Educational Policy & inequality

Question 1

1944 Education Act

Answer 1

-Brought in tripartite system, 11+ exams selected pupils for Grammar, Secondary modern or Technical schools.
-But does opposite, reproduced class and gender inequalities (channelling two types of schools, girls had to score higher to get in, very young- env greatly affected results)

Question 2

1965 onwards

Answer 2

(comprehensive school system)
-Aimed to overcome the class divide, to be more meritocratic. Abolished 11+ exams & grammar/secondary moderns.
-But it was left to local edu authority to decide- means class divide stayed

Question 3

Marxist theory of role of comprehensives

Answer 3

-See edu as serving interests of capitalism- reproduces class inequality
-Argue comprehensives aren’t meritocratic, they reproduce inequality though continuation of streaming&labelling. Denies wc opportunities
-By not selecting at 11, failure looks like individuals fault not system (myth)

Question 4

Functionalist view of comprehensives

Answer 4

-See edu as fulfilling essential functions eg social integration, meritocratic selection for further work roles.
-Argue they promote social integration-brings diff classes together (But Study found little social mixing between wc and mc due to streaming)
-More meritocratic-gives more time to show ability unlike 11+

Question 5

1988 Educational reform act

Answer 5

-Marketisation since became a central theme of Gov edu policy
-NR & NL favour marketisation- schls have to attract consumers (parents)
-2010… Cons-liberal democrat coalition gov took it further (free schl, academies)

Question 6

Policies to promote marketisation

Answer 6

-Publication of LT & OFSTED inspections
-Specialist schls, eg IT, languages ect - gives parents more choice
-Open enrolment, successful schls can recruit more pupils
-Formula funding, same funding for each pupil
-Competing to attract pupils
-Tuition fees for high edu

Question 7

David

Answer 7

-Describes marketised edu as a ‘parentocracy’ (rules by parents)
-Supporters say it power shifts from producers to consumers. Encourages diversity, more choice, higher standards

Question 8

Ball & Whitty

Answer 8

Critiques marketisation, argues policies such as league tables, funding formula reproduce class inequality between schools.
(Ball: myth of parentocracy, appears all have equal choices)

Question 9

What does publishing LT/exam results encourage?

Answer 9

Publishing exam results/LT encourages
-Cream-skimming:’good schls can be selective, recruit high achieving, mainly mc pupils (gives an advantage)
-Silt-Shifting:’Good’ schls can avoid taking less able pupils who are likely to get poorer results and damage schl LT position
(poor LT schls don’t have this, so reproduces social class inequalities)-Bartett

Question 10

study on 3 types of parents…

Answer 10

-Found differences in parents economic & cultural capital lead to class differences in choices for schls. 3 types of parent…
-Privileged-skilled choosers: mc, edu capital, full advantage of choices
-Disconnected-local choosers: wc, choices restricted, cost/distance key
-Semi-skilled choosers: mainly wc but more ambitious, get frustrated

Concluded: mc possess cultural and economic capital & more choice

Question 11

New Labour Gov new policies (1997-2010)

Answer 11

-Aimed to reduce inequality, eg
-Education action zones- deprived areas to provide resources
-Edu Maintenance allowance- payments to wc to encourage higher edu
-Increased funding for state education

Question 12

What is a new labour paradox

Answer 12

Contradiction between Labours policies to tackle inequality & its commitment to marketisation- ‘New Labour Paradox’
-Eg introducing EMAs to encourage poor but introducing uni fees, and didn’t abolish fee-paying private schools.-Benn

Question 13

2010 Conservative-Liberal democrat coalition gov

Answer 13

-aimed to encourage ‘excellence, competition & innovation’ by freeing schools from the state through policies eg academies, free schools, cuts of state budget(reduce dependence)

Question 14

Academies-2010

Answer 14

-All schls encouraged to leave local authority control/ become academies
-Funding taken from LA budgets & given to academies + control over curriculum
By 2012: over 1/2 converted, reduced inequality

Question 15

Free schools

Answer 15

-Funded by state, run by parents, teachers, business ect- more control
❌In sweden (20% are free schls), only benefits highly educated families, socially divisive as have lower standards
❌Take fewer wc kids- 6.4% Bristol free schl eligible for FSM, but 22.5% across the city.

