Social Policy and Education Cartes | Quizlet

Policy Features of 1944 Education Act

- Introduced compulsory state education up to the age of 14.

- Set up a tri-partite system or 'equal status' schools:

1. Grammar,

2. Secondary Modern,

3. Technical Schools.

- Children would sit an IQ test at 11 that measured their innate ability (11+ exams).

- Those who passed the 11+ exam would go to a grammar school (approx. 20%).

Policy Aims of 1944 Education Act

1. Post-war welfare state - creating a land fit for heroes.

2. Beveridge Report - 5 'evils': ignorance.

3. It wanted to abolish inequalities in state education.

4. The 11+ exam was seen as a fair and scientific way to measure ability that a child was 'born with'.

Strengths of 1944 Education Act

1. It provided upward social mobility for the w/c children who passed the 11+ and continues to provide a high-quality education for 5% of UK children that still go to a grammar school.

Weaknesses of 1944 Education Act

1. Really only 2 school choices as technical colleges were too expensive to build and were phased out.

2. Secondary modern and technical students were labelled failures and often not allowed to sit formal qualifications as a result of the labelling, wasting large swathes of w/c talent.

3. Marxists were critical of the elaborate code that the 11+ was written in excluding w/c children and ethnic minorities who spoke in more restricted code. Grammar schools were heavily populated by m/c students dispelling the notion of innate ability.

4. Feminists were critical as there were fewer girl's grammar school places meaning that girls required a higher pass rate than boys to attend. It was assumed that most girls would aspire to the expressive role of the family.

5. Disparity in grammar school places across the UK - 12% in places, 40% in others.

Policy Features of 1985 Comprehensive Education Act

Comprehensive education abolished selection at the age of 11 and aimed to educate all children in the same secondary school regardless of their social class, ethnicity, gender or ability.

Policy Aims of 1985 Comprehensive Education Act

1. The tripartite system had not succeeded in creating equality of opportunity. The Labour govt was critical of a highly divisive tripartite system in that social mobility had stalled.

2. It was believed that the meritocratic ideals were more likely to occur in a comprehensive system where all children are given the same opportunity.

Strengths of 1985 Comprehensive Education Act

1. Recognised that children develop at different rates and could reward late bloomers in higher sets/ streams rather than selection at 11.

Criticisms of 1985 Comprehensive Education Act

1. Geographical catchment areas - reducing social cohesion or mixing between social classes;

2. Private education still exists for the wealthy (7% of UK children;

3. Inequality between schools is replaced with inequality in schools;

4. Hargreaves and Ball - argue that comprehensives reproduce the Grammar & Secondary Modern system;

5. Not all local authorities shut Grammar schools - 5% of students today still attend these selective schools.

Why the New Right were very very critical of comprehensive schools

1. Lacked discipline, with students organising strike events;

2. Poor results;

3. Failed to prepare children for work even through results had improved;

4. Local authority monopoly on provision disincentivised improvements and good teaching standards;

5. Lack of parental choice in school.

Policy Features of 1988 Education Reform Act

1. Testing:

SATs to judge quality of schools at age 7 and 11, GCSEs and A-Levels. School performance can be objectively monitored;

2. National Curriculum:

All schools teach the same things so that standard comparisons can be made;

3. League Table:

Schools results would be published to help drive up competition and inform parents of the best schools. Also OFSTED inspections (1992/93) would ensure that parents were better informed about the quality of the school attended;

4. Open Enrolment:

Parents could send their children to any 'local' state school and not just the nearest school.

Policy Aims of 1988 Education Reform Act

1. Marketisation:

Would increase competition between schools. Schools would have to improve or have funding cut or be closed. This will increase choice for parents (parentocracy);

2. Local authority run schools were 'failing' children. There were no incentives for schools to improve individually.

Strengths of 1988 Education Reform Act

1. School results did improve.

Criticisms of 1988 Education Reform Act

1. There is still a significant gender, social class and ethnicity disparity in results;

2. Testing increases stress on pupils (and staff);

3. League tables & competition are counter-productive - low ability pupils barred from taking exams, funnelled into 'easy' low status qualifications. Incentivises cheating (strain theory);

4. Money is spent on marketing, not education provision;

5. Few places in popular schools - less choice for many pupils;

6. Class differences are reinforced as m/c parents use cultural & economic capital to get children into the 'best' schools. Parents can impress the school at interview & afford transport costs of schools out of catchment area (Ball).

AO1 Marketisation and the New Right

Marketisation is the process of introducing market forces of consumer choice and competition between suppliers into areas run by the state.

AO2 Marketisation and the New Right

Govt policy since the 1988 Education Reform Act have had marketisation at the core.

