contemporary policies

i) 1988 Marketisation

Consumer choice and market forces form the basis of the education system. Schools were subject to the same principals of private business, whereby they would have to compete for resources, instead of guaranteed funding from the state. This would ensure that both standards and efficiency would increase and this was the central thinking behind Margaret Thatcher’s 1988 Education Reform Act.

Sociologists often view this stage as marking the more modern and contemporary style of schooling which to this day is a key organising principle.

If a school were unable to recruit customers (pupils), then that school would close, as it would not receive funding. The New Right would see this as a good thing, since the market would naturally weed out weak and underperforming schools.

David has called this phase a parentocracy, since the consumer is the group, which holds most power.

The idea of competition would increase educational standards and provide a mechanism by which underperforming schools become accountable. This is very important in a competitive globalised economy.

Policies such as league tables, open enrolment, specialist school status, opt out of LEA control and the funding formula have all helped to promote marketisation that increases competition and accountability within the education system which marketisation is based upon.

Consequently, pupils would no longer be subject to a post-code lottery and could now escape their catchment areas; this helps tackle educational inequality. Parents also now had more choice within this system and could choose themselves where they would like their children to go.

Evaluation

1. Bartlett would suggest that processes of cream skimming and silt shifting often ensure that the education market reproduces social inequality. Due to labelling, middle class students attend to the best performing schools, whilst schools with the least amount of funding and lower league table position become the only option for the working class. These schools often enter a vicious spiral of decline as funding and performance year on year deteriorates.

2. Ball argues that parentocracy is a myth. This links to the argument made by Gewirtz that there are different types of parental choosers. The middle class are able to use their cultural and educational capital to become privileged skilled choosers, whereas the working class, who lack this capital, are disconnected local choosers. Marketisation therefore is not providing all with a fair and equal choice since not everybody is equally equipped to make that choice

ii) 1997 New Labour

A key aim of the New Labour agenda was to reduce social inequality in the education system. There was a heavy emphasis placed on equality of opportunity for all, particularly focusing on the most deprived and most disadvantaged areas where educational results were poor. Policies, which sort to challenge social inequality, included:

· Education Action Zones, which provided areas with high material deprivation with additional resources.

· Aim Higher programme, this attempted to raise the aspirations of social groups often missing in higher education.

· Education Maintenance Allowance, students would receive financial support if their family income fell below a certain threshold to encourage them to continue in post 16 education.

· Sure Start, schemes such as this helped to ensure children in deprived areas got the best start in life through challenging cultural deprivation.

Marxists would be supportive of the New Labour agenda and the policies that they created. This is because they seek to create an equal society, something that is at the heart of Marxist ideology.

New Labour did not focus exclusively on reducing social inequality but also tried to drive up educational standards across the board through a commitment to marketisation. Therefore, they provided a more holistic policy focus.

iii) 2010 Coalition Policies

These policies have their foundation in Neoliberal and New Right thinking and seek to reduce the role of the state in education through marketisation and privatisation. As David Cameron said, the aim was to free schools from the ‘dead hand of the state’

a) Marketisation

One way in which the government attempted to continue marketisation practices were to encourage more schools to opt out of local authority control and become academies. This meant that more schools would now be responsible for their own budgets and had more control over their curriculum. This would aid marketisation, as it would increase choice, accountability and efficiency of these schools.

Another policy brought in by the coalition government was the creation of free schools. Parents, teachers, faith groups and businesses are responsible for the management of these schools. Although the government provide the resources for the school, the overall management is within the local community. This helps to increase accountability and therefore standards, make schools more responsive to local needs, and create a diversity within the overall education system improving choice.

Evaluation

1. Gerwitz would critique the view that academies and free schools offer all parents more choice. Instead, she uses the concepts of cultural and economic capital to describe the privilege of middle class parents over the working class. She describes middle class parents as ‘privileged-skilled choosers’ who use their cultural capital and knowledge of admissions procedures to gain their children entry into the top schools. They can also use their economic capital to move into the catchment areas of top schools.

b) Privatisation

The privatisation of education has been a key drive of the coalition government. Education has become a commodity and many businesses compete to offer services to schools such as qualifications, training courses and ICT services. The private sector is also penetrating education in a more indirect fashion. Some argue that brand loyalty is being encouraged at a young age as many schools now have their own Starbucks or Costa coffees on site.

Ball (2011) describes such policies as reflecting a process known as fragmented centralisation whereby the government loses some power with some diverse patchwork provision taking over. Equally, it is still the government however, who has the power to command some schools to convert to academies or grant their application to become free schools and give out private contracts.

Evaluation

1. Marxist Hall (2011) is suspicious of coalition policies, in particular the privatisation of school services. The neoliberal claim that privatisation and competition drive up standards is a myth used to legitimate the turning of education into a source for profit. It is regretful that education generates profit for businesses; this can ultimately compromise its primary objective that is to serve children.

c) Tackling Inequalities

Not all coalition policies focus on marketisation, some have tried to tackle social inequality. For example, free school meals for all children in reception, year one and two along with the Pupil Premium (more funding for deprived students) have helped to create an equal society. In addition to this, ROSLA 2015 has aimed to have a positive impact on the aspirations of young working-class children.

Coalition policies are a pragmatic response to a wider global economic crisis. There has been a desperate need for reduced state spending and integrating this into a marketised education system allows schools to compete effectively with lower budgets. Allowing private businesses to compete for contracts in the education system will drive up standards and result in a better service for the end user – the pupil.

Evaluation

1. The policy approach of the coalition government has been inconsistent. Initiatives such as free school meals and the pupil premium may attempt to tackle social inequality. However, the raising of tuition fees to £9000 per year has perhaps dampened any meaningful impact that these may have had.