1.5 Education - Social Policy Flashcards
(38 cards)
THE TRIPARTITE SYSTEM
1944 EDUCATION ACT
From 1944 education was influenced by the idea of meritocracy. Children were assessed using the 11+ exam and allocated to one of 3 schools…
Grammar schools: For those who passed the 11+, an academic curriculum, allowing access to non-manual jobs and higher education. These pupils were mainly middle class.
Secondary modern schools:
For those who failed the 11+, a non-academic, “practical” curriculum, allowing access to manual work. These pupils were mainly working class.
Technical schools: Only existed in a few areas, very few ever built. In reality it was more a bipartite system, rather than tripartite.
Reproduced class inequality by sending the two social classes to different schools which offered different opportunities. It also reproduced gender inequality as girls needed to gain a higher mark on the 11+ to gain entry to a grammar school.
The system also legitimised inequality through the ideology ability is inborn, assuming ability can be measured early on in life through the 11+.
THE COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM
1965.
Aimed to overcome the class divide by abolishing the 11+ and grammar schools, replacing them with comprehensive schools that all pupils in one area would attend = more meritocratic.
THE COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM: Marxist View
Marxist view: Comprehensives reproduce class inequality through streaming and labelling.
As pupils are no longer selected at age of 11 this offers a “myth of meritocracy”, legitimising class inequality by making the system appear fair.
THE COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM: Functionalist View
Functionalist view: Comprehensives promote social integration between the classes.
However, Ford (1969) found in reality there was little integration because of streaming.
More meritocratic, no longer selects most able pupils at age of 11.
POLICY: SELECTIVE SCHOOLING: TYPES OF SELECTION
Types of selection:
• Selection by ability – academic ability, based on intelligence test at age 11. Is now forbidden at all state funded schools (except grammars). Private schools commonly still use this.
• Selection by aptitude – potential in certain subjects. Specialist schools can take 10% of pupils based on aptitude in certain subjects (although many do not choose to do this.)
• Selection by faith – select proportion of students based on religion/religion of parents.
POLICY: SELECTIVE SCHOOLING: COVERT: Tough and Brooks
Tough and Brooks (2007) identified ‘covert selection’ – use of backdoor social selection, cherry-picking those they think will be the high achievers.
Eg. Discouraging parents from poorer economic backgrounds from applying by giving impression school is better suited to middle class pupils.
POLICY: SELECTIVE SCHOOLING BY ABILITY: AO3
A03 – Issues with selection by ability
• Late developers not able to move
schools
• Social cohesion and social integration
• Labelling and SFP
• Gains provided for some students (eg
grammar schools) cancelled out by number of students disadvantaged in secondary moderns.
1979-1997 CONSERVATIVE: THE NEW VOCATIONALISM
Aimed to deal with youth unemployment as the government felt education wasn’t adequate preparation for work. The Conservatives introduced apprenticeships and training schemes focusing on students gaining NVQs. The new vocationalism is favoured by Functionalists and New Right linking to their views on the role of education (addressed in Topic 6).
It is important to note in recent years apprenticeships have now been given a higher status by employers and there are now more opportunities to gain higher qualifications eg. Degree apprenticeships.
1979-1997 CONSERVATIVE: THE NEW VOCATIONALISM: AO3
AO3:
Problems with the new vocationalism:
• Cheap labour for employers 4
• A way of reducing politically embarrassing unemployment
stats
• Lower ability students were encouraged into vocational
education, working class and ethnic minorities over-
represented.
• Stereotypical gender patterns
Cohen (1984) argued vocational education aimed to instill good attitudes and work discipline meaning people accepted their low paid, low skilled jobs.
1988 EDUCATION REFORM ACT: CONSERVATIVE: MARKETISATION
Marketisation has become a central theme of social policy since the 1988 Education Reform Act (ERA) introduced by the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher. From 1997 Labour government followed similar policies and this was taken even further by the coalition government from 2010, pushing academies and introducing free schools.
Marketisation has created an “education market” by:
• Reducing state control over education
• Increasing competition between schools and
increasing parental choice
• Aimed to raise standards
What is MARKETISATION?
Marketisation refers to the process of introducing market forces of consumer choice and competition between suppliers into areas run by the state, such as education.
1988 EDUCATION REFORM ACT: CONSERVATIVE: MARKETISATION: WHO LIKES IT?
Neo-Liberal and the New Right favour marketisation as schools have to attract customers (parents) by competing with one another. Schools that provide customers with what they want (exam success) will strive, and those that don’t will “go out of business”.
1988 EDUCATION REFORM ACT: CONSERVATIVE: MARKETISATION POLICIES
Policies promoting marketisation include:
• Publication of league tables and Ofsted reports allowing parents to choose the right school
• Business sponsorship of schools
• Open enrolment (more successful schools can recruit more pupils)
• Funding formula (schools receive the same amount of funding for each pupil)
• Schools can opt out of local authority control (eg. academies)
• Introduction of tuition fees for university
• Allowing parents and others to set up free schools.
• Specialist schools, allowing parents more choice eg. IT, language
• National curriculum – ensures all students had high quality education
• Target setting in schools
• Choice for schools to opt out of local authority control giving more independence.
1988 EDUCATION REFORM ACT: CONSERVATIVE: PARENTOCRACY: David
David (1993) describes marketised education as ‘parentocracy’ – meaning ‘rule by parents’.
Supporters of marketisation argue in an education market the power shifts from producers (teachers and schools) to consumers (parents). They claim this encourages diversity, gives parents more choice and raises standards.
1988 EDUCATION REFORM ACT: CONSERVATIVE: AO3: Bartlett
The reproduction of inequality Despite the claimed benefits of marketisation critics argue it has increased inequalities
League tables and cream-skimming:
Publishing exam results ensures schools with good results are in high demand by parents. Bartlett (1993) claims this encourages:
• Cream skimming – “Good” schools can be more selection and choose high achieving, mainly middle class pupils.
