SOCIAL POLICES IN ED MARKETISATION Flashcards
1944 educational act
provide free secondary ed for all created tripartite system (complusary)
tripartite system
aim
award children based on ability, help breakdown class barriers,bring wc children to place grammar schools
grammar schools:
20% children, selected through 11+, olevels/alevels - prep uni/professional roles
secondary schools:
5% children, art creative subjects prep
secondary modern schools
75% childnre, limited qualifications, prep semi/low skilled jobs
criticism tripartite system
11+ dint measure ability but cultural capital- test reflected mc view on world. 11 is too young as some children flourish academically later, fewer places provided for girls- had to score higher
system socially divisive grammar mc , secondary wc
mid 1960 expansive of comprehensive ed
- fulfils essential functions such as social interrogation and metrocratic selection for future rols
2.serves intrest capitalism - reproduces class inequality-failure Balme indiviudal+gen to gen streaming
- promotes social intergration
criticism comprehensive ed
concertavives argue lowered standard - undermined excellent academic ed offers in grammar skl.
poor disiplin
marketisation
process of introduces market forces or consumer choice and competitions between suppliers into areas ran by state (choice)
ed marker created by
- reducing direct control over ed
2.inc competition between schools/ parent choice of schools
ed reform act 1988
key features
national circ, național testing(7,11,14), oftead, open enrolment, formula funding, opting out
parentocracy - ed ruled by parents
publication oftead/leauge tables
business sponsorship of skl
open enrolment-more successful recruit more- compete
formula funding, specialist schools, introduction of tuition fees for higher ed
successful marketisation
parents have more choice over rchildrens ed
league tables, cream skimming(selective choosing of consumers - mainly mc as cost less to teach)
slit shifting- avoid less able students
funding formula
allocated funds based on how many pupils attarct- more funds-more recourses-better facilities = always stay on top
gerwitz: 2 types of parents
pirvilleged skilled choosers
mc parents use ecominic/cultural capital to gain ed capital for children,
know how school admissions work, live in attachment area/know how to access league tables/important, travel able , confidence (speak to teachers)
gerwitz: 2 types of parents
disconnected local choosers
wc prents(lack ecominc/culutral capital) distance/cost of travel major restriction, nearest school realistic, limited funds, less aware of choices open to them(wider schools)
myth of parentocracy
marketisation hide inequality by concealing true cause/jusitifing existence (is their choice)not the case of parents having freedom of choice for child, mc house attenchemnt area(take advantage of choices)
inequality seem fair
new labour 1997-2010
key features
ed actions zone, aim higher programmes, city academies m in. funding for state ed, literacyt and numeracy hours
Melissa ben 2012- ‘new labour paradox’
contraction between labour prices to tackle inequality = still bottom kids. imposing ed not work
Cameron/cleg
2010/15 formally joined gov parities
academies - schools encouraged to leave authority control, funding directly from local authority budgets, gov has power to allocate funding (centralisation of control)
free schools - set up by parents/teachers/faith organisation
policy reduce inequality: free schools meal/pupil premium
focus on free schools
disadvantagepupils free schools some gained higher results. however takes fewer disadvantage children(not bring down ELT)in areas of those already food schools - drop out. higher funding 7,700 pp use- 4767, attracts mc as low proportion of fem
