Education essay plans- Sociology

• Functionalism & education (30 marks)

  1)Social solidarity- Durkheim suggests this creates a value consensus (like a body) eg cohesion via History lessons BUT, excludes BAME and globalisation increased importance so social solidarity is not important as there is a competing value system

  2)Collective norms & values= social order (eg formal curriculum=same language & lit or team sports=working together for same aim) BUT curriculum= ethnocentric & promotes hierarchy

  3)Bridge between family & wider society(Parsons)- school is a mini society, universalistic values (achieved) not particularistic anymore (ascribed) BUT Correspondence principle sees edu system as transmitting ruling class values to reproduce inequality & can be taught via homeschooling

  4)Role allocation(Davis & Moore)- edu= meritocratic (work & talent= progress), allows social mobility so the most able ppl get the limited top jobs. Eg edu sifts and sorts via exams. BUT Marxists "myth of meritocracy" (only benefits MC, but lets WC blame themselves for failing despite having less opportunities)

  5)Economic function- hidden curriculum teaches skills needed in industrial society eg timekeeping, obedience. Vocational edu has expanded providing technical skills. BUT, voc often gets lower status jobs
• New right & education (30 marker)

  1)Marketisation of education- competition between schools will increase schools ability to meets the needs of pupils & raise standards (as formula funding=incentive) BUT Gerwitz & Ball say comp between school benefits MC bc of their cultural & economic capital

  2)Vocationalism- all edu sould be more relevant to work (better meets needs of employers so economy=more successful). Gives kids skills to take advantage of wide range of jobs & opportunities created via globalisation BUT voc often get lower class jobs

  3)Meritocracy(work & talent= progress)=social mobility so the most able ppl get the limited top jobs. BUT Marxists "myth of meritocracy" (only benefits MC, but lets WC blame themselves for failing despite having less opportunities)

  4)School should be like a business- should be answerable to to kids & parents, now state edu system takes a 'one size fits all' approach, imposing uniformity & disregarding local needs. local consumers who use schools - pupils, parents and employers - have no say. So State edu =unresponsive and inefficient. so lower standards of achievement for pupils, a less qualified workforce and a less prosperous economy. BUT low edu quality is due to underfunding, not states fault

  5)Promotessocial solidarity(national curriculum- common base of knowledge=cohesion) BUT Marxists argue taught values of the ruling in order to control WC
• Marxism & education (30 marker)

  Intro- bourgeoisie (ruling class) owns mean of production, so they want to exploit proletariat to retain power via acting as state apparatus, producing obedient workforce, reproducing & legitimising class inequality.

  1)Ideological state apparatus- edu spread UC ideology & WC experience false class consciousness. Edu argue capitalism is just. But meritocracy=myth. WC cant see system is rigged & blame themselves instead. BUT McDonald argues it ignores the role of gender

  2)Correspondence principle(Bowles + Gintis) between edu mirrors work. Reproduces existing social structure. BUT functionalists could argue it helps transition to work & Bowles and Gintis work outdated

  3)Hidden curriculum- unwritten, unofficial lessons which are learned but not openly intended eg norms & values (eg hierarchy, reward & sanctions, docile all correlate).Prepares them to be conform to work. BUT, many stu rebel & don't accept authority passively (deterministic)

  4) Bourdieu- MC better equipped w/cultural capital. Edu is based on MC patterns of thought & presents illusion of fairness. So WC ideologically persuaded towards boring, unrewarding work. Eg Bernstein langauge codes (edu uses elaborated code, not restricted) BUT Halsey emphasises material capital is more important than capital (making more barriers)

  5)Formal curriculum=irrelevant. Made to be tedious, boring, not creative and forces conformity. Prioritises subjects important to the marketplace eg maths and devalues others eg drama. BUT ignores the positive impact on the economy
• Neomarxism + edu???


  Paul Willis -Learning to Labour

  ~Studied transition from sch to work of non-aca WC boys

  ~Used case study, int, group int, ppt obs, diaries

  ~12 anti-sch subculture vs conformist lads

  
  

  ~anti-sch prepares for shop floor culture of work

  ~cultural reproduction= driving force

  ~manages boredom

  ~structural factors (in sch) reinforce this

  
  

  ~should use voc edu to privode ↑ opp in labour market

  
  

  +Marxists acknowledge role of econ in edu

  +explains inequalities in edu achievement bu social class

  +acknowledges free will

  -ingores benefit of edu to indv & society
• Postmodernism + education (10 marks)????????


