ABSTRACT
The culture of the working class, problematic since the first provision of education for it, confronts the authors of both Reports and their response is the traditional educational response; that is, such culture is deprecated and attacked and its replacement is sought. The essential point about them is their harmony of interest and it is this which is crucial in explaining why community comes to be the term used in an educational change aimed at being a reformist method of dealing with capitalism’s effects. Newsom, in keeping with education’s tradition, finds the working class cultural environment problematic and identifies it as being, in the main, responsible for the educational failure of the class. In Newsom the rigid affirmation of an innate intelligence/such as that we encountered in the 1924 Committee which then found such favour with Spens in 1938, has disappeared. Like the 1924 intelligence model, Plowden’s child development model is confusing and confused.
