Page last edited: 11/03/2010
Click here for DCSF Report: Breaking the Link between Disadvantage and Low Attainment
Document Contents
|
Compensatory education policies are intended to offset the effects of socio-economic disadvantage which may restrict the educational opportunities of children from socially deprived backgrounds. In practice the policies focused originally upon the assumed cultural deprivation of black children in the USA [as in the Operation Head Start Programme] and working class children in the UK [as in the Education Priority Area Programme] and have consequently attracted criticism from sociologists who argued strenuously against the concept of cultural deprivation. It may perhaps be argued that later compensatory education policies such as Sure Start, Education Action Zones and Excellence in Cities Programmes, Educational Maintenance Allowances and the Aim Higher Scheme are based less upon the concept of cultural deprivation and more on improving pre-school facilities, improving the schools themselves and providing financial help and advice designed to give socially disadvantaged children a fairer chance to fulfil their ambitions. However despite these policies reductions in inequalities of educational attainment have been limited.
The 1967 Plowden Report entitled "Children in their Primary Schools" called for, among other things, "positive discrimination" which should "favour schools in neighbourhoods where children are most severely handicapped by home conditions" by targeting additional financial resources on the education of these children. This proposal was readily accepted by the then Labour Secretary of State for Education Tony Crosland and by one of his key education advisers A.H. Halsey who was to become national director of the EPA programme. [According to Crosland real equality of educational opportunity was impossible without positive discrimination because disadvantaged children would be unable to take advantage of the opportunities which schools were offering unless there were also positive discrimination in their favour. This is what Crosland described as the "strong version of equality of opportunity", a version which he himself very much supported]
Educational Priority Areas were set up in the late 1960s in parts of London, Birmingham, Liverpool and the West Riding of Yorkshire and schools in the EPA areas were provided with additional financial resources designed to "raise the educational performance of children, improve the morale of teachers, increase the involvement of parents in their children's' education and to increase the "sense of responsibility" for their communities of the people living in them." [Halsey 1972]. In particular there were to be new and refurbished school buildings, special courses for teachers in EPA schools, special higher pay scales to encourage teacher retention, more playschools and nursery classes, policies to improve home -school communication and integration of the EPA initiatives with the work of Health and Social Services departments in wider "Community Development Programmes". Additionally social scientists involved in the EPA programmes hoped to use so-called action research strategies to test the effectiveness of the programmes in operation and to modify and refine the programmes after discussion with the officials, parents and teachers participating in the schemes.
These policies seemed sensible and well meaning but the concept of compensatory education and the policies introduced in the Education Priority Areas soon generated considerable controversy within Sociology because of disputes surrounding the causes of poverty and of social class differences in educational achievement and related disputes as to how poverty and social class inequalities in educational achievement might best be reduced.
With regard to the broad causes of poverty sociologists distinguish between "cultural explanations" and structural explanations. Cultural explanations [as for example in Oscar Lewis' theory of the culture of poverty] explain the causes of poverty mainly in the assumed cultural deprivation of the poor which is believed to involve family instability, fatalism and lack of ambition, unwillingness to participate in the institutions of the wider society and inappropriate socialisation of the young .However, contrastingly, in structural explanations of poverty it is argued that the causes of poverty derive from the unequal distributions of power, income, wealth and opportunity which are seen as an inevitable characteristic of the operation of capitalist economies.
There are also disputes surrounding the causes of social class differences in educational achievement. Such causes might include social class differences in intelligence [which may or may not be mainly genetically inherited], social class differences in attitudes and values which imply that working class families and their children are more likely to be culturally deprived, social class differences in culture which nevertheless imply class difference without working class cultural deprivation, social class differences in material circumstances and factors operative in the schools themselves which operate to the disadvantage of working class pupils.