  Intro- not 1 single best way to tackle issues, society= developing more variety (pluralism), pluralism needed to make edu desirable

  Adult edu=diverse eg distance learning, part time course, evening course to meet needs- learners should pick & mix to suit lifestyle- should be blurring of boundaries between leisure & work (ppl do course for fun)- overall, should be more choice, variety & blurring of boundariesBUT budget of adult edu cut= less choice= national curriculum

  Coffield & WilkinsonUni& sch= Exam FactoriesFE college= skill factoryShould combine both to prepare stu for world

  Vocational edu~Work experience eases transition from sch to work & teaches ab economy~Expands post16 edu & training thats more related to workplace (BTEC, Apprenticeship)~↑ quality of basic skills in nworkforcebetter meets needs of employers & ↑ success in economy~utilises wide range of jobs from globalisation

  BUT~voc edu seen as inferior and leads to lower status jobs~wc ↑ likely take voc, reinforcing class division (Marxism)~voc= boring & have little to do w/ future careers~Birdwell- sch still focus on "brighter stu & neglect voc subjects"
• Gender subject choice + edu


  Intro- Eng & Psych= most pop F a level & Maths&Physics= M

  Socialisation~Toys- boys= construction & sci kits, girls= doll, domestic appliances BUT let toys be toys campaign ↓ stereotypes~Norman- M & F dress diff, taken to diff activities, parents reward passive F & active M~Colley- fam & peers who conform to gender stereotypes impact subject choice

  Gender identity~Mitsos- subjects identify w/ gender identities eg reading= feminised at early socialisation so F associate w/ Eng~Francis- M monopolised technical equipment in STEM & machinery seen as part of masc domain~Construction of masc- M steered away from fem subjects by peer~Leonard- single sex sch= less gendered subject images. In Alevel F take more math & sci ↑ than mixed sch & M take ↑ langs & eng

  Subject image~Kelly- sci= M subject bc tch=male, examples used teach concepts based on boys interests, boys monopolise equip/lessons~Colley- pic in textbook show divide of masc & fem domains (eg STEM=masc)BUT~GIST&WISE= internship & show career pathway= STEM ↑ appealing to FButbut~Paetcher- PE still masc, reinforced via peerButbutbut~ ↑ profile of F sports in media & sci textbooks

  Sch environment~Sch= feminised~↑ proportion of F tch in primary sch~Some subject at 2ndry sch have ↑ F tch (eng, art, langs)~Carrington- gender of tch has little/no impact on boys/girls learning~Rothermel- homesch boys & girls equally successful
• Gender + edu


  Intro- attainment 8 score (2022): 53.9=girls, 48.1= boys. For A-A* A level grade 36.9%=girls vs 34.7%=boys

  Curriculum~↑ coursework= advantageous to F who spend ↑ time on written work (pirie) BUT in 2015 coursework reduced & Elwood-exam= ↑ influence on final grade, coursework not important~Less choice of subject= ↑ equality bc F cant drop sci~Hurst= boys overtook girls in GCSE maths

  Sch environment~Sch= feminised~↑ proportion of F tch in primary sch~Some subject at 2ndry sch have ↑ F tch (eng, art, langs)~Carrington- gender of tch has little/no impact on boys/girls learning~Rothermel- homesch boys & girls equally successful

  LabellingFrancis- boys demotivated by tch criticism ↑ than girls. Stereotype of ideal stu fits girls ↑. M dont see themselves as able as FSukhanda- M feel they recieve less support & tch are ↑ critical of M for appearance & presentationCoffey&Delamont- sch always patriarchal. In 2014, senior staff all male

  Peer groupHannan-leisure activity= diff (M active, F talk-bedroom culture)Frosh- boy see schwork as "unmanly" & engage in hypermasc behaviour eg disruptive, back-chatting tch. Subjected aca boys to homo abuseKirby- M who do well at sch= helped at home, away from peersEpstein- WC M harassed & labelled as "sissies" or "gay" if swots so reject sch

  Change aspirationMcRobbie- magazines in 70s= left on shelf, appearance but now= independant assertive FSharpe- 1970->1990 love, marriage, kids, job, careerMiller- in 70s 1% drew F sci in 1988 ↑ bc ↑ F in STEMBUT still sexism & stereotypes that put F down
• Social class + edu

  Intro26% FSM entered for Ebacc vs 43% non-fsmnon-fsm 2x↑likely to pass both eng & math vs fsm

  Cultural depBernstein- lang codesBourdieu- cultural dep def (knowledge, attitude, lang, advantages MC)Sugarman- instant grat, fatalism, collectivism, time orientationAlice Sullivan-not all cultural capital useful (music, concert, open shows) but complex fic & art, sci show= better gcse result

  Material depHoward- malnutrition-Department of edu= 1/3 FSM achieve 5+ at GCSE at A*-C (2012)-Blanden & Machin- WC externalise behaviourFSM& pupil premium & sure start

