The tripartite system of secondary education, inaugurated in 1944, has been partially eroded throughout the fifties and early sixties. ‘Parity of esteem’ notoriously proved a synonym for ‘some are more equal than others.’ The comprehensive schools, the Leicestershire, Croydon, West Riding and Stoke experiments and proposals were explicit condemnations of the system. One by one, less outspoken lea’s have dropped the 11 plus and substituted interviews or Heads’ reports. A pep statement on secondary moderns in 1956 had run: ‘there is the biggest category of average pupils with no discernible special bent who are most likely to be employed in repetitious jobs requiring little special skill’. The work of Jackson, Marsden, Floud, Halsey, Bernstein and others brought into the open the assumption behind the system and comments like this. The ‘average pupils’ of the secondary modern are most frequently working-class children. Government Reports phased out these comments in the late fifties, instead alluding to the prospect of automation and the need to educate everyone for leisure. But leisure is largely conceived as a classless limbo, a comfortable basking in private, domestic security. This sort of leisure, like industrial work, has both its producers and its users. The class content of our educational system has now been fairly effectively exposed.
Less attention has, however, been paid to another incipient division. The end of the fifties saw a sudden florescence of articles and letters in the press on the role of women’s education. The Crowther report urged education for motherhood. In 1960, M. L. Jacks, Director of the Department of Education at Oxford wrote to the Sunday Times: ‘oneway
The recent lucubrations of Sir John Newsom in the Observer extolling a future of cultivated quartet-playing wives and mothers have now provoked a major controversy. Newsom’s sexual apartheid apparently contains no social hierarchy. His women can’t be over 30 nor fit their pianos into anything less than a suburban semi-detached. His generalized finishing-school education is a clear attempt to make women ‘feminine’ in the same way as the secondary modern helped to make the working-class ‘workers’: ‘. . . . in addition to their needs as individuals, our girls should be educated in terms of their main social function—which is to make for themselves, their children and their husbands a secure and suitable home, and to be mothers . . . Girls must be taught the right subjects . . . because . . . women are biologically and psychologically different from men.’
These classically reactionary banalities found their predictable conclusion in the fantasies of Martin James, who continued the controversy: ‘women’s apparent illogicality is really a devious logic which is a delight—both to themselves and their men. It is, in fact, just as consecutive and sensible in its own way as conceptual rationality based on secondary process and secondary education. Women’s logic has, however, quite another point of departure: the logic and rationality of art, dream, illusion and what Freud called “the primary process”, in thinking (pictorial and unconscious). It is rooted in children’s thinking and is near to the emotionality which provides much of the colour in life.’
Ideologies like these to some extent create their own evidence, of course. A large number of girls in, and before, the fifth form are probably primarily interested in marriage; random citations of women frustrated in their academic grammar schools or institutions of higher education have their own plausibility. Neurotic assertions of frivolity are common enough, but indicate little more than woman’s need to assert her femininity because she is nothing else (comparable to the phenomenon of Momism in the usa). All this is familiar. The antediluvian prejudices of Newsom and others offer no new variations on the oldest and most vulgar idées reçues. What makes them important, however, is not any intrinsic interest, but the context in which they now appear.