EDUCATIONAL POLICY IN BRITAIN BEFORE 1988: GEWIRTZ: PARENTAL CHOICE:
1. The tripartite system She did a study of 14 London secondary schools and found that parents economic +
The 1944 Education Act brought in the tripartite system – children were to be selected and cultural capital led to difference in school choice.
allocated 1 of 3 types of secondary schools. (Grammar schools, secondary modern schools, and PRIVITISATION OF EDUCATION
The 3 types of parents were:
technical schools). Privatisation involves the transfer of public assets to private companies. Education has bec
The system reproduced inequality rather than promote meritocracy. This was due to putting the 1. Privileged – Skilled Choosers
2 social classes into 2 different types of school offering unequal opportunities. Ball heProfessional
called this the
m/c‘education services industry’.
parents, prosperous, Companies
confident, involved
well educated, in work
knew howfor sch
The system also reproduced gender inequality as girls had to obtain higher marks than boy in
1. school
Blurringsystem works,private
the public/ have time to visit schools,
of education policy had skills to research option,
11+ exams to get into grammar schools. can
Senior officials in the public sector leave topossible.
afford to give children best education work for the private education sector.
The system also legitimated inequality through the ideology that ability is inborn. In reality 2. Disconnected-Local Choosers
Pollack the flow of personnel allows companies to buy insider knowledge to he
children develop as they get older.
2. w/c parents, limited
Privatisation and thechoices due to of
globalisation lack of cultural
education + economic capital, difficult
policy
2. The comprehensive school system to understand school admission process, less confident, less aware, less ableisto
Private companies in the education system are foreign owned e.g., Edexcel own
Introduced from 1965 onwards and aimed to overcome the class divide produced by the manipulate
making due system, attached
to increasing more to safety and school facilities, travel costs
globalisation.
tripartite system and make education more meritocratic.
3. restrict school choice,
The cola-isation limited funds, nearest school = realistic option.
of schools
11+ was to be abolished, grammar/secondary schools were to be replaced with comprehensive 3. Semi-Skilled Choosers
Privatisation is penetrating education indirectly through logos and sponsorship.
schools. Mainly
Molnarw/c, ambitious
schools are for children,
targeted lacked cultural
by companies capital,
as they are acannot
kind ofunderstand
product endor
But it was left down to the local education authority to go comprehensive – not all did education market, rely on opinions, frustrated in their inability to get children
Benefits to schools and pupils are limited.
grammar/secondary school divide still exists. into ideal schools.
4. Education as a Commodity
Theories of the role of comprehensives Ball privatisation
Gewirtz concludes is becoming
that in practice the key
m/c parents factor cultural
possess shaping and
educational
economicpolicy. Educati
capital
FUNCTTIONALISTS MARXISTS Hall coalition policies are
and have more choice than w/c parents. part of the ‘long march of the neoliberal revolution’.
Role of Education = fulfilling essential Role of Education = serving the interests of
functions such as social integration and capitalism by reproducing & legitimating POLICIES ON GENDER & ETHNICITY COALITION GOVERNMENT POLICIES F
meritocratic selection for future work class inequality.
roles. Comprehensives are not meritocratic GENDER: 1. Academies Act 2010 (increa
Comprehensives promote social class the reproduce class inequality through Schools were encouraged to
1. GIST 1980
integration by bringing children of streaming and labelling deny w/c equal control over their curriculum
Attempt to encourage more girls to choose
different social classes together in one opportunity. By 2012, half of secondary sc
science. It was followed by WISE. Was
school. There is a ‘myth of meritocracy’ which This removed focus on reduc
introduced by Thatcher.
EVAL: Ford found that little social mixing legitimates class inequality by making
2. Free Schools 2010 (increase
between w/c and m/c due to streaming. unequal achievement seem fair. ETHNICITY:
Funded directly by the state
Comprehensive system is more
1. Multicultural education Improve educational standar
meritocratic as it gives pupils a longer
time to develop and show their abilities. Aimed to promote the achievements of hands if they feel their local
children from minority ethnic groups by Allen they only benefit hi
valuing all cultures in school curriculum. 20% are free schools.
