cla assignment

Module XX4CLA: Understanding Curriculum, Learning and Assessment.

To what extent do current policies tackle educational inequality between students from low-income families and their more affluent peers?

Hayley Jones

Student ID: 4215307Tutor: Mary Biddulph

Word Count: 6122

AbstractThis essay draws on ideas about equality and sociology to examine how the series of

reforms from the UK Coalition government might impact on the equality of our education system. It begins by examining the context of the attainment gap between disadvantaged students and their more affluent peers from a theoretical perspective

and then critically analyses the possible impact of the government’s policies of parental choice of school, pupil premium and their curriculum reforms on addressing

educational inequality and narrowing the attainment gap.

H Jones: 4215307 XX4CLA

ContentsIntroduction...........................................................................................................................................2

Contextualising the Achievement Gap..................................................................................................4

Marketisation of Education and School Choice.....................................................................................7

Pupil Premium.....................................................................................................................................10

Curriculum Reforms.............................................................................................................................14

The English Baccalaureate...............................................................................................................16

Vocational Qualifications.................................................................................................................17

Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................19

References...........................................................................................................................................21

Page | 1


IntroductionEducation can provide the springboard to a better life.

(Clifton, 2013a: 101)

A good education can allow people to gain the knowledge and skills necessary to fully

participate in society. Education is linked with both mental and physical health, as well as

happiness and wellbeing. (Wigdortz, 2013). It is unfortunate, therefore, that opportunities

for a good education are not always equally accessible to all. There is a strong correlation

between socioeconomic factors and academic achievement, as demonstrated in several

studies (Sylva et al., 2012, Duncan and Murnane, 2011 and Gregg et al., 2012).

Across England, almost fifty per cent of children claiming free school meals do not

achieve a GCSE pass above a grade D (Cassen and Kingden, 2007) and on average, the

reading skills of children from disadvantaged backgrounds are two years behind those of

children from wealthier backgrounds (Jerrim, 2012). Such gaps in academic achievement

lead to wider inequalities in both the housing and labour markets, as well as in social

structures (Clifton, 2013a).

The current government outlined a series of reforms in their Schools White Paper (DfE,

2010), which they believe will create a more equal system through freedom and choice,

ensuring all children have the opportunity to achieve academically, regardless of their

background.

In this assignment I will critically analyse how the current government’s wave of reforms

have affected the educational opportunities of children from socially deprived

backgrounds, as well as how the curriculum addresses inequality in education. I will

begin by putting the attainment gap in to context, both historically and internationally.

The subsequent chapters will examine current government policies to try and establish

to what extent they are equitable, looking particularly at the marketisation of education,

parental choice of schools and the pupil premium policy. Finally, I will examine aspects of

the curriculum, looking at how teaching and learning can help tackle educational

Page | 2


disadvantage. I do not intend to offer any suggestions of improvements for government

policies, but I do hope to gain an understanding of how current policies have developed,

the impact of such policies on equity in the context of curriculum and assessment and

also to understand what obstacles remain in achieving educational equity. I hope that I

will also gain an understanding of and be able to critically consider the motivation behind

policies and actions in my own school setting.

Whilst my area of research does not involve participants, it is still highly important to

consider the ethical implications of my work. In order for my work to be considered

ethical, it must be as trustworthy as possible (Trochim, 2006). It is therefore imperative

that I address my positionality, since my research can easily be impacted upon by any

inherent bias (Hulme et al, 2011). I am aware that my chosen area of focus is the result

of a felt difficulty (Dana and Yendol-Hoppey, 2009) and that this in itself means that I am

more likely to look for evidence that supports my own thoughts. Having grown up and

been educated in an area of high social deprivation, I feel very strongly about the

educational opportunities available to children from socially disadvantaged backgrounds

and I must therefore ensure I offer a balanced argument.

Page | 3


Contextualising the Achievement GapThe current government set out their plans for school improvement in The Importance of

Teaching – The Schools White Paper (2010) and since then have implemented a series of

reforms. As a country we are committed to the Convention of the Rights of the Child and

we therefore must ensure that the educational rights of all children are adhered to no

matter the background of the child (UNICEF, [no date]).

Previously, both Michael Gove (2012) and Nick Clegg (2012) have emphasised the

importance of increasing the number of pupils that are eligible for free school meals that

achieve the best GCSE results, but it is the larger scale underachievement among

disadvantaged pupils that is the bigger problem (Clifton and Cook, 2013).

The difference in achievement between rich and poor is greater in

this country than in other comparable countries.

(DfE, 2010: 18)

Whilst PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) has shown that in all

countries students from average backgrounds are outperformed by students from more

socioeconomically advantaged backgrounds (OECD, 2010), this link is much stronger in

England (Clifton and Cook, 2013). The scores of our highest attainers stand up to

international competition but our average is lowered by the performance of students

from socially disadvantaged backgrounds. Consequently, to improve our international

standing, we must improve the attainment of disadvantaged students (Wilkinson and

Pickett, 2009). Countries such as Finland and Canada have equitable educational

systems and high overall standards, showing that the two do not have to be mutually

exclusive (OECD, 2010).

