The 1944 Education Act formed the tripartite system. This meant there was now selective schooling for all up to the age of 15, which was determined by the 11+ exams. At 11 everybody had to sit an exam and the few that passed, (only a fifth of students,) went to grammar schools. Those that didn't pass this went to secondary modern schools, except for a very small percentage that went to technical schools, if they were good at science or art.
             The New Right put forward a number of arguments for the tripartite system of education. Firstly, working class children benefited from the provision of free secondary education, thus their opportunities for upward social mobility, (moving up the social class structure) was increased. A second argument advanced by the New Right is that Grammar schools were and still are seen as centres of excellence. They achieve excellent exam results and many of the top 100 schools in Britain are grammar schools. Thirdly, the system benefited pupils and teachers because pupils were allocated to a school, which was appropriate for their talents and abilities.
             The above ideas are challenged by Left wing thinkers. They point instead to the drawbacks of the tripartite education system. Firstly they maintain that the nature of the 11+ favoured middle class students. This was because the tests were written in a style of language, which made them hard for working class children to understand. Secondly it could be argued that 11 was too early to determine a child's future. The system led to wasted talent because it closed off opportunities for late developers. A third argument is that research evidence has shown that 1 in 4 students were misallocated. The system was also unfair because females had to obtain higher 11+ scores than males.
             The 11+ created stigma for those that failed and lowered self-esteem. The tripartite system was very decisive and reinforced the class structure. This was because middl
             ...