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

Abstract

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.

Raising of the participation age in the UK: the dichotomy between full participation and institutional accountability

“…Nonetheless, it is important to note Woodin et al's (2013) contention that following a traditional 'academic curriculum' at school may not be appropriate for all young people. Regardless of this, from September 2013, school performance tables will include details of the destinations of learners leaving institutions the preceding academic year.…”

“…Anderson (2005) Woodin et al (2013) note that as a result of external accountability measures the local authority's role in education has been reduced to one of monitoring education rather than leading it. With current education policy relying heavily on this form of standards-based accountability, Peterson and West (2003) question the assumptions underlying this type of framework and whether they just go to further marginalise young people, and thereby reinforce the Coalition government's shift in emphasis from one of re-engagement to one of outcome (such as engagement in apprenticeships or employment).…”

“…The former Labour government's rationale for raising of the participation age was based on the idea that traditional schooling may not be appropriate for all young people (Woodin et al 2013). Therefore, if the aspiration of 100% participation is to be achieved, a range of options relevant to sixteen and seventeen year olds would be needed.…”

“…The rationale for raising of the participation age was outlined in the former New Labour would not only improve young people's attainment and qualifications, but lead to increased future earning potential for individuals, together with the ability to gain sustainable employment and, consequently make an economic contribution to society (Maguire 2013;Spielhofer et al 2007;Oreopoulos 2006;Leigh and Ryan 2005;). Other proposed benefits include increased self-esteem through improved attainment and the opportunity to gain qualifications in specific occupational sectors related to employment aspirations, enhanced social mobility through increased earning potential and, improved social justice through fostering personal well-being and a reduction in anti-social behaviour (Woodin et al 2013). Arguably, the perceived benefits of raising of the participation age help to prevent young people from becoming socially excluded through unemployment and being NEET (not in education, employment, education or training) (Roberts 2011).…”

“…The rise of academies, free schools and trust status schools exemplifies the diversifying ecology of secondary education, accountability expectations and the broad diversion of control and funding away from local government (Leigh 2011;Woodin et al 2013). …”