Advertisement

The limits of reform

  • Ken Jones
Chapter
Part of the Crisis Points series book series

Abstract

In the eyes of the (Labour) politicians who have most seriously pursued it, educational reform has had two aspects: the equalising of opportunity and the weakening of ‘class privilege’ in the education system. These goals have not been seen to depend upon a socialist transformation of society, but have most often been pursued as part of an attempt to modernise education, in response to national economic need. Thus, Antony Crosland, Secretary of State in the mid-1960s, advocated the ending of the public-school system and promoted wide-scale comprehensive reorganisation. Similarly, in the 1980s, Neil Kinnock has called for education to be a ‘finger in the fist of progress’ represented by the industrial policy of a future Labour Government, and has argued for the extension of the comprehensive principle to post-16 education and, again, for measures that would severely curtail public-school education. Each of these views identifies a ‘class bias’ in the English schools which prevents modernisation, promotes injustice and hinders industrial adaptability. However, it is plain that Crosland was not successful in eradicating or mitigating this bias, and it is not at all clear that Kinnock’s line of march is leading to a happier destination. Reformers of the school have tended to underestimate the intractability of the problem.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    J. Westergaard and H. Resler, Class in a Capitalist Society (Penguin, 1976), p. 321.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Barrett, Women’s Oppression Today (New Left Books, 1980), p. 146.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    West Indian Children in Our Schools, Interim Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Education of Children from Ethnic Minority Groups (The Rampton Report) (HMSO, 1981), p. 52.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    DES, Primary Education in England (HMSO, 1978), pp. 49, 54, 58, 73.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ibid, p. vii.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ibid, p. 71.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    See West Indian Children in Our Schools, ch. 2.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barrett, Women’s Oppression Today, p. 141.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Gramsci, ‘In Search of the Educational Principle’, in Selections from the Prison Notebooks, ed. Q. Hoare and G. Nowell Smith (Lawrence & Wishart, 1971), p. 36.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. Kellner, ‘Impossible Dream of a Private School Ban’, New Statesman, 17 April 1981.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Hopkins, The School Debate (Penguin, 1978), p. 23.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    DES, Mixed Ability Work in Comprehensive Schools, p. 11.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Simon, The Politics of Educational Reform.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ministry of Education, 15 to 18 (The Crowther Report) (HMSO, 1959), p. 449.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    For a critique of the concept of semi-skilled labour, see H. Braverman, Labour and Monopoly Capital (Monthly Review Press, 1974).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    OECD, Educational Development Strategy in England and Wales (OECD, 1975), p. 34.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    DES Paper to Prime Minister, School Education in England: Problems and Initiatives (restricted circulation, DES, 1976), p. 10.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Board of Education, The Teaching of English in England (The Newbolt Report, 1921),Google Scholar
  19. quoted in M. Mathieson, The Preachers of Culture (Unwin, 1975), p. 74.Google Scholar
  20. 19.
    OECD, Educational Development Strategy, p. 34.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ken Jones 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ken Jones

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations