However, the categories and terminology of ideologies and ideological groups employed in the remainder of this study are an elaboration of Williams' threefold division. A finer, more precise identification of ideologies and influences is necessary to capture the complexity of recent education policy making. Salter and Tapper (1981) have already added a new category to this typology - 'educational bureaucrats' - although the ideological position of this 'new, and more powerful interest' (p.83) is not made clear. As we shall see later, in their discussion of the DES, Salter and Tapper see these bureaucrats as primarily concerned with matters of control and the efficiency of the system. While this is undoubtedly appropriate it does not take cognisance of the educational concerns, and influences of and on this group. As the controls over and the discourse about the definition of school knowledge are centralised, the educational bureaucrats of the DES are more likely
between these two powerful lobbies. On this and similar matters the DES as a whole represents the sort of 'compromise between an inherited selection of interests and the emphasis of new interests' referred to by Williams (p. 172). However, the HMI, in their orientation to practice and to quality, are most clearly affected by, and on occasions articulate and advocate 'new progressivism'. This field of ideologies and influences around the DES is represented schematically in figure 1.2.