In D. Hill and. M. Cole (eds) Schooling and Equality: Fact, Concept and Policy. London: Kogan Page (2001)

Chapter One

Equality, Ideology and Education Policy

Dave Hill

Editor's introduction

For equality to become a fact of life depends on how it is valued, on whether it is seen as an improving or destructive force within social, cultural and economic relationships. Dave Hill gives a revealing account of how equality in the provision of education is assessed within the competing value systems, or ideologies, advocated from the different political positions across the arena of modern British politics. From Left to Right, the main criteria of social policy for Socialism, Social Democracy, Liberal-progressivism and Conservatism are broadly defined, so that their influence - discriminatory or egalitarian - can be seen in the background history of education policy in England and Wales, since 1880. The discussion then tightens into detailed analysis of political principles and post-war education policy, especially the recent evaluations of equality within radical left and radical right wing agendas. Acknowledging the complex and shifting relationship between ideology and policy-making, typified by the fracture of neo-liberal and neo-conservative ideologies within the Radical Right, the chapter leads to an incisive assessment of the ideology informing New Labour in government.

INTRODUCTION

This chapter examines a number of the ideologies in education, which have most influenced education policy and debate in England and Wales, from the Second World War to New Labour

As political positions differ on the desirability of social and economic equality, so they differ on the need for equality and the equality of opportunity within education. Consequently, the policies which more or less flow from the different ideas and values which compose these ideologies are often explicitly framed in terms of their intention to promote either equality and equality of opportunity, or to promote elitism and an unequal hierarchy of schooling.

The first section of the chapter begins with a definition of ideology. The second section, an historical overview, briefly describes key aspects of the ideologies that have clearly affected education policy from 1945 to the mid-1970s (particularly the ideologies of Social Democracy, of Liberal Progressivism and of the Radical Left). The third section examines in more depth the political principles of the various ideologies underlying education policy.

The fourth section examines the more recent influence of Radical Right ideology on Conservative education policies during the three Thatcher governments of 1979-83, 1983-87 and 1987-90, the two Major administrations of 1990-92 and 1992-97 and policy under the leadership of William Hague.

Yet since the election of New Labour to government in 1997, has Radical Right ideology ceased to inform education policy? This question is directly addressed in the analysis of New Labour education policy, and its impact on equality, in the final section.

THE CONCEPT OF IDEOLOGY

Ideology can be understood as a more or less coherent set of beliefs and attitudes that is regarded as self-evidently true, as 'common sense' in opposition to other belief systems. Examples of ideologies are socialism, conservatism, feminism, racism, and theism.

When people and political parties disagree about how society, schooling or the economy should be organised, they justify their views with a particular version of what is right and what is wrong (with a particular version of what is 'common sense').

The influence of an ideology can be overwhelming. As Eagleton puts it, 'What persuades men and women to mistake each other from time to time for gods or vermin is ideology' (Eagleton 1991: xiii). Althusser (1971) observes how individuals, and groups as well, are 'interpellated' or 'called out to' by different ideologies. In the ideological 'Culture Wars', in the battle over ideas about what is right and what is wrong, people are 'hailed' both by dominant ideologies and by oppositional ideologies, each with their variously constructed notions of 'common sense'.

As an aspect of subjectivity, ideology is contested and commonly inconsistent, arising from multiple forces within different social experiences and histories. Ideological perspectives - and the resulting opinions - derive from and are structured by social class position, also from factors such as sexuality, disability, 'race', gender, 'nation', religion. Ideologies arise substantially from individual and group histories and experiences of material, social and economic relations and conditions.

Ideology as True or False Consciousness

There are two main perceptions of ideology in critical thought. The first is negative, viewing ideology as distorted consciousness. The other is positive, where ideology can be the positive expression of the interests and world-view or weltangschaaung of a class-located person or group. Such an ideology would be `class-conscious'.

Firstly, as a negative concept, 'Ideology may be conceived in eminently negative terms as a critical concept which means a form of false consciousness or necessary deception which somehow distorts men's (sic) understanding of social reality', so that ' the cognitive value of ideas affected by ideology is called into question' (Larrain, 1979: 13 - 14). For Marx ideology is in some respects a distorted consciousness. It conceals social contradictions and conflict (the class struggle), and it does so in the interests of a dominant class (Larrain, 1979: 48). In this sense, ideology can create 'false consciousness' because it fools people into going along with an exploitative and oppressive system, into thinking, for example that competitive individualism, consumerism and capitalism are `only natural' (see Chapter Five of this volume for more examples, drawn from the work of Bourdieu and of Althusser).

Secondly, Marx (and Lukacs, the Hungarian Marxist) also define, in contrast, a fundamentally positive aspect of ideology, which renders it more akin to 'true consciousness'. Since consciousness results from material conditions of existence, people's everyday conditions of living and working, the 'mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general… (therefore)… [i]t is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness’ (Marx, 1962: 362 in Eagleton, 1991: 80).

