The Main Phases Of Educational Policy In Britain

Industrialisation increased the need for an educated workforce, & from the late 19th century the state began to become more involved in education. In this period, the type of education children received depended on their class background. Schooling did little to change pupils' ascribed status (the position they were born into). Middle-class pupils were given an academic curriculum to prepare them for careers in their professions or office work. By contrast, working class pupils were given a schooling to equip them with the basic numeracy & literacy skills needed for routine factory work & to instil in them an obedient attitude to their superiors. Reflecting the growing importance of education, the state made schooling compulsory from the ages of 5 to 13 in 1880 (rising to 16 by 1973).

Selection: the tripartite system From 1944, education began to be shaped by the idea of meritocracy- that individuals should achieve their status in life through their own efforts & abilities, rather than it being ascribed at birth by their class background. The 1944, Education Act brought in the tripartite system, so called because children were to be selected & allocated to 1 of 3 different types of secondary school, supposedly according to their aptitudes & abilities. These were to be identified by the eleven plus (11+) exam, which was taken by every child at age 11. ? Grammar schools offered an academic curriculum & access to non-manual jobs & higher education. They were for pupils with the academic ability who passed the 11+. These pupils were mainly middle-class. ? Secondary modern schools offered a non-academic, 'practical' curriculum & access to manual work for pupils who failed the 11+. These pupils were mainly working-class. (The third type, technical schools, existed in a few areas only, so in practice it was more a bipartite than a tripartite system.) Thus, rather than promoting meritocracy, the tripartite system & 11+ reproduced class inequality by channelling the 2 social classes into 2 different types of school that offered unequal opportunities. The system also reproduced gender inequality by discriminating against girls, often requiring them to gain higher marks than boys in the 11+ to obtain a grammar school place. The tripartite system also legitimised (justified) inequality though the ideology that ability is inborn rather than the product of the child's upbringing & environment. It was thus argued that ability could be identified early on in life, through the 11+. However, in reality children's class background greatly affects their chances of success at school.

The comprehensive system The comprehensive system was introduced in many areas from 1965 onwards. It aimed to overcome the class divide of the tripartite system & make education more meritocratic. The 11+ was abolished along with grammars & secondary moderns, to be replaced by comprehensive schools that all pupils within the area would attend. However, although there is evidence that comprehensives helped to reduce the class gap in achievement, the system continued to reproduce class inequality, for 2 reasons. ? Streaming: many comprehensives were streamed into ability group, with middle-class pupils placed in higher streams & working-class pupils in lower streams. As Douglas shows, streaming may lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy in which the achievements of pupils in lower streams deteriorate & those in higher streams improve. ? Labelling: as Ball shows, even where streaming is not present, teachers may continue to label working-class pupils negatively & restrict their opportunities. Comprehensives also legitimised inequality, especially through the 'myth of meritocracy'. Because all pupils now went to the same kind of school, it made it appear that they all had an equal opportunity regardless of class background, when as we have seen, in reality this is not the case. Because it was left to local education authorities (LEAs) to decide whether to 'go comprehensive' after 1965, not all did so, particularly where they were Conservative-controlled. As a result, the grammar-secondary modern divide still exists in many areas, & there are still 164 grammar schools remaining in England.

