Chapter 8: Conclusion
Chapter 8: Conclusion
Introduction
KES tells the story of how three aspirant teachers from ordinary backgrounds succeeded at school with the care and support of their parents, and became the first in their families to win places at university. Encouraged by our own progress and acutely aware of others less fortunate than ourselves, we crafted professional careers in the comprehensive age, with the common purpose of transforming schools and education so that every child would have a fair chance of realising her or his potential. We wanted schools to be better places for everyone and especially for disadvantaged young people who struggled to find promising ways forward from the lower streams of secondary modern schools. Idealistic and passionate, but also pragmatic in responding to practical difficulties, we shared the desire of many of our contemporaries to create firm foundations for a more equal, more democratic society, with deep roots in local communities.
In this final chapter we aim to conclude, so far as the evidence goes, if we think Billy Casper would get a better deal today and whether disadvantaged circumstances are easier to escape through education now than they were in the 1960s. Our answers to the questions posed in chapter 1 are important because the debate about equal opportunities and social mobility continues to be a vital concern. As Education Secretary Justine Greening[i] insisted in 2017:
…where you start still all too often determines where you finish. And while talent is spread evenly across the country, opportunity is not. None of us should accept this. Everyone deserves a fair shot in life and a chance to go as far as their hard work and talent can take them.
If large numbers of able young people from the ‘wrong side of the tracks’ continue to miss out on attractive academic and vocational opportunities, their disappointment is a potent rebuke to the confident assertion that Britain is an open, liberal and democratic society. If the term ‘wasted lives’ continues to apply, the lack of progress since our childhood must indict the social and educational policies pursued by governments for over fifty years. So here, based on a careful assessment of our careers, is our response to the questions posed at the beginning.
1. Since 1968, have we observed in our work changes in the proportion of young people living with disadvantage?
During our careers we became increasingly conscious of the impact of disadvantage on young people’s lives. We have moved from an early, intuitive sense of ‘something wrong’ to a clear picture and action, based on wide reading. But what do we mean by disadvantage? For our purpose here, we shall define disadvantage as including families and children whose background characteristics include income poverty, a lack of social and cultural capital, and lack of control over decisions that impact on outcomes[ii].
So, what have we observed and what does research tell us? Rob’s experience provides an interesting subjective cameo. In the early 1970s, at Wycliffe secondary modern and Hemsworth, he witnessed very high levels of disadvantage but few, if any, efforts to compensate for it. By the mid 1980s, returning to a transformed Wycliffe, the same level of disadvantage was evident but much was being done to help and support disadvantaged youngsters. In the early 2000s, he was supporting schools in Hull coping with large scale deprivation and, later, working with many C of E schools serving very deprived communities. On this basis, it appears that deprivation has not reduced but many measures are now in place to overcome its worst exigencies. Nevertheless, it is still the case that children who qualify for the pupil premium (a surrogate measure of disadvantage) fall behind their more advantaged peers by up to 19 months in the GCSE years[iii].
Income poverty trends during the period were of concern. David Pichaud and Jo Webb[iv] found the numbers experiencing income poverty more than doubled in the period between the 1970s and the turn of the century. The main rise was in the 1980s. All this happened in a period when salaries were increasing rapidly. In addition, The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS)[v] found that between 1997 and 2010, as a result of direct tax and benefit reforms, there was a large overall reduction in child poverty. Trends have moved in the opposite direction since 2010. Child poverty in the UK has risen sharply with 30 per cent of children now classified as poor, of whom two-thirds are from working families[vi]. Government sources confirm that the number of children in poverty has increased by 500,000 since 2012 alone and that, overall, these young people tend to have worse health, worse education outcomes and start school developmentally behind their more advantaged peers[vii].
In addition to these fluctuations in income poverty, inequality has also grown considerably since Billy Casper’s childhood. The IFS reports that income inequality, the gap between lowest and highest, remains substantially higher than it was in the 1970s[viii]. This, together with the findings of health-related studies cited above, suggests that the more unequal a society is, the greater are its social problems[ix].
The overall picture of the last half-century shows considerable fluctuations, therefore, but since the early 1980s the twin trends of growing income poverty and greater inequality have combined to increase the extent and depth of social disadvantage. We must conclude therefore that there has been no reduction of disadvantage during our careers and most likely an increase. What is different, based on our experience, is that we have lived through an era where consciousness has been raised and many different compensatory mechanisms are now at work, compared to the time of Billy’s ill-fated experience.