More radical sociologists [often but not always influenced by Marxism] argued that programmes of compensatory education had been introduced by "liberal" politicians of the USA Democrat party and by social democratic politicians of the British Labour Party who had accepted cultural explanations of the causes of poverty and sought remedies for poverty which would involve little or no redistribution of power, wealth and income from rich to poor and no challenge whatsoever to the continued existence of capitalism which , in the radical view, was itself the fundamental cause of poverty. The radicals further claimed that programmes of compensatory education were based on an uncritical acceptance of the theory that social class differences in educational achievement were based primarily on the cultural deprivation of the working class. This same concept has been expressed also in terms of the "cultural deficit" believed to be experienced by many working class children or even in terms of the "cultural pathology" of the working class.
The educational theories based upon the concept of cultural deprivation are discussed in more detail elsewhere on the site as are the criticisms of them. Many sociologists were critical of the theories which explained social class differences in educational achievement in terms of the cultural deprivation of the working class and proposed that other explanations were far more significant. Thus ,for example, Bernstein lamented that his own linguistic theories were being used in support of the notion of cultural deprivation which was certainly not what he intended; Bourdieu's theories suggested that working class children were culturally different but not culturally deprived and that they were likely to be unsuccessful in school because schools undervalued working class culture and assessed pupils in terms of a dominant culture possessed by the middle class but not the working class children; Keddie argued that the very concept of compensatory education itself actually encouraged the negative labelling of working class children as "culturally deprived"; and relative working class educational underachievement can be explained also in terms of disadvantaged material circumstances and /or inadequate school resources and inappropriate labelling processes operating inside schools.
[Click here for further information on differing explanations of social class differences in educational achievement and click here for more details on theories of working class cultural deprivation and criticisms of them.]
In summary critics of USA and UK programmes of compensatory education argued in the 1960s and 1970s that they were based on a misunderstanding of the causes of poverty and of relative working class educational achievement which meant that such policies would inevitably be ineffective as argued most forcefully by Bernstein in his article "Schools cannot compensate for society".
These are powerful criticisms of strategies of compensatory education but it could be that as criticisms of the theoretical foundations of the EPA Programme they may not be entirely justified. Thus , in a 1974 article A.H. Halsey emphasised the importance of both structural and cultural factors in the explanation of poverty, the necessity of more effective teacher training, better teaching greater efforts by schools to reach out to poorer parents and national policies to maintain employment and reduce poverty as well as policies designed to improve parenting skills .Halsey had therefore recognised all of the points made by his radical critics but believed nevertheless that compensatory education implemented through the EPA programme could play some part in the reduction of poverty and educational inequality but that it would need to be accompanied by broader , structural reforms organised at the national level.
Perhaps it is fair to say, however, that Professor Halsey was over-optimistic. The Plowden Report had originally recommended that 10%[3000] primary schools should be given EPA status but only 130 schools were so designated and the quality of the programmes introduced varied significantly from area to area. Also more poverty and educational disadvantage existed outside the EPA areas than inside them and since coherent national strategies to reduce poverty and social class inequalities in educational achievement were not enacted in the EPA era, the EPA policies alone could be expected to have at best only a limited impact on overall poverty and educational disadvantage. However writing in 1980, Halsey continued to argue that "Education can Compensate" and many would argue that he is correct in this view but only if meaningful nation-wide educational reforms are combined with wider social and economic reforms designed to reduce poverty and economic inequality.
Conservative governments of 1979-1997 claimed that overall educational standards could best be improved via the extension of individual parental choice which would result indirectly in the expansion of effective schools and the contraction and possible closure of ineffective schools. The Conservatives claimed that via these mechanisms educational opportunities would be improved for children of all social backgrounds and that the EPA Programme could be reasonably phased out as it was in the mid 1980s.
Since 1997 successive Labour governments have introduced a range of education policies including the expansion of the Specialised Schools programme, the setting up of the Academies Programme and support for Faith Schools all of which are aimed at increasing choice and diversity and raising overall education standards. However critics have suggested that the "Choice and Diversity" educational agenda introduced by the Conservatives and extended by successive Labour Governments may have contributed to increased inequality of educational opportunity as upper and middle class parents have been able to use their economic, social and cultural capital to secure their children's entry to the most effective schools.
