Post-war trends and concerns.
Introduction: post-war trends and concerns
I am going to start this assignment by looking at an overview of post-war concerns and trends.
In 1944 Selective education came into play and Primary schools were formally established. The Ministry of Education was introduced, which increased the power that the Secretary of State had in comparison to the Educational policy as well as over the Local Educational Authorities (LEA). Another requirement of this Act was to ensure adequate facilities for teacher training. In the same Act the 'Tripartite System' was setup. Secondary schools became Grammar Schools (generally for the brighter students), senior schools became Secondary Modern Schools (for the majority of students). Secondary Technical Schools (for those thought to have technical/scientific ability) were created although only a few of this last group of schools were ever opened. It was decided which school the children attended by the eleven plus results.
In the 1960's there was quite a lot of rapid change: Comprehensive schooling and equality of education were introduced. The acceptance for a vast expansion of higher education was proposed in the Robbins Report entitled Higher Education (1963). The 1964 Education Act allowed three-tier systems to be set up which then legalized the establishment of middle schools. The Plowden Report 1967, entitled Children and their Primary Schools (1967), became very important to primary education, as this clearly supported child-centred approaches in education. The ending of the eleven-plus untied the curriculum of the junior schools.
In the 1970's various papers called The Black Papers were published. These were written by right-wing educationalists and politicians and they demonstrated the start of "'the general disenchantment with education as a palliative of society's ills'" (A Consultative Document, DES (1977)). Callaghan requested a public debate on education which was to give employers, trades unions, parents, teachers and administrators, a chance to give their own opinion; it was thought that the curriculum did not pay enough consideration to the basic skills of the three R's. It was also believed that the teachers did not have enough skills and did not know how to discipline the children with good manners and teach them how to work hard.
In the 80's the main frame set up in 1944 was still present. The 1980 Education Act was established on 'partnership with parents': there were more parents on governing bodies and the parental right to choose schools, appeals procedures, the assisted places scheme and the publication of exam results came into place.
The 1981 Education Act came after the publication of the Warnock Report. This changed the idea of special needs and gave parents new rights. In 1986 the LEA's lost some of their importance as schools were able to 'opt out' after the white paper entitled "Better schools".
The Education Reform Act, otherwise known as 'The Baker Act', came into place in 1988: this was thought to be the most important Act since 1944. The idea of league tables were thought about, as children were being assessed on many different levels and attainment targets were set.
In the 90's SAT's started to be published and league tables were produced; this was thought to give parents free choice to which school their child attends. One thing that is not taken into consideration by the official statistics is the amount of children with learning difficulties in some schools and the effect of learning.
Part one: Selective Versus Comprehensive
The debate around comprehensive versus selective education is an important one, not only in education but also as a political and social discussion.
In order to look at selective education versus comprehensive I need to first look at what each type of education provides. I will start by looking at the advantages and disadvantages to both types of education and what they include; then I will look at any facts and figures that have been published.
The arguments for comprehensive education include the fact that it is thought that it will encourage children from all social groups to interact which would then increase a shared understanding. The knock on effect would be less hostility in the workforce later. Other advantages include: children not being labelled as failures with the eleven plus, equal opportunities to higher education, the fact that specialist subject teachers can be employed (for instance language teachers) because of larger school sizes. As there are larger schools better facilities can be provided, for example swimming pools or sports halls. The last argument for comprehensive education I could find was that primary schools will be freed from the eleven plus and will be able to concentrate on other skills.
On the other hand, there are several arguments against comprehensive education: more academically minded children may be held back by less able children, there are less opportunities for those less academic to gain higher standards and/or access the higher responsibility jobs, it is thought that standards of dress may decrease and become a norm and this will reduce standards over all.
Some advantages in selective education include the fact that, as there are fewer pupils that tend to go to these schools, there are smaller class sizes. This means that more time can be spent with each pupil on an individual basis. Generally children from higher classes are able to attend these schools.
