Educational policy and inequality Flashcards
(60 cards)
Education policy in Britain before 1988
Before the industrial revolution in the late and early 19th centuries, there were no state schools
Education was only available to minority
Education was provided by fee-paying schools for the wealthy and by churches and charities for a few of the poor
Industrialization increased the need for educated workforce
State made schooling compulsory from the ages of 5 to 13 in 1880
Middle-class pupils were given an academic curriculum to prepare for professional careers
Working-class pupils were given schooling to equip them with basic numeracy and literacy skills for routine factory work
Selection: the tripartite system
The 1994 Education Act brought it in
Education was beginning to be influenced by the idea of meritocracy
Under this system, children were to be selected and allocated to one of 3 different types of secondary school, supposedly based on aptitudes and abilities
Grammar schools: academic curriculum
Secondary modern: non-academic curriculum
Technical schools
The system and 11+ produced inequality
Split social classes and offered different types of schools different opportunities
Produced gender inequality as girls would have to gain higher marks than boys to be accepted
Legitimised inequality through ideology that ability is inborn - children’s environment affects chances of success
Pros of the tripartite system
The more able don’t get held back
Served many m/c families well
Did provide almost guaranteed social mobility for those w/c pupils who made it to grammar schools
Gave w/c pupils more chances than they have today
Cons of the tripartite system
Labelling – people who didn’t make it into grammar schools
Only 2 types of school available
Divided children from different backgrounds
Some children received a ‘second class’ education
The comprehensive school system
Introduced in many areas from 1965 onwards
Aimed to overcome class divide
11+ was to be abolished
Grammar and secondary modern schools to be replaced with comprehensive schools that all children in that area would attend
Many local education authorities did not “go comprehensive” and so the divide still exists in many areas.
No entry examinations. Schools serve their catchment areas.
All students of all ability attend the same school.
Both boys/girls attend the same school.
Reflected catchment - locality
Pros of the comprehensive school system
One education for all – fairness! Brings together children from different social classes. No entrance exam – all treated fairly. Larger schools = cheaper to run. Serves its local catchment area
Cons of the comprehensive school system
Labelling – people who didn’t make it into grammar schools
Only 2 types of school available
Divided children from different backgrounds
Some children received a ‘second class’ education
Two theories of the role of comprehension
How do functionalists view the role of education?
Functionalists argue comprehensives promote social integration by bringing children of different social classes together
Functionalists see comprehensive system as more meritocratic as it gives pupils a longer period to develop and show abilities unlike tripartite system which selects pupils at 11
Two theories of the role of comprehension
How does Julian Ford (1969) set up an argument against the functionalist view?
found little mixing between working-class and middle-class pupils largely because of streaming
Two theories of the role of comprehension
How do Marxists view the role of education?
Marxists argue it is not meritocratic Marxists claim they reproduce class inequality through the continuation of streaming and labelling which deny working-class equal opportunity Comprehensives may appear to offer equal chances for all however this “myth of meritocracy” justifies inequality by making unequal achievement seem fair as it is the fault of the individual not the system
Marketisation
Marketisation has created an “education market” by:
Reducing direct state control over education
Increasing both competition between schools and parental choice of school
Central theme of government policy since 1988 Education Reform Act under Thatcher’s conservative government
Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown followed similar policies emphasising standards, diversity and choice
2010 onwards the conservative-democrat government took marketisation further by creating academies and free schools
Neoliberals and New Right favour marketisation - schools have to attract customers and those which provide customers with what they want will thrive and those that do not will “go out of business”
It can be argued that state control leads to low standards, inefficiency and lack of choice for parents - support this view with evidence
Parentocracy
Policies which promote marketisation:
Publication of league tables and Ofsted inspection reports
Business sponsorship of schools
Open enrolment
Specialist schools
Formula funding where schools receive the same amount of funding for each pupil
School being allowed to opt out of local authority control
Schools having to compete to attract pupils
Tuition fees for higher education
Allowing parents and others to set up free schools
What is the argument put forward for parentocracy from David (1993)?
describes this phase of marketised education as a ‘parentocracy’ – supporters of marketisation argue that in an education market, power shifts away from the producers to the consumers – this encourages diversity among schools and gives parents more choice, meets the needs of different pupils and raises standard
Policies include: exam league tables, Ofsted inspections, business sponsorship of schools and formula funding
How does Barlett (1993) argue that league tables produce educational inequality between the classes?
