Educational Policy: Plans/Strategies for education introduced by the government (i.e. through Acts of Parliament,
together with instructions and recommendations to schools and LEA, such as the 2010 Academies Act which made it
possible for all state schools to become academies).
Since the 1880 Education Act – education has been compulsory, and hence a feature of government policy, and until
the 1944 Tripartite System was largely class based created vast inequality on the basis of wealth (i.e. w/c taught
merely basic math and English to help their careers in mining, factories etc).
1944 Tripartite System: Education Act 1944, known as Butler Act (1944) -> SELECTION POLICY through 11+
Led to the different schools being introduced – with students sifted and sorted into career paths, aiming for each
type of education to be equally valuable (for different careers):
If you passed the 11 plus test – Grammar School – academic education for the brightest students, with
access to non-manual jobs and higher education, for mainly middle class students (about 20% of students)
If you failed 11 plus test – secondary modern school – practical education leading to manual jobs (mainly for
working class) (about 75-80% of students)
If seen as talented in arts/technology – technical schools – vocational education for career path (rarely
available, only about 5% of schools) – eventually fazed out.
The 11+ test given to students in last year of primary school used as a means to determine whether the pupil is
suited to the academic rigour of grammar school education – Conservative Party policy (backed by Labour).
Everyone got to sit the 11+ test so was in theory ‘equal opportunity’ – it was thought everyone had a fixed ability at
age 11, so an IQ (intelligence) test was designed to select the school students would go into.
A03: Pupil’s intelligence is not fixed at 11, this policy stifled ‘late developers’ who missed out an opportunity for an
academic education and sit exams. Furthermore, this would damage those who may be naturally talented but do not
have the provisions in place for a single test (such as those with learning difficulties, ADD/ASD who did not have apt
provision or diagnosis).
A03: The amount of marks needed to pass was higher for girls than boys, hence Feminists would criticise this policy
as it acted to largely exclude girls from more academic education and jobs/academic ‘status’.
A03: Tripartite System helped reproduce class inequality (and legitimised inequality, Marxism, it was the fault of
the W/C for failing the test), typically M/C students passed 11+ going to grammar schools and accessing
higher/further education and getting qualifications/top paying jobs, providing w/c with more vocational, low ‘status’
jobs -> (i.e. Cultural Capital within schools).
,Comprehensive System (1965): Labour Party/Harold Wilson
Aimed to overcome class divide of tripartite system, making education more meritocratic, effectively abolished the
11+ and hence selection by test, secondary moderns and grammar schools would all become comprehensive
schools.
Comprehensivisation: only one type of school for all pupils, with selection disallowed by ‘The Schools Admissions
Code’ (theoretically, free schools, academies, comprehensive schools should not select on basis of ability etc).
This means the M/C should not be ‘cream-skimmed’ by grammar schools (aiming to reduce class inequality as there
would be social mixing of the classes).
Should arguably benefit those less ‘academic’ as they would not be thrown aside for a vocational education in
Secondary Moderns -> educated in the same school with mixed ability.
Sociological theory of the role of comprehensive schools
Marxism Functionalism
See the role of education as serving the See the role of education as fulfilling essential functions such as
interests of capitalism by reproducing and social integration and meritocratic section for future work roles.
legitimising class inequality
Functionalists argue that comprehensives promote social
Marxists argue that comprehensives are not integration by bringing children of different social classes together
meritocratic, and they reproduce class in one school.
inequality from one generation to the next However, Ford (1969) found little social mixing between working-
through the continuation of the practice of class and middle-class pupils, largely because of streaming.
streaming and labelling. These continue to deny Functionalists also see the comprehensive system as more
the w/c children equal opportunity. meritocratic as it gives pupils a longer period in which to develop
and show their abilities, unlike the tripartite system which sought
By not judging ability at 11, they argue to select the most able pupils at the age of 11.
comprehensives may appear to offer equal
chances to all, this ‘myth of meritocracy’
legitimates and justifies class inequality by
making underachievement seem fair and just,
making failure look like it is the fault of the
individual, rather than the system.