2. Why have we found disadvantage so hard to overcome in the schools we know?
Despite a plethora of initiatives, both national and local, we have found it very difficult to overcome the problems of disadvantage. Our efforts were very much focussed on giving every child, whatever their background, an equal chance to succeed. For instance, Bernard at Stanground reshaped the school to ensure there were no ‘sheep and goats’; Cherry at Flegg saw the development of student leadership as a key tool in raising the confidence and inclusion of students, particularly the disadvantaged. We worked to avoid the negative reinforcement produced by setting and streaming and the lack of appropriate examination and accreditation systems. It was obvious to us that disadvantaged children mostly ended up in the lower streams and sets and that the curriculum was often far removed from their needs.
These professional perceptions are supported by research. There is clear evidence that low incomes are strongly associated with low attainment at GCSE[x] while persistently disadvantaged pupils end primary school over a year behind their non-disadvantaged peers[xi]. The Social Mobility Commission[xii] reports that gaps between advantaged and less advantaged children open up before birth and persist through life.
The explanation for these discouraging statistics has become increasingly clear, though the reasons are not always accepted by critics who suspect teachers of using poverty as an excuse for poor performance[xiii]. Whitney Crenna-Jennings, senior researcher at the Education Policy Institute, has identified three strands that help us understand how income poverty, inequality and differences in family background impact on children’s development and impede their progress through school and their subsequent careers:
Inequalities in child development. The physical and social conditions in disadvantaged homes, even before birth, can be less conducive to healthy family functioning and school readiness and performance. Lack of resources can reduce access to nutritious food, toys, books and other sources of cognitive stimulation.
Family stress and functioning. Children can be harmed by failing to form secure, positive, attached relationships with their care-givers and may also suffer adverse childhood experiences that cause toxic stress to their brains.
Community disadvantage. Neighbourhood poverty and deprivation has been linked to poorer child development, worse cognitive skills and school readiness, and also with emotional and behavioural problems in young children[xiv].
Early experiences, therefore, can have long-lasting and often irreversible consequences. Long-term disadvantage may have a profound impact on individuals and their choices[xv]. Optimism about schools alone having the power to overcome such strong influences on young people’s lives seems to us, based on our experience and the research evidence, difficult to justify.
The French sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu, has explained how everyday experiences within the family, peer group and school produce ingrained beliefs, values, conduct, speech, dress and manners. Recurring, durable patterns of social class dispositions and outlook are thus established within communities, families and children[xvi]. Bourdieu uses the term ‘habitus’ to describe the processes that condition and guide individuals as they respond to events without consciously obeying explicit rules. The dispositions to behave in certain ways that constitute habitus are acquired over time and reflect the social conditions within which they are acquired[xvii]. The ‘social axes of “race”/ethnicity, social class, and gender all contribute to shaping what an individual perceives to be possible and desirable[xviii].
This analysis indicates the depth and durability of young people’s outlook and dispositions. It is also consistent with our personal observations about the varied outcomes achieved by different social groups in our schools. We conclude therefore that Billy Casper and students like him should not be seen as isolated individuals making simple and (in our terms, often unwise) pragmatic choices, but as members of communities and families with ingrained habitus and dispositions that guide their actions and limit their choices. In the future, our schools must develop more radical solutions that focus on the strengths, not the inherited weaknesses, of each individual. Billy and the kestrel come to mind at this point.
3. What did we do as teachers and subject leaders to help our schools become more inclusive and effective, especially for less advantaged students?
We began by making a conscious choice to join the profession and trained accordingly. We did not just drift into teaching as a means of earning a living. We began with a genuine commitment to the comprehensive ideal and that has remained intact over fifty years. We wanted to ‘make our mark’, to shape teaching and learning, to increase educational attainment for all, and to broaden educational experience. Did we succeed?
Our narratives show how we experienced the evolving pattern of comprehensive education and where we met significant residues of poor practice in many secondary modern schools as well as fine examples of democratic, humane and inclusive institutions. All three of us rejected rule by fear and humiliation and were keen to see the use of the cane and any other form of physical intimidation abandoned. Equally we contributed positively to the growth of pastoral care and building warmer, more inclusive schools for all.
