Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Educational policies in the UK - Coggle Diagram
Educational policies in the UK
Forster Act (1870)
State introduced elementary education for those aged between 5-10
curriculum offered reading, writing, arithmetic and religion
Industrialisation increased the need for an educated workforce
Butler Act (1940)
Introduced free educated for those between 5-15 years
Aimed to provide equality of educational opportunity for all children
Introduced the Tripartite system whereby all students must sit a test (11+) and then allocated to one of 3 school types
Grammar schools:
for students for passed the 11+, received an academic education, taught by m/c teachers, students came from m/c backgrounds
Secondary modern:
for students who failed 11+, considered non-academic and received a practical education, tended to be w/c
Technical schools:
students who were a mixture of m/c or w/c who were interested in a hands-on education (engineering etc), not very popular as not funded by the state
Aimed to promote meritocracy but had a in-built m/c bias and girls had to gain a higher grade to be considered and pass - therefore reinforcing class and gender inequality
Comprehensive school system (1965)
Aimed to overcome the class divide of the tripartite system and make education for meritocratic
Abolished the Tripartite system, grammar schools and secondary modern
Replace with comprehensive schools who were for all students
Created Local Education Authorities (LEAs)
in every borough who oversaw the decision to go comprehensive - some didn't that's why the grammar - secondary modern divide still exists today
Functionalism
would argue that mixing children of different social classes improves social solidarity. Comprehensive schools are more meritocratic as it gives students time to show their abilities rather than just testing at 11
Ford (1969)
argued that this didn't occur as much due to banding and streaming
Marxists
argue that the system does not challenge labelling and streaming and denies w/c equal opportunities and reaffirms the myth of meritocracy
The Education Reform Act (1988)
Sought to introduce a market into the education system
Wanted more consumer choice and competition between schools - aim to reduce direct state control
Parentocracy
League tables and Ofsted Reports to find out the performance of schools - introduction of business into schools, - open enrolment allowing successful schools to recruit more pupils, specialist schools, formula funding, schools competing to attract students
NL/NR
favour marketisation policies argue that successful schools will thrive
Funding formula means that some students will become attractive to schools than others as they are likely to achieve higher grades
Ball (1994) and Whitty (1998)
argue that marketisation reinforces existing inequalities
Cream skimming and silt shifting
Will Bartlett (1993) noted that parents are attracted to schools with good league tables that it encourages schools to engage in 2 types of behaviour
Results in reproduction of class inequality
Funding formula
schools are allocated funds by a formula based on how many students they attract
popular schools get more funds as a result they can recruit better teachers and have better facilities and resources
their popularity allows them to be selective, attracting more able and ambitious students
unpopular schools lose funding, lose best teachers, facilities fall into disrepair and they fail to attract students = funding further limited
Institute for Public Policy Research (2012)
found that competition based education systems produced more segregation between children of different social backgrounds
New Labour (1997 - 2010)
Many argued that parentocracy was a myth as only m/c parents were able to take advantage of the system
Ball
parentocracy simply disguised class inequality
Education Action Zones -provided extra funding
Aim higher programmes to encourage underrepresented groups to aim for higher education
Education Maintenance Allowance
Reduction of class sizes
City Academies
Increased funding for education
Criticisms
Benn argued that there was a contradiction between continued commitment to marketisation and tackling inequality - the introduction of EMAs helped students to stay in education, and then the introduction of university tuition fees detered w/c students
NL also failed to abolish fee paying private schools / remove their charitable status
Coalition government (2010 -15)
Encourage to leave LEAs and convert to academies and receive funds directly from the DoE - about freeing up schools and not tackling inequality
Introduced free schools (funded by the state - run by parents, charities / businesses and faith groups
To take control away from the state and give it to parents
Criticisms
Allen found that educational standards fell and international rankings were lost in free schools - any success was the product of using socially divisive pupil selection and exclusion policies (Cream skimming and silt shifting)
Evidence suggests that free schools take fewer disadvantage pupils
The governments austerity programme meant that they ended EMA, tripled university fees to 9000, closed Sure Start and cut the Building Schools for the Future Programme
Policies aimed at reducing inequalities
free school meals, pupil premium (extra money for students from disadvantaged backgrounds