The disadvantages in selective education could include that pressure is put on the children in order to pass entrance exams. If a child failed the 11+ it could be quite damaging and it may leave children feeling a failure. Private tutors may be hired and this leads you on to the question: can money buy good education?
Ross McKibbin felt that there were three arguments against selective education. "The first drew on evidence that selection led to a huge waste of national potential". This was about how failing the 11+ may be damaging on children and the fact that attending a comprehensive school meant that you had 'failed', His second argument was that it was "political" as it seemed that the relationship between classes would widen and those higher class families had the ability to pay for 'better education'. His last argument was a "practical one", where a selective educational system had created a social gridlock: as it was thought that comprehensive schooling was just for the lower social classes, the middle classes were under a lot of pressure. This links back to my earlier question about money and education.
To look at some facts I'll examine the research of Professor David Jesson. In his report he says that there are about 500,000 pupils each year that pass through comprehensive schools; 40,000 of these pupils are in secondary modern schools and 20,000 pupils attend grammar schools. There are many grammar schools spread throughout the country. Out of 148 Local Education Authorities, 115 are comprehensive, 14 fully selective and others with some selective schools. Looking at the GCSE results selective schools seem to do quite well.
In the league table that I found published on the Times ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
To look at some facts I'll examine the research of Professor David Jesson. In his report he says that there are about 500,000 pupils each year that pass through comprehensive schools; 40,000 of these pupils are in secondary modern schools and 20,000 pupils attend grammar schools. There are many grammar schools spread throughout the country. Out of 148 Local Education Authorities, 115 are comprehensive, 14 fully selective and others with some selective schools. Looking at the GCSE results selective schools seem to do quite well.
In the league table that I found published on the Times online site I looked at GCSE results for forty nine top independent, grammar and comprehensive schools. The percentage of students achieving five or more GCSEs at Grade C or above in independent schools was 100%. In grammar schools it fell very slightly, the lowest being 99% and in comprehensive it dropped again to 86%.
On the BBC news website I found the article 'Selective school top league tables' 23/01/03. It said that selective schools dominate the league tables, but it did also report that specialist schools did not seem any better at teaching children from the ages of 11 to 14 than non-specialist schools which receive less funding.
In my opinion money can buy a different type of education and yes, maybe, a better standard. I believe that the availability of resources and funding might be the real issue that is up for debate.
Part two: Nature and Nurture debate and impact on educational achievement
In the debate surrounding the topic of nature versus nurture, I believe that it is both the hereditary (nature) factor and the environmental (nurture) factor that plays a role on human intelligence, personality and behaviour. I am going to look at the different aspects of both nature and nurture trying to use an unbiased perspective.
Nature versus nurture has been a wavering debate in the field of psychology for many years; the focal point is, do people inherit genes or are their genes affected by their environment? The centre of 'nature' is the belief that people have their personalities engraved in their genes, which are inherited by their parents. The foundation of 'nurture' is that the environment plays a big role in the development of someone's personality.
Nature (which is thought to be heredity) plays an important role on a person's intelligence. Many case studies have been carried out and have produced very similar results. One case study, for example, measured the IQ of people within different family relationships. These included identical twins, fraternal twins, adopted children and their biological parents, and adopted children and their foster parents. It was found that identical twins, fraternal twins, adopted children and their biological parents have similar IQ's, but adopted children and their foster parents have varied IQ's in comparison. It was thought that twins were very good subjects to use in this debate as they can provide information on the factors that mystify most areas of research. Bearing this in mind lets look at the different types of twins or triplets. Identical twins (or triplets, etc.) are the product of one egg that divides during development. They share all their genes and are the truest form of a clone known to nature. Fraternal twins are the product of two eggs fertilized at the same time. Despite their common birthday, fraternal twins are no more genetically alike than other siblings, sharing about half of their genes with one another. If a disease is genetic and one identical twin has it, the other will too. But that would not necessarily happen with fraternal twins.