The government have recognised that tackling educational disadvantage is the way to

increase overall standards of education and give England an educational system that can

compete with the best educational systems around the wold and as a result, there has

been a small narrowing of the attainment gap between rich and poor over the last

decade (Clifton and Cook, 2013). Critics have argued that the improvement in the

Page | 4


performance of poorer pupils is due to inflation of grades and the increased use of

vocational equivalent qualifications (ibid.) but Cook (2011) shows that the changes in the

attainment gap can be seen even when equivalent vocational qualifications are

disregarded. He argues that the increased use of such qualifications can only account for

a small fraction of the increase in educational equity in recent years.

It is difficult to identify the key factors that have resulted in the improved attainment of

students from disadvantaged backgrounds but certainly one factor must be the reduction

of child poverty and urban deprivation (Clifton and Cook, 2013). However, research has

shown there are also several other possible factors. Qualification reforms in the 1980s

encouraged more students to stay in education and increased motivation (Machin, 2003),

but we must also consider that more recently, results will have been effected by the

educational policies of previous governments: including the drive to improve teaching

standards; investment in schools in deprived areas; and targeted interventions in literacy

and numeracy at the primary level (Clifton and Cook, 2013). Another factor that could

explain the improvements is increased immigration and the resulting increase in the

ethnic minority population since Luthra (2010) and Kapadia (2010) both argue that the

attainment of such pupils is not as strongly affected by family background.

It is worth noting that the majority of data sources concerning educational inequity

compare the attainment of those students eligible for free school meals to those

wealthier students that are not eligible for free school meals. One problem with this is

that the link between poverty and educational attainment is not just something that

occurs amongst the poorest of students. In fact, the relationship can be shown to be a

scale, with deprivation being a factor of academic achievement wherever you are on the

scale (Clifton and Cook, 2013). Consequently, it is not possible to identify a specific level

of deprivation at which achievement begins to fall. Not only does this mean that when

examining data for those students eligible for free school meals we only look at a fraction

of the problem, it also means that any policies aiming to narrow the attainment gap that

only target pupils eligible for free school meals are unlikely to be sufficient, since the

problem affects more than just these students (ibid.) It is also important to stress that

Page | 5


just because a child is from a deprived background, it does not necessarily follow that

they cannot achieve as highly as a child from a wealthier background, just that the

general trend is for this not to happen (ibid.).

As a secondary school teacher I am aware of how much pressure there is on teachers to

ensure that all students make sufficient levels of progress following on from their Key

Stage Two results. However, Feinstein (2003, 2004) has shown that educational

inequalities are apparent from as early as three years old and it is these gaps that widen

throughout a child’s schooling. Clifton and Cook (2012) argue that around half of the

achievement gap present at age 16 was already present by the end of a child’s primary

education. Essentially, this means that more must be done to tackle educational

disadvantage earlier in children’s lives since even if all students made expected levels of

progress by the age of 16, it would not be enough to eliminate the attainment gap.

Secondly, this also means that it is early intervention that is necessary for students who

are falling behind when they reach secondary school since Goodman et al. (2010) have

found that the attainment gap widens particularly rapidly between the ages of 7 and 14.

The government also believe that schools are not wholly responsible for the gap in

attainment, blaming “deeply embedded culture of low aspiration” within communities as

well as persistent unemployment (DfE, 2010: 4).

What seems clear from data and research is that changes to education policies have the

power to reduce educational inequity and therefore raise the achievement of poorer

students in England’s schools. The next chapters will examine the impact of current

policies on educational equity in England.

Page | 6


Marketisation of Education and School ChoiceWhilst the government acknowledges the difference in educational achievement between

students from disadvantaged areas and their more affluent peers, and takes steps to

tackle this with certain educational policies, it seems that some of the drive for

educational equity might be counteracted by an ambition for parents to have more

choice about where their children are schooled. Several studies have shown that

educational policies centred on choice and diversity often reinforce social hierarchies of

class and race (Whitty et al., 1998) and Gerwitz et al., 1995).

The rise of marketisation in education began in 1979 with Conservative governments

who, in contrast to previous Labour governments, were focussed on standards and

parental choice as opposed to equal educational opportunities for all (Ward and Eden,

2009). The primary aim of marketisation was to enable the UK to compete in global

markets, but it also aimed to increase competition between schools. It was the 1988 Act

that was used to create conditions for a free market in education: schools would have to

compete with each other in order to be the parents’ choice of school. The idea was that,

just as in other free markets, the quality of the products, in this case educational

provision, would be driven up (Ward and Eden, 2009). Such ideas were reinforced by

successive Conservative and Labour governments with the creation of new school

categories, but the concept of equality seemed to have fallen by the wayside as the

School Standards and Framework Act (DfES, 1998) gave parents the right to express a

preference for schools but also allowed for many schools to be more selective in their

admissions. What has actually resulted is not a free market but a quasi-market, since

there are many factors that mean not all schools are open to everyone that wants to go

there (Ward and Eden, 2009). Consequently, opinion is divided as to whether the policies

centred on parental choice of school can be equitable.

