Educational Policy

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 

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 

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 - 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 - comprehensives not meritocrtic - reproduce inequality throuh continuation of streaming and labelling which deny working class children equal opportunity - myth of meritocracy by not selecting at 11 legitimates class inequality making unequal achievement look fair and just - failure looks to be fault of individual not system 

Marketisation - process of introducing market forces of choice and competition into state run areas this created education market by

• reducing direct state control over education 
• increasing competition between schools and parental choice 

Marketisation become central theme of government policy since

• 1999 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 to promote marketisation include: 

• publication of league tables & ofsted report that rank schools on performance giving parents information to chose right school
• business sponsorship of schools 
• open enrolement - successful schools recruit more pupils 
• specialist schools give wider parental choice
• formula funding - schools recieve same amount of funding for each pupil 
• schools can opt out of local authority control e.g. to become accademies 
• schools have to compete to attract people
• intro of tuition fees 
• Parents and others able to set up free schools

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 

Critics argue marketisation increases inequality 

Ball and Whitty - marketisation policies e.g. league tables. and funding formula reproduce class inequality by creating inequalities between schools. 

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 pupilswho 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. Thereore league tables produce unequal schools that reproduce social class inequalities

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 

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 

• 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 

• 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 

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 

Marketisaion policies tended to increase inequality New Labour government 1997-2010 introduced policies to reduce it including: 

• Designating some deprived areas as Education Action Zones and providing them with extra resources 
• Aim higher programme to raise aspirations of groups under represented in higher education
• Education Maintenance Allowence - payments to students from low income backgrouds to encourage them to stay in education after 16 and gain better qualifications 
• Introduction of National Literacy strategy - literacy and numeracy hours, and reducing primary school class sizes - these policies are of greated benefit to disadvantaged groups so reduce inequality 
• City academies created giving fresh start to struggling inner city schools with mainly working class pupils 
• increasing funding of state education 

Benn - contradiction between Labours policies to tackle inequality and its commitment to marketisation - she calls this 'New Labour Paradox' e.g. despite introducing EMAs to encourage poorer studeents to stay on in education they also introduced tuition fees for higher education that may deter people from going to university 

New Labour government also neither abolished fee-paying private schools or emoved their charitable status - estimated to be worth over £165 million a year

Conservative- Lib Dem coalition government from 2010 moved away from education system based on comprehensive schools run by local authorities 

Policies largely influenced by neoliberal/New Right ideas on reducing role of state in provision of education through marketisation and privitisation 

Cameron stated aim of coalitions educational policy was to encourage competition and innovation by freeng schools from state control through policies such as academies or free schools 

Cuts also made to education budget as part of governments general policy on reducing state spending 

2010 - all schools encouraged to leave local authority and become academies where funding taken from local authority budgets and given directly to the academy who also had control over their curriculum 

2012 - over half of all secondary schools converted to academy status - some academies run by private edicational business and funded by state. 

However where Labours original city academies targted disadvantaged groups the coalition removed focus on reproducing inequality by allowing any school to become an academy 

free schools funded directly by state but are set up and run by parents, teachers, faith organisations or businesses - supporters believe they improve educational standards by taking control from state gives parents power. Free schools may be set up if they are unhappy with state schools in their area 

However Allen - research from Sweden - 20% of schools free schools and they only benefit children from highly educated families. Free schools also sociallly divisive and lower standards - Swedens international educational ranking fallen sine their introduction - In England free schools take fewer disadvantaged pupils than nearby schools e.g. in 2011 only 6.4% of pupils at Bristols  free school eligible for free school meals copared with 22.5% puils in city as a whole 

Ball - argues promoting academies and free schools has led to both increased fragmentation and increased cantralisation of control over educational provision in England 

• Fragmentaion - comprehensive system being replaced by patchwork of diverse provision, much of it involving private providers leads to greater inequality in opportunity 
• Centralisation of control - central government alone has power to allow or require schools to become academies or allow free schools to be set up - these funded directly by central government. Their rapid growth has greatly reduced role of elected local authorities 

Coailitions marketisation policies said to increse inequality but also introduced policies aimed at reducing it. These included: 

• Free school meals - for all children in reception year 1 and 2 
• The pupil premium - money schools recieve for each pupil from a disadvantaged background 

Ofsted - in many cases Pupil Premium not spent on those it is suposed to helpp - only 1 in 10 head teachers said it sgnificantly changed how they supported disadvantaged backgrounds 

As part of austerity programme spending in many areas of education has been cut: spending on school buildings cut by 60%

Many Sure Start centres closed, Education Maintenance Allowance abolished and university tution fees trippled to £9000 a year - by cutting Sure Start and EMA reduces opportunities for working class pupils and increased tuition fees discourage them from going 

Privatisation involves transfer of public assets such as schools to private companies - there has been trend towards privatisation of important aspects of education as it becomes a source of profit for capitalists 

