Critically examine the view that recent educational reforms have changed the patterns of underachievement in the formal education systems of England and Wales

University Degree Education and Teaching

Clare Oates Jan 02

In this report after reviewing the question an attempt has been made to break down, discuss and analyse the view that the 1988 Education Reform Act has altered the patterns of underachievement in the educational system in England and Wales. My intention is to show that the educational system has changed and I will attempt to state how and why.

After looking at research (The Assessment and Testing Programme – The National Curriculum) that related to factors leading to underachievement I learnt that before the 1988 Education Reform Act underachievement was put down to three things in particular.

The first being researched was an indication that a child’s performances relating to the time of the year of which they were born. Some studies showed that winter-born children fared better at both 7+ and 11+ than those born in the summer. Although it was quite a naïve view to think that the weather can make such an altering effect on a child’s education a more obvious view which relates to the above is the length of time pupils had spent in full time education. For summer-born children this could vary between two years and up to three years for those born in the winter.

The second factor related mainly to the individuals maturity levels. Research that was made in the 1960’s and 1970’s stated that there were important differences in each individual child’s rates of cognitive development. This was significant at both the 7+ as well as the 11+. It states that every child matures and develops at different stages, which meant that the test given, the results could not produce an actual result for the true level of achievement of that individual. All it could actually reflect is the child’s level of maturity.

The final factor, which is noted to be the “major factor” as well as most “disturbing factor”, is because of an socio-economic background, evidence is backed up by public examinations at 16+ (Douglas, Ross & Simpson 1968).

This is also broken down into two parts the first being a mismatch between the tests taken and the child’s own background of values, attitudes, customs and more importantly language. The most highlighted difficulty for example was that of the language of which the tests were written in. For those pupils whose language was restricted because English was in fact their second language or more plainly because of the pupils social background these tests would prove to show severe difficulties. This I might add would also prove to be apparent in the 11+. A failure to take note of the above contributed to and attributed to the effects of elitism. Some evidence came from studies of the 11+ examination showed that “failure” was contagious, which lead to further failure and the same happened to those who were achieving. To put it in its simplest form failure breeds failure and success breeds further success. Results from tests such as the 11+ teachers were seen to reduce their own levels of expectation of their pupil that would then lead to a lack of attention. Not only would the pupil loose heart but the teacher did to, what they should have done was attempt to raise that pupils level of education.

The second part is quite plainly the influence on the pupil from their backgrounds and piers. Some pupils appear to do badly which should be quite clearly known not to be through any lack of ability or intelligence, just a sever lack that the tests were not designed to highlight and display their true talents. Despite the fact that some children lose heart when they discover they are doing badly it actually has more to do with what has been planned without reference to their social upbringing/surroundings and more noticeably their ethnic and or cultural background. Unfortunately this was ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

The 1988 Education Reform Act introduced changes, which it is believed to be an attempt to improve on underachievement throughout. The 1988 Education Reform Act is the single most important education legislation since the 1944 Education Act and was designed to shape and change the nature of the education system in England and Wales for the rest of this century and beyond. The Act itself was a major part of Thatcherism and was designed to sort the serious defects in Britain’s educational system.

An introduction of local management of schools, school budgets was devolved to boards of governors, which include parent and local authority representatives. Boards of governors assume responsibility for staff and can use their budgets if they wish to purchase services from the local authority's central educational department.

Provision for opting out. Following a ballot of parents, boards can opt out of local authority control and receive their funding from the central government through the Funding Agency for Schools.

Development of a national curriculum which for all state schools from the age of 5 upwards. Previous to the Act LEA’s were in control of the curriculum but were still largely dominated by the requirements of universities. This also included an introduction of national standardised tests in certain key subjects. The pupils were not to be tested at just ages 7 and 11 but at 14 and 16 also.

Open enrolment which meant schools were able expand to demand without the local authority having any influence more importantly being able to stop them.

The right to “opt out” of local authority which gave parents and governors the right to receive money direct from the Government. It also meant that they were no longer controlled by the LEA’s and meant that they could manage their own affairs even down to enrolment of teachers and services within the school.

