Topic 6 - Educational policy and inequality

policy before 1988 - Education Act and the tripartite system

• began to be shaped by meritocracy not ascribed status (1944)

• children to be selected and allocated to 1 of 3 secondary schools, identified by 11+ exam

• grammar = academic, non-manual jobs, higher education, passed 11+, mc

• secondary modern = practical, non-academic, manual jobs, failed 11+, wc

• technical = existed in few areas, so system was more bipartite

• reproduced inequality as it channelled the classes into different schools with unequal opportunities and girls had to get higher marks on 11+

• legitimated inequality through ideology that ability is inborn and argued that ability could be identified early on in life ev - new IQism

policy before 1988 - comprehensive system (1965)

• aimed to overcome class divide

• 11+, grammar, secondary moderns all abolished and replaced with comprehensive schools

• helped to reduce gap but inequality continued in form of streaming (Douglas and sfp) and labelling (Ball)

• legitimated inequality through ‘myth of meritocracy’

• it was left to Local Education Authorities to decide whether to go comprehensive so grammar secondary-modern divide still exists in many areas

what is marketisation

• market forces supply and demand into areas run by the state

• encourages competition and choice for parents

education reform act 1988 - national curriculum

• national system of testing and assessment

• reduced role of Local Education Authorities by giving greater control to individual schools and governing bodies

• told teachers what to teach and pupils tested in core subjects at 7,11,14

• ev = teachers select pupils for different levels of assessment so isn’t reproducing equality, increase in setting had detrimental effects of progress of lower sets (wc)

education reform act 1988 - league tables

• policy of publishing exam results to encourage parental choice

• allows for comparisons

• ev = unreliable as some of best schools are at the bottom of the tables given their social background, Bartlett - encourages cream skimming and silt shifting from good schools with the overall effect being the production of unequal schools

education reform act 1988 - formula funding

• allocation of finances based on the number of students that finish their courses

• popular schools get more as they attract more students so can afford better facilities

• ev = Ball and Whitty - creates inequalities between schools

education reform act 1988 - parentocracy

• power shifts from producers (schools) to consumers (parents)

• Gerwitz = study of 14 London secondary schools, found differences in economic and cultural capital led to class differences in how far they could exercise their choice, privileged skilled choosers (mc), disconnected local choosers (wc), semi-skilled choosers (ambitious wc)

• ev = Ball - ‘myth of parentocracy’, appear to have same choice, mc able to take advantage of choice, Leach and Campos - mc can afford to move to catchment areas of better schools (selection by mortgage)

education reform act 1988 - impact on social mobility

• New Right = improves it because sandra’s are driven up and more accountability, National Curriculum encourages equality of opportunity

• postmodernists = improves it as more diversity of schools, curriculum and opportunities

• Marxists = doesn’t improve it as mc do better and wc suffer from a disadvantage

New Labour (1997-2010) - policies aimed at reducing inequality

• Education Action Zones = targeted support and funding to disadvantaged areas to boost achievement e.g. higher teacher pay to attract them, homework clubs

• Aim Higher programme = raise aspirations of groups under-represented in higher education

• Educational Maintenance Allowance = payments to students from low income backgrounds to encourage them to stay in education after 16

• school leaving age = raised to 18 to stop 16 year old ‘Neets’ (not in education, employment or training)

• increased funding for state education

• city academies = give a fresh start to struggling inner-city schools with mainly wc pupils

New Labour (1997-2010) - criticisms

• Benn = contradiction between policies to tackle inequality and commitment to marketisation - ‘New Labour paradox’

• e.g. EMA vs tuition fees in higher education

coalition government from 2010 - overview

• influenced by New Right and neoliberal ideas

• reduced role fo state via marketisation and privatisation

• cuts to educational budget

coalition government from 2010 - academies

• Academies Act = allows any existing school to convert to an academy with approval of the Education Secretary

• 298 failing schools, further 1808 schools turned to academies (more than 2000 compared to 203 by Labour)

• funded by private businesses or directly by the state

• removed focus on reducing inequality

coalition government from 2010 - free schools

• school funded by taxpayers which is free to attend but not controlled by local authority

