Last Updated on October 24, 2026 by Karl Thompson
Social democrats believe that governments should invest heavily in education and use education as a means to improve equality of opportunity, which in turn is the best way to ensure that education also contributes to economic growth.
Social democratic perspectives exercised a strong influence on British educational policies in the 1960s and 70s. Their views are mainly associated with the Labour Party during these decades.
Social democrats criticised the Functionalist idea that the British education system of the 1950s and 60s (the tripartite system) provided equality of opportunity and promoted economic growth. They argued that the tripartite system needed to change to a comprehensive system in order to do both of these things more effectively.
The social democratic perspective is one of the perspectives on the role of education in the sociology of education module, examined on AQA Paper 1 (7192/1). It sits between the Functionalist and Marxist perspectives: it accepts that education can serve society and the economy, but argues that it will only do so fairly if the state works to make equality of opportunity real.
The key ideas, in short
- Education should provide genuine equality of opportunity, so that no one’s talent is wasted because of their class background
- The tripartite system failed to do this, and comprehensive schools were the answer
- The state should spend more on the education of disadvantaged children, not the same as on everyone else
- A fairer education system is also good for the economy, because skills and knowledge are a form of capital
Equality of Opportunity
The tripartite system, set up after the 1944 Education Act, sorted children at 11 into grammar, secondary technical and secondary modern schools. Social democratic sociologists argued that it failed to deliver genuine equality of opportunity to all students: the majority of children who attended secondary modern schools failed to develop their potential, and so did not have the same opportunities as those who attended grammar or technical schools. They also noted that opportunities were broadly divided along class lines, with mainly working-class children attending secondary moderns while middle-class children attended grammar schools.
The classic evidence came from Jean Floud, A. H. Halsey and F. M. Martin’s Social Class and Educational Opportunity (1956). In South-West Hertfordshire in 1952, 15% of working-class candidates won a grammar school place, against 51% of middle-class candidates. In Middlesbrough the figures were 12% and 68%. Fees for state grammar schools had been abolished in 1944, so this was a selection system that was free for everyone but still favoured the middle class.
From the social democratic point of view, the tripartite system was not only failing to provide equality of opportunity, it was also failing to develop the potential of individuals, with working-class talent being wasted in secondary modern schools which offered a much poorer standard of education.
The move to comprehensive schools
For this reason, in 1965 the Labour government issued Circular 10/65, which requested local education authorities to prepare and submit plans for reorganising secondary education along comprehensive lines: one type of school for all pupils. It was a request rather than a law, and reorganisation happened unevenly. Many areas went comprehensive over the following decade, but some kept selection, and more than 160 state grammar schools still exist in England today.
In theory, comprehensives provided greater equality of opportunity because working-class and middle-class children were now being educated in the same school and receiving the same type of education. In theory, at least, this was more likely to increase inter-generational social mobility and reduce class divisions. For more on the debate about selection, see grammar schools: arguments for and against.
Compensatory education: spending more on the disadvantaged
Social democrats did not think it was enough to treat every child the same. Other measures introduced to combat working-class disadvantage were compensatory education and Educational Priority Areas, both of which involved providing more resources for children in deprived areas. Educational Priority Areas came from the 1967 Plowden Report on primary education, which called for “positive discrimination” in favour of schools in deprived areas and said that creating educational priority areas was the one proposal it gave “absolute priority”.
The social democratic ideal of the government spending proportionately more money on the education of socially disadvantaged children continued under the New Labour government in the form of Education Action Zones and Sure Start. See New Labour’s education policies.
Economic Growth and human capital
Social democrats also argued that a truly meritocratic education system would contribute to economic growth, because it would enable each individual to maximise their potential and so contribute as much as possible to the economic development of the country.
The American economist Theodore W. Schultz was a proponent of this idea. In ‘Investment in Human Capital’ (1961) he argued that skills and knowledge are a form of capital: spending on education is an investment in people, and the more governments spend on education, the more skilled the workforce becomes and the more productive it should be. This is known as human capital theory.