, 1988 Education Reform Act: (Thatcher – Marketisation Policy)
Marketisation: process of introducing market forces of consumer choice/competition between suppliers into areas run by the state (i.e.
education). Created an ‘education market’, by: reducing direct state control, increasing competition between schools.
Marketisation/Privatisation is favoured by the NR (and neoliberals), arguing marketisation means schools would attract customers (parents) by
competition with each other in the market, and hence schools would provide customers with what they want (i.e. exam success), those that do
will thrive and those that do not will go out of business. Influencing Conservative government (1979-97) with ideas around competition/choice.
Formula Schools are allocated funds by a formula, based on how many pupils they attract – hence more pupils/parents
attracted the greater school income – standards raised as schools have to ‘sell’ themselves – acting like a business ->
Funding better facilities, league table results.
Popular/best schools afford better qualified teachers, facilities and can be more selective, perhaps attractive more
ambitious (or able) predominantly m/c students.
Unpopular schools lose income, struggle to match facilities and qualified teachers of their more successful rivalries,
with inferior funding to the popular schools – largely contain w/c.
Institute for Public Policy Research (2012): competition orientated education systems (i.e. Britain’s) produce more
segregation between children of different backgrounds (ethnicity and social class).
The policy of publishing each school’s exam results in league tables, ensuring schools achieving good results are in
League greater demand, parents attracted to schools with good league table rankings
Tables
Bartlett (1993) notes that this encourages:
- Cream Skimming: ‘Good’ schools can be more selective, choosing their own customers and recruiting high
achieving, mainly m/c parents, these pupils gain an advantage and the schools higher league table position is
replicated.
- Silt-Shifting: ‘Good’ schools can avoid taking less able pupils, who may be more likely to get poor results,
hence damaging the school’s league table position.
For schools with poor league table positions, the opposite applies: they cannot afford to be less selective, having to
take the ‘less able’, often w/c pupils replicating poorer results and being less attractive to parents.
The overall effect of League table is to produce unequal schools that reproduce social class inequality.
A03: League tables count the number of pupils who gain 5 A-C grades, creating a A-C economy, as leading schools
often focus on the D-C ‘borderline’ students as they would ‘count’ if they moved up a grade, hence neglecting other
children (the educational triage identified by Gillborn and Youdell, the ‘hopeless cases’).
Ofsted, introduced in 1988, to inspect schools and check on standards, ranking schools (from 1 ‘outstanding to 4
OFSTED ‘inadequate’).
- Ofsted helps parents make informed choices about where to send their child to school (augmenting use of
league tables).
- Helps create competition as schools compete to get better rankings than their rivals.
A03: OFSTED only offers a snapshot of school performance which may lack validity.
Rather than having to send their child to the nearest school, parents can David (1993) described marketised
Open send their child to ANY school – thus increased choice and competition. education as creating a ‘parentocracy’,
Enrolmen within a education market, power has
t& This creates a ‘parentocracy’, parents having choice, which encourages shifted from schools to the consumers
Parentocracy schools to raise standards to attract parents/pupils, as they are acting (parents), encouraging competition raising
like a business competing for students – no guaranteed supply of standards and greater choice.
students (as previously).
A03: Selection by Mortgage (Leech & Campus) – pricing out W/C A03: ‘Myth of Parentocracy’ – Ball: argues
A03: Gewirtz (1995) m/c parents with material/cultural capital are in a that marketisation gives the appearance
better position to choose best schools, studying 14 London secondary of a ‘parentocracy’, as the education
schools found differences in how parental choice could be exercised and system appears based on parents having
how M/C parents may ‘play the system’ to their advantage. free choice of school, arguing this is a
- Privileged-skilled choosers: Mainly professional m/c parents myth (not reality) as m/c parents are able
using economic/cultural capital to help children gain to take better advantage of choice
educational capital, taking full advantaged of choices (knowing available.
how school admissions systems work, school choice and ability For example, Leech and Campos show
to research choices, through OFSTED reports and league tables) that they can afford to move into the
– they can also visit schools and afford to send their child to catchment areas of more desirable
schools’ further distance away (i.e. may be better achieving). schools.
