Marketisation

Process of introducing market forces of consumer choice + competition between suppliers into areas run by state 
 - reducing direct state control over education
 - increasing competition between schools + parental choice of school.(parentocracy)

Become central theme of gov education policy since 1988 Ed Reform Act (ERA) introduced by Conservatives - Thatcher.

From 1977, New Labour govs followed similar policies + emphasised standards, diversity + choice. 2010, Conservative - Lib-Dem coalition gov took marketisation further - creating academies + free schools.

Neoliberals + NR favour marketisation. Argue means schools have to attract customers by competing in market. Schools that provide customers w/ what they want eg success in exams will thrive, those that don't 'go out of business'.

David (1993) - marketised education - 'parentocracy' (rule by parents). Supports of marketisation, argues in education market, power shifts from producers (teachers + schools) to consumers (parents) - claim this encourages diversity among schools, give parents more choice + raises standards.

Policies to promote marketisation:
 - publication of league tables + Ofsted reports
 - business sponsorship
 - open enrolement, allowing successful schools to recruit more pupils
 - specialist schools, specialising in IT etc - widen parental choice
 - formula funding, schools receive same amount of funding for each pupil
 - schools allowed to opt out of local authority control - become academies
 - schools competing for pupils

Critics argue marketisation increased inequlities. Ball (1994) + Whitty (1998) - marketisation policies eg league tabes + funding formula reproduce class inequalities by creating inequalities between schools.

Policy of league tables ensures schools with good results are in demand as parents are more attracted. Bartlett (1993): argues this encourages:
cream skimming - 'good' schools are more selective, choose own customers + recruit high achieving, mainly middle-class pupils. As a result, pupils gain advantages
silt-shifting - 'good' schools can avoid taking less able pupils likely to get poor results + damage league table position.

For schools with poor league table poisitions, produces unequal schools, reprodues class inequalities.

Schools are given funds based on how many pupils they attract, this results in popular schools getting more funds meaning that they can afford better and have qualified teachers, better facilities. Allows them to be more selective, attracts more able and ambitious pupils - generally middle-class.

Marketisation gives advantage to middle-class parents whose economic & cultural capital, puts them in better position to choose 'good' schools. Shown in Gerwitz's (1995) study - 14 London secondary schools. Found parents' economic + cultural capital, class differences in how far they can exercise choice of secondary schools. Identifies 3 main types of parents:
privileged-skilled choosers: mainly professional m/c parents, used capital to gain eduational capital for children. Well educated - full advantages of choices open to them, they possessed cultural capital, know how systems work. Economic capital - could afford to be in catchment areas for good schools, or could pay extra travel costs to attend 'better' schools out of area.
Disconnected-local choosers: working-class parents, choices restricred due to lack of capital, found it difficult to understand admissions procedures, were less confident, unlikely to manipulate system like middle-class parents, attached more importance to safety & quality of facilities, distance & cost of travel restrictions, limited funds.
Semi-skilled choosers: mainly working-class, but ambitious for children, lacked cultural capital, found it difficult to make sense of education market, frustrated at inability to get children into schools they wanted.

Education market gives greater choice, Gerwitz concludes middle-class parents have capital & more choice.

Marketisaion legitimises inequality by concealing its true causes

Ball believes marketisation gives the appearance of 'parentocracy', education system seems as if it's based on parents having free choice of school. Ball argues parentocracy a myth, makes it appear as if all parents have the same freedom, but as Gerwitz shows, middle-class parents are more able to take advantage of the choices available. Leech + Campos show - they can afford to move into catchment areas of more desirable schools.

By disguising the fact that schooling continues to reproduce class inequality in this way, myth of parentocracy makes inequality in education appear fair & inevitable.

New Labour govs of 1997-2010 introduced policies aimed at reducing inequaity, it included:
 - Designated some deprived areas as Education Action Zones & provided them with additional resources
 - Aimed Higher programme to raise aspirations of groups under-represented in higher education
 - City academies created to give fresh start to struggling inner-city schools with mainly working-class pupils
 - Increased funding for state education

Critics such as Benn (2012) - sees contradiction between Labour's policies to tackle inequality & commitment to marketisation, calls New Labour a 'paradox'. Despite introducing EMAs to encourage poorer students to stay in education, Labour also introduced tuition fees for higher education that may deter pupils from going to uni.