Topic 6 - Marketisation

Process of intro'ing market forces of consumer choice + comp b/ween suppliers into areas run by state eg ed. Created 'ed market' by:
 - reducing direct state control over ed
 - increasing comp b/ween schools + parental choice of school.

Become central theme of gov ed policy since 1988 Ed Reform Act (ERA) intro'd 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' (ruled by parents). Supported of marketiation argue in ed 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 b/ween schools.

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

For schools w/ poor league table poisitions, opp applies. Produces unequal schools, reprodues class inequalities.

Schools given funds by formula based on how many pupils they attract - results in popular schools more funds, can afford better-qualified teachers + better facilities. Allows them to be more selective, attracts more able/ambitious - generally m/c.

Unpopular schools opp occurs.

Study of international patterns of ed inequality - Institute for Public Policy Research (2012) - comp-oriented ed sys eg Britain's - more segregation b/ween children of diff social b/gs.

Marketisation advs m/c parents whose econ + cultural capital puts them in better position to choose 'good' schools. Shown in Gerwitx's (1995) study - 14 London secondary schools. Found parents' econ + cultural capital -> class diffs in how far can exercise choice of secondary schools. Identifies 3 main types of parents:
 - privileged-skilled choosers: mainly professional m/c parents, used capital to gain ed capital for children. Well educated - full adv of choices open to them. Possessed cultural capital. Know how systems work. Econ 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: w/c parents, choices restricred due to lack of capital. Difficult to understand admissions procedures, less confident, less able to manipulate system. Attached more importance to safety + quality of facilities. Distance + cost of travel restrictions. Limited funds.
 - semi-skilled choosers: mainly w/c, but ambitious for children. Lacked cultureal capital, difficult to make sens of ed market, frustrated at inability to get children into schools they wanted.

Ed market gives greater choice, G concludes m/c parents have capital + more choice.

Marketisaion legitimates inequality by concealing its true causes + justifying existence.

Ball believes marketisation gives appearance of 'parentocracy' - ed sys seems as if based on parents having free choice of school. Ball argues parentocracy a myth - makes it appear all parents have same freedom, but as Gerwitz shows, m/c parents better able to take adv of choices available. Leech + Campos show - can afford to move into catchment areas of more desirable schools.

By disguising fact schooling continues to reproduce class inequality in this way, myth of parentocracy makes inequality in ed appear fair + inevitable.

New Labour govs of 1997-2010 intro'd policies aimed at reducing it. Included:
 - designated some deprived areas as Education Action Zones + provided them w/ additional resources
 - Aim Higher programme to raise aspirations of groups under-represented in higher ed
 - City academies created to give fresh start to struggling inner-city schools w/ mainly w/c pupils
 - increased funding for state ed

Critics eg Benn (2012) - see contradiction b/ween Labour's policies to tackle inequality + commitment to marketisation - calls 'New Labour paradox'. Eg, despite intro'ing EMAs to encourage porrer students to stay in ed, Labour also intro'd tuition fees for higher ed that may deter from going to uni.