The 1988 Education Reform Act has had an insightful effect on schooling in Britain. The main provisions of the Education Reform Act were a national curriculum being introduced 4 key stages and league tables. This was brought in under by Margaret Thatcher. For government and parties it has opened areas of consensus where parties unite in agreement to improve but fluctuate on how these improvements should be made. All parties are in consensus that the testing system needs to be revised. Labour and Lib Dems are in consensus to retain testing at the end of key stage 2. Labour wants to introduce report cards where parents get all the information they require hence enables choice for parents which is another area of consensus. Lib Dems however propose slimmer versions of national testing consequently reducing pressure for both pupils and staff. They too would scrap the 600 page national curriculum to about 20 pages. Alternatively, the Conservatives have announced to scrap key stage 2 SATS but introduce a reading test which children undertake 2 years after primary to ensure their reading is fluent. They believe that we have too much test and in this too much testing there is a lack of rigour. Pressure groups NHTU and National Union for Teachers (NUT) agree as they believe current tests damage both schools and children and the curriculum is narrowed. School league tables have been kept since 1988. This has been an area of consensus to maintain as it helps provide choice for parents which is essential to uphold fairness and power remains with parents. However the Conservatives plan to reform the school league tables and introduce a point system. Points will be given to schools where pupils are taking academically demanding A-Levels such as maths and physics. This is because they oppose how Labour kept the league tables as weaker students are forced to undertake easy subjects to maintain the school a good position on league tables. They believe ranking schools on the proportion of students attaining a C grade and above at GCSE is flawed, as teachers feel pressured to concentrate on borderline C-grade pupils while able students are ignored. Outstanding schools would be exempt from Ofsted inspections, to allow inspectors to focus on failing schools. The Ofsted framework would be radically simplified so that inspections focussed on teaching and learning. The Conservatives would also cut back on bureaucracy and reduce the intrusive regulation which holds back good teachers. The Lib Dems wish to replace the Governments 5 good GCSE’s with an average points system. Within testing and tables it is clearly evident that there is a consensus stemming out but there are different branches of proposals from parties all intending to reform this issue and preserve high standards at a time of financial difficultly.
Academies were Labour’s flagship policy where failing schools would be shut down and reopened state funded and managed by sponsors. This has been an immense way to improve standards as opportunities are given to deteriorating schools. The milestone of 200 academies is now a year ahead of target with plans to open a further 200. Both the government and opposition agree that failing schools should be academies and aim to tackle under achieving schools so standards can be maintained and improved where possible. This however is a major ideological shift for the Conservatives as they disagreed with academies and were in support for selective education. For academies to be set up they require £25 million from the state and £2 million from private companies. Labour however is abandoning this sponsorship fee for private companies to pay more. This to an extent mirrors the Conservatives who place emphasis on more private involvement and wish for more independence for these academies. They within 100 days of government close failing schools and reopen them as academies. In their 2009 spring conference they planned primary academies and stated that primary schools will receive more freedom from council control and power over curriculum, budget and hours. This conversely has been criticised NUT as they consider this to be financially impossible especially at a time where cuts have to be made. The Lib Dems have not stated much about academies. Academies have faced immense criticism on the notion that little money is paid by companies but they have a vast impact on the curriculum and concerns have arisen regarding paying conditions. The amount of money going in could maybe spent better on existing schools as it is too early to tell the success of academies. NUT disagrees with academies as they believe that privatisation is wrong in which a 2 tier system is created and this gives birth to the death of the comprehensive ideal. This shows that all parties crucially agree that failing schools should be given an opportunity but again different viewpoints are adopted by parties on how these opportunities should occur and what role the state should play.
