Educational Policy And Inequaility Flashcards
Education policy in Britain before 1988
- before the Industrial Revolution in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, there were no state schools. Education was only available only to a minority of the population. It was provided by free paying schools for the week off, or by the churches and charities first a few of the poor. Before 1833, the state spent no public money on education.
- industrialisation increased the need for an educated workforce, and from the late 19th century they state began to become more involved in education. Reflecting the growing importance of education, the state made schooling compulsory from the ages 5 to 13 in 1880
- in this period the type of education children received depended on their class background. Schooling did little to change pupils ascribed status. M/c pupils were given an academic curriculum to prepare them for careers in the professions or office work
- in contrast, w/c pupils were given a choosing to equip them with the basic numeracy and literacy skills needed for routine factory work and to instil them an obedient attitude to their superiors
Selection: the tripartite system - 1944 education act
- from 1944, education began to be influence by the idea of meritocracy - that individuals should achieve their status in life through their own efforts and abilities, rather than it being ascribed at birth by their class background
- the 1944 education act brought in the tripartite system, so called because children were to be selected and allocated to one of three different types of secondary schools, supposedly according to their aptitudes and ability. These were identified by the 11+ exam
- grammar schools
- secondary modern schools
- technical schools
What are grammar schools?
- offered an academic curriculum and access to non manual jobs and higher education. They were pupils with academic ability who passed the 11+. These pupils were mainly middle class
What are secondary modern schools?
- offered a non academic ‘pratical’ curriculum and access to manual work for pupils who failed the 11+. These pupils were mainly working class
What are technical schools?
- existed in a few areas only, so in practise was more of a bipartite than a tripartite system
What did the 1944 education act of the tripartite system reproduce
- rather than promoting meritocracy, the tripartite system and 11+ reproduced class inequality by channelling the two social classes into two different types of school that offered unequals opportunities. The system also reproduces gender inequality by requiring girls to gain higher marks than the boys in the 11+ to obtain a grammar school place
- the tripartite system also justified inequality through the ideology that that ability is inborn. It was thus argued that ability could be measured early on in life through the 11+. However, in reality children’s environment greatly affects their chances of success
The comprehensive school system - 1965
- the comprehensive school 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 replaces 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
Two theories of the role of comprehensives
- as Marxists and functionalists see the role of education very differently. Functionalists see it as fulfilling essential functions such as social integration and meritocratic selection for future work roles. In contrast, Marxist see education as serving the interest’s of capitalism by reproducing and legitimising class inequality
- functionalist argue that comprehensives promote social integration by bringing children of different social classes together in one school. However, an early study by ford found little social mixing between w/c and m/c pupils, largely because of streaming
- functionalists also see the comprehensive system as more meritocratic because it gives pupils a longer period in which to develop and show their abilities, unlike the tripartite system,which sought to select the most able pupils at the age of 11
- however, Marxist argue that comprehensives are not meritocratic. Rather, they reproduce class inequality from one generation to the next through the continuation of the practice of streaming and labelling. These continue to deny w/c children equal opportunity
- yet by not selecting children at 11, comprehensives may appear to offer equal changes to all. This is the ‘myth of meritocracy’ justifies class inequality by making unequal achievement seem fair and just, because failure looks like it is the fault of the individual rather than the system
What is marketisation?
- 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. Marketisation has created an ‘education market’ by:
- reducing direct state control over education
- increasing both competition between schools and parental choice of school
- marketisation has become a central theme of government education policy since the 1988 education reforms act, introduced by the conservative government of Margaret thatcher.
1977 and marketisation
- from 1977, the new labour governments of toby Blair and Gordon brown followed similar policies of marketisation emphasising standards, diversity and choice. From 2010 the, the conservative Liberal Democrat coalition government took marketisation even further, e.g, by creating academies and free schools
Neo liberal and new right - marketisation
- neoliberals and the new right favour marketisation. They argue that marketisation means that schools have to attract customers (parents) by competing with each other in the market. Schools that provide customers with what they want - such as success in exams - will thrive, and those who don’t will ‘go out of business’
Parentocracy and marketisation
Policies to promote marketisation include:
- publication of league tables and ofsted reports that rank each school according to its school performance and give parents the information needed to choose the right school
- business sponsorship of schools
- open enrolment, allowing successful schools to recruit more pupils
- specialist schools, to widen parental choice
- formula funding, where schools receive the same amount of funding for each pupil
- schools being allowed to opt out of local authority control
- schools having to compete to attract pupils
- introduction if tuition fees for higher education
- allowing parents and others to set up free schools
David (1993) - parentocracy - marketisation
- David describes marketised education as ‘parentocray’ (‘rule by parents’). Supporters of marketisation argue that in an education market, power shifts away from the producers (teachers and schools) to consumers (parents). They claim that this encourages diversity among schools, gives parents more choice and raises standards
The reproduction of inequality - marketisation
- however, despite the claimed benefits of marketisation, its critics argue that it has increased inequalities. E.g, ball and whitty note how marketisation policies such as exam league tables and the funding formula reproduce class inequalities by creating inequalities between schools
League tables and cream skimming - marketisation
- the policy of publishing each schools 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. As 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
- slit shifting - ‘good’ schools can avoid taking less able pupils who are likely to get poor results and damage the schools 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 m/c parents. The overall effect of league tables is that it produces unequal schools that reproduce social class inequalities
The funding formula - marketisation
- 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 parents
- on the other hand, unpopular schools loose income and find it difficult to match the teacher skills and facilities of their more successful rivals. Thus, popular schools with good results and m/c pupils thrive - unpopular schools fail to attract pupils and their funding is further reduced
- a study of international patterns of educational inequality by the institute for public policy research found that competition oriented education systems such as Britain’s produce more segregation between children of different social backgrounds.
