Educational Policies from 1944 to Academies

Educational Policies: 1944 to Academies

Education policy has been shaped by political ideology. Understanding the shift from state control to marketisation is essential for the AQA exam.

The Tripartite System (1944 Education Act)

The Butler Act introduced free secondary education for all and created the tripartite system:

• Children took the 11-plus exam at age 11
• They were allocated to one of three types of school:
• Grammar schools — academic curriculum for those who passed the 11-plus (approx. 20%)
• Secondary modern schools — practical curriculum for those who failed (approx. 75%)
• Technical schools — vocational education (very few were built, approx. 5%)

Functionalist View

• Seen as meritocratic role allocation — sifting pupils by ability

Marxist/Labour Critique

• Reproduced class inequality: middle-class children disproportionately passed the 11-plus due to cultural capital
• The 11-plus labelled most working-class children as "failures" at age 11
• Secondary moderns were stigmatised and under-resourced
• Ford (1969): the tripartite system did not provide genuine equality of opportunity

Comprehensivisation (1965 onwards)

The Labour government introduced comprehensive schools to replace the tripartite system:

• All pupils in an area attend the same school regardless of ability
• No 11-plus selection — aimed to end the "11-plus failure" stigma
• Goal: equality of opportunity through mixed-ability teaching and social mixing

Arguments For

• Removed the stigma of being labelled a "failure" at 11
• Increased social mixing across classes
• More working-class pupils gained qualifications than under the tripartite system

Arguments Against

• Ball (1981): comprehensives still streamed pupils internally — working-class pupils dominated lower streams, reproducing inequality within the school
• Marxists: comprehensives created an illusion of equality while the class structure remained unchanged
• Grammar schools survived in some areas (164 remain in England)
• Middle-class parents used "selection by mortgage" to access the best comprehensives

Marketisation and the New Right (1988 onwards)

The 1988 Education Reform Act under Thatcher (Conservative) introduced marketisation — applying market principles to education.

Key Policies

Policy	Purpose
National Curriculum	Standardised content across all state schools
SATs and league tables	Published results to create competition and inform parental choice
Ofsted (1992)	Independent inspection of schools
Open enrolment	Parents could apply to any school, not just the nearest
Formula funding	Schools funded per pupil — popular schools get more money
Grant-Maintained Schools	Schools could opt out of LEA control
City Technology Colleges	Business-sponsored schools focused on technology

Theoretical Perspectives on Marketisation

New Right View (Chubb and Moe, 1990):

• Marketisation drives up standards through competition
• Schools that fail to attract pupils will improve or close
• Parental choice empowers consumers

Marxist Critique (Ball, 2003):

• Marketisation is a class strategy that benefits the middle class
• Middle-class parents are "skilled choosers" who can decode league tables and prospectuses
• Gewirtz (1995): identified three types of parent-choosers:
• Privileged/skilled choosers (professional middle class) — used cultural capital to navigate the system effectively
• Semi-skilled choosers (ambitious but lacking capital) — wanted good schools but lacked the resources
• Disconnected choosers (working class) — constrained by cost, transport, and limited information
• Marketisation creates a two-tier system: over-subscribed successful schools vs under-funded struggling schools

Evaluation:

• Strengths: Standards did improve overall; schools became more accountable
• Weakness: League tables encourage teaching to the test and educational triage (Gillborn and Youdell, 2001)
• Weakness: A-C economy — schools focus on C/D borderline pupils, neglecting the most and least able

New Labour Policies (1997–2010)

Tony Blair famously declared his three priorities: "Education, education, education."

New Labour kept marketisation but added policies aimed at reducing inequality:

Key Policies

• Education Action Zones (EAZs): extra funding for schools in disadvantaged areas
• Excellence in Cities: learning mentors, gifted and talented programmes
• Academies (2002): failing schools taken over by private sponsors, freed from LEA control and the National Curriculum
• Sure Start (1998): pre-school centres in disadvantaged areas providing childcare, health, and parenting support
• EMA (Education Maintenance Allowance): weekly payments to encourage 16–18 year olds from low-income families to stay in education
• Aim Higher: programme to raise university aspirations among under-represented groups
• Tuition fees (1998, raised 2004): introduced £1,000 fees, then top-up fees of £3,000 — criticised as discouraging working-class participation

Evaluation of New Labour

• Strengths: Sure Start had measurable positive effects on early-years development; EMA increased post-16 participation
• Weakness: Academies were controversial — critics argued they privatised public education
• Weakness: University tuition fees contradicted the equality agenda

Coalition and Conservative Policies (2010 onwards)

The Coalition (2010–15) and subsequent Conservative governments accelerated academisation and austerity.

Key Policies

• Free Schools: new schools set up by parents, teachers, charities, or businesses — freed from LEA control and the National Curriculum
• Academies expansion: most secondary schools became academies; Multi-Academy Trusts (MATs) manage chains of schools
• EMA abolished (2010): replaced by a smaller, targeted bursary fund
• Sure Start cut: over 1,000 centres closed between 2010 and 2020
• Pupil Premium: additional funding per disadvantaged pupil (FSM-eligible)
• EBacc: performance measure encouraging schools to enter pupils for English, Maths, Sciences, a language, and History or Geography
• Tuition fees raised to £9,000 (2012, now £9,250)
• Progress 8: replaced the 5 A*–C measure with a broader measure of progress across 8 subjects

Evaluation

• Pupil Premium: evidence suggests some narrowing of the FSM gap, but it remains large
• Free schools and academies: critics (e.g., Ravitch, 2013, writing about US charter schools) argue there is no consistent evidence that autonomy improves results
• Marxists: the academy programme represents the privatisation of education, transferring public assets to private sponsors
• Austerity: cuts to EMA, Sure Start, and school budgets have disproportionately affected working-class pupils

Policies to Promote Equality

Policy	Aim	Outcome
Comprehensive schools	End 11-plus selection	Reduced stigma but streaming persisted
National Curriculum	Equal access to knowledge	Standardised but Eurocentric (Coard, 1971)
EMA	Keep poorer students in education	Effective but abolished
Sure Start	Early intervention	Positive effects but centres cut
Pupil Premium	Close the FSM gap	Some progress but gap persists
EBacc	Broaden curriculum	May disadvantage creative/vocational pupils

Theoretical Summary

• Functionalists: education policy should promote meritocracy and social cohesion
• Marxists: all policies serve capitalism — marketisation and privatisation benefit the ruling class
• New Right: the state should not have a monopoly; market forces drive improvement
• Social democrats: the state should intervene to reduce inequality (comprehensive ideal)

Exam Tip

Policy questions often ask you to evaluate whether policies have reduced or increased inequality. Structure your answer chronologically and use specific policies as AO2 evidence. Always link policies to sociological perspectives — this is what distinguishes an A-grade answer from a descriptive account.