Topic 5 Flashcards
Tough and brooks - covert selection
identified ‘covert selection’ - use of backdoor social selection, cherry-picking those they think will be the high achievers.
Eg. Discouraging parents from poorer economic backgrounds from applying by giving impression school is better suited to middle class pupils.
Cohen - problems with new vocationalism
argued vocational education aimed to instill good attitudes and work discipline meaning people accepted their low paid, low skilled jobs.
David - Parentocracy
describes marketised education as ‘parentocracy’ - meaning ‘rule by parents’.
Supporters of marketisation argue in an education market the power shifts from producers (teachers and schools) to consumers (parents). They claim this encourages diversity, gives parents more choice and raises standards.
Bartlett - league tables and cream skimming
Cream skimming - “Good” schools can be more selection and choose high achieving, mainly middle class pupils.
Silt-shifting - “Good” schools can avoid taking less able pupils who are likely to get low results.
The opposite applies for schools in poor league table positions - they cannot afford to be selective and have to take less-able, mainly working class pupils.
Gewirtz - parental choice and inequalities
Privileged-skilled choosers: Professional, middle class parents who used their cultural and economic capital to gain educational capital for their children.
Disconnected-local choosers: Working class parents, restricted by their lack of economic and cultural capital. They found admissions policies hard to understand, were less confident in dealing with schools, less aware of choices available and were not aware of how to manipulate the system. Distance and cost were major restrictions on their choice, and often the nearest school was the only realistic option.
Semi-skilled choosers: : Mainly working class, but unlike the disconnected-local choosers they were ambitious for their children. However they lacked the economic and cultural capital and relied heavily on other’s opinions, leaving them frustrated at their inability to get their children into the schools they wanted.
Ball - legitimising inequality
Ball (1994) argues it gives the appearance of “parentocracy”, making it appear that all parents have free choice of school. However Ball claims parentocracy is a myth.
As Gewirtz shows middle class parents can take advantage of the opportunities available to them. For example Leech and Campos show that middle class parents can afford to move into the catchment area of more desirable schools.
By disguising the fact schooling continues to reproduce class inequality makes it seem fair and inevitable.
Benn - The New Labour Paradox
Benn (2012) see a contradiction between Labour’s policies to reduce inequality and its’ commitment to marketization. For example despite introducing EMA encouraging working class pupils to stay on in education, they also introduced tuition fees for higher education that may deter them from going to university. This is known as the NEW LABOUR PARADOX
Allen - free school meals
found research from Sweden, where 20% of schools are free schools, show they only benefit children from highly educated families.
Evidence from DoE (2012) also shows free schools take fewer disadvantaged pupils than nearby schools.
Ball - fragmented centralisation
Fragmentation of the education system - system is being replaced by a patchwork of diverse provision, much of it involving private providers, that leads to greater inequality in opportunities.
Centralisation of control - Central gov. alone has the power to allow or require schools to become academies or allow free schools to be set up. These schools are funded by central gov. and reduce the role of elected local authorities in education.
Ofsted - reducing inequality
Ofsted (2012) found in many cases Pupil Premium was not spent on those it was supposed to help.
Furthermore “austerity” policy has cut spending in many areas of education - closing Sure Start centre, abolishing EMA and increasing university fees to £9000 per year.
Ball - privatisation of education
As a result of privatisation education becomes a source for capitalist profit - Ball (2011) calls this the “education services industry” (ESI).
Private companies in the ESI are involved in an increasing range of activities - building schools, providing supply teachers, work-based learning, careers advice, Ofsted inspections etc.
Pollack (Blurring the public/private boundary)
Pollack (2004) claims companies buy “insider knowledge” to help win contracts and side step local authority democracy.
Molnar- colaisation of schools
Schools are targeted by private companies because ‘schools by their nature carry enormous goodwill and can thus confer legitimacy on anything associated with them’
Ball, globalisation and educational policy
Many companies in the ESI are foreign owned, eg. Edexcel is owned by USA company Pearson, and Ball (2007) claims some Pearson GCSE paper are marked in Sydney and Iowa.
Furthermore, many contracts for educational services in the UK are sold on, and in a globalised world, often bought by overseas companies.
Private companies are exporting UK education policy overseas (eg. Ofsted type inspections) and providing this service in other countries. As a result nation states are becoming less important in policy making which is shifting to a global level.
