Educational Policy and Inequality

• Educational policy in Britain - Pre 1988:


  Prior to industrial revolution, there was no state schools. Education was only available to a minority, only provided by fee-paying schools - though churches and charities offered some education - most children would work. Pre 1833, the state spent no public money on education.
• Educational Policy in Britain pre 1988

  Industrialisation increased the need for an educated workforce, from the late 19th century, the state began to be more involved with education. To reflect its growing importance, the state made education compulsory from 1-13 in 1880. The type of education received was dependent on class - m/c were given an academic curriculum, and w/c were taught basic numeracy and literacy to instil an obedient attitude towards superiors.
• Pre 1988: Selection - The Tripartite System

  1944 - the education system began to be influenced by the idea of meritocracy - achieving status through personal effort, rather than ascribed status. 1944 Education Act bought the tripartite system; children were allocated 1 of 3 schools based on their attitudes and abilities, identified by the 11+
• Pre 1988: Selection - The Tripartite System

  3 types of schools:

  Grammar: offered an academic curriculum and access to non-manual jobs and higher education, required to pass 11+, mainly m/c

  Secondary Modern: offered a non-academic 'practical' curriculum and access to manual jobs for those who did not pass the 11+, mainly w/c

  Technical Schools: rarer, teaching mechanical/ scientific/ engineering skills to serve in industry and science, those who failed 11+
• Pre 1988: Selection - The Tripartite System


  Rather than promoting meritocracy, it reproduces class inequality by channelling the 2 classes into 2 different types of schools which offered unequal opportunities. The system reproduced gender inequality as girls had to obtain higher 11+ marks. This legitimated inequality through the ideology that ability is unborn and could be measured from early life - yet the child's environment greatly impacts their chances of success.
• Before 1988: The Comprehensive School System


  Introduced in many areas from 1965, aiming to overcome the class divide and make education more meritocratic. The 11+ was abolished, as well as grammar and secondary modern schools- all replaced by comprehensive schools. Though it was left to the local authorities to decide whether they would move to comprehensive schools, as a result the grammar-secondary modern divide still exists in some areas.
• Before 1988: Theories of the Role of Comprehensive Schools

  Functionalists see education as fulfilling essential functions, like social integration and meritocratic role allocation. See CS as more meritocratic as it gives pupils longer to develop and show their abilities. Arguing comprehensive schools promote social integration by bringing children of different social groups together. Though Ford's study found that there was little social mixing between w/c and m/c students- largely due to streaming.
• Before 1988: Theories of the Role of Comprehensive Schools

  Marxists don't see the comprehensive schools as meritocratic- instead, argue it reproduces class inequalities through the generations through a combination of streaming and labelling. These processes continue to deny working class children equal opportunity. They may appear to offer equal chance, due to the 11+ stopping, but the 'myth of meritocracy' legitimates class inequality by making unequal achievement seem fair- failure is due to the individual, not the system.
• Marketisation:

  Refers to the process of introducing market forces of consumer choice and competition between suppliers into areas run by the state, like education. This creates an 'education market' by reducing direct control over education. It has become a central theme of government education policy since the 1988 Education Reform Act (ERA) introduced by conservative government. As seen the New Right favour this as it means schools must be answerable to consumers.
• Marketisation: Parentocracy

  Policies to promote marektisation include the publishing of league tables and Ofsted reports, business sponsorship of schools, open enrolment, and funding formula. David argues that marketised education has created 'parentocracy' meaning rule by parents. As in the education market, power has shifted from the producers (schools and teachers) to the consumers (parents). Claiming this encourages diversity among schools, gives parents more choice, and raises standards.
• Marketisation: The Reproduction of Inequality

  Despite claimed benefits of marketisation, critics argue it has increased inequalities. Ball and Whitty note that marketisation policies, like exam league tables and funding formula, reproduce class inequalities between schools.
• Marketisation: The Reproduction of Inequality

  League Tables and Cream-Skimming: Publishing exam results ensures well performing schools are in higher demand. Bartlett notes that this encourages 'cream-skimming' as the good schools can be more selective, choosing their own consumers, m/c high achievers, allowing them the advantage. 'Silt-shifting' is then when 'good' schools are able to avoid pupils who will damage the schools' position. Schools with poor league table places then cannot afford to be selective- it then produces unequal schools who reproduce class inequalities.
• Marketisation: The Reproduction of Inequality


  The Funding Formula: Schools are allocated funds based on how many pupils they attract. Popular schools then get more funds and can afford better qualified teachers and facilities. Their popularity enables them to be selective. Unpopular schools lose income, and cannot match the facilities and teachers of rival schools. Thus popular schools continue to thrive, and unpopular schools have further reduced funding
• Marketisation: Parental Choice

