation among the defenders of the Tripartite System. The most prominent attack on the introduction of comprehensives came in the series of Black Papers (as opposed to White Papers, which are issued by the government) published in the Critical Quarterly by Tony Dyson and Brian Cox. Comprehensivisation was accused of using schools ‘directly as tools to achieve social and political objectives’, rather than for the education of pupils. [7]

Debates over the Comprehensive system seemed about to become a major political issue, particularly with the election of a Conservative government in 1970. However many Tories were ambivalent on the issue, Education Secretary Margaret Thatcher decided not to court controversy. Her Circular 10/70 simply removed the compulsion of Circular 10/65, leaving it up to individual LEAs whether or not they would go comprehensive.

By 1970 115 LEAs had had their reorganisation plans approved. 13 had had theirs rejected, and a further 10 had defied the government and refused to submit any plans at all. It is often noted that more grammar schools were shut under Margaret Thatcher than any other Education Secretary. This is true but misleading, since this was a local process, started under Labour and allowed to continue to avoid controversy. Circular 10/70 allowed the Tripartite System to continue to slip quietly into the night across most of Britain.

[edit] Aftermath and Legacy

The end of the Tripartite System was reinforced by the new Labour government of 1974. One of its first actions on education was Circular 4/74, reiterating Labour’s intention to continue with Comprehensivisation. The 1976 Education Act forbade selection of pupils by ability, officially ending the Tripartite System.

The abolition of the grammar schools proved a godsend to independent schools. Free, high-quality education for the brightest pupils had dramatically reduced their students, from around 10% of the school population to 5.5%. However, now that comprehensive equality had been instituted, a large number of parents were willing to pay to extricate their children from it. Some grammar schools, particularly Direct Grant Grammars, converted to fee-paying independent schools, retaining selection of entrants. The proportion of children opting out of the state system continued to rise until recently, standing at around 8%.

Certain counties continued to defy the government and continued to operate a form of the Tripartite System. In most cases, grammar schools exist more as a better tier of institutions, while other schools are seen as ordinary, rather than modern school-style ‘failures’. Around 160 state-run grammar schools exist in Britain today, schooling 141,000 pupils.[8] For a full list of counties where this applies, see the main article on grammar schools in the United Kingdom.

The 1976 Act proved the high-point of the Comprehensive movement. The Thatcher government allowed selection once again in 1979, and it has been used increasingly by individual schools eager to choose the best pupils. In 1984 Solihull attempted to reintroduce grammar schools, but was stopped by middle class opposition. In 1986 the first City Technology Colleges were proposed, arguably inspired by the Technical schools. Today, no formal attempts are being made to restore the Tripartite System, but the perceived failure of the Comprehensive System has led the current (Labour) government to propose “Beacon Schools”, “Advanced Schools” and an “escalator” or “ladder” of schools.

It has been argued that the education system still reflects the realities of the Tripartite System. Sir Peter Newsom, an opponent of comprehensive schools, has claimed that Britain’s schools fall in one of eight ranks, the bottom three of which basically correspond to old secondary moderns.[9] Similarly, selective schools regularly outpace comprehensives, and account for a comparable proportion of the school population. Secondary education in Britain has not been thoroughly overhauled since 1944, and today seems to exist half way between the Tripartite System and the Comprehensive.

[edit] Grammars in Northern Ireland

While vestiges of the Tripartite system persist in several counties, the largest area where the 11-plus system remains in operation is Northern Ireland. Original proposals for switching to the Comprehensive system were proposed in 1971, but the suspension of devolution meant that they were never acted upon. As a result, each year around 16,000 pupils in the area take the eleven plus transfer test. Pupils are rated between grades A and D, with preferred access to schools being given to those with higher grades. Around 1/3 of pupils who take the exam are given places in a grammar school. Students who do well in their Key Stage 3 exams can also obtain places.

In 2001, following the publication of the Burns Report on Post Primary Education, the decision was taken to abolish the examination. The subsequent Costello Report went further, and advocated an end to all selection in Northern Ireland’s schooling. The Sinn Féin education minister Martin McGuinness, endorsed the Burns Report, as did the Social Democratic and Labour Party, while the Ulster Unionist Party and Democratic Unionist Party politicians condemned it. When devolution was suspended in 2002, the Northern Ireland Office decided to continue the policy, although the phase-out date of the eleven plus was set back from 2004 to 2008.

Opinion is divided on the wisdom of the decision. The Burns Report itself called the eleven plus system socially divisive and argued that it placed unreasonable pressures on teachers. Critics of the status quo in Northern Ireland say that primary education is overly focused on passing the eleven plus. Half of all students receive some kind of private tuition before going to the exam. Many pupils also say that the exam is a great source of stress.

Nevertheless, the existing system has produced good results. GCSE grades are much higher than in England and Wales. The number gaining five GCSEs at grades A-C, the standard measure of a good education, is ten percentage points higher.[10] AS and A level results are also better. Access to universities is more equitable. 41.3% of those from the bottom four socioeconomic groups going to university, as opposed to a national average of 28.4%. [11]

Public opinion appears divided on the question. In a 2004 poll the people of Northern Ireland supported the abolition of the 11-plus by 55% to 41%. But they opposed the abolition of selective education 31% to 67%. There is widespread agreement that whatever the failings of the existing system, it is fair.[1]

[edit] Debates

For a discussion of debates surrounding the Tripartite System, see the article on debates on the grammar school.

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

Children’s views

Arguments in favour

Arguments against

Northern Ireland Grammars

[edit] Sources

  1. ^ Sampson, Anthony. Anatomy of Britain Today, London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1965, p194
  2. ^ Szreter, Simon. Lecture at Cambridge University, Lent term 2004
  3. ^ Howard, A. RAB: The Life of R.A. Butler, London: Jonathan Cape, 1987, p119
  4. ^ Sampson, Anatomy
  5. ^ Gaitskell, Hugh. Letter to The Times 5/7/1958
  6. ^ Crosland, Susan. Tony Crosland, London : Cape, 1982
  7. ^ RR Pedley. 'A Black Paper on Education', Critical Quarterly London: 1969
  8. ^ Chitty, Clyde. The Right to a Comprehensive Education, Caroline Benn Memorial Lecture 2002
  9. ^ Brighouse, T. 'Collegiates are the Future', Times Educational Supplement, 4 October 2002.
  10. ^ Portillo, Michael. 'The lesson of grammars is elitism benefits us all', The Times 31/7/2005
  11. ^ St John's College JCR CommitteeReview of Post-Primary Education in Northern Ireland: Access Issues
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/r/i/Tripartite_System_95d2.html"