MARKETISATION:
Mirza sees little genuine change in policy, instead of 3. Free school meals
Marketisation refers to the process of introducing market forces of consumer choice and competition tackling the structural causes of ethnic inequality, For all pupils in reception ye
between suppliers into areas rub by the state. education policy still takes a soft approach 4. Pupil Premium 2011
Funding for disadvantaged p
It has been a central theme of govt education policy since the 1988 Education reform Act – Thatcher. Gillborn institutionally racist policies in relation to
the ethnocentric system continue to disadvantage
1. Parentocracy minority ethnic groups.
Policies to promote marketisation: league tables, Ofsted reports, business sponsorship of
schools, open enrolment, specialist schools, formula funding, schools being able to opt out of
1. The tripartite system She did a study of 14 London secondary schools and found that parents economic +
The 1944 Education Act brought in the tripartite system – children were to be selected and cultural capital led to difference in school choice.
allocated 1 of 3 types of secondary schools. (Grammar schools, secondary modern schools, and PRIVITISATION OF EDUCATION
The 3 types of parents were:
technical schools). Privatisation involves the transfer of public assets to private companies. Education has bec
The system reproduced inequality rather than promote meritocracy. This was due to putting the 1. Privileged – Skilled Choosers
2 social classes into 2 different types of school offering unequal opportunities. Ball heProfessional
called this the
m/c‘education services industry’.
parents, prosperous, Companies
confident, involved
well educated, in work
knew howfor sch
The system also reproduced gender inequality as girls had to obtain higher marks than boy in
1. school
Blurringsystem works,private
the public/ have time to visit schools,
of education policy had skills to research option,
11+ exams to get into grammar schools. can
Senior officials in the public sector leave topossible.
afford to give children best education work for the private education sector.
The system also legitimated inequality through the ideology that ability is inborn. In reality 2. Disconnected-Local Choosers
Pollack the flow of personnel allows companies to buy insider knowledge to he
children develop as they get older.
2. w/c parents, limited
Privatisation and thechoices due to of
globalisation lack of cultural
education + economic capital, difficult
policy
2. The comprehensive school system to understand school admission process, less confident, less aware, less ableisto
Private companies in the education system are foreign owned e.g., Edexcel own
Introduced from 1965 onwards and aimed to overcome the class divide produced by the manipulate
making due system, attached
to increasing more to safety and school facilities, travel costs
globalisation.
tripartite system and make education more meritocratic.
3. restrict school choice,
The cola-isation limited funds, nearest school = realistic option.
of schools
11+ was to be abolished, grammar/secondary schools were to be replaced with comprehensive 3. Semi-Skilled Choosers
Privatisation is penetrating education indirectly through logos and sponsorship.
schools. Mainly
Molnarw/c, ambitious
schools are for children,
targeted lacked cultural
by companies capital,
as they are acannot
kind ofunderstand
product endor
But it was left down to the local education authority to go comprehensive – not all did education market, rely on opinions, frustrated in their inability to get children
Benefits to schools and pupils are limited.
grammar/secondary school divide still exists. into ideal schools.
4. Education as a Commodity
Theories of the role of comprehensives Ball privatisation
Gewirtz concludes is becoming
that in practice the key
m/c parents factor cultural
possess shaping and
educational
economicpolicy. Educati
capital
FUNCTTIONALISTS MARXISTS Hall coalition policies are
and have more choice than w/c parents. part of the ‘long march of the neoliberal revolution’.
Role of Education = fulfilling essential Role of Education = serving the interests of
functions such as social integration and capitalism by reproducing & legitimating POLICIES ON GENDER & ETHNICITY COALITION GOVERNMENT POLICIES F
meritocratic selection for future work class inequality.
roles. Comprehensives are not meritocratic GENDER: 1. Academies Act 2010 (increa
Comprehensives promote social class the reproduce class inequality through Schools were encouraged to
1. GIST 1980
integration by bringing children of streaming and labelling deny w/c equal control over their curriculum
Attempt to encourage more girls to choose
different social classes together in one opportunity. By 2012, half of secondary sc
science. It was followed by WISE. Was
school. There is a ‘myth of meritocracy’ which This removed focus on reduc
introduced by Thatcher.
EVAL: Ford found that little social mixing legitimates class inequality by making
2. Free Schools 2010 (increase
between w/c and m/c due to streaming. unequal achievement seem fair. ETHNICITY:
Funded directly by the state
Comprehensive system is more
1. Multicultural education Improve educational standar
meritocratic as it gives pupils a longer
time to develop and show their abilities. Aimed to promote the achievements of hands if they feel their local
children from minority ethnic groups by Allen they only benefit hi
valuing all cultures in school curriculum. 20% are free schools.
MARKETISATION:
Mirza sees little genuine change in policy, instead of 3. Free school meals
Marketisation refers to the process of introducing market forces of consumer choice and competition tackling the structural causes of ethnic inequality, For all pupils in reception ye
between suppliers into areas rub by the state. education policy still takes a soft approach 4. Pupil Premium 2011
Funding for disadvantaged p
It has been a central theme of govt education policy since the 1988 Education reform Act – Thatcher. Gillborn institutionally racist policies in relation to
the ethnocentric system continue to disadvantage
1. Parentocracy minority ethnic groups.
Policies to promote marketisation: league tables, Ofsted reports, business sponsorship of
schools, open enrolment, specialist schools, formula funding, schools being able to opt out of