Thatcher:

1. Reduction in state control over education;

2. Increase competition between and within schools;

3. Greater parental choice of schools - parentocracy.

★Policy examples to support marketisation

1. National curriculum;

2. SATs tests,GCSEs and A-Levels;

3. League tables and OFSTED reports;

4. Open admissions;

5. Academisation;

6. Variable tuition fees at uni;

7. Business sponsorships of schools;

8. Parents can create free schools;

9. Funding formulas based on the number of students a school attracts.

AO1 Specialist Schools

Schools that were supposedly expert in 1 of 10 subject areas (e.g. sports, business, maths and computing).

AO2 Specialist Schools

The new Labour govt was simply continuing the market forces agenda, giving parents more choice over school with the aim to drive up standards in a parentocracy.

AO3 Specialist Schools

The problem with these special schools, where is that quite often they weren't specialists in that subject. In fact, the funding was given to help them get better in that subject area, giving parents a false impression.

The additional funding did help improve the facilities of the schools, including more specialist PE and IT equipment.

AO1 City Academies

City academies were introduced to improve standards in deprived w/c intercity communities. The schools were provided with additional funding, super heads, and expert teachers.

AO2 City Academies

These areas often had w/c and BAME communities who were underachieving. The schools were removed from 'failing' local authority control and ran themselves independently with direct govt funding.

AO3 City Academies

Behaviour policies were rigourously enforced. This helped turn these city acadamies from some of the least successful to most successful schools in the country. E.g. Mossbourne Community Academy. In 5 years, 85% students got A*-C grades.

However, they weakened the power of the local govt. They could still silt shift students.

AO1 Sure Start Centres

The centres offer childcare, play sessions, parenting advice and employment coaching. At their peak in 2010, there were 3600 centres, with a budget of about £1.8bn.

AO2 Sure Start Centres

Sure Start was designed to boost the educational & life chances of the disadvantaged children (e.g. to compensate for the 18-month learning gap between them and their m/c counterparts.

AO3 Sure Start Centres

They had a small positive impact on SATs scores at 7 years old.

However, m/c parents often hijacked these facilities as a subsidised source of childcare, intimidating w/c mothers.

AO1 EMA (Education Maintenance Allowance)

EMA - an education maintenance allowance that paid six form students between £10 and £30 per week for coming to college meeting their deadlines and achieving good grades.

AO2 EMA (Education Maintenance Allowance)

The aim was to boost sixth form and uni students (i.e. drive upward social mobility for these students for whom it had stalled). The Labour govt wanted to increase higher education participation to 50%.

AO3 EMA (Education Maintenance Allowance)

It would also help to meet the hidden costs of free education.

It didn't have to be spent on education resources.

AO2 Conservative Education Policies 2010+ - Trebling Tuition Fees

This was a marketisation policy. The govt hoped that by charging £9000 per year that uni standards would increase. The weaker unis will therefore improve so that they could charge £9000 per year. The less competitive unis wouldn't be able to charge the full price for a 'lesser' product.

AO3 Conservative Education Policies 2010+ - Trebling Tuition Fees

The number of 1st and 2:1 degrees awarded uni at highest ever.

1. Most providers charge the full fee;

2. Marxists would argue that students have been turned into commodities with the purpose of education to make a profit.

3. Competition for uni is very high in a global market with British students competing with overseas students for places on competitive courses.

AO1 Conservative Education Policies 2010+ - Pupil Premium

People premium is additional funding given to schools to help improve the attainment of disadvantaged groups. Eligibility is for those in care, adopted, on free school meals or income support.

AO2 Conservative Education Policies 2010+ - Pupil Premium

Schools are given additional funding of between £900 and £2400 for the students to help boost attainment for this group of disadvantaged learners because there is a link between deprivation and underperformance at school.

AO3 Conservative Education Policies 2010+ - Pupil Premium

However, most schools use the additional funding to pay for everyday school expenses; it doesn't have to spend on individual pupil premium students. School funding per child has fallen by 9% since 2010 and the money is often used to help pay for more teachers, TAs, equipment, etc. Parents and guardians aren't very aware of the additional funding for their child and cannot hold the schools to account in a supposed parentocracy.

AO1 Conservative Education Policies 2010+ - GCSE and A-Levels Reform since 2016

They have been made to be linear-2-year courses whereby most coursework has been removed or chanednto controlled assessments.

AO2 Conservative Education Policies 2010+ - GCSE and A-Levels Reform since 2016

It was argued that schools and teachers were abusing assessments, helping students too much with coursework so that they could be higher on the league tables, both within schools and across schools. There was a resit culture also that helped boost grades. This was a resit culture also that helped boost grades. This was a threat to the objectivity of parentocracy - i.e. that parents could trust the league table and performance date.

AO3 Conservative Education Policies 2010+ - GCSE and A-Levels Reform since 2016

Exams were made more difficult to help students compete or skills on the international stage. GCSEs were graded 1 to 9 with 9 being the new indicator of the country's top achievers with the equivalent of A**.

Strain theory - If teachers and pupils feel they don't have the means to achieve the grades, they will innovate and cheat to be higher up the league tables.