Education policy in UK

Education is principally identified with schooling, though in theory it extends far beyond this, being concerned with intellectual and social development. The main emphasis within this is on children, though there is clearly scope for education for all and "lifelong learning". Education has been particularly significant as an instrument of social policy, in the sense not only of policies for welfare but also as policies intended to deal with the structure of society. The aims of education include:

• Liberal education: the development of each individual intellectually and socially to that person's fullest potential.
• Socialisation: education is a method of transmission of social norms and values. This is also sometimes seen as a form of social control.
• Education as 'handmaiden': the education system serves the industrial process and the economy by producing a trained workforce, and by providing child minding services.
• Social change (or 'social engineering'). The education system has been seen as a means of bringing about social change.

Free elementary education was introduced in England in 1870; secondary schools were fee-paying until 1944. 80% of children left after elementary education, which after 1918 finished at 14. The 1944 Education Act introduced free secondary education. The dominant principle was the pursuit of equality. The system was based on a 'tripartite' structure, distinguishing grammar, technical and secondary modern. Within these schools there was to be "parity of esteem". In practice, there were few technical schools, which meant the system was more "bipartite" than "tripartite". Since grammar schools were selective, and secondary moderns took the rest, there was never "parity of esteem".

Non-selective or "comprehensive" schools were introduced gradually, but comprehensive education became government policy in the 1960s. The arguments for and against comprehensive education have been confused with other arguments about educational methods and the purposes of education. The main arguments for comprehensives are they reduce the likelihood of discrimination or disadvantage on the basis of class , and that they improve the prospects of children of middling ability. The main argument against is that the selective system may be more consistent with the idea of equality of opportunity. Working class children who went to grammar schools did better than those who go now to comprehensive schools. In conclusion, it must be said that education of all the people, not only young children and youth but also adults, should be each nation’s highest priority.