Social policy Flashcards
Educational policy in Britain before 1988
-Before the industrial rev there were no state schools
-Only a minority of people had access to education: fee-paying schools or churches + charities for the poor
-Before 1833 the state spent nothing on education
-There wasn’t really a need as the majority of people did manual labour
The industrial revolution
-It increased the need for an educated workforce + caused the state to become more involved in education from the late 19th century
-The type of education children received reflected their class background: M/C children were taught an academic curriculum to prepare them for professional careers; W/C children were taught basic maths + literacy skills needed for routine factory work + instil an obedient attitude.
In 1880, what did the state do?
-Made schooling compulsory from the ages 5-13
Selection: tripartite system
-Brought in by the 1944 Education Act.
-Education became influenced by meritocracy
-Children were to be selected + allocated to 3 types of secondary schools according to their aptitudes + abilities, done by the 11+ exam
-Grammar schools- offered an academic curriculum + access to non-manual jobs + higher education, usually M/C pupils
-Secondary modern schools- offered a non-academic ‘practical’ curriculum + access to manual work for those who failed the 11+, usually W/C pupils
-Technical schools- only existed in a few areas
Rather than promoting meritocracy what did the tripartite system reproduce?
-Class inequality, it segregated the 2 different classes into separate schools which offered unequal opportunities.
-Gender inequality- girls were required to score higher on the 11+ in order to obtain a place in a grammar school
Comprehensive school system
-Introduced in 1965
-Aimed to overcome the class divide of the tripartite system + make education more meritocratic
-11+, grammars + secondary moderns were abolished and replaced with comprehensive schools
-However, it was up to the local education authority to decide whether or not to go comprehensive + not all did
Functionalist view on comprehensive
-Argue it promotes social integration by bringing children from different social classes together
-See it as meritocratic as it gives pupils longer to develop + show their abilities
Marxist view on comprehensive schools
-Serves the interests of capitalism by reproducing + legitimating class inequality
-Not meritocratic as it reproduces class inequality by labelling + streaming
-Myth of meritocracy
Ford (1969)
-Found segregation between M/C + W/C, which contradicts the functionalist view
Marketisation
-Process of introducing market forces of consumer choice + competition between suppliers into areas run by the state like education
-Has become a central theme of govt education policy since the 1988 Education Reform Act introduced by Thatchers govt
New Right on marketisation
-raises standards in schools as they have to make themselves attractive to gain more parents to get their child to come to their school
-favour it
Parentocracy
-Rule by parents, giving them more power
Policies promoting marketisation
-League tables + ofsted inspection reports
-Open recruitment, allowing successful schools to recruit more pupils
-Specialists schools e.g art schools, IT etc to widen parents choice
-Schools being allowed to opt out of local authority control e.g becoming academies: they can adapt their own curriculum to meet students needs
-Introduction of tuition paying schools
-Funding formula- where the number of pupils=amount of funding the school receives
David (1993)
-describes marketisation of education as parentocracy
-Power shifts away from the producers (schools) to consumers (parents).
Reproduction of inequality
-Ball (1994) + Whitty (1998)- marketisation policies such as exam league tables and the funding formula reproduce class inequalities by creating inequalities between schools
League tables
-Publishing each schools exam results in a league table ensure that schools w good exam results= high in demand
Will Bartlett (1993)
-Cream-skimming- ‘Good’ schools can be more selective, choose their own customers + recruit high achieving, mainly M/C pupils, usually girls
-Silt-shifting- ‘Good’ schools can avoid taking less able students who are likely to get poor results + damage the schools league table position. This can only be done if you have a surplus of applications
Funding formula
-Schools are allocated funds by a formula based on how many pupils they attract
-Popular schools get more funds and can afford better qualified teachers and better facilities, can be more selective
-Unpopular schools lose income and find it difficult to match the teachers skills + facilities
Gerwitz: parental choice (1995)
-Study of 14 London secondary schools
-Found differences in parents economic + cultural capital lead to class differences lead to how far they can exercise choice of secondary school
-Identified 3 types of parents: privileged skilled choosers, disconnected local choosers + semi-skilled choosers.
Privileged skilled choosers
-M/C parents who care about their children’s education
-Used their cultural + economic capital to gain educational capital for their children
-Have cultural capital, know how the school system works
-Economic capital, have the ability to move into the catchment areas of good schools
Disconnected local choosers
-W/C parents who lack cultural + economic capital so their choices are limited
-Saw the safety + quality of school facilities as more important than league tables or long-term ambitions
-Funds=limited–> the nearest school being the only realistic option
Semi-skilled choosers
-W/C parents who still lacked cultural + economic capital but were ambitious
-Relied on others opinions on schools
Myth of parentocracy
-Ball argues parentocracy makes it seem like all parents have the same freedom to choose what school to send their child to
-It makes inequality in education appear fair + inevitable
-Blames the parents for the kids failures
New labour + inequality (Blair) 1997-2010
