Is the British Education System broken?

The British education system often receives criticisms for its persistent inequality, overemphasis on academic, exam-based learning at the expense of creative and technical subjects, as well as, its negative impacts on the mental health of students. Other concerns follow a lack of school readiness among some children and teachers, an inflexible curriculum, and a shortage of teachers, funding and over testing. On the other hand, it is also praised for its world-renowned universities, which focus on the development of critical thinking and its graduates’ strong employability. It is also recognised for its ability to promote student autonomy and personal growth through varied teaching methods. But is the system fair? Or is It falling apart if it is not already collapsed?

A factor for the inequalities in the education system is that marketisation has increased inequality rather than improving standards, introduced through the Education Reform Act in 1988. This significant piece of legislation has introduced a market based approach to education, lead by the conservative government under Margaret Thatcher. One of the key provisions included creating the National Curriculum, established standardised testing (SATs, GCSEs), increasing parental choice, and giving schools more autonomy through the local management of schools and budgeting powers for headteachers. The aim of this legislation was to boost competition and accountability by allowing parents to choose schools based on performance data in league tables, therefore creating a market in education by promoting competition between schools for students and funding, with the idea that better performing schools would attract more resources. Due to this, schools now act like businesses, prioritising results over real learning, which leads to cream skimming and silt shifting. This refers to the practice where successful schools become more selective in their admissions to attract higher achieving students (typically middle class). This is done to improve academic results and to rank higher in league tables, as well as gaining advantage over less successful schools, which then struggle with a higher proportion of less proficient students. Nonetheless, silt shifting is a sociological concept in which schools that are successful in attracting students offload less able students or those with learning difficulties to less successful schools. Thus, working class children become disadvantaged against the middle class students; as they can use cultural and economic capital, which aligns with the values of the education system, giving them an advantage. Economic capital invokes more resources, meaning that middle class families have more money to spend on educational resources , such as: private tutoring, private schools, educational materials- directly supporting a students learning. Due to this, the system widens the gap between different economic classes instead of improving equality and/or quality of schooling.

Following this, privatisation undermined education quality, by increasing inequality, lowering quality (prioritising profit over holistic learning and under qualified teachers), weakened public system, fostering commercialisation, reducing accountability and turning education from a public right into a market commodity where profit often disrupts learning, specifically  vulnerable groups like disabled children or those in rural areas. This damages the education system in various ways, such as exacerbating inequality- referring to the hidden costs and fees, which bar poor and marginalised students, creating economic and social division and often leaving fewer resources as wealthier families opt out. It compromises quality, profit motives can lead to a narrow curriculum, with a pure focus on standardised tests, poorly paid teachers, and “school in a box” models that neglect critical thinking for scripted learning. And, shifts focus and funding away from public education, allowing governments to shrink their duty to provide universal, quality education, leading to a devalued public sector. In short, private companies profit from academies, supporting outsourcing, educational technology, exam boards. Priority becomes profit, not pupil welfare. This leaves the schooling system fragmented, creating inconsistency between schools (some thrive, some collapse), and profit driven. This is clear in the Bright Tribe Academy Trust collapse in 2018, where the government closed the trust due to poor management, financial issues and falling standards. It was reported that the school was left without stable leadership for years, and was plunged into special measures. Ofsted reports also cited unsafe classrooms, no consistent curriculum, and high amount of staff turnover. This shows the decline of schooling, as when trusts collapse- education for thousands is disrupted, showing the fragility and profit-driven nature of the academies system. In which, supports Ball’s claim that education has now become a multi billion industry, not a public service.

Now, we all know what the system relies on,  teachers. They are considered the single most crucial factor in a students learning and achievement. Their role extends far beyond simply imparting information; shaping attitudes and providing vital social and emotional support, which has a significance in influencing a child’s long term life trajectory. So what happens when there are no teachers? The system literally cannot function.

The Labour Process Theory views teaching as work within  a capitalist system, analysing how management controls teachers labour, through deskilling, intensification, and market driven pressures- reducing professional autonomy to increase the efficiency and profit, which leads to issues like alienation and teacher turnover. According to the DfE Workforce Census in 2023, 1 in 3 teachers have left their roles within 5 years. Causing subjects, physics, maths, computer science, have severe shortages; making schools become non specialists. Furthermore, Ofsted implements pressure on teachers to plan lessons, collect data and produce paperwork for inspectors, despite claiming that inspectors do not need lesson plans and data spreadsheet; many schools don’t trust this and leaders want to feel prepared to answer inspector questions about curriculum, pupil progress and safeguarding. Which results in teachers generating paperwork to satisfy senior leadership, not specifically inspectors. Even though inspectors reassure schools that paperwork is not required, it still spreads a cultural fear of negative outcome in leaders, such as being challenged on inconsistencies. Due to this over preparation, it gets filtered down to teachers through monitoring cycles, performance management targets, workload heavy expectations. The point is that the education system holds systematic pressure,  Ofsted pressures senior leadership, leadership increases monitoring, teachers produce more work. Thanks to this (and a strongly declining annual wage), people in teaching professions tend to opt out, or strike (as seen in 2023). This showcases failure, without stable staff, lesson quality collapses and schools rely on supply teachers or enlarged classes.

