Marketisation & privatisation - edu inequality Flashcards
(6 cards)
Parentocracy - David (1993)
E - David argues marketisation has created a system where parents are consumers and schools are competing for the business - raise standards by forcing schools to improve attracting students.
E - This gives parents more control over their childs education and increased educational inequality as MC parents will be more supportive.
E - Ball argues parentocracy is a myth meaning inequality in education is seen as fair and inevitable.
League tables & cream skinning - Bartlett (1993)
E - Bartlett argues the policy of publishing each schools exam results encourages silt shifting (good schools avoid taking less advantaged pupils to avoid poor results) and cream skinning meaning good schools can be more selective, choose own customers, recruit high achieving MC pupils.
E - This leads to polarized system where disadvantaged pupils are concentrated in lower performing schools, reinforcing inequality.
E - 1988 Education Reform Act intended to promote fairness and accountability through transparent performance data. They do not increase inequality but create a framework where schools are encouraged to improve outcomes for all students.
New labour & inequality
E - Introduced a number of polices such as Sure Start and the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) - designed to support disadvantaged pupils.
E - Decreased educational inequality as they were deigned to support WC students.
E - Benn (2012) contradiction - ‘new labour paradox’ where support for disadvantaged students was undercut by continuing to promote market principles.
Blurring public/private boundary - Ball (2007)
E - Ball argues many aspects of education such as staff training are outsourced to private companies, ‘endogenous’ private sector practices are embedded in education e.g Pearson.
E - This leads to private companies influencing educational decisions, helping them fund resources and infrastructure they may not afford, although tend to support high achieving schools - inequality.
E - Apple argues mixing public education with private businesses turns learning into a product rather than a public good, focusing on profit over learning.
The cola-isatin of schools - Molnar (2005)
E - Molnar highlights how schools are targeted by private companies as schools by their nature carry enormous goodwill and giving legitimacy on anything associated with them.
E - Links edu to commercial goals - students see themself as consumers shifting idea of inequality and having them focus on brand loyalty.
E - Beder (2010) benefits to schools and pupils of this private sector as scrapped as families spent £110,000 in Tesco just to win a siege computer for school.
Education as a commodity - Ball & Yodel (2007)
E - Ball and Yodel argue education is treated like a product to be bought and sold - ‘legitimate object of private profit making’.
E - This means schools may focus on their public image rather than the students welfare benefiting the MC students.
E - Chubb & Moe argue it actually reduces inequality as it raises standards as it forces the disadvantaged students to improve encouraging them to achieve.