  LabellingHargreaves- teachers stereotype stu of MC stu fits tch stereotype of ideal pupilRosenthal&Jacobson- show impact tch stereotype (using IQ test, "smarter" improved most)- mc internalise label, wc internalise/rejectBecker- white MC fits ideal pupilMirza- london comp black girl reject label by overachieving

  SettingBall- WC placed in low set based on assumption (manual worker father)Gillborn&Youdell- WC lower sets due to label, max grade for foundation is C, lose out opp for lower gradesIreson- 45 comp (mix ability, set, partially set) no affect in GCSE

  CurriculumVocBowles&Gintis- correspondence principle- sch mirrors work to prevent rebellion (reproduction of labour)Out of date & deterministic

  SubcultureWillis- antisch subculture of W boy, made to compensate lack of aca status & manage boredom (small sample, group int=bias, same town)Mac an Ghaill- prosch subcultures (new enterpriser& aca achievers) in WC
• Ethnicity + edu


  Intro- Chin & Indi best but white roma & gyspy fail. Attainment 8 in 21-22= 69.2 for chin but wr&g=22.7 & black car=44

  
  

  1) Labelling

  Gillborn&Youdell- tch=↓ expectation of blck stu so ↓ set

  Gillborn- bc of label, ↑ likely in detention bc tch see appearance/mannerism as threat to authority

  -Fuller- Afr car stu work extra hard, despite racism & label

  -Mac&Ghaill- stu actively reject label by avoiding racist tch & associating w/ +ve ones.

  
  

  2) Ethnocentric curriculum

  Tikly- blck ppl invisible in curric, only shown in blck history month, focussed slavery (no social solidarity, hard to learn bc cant relate)

  +Coard- agrees, blck ppls art, culture & music= ignored (so ↓ self esteem & ↓ identity)

  -Swann Report- afr car maintain ↑ attitude & self image (so ethnocentric curric ignore black ppl but chin & ind not represented but still succeed)

  
  

  3) Pupil responses

  O'Donnell & Sharpe- blck male subculture= form of masc to ↑ respect from peers & F to compensate for ↓ respect from tch, peers, aca so they reject it

  Connolly- south asian M seen as immature not deviant. ↓ behaviour= unpunished vs black boys. So not respected so tch can affect self esteem

  -Mirza- in 2 london comp, blck girls reject impact of tch racism by overachieving

  
  

  4) Mat depr =cant afford sufficient basic resources

  Platt- Chin= ↑ hrly rate of pay so best (ind 2nd highest in pay & aca achi)

  In all ethnicities, fsm did worse

  Gilborn& mirza- in all ethncity, mc did best (bc afford tutor)

  BUT affects Brit ↑ so cult dep may be ↑ important

  
  

  5) Cul dep

  wc=inferior norm,value,skill & knowledge -Bourdieu

  archer&francis-brit chin= ↑ value on edu

  basit- ind & paki= ↑ value bc ↑ opp than country of origin

  1st gen immigrant= no knowledge of edu system, ↓confident w/ eng (hw & parent evening)

  Sewell- bck afr edu bad bc lone parent fam(no m mo
• Globalisation +education


  1) Increased comp from abroad, more pressure to stay in edu longer (as unskilled factory jobs are abroad so Brit need better edu to get a job) so kids are better than their parents.

  BUT poorer stu put off by uni fees (more inequality in HE) & schools compete on globe league table (PISA).

  2) -Economic globalisation- transnational ict companies write curriculums, online learning materials, etc globally. Eg Pearsons wrote textbooks, exams etc

  BUT issues marking overseas, some countries value some skills more than others

  3) +Higher migration=multicultural edu, all schools teach "6 world religions"

  BUT curriculum is ethnocentric eg history, languages, holidays, lit (disadvantaged them rather than encouraging)

  4) Rise of tech=changes to curriculum= skilled, adaptable workers. Eg ipads, smartboards

  5) Scandi countries influence our edu system eg free schools (funded by gov but out of LEA control w/ control over staff pay, curriculum, length of term/days). After their success, was approved 2B in UK. Initially, 323 applications.

  BUT may be in the peoples setting this up's interest eg advertisement of company/faith
• Privatisation??