However, the issue is complex. There is no complete congruence or agreement between a social class and its ideology (Eagleton, 1991: 100-106): social classes are not homogenous. Furthermore, following Gramsci, the hegemony, or overall dominance, of a particular ideology is strongly contested. There are clashes of opinion, 'culture wars' between different ideologies. In the struggle between ideologies, 'meanings and values are stolen, transformed, appropriated across the frontiers of different classes and groups, surrendered, repossessed, reinflected' (Eagleton, 1991: 101). Nonetheless, the complexity of the nature of ideology should not mask the link between social class (complex through that notion is too) and class-consciousness - in other words, the material basis of ideology.

Left, Right and Centre

Since this chapter places ideologies along a Left-Right continuum, it is useful, initially, to explain what this continuum is. The Left-Right ideological continuum is in common use (e.g. Jones et al., 1991: 103-166) and relates principally to economic and social policy (Jones et al. 1998: 72-73). Social policy, of course, includes education policy.

Some basic definitions are useful here:

  • Politics is the allocation, distribution and control of scarce resources in society, such as wealth, income, education, status, and power. This includes the power to influence ideas and policy, for example through control of the media and of schooling and education, and through control of the law and law enforcement.

Socialism is a left-wing ideology founded on the use of the state (local or national), or of other collective means (such as through workers' control/ownership) to limit or change the power of the ruling capitalist class. Socialists believe in the collective good and social justice, in contrast to an emphasis on selfish individualism. The Left’s major objectives are social/ collective control of the economy, the egalitarian redistribution of wealth, income and power in favour of working people and their families. Crucially, the goal of equality for socialists amd Marxists to achieve not only the equality of opportunity but far more equality of outcome too. Ultimately, radical, or Marxist, socialists wish to transform and replace capitalism with socialism- collective and non- exploitative control of the economy.

Liberal-progressivism is a view of society and education centred on the individual. It is often associated with the 'permissive' society of the 1960s, when legislative tolerance replaced the punitive repression of divorce, prostitution, abortion and homosexuality. During the 'swinging sixties' liberal-progressivism was championed by The Guardian, facilitated by 'the pill' and 'the Women's Movement' (against exploitation of women) and a reaction against the Victorian authoritarianism still evident in the first half of the twentieth century. In schools, this authoritarianism was underpinned by teacher-centred and whole-class-based pedagogy, and corporal punishment. In contrast, liberal-progressivism focuses on the interests and responses of each child, to whom schooling is accountable (along with the teacher).

  • The main principles of the Centre (whether liberal progressive or social democratic) in British and West European politics lie in between those of the Left and of the Right. Social Democrats and Liberal Progressives both wish for a fairer economy and society with more equal opportunities and, to an extent, more equal outcomes, while, however, accepting the mixed (private/public sector) economy in which capitalism and private enterprise play the major part.

The Centre (especially the Liberal Party in its various manifestations) has often been associated with liberal-progressivism in education. However, the Left in particular and many other positions in general adopted liberal-progressivism in the nineteen-sixties and seventies, in reaction against old-fashioned, restrictive, traditionalist and repressive conservatism.

Conservatism is a Right-wing ideology which promotes the belief that there is, in general too much emphasis on equality - certainly on equality of outcome. Instead, Conservatives claim that private enterprise, competition, choice, inequality and the capitalist system and an emphasis on individualism and profit work for the good of society as a whole. A corollary of the emphasis on private enterprise is hostility to an expensive Welfare State. The major principles of the Right are freedom from state interference (except where the state is promoting and defending private enterprise) individualism, free enterprise, inequality and hierarchy. In this vision, schools and education are businesses, reproducing the workforce and ideology for capital, and accountable to consumers and to the economy as such.

This range of ideologies is pragmatic rather than all-embracing. The main exclusions are Fascist, insurrectionist/revolutionary Anarchist, Green, Regionalist/ Separatist/ Nationalist or Religious Fundamentalist ideologies.

As the chapter progresses, the outline given will be developed with more detail. For the meantime, it establishes the significant feature of the 'ideological continuum' - namely, the association of different 'world views' with the political parties that exemplify and represent them.

The translation of ideology into action is by no means assured or straightforward. Much policy is short-term, or responding to electoral considerations, or to international economic events. Yet long-term and overall policy is fundamentally related to ideology (Hill, 2001a). Whenever the ideas and values defined by a particular ideology do result in a certain form of action, then the power of ideology is fully realised. This is particularly apparent when political parties gain election to office and develop policy, such as education policy for legal ratification and enforcement.

Claims that we are in a `post-ideological' or post-modernist `New Times', that ideology (and class conflict) is dead, and that `the government is non-ideological, and instead interested in `effectiveness', in `what works', are themselves ideological. Such claims serve to uphold the status quo by denigrating and seeking to invalidate radical alternatives to the status quo (Cole, 1998; Cole et al, 2001, Hill et al, 1999, 2001).

