Education Policy after 1988 Flashcards
Why is competition good?
Competition is good because it reduces costs, inspires creativity, stops collaboration, creates hostility, creates motivation and provides incentive.
What is Marketisation?
This is the process of introducing market forces of consumer choice and competition between suppliers into areas run by state reducing direct state control over education and increasing competition between schools as well as parental choice ( parentocracy).
It became the central theme of government education policy since 1988 Education Reform Act introduced by Conservatives.
Polices which favours Marketisation:
- 1997 New Labour government follows similar policies and emphasised standards, diversity and choice.
- 2010 Conservative-Lib Dem coalition took it further and created academies and free schools.
Neoliberals and New Right favour marketisation and argue schools have to attract consumers by competing and providing them with what they want.
David (1993): Parentocracy
Favours marketisation and states education marketisation leads to parentocracy. The power shifts form producers (headteachers) to consumers (parents) he also claims this encourages diversity among schools and gives parents more choice as well as raising standards.
Polices in favour of Parentocracy:
- Publification of league tables and OFSTED repots.
- Business sponsorships.
- Open enrolment allowing successful schools to recruit more pupils.
- Specialist schools widens parent choice.
- Formula finding, schools receive same amount of funding for each pupil.
- Schools competing for pupils.
League Tables:
Poilciy of league tables ensures schools with good results are in demand as parents are more attracted.
Criticism of League Tables:
Bartlett (1993) argues it encourages cream skimming and silt shifting.
What is cream skimming?
It’s when good schools are more selective and choose their own consumers and recruit high achieving pupils (mainly MC) resulting in pupils gaining advantages
What is silt shifting?
When good schools can avoid taking less able pupils who are likely to get poor results and damage league table results. Schools with poor league tables position produces unequal school reproduce class inequalities.
Criticism of Marketisation:
- Ball (1994) and Whitty (1998) It reproduces class inequalities by producing inequalities between schools.
- Funding Formula: schools givens funds based on how many pupils they attract results in popular schools getting more funds resulting in them affording better teachers and facilities. Allows selectiveness and attracts more able pupils (MC).
Evaluation: Gerwits Parental Choice
Marketisation gives advantages to MC parents who’s economic and cultural capital puts them in a better position to get good schools.
Gerwits: Case Study
He studies 14 London secondary schools and found parents class differences, cultural and economic capital helped him identify 3 different types of parents. Concludes marketisation gives greater choice to MC parents who have capital and more choice.
Gerwits: what were the 3 different types of parents?
- Privileged skilled choosers: professional MC use capital to gain educational capital for children. Well educated and known how the system works. Economic capital helped them afforded good catchment areas and pay extra for travel costs or tuition.
- Semi skilled choosers: WC ambitious for children lack cultural capital funds education market difficult and frustrating due to not getting children into schools they want.
- Disconnected local choosers: WC parents choices restricted due to lack of capital funds it difficult to understand admission procedures unlikely to manipulate system more attracted to importance of safety and quality of facilities and const of travel restrictions.
Myth of Parentocracy:
Marketisation legitimises inequality by concealing it’s true causes.
Ball believes it give the appearance of parentocracy he argues it’s a myth and makes it appear that all parents have the same freedom but as Gerwits has stated MC have an advantage.
Myth of Parentocracy: Leech and Campos
Show that MC pupils can move into catchment areas if more desirable schools, by disguising the fact that schooling continues to reproduce class inequality in this way this myth makes inequality in education appear fair and inevitable.