Labour has also introduced additional policies involving elements of compensatory education designed to improve educational opportunities for disadvantaged students. These policies include especially the Sure Start , Educational Action Zones and Excellence in Cities Programmes , the Education Maintenance Allowance and the Aim Higher Initiative.
Labour's Sure Start Programme has tried to address the alleged difficulties faced by economically deprived parents in providing pre-school educational activities for their children while the Education Action Zones and Excellence in Cities programmes have tried to address some of the alleged deficiencies of schools in deprived areas. In broad terms it has been argued that the Sure Start Programme has improved overall pre-school educational opportunities but that it has been difficult to reach the most deprived parents and children who have most to gain from the Programme and that the Education Action Zones and Excellence in Cities Programmes may have improved overall education standards only to a limited extent and, again, that the schemes have provided only limited educational benefits for the most disadvantaged children .
A recent DCFS report does indicate that differences in educational achievement between pupils eligible for Free School Meals and pupils ineligible for free school meals have narrowed slightly in recent years and that the rate of examination result improvement in schools with high proportions of Free School Meals students is increasing relative quickly but critics have claimed that Labour's compensatory education programmes have done little to alleviate class disadvantage within the education system and that much more needs to be done if real progress is to be made on equality of educational opportunity.
You may Click here to read the DCFS report entitled Breaking the Link between Disadvantage and Low Attainment. Although it is rather long it is also set out very clearly so that students can investigate recent trends in educational achievement very quickly and easily.
Further more detailed information on the Sure Start, Education Action Zones, Excellence in Cities, Educational Maintenance Allowance and Aim Higher programmes is provided below. [Students should consult their teachers for advice as to how much detailed information about these various initiatives is actually required for examination purposes and make examination summaries as appropriate.]
- Labour' Sure Start Programme [Click here for a DCFS video on YouTube which presents Sure Start Centres in a lively. , positive light . Click here Guardian on Sure Start and Click here for more from the Guardian on Sure Start. Both Guardian Reports highlight some possible problems with the Sure Start Programmes.
It has often been suggested that the Sure Start Programme has been influenced at least to some extent by the organisation of the Operation Headstart Programme which had been introduced in the USA in 1965 as an attempt at early intervention to promote the development of disadvantaged children via the encouragement of better parenting techniques. The first Sure Start centres were set up in 1998 and concentrated in areas of severe social deprivation. They were designed to provide facilities in deprived areas for childcare, early education, health and family support services and employment advice for families with children under 5 with the aim of reducing child poverty and social exclusion. Between 2006 and 2008 additional centres were set up in less disadvantaged areas while by 2010 the aim was to provide a total of 3500 Sure Start Centres to reach all children under 5 in all areas of the country.
The original overall rationale for the Sure Start Programme was based upon the general idea that parents in deprived areas might well be very keen to do the best for their children but that their lack of knowledge and parenting skills might put their children at a considerable educational disadvantage even before they entered school which would would then restrict their future educational progress throughout their school careers. Recent support for the rationale behind the Sure Start Scheme is provided in several studies which suggest that many children from economically deprived backgrounds enter First Schools at a considerable disadvantage relative to middle class children.
For example the necessity for some forms of assistance for children in disadvantaged families has been emphasised in the research of Professor Feinstein who has shown that social class disadvantages tend to affect the intellectual progress of poorer children even before they enter First School and in more recent research from the Sutton Trust.
Click here for information on Professor Feinstein's research findings and click here for BBC coverage of the recent Sutton Trust Research.
- Under the terms of the Education Action Zones programme launched in 1998 Education Action Zones were to be designated in deprived areas in which new Forums involving parents, teachers, LEA members and business and voluntary association leaders who would devise strategies for the improvement of under-performing schools in the Zone.
- 12 large EAZs were designated in 1998 followed by a further 13 in 1999 and by 2002 there were 73 large EAZs containing 1444 schools serving around 6% of the English school pupil population.
- Each large EAZ contained one or two secondary schools together with their feeder primary schools amounting to around 20 schools in each large EAZ.