Private companies in education services industry involved ever increasing range of educational activities e.g. builing schools, providing supply teachers etc 

Large scale school building projects involve public-private partnerships - private sector companies provide capital to design/build - these contracts often lst 25 years in which time local council pays them monthly lease and management fee from public funds

Ball - companies expect to make up to 10x as much profit as they do on other contracts - local authorities often obliged to enter these agreements as only way to build new schools due to lack of funding 

Many senior officials in public sector now leave to work in private sector education businesses these companis then bid for contracts to provide services to local schools/authorities e.g. 2 companies set up in this way hold 4 of 5 local national contracts for school inspection services 

Pollok - flow of personel allows companies to buy insider knowlege to help win contracts and side-step local authority democracy 

Private companies in the education service industry are foreign owned e.g. Edexcel owned by US educational testing giant Pearson

Buckingham and Scanlon - UKs 4 leading educational software companies all owned by global multi nationals. 

Many contracts for UK educational services sold on by original ompany to others suh as banks and in globalised world these bought by overseas companies 

Some UK edu-businesses work overseas. Private companies often export UK education policy to other countries then provide services to deliver policies, as a result nation states becoming less important in policy making which is shifting to global level and is often privatised 

Private sector penetrating education indirectly e.g. through vending machines and the development of brand loyalty through displays of logos and sponsorships - process called 'cola-isation of schools'

Molnar - schools targeted by private companies because schools by nature carry good will and so confer legitimacy onto anything associated with them - so act as form of endorsement 

Benefits to schools and pupils of private sector involvement is limited  

• Ball - Cadburys sports equipment promotion scrapped after revealed pupils would have to eaat 5440 chocolate bars to qualify for set of volley ball posts 
• Beder - UK families spent £110,000 in Tesco in return for single computer in schools 

Privatisation key change impacting policy which is increasingly focused on moving educational services out of public sector controlled by nation state to be provided by private business instead so educatin turned into a commodity to make profits 

Privatisation means state lose role as education provider. 

Marxist - Hall - coalition government policies part of long march of neoliberal revolution e.g. academies example of handing public services to private capitalists - idea it drives up standards just myth used to justify privatisation of education for profit 

Neoliberal and New Right approaches share functionalist view educaation must be meritocratic and promote social intergration. However they argue states involvement leads to bureacratic self interest and low standards, so to prevent this education must be matrketised as competition make schools more responsive and raise standards. 2 types of marketisation: 

• Internal market within state education system - established by 1988 Education Reform Act directed state schools to act more like private businesses e.g. competing for pupils but local authority and state still had major controls 
• privatisation of state education - in privatised system state ceases to be provider of education services so private companies deliver education and state reduced to 2 roles:

this form of marketisation began in 1980s in limited way but trend accelerated as more areas of education system open up to private business 

19th Centure females largely excluded from higher education, under tripartite system girls had to achieve better mark than botys in 11+ to obtain grammar school place. Some policies include:

Policies to improve girls achievement:  

• removal of 11+ 
• introduction of coursework
• GIST/WISE - reduce inequality in subject choice 

Policies to imporove boys achievement: 

• Raising Boys Achievement project involves range of teaching strategies e.g. single sex teachig 
• National Literacy Strategy includes focus on improving boys' reading 
• Reading Champions Scheme uses male role models celebrating their own reading interests 
• Playing for success uses football and other sport to boost learning skills and motivation amongst boys 
• Dads ans Sons campaign encourages fathers to be more involved in sons education 

Policies aimed to raise achievements of ethnic minorities gone through phases: 

• Assimilation - policies in 1960s-1970s focus on need for these pupils to assimilate into mainstream British culture especially by helping those where English not first language
• e.g. compensatory education - policy to tackle cultural deprivation and those who suffer in education due to bakgrounds.
• However critics argue minority groups at risk of under achievement already speak English main problem is poverty and racism

These policies through 1980s and into 1990s aimed to promote achievement of ethnic minority children by valuing all cultures in school curriculum to raise minority pupils self esteem and achievements 

MCE criticised on several grounds: 

• Stone - black pupils dont fail for lack of self esteem so MCE missguided 
• Critical race theorists argue MCE tokenism - pick out stereotypical features of minority cultures to include in curriculum but fails to tackle institutional racism 
• New Right criticise MCE for perpetuating cultural divisions they take view education should promote shared national culture and identities in which minority groups should be assimilated 

Social inclusion of pupils from ethnic minority groups and policies to raise achievement became focus in 1990s policies include: 

• Detailed monitoring of exam results by ethnicity 
• Ammending Race Relations Act to place legal duty on schools to promote racial equality 
• English as an Additional Language programmes 

However - Mirza - little genuine change in policy instead of tackling structural causes of ethnic inequality e.g. poverty and racism educational policy takes soft approach focusing on. culture and behavoiur 

Gilborn - institutionally racist policies in relation to ethnocentric curriculum, assessment and streamingdisadvantage ethnic minority groups