Educational policy

Policy- government role in education

Mass education was introduced to help us work after the industrial revolution in factories and mills where a basic understanding of english and maths was required. Before this, education was only forthe richest elite in society.

1944, education act - tripartite system

The aim of the tripartite system was to create a range of schools which meant all learners had a good opportunity to be successful- it aimed to be meritocratic.

1. Grammar schools- required passing an exam, academic subjects, progress to professional careers

2. Technical schools- focus on vocational qualifications (prepare students for work) e.g. plumber

3. Secondary modern schools- everyone else: basic skills for employment

Evaluation- broadly the aims of the system were not met- only 20 years later the system was replaced.

• Reality was a bipartite 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 11+

• Grammar schools were typically located in wealthy middle and upper class towns with few working class people, this meant that very few w/c people could attend regardless of their ability.

• The system created social division because it divided students by social class.

• Sink schools- combining least able students and potentially the least talented teachers, 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

1965- comprehensive schools

• 11+ abolished

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

• Students divided by ability in sets or streams.

Advantages

1. reduces class determinism (social class deciding opportunities and outcomes) as all students are in the same type of school. however good and bad schools may still occur due to geographic locations as schools are in more affluent areas.

2. flexibility to move within sets and streams

3. increased social solidarity as everyone is part of the same system.

Disadvantages

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

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

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

1988, Education reform act- marketization policies

The New Right criticised the comprehensive system

• claimed that as the system lacked competition and choice it was low quality and inefficient and expensive.

• as students went to their local school, there was no reason for schools to improve or to innovate.

Solution, marketization

• policies aimed to turn schools into markets where there was competition and choice to raise standards and lower costs

• parents were viewed as consumers, buying a ‘product’ that was education- this is called parentocracy (where parents have the power)

Examples of marketization strategies

1. giving parents information so they can make choices about schools e.g. OFSTED, league tables, open mornings. The myth of parentocracy- choice is actually only available to the m/c and u/c. W/c families may not live near a good school and may not be able to afford to travel, they may not have the cultural capital to know where and 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, popular schools are oversubscribed and so have catchment areas- houses here get more expensive due to the good schools 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, this means 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- cannot attract students and so get low funding so cannot provide good provision (can’t afford best teachers and resources) so do not attract students ♻ . Typically they do not close, so provide a poor quality education to many students in that area over time.

4. private busines involvement- private companies that have specialists knowledge and skills can provide a more efficient and higher quality service e.g catering, cleaning, IT

   • known as cola-risation: the actions of private companies that sell products into schools to advertise and improve company image 🎅

     Private businesses are motivated to make profits so may prioritise profits over the quality of provision.

New Labour Education Policies

• large mandate to make new policies due to a large election victory

• priority was “education, education, education”

What did they want to do?

key idea: remove educational inequality

1. Academies- lowest performing schools identified and then converted to academies. This was a special status that brought with it significant extra funding. Academies were governed independently (not by the local educational authority).

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

3. Educational action zones- extra money to schools in the poorest areas

4. Remove the ethnocentric curriculum.

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

Inconsistency in labour policies

• Introduction of university tuition fees- appears to contradict the goal of reducing inequality because it limits access to higher education

• No action on private schools- for example no VAT on fees

Conservative policies, 2010 onwards

1. continuation of marketisation: education as a market place

2. academies

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

   b. 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.

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

   d. private business involvement in state education: e.g. catering, cleaning, software programmes, private companies sponsoring schools → colarisation

MATs- multi-academy trusts

• collection of academies under one umbrella

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

• allows schools to share resources e.g. IT, HR

• allows ‘best practice’ to be shared e.g. best history department in trust teaches others which raises educational standards