Cajole and Control

The Law of Managing Education in a Globalised World

in Global Journal of Comparative Law
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

Improvement of publicly funded education has long been part of governments’ more pressing mandates. With globalisation and recent economic issues, the pressure has intensified. This article canvasses the different legislative tactics employed in England to improve education delivery while reducing its cost. Two methods have been used in particular, control and cajole: successive governments have adopted a strategy of controlling the cost of education and cajoling teachers to improve student achievement. Similar sequences of events arising in both England and Canada are examined in order to highlight the distinct new course taken by the former in 2010. This paper presents examples of legislative management of education at a time when governments around the world are facing significant demands to reduce public expenditure while simultaneously increasing student achievement (as a way of preparing for the future).

Cajole and Control

The Law of Managing Education in a Globalised World

in Global Journal of Comparative Law

Sections

References

8

A.W. Little and A. Green‘Successful Globalization, Education and Sustainable Development’International Journal of Educational Development 29 (2009) 166–174 at 167.

10

 See for example‘How Accurate are School League-tables?’The Economistonline version 5 December 2013 retrieved 27 February 2014 and ‘Finn-ished’ print edition 7 December 2013.

12

F. Stewart‘Globalisation and Education’International Journal of Educational Development 16 (1996) 327–333 at 331.

16

Repealed by the Education Act 1996.

17

C. ChittyEducation Policy in Britain (Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan2004) 18.

19

Education Act 1944Section 1.

21

N. HarrisEducation Law and Diversity (Oxford: Hart Publishing2007) 91.

28

M. Ironside and R. SeifertIndustrial Relations in Schools (London: Routledge1995) 25.

39

In the late 1970sthe Taylor Committee called for greater involvement by parents in the school system because of their status as important stakeholders: T. Taylor A New Partnership for Our Schools (London: hmso 1977) 3.8.

41

S. Fredman and G. Morris‘The Teachers’ Lesson: Collective Bargaining and the Courts’Industrial Law Journal 16 (1987) 215–226 at 217.

53

Education Reform Act 1988s.3(1) (2).

54

Education Reform Act 1988Schedule II.

55

Repealed by the Education Act 2002.

56

Education Reform Act 1988s.52(6).

57

N. RaoEducational Change and Local Government: The Impact of the Educational Reform Act (York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation1990) 15.

74

Incomes Data ServicesAn Examination of Teachers’ Pay: A Report for the National Union of Teachers (London: Thomson2008) 4.

107

The Government of Wales Act 1998c. 38.

108

D. Reynolds‘New Labour, Education and Wales: the Devolution Decade’Oxford Review of Education 34 (2008) 753–765 at 755.

129

 On this point see D. Mangan‘Employment Tribunal Procedure Reforms to Boost the Economy’Industrial Law Journal 42 (2013) 409–421.

140

 See for example A. GiddensThe Third Way and Its Critics (Cambridge: Polity2000) 73.

157

Education Act 2011s.56 amending s.8 of the Academies Act 2010.

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 27 27 14
Full Text Views 84 84 44
PDF Downloads 3 3 1
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0