Created establishments such as City Technology Colleges, which meant they could specialise in technology, and as time passed other subjects too. Again LEA’s did not have to be informed or approve funding as the Government and private industry sponsorship provided it.

Finally the 1988 Education Reform Act also abolished the Inner London Education Authority.

What the objectives of the 1988 Education Reform Act were firstly on the whole designed to improve the education system and the way children were taught and assessed. Moreover this was actually broken down into more detail, in total there were six main objectives that intended to be achieved from this act.

The first objective was to reduce the power of which the LEA’s held. This was designed to improve the standards and progress of education to a higher standard. The particular angle that was used was one of a competitive nature, schools were now of the mind to compete for enrolment figures and became far more image conscious.

To advance on the first objective the second was to push the education system more towards market forces and directly under state control. The main focus had changed, it was no longer on the actual education itself and what the pupils received but more about budgets and enrolment figures. This particular objective was probably no more that of a format of which the Tories thought to be a way forward and to win votes for the next election.

One of the main changes and also the third objective was the creation of the ‘National Curriculum’. The national curriculum was to be used across the board, every school was to teach to the same schedule and have mandatory courses of study. This would consists of core subjects such as English, Maths, Science, Humanity’s and so on. However as wonderful as this may sound there was many a criticism towards the national curriculum for one, Denis Lawton (1989) thought that curriculum lacked variety and neglected many other cross-curricular themes. These areas of learning that were quite clearly lacking to mention just a few would be ethnic minority languages, moral awareness, economic awareness and political understanding.

However the forth objective had two sides to it, one thought to be a positive and one by some thought to be a negative. The objective was to raise standards by means of the national curriculum but more importantly testing. Children were to be tested on their learning at ages 7,11,14 and 16 the downside was that the results of these tests were to be published. The publishing of these results could lead to a major division between schools. The school would clearly be measured by its results thus leading to the title of a ‘good’ school or a ‘bad’ school, it may even go onto effecting the image of the schools by the pupils that were producing these results. Certain questions would be raised whether a school with average or less than average results was one for children with learning difficulties or even one of a bad area. In relation to the focus from objective one and two; enrolment figures, people may be less inclined to send their child to that school quite simply because of its reputation due to poor SAT’s that were published. Despite the effect that the publishing of results may have on the school’s reputation but what about the effect it had the child was some peoples view. A result that is below the pupils level achievement due to something as simple as a bad day, or a sleepless night could damage their confidence for the future.

The fifth objective was in combination with other reforms to relate education more closely to industry, to improve science and technology education and vocational training. To put it more plainly an area was devoted to pupils with an interest in technology subjects and give them the opportunity to do further courses in this area after schooling. It also supported a more hand on approach to areas of industry that previously thought to have lacked support in training. It gave pupils that maybe were less academic or those who chose a technology route an opportunity to gain vocational qualifications in their chosen career once they had left school and passed the age of 16. Again funding would be directly from the government and industry grants as opposed to the LEA funding. However Richard Johnson completely disagreed with this and had strong concerns about the whole concept of the national curriculum as a whole. He somehow supported the view that “the national curriculum did not encourage equality”. This is surprising due to the fact that the national curriculum did actually force all schools to teach the same topics, at the same level to the same standard.

Finally the sixth objective was just simply to change the educational culture in Britain making it more competitive and entrepreneurial and less egalitarian and progressive. Which in others words is to focus on the above as a whole, with those changes and the changes working for the positive should over time achieve this. However the labour party would need to be as involved as the conservatives to ensure that this would become reality.

In an attempt to conclude this report after reviewing an element of research it shows that having a national curriculum, being a main part of this act, has changed the education system at some length. Theoretically at least, all children now have access to the same quality of education no matter where they live or what their up bringing was. However further research is required in order to investigate matters further and to do studies of the effect of the Education Reform Act 1988 and how it may effect the future. It may be an idea to take research back through history as well as look forward in order to make a further critical analysis and a possible focus on areas of improvement.

_____________________________________________________________________

Bibliography:

Haralambos & Holborn – Sociology – Themes & Perspectives Fifth Edition

Tony Laison, Marsha Jones & Ruth Moores - Advanced Sociology