New Labour Education Policy - Essay Example

New Labour Education Policy: Post 1997 The English education system has undergone near constant reform in the last several decades, but has been hindered by tradition, social norms, and cultural factors. Drastic changes in the educational system often result in dramatic changes that are counter-productive to the goals of equal and affordable education. When New Labour was ushered into office in the late 1990s, they were accompanied by a call for an overhaul of the public school system. Their goals were lofty enough; produce a system that offered students and parents some choice, make adequate schooling available to all qualifying students without regards to socio-economic background, provide employers with a qualified pool of applicants that can contribute to the country's economic progress, and provide a set of national standards for school performance and curriculum. In striving for these endpoints, Labour implemented the merit system to recognize all students who excel in academics. Specialized schools were established to forego the formality of a structured program in favour of a vocational specialty. Special programs were instituted to facilitate the inclusion of students with disabilities. The new policy would rate schools by a set of performance standards that would be made public as a means to induce competition for students, and create an environment for lifelong learning. In all cases, the neglect of cultural and social considerations produced an outcome that was polarized, ineffective, and often in opposition to the desired results. The evolution of the educational system and educational policy has highlighted the importance that the English society has placed on education during the last two centuries. The society values education as a mirror of society where socialization and the development of citizenship can take place. The student values an education for the financial reward that is available for holding the right credentials and pursuing a professional career. Recently, the government has recognized a vested interest in investing in a sound education policy "because at one and the same time education is seen as being able to create economic growth in the flexible, knowledge-based economies of the twenty-first century, and to promote social inclusion by creating pathways out of poverty" (Furlong 2005, p.123). In keeping step with the concept that the school is a reflection of society, New Labour's educational policies have been framed in their philosophy of free market competition, equality, and the recognition and reward of ability. New Labour has made a significant commitment to narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor and lessening the effects of the social and cultural capital that permeates the system. The policy is also committed to "reversing the increasing social exclusion of the unemployed and low-paid, and to equality of opportunity in education and the need to develop the potential of every child" (Tomlinson 2003, p.195). In addition, New Labour has maintained a steadfast commitment to "choice and competition, with education developing as a market commodity driven by consumer demand, fuelled by league tables of examination results, school 'choice' by parents, specialist schools and failing schools" (Tomlinson 2003, p.196). The ruthlessness of the market and cultural traditions have often compromised the drive towards equality and fairness and has created tension in New Labour's controversial educational policies. No matter where you look in the educational system you will see the influence of the social stratification, racism, the gap between the poor and rich, and the class attitudes that are reflected in education's mirror. However, national standards and mandates have dictated that these influences must be overlooked and not considered in favour of an inclusive and performance based system. The initial enthusiasm that met New Labour's educational reforms has "dissipated into puzzlement, disappointment and concern about the direction of education policy, at least in England" (Phillips & Harper-Jones 2003, p.130). It has created a policy that advocates inclusiveness and fairness in a system that mirrors a culture that is class oriented and highly discriminatory. Meritocracy has been a policy that has come under widespread criticism due its tendency to further polarize the good and bad schools and create greater stratification of the classes. The goal of meritocracy has been to make the best schools and classes available to the highest achieving students without regard to their socio-economic background. It was hoped that this would break the cycle of low education among certain social groups. However, students who have a family tradition of higher education or the arts have the social and cultural capital required to compete for these slots. According to Tomlinson (2003, p.203), "Culturally knowledgeable groups know how to equip their children with a value-added curriculum vitae, avoid relegation to vocational or practical courses, decline any form of stigmatised special education while using those forms that bring extra resources, and support the exclusion of pupils who take teaching time away from their own children". Meritocracy may be reinforcing the exclusionary and stratification policies that it was meant to eliminate. In addition, the lower socio-economic classes