Inarguably, the quality of schools and teachers that a child experiences through their

time in education has a huge impact on their academic success (Allen, 2013). It has been

shown by Allen and Burgess (2011) that the quality of a child’s schooling has a greater

impact on those students from deprived backgrounds than it does their more affluent

Page | 7


peers. This is unfortunate as it can be argued that it is this set of students who are more

likely to be unable to access the better schools since their families are less able to

engage in the choice process.

Advocates of the school reforms believe that low-income families are better off since the

housing market no longer acts as a barrier to disadvantaged pupils attending the best

schools (Hoxby, 2003). However, Gibbons et al. (2013) have estimated that there is a

premium of around 12 per cent on house prices around schools at the top of the league

tables compared to schools at the bottom. It has also been shown that where pupils do

not attend their local school, there tends to be an increase in social segregation between

schools (Allen, 2007). Additionally, research by Burgess and Briggs (2010) has shown

that if we compare children living in the same post code, a pupil eligible for free school

meals is 2 per cent less likely to attend a high-performing school than a child who is not.

From this, it can be concluded that the choice process does not result in an equal

distribution of high-quality schooling across the social classes.

Whilst this could be attributed to the financial constraints of low-income families. It could

also be result of parents choosing not to engage with the choice process. Commonly, the

discourse of working-class parents around school choice centres on practicalities, with a

focus on the present, whereas the middle class discourse tends to be dominated by what

is ideal and advantageous for their children (Ball et al., 1995).

Bartlett (1993) makes the case that once a school is full, open enrolment is more likely to

increase the opportunity for schools to operate a more selective admissions process,

where schools ‘cream-skim’ the pupils that are easier to teach. Le Grand and Bartlett

(1993) argue that it is this ‘cream-skimming’ that is the greatest threat to equity in the

quasi-markets of education. The government believe that the pupil premium will

discourage any desires schools might have to be overly selective but it is thought that

the value of this is unlikely to “reach a rate that incentivises schools to take on poorly

performing pupils given the obvious risk to their league table position (Allen, 2013:32).

Many proponents of parental choice reforms argue that it does not matter how these

policies alter school admissions since the marketisation of schools and the resulting

Page | 8


competition raises all standards (Allen, 2013). However, research shows that the

difference between good and bad schools is not as vast as expected as even in good

schools we see a disproportionate number of disadvantaged pupils underachieving

(Clifton, 2013a). In fact, even if every school was rated ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted, the

attainment gap between poor students and their more affluent peers would only narrow

by a fifth (Clifton and Cook, 2013). Similarly, whilst Ofsted (2011) found that students on

free school meals who attend City Technology Colleges and Academies reach standards

twice as high as the national average, it has been shown more recently that sponsored

academies struggle to improve the attainment for the lowest achievers (Machin and

Silva, 2013).

It seems clear that if the government truly wish to tackle educational disadvantage, it is

necessary to make changes to school admissions policies in order to create equity but

most importantly they must realise that improving school standards alone will not

address the gap in attainment between rich and poor students.

Page | 9


Pupil PremiumIt has already been shown in earlier chapters that the achievement gap between rich and

poor students widens very quickly between the ages of 7 and 14 and that it is therefore

necessary to ensure that interventions are targeted at those students who have fallen

behind by the time they reach secondary school. We have also seen that increasing

school standards does not do much in the way of narrowing the attainment gap.

It is for these reasons that pupil level interventions are seen as the way to close the

attainment gap since they are effective in ensuring that support is given where it is

needed most (Clifton, 2013b). England’s most successful schools use highly trained

teachers for small groups of underachieving students until they have reached

satisfactory literacy and numeracy levels (ibid.). This strategy is also central to some of

the world’s leading school systems such as Finland and Canada. Finland in particular

makes good use of targeted intervention, with almost half of all pupils receive some form

of intervention during their education. Paying careful attention to children who are said

to have ‘learning needs’ is an important policy, which leads to their high international

rankings (Sahlberg, 2011).

Consequently, the government introduced the pupil policy in April 2011. The pupil

premium is funding allocated to schools to enable them to access more resources in

order to target disadvantaged pupils. The funding is given based on the number of pupils

who have been eligible for free school meals in the previous six years or who are in care,

with schools being given the freedom to spend the money as they deem appropriate

(DfE, 2014a). This premium is additional to the deprivation funding schools already

receive. There is also a ‘catch-up’ premium for students in Year 7 that have not reached

a national curriculum level 4 in English and Mathematics. The aforementioned policies

are designed to provide funding for additional resources that might enable schools to

tackle educational disadvantage (Clifton, 2013b), but how effective are they? This

chapter will look closely at the impact so far of the pupil premium policy at tackling

inequality in the educational system.

