Educational Policy

• The aims of educational policy

  1. Economic efficiency
  2. Raising educational standards
  3. Creating equality of educational opportunity in a meritocratic society
• Equality of educational opportunity and equality of outcome

  Gillborn and Youdell:

  1. Equality access
  2. Equality of circumstances
  3. Equality of participation
  4. Equality of outcome

  The dominant meaning given to equality of educational opportunity = equality of access.
• Equality of access

  Some rights and opportunities to obtain access to educational provision without unfair social selection.
• Equality of circumstances

  Children should all be of similar socio-economic status when they start school.
• Equality of participation

  Everyone has the same chances to participate on an equal footing in the school process that make up everyday life in schools. (Lessons taught, activities in lessons, etc)
• Equality of outcome

  Everyone has the same chances of sharing the eventual benefits of schooling.
• Halsey, Heath and Ridge

  We should measure the success of these policies by looking at educational outcomes.

  If there’s truly equality of opportunity there should be no link between a pupils backgrounds and their results.
• Policies to improve equality of opportunity in access to education

  1. Triparte System - 1944
  2. Comprehensive schools
• 1. Tripartite System -1944

  After primary school students partake in the 11+ exam.

  If students pass = enter a grammar school = go to university.

  If students fail = Secondary modern school = work.
• Advantages and disadvantages of Tripartite system.

  + = 1. Meant to be meritocratic

  2. Equality

  — = 1. 11 + test not actually meritocratic

  2. Class = lower class can lack preparation materials. Test written in elaborated code which lower class students will find difficult to understand.
• Issues with the Tripartite system.

  1. Labelling = self-fulfilling prophecy
  2. Segregation = class
• Comprehensive schools - 1965

  Primary school = comprehensive schools

  + = 1. no segregation

  2. Meritocracy = can move up and down sets (however some sets might not have enough room for more people if needed - brighter students may be stuck in lower sets)

  — = 1. Still has segregation within schools but it’s just hidden better.

  2. Labelling still occurs.
• Changes to the School Admissions Code

  + = 1) Outlaws discrimination based on socio-economic background.

  2) 2014 pupil premium - positive discrimination for disadvantaged pupils.

  — = 1) Covert Selection - schools try to discourage parents from lower socio-economic backgrounds from applying by doing things such as making school literature difficult to understand, lengthy application forms, not publicising the school in poorer neighbourhoods.
• Policies to improve inequality of circumstances.

  1. Compensatory education
  2. Educational Maintenance Allowance (EMA)
  3. Sure Start Centres
• Compensatory education.

  1. Pupil premium - money used by schools may not be used in the correct way instead of being used to support other pupils with identified needs.
  2. Bursary- support for pupils from low incomes.
  3. Free school meals.
• Educational Maintenance Allowance (EMA) 


  Encourages working class students to attend college by paying them a certain amount of money a week to pay for things like travel and supplies.

  — = Money can be spent on the wrong things by students.

  Cut in 2010.
• Sure Start

  Provides support for children and parents - gives help and advice on child and family health, parenting, money, training, and employment.

  > Proven to have children‘s grades by 3. (E.g. from grade 4 to 7)
• Selection policies and admission policies in education - Selective schooling


  Schools would prefer the brightest, best behaved, and best motivated pupils. This will enable schools to gain higher positions in league tables.
• Main types of selection

  1. Selection by ability
  2. Selection by aptitude
  3. Selection by faith
• Arguments for and against selection by ability


  + = 1) In schools and classes with people of all abilities, brighter children are held back by the learning of the less able.

  — = 1) Later developers benefit

  2) Fewer social divisions and more social cohesion through social mixing.

  3) Reduced risk of labelling and the self-fulfilling prophecy.

