Education and the politics of selection: radical policies for those set to fail in the twenty‐first century?

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the longstanding question of policy for those referred to nearly half a century ago by the Crowther Report as the ‘bottom half’; those mainly working class children who, in a sense, are ‘selected for failure’. The issue of selection is a matter of concern in countries around the world and has been at the centre of renewed political debate in Britain during 2005–2006. Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair has been keen to advance a policy of ‘freeing‐up’ secondary schools so as to provide ‘diversity’ and ‘more choice for parents and pupils’. Critics regard such a policy as involving ‘selection by other means’. This paper discusses questions of social class and inequality that are bound‐up with the issue of selection. The paper provides an account of ‘Blairite’ New Labour policy and discusses its closeness to new right education policy. The paper concludes with a discussion of radical proposals and observations on the prospects for the future.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to the anonymous referees for their helpful and incisive comments on the first draft of this paper and also to Stephen Gorard for sight of his chapter in advance of its publication as chapter 7, ‘The true impact of school diversity’, in Mark Hewlett, Richard Pring and Margaret Tulloch (Eds) Comprehensive education: evolution, achievement and new directions.

Notes

1. In the UK during 2005 and 2006 the British Labour Party’s education policy brought the question of selection to the fore and again drew attention to the issues of diversity and inequality. Education policy was hotly debated both in Parliament and outside (see Coughlan, 2005a, b; Demaine, 2005; Eason, 2005; Williams, 2005; Abbot et al., 2006; BBC, 2006b, c, d, e, f; Benn & Millar, 2006; Coughlan, 2006a, b; Curtis, 2006; Hattersley, 2006; Smith, 2006; Taylor, 2006; Wintour, 2006). Of course, this recent debate is a continuation of longer‐running discussions of the question of the distribution of education advantage and disadvantage.

2. Discussion of the influence of policy sociology on Government is less developed; what might Tony Blair and his advisers make of, say, Carol Vincent and Stephen Ball’s account of the ‘fearful middle classes’ (Ball & Vincent, 2001; Ball, 2003)?

3. It is possible for a child placed in a school with 35% FSM and reporting 28% A–C GCSEs to achieve better results than half of the equivalent cohort attending the best performing fee‐paying secondary in Britain and more than half of the most expensive.

4. Derived from figures produced by the Halifax Bank, other financial institutions and the Independent Schools Council. Such schools vary in price, hence the variation in ‘savings’. Also see Burtless (1996).

5. This is not dissimilar to the American journalistic reference to Karl Rove as (President George W.) ‘Bush’s brain’ (Meyer, 2005). Journalistic amusement apart, such notions have limited place in serious political science.

6. Blair’s opponents in the House of Commons have taken delight in asking him how ‘selection by aptitude’ differs from ‘selection by ability’; ‘aptitude’, they pointed out, being defined in terms of ‘ability’.

7. The reference is to the Education and Inspections Bill (2006) making its way through Parliament at the time of writing. Royal assent was granted to the Education and Inspections Act (2006) on 8 November 2006. La Reyne le veult.

8. However ‘radical’, these ideas are far from original. Arthur Seldon (1986) brought together even older accounts in The riddle of the voucher citing, amongst others, the work of E. G. West (1975, 1981). A comprehensive collection of accounts, ancient and modern, can be found online at the E. G. West Centre at the University of Newcastle, and discussion of the politics of new right policy for education can be found in Demaine (1990, 2002).

9. I should perhaps add a final comment here to emphasize that I am obviously not ‘advocating’ social segregation and educational inequality. Rather, this paper has attempted to address policy issues surrounding the likely prospect of increased educational inequality and social segregation.