Page | 10


With the introduction of the pupil premium almost four years ago, it is still early to make

comprehensive assessments regarding the policy. It is perhaps the relative newness of

the policy that explains why it was difficult to find current literature, other than from the

Department for Education and Ofsted. Researchers will need time to gather data in order

to make judgements and the policy is still in its settling in period. Indeed, the differences

that are evident between the 2012 and 2014 Ofsted reports are stark. I have

reservations about using such limited literature to evidence my writing and ethically I

wanted to raise this so that my research is transparent. On the other hand, Ofsted are

independent and impartial, and the data used to inform their 2014 report is extensive. I

therefore believe that using this report, in conjunction with other literature will not affect

the trustworthiness or validity of my research.

Initial indications suggested that pupil premium was not working as effectively as hoped,

with Ofsted (2012) finding that only one in ten of 262 surveyed school leaders thought

that the funding had significantly impacted upon the support given to pupils from

disadvantaged backgrounds. Funding was mostly used to maintain or enhance existing

provision rather than put new initiatives into action. Furthermore, the impact of provision

on eligible pupils was then not being reviewed (Ofsted, 2012). One reason for schools not

using the pupil premium funding as effectively as possible is that due to cuts in schools’

main budgets, the majority of schools face a real-term cut in their funding per pupil (IFS,

2011), making it difficult for schools to maintain their current level of provision.

However, by February 2013, Ofsted had found that more schools were beginning to use

their funding well, with attainment for eligible pupils beginning to rise (Ofsted, 2013).

This could be due to Ofsted inspections placing greater emphasis on the ways in which

schools spend their pupil premium funding, with inspectors carefully examining how

effective schools have been in closing the gap (Ofsted, 2014).

Ofsted’s most recent report, The pupil premium: an update (2014) is much more positive,

stating that “the pupil premium is making a positive difference in many schools” (Ofsted,

2014: 9). It has been noted by Ofsted (2014) that schools with strong leadership, as well

as a school-wide commitment to closing the gap seem to make especially good use of

Page | 11


pupil premium money since they are extremely successful at identifying their pupils’

specific needs in such a way that low attainment is addressed at an early stage. Pupil

progress is then tracked carefully in order to make any sensible adjustments based on

meticulous evaluation (ibid.). It is in schools where this tracking is not good enough that

pupil premium is often not well used, since leaders do not make effective use of the data.

Since the importance of catch-up tuition in literacy and numeracy has been emphasised

(Clifton, 2013b), it is unsurprising then that according to the research by Ofsted, “The

most successful schools ensure that pupils catch up with the basics of literacy and

numeracy” (Ofsted, 2014: 12) and it is also reassuring to see that the most popular use

of pupil premium funding is to pay for additional qualified staff to work with small groups

of children, primarily English and Mathematics (Ofsted, 2014).

Worryingly, Ofsted also found a relationship between a school’s overall effectiveness and

its impact on the attainment of disadvantaged students through the use of pupil

premium The previous chapter explored how it is precisely this set of students that

struggle to access the schools at the top of the league tables and therefore it is

concerning that it is those schools that make the most effective use of pupil premium.

This is also slightly contrary to what has been said earlier. Previously, it has been shown

that raising the standards of schools does not necessarily close the attainment gap.

However, if improving a school’s overall effectiveness means that schools would make

better use of pupil premium as a result of superior leadership, then perhaps driving

school standards up will begin to close the attainment gap indirectly.

Schools’ accountability for student results seems to play a conflicting role in tackling the

low attainment of disadvantaged pupils. When inspecting schools, Ofsted have increased

their focus on the use of pupil premium funding and they believe this is making a

difference to how effectively the additional funding is being used (Ofsted, 2014).

Headteachers know that their schools will not receive a positive

judgement unless they demonstrate that they are focused on

improving outcomes for pupils eligible for pupil premium.

Page | 12


(Ofsted, 2014: 4)

On the other hand, Burgess (2013) argues that the accountability system encourages

schools to focus their attention on pupils near certain performance thresholds at GCSE.

Paterson (2013) believes that this increases the risk of schools throwing all their

resources at exam students rather than encouraging the schools to use their funding to

intervene earlier and make long-term gains, which we know are more effective at tackling

the achievement gap.

The main failing of the pupil premium funding in its aim to address educationally

disadvantage must be that the criteria for funding is mainly centred on eligibility for free

school meals. We have seen in earlier chapters that it is not only these students that are

victims of educational inequality and therefore by only using additional funding to support

these pupils it will not be possible to address the high level of underachievement in

England (Clifton, 2013b).