will be at a disadvantage economically and may be challenged in the areas of transportation and initial costs. Meritocracy may be a policy that is framed in free market competition, but it may be giving an unfair advantage to the existing cultural capital. Meritocracy has also been a failure based on the UK's social and cultural traditions, and perpetuates the existing bias and prejudice in the system. According to Van De Werfhorst, Sullivan, and Cheung (2003, p.42), "students' choice of subject must be understood within the system of both economic and cultural stratification, as children choose subjects that correspond to their parents' positions in both the economic and the cultural hierarchy". Little will be gained by advocating a program the does not address the existing social structures. Perceptions of class, ethnicity, and racial discrimination will certainly taint the best of intentions of meritocracy. Gillborn (2006. p.89) contends, "White teachers hold systematically lower expectations of Black and other minority ethnic students and often respond more quickly and more harshly to perceived signs of unruly behaviour or inappropriate 'attitudes'". This has resulted in Blacks and other minorities being over represented in the lower standards groups and the racism becoming institutionalised by tracking, selection, and student grouping. These inequalities will become normalized in society as the system justifies the "privileges of the rich and the struggles of the poor" and will manifest in institutionalised racism (Gillies 2005, p.837). Though the intentions of the policy are in opposition to this outcome, the Lawrence Inquiry held that 'institutional racism' "included unintended and thoughtless acts that have the effect of discriminating (regardless of their intent)" (Gillborn 2006, p.85). Because the school system is a reflection of society, meaningful change and a move towards equality may not be possible until the nation undergoes a fundamental change in their views on race and class. Meritocracy has been an exclusionary policy that has further stratified the socio-economic classes in education, while standardization, deprofessionalisation, selection, and specialization have created a system that is limited in its ability to correct itself. Whilst the goal of the 1998 National Literacy and Numeracy Strategy was to raise the students' skill level in literacy and math, "The content of these daily literacy and numeracy lessons, and indeed how they should be taught, was tightly prescribed by central government" (Machin & Vignoles 2006, p.7). The autonomy of the teachers has been eliminated and they are not able to correct the deficiencies or contradictions in the system. They are not free to offer additional help, specialized courses, or creative pedagogies that might be able to motivate an underachiever. This has led to a "simplistic conception of learning and a socially decontextualised view of school effectiveness" (Phillips & Harper-Jones 2003, p.130) Furlong (2005, p.120) argues "For New Labour, the aim has been to establish forms of professionalism that accept that decisions, about what to teach and how to teach and how to assess children, are made at school and national level rather than by individual teachers". One standard does not fill all cultures and teachers are impeded from creatively interacting with the students in a way that could change the direction of some failing students. Selection and specialization has some potential to minimize the negative homogeneous effect of standardization, but has largely been unworkable under the current educational structure. Selection pulls the best and brightest students away from the lower scoring schools and creates a tension between policies that select the best, and strategies that promote equality (Machin & Vignoles 2006, p.4). Peer students affect the academic quality of the school and "attending a school with very few children from lower socio-economic groups is highly beneficial academically speaking" (Machin & Vignoles 2006, p.4). Once again we see the market forces of choice and selection resulting in an increase in socio-economic stratification, and "these peer group effects will further reinforce socio-economic disadvantage" (Machin & Vignoles 2006, p.4). The free market concepts of selection and specialization have led to a competition for quality students and financial considerations. However, research has shown that "increased competition among schools and moves to decentralize school finance can enhance attainment, but can raise inequality because richer parents are better able to take advantage of a more market-oriented system" (Machin & Vignoles 2006, p.4). Without breaking the existing economic and cultural disadvantages of the lower classes, the free market competitive based system will continue to favour and enhance the middle and upper classes. Standardization of the curricula has been accompanied by a quality control system that generates an environment of mischaracterization and mistrust. To accommodate New Labour's policies that advocated selection and choice mandated a grading system to be able to judge the outcomes and weigh the value of the specific schools. The results of these evaluations were critical to the school's ability to be funded and operate. In a misguided effort to motivate school systems to improve their performance, the policy undertook a practice known as 'naming