Policy to 1945- 1997

Question 1

CONV- Butler Act 44

Answer 1

tripartite system
-grammer - sat O levels
-secondary modern - sat CSE
-techniqual (vocational, low funding so not many)

catagorized by 11 plus

Question 2

Legitimised by

Answer 2

ability believed to be inborn so fair to measure at early stag, neglected social factors interplay

Question 3

2 neg, 1 pos

effect

Answer 3

-reproduced both gender and class inequalities (grammers filled with MC girls)

-universities only took those with O levels, Secondary moderns barred from higher ed opportunities

+upward mobility for some from WC backgrounds

-

Question 4

LAB- 65

Answer 4

phase out secondary modern and grammer to make system more meritocratic, (comprehensivisation), inclusive standardised schools

comprehensive schools, no exam entry requirements, mixed ability

Question 5

2 neg, 1 pos

effect

Answer 5

-limited by LEAs, left to see through the process and in some areas didn’t 163 still stand

-no egalitarian as hoped with banding and streaming reproducing class inequalities, legitmated myth of meritocracy more

+arguably more meritocratic, more equal opportunity but undermined by the systems within comphrehensives

Question 6

under Thatcher’s CONV gov ‘79

CONV- Education Reform Act 88
-aim

Answer 6

to competitively drive up the standard of comphensives, under neoliberal influence

Question 7

3 things

CONV- Education Reform Act 88
-competition and opportunities

Answer 7

-GCSE’s brought in with national curriculum, more standardised

-open enrolement (any student can apply/appeal to school)

-league tables (creates A-C % economy) quanatative comparision and public Ofsted reports, qualitative comparision to compare efficieny and standards of schools

Question 8

CONV- Education Reform Act 88
-finance changes

Answer 8

-funding formula introduced which est. those schools who attract more pupils recieve more funding, incentive to outcompete and advertise (more money for FSM and SEN pupils too)

-Grant Maintained Schools allowed, which opt out of LEA control, handling own finance, later to become academies

Question 9

3 sociologists

effect (sociologists say)

Answer 9

1) David - created a system of parentocracy with parent’s gifted all the power. Gertwitz combats that generalisation (only privledged school choosers e’g C and L selection by mortage)

2) Barlett - looks to exacerbate class divisions with ‘cream-skimming’ and ‘silt-shifting’ WC pupils, avoidance of poor catchment areas, admittance of brighter MC students

3) Gillborn and Youdell - schools running on A-C economy due to league table set up, focussing on performativity of students capable of A-C and negligence of those unable to, typically WC, categorised as ‘hopeless cases’

Question 10

2 neg, 1 pos

effect (stats show)

Answer 10

-by use of the funding formula, ‘good’ schools got better and less good schools plummeted losing pupils and therefore funding, known as ‘sink schools’

-Institute of Public Policy of Research 2012 found that competition orientated education systems produced more class segregation

+yet education standards were driven up after 1988 and it set the foundations of the education system we have today