...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy >New class inequalities in education: Why education policy may be looking in the wrong place! Education policy, civil society and social class
【24h】

New class inequalities in education: Why education policy may be looking in the wrong place! Education policy, civil society and social class

机译：教育中的新阶级不平等：为什么教育政策可能在错误的地方出现！教育政策，公民社会和社会阶层

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Purpose – The paper aims to develop a case for re-considering the role of schools in education policy. The argument is made that considerable amounts of the variation in pupil performance may in fact derive from factors based on variations in parents' ability to buy-in support and enrichment of various kinds for their children. Design/methodology/approach – The argument of the paper is developed using secondary sources to make the case for non-school explanations of variations in pupil performance and then offers a set of illustrations of the variety of types of bought-in support and enrichment now being used in some families. Findings – The paper concludes with the point that two contradictory education policy discourses are in play under New Labour. One, the discourse of standards/achievement, which works through testing, benchmarks, league-tables, “coasting” schools, special measures, etc. totalises, individualises and commodifies the student as an “ability” – a cluster of performances. And in turn gives rise to “local economies of student worth” that “value” students differently within the processes of “school choice”. The other, the discourse of choice and active parenting, totalises, individualises and commodifies parents and families as “consumers” of education and investors in cultural capital. Research limitations/implications – The paper is discursive, exploratory and wide-ranging. It sets out to make a plausible case that would merit further research rather than to establish at this stage a set of firm conclusions. Practical implications – If the argument is taken seriously then the focus of education policy would be decisively shifted. There is some evidence of a shift of emphasis towards more intervention and individual attention but achievement differences remain firmly located within schools. Originality/value – Little attention has been focused on this kind of argument and there has certainly been no attempt to map the variety of and growth in private educational services.
机译：目的–本文旨在为重新考虑学校在教育政策中的作用提供一个案例。有人认为，实际上，学生表现的相当大的差异可能源于基于父母为子女购买支持和丰富各种能力的因素。设计/方法/方法-本文的论点是通过使用二手资料开发的，为非学校对学生表现变化的解释提供了依据，然后提供了一系列说明，说明了各种形式的购置支持和充实被一些家庭使用。调查结果–本文的结论是，在新劳工组织下，有两种相互矛盾的教育政策话语正在发挥作用。一是标准/成就的论述，它通过测试，基准，联赛表，“沿海”学校，特殊措施等进行工作，将学生归纳，个性化和商品化为一种“能力”-一系列表演。反过来又产生了“学生价值的地方经济”，从而在“学校选择”过程中“不同”地评价了学生。另一种是选择和积极养育子女的话语，将父母和家庭作为教育的“消费者”和文化资本的投资者进行了总体化，个性化和商品化。研究的局限性/含意-本文具有讨论性，探索性和广泛性。它着手提出一个合理的案例，值得进一步研究，而不是在现阶段确定一组坚定的结论。实际意义–如果认真对待这一论点，那么教育政策的重点将被果断地转移。有证据表明，重点转移到了更多的干预和个人关注上，但是成绩差异仍然牢固地存在于学校内部。原创性/价值–很少有人关注这种论点，当然也没有尝试描绘私人教育服务的多样性和增长。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号