To what extent did comprehensive schools enable working class :: Economics

To what extent did comprehensive schools enable working forkpupils to follow?Comprehensive schools enabled working class students to succeedbecause when there was the Tripartite System the majority of workingclass pupils would go to secondary coil modern schools as the 11+ test wasfavoured towards middle class experiences and language. Pupilscare secondary modern schools were seen as a student failing,this then affected the attention the students got at school, theopportunities open to the students and they also gained a lowself-esteem. It also creates a self believing prophecy from lowself esteem. In addition to that secondary modern schools only hada third of the funding with 80% of the cosmos attending them. This meant that there were fewer qualifications to gain and less goodqualified teachers, which in essences was preparing them for unskilledmanual work. The tripartite system legitimated in fittingity through the political theory that ability is inborn rather than the produ cts of thechilds upbringing and environment, and thus can be identified earlyon in life Because the 11+ test favoured middle class, it was mostlymiddle class students that went to grammar schools. This created asocial class division when one of the reasons for having Free Stateeducation was more equal opportunities. When comprehensive schools were introduced in 1965, it was designed toovercome the unfairness of the tripartite system by abolishing the 11+exam and sending all pupils to the same type of secondary school (withthe exception of private school students who continued to go toprivate schools). Since the schools joined, there were morequalifications on offer to students. Middle class and working classworked together. But never the less, the system continued toreproduce class inequality. Some secondary modern schools were placedwhere the majority of working class students lived, so in some schoolsit was still mainly working class. Whilst in others, mostly middleclass. In addit ion to that, many comprehensives were streamed intoability groups, where middle-class pupils tend to dominate the highstreams. Even where ability groups were not present, Ball argued that teacherscontinued to label working class pupils negatively and to restricttheir opportunities. More recently, both Ball and Whitty haveexamined how the polity of marketisation also reproduces andlegitimates inequality.Marketisation is largely the result of the 1988 Education Reform Act,which reduced direct state control and introduced market forces intoeducation so as to create competition between schools and increaseparental choice. They state that marketisation reproduces inequalitythrough exam confederacy tables and the funding formula.Publishing each schools exam results in a league table ensures thatschools that achieve good results are more in demand, because parents