Gov ed policies effective in increasing marketisation Flashcards
P1: How did the 1988 Education Reform Act drive marketisation?
It introduced league tables, formula funding, open enrolment, and the national curriculum, embedding competition in schools.
What market principles did the Act establish?
Schools competed for students/parents (“customers”), with funding tied to enrolment (formula funding).
How did league tables increase marketisation?
Parents could compare schools’ exam results, pressuring schools to improve rankings to attract pupils.
How does Ball et al.’s “parentocracy” concept apply?
Parental choice became central—schools prioritised attracting middle-class “high achievers” to boost league tables.
Were there unintended consequences?
Yes—cream-skimming (selecting advantaged pupils) and silt-shifting (offloading struggling students) worsened inequality.
→ Policies effectively increased marketisation but created social divisions.
P2: How did academies/free schools advance marketisation?
They operated independently from LAs, with control over budgets, curriculum, and admissions—like businesses.
What did the Academies Act (2010) do?
Allowed outstanding schools to convert to academies and let groups (e.g., parents, businesses) set up free schools.
How does Chubb & Moe (New Right) support this?
Argued autonomous schools raise standards through competition and efficiency (market principles).
What is Ball’s critique of academies?
They’re unaccountable and increase segregation—middle-class parents exploit choice, leaving others in underfunded schools.
Overall impact?
Boosted marketisation but exacerbated inequality—autonomy benefits privileged groups more.
P3: How do recent policies deepen marketisation?
They frame education as a consumer good, with parents as “shoppers” and schools as “businesses.”
What policies reflect this?
Performance-related pay (teachers as “sales staff”) and school comparison websites (like product reviews).
How does Gewirtz’s “skilled choosers” concept apply?
Middle-class parents use cultural capital to “work the system,” while working-class families lack resources.
What is the downside of this consumerist model?
Worsens inequality—schools focus on “attracting customers” (middle-class pupils) over collaboration/support.
Are these policies effective for marketisation?
Yes, but they undermine equality—education becomes a commodity, not a public service