Mortimore (1997) raises the ethical dilemma of offering advantageous initiatives only to

certain pupils, denying more affluent families access to support whilst also believing that

equal access to such systems can only increase the attainment gap. I wonder if by

offering such initiatives to all students who fall behind, targeting pupils based on literacy

and numeracy levels as advocated by Clifton (2013b) we can begin to construct a more

equitable educational system, much like in Finland, where attention is given to students

identified as having ‘learning needs’. Perhaps with this approach we could raise our

international standing and, most importantly, begin to subsequently close the attainment

gap.

Curriculum ReformsHow a society selects, classifies, distributes, transmits and

evaluates the educational knowledge it considers public, reflects

both the distribution of power and the principles of social control.

Page | 13


(Bernstein in Pollard, 20_: 141)

All of the government policies examined so far have been centred on the challenge of

closing the attainment gap by improving the equality of access to educational resources,

but one common concern in the discourse of the underachievement of disadvantaged

pupils is “the nature of the goods to which access was being sought” (Whitty, 2001: 287).

Many argue that it is the curriculum, dominated by the middle class, which does not meet

the needs of disadvantaged pupils and has therefore resulted in social inequality in

education (Young, 1971).

Under the current coalition government, there have been a series of educational reforms

in respect to the curriculum, as well as an overhaul of assessment procedures. Analysis of

such reforms is particularly revealing of some of the distributions of power within our

society and especially of the values of the former Secretary of State for Education,

Michael Gove. The matter of the curriculum and its contents as a whole is an area deep

and complex enough for an essay in its own right, but in the context of this assignment, I

wish to focus on the effects of the coalition government’s reforms in the context of

educational disadvantage.

Before we examine the government’s reforms, it is necessary to first consider the reasons

for having a national curriculum. Kelly (2009) explains that there are four main

arguments for a common core to the curriculum, but I believe that these can be broadly

categorised as epistemological and sociological and it is difficult to discuss these

independently of each other as Kelly argues politics and education are “inextricably

interwoven” (Kelly, 2009: 188). Epistemologically, the motivation for a core curriculum is

based on the idea that certain kinds of knowledge have a status and value that is

superior to others and therefore those kinds of knowledge must be essential to any

curriculum that is supposed to be fully educational (Kelly, 2009). If this is considered true,

any curriculum which does not allow a student to gain this knowledge and understanding

would mean that the student is not receiving a full education (ibid.) Young and Muller

(2010) describe the possibility of this kind of curriculum as Future 1 and for ease of

reference, I will use the same labels.

Page | 14


Previously, there has been efforts to make education suit the interests of children by

relating it to their experiences within their immediate environment (Kelly, 2009).

However, this concept of curriculum is deemed highly dangerous for equality in education

since if we limit students’ learning to only experiences they are familiar with then we risk

trapping students in their current cultural environment, with little opportunity for social

mobility (ibid). This type of curriculum will be referred to as Future 2. Young (2011)

argues that it is disadvantaged students that have the most to lose as a result of this

experience based curriculum and that children will not stay in school only to learn things

they already know. Within this context, it is now possible to consider the curriculum

reforms from the current government and the values behind them.

The coalition government sets out the aims of the national curriculum in its framework

document The national curriculum in England (DfE, 2014b). It states that the national

curriculum should introduce the “essential knowledge” required for students to be

“educated citizens” and that it should contain “the best that has been thought and said”

(DfE, 2014b: 5). The coalition’s approach to the curriculum is very much in fitting with the

Future 1 curriculum. It is centred on subjects and the idea that there is a core knowledge,

both academic and cultural, that all students should know. Gove’s curriculum is widely

known to be influenced by the ideas of E D Hirsch (Alexander, 2012), whose approach to

the curriculum encourages little more that memorisation of key facts and rote learning

(Young, 2011). Hirsch believes that by teaching key cultural facts can compensate for the

lack of cultural literacy for pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds (Hirsch, 1988).

Alexander (2012) argues that it is also important for us to challenge the assumption that

it is for ministers to decide what knowledge is essential and should therefore be in the

curriculum. If we let ministers decide unchallenged what students should be taught, we

are at risk of what Young (2011) describes as a curriculum of compliance, where the

curriculum can be used to control social structures and reinforce educational

disadvantage.

Critics of the government’s approach to the curriculum have described the policies to be

backward looking, elitist and likely to lead to new inequalities (Morris, 2011 and White,

Page | 15


2011). John White (2011) insists that the proposals will lead to a middle class curriculum,

which consequently will be more advantageous to middle class students. Conversely,

Gove claims that the reforms are based on equality. Whilst his proposal of a ‘curriculum

for all’ does mean that everyone who studies the national curriculum will study the same

content, It is difficult to ignore the fact that historically, this type of curriculum has been

renowned for entrenching inequalities in access and opportunities (Young, 2011). We

must also remember that in reality not all state maintained schools follow the national

curriculum since Academies and Free Schools are not required to teach it (Alexander,

2012). It is important to consider the impacts of this upon student’s abilities to access an

appropriate curriculum. Personally, I feel that if we require a national curriculum in order

for education to be equal, then all state maintained schools should follow it.

