By the 1960s there was increasing criticism of this streaming of ability, particularly by the political Left. It was recognised that many children performed inconsistently, and that those who failed the 11 plus examination were denied the chance to do better later. Early selection also reinforced the divisions of social class, and was wasteful of human potential. A government report in 1968 produced evidence that an expectation of failure became increasingly fulfilled, with secondary modern pupils aged 14 doing significantly worse than they had at the age of eight. Labour's solution was to introduce a new type of school, the comprehensive, a combination of grammar and secondary modern under one roof, so that all the children could be continually assessed and given appropriate teaching. Between 1965 and 1980 almost all the old grammar and secondary modern schools were replaced, mainly by coeducational comprehensives. The measure caused much argument for two principal reasons. Many local authorities, particularly Conservative-controlled ones, did not wish to lose the excellence of their grammar schools, and many resented Labour's interference in education, which was still considered a local responsibility. However, despite the pressure to change school structures, each school, in consultation with the local authority, remained in control of its curriculum. In practice the result of the reform was very mixed:

the best comprehensives aimed at grammar school academic standards, while the worst sank to secondary modern ones.

One unforeseen but damaging result was the refusal of many grammar schools to join the comprehensive experiment. Of the 174 direct-grant grammar schools, 119 decided to leave the state system rather than become comprehensive, and duly became independent fee-paying establishments. This had two effects. Grammar schools had provided an opportunity for children from all social backgrounds to excel academically at the same level as those attending fee-paying independent public schools. The loss of these schools had a demoralising effect on the comprehensive experiment and damaged its chances of success, but led to a revival of independent schools at a time when they seemed to be slowly shrinking. The introduction of comprehensive schools thus unintentionally reinforced an educational elite which only the children of wealthier parents could hope to join.

Comprehensive schools became the standard form of secondary education (other than in one or two isolated areas, where grammar schools and secondary moderns survived). However, except among the best comprehensives they lost for a while the excellence of the old grammar schools.

Alongside the introduction of comprehensives there was a move away from traditional teaching and discipline towards what was called 'progressive' education.-This entailed a change from more formal teaching and factual learning tc greater pupil participation and discussion, with greater emphasis on comprehension and less on the acquisition of knowledge. Not everyone approved, particularly on the political Right. There was increasing criticism of the lack of discipline and of formal learning, and a demand to return tc old-fashioned methods.

From the 1960s there was also greater emphasis on education and training than ever before, with many colleges of further education established to provide technical or vocational training. However, British education remained too academic for the less able, and technical studies stayed weak, with the result that a large number of less academically able pupils left school without any skills or qualifications at all.

The expansion of education led to increased expenditure. The proportion of the gross national product devoted to education doubled, from 3.2 per cent in 1954, to 6.5 per cent by 1970, but fell back to about 5 per cent in the 1980s. These higher levels of spending did not fulfil expectations, mainly because spending remained substantially lower than that in other industrialised countries. Perhaps the most serious failures were the continued high drop-out rate at the age of 16 and the low level of achievement in mathematics and science among school-leavers. By the mid-1980s, while over 80 per cent of pupils in the United States and over 90 per cent in Japan stayed on till the age of 18, barely one-third of British pupils did so.

I. Arguments about the purpose of education.

There is a feeling that the schools are not succeeding - that standards are too low, that schools are not preparing young people with the skills, knowledge and personal qualities which are necessary for the world of work, and that schools have failed to instil the right social values. These are the criticisms and therefore there have been changes to meet these criticisms.

However, the criticisms take different forms. First, there are those who believe that standards have fallen, especially in the areas of literacy and numeracy - and, indeed, unfavourable comparisons are made with the other countries as a result of international surveys. For example, the recent Third International Mathematics and Science Survey (TIMSS) placed in England and Wales very low in mathematical achievement at 13 - although very high in science. Therefore, these critics emphasize «back to basis» and the need for more traditional teaching methods.

Second, there are those who argue for a rather traditional curriculum which is divided into «subjects» and which calls upon those cultural standards which previous generations have known - the study of literary classics ( Shakespeare, Keats, Wordsworth) rather than popular multi-cultural history, classical music rather than popular music, and so on. Since there are many children who would not be interested in or capable of learning within these subjects, there is a tendency for such advocates of traditional standards to support an early selection of children into «the minority» who are capable of being so educated, separated off from «the majority» who are thought to benefit more from a more technical or practical education.

Third, there are those who question deeply the idea of a curriculum based on these traditional subjects. Many employers, for instance, think that such a curriculum by itself ill - serves the country economically. The curriculum ought to be more relevant to the world of work, providing those skills, such as computer, numeracy and literacy skills, personal qualities (such as cooperation and enterprise) and knowledge (such as economic awareness) which make people more employable.

A very important speech which expressed those concerns and which is seen as a watershed in government policy was that of Prime Minister Callaghan at Ruskin College, Oxford, in 1976.

«Preparing future generations for life» was the theme and he pointed to the need for greater relevance in education on four fronts:

1. the acquisition by school leavers of basic skills which they lacked but which industry needed;