British government policy from the Second World War to the early 1980s broadly followed social democratic lines: spending on education gradually increased, the school leaving age was raised, and further and higher education expanded enormously.
Human capital theory links the social democratic perspective to the Functionalist idea that education teaches skills for work — the difference is that social democrats think the state has to act to make sure everyone gets the chance to develop those skills. See perspectives on education and work.
The social democratic perspective today
The idea that the state should spend more on disadvantaged pupils is still part of education policy in England. Since 2011, schools have received Pupil Premium funding for each disadvantaged pupil. In 2025/26 the rate is £1,515 for each eligible primary pupil and £1,075 for each eligible secondary pupil, with £2,630 for looked-after children.
A social democrat would see this as their ideas in practice. A critic would point out that the gap between disadvantaged pupils and the rest remains wide: in 2025/26, 27.5% of disadvantaged pupils in England got grade 5 or above in English and maths, against 54.3% of other pupils.
Evaluating the social democratic perspective
Strengths
Social democrats were right that the tripartite system was unequal: the evidence on who got grammar school places is clear. They also had a major influence on policy — the comprehensive system, compensatory education and today’s Pupil Premium all come from this tradition.
Their focus on the state’s role is supported by the fact that all developed economies spend large amounts on state education.
The New Right: spending does not guarantee standards
The New Right argues that spending more money on state education does not by itself raise standards. Without competition between schools and choice for parents, state schools have little reason to improve. From this point of view, social democratic policies were expensive and did not deliver.
Marxism: comprehensives still reproduce inequality
Marxists argue that comprehensive schools did not end class inequality: they moved it inside the school. Through setting and streaming, middle-class and working-class pupils in the same school can still receive very different educations. And middle-class parents can buy houses near the best comprehensives, so selection by mortgage replaces selection by exam.
Does education really drive growth?
Alison Wolf, in Does Education Matter? Myths about Education and Economic Growth (2002), questioned whether spending more on education is the best way to stimulate economic growth. She argued that much of the money spent on expanding higher education and vocational training might do more good if spent on basic teaching in primary schools. This challenges the human capital argument at the heart of the social democratic perspective.
Equality of opportunity is not equality of outcome
Even with equal access to the same type of school, pupils arrive with different amounts of cultural capital and material resources. Critics argue that social democrats underestimated how much inequality outside school shapes what happens inside it.
How the social democratic perspective comes up in the exam
On Paper 1 (7192/1), the social democratic perspective is most useful as evaluation: it offers a third view alongside Functionalism and Marxism in essays on the role of education, and it links directly to questions on education policy, comprehensive schools and compensatory education. It also appears in the summary grid of sociological perspectives on education.
Sociology of Education Revision Bundle
If you like this sort of thing, then you might like my sociology of education revision notes bundle, written by Karl Thompson, who taught A-level sociology for eighteen years and spent twelve as an AQA examiner, marking all three papers on the current specification.
Signposting and Related Posts
This post has been written primarily for students studying the education topic, as part of the AQA’s A-Level Sociology course.
Social democrats share the Functionalist interest in education and the economy: see the Functionalist perspective on education. For the policies that followed, see New Labour’s education policies and the summary of education policies.
Please click here to return to the homepage – ReviseSociology.com
Sources
- Floud, J., Halsey, A. H. and Martin, F. M. (1956) Social Class and Educational Opportunity. London: Heinemann.
- Department of Education and Science (1965) Circular 10/65, The Organisation of Secondary Education, 12 July 1965.
- Central Advisory Council for Education (1967) Children and their Primary Schools (the Plowden Report).
- Schultz, T. W. (1961) ‘Investment in Human Capital’, American Economic Review, 51(1), 1–17.
- Wolf, A. (2002) Does Education Matter? Myths about Education and Economic Growth. London: Penguin.
- Department for Education, Pupil premium 2025 to 2026: technical note; Key stage 4 performance 2025/26.
- Haralambos, M. and Holborn, M. (2004) Sociology: Themes and Perspectives, sixth edition.