SOCIAL POLICES IN ED MARKETISATION

Question 1

1944 educational act

Answer 1

provide free secondary ed for all created tripartite system (complusary)

Question 2

tripartite system
aim

Answer 2

award children based on ability, help breakdown class barriers,bring wc children to place grammar schools

Question 3

grammar schools:

Answer 3

20% children, selected through 11+, olevels/alevels - prep uni/professional roles

Question 4

secondary schools:

Answer 4

5% children, art creative subjects prep

Question 5

secondary modern schools

Answer 5

75% childnre, limited qualifications, prep semi/low skilled jobs

Question 6

criticism tripartite system

Answer 6

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

Question 7

mid 1960 expansive of comprehensive ed

Answer 7

1. fulfils essential functions such as social interrogation and metrocratic selection for future rols
   2.serves intrest capitalism
2. reproduces class inequality-failure Balme indiviudal+gen to gen streaming
3. promotes social intergration

Question 8

criticism comprehensive ed

Answer 8

concertavives argue lowered standard - undermined excellent academic ed offers in grammar skl.
poor disiplin

Question 9

marketisation

Answer 9

process of introduces market forces or consumer choice and competitions between suppliers into areas ran by state (choice)

Question 10

ed marker created by

Answer 10

1. reducing direct control over ed
   2.inc competition between schools/ parent choice of schools

Question 11

ed reform act 1988
key features

Answer 11

national circ, național testing(7,11,14), oftead, open enrolment, formula funding, opting out

Question 12

parentocracy - ed ruled by parents

Answer 12

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

Question 13

successful marketisation
parents have more choice over rchildrens ed

Answer 13

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

Question 14

gerwitz: 2 types of parents
pirvilleged skilled choosers

Answer 14

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)

Question 15

gerwitz: 2 types of parents
disconnected local choosers

Answer 15

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)

Question 16

myth of parentocracy

Answer 16

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

Question 17

new labour 1997-2010
key features

Answer 17

ed actions zone, aim higher programmes, city academies m in. funding for state ed, literacyt and numeracy hours

Question 18

Melissa ben 2012- ‘new labour paradox’

Answer 18

contraction between labour prices to tackle inequality = still bottom kids. imposing ed not work

Question 19

Cameron/cleg
2010/15 formally joined gov parities

Answer 19

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

Question 20

focus on free schools

Answer 20

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