Tripartite system: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 18:45, 17 January 2022

The tripartite system was introduced to England with the Butler Act (1944). This system proposed that the students who have passed the primary education level will be divided into three different types of secondary school: Grammar, Modern and Technical. From 1 April 1945 under this system, 11 year-old students had to sit for an exam which was called ‘the 11+‘ exam. The examiners mainly focused on the students’ expertise in English and Arithmetic. Based on the result, the top 20-25 per cent students could attend Grammar School. The rest of them were either in Technical School (roughly 5 per cent) or Secondary Modern School (roughly 75 per cent). The Grammar Schools mainly focused on an academic curriculum, while vocational training was the main concern of Secondary Modern Schools. Applied science was the center of concern for technical schools.

The reaction to this system was mixed. The main idea was that education will be treated according to merit, not wealth. But at the same time the system was criticized for its splitting policy. According to the critics [sources missing here], at a very early stage of their educational life, the choice of schools predetermined their future. Students who did not get chance a chance at Grammar Schools treated themselves as failure. Moreover, there were not enough Grammar Schools in some areas which created serious discontent among guardians and the Secondary Modern Schools could not fulfill the demand of the students. The Grammar Schools became the hub of future promising professionals. There were very few children who could be sent to Technical Schools because of the cost.

Sources

Ainley, Patrick. "Tripartite Schooling, 1944–63." Learning Policy: Towards the Certified Society. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1999. 27-58.

Gillard, Derek. Education in England: a History. May 2018. Web. 17 Jan. 2021. <www.educationengland.org.uk/history>.

Morris, Ben. "Educational Change in the United Kingdom since World War II." The Phi Delta Kappan 43.2 (1961): 92-97.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-The tripartite system was introduced to England with the Butler Act. This system proposed that the students who have passed the primary education level will be divided into three different types of secondary school: Grammar, Modern and Technical. From April 1st 1945 under this system, 11 years old students had to sit for an exam which was named as ‘the 11+‘ exam. The examiners mainly focused on the students’ expertise in English and Arithmetic. Based on the result, the top 20-25% students could attend Grammar school. The rest of them were either in technical school (roughly 5%) or Secondary modern school (roughly 75%). The grammar schools mainly focused on academic curriculum, while vocational training was the main concern of secondary modern schools. And applied science was the center of concern for technical schools.
+The tripartite system was introduced to England with the Butler Act (1944). This system proposed that the students who have passed the primary education level will be divided into three different types of secondary school: Grammar, Modern and Technical. From 1 April 1945 under this system, 11 year-old students had to sit for an exam which was called ‘the 11+‘ exam. The examiners mainly focused on the students’ expertise in English and Arithmetic. Based on the result, the top 20-25 per cent students could attend Grammar School. The rest of them were either in Technical School (roughly 5 per cent) or Secondary Modern School (roughly 75 per cent). The Grammar Schools mainly focused on an academic curriculum, while vocational training was the main concern of Secondary Modern Schools. Applied science was the center of concern for technical schools.
-There was a mixed reaction about this system. The reaction to this system was mixed. The main idea was that education will be treated according to merit, not on wealth. But at the same time the system was criticized for its splitting policy. According to the critics, at a very early stage of their educational life, the choice of schools predetermined their future.
-Students who did not get chance a chance at grammar schools treated themselves as failure. Moreover, there were not enough grammar schools in some areas which created serious discontent among guardians and the secondary modern schools could not fulfill the demand of the students. The Grammar schools became the hub of future promising professionals. There were very few children who could be sent to technical schools because of the cost.
+The reaction to this system was mixed. The main idea was that education will be treated according to merit, not wealth. But at the same time the system was criticized for its splitting policy. According to the critics [sources missing here], at a very early stage of their educational life, the choice of schools predetermined their future.
+Students who did not get chance a chance at Grammar Schools treated themselves as failure. Moreover, there were not enough Grammar Schools in some areas which created serious discontent among guardians and the Secondary Modern Schools could not fulfill the demand of the students. The Grammar Schools became the hub of future promising professionals. There were very few children who could be sent to Technical Schools because of the cost.
-Citation:
-.	Ainley, Patrick. "Tripartite Schooling, 1944–63." Learning Policy. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 1999. 27-58.
+== Sources ==
-.	Gillard, Derek. "Education in England: A history." Scotland: Queen's Printer For Scotland (2018).
-.	Morris, Ben. "Educational Change in the United Kingdom since World War II." The Phi Delta Kappan 43.2 (1961): 92-97.
+Ainley, Patrick. "Tripartite Schooling, 1944–63." ''Learning Policy: Towards the Certified Society''. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1999. 27-58.
+Gillard, Derek. ''Education in England: a History''. May 2018. Web. 17 Jan. 2021.
+<www.educationengland.org.uk/history>.
+Morris, Ben. "Educational Change in the United Kingdom since World War II." ''The Phi Delta Kappan'' 43.2 (1961): 92-97.