educational policies Flashcards
what are the three parts to the tripartite system?
grammar schools - mainly middle class (those who passed the 11+ exam)
secondary modern schools - mainly working class pupils (those who failed the 11+ exam)
technical schools - focussed on technical subjects such as mechanics and engineering.
how and why was the tripartite system brought about?
the 1944 Education Act brought in the tripartite system to influence the idea of meritocracy, that individuals should achieve their status in life through their own efforts and abilities rather than being ascribed through class background - students were selected and allocated based on the 11+ exam.
what are critics of the tripartite system?
reproduced class inequality by separating children into schools based on social class.
gender inequality as girls were required to get higher marks than boys in order to get a place.
what are some positive outcomes of the tripartite system?
almost guaranteed social mobility to those working class students that passed.
considered the different needs in education.
entitled everyone to free education by age of 15.
what was the aims of the comprehensive system (1965)?
aimed to overcome the class divide of the tripartite system and make eduction more meritocratic.
for 11+ to be abolished along with grammars and secondary moderns, to be replaced with comprehensive schools that all pupils would attend.
what were features of the comprehensive system?
no selection - schools didn’t select pupils based on academic ability and there were more opportunities to gain qualifications.
consisted of mixed abilities.
what are the positives of the comprehensive system?
consisted of more meritocratic principles.
reduced class inequality.
functionalists also argue that, the comprehensive system as more meritocratic because it gives pupils a long period to develop and show their abilities, unlike the tripartite system selecting most able pupils at just the age of 11.
what are critics of the comprehensive system?
marxists argue that comprehensives are not meritocratic, rather they reproduce class inequality through the continuation of the practice of streaming and labelling - these continue to deny working class children equal opportunity.
this ‘myth of meritocracy’ legitimates inequality by making unequal achievement seem fair and just, because failure looks like it’s the fault of the individual rather than the system.
functionalists argue that comprehensives promote social integration by bringing children of different classes together in one school.
what is marketisation?
introducing market forces to areas to areas run by the state - in education this means introducing competition between schools and creating parentocracy.
what is parentocracy?
a rule by parents - parents have control over which school their children go to.
suggest some policies that promote marketisation.
- publication of league tables and ofsted inspection reports.
- open enrolment.
- introduction of tuition fees for higher education.
how is marketisation argued to have increased inequality.
Stephen ball notes that marketisation policies such as league tables reproduce class inequalities by creating inequalities between schools.
what are league tables and cream-skimming - benefits and disadvantages?
the policy of publishing exam results in a league table ensures that schools that achieve good results are in demand as it attracts parents - Bartlett notes that this encourages cream skimming and silt shifting.
cream skimming involves ‘good’ schools being able to be more selective and recruit high achieving pupils, but this means they can avoid taking less able pupils who are likely to get poor results and damage school league table.
what are the positives of marketisation?
some argue that in an education market, power shifts away from producers to the consumers - they claim that this encourages diversity among schools, gives parents more choice and raises standards.
what did the 1988 Education Reform Act do – what problems remained?
introduced the national curriculum through league tables and ofsted reports - this results in parents having the choice to choose the best school.
however, marketisation of education makes it difficult for working class parents to choose the best schools - good schools get better due to better funding and poorer schools get progressively worse, which results in these schools struggling to attract pupils.
