Educational policy

1944, education act- the tripartite system

Aim: create a range of schools where all learners had a good opportunity to be successful- it aimed to be meritocratic.

1. grammar schools- required passing an exam, you do academic subjects in order to progress to professional careers.

2. technical schools- focus on vocational qualifications in order to prepare students for work e.g. plumber

3. secondary modern schools- everyone else, learnt basic skills for employment

evaluation of tripartite system

the aims of the system were not met, and only 20 years later the system was replaced

• reality was a bipartie system, there were hardly any technical schools constructed due to the costs meaning that the system could not actually support vocational pathways

• it was not meritocratic as upper class, and upper middle class parents could afford to pay to support their children getting into grammar schools e.g. extra coaching for the 11+

• grammar schools were typically located in wealthy middle and upper class towns with few working class people meaning that very few working class people could attend regardless of their ability.

• the system created social division as it divided students by social class

• sink schools- combining least able students and potentially the least talented teachers, some secondary modern schools were at risk of becoming sink schools.

• grammar schools could provide an environment to push the academic elite to the fullest.

solution of comprehensive schools, 1965

• 11+ abolished

• all students go to their local schools which would be comprehensive so cover students of all abilities.

• students are divided by ability in sets or streams.

evaluation of the comprehensive system

reduces class determinism where your social class decides opportunities and outcomes as all students are in the same type of school. however, good schools were more likely in more affluent areas meaning the working classes were still limited by geographic location

there is flexibility to move within sets and streams

increased social solidarity as everyone is part of the same system

not as flexible to move sets/ streams as is imagined. the top sets are often full as m/c and u/c parents use their cultural capital to keep their children in the set,

the goal to create social solidarity may have failed as the closure of grammar schools pushed people to private schools.

removes opportunities for the highest ability students as they can no longer go to grammar schools.

1988, education reform act- marketisation

why: the new right criticised the comprehensive system because it lacked competition and choice, was low quality, inefficient and expensive. as students always went to their local school, there was no reason for schools to improve or to innovate.

solution: marketisation policies aimed to turn schools into markets where there was competition and choice to raise standards and lower costs. parents were viewed as consumers who were buying a product that was education- parentocracy where parents have the power.

examples of marketisation polcies and evaluation

1. giving parents information so they can make choices about schools e.g. through OFSTED, league tables, open mornings. parentocracy is a myth because choice is only available to the m/c and u/c. w/c families may not live near a good school can may not be able to afford to travel, may also lack cultural capital to know where and how to research schools, or have the time/ resources to attend open days.

2. open enrolment- parents are free to apply to send their children to any school. this is a myth because popular schools are oversubscribed and so have catchment areas- houses here get more expensive due to the good school making it impossible for w/c families to live in these areas- selection by mortgage.

3. formula funding- funding is on a per pupil basis meaning that schools compete for students and want to raise standards. this impacts schools because fixed costs do not typically rise in line with additional numbers e.g. cost of electricity, teacher’s wage. creates sink schools- when they cannot attract students, they get low funding so cannot provide good provision as cannot afford best teachers and resources so do not attract students. typically these schools do not close to provide a poor quality education to many students in that area over time.

4. private business involvement- private companies that have specialist knowledge and skills can provide a more efficient and higher quality service e.g. catering, cleaning, IT. this is known as colarisation- the actions of private companies that sell products into schools are to advertise and improve company image. private businesses are motivated to make profits so may prioritise profits over the quality of provision

Labour education policies “education, education, education”

key idea: remove educational inquality

1. academies- lowest performing schools were identified and then converted into academies. this had a special status which brought with it significant extra funding. they were governed independently rather than by the local educational authorities.

2. education maintenance allowance- money for 16-19 year olds who were students from lower income backgrounds.

3. educational action zones- gave extra money to schols in the poorest areas.

4. remove the ethnocentric curriculum

5. introduce employability skills and PSHE into education- levelling the playing field to support students e.g. job interviews, writing a CV

inconsistencies: an introduction of university tuition fees- appears to contradict the goal of reducing inquality because it limits access to higher education. there was no action on private schools.

conservative policies, 2010+

1. continuation of marketisation

2. academies:

   • funding model change from Labour so that academy status only maintained previous funding levels, it did not mean additional funding for the school.

   • the focus was instead on the autonomy given to the schools that were now free of the local educational authority’s control e.g could hire staff, decide the curriculum → this suited the New Right approach as there was less government involvement.

   • cuts to educational budgets: austerity policies (not spending money) meant there were real-term cuts to educational funding across the board- where despite an increase in fudning, inflation means the actual purchasing power is decreased because of rising prices.

   • private business involvement in state education e.g. catering, cleaning, software programmes, private companies sponsoring schools (colarisation)

MATs (multi academy trusts)

• collecion of academies under one umbrella

• creates economies of scale: savings can be made by purchasing as a group