The English BaccalaureateThe English Baccalaureate (EBacc) was outlined in the Schools White Paper (DfE, 2010)

as a new performance measure for schools. Schools are now rated on the percentage of

students that achieve a C grade pass or higher in five key subjects: English,

Mathematics, Science, a Humanity and a Language (DfE, 2014b). I believe this policy

symbolises Michael Gove’s epistemological views and cements his approach to

curriculum policy in the Future 1 category. He has revealed that there are types of

knowledge that he values more than others by the subjects included in the criteria and

others that he has left out, notably the arts subjects. Whilst this policy will be well

received by middle class families, whom the policy favours, some wonder about the

effects on educational inequality.

The government claim that the introduction of the English Baccalaureate was not

intended to restrict students to subjects of a more traditional nature and that the aim

was to create opportunities but by setting the EBacc as a performance measure to which

schools are held accountable by Ofsted has ensured the uptake of more academic

subjects by children for whom they are not well suited (DfE, 2010 and DfE, 2012). The

introduction of the EBacc as a performance measure increased the uptake of humanities

and languages but it is possible that schools are encouraging students to take these

subjects, even if they are likely to fail, in an attempt to improve their EBacc ranting.

Page | 16


What is concerning is the implications for inequality between those student’s eligible for

free school meals and those who are not. The DfE (2012), shows that not only were less

than 10 per cent of students who were eligible for free school meals taking the necessary

subjects to qualify for the EBacc, only 50 per cent of those students passed. Three times

as many students who were not eligible for free school meals were taking qualifying

subjects, with a pass rate of 71 per cent.

By moving towards a Future 1 curriculum, where certain kinds of knowledge are

regarded as superior to others, the coalition government’s actions seem to be contrary to

their promises. It can be argued that the introduction of the EBacc performance measure

was a way for the government to influence the qualifications being taken by students at

the age of 16 and consequently reduce the number of children taking qualification that

have been deemed not robust enough to have any value for higher education or

employment.

Vocational Qualifications Forms of knowledge that have hitherto been defined as inferior and

unworthy of study and investigation need to be recognised and

accredited systematically.

(Lynch and Baker, 2005:141)

As a country, we often under-value practical skills and knowledge and in comparison to

most other developed countries, our technical education is lacking (Young, 2011). There

seems to be a perceived disparity between vocational courses and academic ability,

with the prevailing opinion being that vocational courses are designed for those unable

to meet the criteria for more academic qualifications (ibid.). The Department for

Education believe that the current vocational courses do not carry much weight when

aiming to continue on to higher education or when seeking employment (DfE, 2014b).

The current views on vocational qualifications are unfortunate as a high proportion of

students from disadvantaged backgrounds have demonstrated desires to study these

Page | 17


courses, with 575,000 opting to take this route in 2010, up from only 15,000 in 2004

(ibid).

The government are now striving to improve the quality of vocational provision in the

UK, with a review of vocational education undertaken by Alison Wolf in 2011, resulting in

an overhaul of vocational qualifications based on Wolf’s recommendations (DfE, 2015).

Gove’s curriculum would likely include a choice of route at age 14 (Young, 2011) but we

have seen in earlier chapters that policies involving choice are complicated, and can

lead to further educational disadvantages. On the other hand, Warnock (1977) makes it

clear that an equitable curriculum should be “genuinely suitable for all, not suitable only

for the middle class or the most academic” (Warnock, 1977: 84). Consequently, I believe

there is room in the curriculum for vocational qualifications that would engage students

so long as we ensure that the courses stand up to scrutiny, preparing students for either

employment or higher education no matter what background they come from.

Page | 18


ConclusionSince coming into power in 2010, the coalition government has put into motion a series

of complex reforms. As a recently qualified secondary school teacher, I wanted to better

comprehend these policies so that I could improve my understanding of the school-level

policies and practices in my own school setting.

The government have centred their reforms on improving our international standing, and

the result is that there is a convincing arguments for tackling education inequalities

within the English educational system. The OECD (2010) states that 77 per cent of the

differences in performance between schools in the UK is a result of the differences in

socioeconomic background, and it is this that needs to change if we want our educational

provision to compete on the international level. Countries such as Finland and Canada

have established equitable practice and perform very highly in the international rankings,

which demonstrates that equitable education systems can still be high achieving.