Marketisation and parentocracy The 1988 Education Reform Act (ERA), introduced by the then Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher, established the principle of Marketisation in education favoured by the New Right. From 1007, the New Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown followed similar policies, emphasising standard, diversity & choice. Marketisation refers to the process of introducing market forces of consumer choice & competition between suppliers into areas run by the state, such as education or the NHS. ERA created an 'education market' by: ? Reducing direct state control over education. ? Increasing both competition between schools & parental choice of school. The New Right favour Marketisation. They argue tat state control leads to low standards, inefficiency & lack of choice for parents. By contrast, Marketisation means that schools are run more like businesses that have to attract customers (parents) by competing with each other in the market. Schools that provide customers with what they want- such as success in exams- will thrive, & those that don't will 'go out of business'. Miriam David (1993) describes this phase as a 'parentocracy' (literally, 'rule by parents'). This is because supporters of Marketisation argue that in an education market, power shifts away from the producers (teachers & schools) to the consumers (parents). They claim that this encourages diversity among schools & gives parents more choice, meets the needs of different pupils, & raises standards. Policies to promote Marketisation include: ? Publication of exam league tables & Ofsted inspection reports to give parents the information they need to choose the right school. ? Business sponsorship of schools, eg, city technology colleges. ? Open enrolment, allowing successful schools to recruit more pupils. ? Formula funding, where schools receive the same amount of funding for each pupil. ? Schools being allowed to opt out of LEA control. ? Schools having to compete to attract pupils. ? Some politicians have proposed educational vouchers. The reproduction of inequality However, despite the claimed benefits of Marketisation, its critics argue that it has increased inequalities between pupils, eg, because middle-class parents are better placed to take advantage of the available choices. Similarly, Stephen Ball (1994) & Geoff Whitty (1998) examine how Marketisation reproduces & legitimates inequality. They argue that it reproduces inequality through: ? Exam league tables. ? The funding formula. Exam league tables The policy of publishing each school's exam results in a league table ensures that schools which achieve good results are more in demand, because parents are attracted to those with good league table rankings. This allows these schools to be more selective & to recruit high achieving, mainly middle-class pupils. As a result, middle-class pupils get the best education. For schools with poor league table positions, the opposite applies: they cannot afford to be selective and have to take less able, mainly working-class pupils, so their results are poorer & they remain unattractive to middle-class parents. The overall effect of league tables is thus to produce unequal schools that reproduce social class inequalities. The funding formula Schools are allocated funds by a formula based on how many pupils they attract. As a result, popular schools get more funds & so can afford better- qualified teachers & better facilities. Again, their popularity allows them to be more selective and ambitious, generally middle-class applicants. On the other hand, unpopular schools lose income & find it difficult to match the teacher skills & facilities of their more successful rivals. Thus, popular schools with good results & middle-class pupils thrive; unpopular schools fail to attract pupils and their funding is further reduced. The myth of parentocracy Not only does Marketisation reproduce inequality; it also legitimises it by concealing its true causes & by justifying its existence. Ball believes that Marketisation gives the appearance of creating a 'parentocracy'. This is, the education system seems as if it is based on parents having a free choice of school. However, Ball argues that parentocracy is a myth, not a reality. It makes it appear that all parents have the same freedom to choose which school to send their children to. In reality, however, as Gewirtz shows, middle-class parents have more economic & cultural capital & so are better able to take advantage of the choices available. Eg, as Leech & Campos show, they can afford to move into the catchments areas of more desirable schools. By disguising the fact that schooling continues to reproduce class inequality in this way, the 'myth of parentocracy' makes inequality in education appear to be fair & inevitable.

New Labour policies since 1997

Labour governments since 1997 have sought both to reduce inequality of achievement & promote greater diversity, choice & competition. They believed that achieving these goals would also make Britain more competitive in the global economy by turning the nation into a high skill, high wage society. Reducing inequality The Labour Party has traditionally had a strong focus on promoting equality. After 1997, Labour governments introduced several policies aimed specifically at reducing inequality in achievement by targeting support on disadvantaged groups. These include: ? Designing some deprived areas as Education Action Zones & providing them with additional resources. ? The Aim Higher programme to raise the aspirations of groups who are under-represented in higher education. ? Educational Maintenance Allowances (EMAs): payments to students from low income backgrounds to encourage them to stay on after 16 to gain better qualifications. ? A proposal to raise the school leaving age to 18 by 2015, so that there would no longer be any 16-17 year old 'Neets' (those 'not in education, employment or training'). This group is largely working-class & unqualified. Labour also introduced policies to raise achievement & standards more generally, such as the National Literacy Strategy, literacy & numeracy hours, & reducing primary school class sizes. It is claimed that these policies are of greater benefit to disadvantaged groups & so help reduce inequality. Promoting diversity & choice Labour governments since 1997 have also aimed to promote greater diversity & choice. Eg, as the then Prime Minster Tony Blair said in 2002, education needs to move into the 'post-comprehensive' era. The existing 'one size fits all, mass education' education system run by bureaucrats from the centre would be scrapped. In its place would be a new system built around the aptitudes & needs of the individual child & where power is in the hands of the parents. To promote diversity & choice, Labour introduced a no. of policies. Eg, secondary schools were encouraged to apply for specialist school status in particular curriculum areas. By 2007, about 85% of all secondary schools had become specialist schools. It is argued that this offers parents a greater choice & raises standards of achievement by enabling schools to build on their strengths. There is some evidence that this has raised standards. Results in specialist schools have outstripped those in non-specialist schools. Eg, in 2006, 59.5% of their pupils gained five GCSE grades A*-C, compared to only 47.6% in non-specialist schools. However, it is unclear whether this has reduced inequality between different social groups. Labour has also promoted academies as a policy for raising achievement & plans to have 200 academies by 2010. Many of these are former comprehensives with poor results & mainly working class pupils, and it is claimed that creating academies will raise their achievements. However, results have been mixed: in some academies, they have improved, but in others they have worsened. Postmodernism & New Labour policies Labour's policies to promote diversity & choice in part reflect ideas put forward by postmodernists. Eg, Kenneth Thompson (1992) argues that in postmodern society, schools can break free from the 'oppressive uniformity' of the old centralised 'one size fits all' mass education system, where all schools were expected to be the same. Instead, Thompson argues, education becomes 'customised' to meet the differing needs of diverse communities - Eg, the growth of 'faith of schools' for different religious groups & the growing demand for specialist schools in technology, languages & so on. Robin Usher (1997) puts forward a similar view in his comparison of modern & postmodern education systems. However, critics of postmodernism argue that it exaggerates the extent of diversity in education. Eg, the National Curriculum is a 'one size fits all', state-controlled curriculum that gives little scope for expressing minority ethnic cultures. Critics also argue that postmodernism neglects the continuing importance of inequality in education. Criticisms of New Labour policies Critics such as Whitty (2002) see a contradiction between Labour's policies to tackle inequality & its commitment to Marketisation. Eg, while EMAs may encourage working-class students to stay on until they are 18, tuition fees for higher education may deter them from going to university. Whitty thus concludes that Labour's anti-equality policies are merely 'cosmetic' - they present a positive image without actually reducing class inequalities. Other critics point to the continued existence of both selective grammar schools & fee-paying private schools. Despite the Labour Party's long-standing opposition to private schools as bastions of middle- & upper-class privilege, Labour governments have neither abolished them nor removed the charitable status that reduces the amount of tax they have to pay. Polly Curtis (2007) estimates this to be worth £100 million per year. Similarly, while not allowing any new grammar schools, New Labour have not abolished existing ones. However, while Whitty & others argue that Labour governments' commitment to Marketisation has prevented them from tackling class inequalities, others disagree. Eg, Paul Trowler (2003) points to policies such as increased funding of state education, raising standards & a focus on a 'learning society' as evidence of Labour's commitment to reducing educational inequality.

