Education reforms

‘Educational reforms in recent years have been driven by pragmatism rather than ideology.’ Discuss. (30 marks)

Candidates clearly need to appreciate the meanings of the terms ‘pragmatism’ and ‘ideology’ if reasoned analysis is to follow.

Even though the question refers to recent years students could well point out that for much of the post-war period education was something of an ideological battleground, with the left criticising selective education for being socially divisive and producing self-perpetuating elites and with the right criticising comprehensive education as a tool for social engineering and the ‘dumbing down’ of academic education. Divisions over private education could also appear in these discussions.

 Candidates would also be likely to assert that since the late 1970s pragmatism rather than ideology has shaped education policy in England and Wales. By the end of that decade, and indeed in the 1980s as well, both the Conservative and Labour parties appeared to view education as a mechanism for producing economic well-being rather than a more equal society. Education should produce school leavers who were equipped to succeed in increasingly competitive global markets. Significantly, the Callaghan Labour government of the late 1970s eschewed ideology in favour of pragmatism so that pupils would be better prepared for employment, hence Labour’s advocacy of the ‘New Vocationalism’.

This emphasis on vocationalism is also apparent in the Conservative government’s

policies in the 1980s in programmes such as TVEI and vocational qualifications such as NVQs.

 Pragmatism is also evident in the government’s shying away from the New Right’s drive to empower parents via voucher schemes.

 Whilst the 1988 Baker Education Act was attacked by teaching unions and members of the Labour Party as a right-wing piece of legislation, it could well be argued that this too was influenced more by pragmatism than ideology. The National Curriculum, the establishment of SATs and the examining of pupils at key stages were intended to drive up standards, measurable across the nation and based on prescriptive syllabuses intended to produce content consistency in the classroom. The ensuing league tables reflected outcomes. For the left such publications failed to recognise the challenges teachers faced in under-performing schools, usually located in areas of considerable social deprivation.

 New Labour’s educational policies in government also appeared to owe little to ideology. Public schools remain and no attempts have been made to shut down the few remaining selective grammar schools. Rather, continued emphasis was on the need for high quality training so as to equip school leavers with skills suited to the modern workplace – this approach is clearly evident in the government’s ‘Curriculum 2000’ programme with its clear commitment to the development of key skills. The creation of Academies to replace failing schools could also be viewed as a pragmatic approach to education delivery. The left would disagree because they see such institutions as undermining  the role and authority of Local Education Authorities. The central planks of the 1988 Act remain intact even though the efficacy of SATs testing in early years is now more open to question.

The 2010 Conservative manifesto promised to: reduce state control over schools; give headteachers more control over teacher’s salaries and school discipline; raise entry qualifications to the teaching profession.

 The 2010 Labour manifesto promised to: take over around 1000 mediocre or failing schools; provide free schools meals for primary school children; widen access to university.

 The 2010 LibDem manifesto promised to: slim-down the curriculum; phase out university tuition fees; help the poorest students go to university; provide an additional £2.5bn to help struggling pupils.

 The coalition agreement issued by the Conservative-LibDem administration in the wake of the 2010 General Election made three broad commitments in the field of state maintained secondary education: firstly, to allow ‘new providers can enter the state school system in response to parental demand’; secondly, to give schools ‘greater freedom over curriculum’; thirdly, that all schools would be ‘held accountable’.

It would appear sensible to conclude that the adversarial conflicts which characterised education debates in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s have not been replicated in recent years.

There now appears to be little significant difference between the major parties over the purposes of education and the types of institutions needed to facilitate teaching and learning.

Indeed, recent policies aimed at integrating 14-19 education and creating over-arching qualifications such as diplomas have been developed and introduced without much noise or clamour, lending further credence to the claim made in the initial statement.

Source: AQA