- Large EAZs were to receive £500,000 p.a. of DfES unconditional funding and it was hoped that they would also raise a maximum of £250,000 p.a. in private sponsorship which would be matched by additional conditional DfES [now DCFS] funding of up to £250,000 p.a. The large EAZs were therefore expected to receive a maximum of £1M p.a. in additional funding.
- Smaller EAZs were also created based upon single secondary schools and their feeder primary schools and these were to receive £250,000 p.a. in unconditional DfES funding,. They were also expected to raise up to £50,000 per. a. from private sponsorship which would be matched by further funding from the DfES.
- It was hoped that the EAZ programme would harness local initiative and business dynamism which would facilitate improvements in school standards.
- Schools in the EAZs would be permitted to disapply the requirements of the National Curriculum in order to concentrate on the improvement of literacy and numeracy if the Forum considered this to be necessary.
- Schools in the EAZs were permitted also to ignore national teacher salaries agreements and to pay higher salaries in order to attract and retain good staff
However it soon became clear that the EAZs might face difficulties which the Labour Government had not envisaged. It has been argued that the dynamising effect of business involvement in the EAZs was limited because in some especially deprived areas few schools opted to join the EAZ programme because of the difficulties envisaged in raising private sponsorship; because even when financial sponsorship was forthcoming it was far more limited in amount than the government had hoped [and often in the form of gifts in kind rather than cash]; and because the actual input of business expertise into the programme was also far less than had been hoped.. The following links provide further information on the limitations of the EAZ Programme.
- Click here for Economic and Social Research Council on EAZs.
- Click here for Literacy Trust on EAZs
The Government announced in 2001 that the EAZ Programme would be discontinued and that the EAZs which were considered to have been successful would be incorporated into the Excellence in Cities Programme.
The Excellence in Cities Programme began in 1999 and was targeted specifically on secondary schools containing disproportionate numbers of disadvantaged pupils in Inner London, Birmingham, Manchester/Salford, Liverpool/Knowsely and Leeds/Bradford. Initially the scheme involved 23 LEAS, more than 400 secondary schools and central government expenditure of £24M p.a. central government spending but reached £ 386M p.a. by 2005/6 and the coverage of the scheme was extended to 58 LEAS containing approximately 1/3 of English secondary schools. The scheme was extended to cover many primary schools and so-called EiC clusters and works in conjunction with newer schemes such as the Leadership Initiative Grant and the Behaviour Improvement scheme .In any evaluation of the scheme however, it should be noted that in 2000/1LEAs current Secondary school spending was around £6B p.a. so that EiC spending was a relatively small proportion of total LEA secondary school spending
I shall attempt to describe only the broad features of EiC scheme as it has applied in secondary schools. In EiC- designated areas Local Education Authorities and their secondary schools enter into partnerships designed to improve Secondary School performance using an agreed EiC strategy framework involving the following strands.
However research findings on the effectiveness of the scheme have been a little contradictory. In 2005 a NFER Report on the effectiveness of the scheme between 1999-2003 concluded that at Key Stage 3 there was some evidence that EiC pupils performed better in Mathematics in comparison with non-EiC pupils of similar abilities and social characteristics but that the EiC scheme had had no noticeable positive effects on performance in Key Stage 3 Science and English examinations . Neither had the scheme improved the overall GCSE results of EiC pupils in comparison with non EiC pupils of similar abilities and social characteristics. These particular conclusions of the NFER Report were of course the ones which attracted mass media headlines but the Report noted also that there was some evidence that the overall atmosphere in EiC schools was improving , that it was possible that the EiC scheme had not been in operation long enough to have a positive impact on examination results and that in any case further preparatory work was necessary in Primary schools if newly arriving Secondary school pupils were to benefit from the EiC initiatives.
