As part of my Ed.D (a taught doctorate) I’m doing a module on Policy Studies. Consequently, over the next few weeks before I go up to Durham to receive the taught element of this module, I’ll be posting on a number of areas to do with education policy – with particular reference to the English school system. Today I’m looking at the opinions and conclusions from Chubb and Moe’s A Lesson in School Reform from Great Britain… :D

Chubb and Moe, American professors writing in 1992 after a visit to UK in 1991 look at ‘radical new framework’ introduced with the Education Reform Act of 1988. Teachers remember this as being the time the National Curriculum was introduced, but the Act brought in much more than just this. one of the most major changes was the element of choice which was brought in through the reforms – parental power in choosing their child’s school (‘open enrollment’), the power for schools to ‘opt out’ and become ‘grant maintained’, and the creation of part-privately-funded City Technology Colleges (CTCs).

The authors see these reforms as being ‘anti-system’ in that they undermine political control of education, loosening central government’s grip on the everyday lives of schools. I would tend to disagree with this view. The superficial gloss of ‘choice’ isn’t really about letting go of control but about keeping it through stealth: increasing the accountability of educational institutions and those employed in them whilst proclaiming increased autonomy. This ’stealth control’ has been extended through the introduction of SAT testing as well as the publication of league tables.

As regards CTCs, the comments Chubb and Moe make about them could equally be made of the new-style ‘academies’:

Ultimately, the CTC approach to innovation and supply is really typical of the way these matters have always been approached within education. They are approached from the top down. People in high positions come up with ideas about what needs and interests are important, how they should be addressed through schools of a certain type, and how much all this presumably costs (which is invariably a fortune); and the schools are then imposed from above. As a general strategy, this is hopelessly inadequate. The types of schools it generates (if any) are subject to all the usual political influences from powerful players, who have their own agendas and interests at heart. And even if the supply of schools could magically be left up to ‘objective’ policymakers on high, they could never know enough – about what people want, about the diverse schools needed to satisfy them – to do the job well.
J.E. Chubb & T.M. Moe, A Lesson in School Reform from Great Britain (Washington, 1992), p.26-27

Of course the situation is slightly better with the academy system than with CTCs. At least with the former there is a modicum of detachment from the political process, but then the recent scandal over peerages would seem to negate this. The idea in common behind both schemes is that children from cities should have access to high-quality education – a noble aim. Unfortunately the highly vocational nature of CTCs has been put to one side with the academy system in which groups with a particular set of values, beliefs or ideals to promulgate set up new schools or take over existing ones experiencing difficulties. Dealing often with a large minority of ‘problem’ students, these academies don’t have the power to offer the kind of radically different curriculum that is perhaps needed.

Another thing that the authors discuss is the need for a plethora of schools if choice is to be meaningful:

One thing is for sure. People are different, and, if given half a chance, would seek out all sorts of educaitonal options. Some would want schools that emphasize mathematics, science and technology, as the CTCs do. But others would prefer schools that specialize in the performing arts, or the humanities, or the social sciences, or foreign languages. And this is just the beginning. For there are countless aspects of schools that people value differently – when given the choice.
J.E. Chubb & T.M. Moe, A Lesson in School Reform from Great Britain (Washington, 1992), p.27

Schools in England now have the opportunity to achieve ’specialist status’ in a number of areas, including Performing Arts, Humanities, Languages, Technology, and Science. This, theoretically speaking, gives parents and students the option to choose a secondary school or college which specializes in their favoured area. In practice, however, do parents really choose from a limited number of local schools based on their specialism? In most instances, of course not. They choose schools based on proximity, (perceived) behaviour and examination results:

Now that parents are no longer told what to do but are empowered to make choices of real consequence for their children, they are reaching out to get informed about the schools available to them – visiting schools personally, comparing prospectuses, talking with friends and community members, paying attention to school reputations. And what are they looking for in a school? Great sports teams? Attractive uniforms? Hardly. Desmond Nuttal, director research for the Inner London Education Authority during the late 1980s, puts it this way: “Parents have taken choice very seriously, and research has shown great consistency in what they tend to be looking for: they want order and discipline, academic achievement, and proximity.” In other words, the typical parent is seeking out the best possible school close to home.
J.E. Chubb & T.M. Moe, A Lesson in School Reform from Great Britain (Washington, 1992), p.19

This means that examination results, and the league tables that are drawn up from them, become paramount in parental decisions about where to send their child. As under the ‘open enrollment’ scheme each student carries a metaphorical ’sack of money’ around with them for each school, schools are now in the business of attracting as many students as possible. Schools are now, in effect, touting for business. This means that everything in schools is now geared towards securing the best examination results possible. Teaching to the test is common with teachers’ fundamental educational beliefs – such as attempting to inspire lifelong learning – taking a back seat to moving students between levels and grade boundaries. Thus we have the situation where those predicted a Level 4 in English, Maths or Science at Key Stage 3, or a D at GCSE receive booster sessions to improve their schools standing. Education becomes now longer about teaching the individual student; they are reduced to a number on a page and a statistic in a newspaper.