• all-ability state funded school and extension of academies

• 650 free schools in 2023

• ev = Sweden’s international ranking fallen since their introduction (we stole their idea)

coalition government from 2010 - fragmented centralisation

• Ball = academies and free schools increased fragmentation and centralisation of control

• fragmentation = comprehensive system replaced by patchwork of diverse provision, greater inequality of opportunity

• centralisation = government alone has power to make or approve schools to turn into academies, state have more power and reduced role of local authorities

coalition government from 2010 - policies and inequality

• free school meals for all children in reception, year 1 and year 2

• pupil premium = money schools receive for each pupil from disadvantaged background

• ev = pupil premium not ring fenced/checked what it’s spent on, spending cut e.g. Sure Start, EMA abolished, tuition tripled to £9000, cutting these has reduced wc opportunity

privatisation - overview

• transfer of pupil assets to private companies

• Ball = ‘education services industry’ where education is a source of profit for capitalists e.g. building schools, supply teachers, Ofsted, companies involved in this expect to make 10x more profit than other contracts

privatisation - globalisation

• many private companies in the ESI are foreign owned so nation states are less important in policy asking

• e.g. exam board Pearson is US owned, UKs 4 leading software companies are owned by global multinationals like Disney

privatisation - ‘cola-isation’ of schools

• private sector is penetrating education indirectly e..g vending machines, displays of logos

• Molnar = schools are targeted as the business will be associated with their goodwill, form of product endorsement

• benefits to pupils are limited

• Ball = Cadbury’s sports equipment promotion was scrapped after it was revealed that students would need to eat 5440 bars to qualify for a set of volleyball posts

privatisation - education as a commodity

• Ball = privatisation is a key factor in shaping educational policy, education to be provided by private companies, tuning it into a ‘legitimate object of private profit making’ to be bought and sold

• Hall = coalition policies are part of ‘long march of the neoliberal revolution’, academies are handing over public services to private capitalists

• ev = Marxists - driving up standards is a myth that legitimates the turning of education into a source of profit

privatisation - Ball and Youdell’s types of privatisation

• endogenous = operating like private businesses e.g. competition, performance related pay for teachers, target setting, inspections, established by conservatives, sped up by coalition government with expansion of free schools and academies

• exogenous = outside the education system e.g. school services (staff training, supply teachers), help preparing for inspections (mocksted), buildings design and construction, branding, exam system

privatisation - international comparisons

• PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS

• involve testing in maths, science and reading with samples of 325,000-600,000 9-15 year olds from around 50-65 countries every 3-5 years and ranking results on league tables

• results in reassessments of policies and formation of new ones with solutions often taken from top performers

• Alexander = led to ‘PISA panic’ and search for miracle cures

• examples of policies implemented as a result of international comparisons = national literacy and numeracy strategies, slimming National Curriculum, raising the academic requirements for trainee teacher fro 2012, master teachers

privatisation - evaluation

• + drives up standards and accountability

• + interested in making it successful

• + help attract students

• + experts in their field - high level service

• + global - wide reach and funds

• - not concerned with students needs

• - encourages consumption and spending

• - invest in schools with students from wealthier backgrounds

policies on gender

• since 1970s, GIST and WISE try to reduce gender differences in subject choice

• National Curriculum introduced to provide equality of opportunity

policies on ethnicity - assimilation

• telling EMs to become more British as a way of raising achievement e.g. helping those with English not as a first language

• ev = some at risk of underachievement had a good level of English, may be material deprivation and poverty

policies on ethnicity - multicultural education

• promote EM children by valuations all cultures in the curriculum and raising self esteem e.g. Black History Month

• ev = Stone - don’t fail due to low self esteem, policies are misguided, critical race theorists - tokenisation, fails to challenge institutional racism, New Right - perpetuates cultural divisions - believe education should promote a shared culture

policies on ethnicity - social inclusion

• detailed monitoring of exam results by ethnicity, amending Race Relations Act to place legal duty on schools to promote racial equality e.g. English as an additional language programmes

• ev = Mirza - little genuine change i policy and it’s too soft, needs to tackle structural causes