and shaming'. This has been shown to be a failed policy because it did not address the fundamental problem of social and cultural contexts. Schools often are failing due to the fragility of the student body make-up. Schools in economically deprived areas will have a disadvantage when compared to middle class schools. Thrupp and Lupton (2006, p.319) contend that "failing to recognise the 'messy detail' of the reality of school populations, in order to concentrate on school practice, effectively screens out the needs of students" and it will be "less likely that school funding or organisation or pedagogic practice will be geared towards their needs, and more likely that they will be treated as deficient, failing, and not worthy of support in a system geared to the needs of 'typical' or 'normal' students." The practice of 'naming and shaming' attacks the outcome but fails to address the problem of difficult schools. In essence, the policy of 'naming and shaming' schools into higher performance was based on the belief that the failures of students and schools was due to the internal organisation of the school rather than the external forces of culture, economics, and prejudiced. While it has been a part of the traditional educational myth that school management and leadership are for the most part responsible for school performance, recent studies have indicated that it the social context of the school that has the greater impact (Thrupp & Lupton 2006, p.310). Higher socio-economic advantaged schools have greater discipline compliance, lower teacher to student ratios, fewer financial problems, and more time to plan and monitor the students' performance" (Thrupp & Lupton 2006, p.309). Naming and shaming has been a failed policy because it fails to address the fundamental social and cultural forces that cause schools to fail. Not only does 'naming and shaming' draw inappropriate blame on the school staff, it creates an environment of poor communication and a reluctance to act in a positive manner. Here again we see a national policy implemented to solve what is basically a local issue. Schon (1987, p.7) states, "When competence gets called into question, increasing external pressures work to reduce the profession's autonomy and work to form an external means of regulation". Indeed, the teaching profession has lost much of its traditional autonomy and this has further impeded progress in failing schools. Blaming the teachers or organisation in this situation does not foster an acceptance of responsibility, or open up communication on the topic, and is more likely to make the problem worse, rather than solving it (Nicolaidou & Ainscow 2005, p.232; Thrupp & Lupton 2006, p.323). The school is placed in the difficult position of taking the blame for a problem they did not create, and taking responsibility to correct it within a policy framework that they have no control over. The obstacles that organizations face when confronted with schools that are problematic due to their socio-economic location, also present themselves when dealing with students with special needs. Though the 2001 Special Educational Needs and Disability Act addressed the need for non-discrimination and inclusive education, exclusionary practices continue to prevail and progress has stalled in the recent years (Barnes 2007, p.214). In addition, the double discrimination of a disability and racism has been documented by studies that exposed a "lack of effective information and communication about available services, a shortfall in appropriate family support services and the impact of racism and low income in many communities" (Russell 2003, p.217). The impact of this neglect has been that disabled people are twice as likely to leave school with no formal education than non-disabled people, and only 10 percent of the secondary schools are handicap accessible (Russell 2003, p.220). Centralised control of the educational system, a key goal of New Labour, has impacted the way teachers teach as well as the way they learn. While New Labour has limited the flexibility of classroom content and delivery, they have recognized the fact that education is a lifelong and evolving event. However, their educational policy aims to define the content of lifelong learning and maintain control of its delivery. Reid et al. (2004) commented that Continued Professional Development (CPD) for teachers has focused on the teacher as curriculum deliverer rather than "equipping teachers with the skills to engage in professional self-development, to develop evidence-based practice, to run educational teams, to innovate or facilitate" (cited in Furlong 2005, p.130). Traditionally, CPD has been implemented through a connection between various educational institutions and other relevant sites such as the workplace and voluntary associations (Field 2006, p.151) However, recent deprofessionalisation of the teaching profession and centralisation of teacher training have resulted in CPD opportunities that have been increasingly the focus of government education policy and strategies (Furlong 2005, p.130). The centralization of CPD can result in the failure of the policy to recognize that culture is an important component of education. Attempting to make everything 'British', rather than considering the ethnic population of the individual schools may create barriers in communication and a shortage of tools for the teacher to utilize in