EDUCATIONAL POLICY - 1965 Comprehensivisation Flashcards
What were Educational Priority Areas?
Low-income areas that were given additional resources and support for education.
What is the 1965 Comprehensivisation Act?
This Act was designed by the Labour Government of the time to request that the Local Education Authorities (LEA) merge grammar and secondary modern schools together, in order to create a mixed set of students in schools
What does LEA stand for?
Local Education Authorities.
What were the aims of the 1965 Comprehensivisation Act? HINT: Name as many as you can; there are 3 here!
- To provide better opportunities for all students
- Allow students to achieve qualifications.
- To overcome traditional methods of streaming by merging all education systems into one standardised body.
What is the Marxist view on the 1965 Comprehensivisation Act?
They said that class inequality was continued through the use of streams, labels and denying working-class children equal opportunities as everyone else.
What is the Functionalist view on the 1965 Comprehensivisation Act?
- They said it promotes integration by bringing pupils of all classes together.
- They also said it increased meritocracy, as students had longer to show and develop their abilities in the education system.
What was the Outcome of the Act? HINT: Name as many as you can; there are 4 examples here!
- It perpetuated a ‘myth of meritocracy’, which further led to inequality in education.
- On the surface, mixed-schools were a step in the direction of equality –> However, middle-class students still had the financial advantage, as they were able to choose better schools and pay for tutors (no parity of esteem/equal status for students).
- The Act aimed to overcome class divide and abolish the 11+ –> There are still around 150 grammar schools and 500 secondary modern schools in the country TODAY!
- Parents were left with very little choice for their child’s education, which possibly removed some levels of parentocracy (especially for working-class families, who did not have the financial advantage that middle-class families had).
What is the ‘myth of meritocracy’?
The idea that the qualifications and job someone gets is based solely off their ability and effort, rather than taking into account their class background and other factors.
The idea that everyone starts at the same place, and everyone has the same ability to achieve (THIS IS NOT TRUE, AS EVERYONE HAS DIFFERENT STARTING POINTS = NO PARITY OF ESTEEM)!