We saw the power and importance of pupil grouping and aimed to replace streaming with more fluid arrangements. We were all too aware that placing young people in lower bands or sets could have a negative impact reaching beyond the classroom. New ways of grouping our pupils went hand in hand with new ways of teaching and learning. The textbook was cast aside in favour of teacher-inspired challenges and debate while enquiry replaced rote learning and regurgitation. As one of Bernard’s students said: ‘Mr Barker never tells us what to think, we get both sides of the argument’. We all contributed to developing stimulus materials for our students with the intention of making learning as relevant and engaging for young people as possible.
Further, we were able to contribute to set up our own ‘mode 3’ CSE’s suited to our students, the topics we chose to study with them and the different ways we wanted them to be examined, with an appropriate emphasis on oral assessments. We were not isolated individuals as portrayed in ‘KES’ but collaborated with our colleagues to develop a departmental curriculum, share resources and even share the teaching. Trust and collaboration grew. Not only were resources shared within the department but also across the local area. Bernard mentions the special history weekends shared with teachers and students from other schools and Rob and Cherry belonged to county and national initiatives to share resources and research.
Boundaries continued to be broken. We saw the emergence of humanities, often taught as an integrated lower school subject and also the arrival of integrated science. Technology replaced woodwork, metalwork, needlework and domestic science. Integrated approaches continued to build trust and collaboration within schools and through Teachers’ Centres, subject conferences and national organisations. These initiatives contributed to a new professionalism which in turn contributed to enhancing pedagogy and investing in dynamic and creative school environments.
It can be argued, of course, that these initiatives were developed at a national level and we were just caught up in the changes and responded accordingly. The narratives, however, give frequent examples of our being out of step with colleagues. Cherry, for example, challenged her departmental colleagues to shift from relying on outdated textbooks and writing in silence to introducing a breadth of literature and developing pupils’ response in a variety of forms. We were committed and determined and met plenty of opposition on the journey.
All three of us contributed generously to the wider life of the school, joining with colleagues to add to a school’s extra-curricular offer. We recognised that if we supported education for life, hoping to tap children’s different enthusiasms, skills and talents, then it was important that we led activities outside the classroom that were open to all. We wanted for all children what we desired for our own - a rich, wider life that could deepen skills and knowledge for some and perhaps spark a light for others that would continue to glow in their adult lives. We were saddened by the industrial action of the 1980s, when significant numbers of teachers withdrew their goodwill and school life was restricted to the day’s timetable.
4. As secondary heads, how did we interpret and tackle the challenges we faced? When our teaching careers were over, what other ways did we find to help young people succeed?
We all approached our headships differently because our schools were at different stages of development. Cherry came to headship later and her predecessor had already tackled the challenging student behaviour, the underperformance in many areas and the way the school was seen in the community. Rob and Bernard found themselves in very challenging circumstances, in charge of schools which manifested some of the worst features of the stereotypical secondary modern. What united all three of us was a determination to implement our vision and be accountable for a school that was inclusive, with most courses and subjects open to all; and kept pupils safe and positive through a rich curriculum offer and warm support through the different stages of their schooling. We were content to be disruptors if that is what it took to achieve a fairer deal for young people; this involved a good deal of cajoling, engineering and persuading.
We all shared an agenda to ‘smarten up’ our schools and teach pride in our communities. Bernard personally waged war on the ‘chips, fizzy pop and smoking on the front lawns.’ His unrelenting focus and energetic personal example on student behaviour won the support of staff and parents. Rob worked with the community to develop a school that operated as a seamless whole. He faced a major challenge as the new head of the worst performing secondary school in the county but embraced the challenge by building very sound and cooperative links with the local community. Cherry sought to involve her students more directly in building a school community where they looked after each other’s well-being and spoke up when things were not right.
We made a strong investment in everyone’s pastoral care. For the students this involved strengthening the links between school and home, working hard to smooth the induction into school life and removing personal barriers to learning. We were all in senior management when the ‘Record of Achievement’ was introduced, at its best a serious endeavour to ensure that every young person was valued and made a worthwhile contribution to their own learning, their own development and to the life of the school. It was a significant initiative to ensure that all young people were treated with an unconditional positive regard. And it had a marked effect on teacher behaviours and paved the way for ‘Every Child Matters’.
