Education in Britain 1979 to Present - Essay Example

? Topic: Lecturer: Presentation: Introduction Education is the key to success for every individual and the nation as a whole hence the reason why governments spend a huge part of their debt funding education. It prepares one to enter into the job market and get employed thus contributing to the growth of the economy. However, there are always debates as to whether what students learn matches the requirements in the job market. As a result, review of curriculum is inevitable now and then to take care of the changing needs in the market as the environment changes and the world becomes global. The big question is who decides on the content of the curriculum and what informs that decision? Is it for economic reasons as expected by business community or is it to serve political interests? It is worth noting that debates on what should be taught in schools have always been political in nature. Each successive government establishes its own education policies to suit their needs which affect what is taught in the curriculum and how the institutional actors behave themselves (Gillard, 2011). The aim of this paper is thus to discuss the debates that have been going on about education from 1979 during Thatcher’s conservative government to the present. The paper will be divided into four sections. The first section will discuss the period from 1979 to 1990 with Margaret Thatcher in power through the conservative government. The second section will cover conservative government under John Major from 1990 to 1997. The third section will be Blair’s labour government covering the period 1997 to 2007. The last section covers the period 2007 to present with labour government under Gordon Brown and Balls and now David Cameron. A brief summary of the main points will be given in the end. Thatcherism; 1979-1990 The period from 1979-1997 can be referred as neo-liberalism era as it was characterised by marketisation especially of public services. According to Gillard (2011) it was also a period of social and economic restructuring whereby Thatcher applied her unpopular aggressive policies earning her the title of ‘iron lady’. Prior to conservative government taking over office tremendous changes had been made in the education sector especially resulting from the 1944 Education Act. This Act saw the introduction of free and compulsory education to pupils aged 5-16 and also the famous selection tests known as 11+ (Jones, 2003: 25). The schools were put under Local Education Authorities who were involved in funding and management of schools. Parents in this case did not have much choice at to what schools their pupils should attend. Although the Act was aimed at creating equal opportunities for students’ social class differences were still apparent as students from the middle class attended good schools while those from poor backgrounds ended up in technical schools. It was a three tier system comprising of grammar schools, technical school and secondary modern (Richmond, 2007; Smithers & Robinson, 2010). Exclusion thus persisted. While in office, the secretary for education James Callaghan had instituted a youth opportunity program for 16-18 year olds in 1978 after a great debate on the nature and purpose of education (Gillard, 2011). When Thatcher came into office she did not abolish the system but rather expanded it in 1980 and renamed in 1983 to be the Youth Training Scheme. However, the debate in her time was one sided ads she did nit involve other actors such as parents, teachers and governors. In 1980 she also started the Assisted Places Scheme to help those poor students who passed entrance exams to get free places (Chitty, 2004: 45; Gillard, 2011). The first agenda for Thatcher concerning education was to do away with the 11 plus selection exam but her efforts were thwarted since comprehensive schooling still enjoyed great popularity (Richmond, 2007). The curriculum in place is determined by the government of the day hence prone to a lot of changes. The selection exam was introduced by labour government but conservative government scrapped it amid opposition from grammar schools ad even today some of them still use the selection exam. Thatcher’s government also took radical measures to control the economy such as cost cutting, privatisation and deregulation (Gillard, 2011). These measures had a great impact on what is provided in schools as new forms of public management emerged. The first step was to marketwise the education sector so as to make it competitive. In this case power was transferred from local education authorities to school boards and parents given power in terms of sharing in the board proceedings and making decisions (Gillard, 2011). Local management systems were introduced thus schools could now decide on the curriculum to offer as opposed to the past where LEAs established curriculum. However, some subjects such as maths and science, history, geography, and religious studies were to be in the syllabus. According to Jones (2003: 106) an effective and independent inspectorate was also set up to specify the minimum standards required in the curriculum. The debate then is whether there was need to strip LEAs of power and marketise education making schools responsible for curriculum. Most would agree that this would definitely lead to differences in education standards in different areas especially where working class dominate. Since schools were to be funded depending on the number of students enrolled, the prestigious schools got a higher enrolment than normal thus getting high amount of funds for development (Chitty, 2004). This has a direct influence on the performance of students thus such schools continue outdoing the others and introducing measures to lock poor performers out due to high enrolment. The 1988 Education Act during this period was the one that saw marketisation of education and establishment of a national curriculum whereby it made compulsory for schools to teach certain subjects and syllabus. The Act also brought about National Curriculum Assessments at key stages and a league of tables where performance statistics were listed for all to see (Gillard, 2011). Based on the results parents now had an informed choice of where to enrol their children. Some schools were allowed to opt out of local government control and become grant maintained schools. With this status, they received more money than local government schools. The whole aim of this Act was strip LEAs of power due to politics since LEAs are not under the central government but at local level. All this politicking influences what is taught in schools in terms of quality of curriculum content. The teachers role in curriculum development was also restricted during this period thus affect quality of education. Furthermore, resources were now being distributed by central government so it had much control on education (Smithers & Robinson, 2010). However, those students with special needs were taken care of through the 1981 education Act. Thatcher’s era was followed by Major. John Major: 1990-1997 The period 1990-1997 was more of the same as the era before as conservative government was still in place only new faces emerged. There was increased inequality due to the marketisation measures by Thatcher and also low investment in education as the government had cut costs dramatically (Richmond, 2007). Major continued with Thatcher’s legacy of undermining the LEAs and also the teachers who were subjected to performance tests and had influence on the curriculum. The rich areas continued taking bright students and performing better than public schools where most children of the poor enrolled. The government introduced the Further and Higher