  1. Within, marketisation (cola isation ran like a business) EV could be unequal as priv companies cherry pick the best schools

  
  

  2. Within, parent choice (open enrolment) EV increase competition making it harder to get in

  
  

  3. Within, linking school funding to success rates (formula funding) EV these resources may only be handed to wealthier ones/ already successful ones

  
  

  4. Setting up of academies (new labour- greater involvement of priv sector running schools) EV could change the type of knowledge pupils are taught-capitalist ideology

  
  

  5. Running exam systems (Edexcel run by global corporation in over 70 countries) EV more control over what we learn and limits us of knowledge

  
  

  6. Building + maintaining of school buildings ( new labour, buildings were financed through the priv finance initiative) EV a lot of buildings were left neglected having an effect on pupils experience as conditions aren't bearable
• Evaluate the view that marketisation and privatisation policies lead to educational inequalities between social groups. (30 marks)


  (see marketisation & privatisation for more)
• Marketisation & edu (if it says in the last 25yrs just talk about how these policies have impacted today)


  Intro: marketisation= apply business principles to state edu to ↑ standards,began w/ 1988 edu reform act eg ofsted

  
  

  Parentocracy

  treats parent=customer to edu market

  added open enrolment (choose sch outside catchment area) to ↑ comp & standard

  -Gerwitz- WC disconnected choosers bc lack cultural & econ capital to get kid into good sch so parentocracy=myth. Skilled chooser use cul cap to manipulate sch system/admission process & econ cap for travel cost/move into better catchment area for good sch

  Parent cant get "refund"

  
  

  Standardised curriculum

  ~National curriculum (1944 Butler act)

  ~upped competition more

  ~more responsive to other needs to pupils

  ~decreased inequality and increased parentocracy

  
  

  League Tables

  Increased choice

  Parent rely on Ofsted to provide greater insight to effectiveness & quality of sch

  BUT silt shifting & cream skimming to maintain reputation

  Hard for late developers & WC so reinforced inequalities due to A-C economy (focus on MC)(Gillborn&Youdell) - setting & streaming reinforces this & sets WC up to failure bc focus on MC

  
  

  Formula funding=incentive

  Forced parentocracy & need to appeal to parents needs to gain money

  BUt bc of silt shifting= sink schools= no opp to improve

  
  

  Academies Act

  ~Sch can opt out of LEA authority & make own curriculum & distribute funding catering to stu needs eg tch pay, facilities

  ~So more diversity between sch for parent to choose which is best for their child

  BUT tch low wage & headtch paid 2x what they should, wasting taxpayers money

  ~Marxist no likey bc supports capitalism bc MC=headtch who exploit proletariat- tch& taxpayer

  
  

  Conc?

  Choice has inevitably improved since 1944 butler act

  Still not full equality in choice for all parents

  Kids limited by social class but girls less limited due to national curriculum (standardisation)

  WC have more opp to get more q
• Policies + edu


  Comprehensive system (1965):

  non-selective (mixed ability) school

  AO3 -

  "one size fits all"

  ignores allkids=diff

  -Setting/streaming= still selection

  +caters late developing stu better

  
  

  Compensatory education policies? -

  EMA -National Literacy strategy

  -Aim higher programme (raises aspirations of those under-presented in HE)

  -EAZ

  -Pupil premium

  
  

  Education Action Zone

  EAZ (attracted sponsorship/investment to help kids in deprived edu)

  -EAZ not successful, attracted limited sponsorship, not continued beyond initial 5yr term

  
  

  Pupil premium

  extra funding to schools to improve the edu outcomes of disadvantaged children

  +Attainment gap reduced

  -Many sch spend money to reduce gaps in school funding, not targeting it at disadvantaged students, but spending it on general school needs.

  -Some suggest that lack of funding isn't the problem and money doesn't make up for it

  -A lot of the money, when targeted, is spend on Learning Assistants, but apparently isn't the most efficient way to help disadvantaged stu

  -Schools don't have to be too specific in outlining how they spend the money.
• Evaluate the extent to which policies of selection impact on educational achievement. (30 marks)

  Tripartite system (1944 butler edu act)

  -free edu for all

  -Grammar, 2ndry modern, technical sch

  -BUT late developers, WC, girls, other ethnic groups disadvantaged

  -Marxist say myth of meritocracy & reproduction of class inequality & Feminist reproduce gender inequality bc girls must gain higher marks than boys to pass 11+

  
  

  Expansion of Grammar Sch

  -grammar sch sponsor failing schools & reopen then as academies

  -creates more equality for WC

  
  

  Intro of tuition fees

  + unis can use money to improve quality, creates comp

  - harder for wc bc must need rare scholarship so wc must aim lower

  
  

  Selection policy in oversubscibed sch

  Via catchment, sibling, sometimes faith or natural ability (in specialist sch)

  Since 2010, bc of formula funding, gov gives more money to pupil premium kids

  BUT selection by mortgage bc house price near best schools increase so only wealthy can afford good catchment, also better schools= more costly eg uniform & lengthy, elaborate code application process to keep WC away
• Functionalism & education (30 marks)

