Education: Educational policy and inequality Flashcards
Educational policy in Britain before 1988- Selection: the tripartite system
The 1944 Education Act introduced the tripartite system, which aimed to promote meritocracy by allocating children to different types of secondary schools based on their abilities, as identified by the eleven-plus (11+) exam. The three types of schools were grammar schools, secondary modern schools, and technical schools. Grammar schools provided an academic curriculum and access to higher education, mainly catering to middle-class pupils who passed the 11+. Secondary modern schools focused on a non-academic, practical curriculum and prepared working-class pupils who failed the 11+ for manual work. Technical schools, intended to provide vocational education, were rare and existed in only a few areas, making the system more bipartite than tripartite. Instead of reducing inequality, the tripartite system reproduced class divisions by directing students into schools aligned with their social background and offered unequal opportunities. Furthermore, it reinforced gender inequality, requiring girls to achieve higher marks than boys to enter grammar schools. The system legitimized social inequality by suggesting it was natural and based on ability, despite the influence of a child’s environment on their success.
Educational policy in Britain before 1988- The Comprehensive school system
The comprehensive system was introduced in many areas from 1965 onwards. It aimed to overcome the class divide of the tripartite system and make education more meritocratic. The 11+ was to be abolished along with grammars and secondary moderns, to be replaced by comprehensive schools that all pupils within the area would attend.
However, it was left to the local education authority to decide whether to ‘go comprehensive’ and not all did so. As a result, the grammar-secondary modern divide still exists in many areas.
Educational policy in Britain before 1988- The comprehensive school system (two theories of the role of comprehensives)
Functionalists view the comprehensive system as beneficial because it promotes social integration by bringing together children from different social classes into one school. They argue that comprehensives are meritocratic, as they give pupils a longer period to develop and demonstrate their abilities, unlike the tripartite system, which selects pupils at the age of eleven. Functionalists believe comprehensives fulfill essential functions like social cohesion and fair opportunities for all students, contributing to a more unified society.
Marxists, however, argue that comprehensives fail to promote equality and instead reproduce class inequality. They claim that the continuation of practices such as streaming and labeling perpetuates class divisions from one generation to the next. By not offering genuinely equal opportunities, comprehensives legitimize class inequality by making it appear fair and natural, as individual failure is attributed to the student rather than systemic flaws. This myth of meritocracy masks the inequalities embedded in the education system.
Marketisation: info
Marketisation refers to the process of introducing market forces of consumer choice and competition between suppliers into areas run by the state, such as education. It has created an “education market” by reducing direct state control over education and increasing competition between schools, along with parental choice of schools.
Marketisation became a key theme in education policy following the 1988 Education Reform Act (ERA), introduced by the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher. From 1997, the New Labour government of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown continued these policies, emphasizing standards, diversity, and choice. From 2010, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition expanded marketisation further by introducing academies and free schools. Neoliberals and the New Right support marketisation, arguing that schools must compete to attract parents as customers. Schools that meet demands, such as delivering exam success, will thrive, while those that fail will “go out of business.”
Marketisation: Parentocracy
Policies that promote marketisation include:
-Publication of league tables and Ofsted inspection reports that rank each school according to its exam performance and give parents the information they need to choose the right school.
-Open enrolment, allowing successful schools to recruit more pupils.
-Introduction of tuition fees for higher education
-Formula funding, where schools receive the same amount of funding for each pupil.
David describes marketised education as a ‘parentocracy’ (rule by parents). Supporters of marketisation argue that in an education market, power shifts away from the producers (teachers and schools) to the consumers (parents). They claim that this encourages diversity among schools, gives parents more choice and raises standards.
Marketisation: The reproduction of inequality
However, despite the claimed benefits of marketisation, its critics argue that it has increased inequalities. For example, Ball and Whitty note how marketisation policies such as exam league tables and the funding formula reproduce class inequalities by creating inequalities between schools.
Marketisation: league tables and cream-skimming
The policy of publishing each school’s exam results in a league table ensures that schools that achieve good results are more in demand, because parents are attracted to those with good league table rankings. Bartlett notes, this encourages:
-Cream-skimming: ‘Good’ schools can be more selective, choose their own customers and recruit high achieving, mainly middle-class pupils. As a result, these pupils gain an advantage.
-Silt-shifting: ‘Good’ schools can avoid taking less able who are likely to get poor results and damage the school’s league table position.
For schools with poor league table positions, the opposite applies: they cannot afford to be selective and have to take less able, mainly working-class pupils, so their results are poorer and they remain unattractive to middle-class parents. The overall effect of league tables is thus to produce unequal schools that reproduce social class inequalities.
Marketisation: the funding formula
Schools are allocated funds by a formula based on how many pupils they attract. As a result, popular schools get more funds and so can afford better-qualified teachers and better facilities. Again, their popularity allows them to be more selective and attracts more able or ambitious, generally middle-class applicants.
On the other hand, unpopular schools lose income and find it difficult to match the teacher skills and facilities of their more successful rivals. Thus, popular schools with good results and middle-class pupils thrive; unpopular schools fail to attract pupils and their funding is further reduced.