Education Act in 1992 which removed further education and sixth form colleges under the control of LEA and established Further Education Funding Councils (Gillard, 2011) to further market education even at higher levels. This was through encouraging competition in institutions of higher learning by forcing them to compete for the available funds just like primary and secondary schools. With increased competition, there is no telling what students learn in class as each schools uses all means to excel. The politics of the day between the national and local governments thus always have an effect on what is taught in class. Some schools do not get students due to poor performance hence they lose teaching morale; moreover, the students will still fail no matter the effort put. No wonder according to Ball (2008: 198) Britain still ranks low in the global league table despite all those measures in place. The 1992 Education (schools) Act saw the establishment of an inspectorate body known as Ofsted to supervise the curriculum and ensure equality in opportunities in schools. This was to achieve government’s aims of equal opportunity for all and to ensure efficiency in schools. However, it was not well for teachers who were forced to contend with a lot of paperwork filing so many reports for inspection (Jones, 2003). The role of LEAs was to be weakened further by emphasis on specialisation rather than selection. People went to different secondary schools due to selection but now major was emphasising that individuals have different needs and as such, education should be suited to local circumstances (Gillard, 2011). This was denying pupils equal opportunity in excuse for diversity. The curriculum is supposed to be uniform and not used to serve state interests of diminishing the local authority power. The curriculum was reviewed again in 1993 through the Dearing report which recommended reduction of curriculum content, less time for testing, and merging of bodies dealing with curriculum (Gillard, 2011). The 1993 Act made various changes to education sector such as changing funding rules to assist grant maintained schools and special measures to be taken for schools failing to meet education standards. Tony Blair: 1997-2007 The labour government was back in power in 1997 under Blair. According to Jones (2003: 145) Blair’s government only came to strengthen Thatcher’s and Major’s market policies and parental choice leading to increased competition and existence in inequality in education provision. Labour policies entailed reduction in class sizes, increased socialisation in schools through selection and emphasis of numeracy and literacy in the curriculum (Poulson, 1998: 35). Science, maths and languages was also to be emphasized as well as performance targets for schools. The head teachers were also to be trained among other policies. These were outlined in the 1997 white paper on excellence in schools. As opposed to selection tests, now selection was to be based on aptitude and LEAs were given more power to control over schools especially those which were failing as per Ofsted standards. Blair’s government as outlined by Gillard (2011) was not interested in resolving the selection issue but was more concerned with raising education standards. For this government the grammar schools were too few to concentrate on their removal. In actual sense he extended selection by revitalising comprehensive schools into specialist colleges which would be funded by business sector, community and grants from government. By raising $50,000 from business population they would get $100000 grant and allowed to select pupils based on aptitude. Areas that had fully comprehensive schools were performing better that those based on selection but the governments were determined to go on with privatisation and marketisation thus affecting the content of classroom teaching (Whitty, 2009). In privatisation efforts Education Action Zones (EAZ) were introduced in deprived areas to assume some functions of LEA. They were to be funded by business people and the government. Instead of using the National Curriculum like other schools, they were allowed to come up with their own curriculum ad this obviously would affect equality in education (Gillard, 2011). However, the project did not work as not many private investors were willing to put in money into failing schools. This was not even enough as Blair began contracting out schools to the private sector and also some services conducted by LEA if they were not efficient. The establishment of city academies was the height of privatisation. These were to be private schools but funded by the government (Whitty, 2009). They were to be build by voluntary organisations, churches and businesses that were also to manage them. They were out of influence of LEA and as such had discretion to set their own curriculum. It seems the British government was not keen in having a common curriculum for schools. Only some subjects such as maths, science, English and IT were made compulsory and the schools to decide on other subjects (Gillard, 2011). This leads to lack of uniformity in schools but the government did not see the value of a national curriculum. It was just propelled by political reasons to leave the curriculum to schools to enhance diversity. However, what this created was disharmony and inequality in society all the in the name of diversity. The two main aims of Blair government were specialisation and privatisation. Gordon Brown: 2007-2010 Gordon Brown was not for the selection processes used in schools to enrol students. He thus reorganised the department of education into several units to fit with requirements in various sectors. He also stopped further expansion of academies and gave warning to failing schools to improve (Gillard, 2011). More work-based apprenticeships were also introduced to keep students longer in school. A children’s plan was introduced in 2007 to eradicate poverty among children with the assistance of all stakeholders. It was based o the belief that all children have great potentials thus no need to separate them through tests or other means (Jones, 2003). The school leaving age was raised to 18 through the 2008 Education Act. The primary curriculum education was introduced in 2011 after an independent review. The review recommended teaching of one or two foreign languages. The value of play was also to be emphasized by being put onto the curriculum. In addition, children to acquire a range of personal, social, and emotional qualities for their health and well-being through the curriculum (Gillard, 2011). This new curriculum envisaged by Brown’s government was more relevant than previous curriculum which did not have an objective other than political. Six areas of learning were identified: maths, science, physical health, arts and design, and human, social and environmental understanding. References Ball, S. J. 2008. The education debate: policy and politics in the twenty-first Century. Bristol: Policy Press. Chitty, C. 2004. Education policy in Britain Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Gillard, D. 2011. Education in England: A Brief History. Available at: http://www.educationengland.org.uk/history Jones, K .2003.Education in Britain: 1944 to the present. Cambridge: Polity Press Poulson, L. 1998. The English Curriculum in Schools. London: Cassell. Richmond, W.K. 2007. History of Education: Education in Britain Since 1944. Cambridge: Polity Press Smithers, A & Robinson, P (2010) Worlds Apart: Social Variation among Schools. The Sutton Trust. Whitty, G. (2009) Evaluating Blair’s Educational Legacy: Some Comments on the Special Issue of Oxford Review of Education. Oxford Review of Education, 35 (2): 267-280. Read More