Social Policy (education) Flashcards
Educational Policy: Educational policy in Britain
18th and early 19th centuries - no state schools - education only available for minority
Pre 1833 - state spent no public money on education
Industrialisation increased need for educated workforce - from late 19th century state became involved in education
1880 - schooling compulsory from 5 - 13 - education recieved depended on class background middle class pupils given academic curriculum but working class given skills for routine factory work
Selection: the tripartite system
1944 - education influenced by meritocracy - individuals achieve status through ability
1944 - Education Act - brought tripartite system - children selected and allocated to one of three types of secondary school according to ability
- grammar schools - academic curriculum access to non manual jobs and higher education - for those who passed 11+ - largely middle class
- Secondary Modern schools - non academic practical curriculum - access to manual work - mainly working class who failed 11+
- technical schools- reproduced inequality - channeled 2 different classes to 2 different schools that offer unequal opportunities - reproduced gender inequality as girls had to get higher in 11+ to get into grammar schools
Legitimated inequality through ideology that inequality is inborn - but childrens environment largely affects life chances
The Comprehensive school system
1965 onwards - comprehensive system introduced - aimed to overcome class divide of tripartite system and make education meritocratic
11+ abolished and grammar schools/secondary moderns replaced by comprehensive schools all pupils in an area can attend
left to local authority to decide if they want to go comprehensive - not all did so grammar - secondary modern divide still existed in many areas
Functionalist view on role of comprehensives
comprehensives promote social integration by bringing children of different classes together - however Ford - little social mixing between classes due to streaming. Also see comprehensive system as more meritocratic - gives pupils longer to develop and show ability unlike tripartite system that selects at 11
Marxist view on role of comprehensives
comprehensives not meritocrtic - reproduce inequality through continuation of streaming and labelling which deny working class children equal opportunity - myth of meritocracy by not selecting at 11 legitimises class inequality making unequal achievement look fair and just - failure looks to be fault of individual not system
Marketisation
Marketisation - process of introducing market forces of choice and competition into state run areas to create education market by
- reducing direct state control over education
- increasing competition between schools and parental choice
Marketisation become central theme of government policy since:
- 1988 Education Reform Act by Thatcher and conservatives.
- From 1997 New Labour government followed similar policies emphasising standard diversity and choice.
- From 2010 - conservative - Lib Dem coalition took marketisation further e.g. created academies and free schools
New Right favour marketisation - it means schools attract customers by competing so schools need to do better to survive therefore driving up education standards
Policies promoting marketisation
Policies to promote marketisation include:
- league tables & ofsted report
- open enrolement - successful schools recruit more pupils
- specialist schools give wider parental choice
- formula funding - schools recieve same amount of funding for each pupil
- academies
- schools have to compete to attract people
- intro of tuition fees
- Parents and others able to set up free schools
Parentocracy
David - marketised education system is a parentocracy (rule by parents) supporters of marketisation argue that in a education market power not with producers e.g. teachers and schools but is with consumer (parents)
This encourages diversity giving parents more choice and pushes up standards
Reproduction of inequality- marketisation
Critics argue marketisation increases inequality
Ball and Whitty - marketisation policies e.g. league tables. and funding formula reproduce class inequality by creating financial inequalities between schools.
Cream skimming & Silt-shifting
Policy of publishing schools exam results as league tables ensures good schools with better results are more in demand as parents attracted to those with good rankings
Barnett: this encourages:
- Cream skimming - good schools can be more selective, choose their own customers and recruit high achieving mainly middle cass pupils - these students then get an advantage
- Silt-shifting - good schools can avoid taking less able pupils who are likely to get poor results and damage schools league table position
Schools with poor league table positions cannot be selective and have to take less able working class pupils so results poorer and remain unattractive to middle class parents. Therefore league tables produce unequal schools that reproduce social class inequalities
Formula funding
schools allocated funds by formula based on how many pupils they attract so popular schools get more funds so can afford better quallified teachersand better facilities so popularity allows them to be more selective and attract more able mainly middle class pupils
Unpopular schools lose income and find it difficult to match teacher skills and facilities of successful rivals so popular schools with middle class pupils thrive, unpopular schoold fail to attract pupils and their funding is further reduced
Study - patterns of educational inequality by Institute for Public Policy Research - competition oriented education systems such as Britains produce more segregation between children of different social backgrounds
Gewirtz Parental Choice: Privelleged skilled choosers
Marketisation also gives advantage to middle class parents whos cultural capital puts them in a better position to choose good schools for their children
Gewirtz - 14 london secondary schools - found differences in parents economic and cultural capital lead to class differences in how far they exercise choice of school - she identifies three main types of parents.
-Privelleged skilled chosers - mainly proffesional middle class parents who used economic and cultural capital to gain educational capital for their children. they had cultural capital to understand schools admssions process and economic capital to move children around education system to get the best deal from it e.g. paying extra travel costs so children can attend better schools out of the area
Gewirtz Parental Choice: Disconnected-local choosers
-Disconnected-local choosers - working class parents whose choices were restricted by lack of economic and cultural capital. They found it hard to understand schools admission process, were less aware of choices and were less able to manipulate education system to work for their advantage - many attached importance to safety and quality of school facilities tha to league tables and long term ambitions. distance and cost of travel also restriction on choice of school - funds were limited and a place at nearest school often most realistic option
Gewirtz Parental Choice: Semi-skilled choosers
-Semi-skilled choosers - parents also mainly working class but were ambitious for children however lacked cultural capital and found it difficult to make sense of education market - rely on others opinions and were frustrated by inability to get children into schools they wanted
In practice education market doesn’t give more choice to everyone it gives greater choice to middle class parents who posses the cultural and economic capital needed
Myth of Parentocracy (Ball)
Marketisation reproduces and legitimates inequality by concealing its true causes and justifying its existence
Ball - marketisation gives appearence of parentocracy - education system seems as if it is based on parents having free choice however Ball argues parentocracy is a myth - it makes it appear that all parents have same freedom to choose schools
However middle class parents better able to take advantage of choices e.g. Leech and Campos show they can afford to move into catchement areas of more desirable schools
By disguising fact schooling reproduces class inequality the myth of parentocracy makes inequality in education apper fair and inevitable