Studies of identical twins have revealed fascinating information. Away from looking alike, more often than not they have the same behaviours and interests, even when separated by large distances and living very different lives. What are even more convincing may be the studies of individual adopted children. One person, who was adopted at the age of two months, said that she felt "alien" in her adoptive family as her interests and personality were so different from the others. At age 28 she found her birth mother and was amazed to find a woman very similar to herself. Cases like this are not common, but certainly add weight to the idea that there's a lot more of us in our genes than just looks. Another example of identical twins that displayed inherited behavioural patterns is Jerry Levey and Mark Newman. The two men met in a bar, both had grown up in different environments. It was soon found that they demonstrated behavioural similarities such as drinking the same beer, holding a bottle the same way (held it with the little finger stretched beneath the bottom), having the same physical gestures, being involved in the same careers. (Reunited Twins) The twins displayed these characteristics even though they grew up in different environments. This shows that it is true that heredity does play a role in determining personality.
Another relationship that was discussed before was that between adopted children and their biological parents. This is an ongoing study, and so the results are not yet known. If there is a match in the personality between the biological parents and their children in foster homes, then the nature perspective gains advantage. If there is a match between adopted children and their foster parents, however, this is due to their environment and therefore the nurture perspective gains an advantage.
Twin studies have also provided another level of complexity to the nature versus nurture debate. Researchers found that the effects of nurture can be split again into shared and non-shared. Shared environmental factors are things that children experience when they are brought up together. Non-shared environmental factors are things that are not shared by all the children, for example individual experiences. It was found that in many cases non-shared environmental effects outweigh the shared environmental effects. That is, the environmental effects that are thought to be lifechanging and shape how a child develops, for instance family life, are thought to have less of an impact than non-shared effects: these are harder to identify.
Nurture (environment), also plays a key role as a determining factor on one's intelligence. According to Klineberg:
"The successful solution of the problems presented by the tests depends on how many factors - the previous experience and education of the person tested, his degree of familiarity with the subject matter of the test his motivation or desire to obtain a good score, his emotional state, his rapport with the experimenter, his knowledge of the language in which the test is administered and also his physical health and well-being, as well as on the native capacity of the person tested. (1971) (Haralambos and Holborn)
This is because life experiences alter the influence of different factors on one's intelligence. Factors such as the availability of education and upbringing are key players that have an impact on the all round development of a person's intelligence. Much like a person's environment, intelligence is ever changing though time. Education and proper upbringing is needed throughout a child's life, starting from birth to the beginning of adulthood. During childhood, people learn their foundations of knowledge (beliefs, customs and activities that encompass a child's habitat). From the educational standpoint, children learn their fundamentals (reading, writing, interaction). Environment can override some genetic foundations and it can be said that intellect does not rely just on genetics as its sole factor. For example, a student that has a talent in mathematics (genetics) is likely to take more math courses in further education (environment). So in this way, the talents in mathematics (nature) along with the experience of doing well in the subject (nurture) work cooperatively. Genetics (nature) gives us the ground basics to comprehend what the environment (nurture) attempts to teach us.
In the same way that nature played an important role in determining ones intelligence, nurture has an equal importance. Nature (or genetic makeup) begins the foundation of one's intelligence. This means that some people have a "head-start" by having more desirable traits in their genes. This however does not remain constant throughout life. Through different life experiences as well as education, people gain and lose information in different ways due to their environment (surroundings). This aspect, referred to as nurture, plays a just as important role as nature in determining one's intelligence that develops throughout life.
Race is one of the issues that can impact on educational attainment. Looking at exam results, out of 92 Asian people 65.2% achieved 5 of more CSE's, 46.7% achieved 1 or more O levels and 16.3% achieved 5 or more o levels compared to 36 Afro Caribbean People 78% achieved 5 of more CSE's, 22.2% 1 or more O levels and 2.7% achieved 5 or more o levels. Again looking at 55 White people 57.6% achieved 5 of more CSE's, 34.8%1 or more O levels and 18.5% 5 or more o levels.
People's misconceptions also plays a part as black boys are thought to be naughty and disruptive so are placed in lower groups due to misjudgements and not achievement. This leads on to other problems like learned behaviours but I am not going to explore it further.