Government Education Ministers argued in response to NFER findings that since they referred only to 1999-2003, they were already out of date by the time they were published and failed to take account of most recent government initiatives and the Government arguments were supported to some extent by the findings of a 2005 OFSTED Report which concluded that the effects of EiC schemes were variable depending especially upon the quality of the Head teachers and other senior staff involved in the schemes but that they had on average narrowed the performance gap at GCSE level between EiC schools and the national average attainment of 5 or more A*-C GCSE grades from 10.4% to 7.8% between and 2001-2004 . Click here for a link to the full OFSTED report.
The Excellence in Cities Programme was discontinued in 2006 and another report on the Excellence in Cities Programme was published in 2007 by researchers at the London School of Economics and the Institute of Fiscal Studies. They focused especially on attainments at Key Stage 3 and on rates of school attendance and concluded that there had been positive effects on pupil achievement in Mathematics but not in English and that the effects of the EiC programme varied considerably : effects were more positive the longer the policy had been in place; stronger for disadvantaged schools but stronger also for medium to high ability pupils within disadvantaged schools. Unfortunately also the researchers concluded that it had proved difficult to improve the attainments of lower ability pupils within the disadvantaged schools. Click here for a summary of LSE/IFS Research
I shall not pursue further the various detailed evaluations of the EAZ and EiC Programmes but it does seem reasonable to conclude that ,although well intentioned, their effects on patterns of inequality of educational opportunity have been limited and ,as has already been suggested above, further educational reforms combined with broader social and economic reforms are clearly necessary if equality of educational opportunity is to become a present reality rather than an unrealistic hope for the future.
- Education Maintenance Allowances are now available to all 16 year olds whose Household income is less than £30,810 p.a and are following academic or vocational courses up to Level3 [AS and A2 levels or AVCEs], some LSC -funded courses and courses leading to apprenticeships.
- It is estimated that around a half of all 16 year olds are eligible for EMAs of at least £10 or more per week.
- Eligible pupils receive a weekly term -time allowance of £10, £20 or £30 depending upon the precise level of household income which is available for the two or possibly 3 year duration of their course so long as they fulfil the terms of their EMA contract which must be negotiated with their school, college or training provider and lays down conditions as to regular attendance and necessary progress.
- The award of an EMA does not result in the reduction in any other social security benefits for which households may be eligible.
- Successful students may also be eligible for additional financial bonuses and may continue to work part-time without losing their eligibility so long as they are meeting the terms of their contract.
- Educational Maintenance allowances are clearly helpful but it may be that they provide insufficient financial help to enable all children from poorer backgrounds to continue with their education after the age of 16.
- Click here for current EMA rates
- Click here for more information on EMAs from The Guardian. How successful have they been.? Will they be phased out in the current economic climate.?
The Aim Higher Programme provides information and activities designed to encourage children to consider the benefits of Higher Education. It is geared especially toward children whose parents have not themselves undertaken Higher Education courses. You may click here for further information about the Aim Higher programme and you can then discuss its likely effectiveness with your teachers.
The most recent Compensatory Education initiative is the One to One Scheme whereby some children [often from relatively disadvantaged social backgrounds] who are considered to be making limited progress in the classroom setting can be provided with individual tuition to help them to catch up. Click here for information on the organisation and scope of the One to One Scheme.
Conservative governments between 1979 and 1997 ended the EPA scheme and claimed that their many educational initiatives designed to raise overall education standards would also benefit the most disadvantaged students. This was to be achieved primarily by facilitating the expansion of effective schools while restricting the expansion of ineffective ones but critics have argued that this strategy worked mainly to the advantage of middle class parents and children and if anything to the detriment of poorer families. Labour has retained much of the Conservative strategy but has also introduced elements of education policy such as the Sure Start the Education Action Zone and Excellence in Cities Programmes, the Educational Maintenance Allowance and the Aim Higher Programme all of which could to some extent be described as "Compensatory Education" initiatives.
However despite Labour's compensatory education initiatives DCSF data suggest that social class inequalities in educational achievement have declined only slowly in recent years .To reiterate: it may be true that as Professor Halsey suggested "Education can Compensate" in principle but it is widely believed that it will do so in practice only in combination with wider egalitarian social and economic reforms which neither Conservative nor Labour nor Liberal Democrats currently contemplate.