Policies relating to gender & ethnicity Policies can also have an impact on other differences in achievement like gender & ethnicity. Gender In the 19th century, females were largely excluded from higher education. More recently, under the tripartite system, girls often had to achieve a higher mark than boys in the 11+ in order to obtain a grammar school place. Since the 1970s, however, policies such as GIST have been introduced to reduce gender differences in subject choice. Ethnicity There have also been policies aimed at raising the achievements of children from minority ethnic backgrounds. These policies have gone through several phases. 1) Assimilation policies in the 1960s & 70s focused on the need for pupils from minority ethnic groups to assimilate into mainstream British culture as a way of raising their achievement, especially by helping those for whom English was not their first language. A related policy is that of compensatory education. However, critics argue that some minority groups who are at risk of underachieving, such as African Caribbean pupils, already speak English & that the real cause of their under-achievement lies in poverty or racism. 2) Multiculturalism education (MCE) policies through the 1980s & into the 1990s aimed to promote the achievements of children from minority ethnic groups by valuing all cultures in the school curriculum, thereby raising minority pupils' self-esteem & achievements. However, MCE has been criticised on several grounds: ? Maureen Stone (1981) argues that black pupils do not fail for lack of self-esteem, so MCE is misguided. ? Others argue that MCE is mere tokenism - 'saris, samosas & steel bands'. It picks out stereotypical features of minority cultures for inclusion in the curriculum, but fails to tackle institutional racism, which some see as the real cause of under-achievement. ? The New Right criticise MCE for perpetuating cultural divisions. They take the assimilationist view that education should teach a shared national culture & identity into which minorities should be assimilated. 3) Social inclusion of pupils from minority ethnic groups, & policies to raise their achievement, have been the focus since the late 1990s. Policies include: ? Detailed monitoring of exam results by ethnicity. ? Amending the Race Relations Act to place a legal duty on schools to promote racial equality. ? Help for voluntary 'Saturday schools' in the black community. ? Continued funding of English as an Additional Language programmes. However, Heidi Safia Mirza (2005) sees little genuine change in policy. She argues that, instead of tackling the structural causes of ethnic inequality such as poverty & racism, educational policy still takes a 'soft' approach that focuses on culture, behaviour & the home. Eg, 'there are schemes for motivational & personal development, projects on parenting skills, homework & breakfast clubs, writers' clubs' & so on. Mirza argues that, while these might make a small difference, they are short-term policies unlikely to have any lasting impact.