Question 16

Ball (result of promoting academies & FS)

Answer 16

-Fragmentation, comprehensive systems being replaced by a patchwork of diverse provisions. Leads to greater inequality
-Centralisation of control, Central gov has the power to allow or require schls to be academies/FS-funded by gov. Rapid Growths led to reduced role of elected local authorities in edu.

Question 17

C-L D coalitions marketisation policies to reduce inequality…

Answer 17

-FSM: children in reception, year 1 & 2
-Pupil premium: money given to schls for each pupil from disadvantage

Question 18

Ofsted (critique pupil premium)

Answer 18

-Found it’s often not spend correctly, 1in10 head T say it’s significantly changed how they support disadvantaged pupils.
-And reduced funding for edu, increased uni fees increase inequality

Question 19

What is privitisation

Answer 19

Transfer of public assets such as schls to private companies. Been a trend recently, education becomes a source of profit for capitalists.

Question 20

Ball (ESI)

Answer 20

‘education service industry’ (ESI), often help fund/ run local edu authority
-Many very of their activity are very profitable, up to 10x (eg PPPs- private sector design, build, finance schools to local council for often a 25yr lease)

Question 21

Globalisation of edu policy

Answer 21

-Many private companies are foreign owned. eg Edexcel owned in US
-Some UK edu-firms work oversea eg Prospect in china
-As a result nation-states are becoming less important in policy making, which shifts to a global level and is also often privatised

Question 22

Cola-isation of schools

Answer 22

-Private sector indirectly penetrating edu eg vending machines, sponsors
-schls are products of endorsement so targeted by priv companies
❌Benefits limited, eg Ball: Cadbury promotion scrapped, required pupils to eat 5,440 choc bars to qualify for a set of volleyball posts.

Question 23

Ball (edu as a commodity)

Answer 23

-Fundamental changes have occurred, as a result, edus becoming a ‘legitimate object of private profit-making’. IE a commodity
-As a result, edus subject to business practices, financial logics, assets.

Question 24

Hall (commodity)

Answer 24

-Marxists, see Coalition Gov policies as part of the ‘neoliberal revolution’
-He sees academies as handing public services to private capitalists.
-See the neoliberal claim P & comp drive standards a ‘myth’ to turn edu into a source of private profit.

Question 25

2 types of marketisation

Answer 25

-Internal marketisation: 1988 Edu Reform act.
-Privatisation of state edu: 1980s, commissions edu services eg contracts/ bidding & Acts as a regulator, sets targets and monitor performance.

Question 26

Policies on gender

Answer 26

-In 19th century, F largely excluded form high edu.
-More recently, in tripartite system, F had to get a higher grade in 11+ to qualify for grammar schools
-Since 1970s, policies aim to reduce gender differences (GIST, WISE)

Question 27

Policies on ethnicity, assimilation

Answer 27

Assimilation, 1960-70s policies aimed to assimilate ethnic minorities into British culture to raise achievement. esp when english not first lang
BUT critiques say it’s racism & poverty is real reason as BC pupils who already speak english still underachieve.

Question 28

Policies on education, Multicultural education

Answer 28

MCE policies 1980-90s, aimed to promote achievement of minorities by valuing all cultures in curriculum- raise self esteem
❌Critical race theorist, MCE is tokenism- picks out stereotypical features of cultures for including but fails to tackle institutional racism
❌NR: criticises MCE for increasing cultural divisions, they believe edu should promote a shared national culture to assimilate into.

Question 29

Policies on education, Social Inclusion

Answer 29

-Late 1990s, eg Deatiled monitoring of ethnic exam results, English as an additional language programme, Chnage Race Relations Act- legal duty to promote racial equality.
❌Mirza: little genuine change in policy. Instead of tackling the structural causes eg poverty& racism, it’s a ‘soft’ approach-culture, behaviour, home
❌Gillborn: institutionally racist policies related to ethno curriculum, assessment and streaming continue to disadvantage minorities.