• Silt-shifting – “Good” schools can avoid taking less able pupils who are likely to get low results.
The opposite applies for schools in poor league table positions – they cannot afford to be selective and have to take less-able, mainly working class pupils.
1988 EDUCATION REFORM ACT: CONSERVATIVE: AO3: Funding Formula
The funding formula
Schools are allocated funds based on how many pupils they attract. Popular schools get more funds so can afford better qualified teachers and better facilities. Their popularity allows them to be more selective and attract more able, mainly middle class pupils.
Unpopular schools loose income so cannot match teacher skills or facilities of more successful schools.
Popular schools with good results and middle class pupils thrive, whilst unpopular schools fail to attract pupils and funding is reduced further.
1988 EDUCATION REFORM ACT: CONSERVATIVE: AO3: Gewirtz
Not only do marketisation policies create inequalities between schools, they also benefit middle class parents as their economic and cultural capital puts them in a better position to choose a “good” school.
Gewirtz (1995) found differences in parent’s economic and cultural capital lead to class differences in how far they exercised their choice of secondary school. She found 3 types of parents:
• Privileged-skilled choosers: Professional, middle class parents who used their cultural and economic capital to gain educational capital for their children. Cultural capital - work the school admissions policies, had time to visit schools and skills to research the options available. Economic capital - could afford to move their children around the system to get the best deal (eg. pay extra travel costs).
• Disconnected-local choosers: Working class parents, restricted by their lack of economic and cultural capital. They found admissions policies hard to understand, were less confident in dealing with schools, less aware of choices available and were not aware of how to manipulate the system. Distance and cost were major restrictions on their choice, and often the nearest school was the only realistic option.
• Semi-skilled choosers: : Mainly working class, but unlike the disconnected-local choosers they were ambitious for their children. However they lacked the economic and cultural capital and relied heavily on other’s opinions, leaving them frustrated at their inability to get their children into the schools they wanted.
1988 EDUCATION REFORM ACT: CONSERVATIVE: MYTH OF PARENTOCRACY: Ball
Not only does marketisation reproduce inequality, it also legitimises it by justifying its existence.
Ball (1994) argues it gives the appearance of “parentocracy”, making it appear that all parents have free choice of school. However Ball claims parentocracy is a myth.
As Gewirtz shows middle class parents can take advantage of the opportunities available to them. For example Leech and Campos show that middle class parents can afford to move into the catchment area of more desirable schools.
By disguising the fact schooling continues to reproduce class inequality makes it seem fair and inevitable.
1997 - 2010 NEW LABOUR: POLICIES
Whilst marketisation policies have tended to increase inequalities New Labour government (1997-2010) introduced a number of policies aimed to reduce it. These included:
• Designating deprived areas as Education Action Zones and providing with additional resources/funding.
• Aim Higher programme to raise aspirations of groups underrepresented in higher education.
• Education Maintenance Allowances (EMAs) - payments to students from low income backgrounds to encourage them to stay on in education after 16.
• Introduced National Literacy Strategy, literacy and numeracy hours and reduced primary class sizes. These were seen to benefit disadvantaged groups the most.
• City academies were introduced to give a fresh start to struggling inner city schools. Academies were independent and funded by central gov. Often could secure sponsorships from private businesses.
• Increased funding for state education.
• Sure Start centers - education and support services in
disadvantaged areas to tackle cultural deprivation
• They particularly paid attention to groups in society who were seen to be disadvantaged e.g. lower social classes and ethnic minority groups
1997 - 2010 NEW LABOUR: AO3: Benn
Critics of New Labour, such as Benn (2012) see a contradiction between Labour’s policies to reduce inequality and its’ commitment to marketization. For example despite introducing EMA encouraging working class pupils to stay on in education, they also introduced tuition fees for higher education that may deter them from going to university. This is known as the NEW LABOUR PARADOX
2010 - 2015 COALITION GOVERNMENT
One change the coalition introduced was to reform the curriculum with the national curriculum being rewritten and made more demanding. This saw changes to GCSEs and A-Levels (no longer coursework or modular exams).
The Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government (2010-2015) has been influenced heavily by neoliberal and New Right ideas about reducing the role of the state in education and moving away from schools run by local authority. This has been done through marketisation and privatisation.
2010 - 2015 COALITION GOVERNMENT: ACADEMIES
Academies
From 2010 all schools were encouraged to leave local authority control and become academies. Funding was taken from local authority budgets and given directly to schools from central government. Academies were also given control over their own curriculum. By 2012 over half of all secondary schools had converted to academies.
Whereas Labour’s original city academies targeted disadvantaged schools, the Coalition gov. removed the focus on removing inequality by allowing any school to become an academy.
2010 - 2015 COALITION GOVERNMENT: FREE SCHOOLS
Free schools are set up and run by parents, teachers, faith organisations or businesses rather than the local authority and are funded directly by the state. They are seen to raise standards by giving power to parents and meeting local demand.
BUT: Allen (2012) found research from Sweden, where 20% of schools are free schools, show they only benefit children from highly educated families.
Evidence from DoE (2012) also shows free schools take fewer disadvantaged pupils than nearby schools.
2010 - 2015 COALITION GOVERNMENT: AO3: Ball
Ball (2011) argues promoting academies and free schools has led to:
• Fragmentation of the education system – system is being replaced by a patchwork of diverse provision, much of it involving private providers, that leads to greater inequality in opportunities.
• Centralisation of control – Central gov. alone has the power to allow or require schools to become academies or allow free schools to be set up. These schools are funded by central gov. and reduce the role of elected local authorities in education.