All the evidence so far suggests that children from ethnic minorities may experience discrimination in school. Looking at Cecile Wrights research (1988 -89) on classroom observations found that children from ethnic minorities are treated differently to white children. Young Asian children often were perceived as problem children but one that could be ignored; they got the least amount of the attention and were often excluded from class discussions and not often asked to answer questions. Teachers seemed to assume that their English was not good enough; on the other hand teachers found that these children were very motivated and disciplined. Afro Caribbean boys were thought to be disruptive, disobedient and aggressive: it was almost expected and so they were given a lot of negative attention. Because of this, these children were often treated unfairly and singled out for things that would usually be ignored.
In conclusion, I believe that there has not recently been a lot of research in this area. It is a difficult subject to research for different reasons which include the degree of difference of norms and values and also the degree that these norms and values affect educational achievement.
Gender is sometimes an issue in education because there may be different expectations of children; for example boys may be considered noisy trouble makers, girls good children. John Abraham completed a study on 'typical boys' and 'typical girls' and after talking to eight different teachers he came up with five different categories from the teachers' comments. The first category was the less typical boys, who were 'girly' and immature. The second group, the more typical boys, were not committed, naughty and too flirty with the girls. The third group, the 'typical girls', are thought to have inadequate confidence, be neat and tidy, obedient, "very quiet and pleasant" and hard workers. The forth group was thought to be the most unlikely 'typical girls': tomboyish, scruffy and not forming bonds with other girls. The final group of girls seemed a bit of both, typical yet also not typical: these girls were aggressive, non conformists and only really bothered with appearance and boys. This way of looking at things could be difficult as not everyone may slot into these categories. These stereotypes could affect children education as all these groups will be given different amounts of attention and expectations without taking into account their individuality.
Linking gender with race in some cultures boys are encouraged more then girls, as it is thought that the girls should be at home helping the mother. Do boys and girls have equal opportunities in education? Should both sexes be able to take the same classes and do they have the same abilities and skills? The 1944 Education Act, which said that education should be free and equal, tried to challenge gender differences when looking at examination results and the curriculum. The school curriculum is now very similar for both sexes. In the 1880 education became available for everyone but the focus for the girls was domestic skills such as cooking and sewing. In the 1902 Education Act cooking and sewing were made compulsory, but only for girls.
In conclusion, Attitudes have changed quite a lot as females now have more choice and can study subjects that were previously considered 'male' subjects, for example mechanics.
I will now look at the impact of class on educational achievement. "The social class into which we are born remains vastly influential in shaping our life course and life chances, even in the warning years of the twentieth century". (Breen and Rottman, 1995).
In 1984 just 1% of the students accepted into university were from the unskilled manual classes in contrast with 6% of semi - skilled manual classes and 70% from the top classes (Wicks 1987).
Intelligence may well be the same but the ways of enhancing development and accessing education changes depending on your social class.
If intelligence is genetic then should there be any difference between classes?
Watson (1931) stated "There is no such thing as an inheritance of capacity, talent, temperament, mental constitution and characteristics."
Floud, Halsey and Martin (1956) dispute that "it is well known that intelligence is largely an acquired characteristic"
Jensen (1969) and Eysenck (1973) believe that genetic factors are more important then environmental factors.
I am going to examine the evidence: there have been lots of different studies that have shown that IQ may remain stable but there are considerable differences in educational achievement between different classes. An example of this would be that those in the working classes may have the same IQ as those in the middle classes but not be as successful in education. So is has been said that educational achievement is linked with class stratification.
It is thought that people in the lower classes put a lower worth on education particularly on formal education. I believe that the reason for this may be that they want to get out and earn some money.
Looking at some figures, 32% of professional classes have a degree; this goes down to 6% of skilled manual people, 4% of semi - skilled manual and 3% of unskilled manual people. On the other hand only 7% of professional people, 40% of skilled manual, 50% of semi skilled manual and 60% of unskilled manual people have no qualifications.
