Ed - New Right

What is meant by marketisation of education and why do New Right theorists support it?

Marketisation = applying market principles (choice, competition, consumer demand) to education. New Right argue competition forces schools to raise standards, respond to parents’ wishes, and operate more efficiently (like businesses).

Evaluation: Marxists argue marketisation mainly benefits the middle class, who use cultural/economic capital to gain advantage.

What is parentocracy and how is it linked to marketisation?

Parentocracy = “rule of the parents.” With school choice policies, parents are seen as consumers; good schools must attract them. This empowers parents but creates inequality, as middle‑class parents use resources (transport, house prices, cultural capital) to secure places in the best schools.

Evaluation: Critics argue working‑class families lack the same ability to exercise choice.

How do Chubb & Moe argue that U.S. state education has failed, and what is their solution?

Failures:

(1) Unequal opportunities, disadvantaging poorer groups;

(2) Inefficiency, not equipping students with needed skills;

(3) Private schools outperform state ones. Solution: introduce vouchersfor parents to “buy” education. Schools would compete for vouchers, incentivising quality.

Evaluation:Critics argue vouchers could stigmatise poorer families, entrench segregation, and further advantage the wealthy.

What criticisms are made of Chubb & Moe’s voucher system?

(1) Could create stigmatised identities, with poor children concentrated in failing schools.

(2) Reinforces class divisions, as richer parents retain access to elite schools.

(3) Evidence shows marketisation tends to boost middle‑class success but harms working‑class communities.

Evaluation (Marxism): marketisation reduces, not increases, social mobility.

How does Peter Saunders argue society and education are meritocratic?

Social mobility studies show upwardly mobile W/C succeed on ability. Inequality motivates effort and rewards talent, similar to Functionalists (Davis & Moore): role allocation is necessary/inevitable. Saunders sees M/C success as evidence they are more able, while W/C mobility weakens their class. Evaluation: Evidence shows W/C with same qualifications as M/C often fail to secure top jobs → suggests discrimination beyond merit.

What evidence challenges Saunders’ claim of meritocracy?

(1) Funding inequalities: M/C schools better resourced (teachers, facilities) than inner‑city schools.

(2) Goldthorpe (2002): mobility patterns are “underdetermined”—too much for biology, too little for full meritocracy. Class background still shapes outcomes.

(3) Financial inequality can restrict opportunity, limiting true meritocracy.

From a New Right perspective, why is consumer choice seen as beneficial, and how do critics respond?

Benefits: drives standards, efficiency, parent satisfaction. Critiques: deepens inequality as M/C parents exercise choice better. Marxists argue marketisation maintains ruling‑class advantage by disguising privilege as “choice.”

How are New Right ideas similar to Functionalist views?

Both value meritocracy, role allocation, and the importance of education for economic needs. Both see inequality as functional for motivating effort. Difference: Functionalists see education as largely working well, New Right argue for reform through marketisation.

Apply New Right ideas to explain why schools are regularly inspected by Ofsted.

Ofsted inspections provide parents with performance information, encouraging competition (marketisation). Schools must meet standards or risk closure, echoing consumer accountability. Evaluation: Critics argue Ofsted ratings disproportionately stigmatise schools in disadvantaged areas.

Define: Marketization

applying competition/choice to education.

Define: Parentocracy

parental power in school choice

Define: Consumer choice

parents as consumers; vouchers/competition

Meritocracy

success based on ability/effort under equal rules

Chubb & Moe

consumer choice, voucher system, state education failed disadvantaged groups.

Saunders

society is meritocratic; inequality motivates ability; social mobility strengthens M/C

Goldthorpe

mobility is “underdetermined”; outcomes show too little for pure meritocracy, too much for biology.