Raising the participation age in historical perspective : Policy learning from the past?

The raising of the participation age (RPA) to 17 in 2013 and 18 in 2015 marks a historic expansion of compulsory education. Despite the tendency of New Labour governments to eschew historical understanding and explanation, RPA was conceived with the benefit of an analysis of previous attempts to extend compulsion in schooling. This paper assesses the value of a historical understanding of education policy. The period from inception to the projected implementation of RPA is an extended one which has crossed over the change of government, from Labour to Coalition, in 2010. The shifting emphases and meanings of RPA are not simply technical issues but connect to profound historical and social changes. An analysis of the history of the raising of the school leaving age reveals many points of comparison with the contemporary situation. In a number of key areas it is possible to gain insights into the ways in which the study of the past can help to comprehend the present: the role of human capital, the structures of education, in curriculum development and in terms of preparations for change

Ready, steady, learn: school readiness and children’s voices in English early childhood settings

Internationally, school readiness is increasingly the rationale for early childhood education and care. This is the case in England, yet the statutory English Early Years Foundation Stage framework for children 0-5 years also requires practitioners to listen to children’s voices: discourse indicates dissonance between school readiness and listening to children’s voices so this paper discusses an intrinsic case study that investigated beliefs and practices of 25 practitioners in the English midlands regarding school readiness and listening to children’s voices. In survey responses and semi-structured interviews, practitioners indicated they listen to – and act on – children’s voices but are confused about school readiness; their beliefs and practices align more strongly with social pedagogy than pre-primary schoolification. Findings carry messages for policymakers regarding the need for coherent policy concerning the purpose of early childhood education and care, with practitioner training and a framework aligned fully with that policy. A larger study is indicated

Where Will Future Secondary Food Teachers Come From in England?

This chapter asks ‘where will future secondary food teachers come from in England?’ It tracks the evolution of food teaching in the curriculum, tracing its origins in domestic science through to the present focus on food, nutrition and preparation. To answer the question it is necessary to understand the unintended impact and consequences of changes to the English school curriculum and the direct impact this has had on recruitment to initial teacher training. It is also necessary to understand the social impact of good food teaching within the context of the health of the nation and in particular children. To deliver a quality food curriculum in English schools we need skilled food teachers. The progression pathway through food education needs reinstating so that food teachers of the future can progress from General Certificate of Education (GCSE) for pupils aged 16 years, through Advanced (A) level for pupils aged 18 years, to subject-related degrees and on to teacher training. Without such a route, it is questionable that the subject can survive on the curriculum

Early years learning, play pedagogy and social class

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in British Journal of Sociology of Education on 02 Jun 2016, available online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2016.1182010Despite 50 and more years of ‘progressive education’ in the UK, classed patterns of educational success and failure stubbornly prevail. So how, where and when does it all go wrong for the many children who continue to fail or underachieve? Drawing on the work of Basil Bernstein this paper centers processes within early years’ education, which are claimed to help launch children on careers as either educational successes or failures. Our data suggest that in the progressive play pedagogies of Early Years Education (EYE) children more or less happily play their lives away, in the process learning their position in social and ability hierarchies that help define their future careers in and outside schools. That such hierarchies prevail is neither fault of teachers nor parents. Indeed, it is what EYE settings are legitimized to do; sieve and sort, make children ‘school ready’, pliant and prepared for a lifetime of learning to succeed or fail