Why are English secondary schools socially segregated?

Abstract

This paper seeks an explanation for the persistent social phenomenon of segregated schooling in England whereby children from families with broadly the same characteristics of wealth, education and social networks are more likely to be educated together and therefore separate from children from more socially distant groups. The paper outlines the historical legacy and the current level of segregation in English schools. It considers explanations that focus on the effect of marketisation of education and finds these explanations limited. A deeper explanation in terms of the practices of more affluent and more highly educated parents is found to be more adequate but in need of amendment in its characterisation of collective action. The complementary practices of poorer parents with less education are highlighted. The way in which these class mechanisms operate in England at the present time is illustrated by considering the different ways in which segregation is generated in selective, faith and community schools.

Keywords:

• social segregation
• schooling
• secondary schools
• parents
• England

Notes

1. Pupils continued to experience segregated schooling as a result of streaming and setting in the new comprehensive schools (Peak and Morrison 1988) and continue to do so (Ireson and Hallam 2001; Gillborn and Youdell 2000). This segregation through the internal organisation and social processes of schools is very significant in terms of educational outcomes and social justice but this paper focuses on the fairness of admissions and the associated segregation between schools.

2. Sixty‐one percent have proximity as a criterion and 65% have catchment as a criterion.

3. There are also nine Jewish schools, three Muslim and one Sikh.

4. The Tearfund report on church‐going updated every six months found that AB social classes have annual church‐going levels consistently above average at 34% and that C2 and DE social classes have annual church‐going levels consistently below average at 21% and 22%, respectively. http://www.tearfund.org/ (accessed 2009).