How can educational achievement and IQ be explained? One idea could be that IQ tests and tests are more biased towards the middle and upper classes so people in these classes do well. On the other hand another argument may be that qualifications and IQ are directly linked to the length of time a person remains in education: so in theory the longer someone remains in education the more their knowledge increases. This relates to class because as I said earlier people in the middle classes are more likely to stay in education and attend further education.
To finish, a lot of researchers would say that IQ is the result of the interaction between environment and genes but educational attainment is different from IQ, being more linked to social class.
Part three: Current issues
In this section I am going to look at how the legislation and practices in education have changed recently, so some issues now have become more of a focus for discussion.
I am going to look at how statistics are made up, the facts about why statistics are used and the value of educational statistics; then I'll move on to Social construction of reality and how the statistics contribute to the social construction of reality; I'll examine parental choice and freedom and lastly the use of standards and the question of whether they have improved education.
There are different types of statistics used in looking at educational standards including league tables, value added tables and Sats results.
The regular publication of performance tables of exam results first started in 1992; they are statistics set up on academic results. It is a way to judge schools and teachers on their performance. Their intended use was for parents and others as a decisive factor in choosing a school for their child. At GCSE level the results are published and the amount of pupils that got five or more GCSEs at grade C or above becomes the measure on how well the school is doing.
Value Added Tables have recently been introduced; they are meant to show how pupils in a school have improved and how a school have "brought pupils on from one test level to another". During a testing session pupils results are compared to the average national performance rate of pupils at a prior test point. For example if a child could not count before and is now able to write their numbers clearly, this would be an improvement. Unfortunately it may not show up using the league tables as the child might still fail the SAT's. How is the 'value added' table worked out then? Each pupil is given a result of either a plus or a minus; then all the pupils' results are added together and the average is found and added up to one hundred, which has been worked out as the national middle level. If a school gets a result of 96 this is considered below average whilst a score of 102 above average. Another part or these tables is the "coverage indicator" This is the percentage of children in the school that are included in the result; this is because for different reasons these results are not always accessible for everyone. If a school's coverage is lower then 50% this result is not published.
By law children sit SAT's at the age 7, 11, and 14: they are the end of Key stages 1, 2, and 3. The national tests at the end of each Key Stage are designed to measure what all children can do when they are set the same questions. Each school's results table shows how all children scored in the national tests at age 7 (at the end of Key Stage 1) and 11 (at the end of Key Stage 2). The performance tables are designed to help parents choose a school by showing key facts, including how well children are doing in tests at Key Stage 2.
But are statistics really useful?
The main argument against league tables is that the performance of the school is largely determined by the previous students' results. Since students can have different abilities each year, it is impossible to judge the quality of the school solely on the outcome of one year. Another criticism is that when these tables are made it is not taken into account where the school has started from. This is why Value Added Tables have been introduced. Other arguments against statistics include the fact that might not measure what they are supposed to measure and they are government statistics so they might be politically biased.
Some of the arguments for statistics are: they are published, which means that they are available for people to use and they cost little or nothing to use; they are well planned and organised so reasonably easy to use; they are completed regularly so information is always updated and they are major sources of information.
To examine the link between the use of statistics and social constructionism I will start by looking at a definition of social constructionism. I found three different ways to look at it.
) "A Critical stance towards taken-for-granted Knowledge" (Vivien Burr): to understand social constructionism we need to look critically at ourselves as well as the knowledge that we take for granted and challenge the belief that ideas are based solely on impartial and factual observations.
2) "Historical and cultural specificity" (Vivien Burr): This is the way that we understand the world: the presumption, categories and ideas that we use are historical as well as specific to a person's culture.
3) "Knowledge is sustained by social processes" (Vivien Burr): It is through our everyday lives and interactions that our knowledge becomes distorted; our knowledge is not a product of impartial observations but our social interactions.
