Educational policy and inequality Flashcards
Explain tripartite system
Influeced by idea of meritocrace Created by 1944 education act created it GRAMMAR - achademic curricul - non mannual - pass 11 plus - mainly middpe class pupils SECONDARY MODERN - non achafemic - "practical" - pupils mainlu wc PRACTICAL SCHOOLS - only in a few areas IN PRACTICE MAINLY BIPARTITE
Comprehensive system
Introduced in many areas from 1964
Aimed to overcome class divide produced by tripartite system
All children go to comps
Some didn’t change and grammar still exists
Functionalists on comprehensive system
Believe it promotes social integration
It’s meritocratic
Gives people longer to prove their abilities
Marxists on education system
Unmeritocratic
Reproduces inequality streaming labelling etc
what is marketisation
introducing market forces and consumer choice and competitoin between suppliers into areas ru by the state
‘educational market’
Education Reform Act - Con gvt of Thatcher
Blair and Brown followed similar policies
Con-Lib took even further by creating achademies and free schools
Marketisation - parentocracy
Public league tables Ofsted reports Exam published Business sponsorship Open enrolment Specialist schools Formula funding Can become achafemies Compete to attract pupils
League tables and cream-skimming
CREAM SKIMMING
good schools can become more selective
Thus recruit high achieving mc pupils they then have an advantage
Silt shifting
Can avoid taking less able pupils
whats the funding formula
schools allocated funds based on how any pupils they attract – better qualified teachers and money to popular schools
unpopular schools lose income
Gewitz and parental choice
PRIVELIDGED SKILLED CHOOSERS
Mc
Used cultural an economic capital to gain educational capital for their children
DISCONECTED LOCAL CHOOSERS
Wc
Found hard to understand system
the myth of parentocracy
ball believes it also legitimises inequality
gives apperance of parentocracy
myt - not al parents have same freedom to choose e.g. Gewitz
how did nl try and reduce inequality
Education Action Zones – areas deprived get aditional resources
Aim Higher Programme - target those underrep in the ed system
EMA
City Academys
who criticises this
Melissa Benn contradictionn between lab policies to tackel inequality and its committment to marketisation ‘new labour paradox’
e.g. EMA but then tuition fees
never removed private school charitable status
coalition polices
academies - all schools encouraged to leave local authority and become academies
by 2012 over half had
they reduced focus on inequality that nl had - any school to do it not just failing schools
free schools - contriversial
Allen found that they mainly only benefit children from highly ed families
criticisms
fragmented centralisation
Ball
fragmentation - comp system being replaced with patchwork of diverse provisions
centralisation of control - reduced role of local gvt
coalition and inequality
Free School Meals - reception year one and 2
Pupil Premium - more money for each pupil from disadvantaged background however ofsted found that 1 in 10 heads said it helped
what is the privatisation of education
involves the transfer of public assets such as schools to private companies
private companies are involved in an ever increasing range of activities in ed
e.g. school building project often involve public-private partnerships
ball says these companies make 10x more profit
explain blurring of public/private boundary
many senior officials in the public sector such as directors of local authorities and head teachers now leave to se tup or work for education businesses
these companiies then bid for contracts to provide services to schools and local authorities
Pollack notes this flow of personnell allows companies to buy ‘insider knowledge’ to help win contracts
explain privatisation and the globalisation of education policy
many private companies in the education services industry are foreign owned
e.g. edexel
and pearson
Ball says some GCSE peason answers are now marked in sidney and iowa
as a result nation states are becomig less important in policy making which is shifting to a global level which is also often privatised
explain the cola-isation of schoosl
the private secotor is penetrating education indirectly e.g. vending machines on school premises and brand loyaty through school sponsorships or logos
schools are apparently targeted because their nature carry huge good will
benefits to the school are limited however e.g. students would have to eat cadbury 5440 chocolate cadbury bar to qualify for a set of volleyball posts
explain education as a commodity
Ball concludes that the fundamental change that is taking place in which privatisation is becoming the key factor for shaping ed policy
policy is increasingly focused on moving ed services out of th epublic sector controlled by the nationstate
ed is being trned into a commodity to be bought and sold in an ed market
this means the state is losing its role as the provider of ed services
what policies have been aimed at gender
in 19thC girls were largely excluded from school
now things like GIST have been st
policies aimed at ethnicity
assimilation - 60s 70s focused on the need for pupils from minority groups to assimilate into mainstream br culture to raise their ahcievment
however criticws argue minority groupspeak engs already at risk from under achieving already and the real cause lies in poverty and racism
multiculture ecucation - through the 80s and into 90s aimed to promote the a hivements of chidlfrfen from minority eth grops by valuing all cultures int he school curriculem there by raising their esteem etc
however has been criticised - many say they didnt have a lack of self estaim
critical race theorists say its tokenism it picks out stereotypical features of minority cultures
social inclusion - pupils from minority eth groups and policies to raise tehir achivement became focus in 90s e.g.
detailed monitoring in their exam results
help for voluntary ‘saturday school’ in black community
english as aditional language classes
Mirza argues there is litte genuine change in ppollicy instead of tackling the structural causes e.g. poverty we still take th4e soft approach