  4) Benefits for pupils of all abilities.
• Open enrolment and parental choice

  Parent can apply a place for their child at any state-funded school in any area. (Children with siblings who already go to the school or children who live in the catchment area are more likely to be admitted to the school)
• Admissions policies in oversubscribed schools

  If schools are over-subscribed, pupils are then admitted according to the over-subscription criteria which could comply with the Schools Admissions Code > priority to children in care, with siblings, who live in the school’s catchment area, etc.
• Covert selection

  1. Tough and Brooks
  2. Green, Allen and Jenkins
  3. Academies Commission
  4. Faith Schools
• Tough and Brooks

  Primary and secondary schools use back door social selection to cherry-pick students with higher ability and higher social class.
• Green, Allen and Jenkins

  Free schools socially selected and cherry-picked bright and wealthy pupils by covert selection. Even schools established in deprived areas failed to admit the neediest children.
• Academies Commission

  Held ‘social’ events and asked parents to complete forms. ‘Such practices can enable schools to select pupils from more privileged families where parents have the cultural capital to complete forms in a way to increase their child’s chances’
• Faith schools

  Covertly selected by ability/social class by gaining information about family circumstances and potential pupil characteristics through letters from spiritual leaders about a family’s religious background and commitment.
• Neo-liberalism

  Early 1980s > 1) private ownership

  free market 2) Competition (marketisation)

  3) Consumer choice

  1. Raise standards
  2. Reduce costs
• Globalisation of educational policy

  1. The privatisation and marketisation of education.
  2. International comparisons - E.g. OCED’s PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment).
  3. Evaluation of international comparisons.
• Privatisation of education.

  Privatisation of education - ‘endogenous privatisation’ > where schools are run like businesses.

  Privatisation of education - ‘exogenous privatisation‘ >

  1. Where parts of the education system are ‘sold off’ to private companies to run.
  2. Catering
  3. Services - cleaning and estates
  4. Security
  5. Sports and activities.
• Evaluation of the privatisation of education

  The case for privatisation.

  1. More business-like and efficient schools.
  2. More choice for parents.
  3. The profit motive may encourage private companies to provide schools and improve failing classes in areas where education is poor quality.

  The case against privatisation.

  1. Money may be drained from the education system.
  2. Cherry picking.
  3. Going out of business.
  4. Equality of opportunity and quality of education.
• Marketisation of education

  Marketisation - schools encouraged to compete against others and act more like private businesses rather than institutions under the control of local government.
• Government policies from 1980s onwards on marketisation and raising standards (1)

  
  

  1. Conservative party policies 1979-1997

  2. Growing independence and local management of schools (LMS)

  • Freedom of schools to make their own decisions around how schools were run. Rather than being controlled by local councils
• Government policies from 1980s onwards on marketisation and raising standards (2)

  3) Formula Finding

  • Finding per student. Better schools will retain and recruit more students and get more funding. Lower quality schools will improve or go out of business.

  4) Parental choice and open enrolment
• Government policies from 1980s onwards on marketisation and raising standards (3)

  5) The National Curriculum and National Testing

  • All studies are studying the same/similar subjects. All students are tested using the same testing criteria. This allows for comparison between schools which informs parental choice and also adds to competition.

  6) Ofsted

  • Comparison/competition.
• Government policies from 1980s onwards on marketisation and raising standards (4)

  7) School performance tables (League tables)

  • comparison/competition
• Labour Party Government Policies 1997-2010

  (1) Specialist schools

  • schools with a focus on a particular topic area. Focused on increasing the diversity and choice.

  (2) Helping the most disadvantaged.

  • EMA, Sure Start (Compensatory education). Equality of circumstances = more equal choice.

  (3) More money for schools, more nursery education and smaller primary school classes.

  • Help for lower quality schools to improve, adds to competition. Raise standards despite marketisation.
• Conservative - Liberal Democrat coalition government policies 2010 - 2015 (1)


  (1) New style academies

  • Independent of local council control and able to make their own choices around how school are run. often run by businesses. Diversity and choice.

  (2) Free schools

  • Like academies but can be set up by community groups. Diversity and choice.

  (3) The pupil premium
• Conservative — Liberal Democrat coalition government policies 2010-2015 (2)


  (4) Embacc

  • Focus on traditional subjects. Link to progress 8 measure of school success. aids comparison and competition.

  (5) Reform of the national curriculum

  • Clearer comparison between schools. More focus on ‘traditional‘ subjects.
• Conservative - Liberal Democrat coalition government policies (2010-2015)

  (6) Reform of the examination system

  • Linear exams and qualifications for GCSE and A-level. Removal of coursework. Introduction of exams into BTECs. Raise standards, but also led to clear comparison. This was because of excessive use of resits in GCSE and A-levels, BTEC qualifications were also based around multiple submissions of work.

  (7) Tougher performance targets for schools

  • Easy comparisons and competition.