  1)Social solidarity- Durkheim suggests this creates a value consensus (like a body) eg cohesion via History lessons BUT, excludes BAME and globalisation increased importance so social solidarity is not important as there is a competing value system

  2)Collective norms & values= social order (eg formal curriculum=same language & lit or team sports=working together for same aim) BUT curriculum= ethnocentric & promotes hierarchy

  3)Bridge between family & wider society(Parsons)- school is a mini society, universalistic values (achieved) not particularistic anymore (ascribed) BUT Correspondence principle sees edu system as transmitting ruling class values to reproduce inequality & can be taught via homeschooling

  4)Role allocation(Davis & Moore)- edu= meritocratic (work & talent= progress), allows social mobility so the most able ppl get the limited top jobs. Eg edu sifts and sorts via exams. BUT Marxists "myth of meritocracy" (only benefits MC, but lets WC blame themselves for failing despite having less opportunities)

  5)Economic function- hidden curriculum teaches skills needed in industrial society eg timekeeping, obedience. Vocational edu has expanded providing technical skills. BUT, voc often gets lower status jobs
• New right & education (30 marker)

  1)Marketisation of education- competition between schools will increase schools ability to meets the needs of pupils & raise standards (as formula funding=incentive) BUT Gerwitz & Ball say comp between school benefits MC bc of their cultural & economic capital

  2)Vocationalism- all edu sould be more relevant to work (better meets needs of employers so economy=more successful). Gives kids skills to take advantage of wide range of jobs & opportunities created via globalisation BUT voc often get lower class jobs

  3)Meritocracy(work & talent= progress)=social mobility so the most able ppl get the limited top jobs. BUT Marxists "myth of meritocracy" (only benefits MC, but lets WC blame themselves for failing despite having less opportunities)

  4)School should be like a business- should be answerable to to kids & parents, now state edu system takes a 'one size fits all' approach, imposing uniformity & disregarding local needs. local consumers who use schools - pupils, parents and employers - have no say. So State edu =unresponsive and inefficient. so lower standards of achievement for pupils, a less qualified workforce and a less prosperous economy. BUT low edu quality is due to underfunding, not states fault

  5)Promotessocial solidarity(national curriculum- common base of knowledge=cohesion) BUT Marxists argue taught values of the ruling in order to control WC
• Marxism & education (30 marker)

  Intro- bourgeoisie (ruling class) owns mean of production, so they want to exploit proletariat to retain power via acting as state apparatus, producing obedient workforce, reproducing & legitimising class inequality.

  1)Ideological state apparatus- edu spread UC ideology & WC experience false class consciousness. Edu argue capitalism is just. But meritocracy=myth. WC cant see system is rigged & blame themselves instead. BUT McDonald argues it ignores the role of gender

  2)Correspondence principle(Bowles + Gintis) between edu mirrors work. Reproduces existing social structure. BUT functionalists could argue it helps transition to work & Bowles and Gintis work outdated

  3)Hidden curriculum- unwritten, unofficial lessons which are learned but not openly intended eg norms & values (eg hierarchy, reward & sanctions, docile all correlate).Prepares them to be conform to work. BUT, many stu rebel & don't accept authority passively (deterministic)

  4) Bourdieu- MC better equipped w/cultural capital. Edu is based on MC patterns of thought & presents illusion of fairness. So WC ideologically persuaded towards boring, unrewarding work. Eg Bernstein langauge codes (edu uses elaborated code, not restricted) BUT Halsey emphasises material capital is more important than capital (making more barriers)

  5)Formal curriculum=irrelevant. Made to be tedious, boring, not creative and forces conformity. Prioritises subjects important to the marketplace eg maths and devalues others eg drama. BUT ignores the positive impact on the economy
• Neomarxism + edu???


  Paul Willis -Learning to Labour

  ~Studied transition from sch to work of non-aca WC boys

  ~Used case study, int, group int, ppt obs, diaries

  ~12 anti-sch subculture vs conformist lads

  
  

  ~anti-sch prepares for shop floor culture of work

  ~cultural reproduction= driving force

  ~manages boredom

  ~structural factors (in sch) reinforce this

  
  

  ~should use voc edu to privode ↑ opp in labour market

  
  

  +Marxists acknowledge role of econ in edu

  +explains inequalities in edu achievement bu social class

  +acknowledges free will

  -ingores benefit of edu to indv & society
• Postmodernism + education (10 marks)????????