Government policies have the power to bring about change, as we have seen over the

last decade with the closing of the attainment gap between poor students and their more

affluent peers. However, research shows that it is not national level, or even school

based reforms that will have the impact on the narrowing of the gap. Studies and a

review by Ofsted show that the best way to tackle low achievement is with the targeting

of students on an individual basis to those students who are falling behind. The earlier

this can be done the better since the gap in attainment widens quickly between the ages

of 7 and 14. To help with this, the government have introduced the pupil premium fund,

which is additional funding per student that can be spent at the schools discretion,

although it is reassuring to know that most of the funding for pupil premium is spent on

catch up tuition for pupils that have fallen behind. Although the importance of early

intervention is known, many schools still focus the majority of their attention on

examination students that are close to performance thresholds as a result of

accountability and performativity and this is something that should be addressed if we

wish to close the attainment gap.

Page | 19


However, educational disadvantage is not just about closing the attainment gap, but also

about providing equal opportunities in all aspects of education. This is particularly

important when considering the curriculum. One particular way of addressing

disadvantage through curriculum reforms is through the design of the curriculum in a

way that might prevent pupil disengagement. The introduction of well-designed and

respected vocational qualifications could help with this, but introducing further choice

into the curriculum must be done carefully to avoid creating new inequalities and it is

also difficult to change society’s perceptions of these kind of qualifications.

Bernstein (in Young, 2011:276) states that “Education cannot compensate for society.”

Whilst I believe this might be true to some extent, I do think that as educators we have

the responsibility to do as much as we can to provide equal opportunities for all our

students, to equip children with suitable knowledge and skills so that they can go out in

the world and be what they want to be and perhaps in this way we can begin to break

the cycle of low aspiration and long-term unemployment.

Page | 20


References Alexander, R., (2012). Neither national nor a curriculum? [online]. Available at:

http://www.robinalexander.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Alexander-Neither-national-nor-a-curriculum-Forum.pdf [accessed 25/02/2015].

Allen, R., (2007). Allocating pupils to their nearest school: the consequences for ability and social stratification. Urban Studies, 44(4): 751–770.

Allen, R., (2013). Fair access: making school choice and admissions work for all? In Clifton, J. (ed.), Excellence and equity: tackling educational disadvantage in England’s secondary schools: 29-36. London: IPPR.

Allen, R., and Burgess, S., (2011). Can school league tables help parents choose schools? Fiscal Studies, 32(2): 245–261.

Burgess, S., (2013). School accountability, performance and pupil attainment. In Clifton, J. (ed.), Excellence and equity: tackling educational disadvantage in England’s secondary schools: 37-42. London: IPPR.

Burgess, S., and Briggs, A., (2010). School assignment, school choice and social mobility. Economics of Education Review, 29(4): 639–649.

Cassen, R., and Kingdon, G., (2007). Tackling Low Educational Achievement. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Clegg, N., (2012). Deputy Prime Minister's speech on social mobility to the Sutton Trust [online]. Available at: http://www.dpm.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/news/nick-clegg-speech-social-mobility [accessed 18/02/2015].

Clifton, J., (ed) (2013a). Excellence and Equity: Tackling educational disadvantage in England’s secondary schools. London: IPPR.

Clifton, J., (2013b). Getting the most out of the pupil premium. In Clifton, J. (ed.), Excellence and equity: tackling educational disadvantage in England’s secondary schools: 43-49. London: IPPR.

Clifton, J., and Cook, W., (2012). A long division: Closing the attainment gap in England’s secondary schools, London: IPPR.

Clifton, J., and Cook, W., (2013). The achievement gap in context. In Clifton, J. (ed.), Excellence and equity: tackling educational disadvantage in England’s secondary schools: 17-28. London: IPPR.

Page | 21


Cook, C., (2011). Poorer children close education gap [online]. Financial Times. Available at: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d82fc3cc-eab3-11e0-aeca-00144feab49a.html#axzz21kisjllt [accessed 18/02/2015].

Dana, N. F. and Yendol-Hoppey, D., (2009). The Reflective Educator’s guide to classroom research. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.

DfE [Department for Education] (2010). The Importance of Teaching – The Schools White Paper 2010. London: HMSO.

DfE [Department for Education] (2014a). Pupil premium: funding and accountability for schools [online]. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/pupil-premium-information-for-schools-and-alternative-provision-settings [accessed 20/02/2015].

DfE [Department for Education] (2014b). English Baccalaureate: information for schools [online]. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/english-baccalaureate-information-for-schools [accessed 24/02/2015].

DfE [Department for Education] (2015). The Wolf Report: recommendations final progress report [online]. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/405986/Wolf_Recommendations_Progress_Report_February_2015_v01.pdf [accessed 25/02/2015].

Duncan, G., and Murnane, J., (eds.) (2011). Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools and children’s life chances. New York and Chicago: Russell Sage Foundation and Spencer Foundation.

Feinstein, L., (2003). Inequality in the early cognitive development of British children in the 1970 cohort. Economica, 70: 73–97.

Feinstein, L., (2004). Mobility in pupil’scognitive attainment during school life. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 20(2): 213–229.

Gibbons, S., Machin, S., and Silva, O., (2013). Valuing School Quality Using Boundary Discontinuities. Journal of Urban Economics, 75(1): 15–28.

