History of education policy Flashcards
Learn about history of education policy Sociology Education topic
Educational policy
Refers to plans, strategies, instructions, recommendations introduced by the government
Most educational policy is a response to : Equal opportunities Selection and choice Control of education Marketisation and privatisation
Some policies have contributed to maintain inequality
Some have sought to reduce it
Pre 1870s education in Britain
Pre 1870s most people in Britain were uneducated
They may have learnt basic literacy and numeracy from their parents and grandparents but very few people could write their own name
Because : No state schools prior to industrial revolution The state spent no money on education because they did not believe it was their role
Therefore only the rich could gain an education at fee-paying schools
Some churches and charities provided education for the poor but you had to be lucky enough to live near an institution like this
Forster Education Act 1870
Industrialisation increased the need for educated workforce
So : State introduced elementary education for 5-10 year olds in 1870 Attendance until age 10 made compulsory in 1880
The curriculum offered the ‘four Rs’ : Reading wRiting aRithmetic Religion
Butler Education Act 1940
Introduced free education for all 5-15 year olds
Aim : To provide equality of educational opportunity for all children - Same material Same skilled teachers
Introduced tripartite system : All students must sit test age 11 called 11+ Depending on the outcome of this test students would be sorted into 1 of 3 school types :
Grammar schools : For those who passed 11+ Academic curriculum Taught by university graduates who probably also attended grammar schools Pupils mainly M/c
Secondary modern schools : For those who failed 11+ Non-academic ‘practical education’ Pupils mainly W/c
Technical schools/colleges : For those who either failed or passed 11+ But more interested in technical careers E.g. Engineering Existed in few areas
Some sociologists say tripartite system was actually bipartite system
System aim : To promote meritocracy (Those who get higher grade go to better schools) ACTUALLY 11+ had inbuilt M/c bias Girls had to gain higher grade to pass Reproducing class and gender inequality
The Comprehensive System 1965
New labour government so unhappy with 11+ tripartite system and the inherent elitism it caused
Policy aim : To overcome class divide of tripartite system and make education more meritocratic
To achieve aim : 11+ abolished No new grammar or secondary modern schools
Replaced with comprehensive schools for all children in an area
Local Education Authorities (LEAs) created in every borough to oversee all schools in that borough
LEAs had decision to ‘go comprehensive’ but not all did So grammar and secondary modern divide still exists in many areas
Views on roles of comprehensives
Functionalist view : Mixing of children in different social classes increases social solidarity
Ford 1969 found : There was actually little mixing due to setting and streaming of students according to ability - M/c students in top sets W/c students in bottom sets
Functionalists : Comprehensives more meritocratic Allow students more time to show abilities rather than selecting at age 11
Marxists : Comprehensive system does not challenge streaming and labelling Denies W/c students equal opportunities Reaffirming ‘myth of meritocracy’ which prevents W/c students from realising false class consciousness
Education Reform Act ERA 1988
Margaret Thatcher and conservative government sought to introduce a market to education system
This has been continued with Labour government (1997-2010) Coalition government (2010-2015) Conservative government (2015-2024) and now Labour government (2024 - )
They wanted more consumer choice and competition between schools
Aim : To reduce direct state control over education
The key policy at heart of marketisation is ‘parentocracy’ (rule by parents) including :
Publication of league tables and OFSTED reports (Parents can see how well schools are doing and decide if they want to send their children there)
Business sponsorship of schools (Businesses sponsor schools to generate publicity)
Open enrolment Allowing more successful schools to recruit more pupils (Before LEAs governed how many children could be enrolled into each school each year, but now if a school is successful they are able to recruit as many children as they want)
Creation of specialist schools (Subject specialist schools E.g. If a child is passionate about technology they may want to go to a technology specialist school)
Formula funding (Schools receive same amount of funding for each pupil Before it was based on the area of the school Now schools want more students to get more funding Students achieving higher grades get more funding for the school)
Schools compete to attract pupils
Neoliberal/ New Right favour marketisation : They say successful schools will thrive Failing schools will ‘go out of business’
Funding formula : Students achieving higher grades are more attractive to schools Ball 1994 and Whitty 1998 say marketisation reinforces existing inequalities
Will Bartlett 1993 say :
Because parents are attracted to schools with good league rankings Two types of behaviour are encouraged in schools
Cream skimming - Looking in the area and seeing who is Female M/c White (Becker ideal student) Skimming those people and getting them to apply for their school Leaving all others to apply for other schools
Silt shifting - Same premise ‘Looking for gold’ Leaving all others to apply for other schools
This results in reproduction of class inequality
Funding formula
Schools are allocated funds by a formula based on how many pupils they attract :
Popular schools get more funds They can recruit better teachers They can build better facilities Their popularity allows them to be selective and choose able and ambitious M/c applicants
Unpopular schools lose income Lose best teachers Facilities fall into disrepair Fail to attract pupils Funding is further reduced
= Two self-fulfilling prophecies
Institute for Public Policy Research 2012 found :
Competition-orientated education systems like Britain’s produce more segregation between children of different social backgrounds
New labour 1997-2010
By 1997 many people said parentocracy was a myth Only M/c parents could take advantage of the system
Stephen Ball say parentocracy disguised class inequality
New labour government Blair and Brown sought to introduce policies to reduce inequality :
Deprived areas designated ‘Education Action Zones’ Providing extra funding
Aim Higher programme to encourage underrepresented groups in education
Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) Money for poorer students to attend further education
Reduction of class sizes
Introduction of city academies A new fresh start for underperforming inner-city schools
Increased funding for education
Criticisms :
Melissa Benn 2012 say there was contradiction between continued commitment to marketisation and tackling inequality
E.g. New labour government introduced EMAs to help students stay in education But then implemented university tuition fees deterring many W/c students
New labour did not abolish fee-paying schools or remove charitable status
Coalition government 2010-2015
Education policies of conservative-lib dem coalition (Particularly policies of Michael Gove)
Produced ‘coalition agreement’ setting out vision for education
Aim : To promote excellence while freeing schools from ‘dead hand of the state’
2010 All schools encouraged to leave LEA control Convert to academies Receive funds directly from Department for Education Unlike new labour city academies the fact any school could do this removed focus on tackling inequality
Introduction of free schools Funded by state Run by parents, charities, businesses, faith groups Not LEA
Aim : To take control away from the state and give it to parents Especially if unhappy with provision in their area
Criticisms :
Rebecca Allen 2010 looked at free schools in Sweden and USA Found educational standards fell and international rankings were lost - Any success was product of using socially divisive pupil selection and exclusion policies
Evidence suggested from Department for Education 2012 - free schools take fewer disadvantaged pupils than other nearby schools
Coalition policies are believed to have increased inequality but they also introduced policies aimed at reducing it :
FSM Free School Meals for all children Reception, year 1, year 2
The Pupil Premium extra money for schools whose pupils are from disadvantaged backgrounds
Coalition ‘austerity’ programme :
Ended EMA
Tripled university tuition fees to £9000
Closed Sure Start centres
Cut Building Schools for the Future programme by 60%