  Intro- not 1 single best way to tackle issues, society= developing more variety (pluralism), pluralism needed to make edu desirable

  Adult edu=diverse eg distance learning, part time course, evening course to meet needs- learners should pick & mix to suit lifestyle- should be blurring of boundaries between leisure & work (ppl do course for fun)- overall, should be more choice, variety & blurring of boundariesBUT budget of adult edu cut= less choice= national curriculum

  Coffield & WilkinsonUni& sch= Exam FactoriesFE college= skill factoryShould combine both to prepare stu for world

  Vocational edu~Work experience eases transition from sch to work & teaches ab economy~Expands post16 edu & training thats more related to workplace (BTEC, Apprenticeship)~↑ quality of basic skills in nworkforcebetter meets needs of employers & ↑ success in economy~utilises wide range of jobs from globalisation

  BUT~voc edu seen as inferior and leads to lower status jobs~wc ↑ likely take voc, reinforcing class division (Marxism)~voc= boring & have little to do w/ future careers~Birdwell- sch still focus on "brighter stu & neglect voc subjects"
• Gender subject choice + edu


  Intro- Eng & Psych= most pop F a level & Maths&Physics= M

  Socialisation~Toys- boys= construction & sci kits, girls= doll, domestic appliances BUT let toys be toys campaign ↓ stereotypes~Norman- M & F dress diff, taken to diff activities, parents reward passive F & active M~Colley- fam & peers who conform to gender stereotypes impact subject choice

  Gender identity~Mitsos- subjects identify w/ gender identities eg reading= feminised at early socialisation so F associate w/ Eng~Francis- M monopolised technical equipment in STEM & machinery seen as part of masc domain~Construction of masc- M steered away from fem subjects by peer~Leonard- single sex sch= less gendered subject images. In Alevel F take more math & sci ↑ than mixed sch & M take ↑ langs & eng

  Subject image~Kelly- sci= M subject bc tch=male, examples used teach concepts based on boys interests, boys monopolise equip/lessons~Colley- pic in textbook show divide of masc & fem domains (eg STEM=masc)BUT~GIST&WISE= internship & show career pathway= STEM ↑ appealing to FButbut~Paetcher- PE still masc, reinforced via peerButbutbut~ ↑ profile of F sports in media & sci textbooks

  Sch environment~Sch= feminised~↑ proportion of F tch in primary sch~Some subject at 2ndry sch have ↑ F tch (eng, art, langs)~Carrington- gender of tch has little/no impact on boys/girls learning~Rothermel- homesch boys & girls equally successful
• Gender + edu


  Intro- attainment 8 score (2022): 53.9=girls, 48.1= boys. For A-A* A level grade 36.9%=girls vs 34.7%=boys

  Curriculum~↑ coursework= advantageous to F who spend ↑ time on written work (pirie) BUT in 2015 coursework reduced & Elwood-exam= ↑ influence on final grade, coursework not important~Less choice of subject= ↑ equality bc F cant drop sci~Hurst= boys overtook girls in GCSE maths

  Sch environment~Sch= feminised~↑ proportion of F tch in primary sch~Some subject at 2ndry sch have ↑ F tch (eng, art, langs)~Carrington- gender of tch has little/no impact on boys/girls learning~Rothermel- homesch boys & girls equally successful

  LabellingFrancis- boys demotivated by tch criticism ↑ than girls. Stereotype of ideal stu fits girls ↑. M dont see themselves as able as FSukhanda- M feel they recieve less support & tch are ↑ critical of M for appearance & presentationCoffey&Delamont- sch always patriarchal. In 2014, senior staff all male

  Peer groupHannan-leisure activity= diff (M active, F talk-bedroom culture)Frosh- boy see schwork as "unmanly" & engage in hypermasc behaviour eg disruptive, back-chatting tch. Subjected aca boys to homo abuseKirby- M who do well at sch= helped at home, away from peersEpstein- WC M harassed & labelled as "sissies" or "gay" if swots so reject sch

  Change aspirationMcRobbie- magazines in 70s= left on shelf, appearance but now= independant assertive FSharpe- 1970->1990 love, marriage, kids, job, careerMiller- in 70s 1% drew F sci in 1988 ↑ bc ↑ F in STEMBUT still sexism & stereotypes that put F down
• Social class + edu

  Intro26% FSM entered for Ebacc vs 43% non-fsmnon-fsm 2x↑likely to pass both eng & math vs fsm

  Cultural depBernstein- lang codesBourdieu- cultural dep def (knowledge, attitude, lang, advantages MC)Sugarman- instant grat, fatalism, collectivism, time orientationAlice Sullivan-not all cultural capital useful (music, concert, open shows) but complex fic & art, sci show= better gcse result

  Material depHoward- malnutrition-Department of edu= 1/3 FSM achieve 5+ at GCSE at A*-C (2012)-Blanden & Machin- WC externalise behaviourFSM& pupil premium & sure start