A Brief History of Ideology, Education Policy and Equality in England and Wales

This is a very brief outline to show the dominant ideology behind education policies with specific impact on equality, since the late-19th century.

1880-1944 During this period, schooling and education were dominated by conservatism, by an openly acknowledged class and gender-based (see Kelly, 2000) elitism. For most of the period, only Elementary Schooling was provided for working-class children in general. Most middle-class children attended grammar schools (which were fee-paying, though there were some scholarships). 'Public schools' (i.e. fee-paying private schools) catered for virtually all upper-class children. With few exceptions boys and girls studied different curricula. The style of teaching was mostly traditional and teacher-centred. The curricula and the hidden curricula of these different types of schools related to, indeed were geared to producing citizens and workers for different positions within the existing hierarchies of income, gender, wealth and power. There was no official government concern in either discourse or policy with equal opportunities, let alone greater equality of outcome. Schooling was obviously based on social class (and gender), with different types of school, different types of curriculum, and different anticipated occupational outcomes for the different social classes and genders.

The1944 Education Act introduced free secondary schooling for all. Initially, and until the mid-1960s, it established the tripartite system and the '11 plus' selection exam (selecting pupils for grammar, secondary technical or secondary modern schools). Private fee paying schools remained the schooling for virtually all children of the upper classes. Schooling was left very much to the autonomy of professionals, the teachers and the Local Education Authorities (LEAs). In this period, despite considerable debate, there was a broad social democratic consensus on education. The purpose of education was generally seen as to create a better society, while the broad (though contested) consensus held that the tripartite system was 'fair' and meritocratic, and enabled bright working-class children to go to Grammar School, university, and a middle-class future. Thus, both the tripartite system itself and (when this was shown to be class-based and class-divisive) the comprehensive model of secondary schooling, were deliberately introduced to ensure more equality of opportunity, regardless of social-class background. Indeed, for some proponents of comprehensive schools (called 'multilateral schools' in the 1940s) (see accounts by Simon, 1991; Barber, 1994) the aim of comprehensive schools was to achieve more equality of outcome, not simply more equality of opportunity.

  • The 1950s-1970s was a period of gradual comprehensivisation of secondary schooling. During Harold Wilson’s Labour government, Circular 10/65 redefined not the aims of education, but how to achieve them. In the light of considerable evidence during the 1950s and 1960s that the selective system was not meritocratic, that working-class children were heavily under-represented in grammar schools, and heavily over-represented in secondary modern schools, the Labour governments of the 1960s and 1970s promoted comprehensive schooling. The Wilson governments of 1964-66 and 1966-70 also expanded university education, building new universities such as Sussex and Warwick and inaugurating the Open University. These social democratic policies - using state action to promote more equality of opportunity - occurred side-by-side with the spread of liberal-democratic, child-centred, progressive education for the development of the individual.
  • 1976-1979 The 1976 Ruskin College speech by Labour Prime Minister James Callaghan came after the international economic crisis of 1973, and the decline in profitability of British (and indeed, Western) capital and capitalism. Western governments, including Callaghan’s, redefined the purposes of education for much more utilitarian purposes. Henceforth, education was to serve the economy rather than than being aims at promoting either the (liberal-progressive) full-flowering of each child’s individuality and potential, or the (social democratic) creation of a more socially just society. The Ruskin speech was also a reaction against 'the William Tyndale Affair', involving the condemnation of an ultra-progressive school by parents and the Inspectorate (see Simon, 1991: 446-461 for a discussion). The Ruskin Speech is commonly seen as the end of officially sanctioned social democracy in education, and beginning of more conservative policies. In the 1970s, for the first time since 1944, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education began to issue strong guidance on the school curriculum. The first signs of reducing teacher and professional autonomy appeared.
  • 1979-1997 Radical right wing Conservative governments instituted the 1988 Education Reform Act. This introduced the market and competition into schools and other sectors of education, at the same time as the national curricula and compulsory publicised assessments and league tables for both schooling and (in effect) for initial teacher education. This is analysed in detail below.
  • Since 1997 The education policies of the New Labour government can be seen in some respects as continuing social democratic education policies committed to extending equal opportunities. At the same time, in New Labour's period in office 1997-2001, it has also sustained and extended the Radical Right amalgam of neo-conservative 'back to basics' traditionalism with neo-liberal policies of competition, increased privatisation, diversity and hierarchy in schooling.

The tension between the social democratic and radical right impulses within the education policy of the New Labour government is returned to at the end of this chapter. To approach this issue it is useful to identify, first, the key principles involved.

IDEOLOGY, POLITICAL PRINCIPLES AND EDUCATION POLICY

Principles of Social Democracy

The ideological orientation of Labour in government from 1945-51, 1964-70 and 1974-76 is considered to be broadly social democratic (Benn and Chitty, 1996; Hillcole Group, 1997), in education as in its wider policy. (Labour was actually in power until 1979, but from 1976-79 it changed its education policies after Callaghan’s Ruskin College speech).