a cross cultural or mixed culture environment. While there are many aspects of New Labour's educational reforms that have generated outcomes that are in tension with the goals of the policies, there are also some positive points that should be noted. One key point is that the goals of the policy strive to drive the UK into the 21st century global economy. It's motivations and intentions cannot be questioned. The desired outcome of making education more accessible and fair, while maintaining the capitalist credibility is an honourable, although difficult, program to enact. Free choice and market forces are inherently unfair as there is always a party willing to exploit any advantage. The aim of a national merit system for students that rewards high achievers does provide motivation for those able to take advantage of it. Inspecting and evaluating schools is also a necessary tool to maintain quality. The failure to recognize social and cultural factors that influence the outcome has been a shortcoming of Labour's policies and have had a significant impact on their negative consequences. However, Thrupp and Lupton (2006, p.314) report that, "Second and third term policies have continued to redistribute funding and have begun to demonstrate an increasing recognition of context in school improvement policy as well. Notable initiatives include 'Schools Facing Challenging circumstances' (SFCC), a programme of research and support for disadvantaged schools, and the 'London Challenge', providing for tailor- made support strategies for schools in some of the capital city's most disadvantaged areas". Clearly Labour is willing to shift directions when necessary and continue to place an appropriate priority on the policy. In conclusion, education reform in the UK has followed a violent and rocky road since the beginnings of formal education. Once thought to be the property of the elite, education is now perceived as a right that every citizen has an opportunity to attain. The traditional view that the school should be a reflection of the society becomes problematic when trying to instil equality, while honestly accounting for the culture. The call for free market choice and competition add additional tension to the multiple goals of the educational initiatives. Traditional social and cultural groups that underperform in society or economics will also underperform in education. This results in socio-economic groupings that take on the characteristic of being exclusionary. The students with social capital will group with like peers and self perpetuate the segregation. Meritocracy further increases the gap, as the most capable students will be the ones from an advantaged background. Failing schools will be the ones that are disadvantaged by economics and culture. These phenomena will resonate through race, ethnicity, gender, and the disabled. Striving for a positive outcome in this scenario demands that society make some fundamental changes in correcting its own prejudice. Still, Labour has shown a willingness to acknowledge its failures and alter their approach when possible. They have begun to consider the social context of the schools and have eliminated the naming and shaming of many schools in favour of a more positive approach. Educational reform is far from ideal, but continues to evolve as society pulls it along. References References Barnes, C 2007, 'Disability activism and the struggle for change: disability, policy and politics in the UK, Education, Citizenship, and Social Justice. vol.2, no.3, pp.203-221. Field, J., 2006, Lifelong learning and the new educational order, Trentham Books Unlimited, Staffordshire, UK. Furlong, J. 2005, 'New Labour and teacher education: the end of an era, Oxford Review of Education, vol.31, no.1, pp.119-134. Gillborn, D. 2006, 'Citizenship education as placebo: 'standards', institutional racism, and education policy, Education, Citizenship, and Social Justice, vol.1, no.1, pp.83-104. Gillies, V., 2005, 'Raising the 'meritocracy': parenting and the individualization of social class', Sociology, vol.39, no.5, pp.835-853. Machin, S. & Vignoles, A. 2006, Education policy in the UK, Centre for the Economics of Education, London, UK. Nicolaidou, M., & Ainscow, M. 2005, 'Understanding failing schools: perspectives from the inside', School Effectiveness and School Improvement, vol. 16, no.3, 229-248. Phillips, R. & Harper-Jones G., 2003, 'Whatever next Education policy and New Labour: the first four years, 1997-2001', British Educational Research Journal, vol.29, no.1, pp.125-132. Russell, P. 2003, 'Access and achievement or social exclusion Are the government's policies working for disabled children and their families', Children and Society, vol.17, no.3, pp.215-225. Schon, D.A., 1987 Educating the Reflective Practitioner: toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Thrupp, M. & Lupton R., 2006, 'Taking school contexts more seriously: the social justice challenge', British Journal of Educational Studies, vol.54, no.3, pp.308-328. Tomlinson, S., 2003, 'New Labour and education', Children & Society, vol.17, no.3, pp.195-204. Tomlinson, S., 2006, 'Another day, another white paper', Forum, vol.48, no.1, pp.49-54. Van De Werfhorst, H., Sullivan, A., & Cheung, Sin Yi 2003, 'Social Class, Ability and Choice of Subject in Secondary and Tertiary Education in Britain', British Educational Research Journal, vol.29, no.1, pp.41-62. Read More