Gove, M., (2012). A coalition for good – how we can all work together to make opportunity more equal? [online]. Available at: http://www.education.gov.uk/inthenews/speeches/a00208822/brighton-college [accessed 18/02/2015].

Page | 22


Gregg, P., Macmillan, L., and Nasim, B., (2012). The impact of fathers’ job loss during the recession of the 1980s on their children’s educational attainment and labour market outcomes. Fiscal Studies, 33(2): 237–264.

Hoxby, C. M., (2003). Introduction in Hoxby, C. M., (ed) The economics of school choice, 1–22. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hulme, M., et al., (2011). A guide to practitioner research in education. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Institute for Fiscal Studies [IFS] (2011). School funding reform: an empirical analysis of options for a national funding formula. London: briefing note BN123.

Jerrim, J., (2012). The socio-economic gradient in teenagers reading skills: how does England compare with other countries? Fiscal Studies, 33(2): 159–184.

Kapadia, R., (2010). Ethnicity and class: GCSE performance. London: British Educational Research Association (BERA).

Kelly, A. V., (2009). The curriculum: theory and practice. (6th edition). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Luthra, R., (2010). Assimilation in a new context: educational attainment of the immigrant second generation in Germany. Colchester: Institute for Social & Economic Research (ISER), University of Essex.

Lynch, K. and Baker, J. (2005) Equality in education: an equality of condition perspective. Theory and Research in Education, 3(2): 131-164.

Machin, S., and Silva, O., (2013). School structure, school autonomy and the tail. London: Centre for Economic Performance, LSE. Available at: http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/special/cepsp29.pdf [accessed 19/02/2015].

Morris, E., (2011). Gove’s idea of schooling is great for some children – but not for everyone. Guardian, January 25.

Mortimore, P., (1997). Can Effective Schools Compensate for Society? In Halsey, A., Lauder, H., Brown, P., and Stuart-Wells, A., (eds.) Education, Culture, Economy and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

OECD (2010a). PISA 2009 Volume II: Overcoming Social Background: Equity in Learning Opportunities and Outcomes. France. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/48852584.pdf [accessed 18/02/2015].

Ofsted (2011). The Annual Report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and skills 2010/11. London: HMSO.

Ofsted (2012). The pupil premium, Manchester.

Page | 23


Ofsted (2013). More schools use Pupil Premium well, but others still struggle [online]. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/more-schools-use-pupil-premium-well-but-others-still-struggle [accessed 20/02/2015].

Ofsted (2014). The pupil premium: an update, Manchester.Paterson, C., (2013). Taking it as read: primary school literacy and the pupil premium. In

Marshall P (ed.), The Tail: how England’s schools fail one child in five – and what can be done. London: Profile Books.

Pollard. A., (ed.) (2014). Readings for reflective teaching in schools. (4th edition.) London: Bloomsbury.

Sahlberg, P., (2012). Finnish Lessons: what can the world learn from educational change in Finland? New York: Teachers College Press.

Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., and Taggart, B., (2012). EPPSE Project. Final Report from the Key Stage 3 phase: influences on students’ development from age 11–14. London: Department for Education

Trochim, W. M K., (2006). Qualitative Validity. Research Methods Knowledge Base [online]. Available at http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/qualval.php [Accessed 17/02/2015].

UNICEF [no date]. FACT SHEET: A summary of the rights under the Convention on the Rights of the Child [online]. Available at: http://www.unicef.org/crc/files/Rights_overview.pdf [accessed 18/02/2015].

Whitty, G., Power, S. and Halpin, D. (1998). Devolution and choice in education. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Ward, S., and Eden, C., (2009). Key issues in education policy. London: Sage. Warnock, M., (1977). Schools of thought. London: Faber & Faber.Whitty, G. (2001) Education, social class and social exclusion, Journal of Education Policy,

16 (4): 287 – 295.White, J., (2011). Gove’s on the Bac foot with a White Paper stuck in 1868. Times

Educational Supplement, January 21. Wigdortz, B., (2013). How will we know whether we have succeeded in tackling

educational disadvantage? In Clifton, J. (ed.), Excellence and equity: tackling educational disadvantage in England’s secondary schools: 1-3. London: IPPR.

Wilkinson, R., and Pickett, K., (2009). The spirit level – why equality is better for everyone. London: Penguin

Young, M. F. D., (Ed.) (1971). Knowledge and Control: new Directions for the Sociology of Education. London: Collier-Macmillan.

Young, M., (2011). The return to subjects: a sociological perspective on the UK Coalition government’s approach to the 14-19 curriculum. The Curriculum Journal, 22(2): 265-278.

Young, M., and Muller, J., (2010). Three educational scenarios for the future: Lessons from the sociology of knowledge. European Journal of Education, 45(1): 11-28.

Page | 24

cla assignment

Documents