Social Policy 1870 - 2021 Flashcards
1870 Education Act
Prior to 1870, access to education was largely based on your social class.
The 1870 Education Act tried to ensure some basic education became available to all 5-11 year olds.
Led to the idea that the state should pay for education.
More so than anything it showed a dedication from the government to provide education to all those below the age of 11.
Three types of schools made available by the 1870 Education Act…
1) Elementary schools – for the working class up to 14 years old
2) Fee paying grammar schools – working class boys
3) Expensive fee paying schools – upper class
1944 Butler Education Act
Created a radically altered education system, creating a state funded secondary sector.
The aim was to improve society based on academic ability.
Free compulsory education until the age 15.
11+ exams were introduced when students reached the end of primary school.
Introduced the Tripartite system:
> Grammar schools - academic students
> Secondary technical – talent with mechanical or scientific
> Secondary modern – everyone else
11+ exam problematic?…
The gendered grading was not the only problematic element of the 11+ exam.
The problem with the tripartite system was the 11+ exam was seen as unfair and inaccurate. The test was clumsy as it couldn’t predict a child’s intellectual development, moreover it disadvantaged children from working-class homes who couldn’t afford any additional tutoring or went to a primary school which wasn’t so committed to feeding grammar schools.
Therefore the children who tended to go to grammar schools were middle-class to upper/middle-class, while lower middle/working-class tended to go to secondary modern schools (very view technical schools were ever built) as well as this problem other criticisms of the tripartite system were identified.
1965 Comprehensive Education Act
The Butler Act was based more on social-class as opposed to ‘pure’ intellectual ability the newly elected Labour government of 1965 starting encouraging the growth of a comprehensive school system.
The Labour Party was defeated in 1970 around 30% of schools were comprehensive by the end of that decade around 80% of secondary schools were comprehensive like Twynham and Highcliffe School.
However some local authorities still kept the selection process such as Bournemouth this means children in this area sit an 11+ test for the grammar school. To-date there still remains 165 grammar schools in England and Wales.
The idea of comprehensive schools is there is no selection. The only restrictions are one of where you live; you need to be in a particular catchment area in order to attend a particular school.
By 1986, approx. 90% of secondary schools were comprehensive.
Pros of the 1965 Comprehensive Act…
> Abolished the tripartite system
> Social barriers are broken down
> Caters for all abilities and no children are labelled as failures
> Cheaper to fund
> Catchment area
Cons of the 1965 Comprehensive Act…
> Limits parental choice
> More able students are held back
> They accept lower standards
> Catchment areas can lead to more social class division
1979 New Vocationalism
In a period of rising unemployment and the apparent decline of Britain’s economy, the concern was that education was failing to produce appropriately skilled and motivated young workers. - That it should produce equality of opportunity was deemed less important than the needs of industry. This new emphasis was called New Vocationalism.
New Vocationalism was introduced that focused on ‘practical’ achievement.
> Vocational training
Vocational education
Pros of New Vocationalism…
> Offered an alternative route for less academic learners
> Gave hands-on experience
Cons of New Vocationalism…
> Reproduced social class inequalities
> Reproduced inequalities between different ethnic groups
> Reinforces gender differences for subjects and jobs
> Seen by Marxists as a form of exploitation for the working class
1988 Education Reform Act
Was a major change to the education system. It introduced many policies in order to standardise and measure the success of education.
Including:
> SATs
> The National Curriculum
> League tables
> OFSTED
The National Curriculum and SATs…
The national curriculum required that all schools teach the same subject content from the age of 7-16. From 1988 all schools were required to teach the core subjects English, Maths, Science etc at GCSE level. GCSE’s and SAT’s were also introduced as part of the National Curriculum.
The logic behind league tables was that with all schools following the same curriculum it made it easier for parents to compare and choose between schools (parentocracy), and GCSE and SATs meant every student, and more importantly, every school was assessed using the same type of exam.
League tables…
The New Right introduced school league tables in which schools were ranked based on their exam performance in SATs, GCSES, and A levels. The tables are published in many newspapers and online. The idea behind league tables was to allow parents to easily assess which schools in their local areas are the best. A bit like “What car?” magazine, but for schools.
The New Right theorised that League tables would force schools to raise standards because no parent would want to send their child to a school at the bottom.
OFSTED…
Established in 1988, OFSTED is the government organisation that inspects schools. OFSTED reports are published and underachieving school are shut if they consistently receive bad reports. The aim of OFSTED is to drive up standards. The aim of this policy is to raise standards.
OFSTED raised standards because a poor inspection could result in new management being imposed on underperforming schools.
Marketisation…
Refers to aim of making schools compete with one another for government funding i.e. the better a school does the previous year the more money a school receives the following year. This essentially makes schools into “businesses” competing with one another i.e. making an education “market”. Schools that provide parents and pupils with what they want – such as good exam results – will thrive, and those that don’t will go out of business and either close down or be taken over by new management who will run things more efficiently.