One key view held by everyone not just politicians and government, but teachers and parents too, is that there should not be a wasted generation. But to achieve this, it needs to be made note of that not all students learn best and maximise their potential in a school environment, some are suited in skills based learning hence government and parties agree of more skills based learning. Both Labour and Conservatives are determined to increase the number of apprenticeships available. Labour has introduced a September Guarantee in which they are funding a guaranteed place at training and apprenticeships places for students whom do not wish to stay on for A- Levels. The Conservatives wish to triple the amount of apprenticeships to 30,000. New 14-19 Diploma’s have become available to bridge the divide between academic and vocational education. The teachings have started in September 2008 in 4 subject areas. A further 5 subjects were introduced in 2009. In 2010 another 5 will be introduced. In addition, a new General Diploma will, from 2011, recognise achievement in the equivalent of five A*-C grades at GCSE level, including English and maths. The aim is to increase enrolment from 12,000 to about 40,000. The Lib Dems are in consensus with the last option as they intend to create a general diploma which incorporates GCSE’s, A-Levels and vocational qualification. Alternatively however, the Conservatives are planning not to introduce the 2010 diplomas but are promising a new type of "technical school" in 12 cities across England. These will be funded from the academy budget and place prior focus on engineering and science linked to business and universities. They criticise the new 14-19 Diploma qualifications by saying the first wave of Diplomas have been characterised by low take-up and poor. They aim to re-direct funding intended to promote Diplomas to create more apprenticeships instead. This to them, is crucial to tackling youth unemployment and recovering from the recession. However this has been criticised by NASUWT as they believe this would increase the segregation between academic and vocational paths. NUT criticised the Conservatives of planning to ‘pigeonhole’ youngsters. Although this suggests differences in policies, it is clearly evident that the principles are the same in that all parties aim to stop NEETs, youth crime and poverty by looking at their needs and proving a diverse range of options available.
The 50% target for young people to go university was a brain child of Labours 2001 election manifesto, as it is something all parties agree with because they believe this will help widen the future economy as people will have higher level of skills. Currently there are 43% of students studying in England thus the New Labour aspiration of 50% entering higher education by 2010 is fast becoming nothing more than a dream. Conservatives believe this policy is a ‘good opportunity to bring this whole issue back to life’ However, The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) believes this target should be abandoned as it is arbitrary and meaningless. Nevertheless the National Union of Students (NUS) attacked this view as ‘grown hypocrisy from the fat cats at CBI). The Million + group and Association of Teachers + Lecturers mirror this view as they believe the CBI’s proposals are arrogant and elitist. The Labour government sees increased numbers of entrants to higher education as a vital part to both education and economy. Increased numbers are attending hence all parties agree to provide more spaces. Labour has pledged to open or commit funding to 20 new university campuses over 6 years. Conservatives too pledge 10, 000 places if they are elected. However universities have become short of funding. This has become a huge burden for taxpayers and opens the issue of who pays. Is it students or taxpayers? The government is set to launch a review of the long-term funding of higher education later this autumn, but the final decision on raising tuition fees is unlikely to be made until after the general election. There has been a major ideological shift for The Lib Dems who believed that tuition fees should be scrapped as it should be the taxpayer paying. This was so it would not deter poorer families from seeking higher education for their children. They now however believe that students should pay as at a time of financial difficulty students should contribute for something they want to do. The Conservatives however would give a 10% discount on student loan repayments to those who paid ahead of schedule. However NUS believe that with this only those from affluent backgrounds will benefit from this and those from the poorest backgrounds are likely to lose out. More than half of university heads want students to pay at least £5,000 per year or for there to be no upper limit. This has angered the NUS, who want to entirely replace the fee system with repayments linked to later earnings. This shows that there is a consensus to improve higher education standards but again different routes are taken by parties some of which are short term benefits like the conservatives and long term such as Labour and tuition fees.
In conclusion it can be said that in theory consensus is apparent as the core aims of education such as maintaining standards, ensuring students are attending university and both choices and opportunities to be available. In practise however, different standpoints are implemented by each party on how these goals should be achieved and how the gap between the fortunate and forgotten should be bridged. The current financial crisis has led to questions about where cuts will fall, what opportunities are available for failing schools, skills based learners and for students intending to enter higher education thus it is here where the consensus detaches.