Gewirtz: parental choice - marketisation
- not only do marketisation policies benefits the m/c by creating inequalities between schools. By increasing parental choice, marketisation also advantages m/c parents, whose economic and cultural capital puts them in a better position to choose ‘good’ schools for their children.
- this is shown in gewirtz study of 14 London secondary schools. Gewitrz found that differences in parents economic and cultural capital lead to class differences in how far that can exercise choice of secondary school.
- she identifies three main types of parents, who she calls privileged skilled choosers, disconnected local choosers and semi skilled choosers
What are privileged skilled choosers - marketisation
- these were mainly professional m/c parents who used their economic and cultural capital to gain educational capital for their children. Being prosperous, confident and well educated, they were able to take full advantage of the choice open to them
- these parents possessed cultural capital. They knew how school admissions systems work, e.g, the importance of putting particular schools at first choice. They had time to visit schools and the skills to research the options available
- the economic capital also meant they could afford to move their children around the education system to get the best deal out of it, e.g, by paying extra travel cost so that their children could attend ‘better’ schools out of the area.
What are disconnect local choosers? - marketisation
- these were working class parents whose choices were restricted by their lack of economic and cultural capital
- they found it difficult to understand school admissions procedures. They were less confident in their dealings with schools, less aware of the choices open to them, and less able to manipulate the system to their own advantage. Many of them attached more importance to safety and the quality of school facilities than to league tables or long term ambitions
- distance and cost of travel were major restrictions on their choice of school. Their funds were limited and a place at the nearest school was often their only realistic option for their children
What are semi skilled choosers? - marketisation
- these parents were also mainly working class, but unlike the disconnected local choosers, they were ambitious for their children. However, they too lacked cultural capital and found it difficult to make sense of the education market, often having to rely on other people opinions about schools. They were often frustrated at their inability to get their children into the schools they wanted
- although, in theory the education market gives everyone a greater choice, gewirtz concludes that in practise m/c parents possess cultural capital and economic capital and have more choice than working class parents
They myth of parentocracy - marketisation
- not only does marketisation reproduce inequality, it also legitimises 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 seems as if it is based on parents having a free choice of school. However, ball argues that parnetocracy is a myth. It makes it appear that all parents have the same freedom to choose which school to send their children to
- in reality, as gewirtz shows, m/c parents are better able to take advantage of the choices available. E.g, as leech and campos show, they can afford to move to the catchment area of a school
- by disguising the fact that schooling continues to reproduce class inequality in this way, the myth of parentocracy makes inequality in education appear fair and inevitable
New labour and inequality - marketisation
while marketisation polices have tended to increase inequality, the new labour governments of 1997 to 2010 also introduced a number of policies aimed at reducing it. These include:
- designating some deprived areas as education action zones and providing them with additional resources
- the aim higher programme to raise the aspirations of groups that are under represented in education
- education maintenance allowances
- introduction of the national literacy strategy, literacy and number act hours and reducing primary school class size. Claimed these policy are of a greater benefit to disadvantaged groups
- city academies were created to give a fresh start to struggling inner city schools
- increased funding for the state education
Criticisms of new labour and inequality - marketisation
- critics such as benn see a contradiction between labours policies to tackle inequality and its commitment to marketisation - something she calls the ‘new labour paradox’
- e.g, despite introducing EMAs to encourager poorer students to stay in education, labour also introduced tuition fees for higher education that may deter them from going to uni
- the new labour governments neither abolished free paying private schools nor removed their charitable status
Conservative government policies from 2010
- the conservative led coalition government (2010-2015) and the conservative government from 2015 accelerated the move away from an education system based largely on comprehensive schools from an education system based on largely on comprehensive schools run by local authorities. Its policies have been strongly influence by neoliberal and new right ideas about reducing the role of the state in the provision of eduction through marketisation and privatisation
- David Cameron (prime minister 2010-15) states that the aim of the coalitions eduction policy was to encourage ‘excellence, completion and innovation’, by freeing schools from the ‘dead hand of the state’, through policies such as academies and free schools. Furthermore, cuts were made to the education budget, as part of the governments general policy of reducing state spending