So how do statistics contribute to the social construction of reality? The first definition tells us about impartial and factual observations; we might think that all observations are impartial but they are not and this includes the information that is included in official statistics. This links to each person's culture and every culture is different so the things that we observe differ. Linking this to schools we can say that each school will have a different culture, different values and these are not included in educational statistics. According to social constructionism knowledge is the result of social interaction and as we have said previously these important aspects are not included in educational statistics.
Are ideas like parental choice and freedom a myth or reality?
To be able to answer this question fairly I feel that we need to look at choice freedom and standards in relation to the 1988 Education Reform Act. So now I am going to investigate the uses of standards. One of the main important uses of standards is to improve education and provide a fair education: one standard should be used for everyone. According to the school standards minister David Miliband "regular national testing helps support this improvement in schools" and also that "it provides a national benchmark for standards and ensures that children in poorer areas do not get left behind." So it seems that there is a general consensus that equality of education is now important. Offices for Standards in Education (OFSTED) were also introduced to improve standards. It has recently been proposed to cut the length of school inspections and put more emphasis on self-assessment.
By implementing the use of standards such as testing and OFSTED, education does seem to have improved; evidence of this is shown in tables like the value added tables and Sats results.
I believe that education has improved in some areas but because of these rigorous testing regimes children are becoming more stressed which has a knock on effect of less learning: are we teaching children the things they need to learn or how to take tests/exams? Personally I believe that we are now testing our children too much and too much emphasis is being placed on schools and children doing well in exams and not enough on what they retain from their education.
Do parents really have a choice? Is the idea of choice reality or just a political farce? Is the government just telling us what they think we want to hear or is it really true?
I believe that parents do not get a real choice in education unless they can pay for it! As I was looking at selective education earlier in this assignment it highlighted that if you do not have money to pay for private tutors or do not want to place your child under extreme pressure at an early age to pass entrance exams you can not access what is thought to be the best education.
Although parents may have little choice I want to raise the question of what choice is a child given. They are the ones that attend school everyday and their opinion is rarely asked!
References
Education in Schools: A Consultative Document, DES (1977)
Haralambos and Holborn, Sociology: Themes and perspectives, Collins 2000
An introduction to Social Constructionism Vivien Burr 2000
www.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,3321,00.html
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/2685727.stm
www.guardian.co.uk/
Bibliography
Mastering Sociology Gerard O'Donnell Third Edition 1994 Pg 78-87
Haralambos and Holborn, Sociology: Themes and perspectives, Collins 2000
Education in Schools: A Consultative Document, DES (1977)
Inside the Primary Classroom Galton, Simon and Croll (1980)
The Politics of Education Kogan (1971)
Education as a Public Service Shipman (1984)
www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk
English Primary Education Blyth W (1965)
www.kbr30.dial.pipex.com
Sociology in focus P.Taylor, J.Richardson, A.Yeo, I. Marsh, K. Trobe, and A. Pilkington Causeway Press 2002
Sociology for 'A' Level Tony Lawson Collins Educational 1994
Foundations of Psychology Nicky Hayes second edition 1998
www.casenet.org.uk/jess.html
www.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,3321,00.html
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/2685727.stm
www.lrb.co.uk/v24/n23/mcki01_.html - 34k - 26 Feb 2004
An introduction to Social Constructionism Vivien Burr 2000
http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/management/atoz/index.cfm?compo
The sociology of Education P.W. Musgrave Methuen & Co LTD Reprinted 1967
The Sociology of Education, A Systematic Analysis Fifth edition Jeanne H. Ballantine Published by prentice Hall July 2001
The complete A-Z Sociology handbook, Lawson and Garrod 2000 Hodder and Stouhton
Education and social change Open University press Amanda Coffey Published 2001
Society, state and schooling Michael Young and Geoff Whitty. Falmer press published 1977
Advanced Health and social care, Heinemann GNVQ Second edition Neil Moonie Published 1996
www.guardian.co.uk/
www.tes.co.uk
www.ofsted.gov.uk/
www.dailymail.co.uk/
society.guardian.co.uk/publicvoices/education/story/0,11989,737410,00.html
Sociology of Education
Assignment 2
Stacey Wookey Page 1 08/05/2007
