The 1988 Education Act - Term Paper Example

THE 1988 EDUCATION ACT The Education Reform Act is considered as one of the most significant education laws in England, Northern Ireland and Wales since 1944. The legislation on Scottish education is different from that of the other states in the United Kingdom. In the early 1980s there were concerns that the Department of Education and Science had little power to control and supervise local authorities’ policies according to the Audit Commission (1989). The central government’s other branches focused mainly on the coordination of training - especially the Department of Employment. Even though there were efforts to change the curriculum, the Department still wished to assert and regain its authority and control over education (Halphin & Troyna, 1994).The 1988 Education Act, therefore, was enacted as a result of efforts by the Department of Education and Science to centralize the control of the education sector - particularly assessment and curricular matters (Dunford, 1988). MAIN CONCERNS THAT LED TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE 1988 EDUCATION ACT One main concern about the United Kingdom’s education system prior to the enactment of the 1988 Education Act was with respect to school retention levels. The average retention rate, though increasing, was still low compared with international standards. There were concerns over low examination and participation performances. Data obtained across the United Kingdom showed that although the state scored average in terms of skills of workers, the level of literacy skills among younger employees were falling. Worse still, exam performance for 16 year old students had gravely declined; sixteen was then the compulsory age for leaving school in the state. In addition, more than 60 percent of school leavers had almost no qualifications as they entered the labour market. In view of these facts, there was an urgent need to reform the educational sector in the United Kingdom. People’s concerns primarily centred on the fact that many school leavers had little to show in terms of basic skills. The reforms were supposed to enable school leavers acquire qualifications that would enable them perform jobs that require skilled labour. IMPACT OF THE EDUCATION ACT Following the widespread concern about the state of school leavers in the United Kingdom, it was clear that fast action was required to save the situation. The United Kingdom Government in 1988 introduced the Education Reform Act to address the growing concerns on the stagnating and dwindling education standards in the Kingdom (Wendy & Barry, 1989). The Act basically introduced market reforms and the national curriculum. The national curriculum mainly targeted pupils aged between seven and 16. The curriculum’s goal was to ensure that all students studied a certain set of subjects to a minimum level until they were 16 years of age. The national curriculum is highly centralized and it contrasts accountability and power devolution in school according to Ranson (n.d.). The educational reforms made uniform and mandatory arrangements for determination of the curriculum. The reforms led to the local educational authorities losing the power to decide what is featured in the curriculum. The Act grants the central government powers to specify targets for all subjects in the curriculum. Previously, it was teachers’ responsibility to draft work schemes they felt was suitable for their pupils. The Act assigned learning institutions new responsibilities, changing the role of the local educational authorities from both above and below (Maclure, 1989). Under the new arrangement, the power to specifying targets falls within the docket of the Secretary of State (Trust, 1988). The National Curriculum Council members are appointed by the Secretary of State who also approves any of their recommendations. The Secretary of State nominates a committee that administers a national system for examining pupils. The Secretary of State endorses qualifications given to pupils, has the power to change the number of students to be admitted to different learning institutions and may approve the use of financial management schemes presented by local education authorities. After budget delegation, the Secretary of State decides the fraction of the funding that remains with the local authorities. The concept of local management of schools was also introduced by the Act granting the Secretary of State the powers to approve learning institutions that may choose to be independent from the control of local education authorities and change their status to grant maintained schools. This, however, is only done following an approval by majority of parents. The Secretary of State may also recover the maintenance grant from schools that have opted out of the arrangement. Also, some discretionary powers of the local authorities were removed by the act in numerous areas. In situations where they are not bestowed upon schools, these powers are replaced with duties. With the implementation of this Act, local authorities are expected to enforce pupil testing though they lose the ability to set the most important portions of the curriculum. The Education Reform Act allows governing bodies to develop education colleges. These bodies consist of interest group representatives, like business communities, that have the goal of seeing to it that the independence of colleges from local educational authorities is maintained (Trust, 1988). Local educational authorities have to prepare financial management schemes which are formulas for