Schools that achieve good exam results are in more demand as parents are attracted to those with good league table rankings. Will Bartlett (1993) claims this encourages Cream-skimming: Good schools can be more selective, choose their own customers and recruit high achieving, mainly middle-class pupils and as a result these pupils gain an advantage Slit-shifting: Good schools can avoid taking less able pupils Schools with low league table positions have to take less able, mainly working-class pupils, so their results are poorer and remain unattractive to middle-class parents - thus producing inequalities amongst schools which produce social class inequality
What is the funding formula and how does it cause inequality?
Schools are allocated funds by a formula based on how many pupils they attract
Popular schools get more funds and so can afford better quality teachers and better facilities
Unpopular schools lose funds and find it difficult to match teacher skills and facilities of successful rivals
How do findings from the Public Policy Research (2012) prove inequality as a result of the funding formula?
found competition-oriented education systems produce more segregation between children of different social backgrounds
General criticisms of the education system
Testing can be damaging and stressful on children
Testing may disrupt what was taught, schools would ‘teach to test’
Very few extra places were available in popular schools – parents had little or no choice of schools
League tables were felt to be counterproductive – schools might not admit low achievers or difficult pupils or enter them for exams
Competition may force schools to spend large amount of money on marketing rather than on the education of pupils
Outline Gerwirtz’s (1995) study
Sharon Gewirtz’s (1995) study of 14 London secondary schools found that differences in parents’ economic and cultural capital lead to class differences in how far they could exercise choice of secondary school.
She identifies 3 main types of parents; privileged-skilled choosers, Disconnected-local choosers and semi-skilled choosers
concludes in practice middle-class parents possess cultural and economic capital and have more choice than working-class parents
Privileged-skilled choosers
Mainly professional middle-class parents who used economic and cultural capital to gain educational capital for their children.
Able to take full advantage of choices open to them
These parents known how school admissions work
They had time to visit schools
They had skills to research the options available
Economic capital meant they could afford to move their children around the education system to get the best deal out of it
Disconnected-local choosers
Working-class parents whose choices were restricted by lack of economic and cultural capital
Found it difficult to understand school admissions system
Less confident in dealings with schools
Less aware of options open to them
Less able to manipulate the system to their own advantage
Attached more importance to safety and quality of school facilities than league tables or long-term ambitions
Distance and cost of travel were major restrictions
Funds were limited
Nearest schools was the only realistic option for their children
Semi-skilled choosers
Working-class but ambitious for their children
Lacked cultural capital
Found it difficult to make sense of education market often relying on others opinions
Often frustrated in their inability to get their children into schools they wanted
What arguments does Ball use to suggest a myth of parentocracy?
believes marketisation gives the appearance of parentocracy. However, Ball argues it is a myth as it makes it appear that all parents have the same freedom to choose which school their children go to.
Myth of parentocracy makes inequality in education seem fair and inevitable
Gerwirtz’s view supports Ball
New Labour policies on reducing inequality
Introduced several policies aimed specifically at reducing inequality in achievement by targeting support on disadvantaged groups
E.g. – designating some deprived areas as Education Action Zones and providing them with additional resources
E.g. – the Aim Higher programmes to raise the aspirations of groups who are under-represented
Also introduced policies to raise achievement and standards more generally, such as the National Literacy Strategy – claimed these policies are of greater benefit to disadvantaged groups and so help reduce inequality
New Labour policies on creating greater diversity
Aimed to promote greater diversity and choice
E.g. – 2002 Blair said education needs to move into the ‘post-comprehensive’ era, replacing the ‘one size fits all, mass production’ education system with a new one built around the aptitudes and needs f the individual child and where power is in the hands of parents
Labour introduced a number of policies
E.g. – secondary schools encouraged to apply for specialist school status in particular curriculum areas (by 2007, about 85% of secondary schools had become specialist schools) – argued this offers parents a greater choice and raises standards of achievement
E.g. – promoted academies as a policy for raising achievement and plans to have 200 academies by 2010 in hope to raise the former comprehensives with poor results