We invested in building the ‘right teams’ to care for students’ well-being and to raise standards of teaching and learning. Rob saw the ‘baronial heads of year’ as a barrier to his improvement agenda and restructured accordingly, with very positive outcomes. Bernard put in place a new management team of deputies and senior teachers and insisted on regular meetings for pastoral and departmental staff and stimulated an ‘outbreak of debate and discussion’ about improving the school and the opportunities it offered. Cherry converted her departmental teams into faculties to forge collaborative working and joint responsibility for standards. Similarly, the pastoral organisation was reshaped around vertical tutoring. We saw positive benefits arise from such initiatives and recognised early on the need to keep a close eye on what worked and what did not and take action accordingly. Our actions were all motivated by the aim to widen participation for all; ‘there would be no more sheep and goats’.
5. Would Billy Casper find it easier to escape disadvantage through education in 2020 than in 1968?
In his personal creative writing Billy dreamed of a life where his dad would come back, he would have nice food, live in a warm comfortable home and go to a school where the teachers ‘were good to me they said allow Billy awo gowing on and they all pated me on the head and smiled and we did interesting things all day’.
Today Billy would find himself in a school where the teachers are good to him. He would also find a whole range of adults who would take a strong interest in him and his personal well-being. He would know where to go and who to go to if he was experiencing bullying and any other kind of personal difficulty. Schools are definitely warmer, supportive and more welcoming than the secondary modern that Billy attended. One outstanding, positive feature of comprehensive schools has been the unrelenting focus on each child’s well-being and individual attainment. This does not mean every school is a good or that every child has a happy experience but in general terms schools have become safe places for young people.
One outcome of ‘Every Child Matters’ and developments in safeguarding has been the growth of ‘para-professionals’ in schools, increasing the number and variety of roles on school sites for adults. Teachers now concentrate almost solely on their classroom work and this has led to increased numbers of learning assistants, welfare officers, attendance officers, student services, and pastoral support. In schools today, the support staff frequently match or outnumber teaching staff. At best, together with teachers, they ensure the safety and well-being of all young people in their care. They did not exist for Billy Casper.
Where it is well-used, today’s Pupil Premium budget would ensure Billy would have the resources he needed for school, including an appropriate sports’ kit. In the Academy Bernard and Cherry currently support as governors, Billy would be provided with his uniform, writing equipment and any other resources he needed to be properly equipped for school. Even prior to Pupil Premium, many schools and local authorities have kept special allowances and grants to provide clothing and equipment needed for school. Even with the current financial challenges for schools, there are resources to support disadvantaged youngsters.
Billy would find the classroom a kinder place today, more like the place he dreamed of in his ‘Tall Story’. He would probably be supported with his learning difficulties by having an assistant for his literacy and numeracy. Billy’s problems would be clearly identified and there would be a learning support plan shared with his teachers. For the past few decades there has been significant research into individual learning preferences and this has informed classroom practice. At best, Billy would experience lessons that suited him and encouraged him to participate. There is no doubt that his experience would be far superior to the endurance trials described in Kestrel for a Knave. Today, it would matter to teachers and the school if Billy failed to achieve results in line with his potential. By contrast, Billy’s teachers saw him, rather than themselves, as the failure, the hopeless one.
He would also experience a far superior learning environment. While many schools still cry out for much needed repairs and extensions, most schools today are light, bright, warm, well-equipped and attractive environments. Gone are most of the shabby temporary buildings. Since the New Labour years, there has been major investment in new school accommodation and refurbishments that reflect care and consideration for young people and the staff who nurture them. Sadly, this has also been accompanied by massive Private Finance Initiative (PFI) debts in some schools.
On the other hand, today’s reliance on social media and the importance of the smart phone might place a modern Billy seriously at risk, perhaps open to some of the dark sides of the world of connectivity. The threat and lure of the ‘County Lines’ drug dealing that preys on very deprived children resonates with sinister tones. One wonders whether Billy would have developed such a strong interest in the outdoors and wild animals/birds if he had grown up constantly attached to his phone. Current safeguarding practices offer a degree of protection for vulnerable children but they are by no means a guarantee of safety.
6. What changes in policy and practice are needed to ensure less prosperous and less successful students fulfil their promise?
Today, government expectations and policies [DfE, 2010, 2017] are designed to help young people fulfil their potential at school and university, regardless of family background, and to enable them to achieve rewarding careers and upward mobility. Ofsted cares about everyone’s results – in an extraordinary contrast with official attitudes to ordinary children when our careers began. The presumption now is that social mobility is open to everyone who aspires to success, works hard and is ready to take advantage of available opportunities. Equal access to opportunities is protected, if not guaranteed, by the Equalities Act (2010). The modern Billy should be living in clover!