  Gerwitz- Privileged-Skilled Choosers

  Mainly m/c professional parents, using their cultural and economic capital to gain educational capital for their children. Being prosperous and well-educated, they could take full advantage of available choices. cultural capital meant they knew how admission processes worked, and had time to research available options. Their economic capital meant they could afford to move their children around the education system to get the best deal
• Marketisation: Parental Choice

  Gerwitz- Disconnected-Local Choosers

  Working class parents whose choices are restricted by a lack of cultural and economic capital; found it difficult to understand admission processes, were less confident in dealings with schools, and less able to manipulate the system in their favour. Distance and cost of travel were restrictions on their choice, limited funds meant nearest schools were most realistic.
• Marketisation: Parental Choice

  Gerwitz- Semi-Skilled Choosers

  Parents were mainly working class, but were overly ambitious or their children. They too lacked cultural and economic capital; found it hard to make sense of the education market, often relying on others' opinions- found frustration when they were denied access to 'better' schools. Concluding that in practice, middle class parents have cultural capital and economic capital which provides them with greater choice than working class parents.
• Marketisation: The Myth of Parentocracy

  Marketisation legitimates inequality by concealing its true cause of existence. Ball argues that it gives the appearance of 'parentocracy' but this is false in reality. It makes it appear as though all parents have the same freedom to choose where they send their child. Though Gerwitz demonstrates that middle class parents can take advantage of choices available (e.g. Leech and Campos). This then makes inequality in education appear fair and inevitable.
• Marketisation: New Labour and Inequality

  New Labour governments of 1997 to 2010 introduced several polices aimed to reduce inequality: designating some deprived areas as Education Action Zones (EAZ) and providing them with additional resources, Aim Higher programme to raise aspirations of under-represented groups in HE, Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) payments to students from low-income backgrounds to encourage post-16 education, introduction of National Literacy Strategy which increases literacy and numeracy hours and reduced class sizes, and increased funding.
• Marketisation: New Labour and Inequality

  Criticisms: Critics, like Benn, see a contradiction between policies to tackle inequality and the commitment to marketisation- calling it the 'New Labour Paradox'. Despite introducing EMAs to encourage poorer students to remain in education, Labour introduced tuition fees for HE which deters many from applying. Furthermore, New Labour governments neither abolished fee-paying private schools, nor removed their charitable status (estimated worth of over £165 million annually).
• Conservative Gov Policies from 2010

  Conservative-led Coalition government (2010-2015), and the Conservative government from 2015 accelerated the move away from an education system based on comprehensive schools run by local authorities. The policies introduced have been influenced by the New Right ideas about the role of the state. Their aim is to encourage 'excellence, competition, and innovation' by freeing schools from state control, through policies like academies and free schools.
• Conservative Gov Policies from 2010: Academies

  From 2010, all schools were encouraged to leave local authority control and become academies- funding was given by the local authorities' budget and given directly to academies by central government- they were given control over the curriculum. By 2017, over 68% of all secondary schools were academy status- some run by private educational businesses and funded directly by the state. However, Labour's focus on city academies (disadvantaged areas) was lost, any school could be an academy- removing the focus of inequality.
• Conservative Gov Policies from 2010: Free Schools


  
Although funded directly by state, they are set up and ran by parents/teachers/businesses/faith organisations rather than the local authority. Supporters argue they improve educational standards by allowing parents control if they are unhappy with state schools in their area.
• Conservative Gov Policies from 2010: Free Schools

  However, Allen argues that research from Sweden, where 20% of schools are free-schools, shows they only benefit those from highly educated families. Claiming they are socially divisive and lower standards- their international education ranking has fallen since their introduction. Raise standards through strict pupil selection and exclusion policies. In England, there is evidence to show they take less disadvantaged students- in 2011, only 6.4% pupils in Bristol Free-School had FSM compared to 22.5% of pupils across the city.
• Conservative Gov Policies from 2010: Fragmented Centralisation

  Ball argues that promoting academies and free-schools, it has increased fragmentation and centralisation of control over educational provision. Fragmentation- comprehensive system is being replaced by a patchwork of diverse provision, much involving private providers, leads to unequal opportunities. Centralisation of Control- central gov have power to allow schools to become academies or free-schools to be set up, their rapid growth has reduced the role of elected local authorities in education.
• Conservative Gov Policies from 2010: Policies to Reduce Inequality

  Free School Meals (FSM)- for all children in reception, year 1 and 2. Pupil Premium- money that schools receive for each pupil from a disadvantaged background However: (Ofsted found PP wasn't spent on those who it was meant to help; 1 in 10 headteachers said it significantly changed the way they support disadvantaged pupils). Spending on many areas of education was cut (buildings cut by 60%), Sure Start centres closed, EMA abolished, university fees tripled. Discouraging working class from higher education.
• Privatisation:

  Involves the transfer of public assets to private companies. Recent years, have made a trend towards privatisation of important assets of education in UK and globally. Education has then become a source of profit for capitalists in what Ball calls the 'education service industry' because multiple activities within the functioning of the school become highly profitable. Companies often earning 10 times more than their other contracts. Though local authorities are often obliged to enter into agreements as this is the only way to better their schools due to lacked funding.
• Privatisation: Blurring the Public and Private Boundary

  Many senior officials in the public sector (directors of local authorities or headteachers) now leave to set up work for private sector businesses. These companies then bid for contracts to provide services to schools and local authorities. Pollack argues that the flow of personnel allows companies to buy 'insider knowledge' to help win contracts, as well as avoiding local authority democracy.
• Privatisation and Globalisation of Educational Policy:

  Many private companies in ESI are foreign-owned; e.g. Edexcel is owned by US educational publisher Pearson- many papers are marked in Sydney and Iowa. Buckingham and Scanlon claim that the UKs 4 leading educational software companies are all owned by global multinationals (Disney. Mattel, Hambro, and Vivendi). Many contracts for educational services are sold on from the original company to banks and investment funds. In a globalised world, they are often bought by overseas companies.
• Privatisation and Globalisation of Educational Policy:

  Conversely, some UK Edu-businesses work overseas- Prospects has worked in China, Macedonia and Finland. Private companies are able to export UK educational policy to other countries (like Ofsted-style inspections) and then provide services to deliver the policies. As a result, nation-states are becoming less important in policymaking, its now shifting to a global level which is often privatised.
• Privatisation: The Cola-isation of Schools

  The private sector is penetrating education indirectly- through vending machines and developing brand loyalty through displays of logos and sponsorships. Molnar argues schools are targeted by private companies by their nature, they carry enormous goodwill and can confer legitimacy on anything they associate with- they act as a product endorsement.
• Privatisation: The Cola-isation of Schools


  However, the benefits to schools and pupils of private sector involvement is often limited. For example, Ball claimed that Cadbury's sports equipment promotion was scrapped when it was revealed pupils would have to eat 5440 chocolate bars just to qualify for volleyball posts.
• Privatisation: Education as a Commodity

  Ball concludes fundamental change is occurring, privatisation is a key factor in shaping educational policy- policies now focus on moving educational services out of the public sector, controlled by nation-state, to private companies. Education has then turned into 'legitimate object of private profit-making', commodity to be bought and sold in an education market. State is losing its role as provider of educational services. Ball claims this means more areas of education are subject to business practice and financial logic- sold as assets for profit.
• Privatisation: Education as a Commodity

  Similarly, Marxists such as Hall, see Conservative government policies as part of a 'long march of the neoliberal revolution'- seeing academies as an example of handing over public services to private capitalists, such as Edu-businesses. Arguing that neoliberals claim that privatisation and competition drives up standards is a myth which is used to legitimate turning education into a source of profit.
• Policies on Gender

  In the 19th Century, females were largely excluded from higher education - more recently, under the tripartite system girls had to achieve a higher mark to obtain a place in grammar schools. Since 1970s, policies such as GIST have been introduced to try to reduce gender differences in subject choice. Additionally the introduction of: the National Curriculum, Dads & Sons Campaign, Playing for Success Schemes, and Reading Champion schemes.
• Policies on Ethnicity

  Assimilation- Policies in the 1960s and 70s focused on the need for ethnic minority pupils to assimilate into mainstream culture to raise their achievement; especially for those where English isn't their 1st language. Related policy is Compensatory Education- helping those with deprived backgrounds. Critics argue that some minority groups that risk underachieving, such as African Caribbean, already speak English- the real cause of their underachievement lies with racism and poverty.
• Policies on Ethnicity

  Multicultural Education (MCE)- Policies through 1980s to 90s aimed to promote achievement of children from ethnic minority by valuing all cultures in the school curriculum- raising pupils' achievement and self-esteem. However, Stone argues that Black pupils don't lack self-esteem, so MCE is misguided- it picks out stereotypical features for inclusion, but fails to tackle institutional racism. The New Right criticise it for perpetuating cultural divisions, and a shared national culture is needed.
• Policies on Ethnicity

  Social Inclusion- Focus of late 1990s includes policies regarding detailed monitoring of exam results by ethnicity, amending Race Relations Act to place duty on schools to promote racial equality, helping with 'Saturday Schools' in Black communities, and English as an additional language.
• Policies on Ethnicity

  Social Inclusion- Criticisms

  Mirza sees little genuine change in policy, arguing that instead of tackling the causes of ethnic inequality (like racism and poverty), educational policies take a 'soft' approach that focuses on behaviour and the home.

  Similarly, Gillborn argues that institutionally racist policies in relation to the ethnocentric curriculum, assessment and streaming continue to disadvantage minority ethnic pupils- regardless of social inclusion policies.