policies

• tripartite system: 1944 education act

  -11+ determines the school pupils attend

  -girls performed better and were more likely to go to grammar schools

  -mainly middle class

  -did not improve social mobility
• multicultural education 1980s-1990s

  -promoted achievement of ethnic minority children

  -raised self-esteem of these pupils

  -could have increased their social mobility
• 1988 education reform act

  Introduced many different policies:

  -ofsted inspections

  -league tables

  -national curriculum

  -formula funding

  -parentocracy
• 1988 education reform act: ofsted inspections

  -aimed to increase the standards of schools, if school were thought to have bad standards they were shut.
• 1988 education reform act: league tables

  -parents can access information about the school and which one is the best. Can then make an informed decision.
• 1988 education reform act: national curriculum

  -all students are taught the same content - education is fair.
• 1988 education reform act: formula funding

  -this is funding based on how many people attend a school. Schools started to publicise themselves to get more people and more money.
• 1988 education reform act: parentocracy

  -increased parental choice.

  -parents are 'in charge' and can choose where their child goes.

  -middle class parents benefit from this as they have more cultural capital so can make an informed decision.
• criticisms of marketisation policies

  -Gillborn & Youdell: looked at 2 ldn comprehensive schools for 2 years. Found schools perceive pupils ability & sort them. Students are categorised as borderline, more able or hopeless. Most ethnic minority pupils get left behind so marketisation policies are not good for all.

  -Barlett: cream-skimming: higher ability pupils are chosen. Silt-shifting: students with less ability are offloaded. Schools who have a bad position in the league tables cannot be selective so have pupils with worse grades. Bad for social mobility, no equal opportunities.

  -Ball, Bowe & Gerwitz: league tables & formula funding puts pressure on schools and impacts education. Disadvantaged pupils get left behind. Marketisation only benefits the middle-class. No equal opportunities/bad for social mobility.
• labour & education: 1997 - onwards

  -improving the equality of opportunities: reduced class size to 30; 1 hour of reading and writing a day, start younger, finish older, OFSTED.

  -decreasing inequality: higher eduction, pupil premium, maintenance loans.

  -increasing diversity: specialist schools, child centred learning, special education, faith schools.
• criticisms: labour & education: 1997 - onwards

  -Whitty (2002): these policies conflict decreasing inequality and developing marketisation. Labour policies (such as EMAs) are ineffective as they give the illusion of decreasing inequality but do not decrease inequality.

  -grammar & fee-paying schools still exist so not all pupils are equal.

  -Wolf Report (Wolf, 2011): vocational education does not lead to uni & jobs so increasing the amount of vocational education is not giving all people the same opportunities.

  -Sally Tomlinson: new labour policies benefit the middle-class.
• policy from 2010-2015

  -coalition government.

  -policies introduced: more academies (academies act 2010); free schools; curriculum reforms - 1-9 system; increased uni fees; decreased coursework; EBACC: focuses on traditional subjects, narrows options and ability of pupils. Creates social inequality, not a flexible curriculum.
• policy from 2015-2021

  -conservative government.

  -decreased funding of £5.4B.

  -return to linear A-Level assessment.

  -progress 8: based on the progress all individuals make from the end of primary to the end of secondary. To get a high score in this pupils need to make progress in their grades e.g., predicted a 5 but get a 7. Do not need to cream-skim or silt-shift as it does not impact league tables.