Profiting from a Comprehensive School

volvement but, on the contrary, by the very persistence of such barriers'. This may very well be true, but such a conclusion cannot be drawn from the material which he presents. His article can be criticized both in respect of (i) the presentation and analysis of the empirical results of the investigation, (ii) the conclusions which are inferred from these results. In each case there are extraordinary inadequacies which need to be pointed out. (i) There are inexplicable inconsistencies in the categories which Mr. Holly chooses for inclusion in his tables. Tables I and 2 give figures for middle class and 'less-skilled' working class pupils, but do not mention children of the skilled working class. Table 3 includes skilled working class boys (but not girls), introduces a new category 'unskilled working class' children, but excludes all reference to middle class and 'lessskilled' working class pupils. The unskilled working class children do not appear again in the remaining tables. No explanation is offered for the inclusion or exclusion of different groups in the various tabulations. One section of the article deals with differential participation in 'school activities'; but what these activities consist of is not specified. They presumably represent voluntary extra-curricular activities, but of what kind? It is obvious enough that this might have considerable relevance for the interpretation of the results. To take one simple possibility. Holly finds that girls participate more in 'school activities' than boys do (Table 6(a)). This might merely be because the range of activities which are provided by the school are oriented more towards girls than boys. No data are given whereby the reader might assess such possibilities. Holly states that in analysing the class background of the school

Sociology · Education Systems and Policy

• The sociology of education in Britain, 1960-1968

  Open Access•Donald F Swift, Henry Acland et al.•Social Science Information•1969

  Añadir item