Marketisation- Gewirtz: parental choice
Marketisation policies favour middle-class parents by increasing parental choice, as their economic and cultural capital allow them to select better schools for their children. Sharon Gewirtz (1995) identified three types of parents in her study: privileged-skilled choosers, disconnected-local choosers, and semi-skilled choosers.
Privileged-Skilled Choosers
These middle-class parents used their economic and cultural capital to secure the best education for their children. They understood the school admissions process, researched their options, and could afford additional costs, such as travel or relocation, to access better schools.
Disconnected-Local Choosers
Working-class parents with limited economic and cultural capital. They struggled with understanding school procedures and focused on safety and proximity, often choosing nearby schools due to financial constraints.
Semi-Skilled Choosers
Ambitious working-class parents who lacked the knowledge to navigate the system effectively. They often relied on others’ opinions and felt frustrated when unable to access preferred schools.
Gewirtz concluded that marketisation primarily benefits middle-class families, widening inequalities in school choice.
Marketisation- The myth of parentocracy
Not only does marketisation reproduce inequality; it also legitimates it by concealing its true causes and by justifying its existence.
Ball believes that marketisation gives the appearance of a ‘parentocracy’. That is, the education system sees as if it is based on parents having a free choice of school. However, Ball argues that parentocracy is a myth, not a reality. It makes it appear that all parents have the same freedom to choose which school to send their children to.
Marketisation- New labour and inequality
New Labour and Inequality
While marketisation policies often increased inequality, the New Labour governments (1997–2010) introduced measures to reduce it. These included:
Education Action Zones: Extra resources for deprived areas.
Aim Higher Programme: Raising aspirations of under-represented groups in higher education.
Education Maintenance Allowances (EMAs): Payments to low-income students to encourage staying in education post-16 to gain qualifications.
National Literacy Strategy: Focused on literacy and numeracy hours, alongside reducing primary school class sizes, benefiting disadvantaged groups.
City Academies: Introduced to revive struggling inner-city schools, often attended by working-class pupils.
Increased Funding: More support for state education.
Criticisms: Critics like Melissa Benn (2012) highlight contradictions in Labour’s approach. For instance, while EMAs encouraged students to stay in education, the introduction of tuition fees for higher education potentially discouraged them from progressing to university. This tension is referred to as the “New Labour paradox.”
Conservative government policies from 2010- Academies
From 2010, all schools were encouraged to leave local authority control and become academies. Funding was taken from local authority budgets and given directly to academies by central government, and academies were given control over their curriculum.
By 2017, over 68% of all secondary schools had converted to academy status. Some academies are run by private educational businesses and funded directly by the state.
However, whereas Labour’s original city academies targeted disadvantaged schools and areas, the Coalition government, by allowing any school to become an academy, removed the focus on reducing inequality.
Conservative government policies from 2010- Free schools
Free schools, funded directly by the state, are established and managed by parents, teachers, faith organizations, or businesses instead of local authorities. Supporters argue that free schools enhance educational standards by decentralizing control, empowering parents, and allowing teachers and parents to create new schools when dissatisfied with the existing options. However, critics like Rebecca Allen (2010) highlight issues such as their tendency to benefit children from educated families and their divisive nature. For instance, Sweden, where 20% of schools are free schools, has experienced a decline in international educational rankings since their introduction. Similarly, charter schools in the USA, akin to free schools, have been criticized for raising standards through strict selection and exclusion policies rather than inclusivity.
In England, free schools have also faced scrutiny for admitting fewer disadvantaged pupils than nearby schools. For example, in 2011, only 6.4% of students at Bristol Free School were eligible for free school meals compared to 22.5% citywide (DoE, 2012). These statistics challenge the notion that free schools promote equality, suggesting they might exacerbate social divisions instead. Critics question whether the autonomy provided by free schools justifies their impact on inclusivity and overall educational standards.
Conservative government policies from 2010- Fragmented centralisation
Ball (2011) argues that promoting academies and free schools has led to both increased fragmentation and increased centralisation of control over educational provision in England.
Fragmentation: The comprehensive education system has been replaced by a patchwork of diverse providers, often private, leading to inequalities in opportunities.
Centralisation of control: The central government has sole authority to approve or mandate schools to become academies or free schools. These schools are funded directly by the government, reducing the role of local authorities in education.
Conservative government policies from 2010- Policies to reduce inequality
Policies to reduce inequality were introduced alongside marketisation reforms. These included providing free school meals for all children in reception, Year 1, and Year 2, as well as the Pupil Premium, which allocates additional funding to schools for pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds to help bridge the gap in opportunities.
However, Ofsted (2012) reported that the Pupil Premium was often not used effectively, with only 1 in 10 headteachers claiming it had significantly improved support for disadvantaged students. Meanwhile, the Conservative government’s austerity programme saw severe cuts to education spending, including a 60% reduction in school building budgets, the closure of Sure Start centres, the abolition of the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA), and a tripling of university tuition fees to £9,000 per year. Critics argue these measures have reduced opportunities for working-class students and discouraged access to higher education.