  LabellingHargreaves- teachers stereotype stu of MC stu fits tch stereotype of ideal pupilRosenthal&Jacobson- show impact tch stereotype (using IQ test, "smarter" improved most)- mc internalise label, wc internalise/rejectBecker- white MC fits ideal pupilMirza- london comp black girl reject label by overachieving

  SettingBall- WC placed in low set based on assumption (manual worker father)Gillborn&Youdell- WC lower sets due to label, max grade for foundation is C, lose out opp for lower gradesIreson- 45 comp (mix ability, set, partially set) no affect in GCSE

  CurriculumVocBowles&Gintis- correspondence principle- sch mirrors work to prevent rebellion (reproduction of labour)Out of date & deterministic

  SubcultureWillis- antisch subculture of W boy, made to compensate lack of aca status & manage boredom (small sample, group int=bias, same town)Mac an Ghaill- prosch subcultures (new enterpriser& aca achievers) in WC
• Ethnicity + edu


  Intro- Chin & Indi best but white roma & gyspy fail. Attainment 8 in 21-22= 69.2 for chin but wr&g=22.7 & black car=44

  
  

  1) Labelling

  Gillborn&Youdell- tch=↓ expectation of blck stu so ↓ set

  Gillborn- bc of label, ↑ likely in detention bc tch see appearance/mannerism as threat to authority

  -Fuller- Afr car stu work extra hard, despite racism & label

  -Mac&Ghaill- stu actively reject label by avoiding racist tch & associating w/ +ve ones.

  
  

  2) Ethnocentric curriculum

  Tikly- blck ppl invisible in curric, only shown in blck history month, focussed slavery (no social solidarity, hard to learn bc cant relate)

  +Coard- agrees, blck ppls art, culture & music= ignored (so ↓ self esteem & ↓ identity)

  -Swann Report- afr car maintain ↑ attitude & self image (so ethnocentric curric ignore black ppl but chin & ind not represented but still succeed)

  
  

  3) Pupil responses

  O'Donnell & Sharpe- blck male subculture= form of masc to ↑ respect from peers & F to compensate for ↓ respect from tch, peers, aca so they reject it

  Connolly- south asian M seen as immature not deviant. ↓ behaviour= unpunished vs black boys. So not respected so tch can affect self esteem

  -Mirza- in 2 london comp, blck girls reject impact of tch racism by overachieving

  
  

  4) Mat depr =cant afford sufficient basic resources

  Platt- Chin= ↑ hrly rate of pay so best (ind 2nd highest in pay & aca achi)

  In all ethnicities, fsm did worse

  Gilborn& mirza- in all ethncity, mc did best (bc afford tutor)

  BUT affects Brit ↑ so cult dep may be ↑ important

  
  

  5) Cul dep

  wc=inferior norm,value,skill & knowledge -Bourdieu

  archer&francis-brit chin= ↑ value on edu

  basit- ind & paki= ↑ value bc ↑ opp than country of origin

  1st gen immigrant= no knowledge of edu system, ↓confident w/ eng (hw & parent evening)

  Sewell- bck afr edu bad bc lone parent fam(no m mo
• Globalisation +education


  1) Increased comp from abroad, more pressure to stay in edu longer (as unskilled factory jobs are abroad so Brit need better edu to get a job) so kids are better than their parents.

  BUT poorer stu put off by uni fees (more inequality in HE) & schools compete on globe league table (PISA).

  2) -Economic globalisation- transnational ict companies write curriculums, online learning materials, etc globally. Eg Pearsons wrote textbooks, exams etc

  BUT issues marking overseas, some countries value some skills more than others

  3) +Higher migration=multicultural edu, all schools teach "6 world religions"

  BUT curriculum is ethnocentric eg history, languages, holidays, lit (disadvantaged them rather than encouraging)

  4) Rise of tech=changes to curriculum= skilled, adaptable workers. Eg ipads, smartboards

  5) Scandi countries influence our edu system eg free schools (funded by gov but out of LEA control w/ control over staff pay, curriculum, length of term/days). After their success, was approved 2B in UK. Initially, 323 applications.

  BUT may be in the peoples setting this up's interest eg advertisement of company/faith
• Privatisation??