allocating funds to the schools falling within their areas of jurisdiction. While preparing these schemes, the local authorities have to consider the Secretary of State’s guidance (PSI, n.d). The Secretary of State then receives and approves the financial management scheme. The local education authorities, however, still maintain some roles under the new system. They determine some of the resources accessible to schools and set out requirements and conditions of operations for governing systems. Under the Act, the responsibility of appointing and dismissing members of staff is divided; the local authority has to be consulted but the decision lies with the school. Even though the Act assigns the local authority a role in the system’s construction, eventually the authority’s discretion is limited by a formula. The decision on which formula to use in allocating funds to schools is strongly influenced by the local authorities (Stewart & Stocker, 1989). However, the formula has to get approval from the central government with the Secretary of State also charged with the role of approving modifications made on the formulas. Given the potential interruptions a new formula may bring, the local authority’s limited involvement with decisions related to costs and the little time available for the design of formulas, budgets tend to follow already set up resource distribution channels from the authorities to the schools (Maclure, 2005). It is noted that the local authorities’ roles have gradually shifted to provision of support rather than being advisors to the schools. The role of the local authorities therefore has changed from directing to promoting policies. In this respect, local educational authorities may always have to develop the ability to offer special services and give advice depending on the rearrangement of their activities. There are some significant limits on the local authorities’ adaptation to their new roles. The local authorities now have considerable difficulty in resource allocation for specific policies like in the case of under fives’ education since three quarters of delegated budget must be based on pupil numbers. The remaining quarter is based on objective need assessment rather than past spending habits. The local authority can only spend less than a tenth outside the delegated budget. The educational reforms tend to increase pluralism in public learning institutions and also heighten the role of the customer (PSI, n.d). With the implementation of the legislation, the local authorities’ roles in making decisions on education provision are reduced. The system has now changed focus to devolved learning institutions which include grant maintained schools, city technical colleges, schools with delegated budgets and institutions of higher education. The educational reforms combine together in an effort to generate a consumer motivated provision of state education. The national curriculum enables consumers to contrast school performances which can be helpful to parents in choosing schools for their children. The Act makes it possible for the institution’s governing body to engage parents in the school’s decision making. The open enrolment and funding formula form a quasi-market that determines the school’s viability according to different parents. One limitation of the reforms is the fact that the data obtained from the new system is likely to alter the client’s judgments since indicators may show the type of pupils attending a specific school instead of the school’s quality (Wendy & Barry, 1989). Also, open enrolment may punish soundly managed learning institutions that may have pupils with poor scores, and reward those that are poorly managed but with high scoring pupils. Furthermore, the general market may strengthen class divisions which in turn affect the school’s quality instead of rewarding efficiency. CONCLUSION As a result of the change brought about by the 1988 Education Reform Act of the United Kingdom, local education authorities have had to adapt to a role that is less directive compared to the past. In effect, the responsibility of education authorities has been weakened at least to some extent. References Audit Commission (1989) Assuring Quality in Education, HMSO, London. Dunford J. (1988) Central/Local Government Relations 1977-1987 With Special Reference to Education: A Review of the Literature, Stoke-on-Trent, Trentham, pp.7-16 Halphin D. & Troyna B. (1994) Researching educational policy: Ethical and methodological issues, London Maclure S. (1989) Education reformed: A Guide to the Educational Reform Act, Hodder and Stoughton, London. Maclure S. (2005) What’s the good of education?: The economics of education in the UK, Princeton University Press, New Jersey. PSI (n.d) The education reform Act, viewed 20th December 2009: http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache%3AWRUt1DIlz50J%3Awww.psi.org.uk%2Fpublications%2Farchivepdfs%2FRecent%2FCENLOC4.pdf+Maclure+Educational+reforms%3A+A+Guide+to+the+Educational+Reform+Act&hl=en Ranson S. (n.d.) ‘Contradictions in the government of educational change’, Political Studies, XXXIII, pp.64-65. Stewart J. & Stocker G. (1989) The future of local government, government beyond the centre, Macmillan Education, Basingstoke. Trust H. (1988) Central/local government relations, 1977-1987 with special references to education: A review of the literature, Trentham Books. Wendy B. & Barry T. (1989) The Dawn of a New ERA? The Education Reform Act, Race and LEAs, Journal of Educational Management Administration & Leadership, Vol. 17, No. 1, 23-31. Read More