Three strands of change, 1914-2010
A study of CHANGE in three strands, 1914-2010. Women: some over 30 won the vote in 1918, then equally at 21 in 1928; the Equal Pay Act 1970 followed. Immigration: large-scale immigration dates from the Windrush (1948), and the Race Relations Acts (1965, 1968, 1976) outlawed discrimination. Rights: the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and LGBT rights (1967 on). You judge how far each changed life.
Change vs continuity: mind the limits
The 16-marker rewards weighing real change against its limits. Change happened - the vote for women, equal pay in law, discrimination in public places outlawed. But it was often limited: the Equal Pay Act 1970 only bit in 1975 and a pay gap persisted; the 1965 Race Relations Act covered only public places, not housing or jobs; wartime gains were partly rolled back. Ask HOW FAR each reform changed lives, and judge (legal change vs everyday experience).
Drawn from real examiner reports.
Race Relations Act 1965 had limits
Give PRECISE detail of the Race Relations Act 1965's limits, not 'discrimination has always existed'. The 1965 Act outlawed discrimination only in public places (pubs, cinemas, transport) and did NOT cover housing and employment. The law was widened by the 1968 and 1976 Acts. Say what it did AND what it left untouched.
Digest (B8, Jun 2024 P2, (A)): better answers noted it did NOT cover housing and employment and outlawed discrimination only in public places, so discrimination continued; weaker answers just said discrimination has always existed, lacking precise detail.
Drifting into present-day generalisation
On the 16-mark question, success depended on contextual knowledge; where it ran out, candidates drifted into generalisations about the present day rather than historical milestones. Anchor every point to a dated development inside 1914-2010 - the vote in 1918/1928, the Equal Pay Act 1970, the Windrush (1948). Vague 'things are better now' claims earn little.
Digest (B8, Jun 2024 P2, (C)): success depended on the amount of contextual knowledge; where knowledge was missing, answers drifted into generalisations about the present day rather than historical milestones.
Give two causes (Notting Hill Carnival)
On 'explain two causes', give TWO distinct, explained causes - not one. The Notting Hill Carnival was well answered when candidates gave two reasons: a reaction to the 1958 race riots, a celebration of Caribbean culture, or fostering community. Explain WHY each led to the Carnival; signpost 'One cause... A second...'.
Digest (B8, Jun 2024 P2, (B)): well answered - candidates understood reasons for the Notting Hill Carnival (react to the 1958 riots, celebrate Caribbean culture, foster community); give two causes.
Superficial, not precise detail
Examiners found many B8 answers generalised and superficial, showing shallow engagement. Naming a reform is not enough - develop each point with precise detail: not 'the Sex Discrimination Act helped women', but that the 1975 Act made sex discrimination unlawful in jobs, training and education. Precise detail separates a top answer from a vague one.
Digest (B8, Jun 2024 P2): many answers were generalised/superficial, suggesting shallow engagement; Generic skills (A): give the point PLUS supporting detail.
Listing reforms, not judging change
A top answer does not just list reforms - it judges HOW FAR each changed lives. Weigh change against its limits: the vote in 1918 excluded younger women until 1928; the Equal Pay Act 1970 left a pay gap. Ask whether the law changed everyday experience, not just the statute book, and reach a supported judgement, not a catalogue.
(general exam technique)
1965 Act covered only public places
A testable wrong belief: that the Race Relations Act 1965 banned all racial discrimination. It did not. The 1965 Act outlawed discrimination only in public places (pubs, cinemas, transport) - but left out housing and employment, where discrimination hurt most. Those gaps were closed later by the 1968 Act (housing and jobs) and the 1976 Act.
Digest (B8, Jun 2024 P2, (A)): the 1965 Act did NOT cover housing and employment and outlawed discrimination only in public places, so discrimination continued.
1918 did not give all women the vote
A testable error: that the 1918 Representation of the People Act gave women the vote equally. It did not. It enfranchised only women over 30 with a property qualification, while giving the vote to all men over 21. Women won the vote on equal terms, at 21, only in 1928. 'Women got the vote in 1918' misses the unequal terms and the 1928 change.
Structure the 16-mark answer
For the (c) question: state a criterion early (legal change vs everyday experience); add a THIRD aspect beyond the obvious two; argue both sides with dated detail; then judge, answering the exact question, not restating the narrative.
Signpost two developed causes or ways
For 'explain two causes/ways', signpost explicitly - 'One... A second...' - and give each its own dated, specific detail. Two clearly separated, developed points beat one long paragraph in which the second point is barely explained.
Build a spine of dated milestones
Before writing, build a spine of dated milestones inside 1914-2010: the vote 1918/1928, Windrush 1948, the Race Relations Acts, the Equal Pay Act 1970. Judge each against the question; never drift beyond 2010 or into vague present-day comparison.
This breadth study traces change across almost a century (1914–2010) in the rights and experience of different groups in Britain. Three strands run right through it: the role and rights of women, immigration and the growth of a multicultural Britain, and the extension of rights to workers, children, disabled people and LGBT people. The exam usually asks you to judge how significant a milestone was, or how far life genuinely changed — so learn the events in order and be ready to weigh real change against its limits.
Full notes, flashcards, Q&A and the topic quiz for every premium subject.
Premium plans are US$8.99/month or US$49.99/year — first month free.
Studying with a parent's blessing? Show them this.
