Educational Policy Flashcards
When was the Tripartite System formed?
1944
Explain the tripartite system?
- 3 different types of secondary schools
- grammar
- secondary modern
- technical - had to sit an 11+ exam if they passed they went to a grammar school
What was a grammar school (tripartite system)?
Offered an academic curriculum in which people have the opportunity to go to university
What is a secondary modern school (tripartite system)?
More vocational and practical subjects such as woodwork and home economics
What is a technical school (tripartite system)?
Would aim to train children to work in specific trade areas such as mechanics
What did the supporters of the tripartite system have to offer?
Helped to sift and sort pupils based on ability, it enabled them to pursue education which was better for their needs.
What did critics sight about the tripartite system?
Failed to enact social mobility. For two reason
Gender
-difficult for girls to pass the 11+ exam therefore girls would go to a secondary modern to learn how to be housewives
Class
-majority of children that went to a grammar school were middle class. Parents were able to afford to pay for tuition for them to pass the 11+. Those of the working class who did pass the 11+ felt excluded due to the habitus. As a result social mobility was not enacted.
When was the Comprehensive system put into place?
1965
What was the main purpose of the comprehensive system?
Does not recruit pupils based on ability
What 3 factors were there in the comprehensive system?
- removal of the 11+ exam
- introduction of a catchment system
- delivered the same cirriculum made up of vocational and academic subjects
What do functionalists think about the comprehensive system?
Claim it is a meritocratic system giving all pupils the same opportunity. The same curriculum means people from all classes study a range of subjects
What does Ford (1969) believe about the comprehensive system
Mixes people from different social classes (social integration)
What do Marxists believe about the comprehensive system?
Does little to enact social mobility. Those from working class backgrounds go to poorer schools, those from middle class schools go to better schools meaning there is little social integration. Furthermore, working class pupils are met with setting and streaming, labelling. Myth of meritocracy
What are the 3 arguments in support of marketisation within education?
- raises standards
- reduce inequality
- more parental control
How has marketisation led to an increase in standards?
New Right sociologists argue that marketisation encourages schools to raise standards. Schools are dependent on receiving “custom” from parents so need to make their institution more successful by improving grades and facilities. Not the case under the catchment system whereby government controlled places. Old system did not motivate schools
How has marketisation reduced inequality in education?
Reduces inequality as schools in deprived areas still must work hard in order to achieve appropriate funding from the govt. Teachers will give more support to children living in poverty in order to make them pass their exams. The introduction of the funding formula achieves this, it acts as a motivator to raise provision for disadvantaged pupils.
According to Miriam David (1993), how has marketisation given parents more power?
It is claimed by Miriam David (1993) that such policies encourage the practice of parentocracy in education, which literally means “rule by parent”. Nowadays, parents have more of a say in terms of what they expect of their children’s school and their teachers, and they can voice their concerns if they are dissatisfied with what is being provided. This encourages schools to work harder to ensure that they are providing a high-quality service, which in turn brings about better outcomes for their pupils.
What are the 3 critics of marketisation?
- encourages schools to be selective in its recruitment
- parentocracy is a myth
- funding formula creates inequalities between schools
According to Ball (1994), how has marketisation encouraged schools to be selective in their recruitment?
Schools are under pressure to achieve high ratings on the league tables. Schools are selectful in their recruitment. Want students that will achieve. Cream skimming, where schools choose successful pupils by going to Primary Schools and advertising to them specifically. Silt Sifting, where unsuccessful pupils are not recruited. For example, they may not offer application forms in other languages or may set all of their application systems online, so they can only be accessed by affluent families with connected devices.
Schools are bottom of league table cannot choose pupils so it causes a cycle of underachievement
Schools who underperform cannot turn pupils away including ones with lower aspirations creating a cycle of underperformance actively reproducing inequality
According to Gertwitz (1995), how has marketisation led to the myth of parentocracy?
Identified 3 types of choosers regarding secondary schools
- privileged skilled choosers
- disconnected local choosers
- semi skilled choosers
What is a privileged choosers (parentocracy is a myth)?
largely middle-class professional parents with cultural capital that gave them a good understanding of how the education system works. They knew what to look for when identifying a successful school, e.g. Ofsted reports and league table positions, and they knew how to work the application system so as to give their child a greater chance of getting into their preferred school They also had the economic capital to be able to do things such as move to a geographical area filled with high performing schools, or to pay for transport so that their children could attend better schools which were further away.
What is a disconnected local chooser (parentocracy is a myth)?
mainly working-class parents with limited understanding of the education system. They lacked the cultural capital needed to investigate how successful a school was in terms of academic performance, and instead placed a lot of value on the aesthetic appearance of a school and its facilities. They also lacked the economic capital needed to either live close to a good school or to send their children there on public transport, meaning that they tended to apply to send their children to the closest school, irrespective of how successful it was.
What is a semi skilled chooser (parentocracy is a myth)?
working-class but more ambitious than the previous group. They demonstrated an interest in their child’s education and were keen for them to get into a “good” school, however, due to a lack of cultural capital, they tended to base their research on speaking to other people and gauging their opinions, rather than looking into Ofsted reports and league tables.
According to Whitby (1996), how has marketisation led to the funding formula creating inequality?
The funding formula encourages schools to recruit more pupils to get more money. This is done by slick marketing and achieving high grades in exams. Not all schools benefit equally though, schools that underperform will not be subscribed to by parents leaving them under capacity and without money. This creates a cyclic effect whereby underfunded schools become more and more undersubscribed losing out on more money.
Creates a further divide. Can’t afford experiences teaching staff. Do not get picked by the priviliged skilled choosers group.
Raises inequality.