  1. Within, marketisation (cola isation ran like a business) EV could be unequal as priv companies cherry pick the best schools

  
  

  2. Within, parent choice (open enrolment) EV increase competition making it harder to get in

  
  

  3. Within, linking school funding to success rates (formula funding) EV these resources may only be handed to wealthier ones/ already successful ones

  
  

  4. Setting up of academies (new labour- greater involvement of priv sector running schools) EV could change the type of knowledge pupils are taught-capitalist ideology

  
  

  5. Running exam systems (Edexcel run by global corporation in over 70 countries) EV more control over what we learn and limits us of knowledge

  
  

  6. Building + maintaining of school buildings ( new labour, buildings were financed through the priv finance initiative) EV a lot of buildings were left neglected having an effect on pupils experience as conditions aren't bearable
• Evaluate the view that marketisation and privatisation policies lead to educational inequalities between social groups. (30 marks)


  (see marketisation & privatisation for more)
• Marketisation & edu (if it says in the last 25yrs just talk about how these policies have impacted today)

  Intro: marketisation= apply business principles to state edu to ↑ standards,began w/ 1988 edu reform act eg ofsted

  
  

  Parentocracy

  treats parent=customer to edu market

  added open enrolment (choose sch outside catchment area) to ↑ comp & standard

  -Gerwitz- WC disconnected choosers bc lack cultural & econ capital to get kid into good sch so parentocracy=myth. Skilled chooser use cul cap to manipulate sch system/admission process & econ cap for travel cost/move into better catchment area for good sch

  Parent cant get "refund"

  
  

  Standardised curriculum

  ~National curriculum (1944 Butler act)

  ~upped competition more

  ~more responsive to other needs to pupils

  ~decreased inequality and increased parentocracy

  
  

  League Tables

  Increased choice

  Parent rely on Ofsted to provide greater insight to effectiveness & quality of sch

  BUT silt shifting & cream skimming to maintain reputation

  Hard for late developers & WC so reinforced inequalities due to A-C economy (focus on MC)(Gillborn&Youdell) - setting & streaming reinforces this & sets WC up to failure bc focus on MC

  
  

  Formula funding=incentive

  Forced parentocracy & need to appeal to parents needs to gain money

  BUt bc of silt shifting= sink schools= no opp to improve

  
  

  Academies Act

  ~Sch can opt out of LEA authority & make own curriculum & distribute funding catering to stu needs eg tch pay, facilities

  ~So more diversity between sch for parent to choose which is best for their child

  BUT tch low wage & headtch paid 2x what they should, wasting taxpayers money

  ~Marxist no likey bc supports capitalism bc MC=headtch who exploit proletariat- tch& taxpayer

  
  

  Conc?

  Choice has inevitably improved since 1944 butler act

  Still not full equality in choice for all parents

  Kids limited by social class but girls less limited due to national curriculum (standardisation)

  WC have more opp to get more q
• Policies + edu


  Comprehensive system (1965):

  non-selective (mixed ability) school

  AO3 -

  "one size fits all"

  ignores allkids=diff

  -Setting/streaming= still selection

  +caters late developing stu better

  
  

  Compensatory education policies? -

  EMA -National Literacy strategy

  -Aim higher programme (raises aspirations of those under-presented in HE)

  -EAZ

  -Pupil premium

  
  

  Education Action Zone

  EAZ (attracted sponsorship/investment to help kids in deprived edu)

  -EAZ not successful, attracted limited sponsorship, not continued beyond initial 5yr term

  
  

  Pupil premium

  extra funding to schools to improve the edu outcomes of disadvantaged children

  +Attainment gap reduced

  -Many sch spend money to reduce gaps in school funding, not targeting it at disadvantaged students, but spending it on general school needs.

  -Some suggest that lack of funding isn't the problem and money doesn't make up for it

  -A lot of the money, when targeted, is spend on Learning Assistants, but apparently isn't the most efficient way to help disadvantaged stu

  -Schools don't have to be too specific in outlining how they spend the money.
• Evaluate the extent to which policies of selection impact on educational achievement. (30 marks)

  Tripartite system (1944 butler edu act)

  -free edu for all

  -Grammar, 2ndry modern, technical sch

  -BUT late developers, WC, girls, other ethnic groups disadvantaged

  -Marxist say myth of meritocracy & reproduction of class inequality & Feminist reproduce gender inequality bc girls must gain higher marks than boys to pass 11+

  
  

  Expansion of Grammar Sch

  -grammar sch sponsor failing schools & reopen then as academies

  -creates more equality for WC

  
  

  Intro of tuition fees

  + unis can use money to improve quality, creates comp

  - harder for wc bc must need rare scholarship so wc must aim lower

  
  

  Selection policy in oversubscibed sch

  Via catchment, sibling, sometimes faith or natural ability (in specialist sch)

  Since 2010, bc of formula funding, gov gives more money to pupil premium kids

  BUT selection by mortgage bc house price near best schools increase so only wealthy can afford good catchment, also better schools= more costly eg uniform & lengthy, elaborate code application process to keep WC away