Nonetheless, poor social mobility and persistent class inequality is also a major factor, with middle class students outperforming working class students due to cultural capital. Cultural capital in education refers to the non financial resources, such as knowledge, skills, behaviours, and experiences that children gain from their background, which contributes to their success in school. It can include a broad range of factors- from a family’s cultural heritage and traditions, to having opportunities such as visiting museums and learning musical instruments, or even having access to educational institutions like libraries. It works in several ways, such as transmission from the family; parents transmit cultural capital through their own upbringing and language, specifically the elaborated code. According to Bernstein, the elaborated code is a sociological concept in which explains that middle class families use formal and grammatically complex language with wide vocabulary, which is also used in schools. Thus, enabling middle class children to understand and excel in school as they are more competent in the language code. On the contrary, Bernstein also highlights that working class students use the restricted code, in definition, an informal language that relies on context, shared background or meanings in a specific social group- aka, simple grammar and implicit understanding (slang). Therefore, suggesting that working class students are destined to fail, as they do not receive exposure to more advanced vocabulary, which is essential for school success. This difference can impact educational attainment, as middle class students can easily navigate the academic requirements of formal education. Showing that class inequality continues to shape achievement. As a result of this, private schools dominate top universities, despite only 7% of the population attending private school- 32%-42% of oxbridge entrants come from them; which is disproportionately high considering only 7% of the population attended private school. This is because private schools are able to coach students for interviews and provide smaller classes, and foster their lessons to middle class students- promoting them to succeed, and leaving the working class in the dust by reinforcing inequality and class advantage.

Moreover, the system still holds ethnic inequality (institutional racism). According to a case study researching Black Caribbean exclusion rates, black caribbean students are 3x more likely to be permanently excluded than white students. There are also reports stating that Black Caribbean students are often disproportionately placed in PRUs (pupil referral units), where academic outcomes are low. Gilborn and Youdell argue that schools perform a triage, in which categorises pupils into who will achieve anyway, hopeless cases, and borderline cases (those who require attention to get 4s). With this, Gilborn and Youdell found that teachers tended to have lower expectations of black students compared to white students, which resulted them being put in lower sets (labelling); even though they believed that teachers where not intentionally racist, but committed to equality of opportunity. For example, in Clough school , 38% of black students were placed into the lower sets (According to revisesociology.com). One of the reasons for lower expectations were due to the belief that black students had a harder home life with higher poverty levels and high rates of absent fathers, making studying at home difficult as well as socialisation- hence teachers often judged that black students would be less likely to be able to cope with higher levels of work that is expected in higher sets and tiers. Gilborn and Youdell also found that teachers expected to have more disciplinary problems with black students and that punishment should be given a higher priority over academic concerns.  Hence,  this stereotyping links to the self fulfilling prophecy, were labelling and stereotyping influences an individual's belief on their ability to succeed. Therefore, by predicting black students less, they receive less support and being more subject to be labelled as “hopeless cases”, ethnic students are more likely to underperform, proving that education does not serve all groups equally. In addition, the EHCP (Education, Health and Care Plan) crisis in schools also fails to support vulnerable children. This stems from unsustainable surges in demand for legally binding support plans, which leads to huge local authority deficits, and long waiting lists- making children wait months or years for EHCP assessments due to a lack of funding. With some schools reported for removing students with SEND (special educational needs and disabilities) unlawfully, to protect GCSE results, through hidden or unofficial exclusions. Ofsted has criticised academy trusts for refusing to admit pupils with complex needs.Resulting in systematic structuralism failing to provide needs for pupils (ethnic and with SEND), contradicting the idea of equal opportunity.

Overall, the evidence strongly suggests that the education system is experiencing significant decline. Marketisation and academisation, which were originally introduced to improve standards of schools and education, have instead intensified class inequalities. Simultaneously, teacher shortages and the SEND crisis demonstrates that the system is unable to serve the needs of those it is supposed to educate and socialise, with declining teacher wages and increased pressure and exhaustion; as well as the lack of funding towards disadvantaged students. The persistent ethnic inequalities expose the unfairness highlight education is no longer functioning as a reliable route to opportunity or social cohesion.

On the other hand, it is also important to recognise that the system is not universally failing, students still reach high outcomes, and some academies have taken the correct reforms to improve performance. This suggests that the problems lies within education itself, and more so  in the market driven structure it operates in.  Thus, while education has not completely fallen apart, it is clear that the current model is unsustainable without major reform focused on equity, funding and welfare- and will struggle to fulfil its aims to prepare young people for life in a rapidly changing society.

 Amelia Pawelczyk.