Our observations, however, confirmed by evidence cited earlier, suggest that these ambitious policies are failing. Large scale inequality and disadvantage persist, with seriously negative consequences for equal opportunities and social justice (Wilkinson and Pickett, 2009, Atkinson, 2015). Local hierarchies of schools operate selectively to reproduce some of the effects of secondary modern education for students from the poorest areas (Ball et al., 2003). Michael Gove’s education reforms have not closed the gap between disadvantaged students and their peers (Andrews et al., 2017, Barker and Hoskins, 2015). The annual reports of the Social Mobility & Child Poverty Commission (SMC) (2014, 2016, 2019) show that disadvantage and poor educational outcomes are closely related, with little change over the last twenty years. Analysis of the 1946, 1958 and 1970 birth cohorts shows the continued influence of parental class, status and education on academic attainment (Bukodi et al., 2014). Disadvantage and its effects are persistent and intractable.
There is also a problem with the Equality Act (2010), designed to ensure equal access and treatment. It protects nine defined characteristics (e.g. age, disability, sex, race) but class background is not included and successive governments have refused to make the ‘socio-economic duty’ on employers, provided for in the original act, effective (Solanke, 2011). There is no legal redress, therefore, for unfair treatment on grounds of social class, believed by some critics to be endemic in UK education (Reay, 2017).
After an era of perpetual reform (1988 – 2020), we believe further changes to school structures and organisation, or to the mandated curriculum and assessment regime, however attractive or desirable in themselves, are unlikely to reduce the impact of disadvantage on young people’s learning and aspirations. The scale and effects are too great to be micro-managed in the classroom. We were driven by passion and idealism to devote our lives to school improvement but today acknowledge the strong evidence that disadvantage still blights young people’s lives. We believe that although the vast majority of schools have improved enormously, most labour with social problems no easier to overcome than those we encountered as young teachers. The combination of the 2007/8 economic crisis, the Covid 19 emergency and over ten years of austerity have increased rather than reduced the prevalence and consequences of inequality.
Growing income inequality, exacerbated by economic disruption and crisis, has become a major policy challenge. The Equality Trust campaigns for policies and changes that will have a significant impact in reducing inequality. They call for a governmental Inequality Reduction Strategy and an independent Commission on Wealth. The Trust advocates the ‘proper progressive taxation of income and wealth’ and for ‘decent social security provision’. Without a major change of direction that includes suggestions like these, there seems little chance that the plight of disadvantaged people can be much improved. At the moment, however, the profound differences and divisions that beset public discourse seem a powerful barrier to progressive solutions to these deep social problems.
Conclusion
We end our book with a strong sense of having done our best, during long and productive careers, to create better schools for disadvantaged young people like Billy Casper. We are not unique; many of our contemporaries have had the same vision and enjoyed the same fulfilment. This book is, therefore, a tribute to all progressive educators of our generation. But the job is not done. Disadvantage remains endemic and under-achievement in its many guises is still rife. Our plea then, to the next generation of policy makers, educators and school leaders, is to strive to ensure that those at risk of being no-hopers become optimistic contributors to our world. We believe that this can be achieved if schools move away from utilitarian functionalism and strive to develop the metaphorical equivalent of Billy’s hawk in each and every young person. We need to recognise that although education plays a vital role in modern society, the benefits are unlikely to include a rapid transformation in the country’s underlying patterns of wealth and culture. Every child has unique gifts and we owe it to them all to encourage and develop their talent. Now is the time to give up the political obsession with making cream rise to the top of the churn, and to concentrate instead on enriching young people’s lives and preparing them for an open-ended future.
[i] Department for Education (DfE) (2017) Unlocking Talent, Fulfilling Potential: A plan for improving social mobility through education, Command 9541, p.5. Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/667690/Social_Mobility_Action_Plan_-_for_printing.pdf
[ii] ?
[iii] Crenna-Jennings, W. (2018) Education in England: Annual Report, Education Policy Institute. Available on line: https://epi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/EPI-Annual-Report-2018-Lit-review.pdf
[iv] Piachaud, D. and Webb, J. Changes in poverty, pp 28 – 47, in Glennersterrr, H., Hills, J., Piachaud, D. and Webb, J. (2004) One Hundred Years of Poverty and Policy, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Available online: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/one-hundred-years-poverty-and-policy
[v] Brewer, M., Browne, J., Joyce, R. and Sibieta, L. (2010) Child Poverty in the UK since 1998 – 99: Lessons from the Past Decade, IFS Working Paper 10/20. Available online: https://www.ifs.org.uk/wps/wp1023.pdf
[vi] Butler, P. (2017) Child poverty in the UK at highest level since 2010, official figures show, The Guardian, 16th March. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/16/child-poverty-in-uk-at-highest-level-since-2010-official-figures-show
[vii] Social Mobility Commission (SMC) (2019) State of the nation 2018 – 19: Social mobility in Great Britain. Available online at:https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/798687/SMC_State_of_Nation_2018-19_Summary.pdf
[viii] Wilkinson, R. & Pickett, K. (2009) The spirit level: Why equality is better for everyone (Harmondsworth, Penguin Books).
[ix] Wilkinson, R. & Pickett, K. (2009) The spirit level: Why equality is better for everyone (Harmondsworth, Penguin Books).
[x] Cook, C. (2012) The social mobility challenge for school reformers, FT Data, 22nd February. Available online (paywall): http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2012/02/22/social-mobility-and-schools/#axzz1o06SJkBJ
[xi] Andrews, J., Robinson, D. and Hutchinson, J. (2017) Closing the Gap? Trends in Educational Attainment and Disadvantage, Education Policy Institute. Available on line: https://epi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Closing-the-Gap_EPI-.pdf
[xii] see note 6
[xiii] Barrett, D. (2019) Teachers must stop blaming poverty for poor grades, says report, The Telegraph, 26th December. Available online: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/10791244/Teachers-must-stop-blaming-poverty-for-poor-grades-says-report.html
[xiv] See note 2.
[xv] Dasgupta, P. (2010) Partha Dasgupta interviewed by Alan Macfarlane 6th April (part 2) (unpaged). Video podcast and transcript available online: www.alanmacfarlane.com/DO/filmshow/dasgupta2_fast.htm.
[xvi] Bourdieu, P. (1979) Algeria 1960: The disenchantment of the world, the sense of honour, the Kabyle house or the world reversed, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[xvii] Mills, C. (2008) ‘Reproduction and Transformation of Inequalities in Schooling: The transformative potential of the theoretical constructs of Bourdieu’, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29: 1, 79 – 89
[xviii] Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B. and Wong, B. (2012) ‘Science
Aspirations, Capital, and Family Habitus: How families shape children’s engagement and
identification with science’ American Educational Research Journal, 49: 5, 881 – 908 (p. 885).
References
Attar, N. (2012) Susan Greenfield on women in science: not much has improved in 10 years, BMC/Springer, Blog Network. Available on line: https://blogs.biomedcentral.com/on-biology/2012/03/08/susan-greenfield-on-women-in-science-not-much-has-improved-in-10-years/
Benn, C. and Simon, B. (1970) Half Way There: Report on the British Comprehensive School Reform. London: McGraw-Hill
Bernstein, B. (1970) ‘Education cannot compensate for society’. New Society, 389, 26 February, 344–7.
Beveridge, W. (1942) Social Insurance and Allied Services (Cmd. 6404) HM Government.
Blishen, E (1955) Roaring Boys, London: C Chivers.
Boyson, R (19xx) xxxxxxxxxxx
Burt, C. (1917) The Distribution and Relations of Educational Abilities, London: The Campfield Press.
Cox, B. and Dyson, A. (1969) Fight for Education, Critical Quarterly
Department for Education (DfE) (2010) The Importance of Teaching: The schools white paper. London: The Stationery Office.
Garfield, S (Ed) (2015) My Dear Bessie, London: Canongate.
Hargreaves, D. (1967) Social Relations in a Secondary School, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Hines, B. (1968) Kestrel for a Knave, London: Michael Joseph.
Hoggart, R. (1957) The Uses of Literacy, Pelican: Harmondsworth
Jackson, B. and Marsden, D. (1962) Education and the Working Class, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Newsom, J. (1963) Half Our Future, London: HMSO
Sennett, R. and Cobb, J. (1972) The Hidden Injuries of Class, New York: Vintage Books.
Simon, B. (1953) Intelligence Testing and the Comprehensive School, London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Todd, S. (2014) The People: The Rise and Fall of the Working Class,
1910 - 2010, London: John Murray.
Comments
Post a Comment