Item B
Since the introduction of marketisation policies to education, over 30 years ago, competition has grown between increasingly diverse types of schools. New Right theorists argue that every parent is free to choose the best school for their child. They also claim that this efficiently drives up standards and ensures that schools are responsive to the needs of parents and pupils.
However, some sociologists argue that there are limits to these choices. They also argue that marketisation policies may reinforce existing inequalities in educational achievement.Applying material from Item B and your knowledge, evaluate the view that marketisation policies have increased diversity and choice in the education system.
AQA
A Level
2024
👑Complete Model Essay
Free Essay Plan
Introduction
This essay will evaluate the view that marketisation policies have increased diversity and choice in the education system. It will consider the arguments of New Right theorists, who support marketisation, and those of sociologists who argue that marketisation can reinforce existing inequalities. The essay will draw on Item B and relevant sociological research to examine the impact of marketisation on diversity and choice in education.
The New Right Perspective
New Right theorists, such as Chubb and Moe, argue that marketisation policies have created a more diverse and responsive education system. They believe that competition between schools, driven by parental choice and league tables, leads to greater efficiency and improved standards. By giving parents the power to choose schools, they argue that schools are forced to become more responsive to the needs of parents and pupils.
The Limits of Choice
However, sociologists have argued that there are significant limits to parental choice in a marketised education system. These limitations are linked to the concept of the "myth of parentocracy", coined by sociologists such as Gewirtz. They argue that parents' choices are often constrained by their social class, cultural capital and economic circumstances.
Social Inequalities and Cream Skimming
Marketisation policies can reinforce existing inequalities in educational achievement. Schools in affluent areas, with higher concentrations of middle-class students, tend to attract more resources and perform better in league tables. These schools are often more successful in attracting "privileged choosers", who are able to exploit the system to their advantage. This leads to a process known as "cream skimming", where schools select the most able students and leave the less able students in schools with fewer resources.
Disadvantage and Silt Shifting
Conversely, schools in disadvantaged areas, with higher concentrations of working-class students, often struggle to attract students and resources. These schools are often left with the "disconnected choosers", who are less able to navigate the complexities of the education market. This process, known as "silt shifting", reinforces existing inequalities in access to education.
Diversity and Choice in Practice
While marketisation may have led to some diversification in the education system, such as the introduction of specialist schools and academies, the impact on diversity and choice for all pupils is debatable. The rise of free schools and academies has also raised concerns about social segregation and the potential for further inequalities.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the view that marketisation policies have increased diversity and choice in the education system is a complex one. While some of the New Right arguments about competition and responsiveness have some merit, the evidence suggests that marketisation can also reinforce existing inequalities and limit choices for many students. There is a need for greater scrutiny of the impact of marketisation on diversity and choice, and for policies that promote social justice and equality in education.
Marketisation and Education: Diversity, Choice, and Inequality
Marketisation policies, introduced in the UK over 30 years ago, aimed to transform the education system by introducing competition and parent choice. Proponents, particularly those aligned with the New Right, argue that this fosters diversity, increases standards, and makes schools more responsive to the needs of parents and pupils (Item B). This essay will critically evaluate these claims, considering the extent to which marketisation has increased diversity and choice in education, while also examining the limitations and potential for exacerbating existing inequalities.
Diversity and Choice: A Reality or a Myth?
Marketisation has undoubtedly led to a more diverse educational landscape. The introduction of specialist schools, academies, and free schools, alongside the growth of faith schools, has broadened the range of options available to parents. This element of choice is central to the New Right perspective, which emphasizes parentocracy and consumer choice within the education system (Chubb & Moe). The idea is that by empowering parents as consumers, schools will be forced to improve their offering or risk losing students and funding.
However, sociologists like Ball and Whitty argue that this diversity and choice are often illusory. The concept of 'parentocracy' is criticized as a myth, as it assumes all parents have equal ability to navigate the education market. In reality, factors such as cultural capital (Bourdieu), social networks, and access to information advantage middle-class parents, who are better equipped to make informed choices and secure places in desirable schools (Gewirtz). This leads to 'cream-skimming', where high-performing schools attract more advantaged students, leaving disadvantaged students concentrated in underperforming schools.
Exacerbating Inequalities: Selection and Segregation
Critics argue that marketisation policies, coupled with funding mechanisms like per-capita funding, exacerbate existing inequalities. Schools, incentivized to attract high-achieving students, may adopt covert selection processes, further disadvantaging students from disadvantaged backgrounds. The pressure to climb league tables, a key feature of marketisation, can lead to a focus on 'A*-C economy' (Gillborn & Youdell), where schools prioritize students perceived as likely to achieve high grades, potentially neglecting those with special educational needs or from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Furthermore, the geographical concentration of different types of schools can limit real choice, particularly for working-class families with limited mobility. While some might choose to send their children to schools further away, financial and logistical constraints can make this impractical. This geographical inequality reinforces social segregation, undermining the intended goal of a more equitable education system.
Conclusion: A Mixed Picture with Significant Limitations
Marketisation policies have undoubtedly increased diversity and choice within the education system to some extent. However, these changes have not been without their limitations. The evidence suggests that while marketisation might have created the appearance of a more diverse and choice-driven system, it has also served to reinforce and potentially exacerbate existing social inequalities. The uneven distribution of cultural capital, coupled with selective practices and geographical disparities, means that the promise of 'parentocracy' remains largely unrealized. Addressing these inequalities requires a more nuanced approach, one that goes beyond simply expanding choice and tackles the root causes of educational disadvantage.
Item B
Since the introduction of marketisation policies to education, over 30 years ago, competition has grown between increasingly diverse types of schools. New Right theorists argue that every parent is free to choose the best school for their child. They also claim that this efficiently drives up standards and ensures that schools are responsive to the needs of parents and pupils.
However, some sociologists argue that there are limits to these choices. They also argue that marketisation policies may reinforce existing inequalities in educational achievement.Applying material from Item B and your knowledge, evaluate the view that marketisation policies have increased diversity and choice in the education system.
Free Mark Scheme Extracts
Marketisation Policies and Diversity in Education: A Critical Analysis
This essay will critically examine the impact of marketisation policies on diversity and choice within the education system. It will explore the arguments of various perspectives, including the New Right, neoliberalism, social democracy, Marxism, and postmodernism, to evaluate the extent to which marketisation has truly increased diversity and parental choice.
Proponents of marketisation, particularly those aligned with the New Right and neoliberalism, argue that introducing market forces into education can lead to increased diversity and choice. They emphasize the concept of 'parentocracy,' whereby parents are empowered as consumers, able to choose schools that best suit their children's needs and aspirations. This, they argue, promotes competition among schools, leading to improved quality and greater responsiveness to individual preferences.
The Myth of Parentocracy
However, critics, drawing upon perspectives like Marxism and social democracy, challenge the notion of true 'parentocracy.' They argue that marketisation, while presenting an illusion of choice, often serves to reinforce existing social inequalities.
Key arguments against the 'parentocracy' myth include:
- Cultural and Social Capital: Parents from privileged backgrounds, often possessing greater cultural and social capital, are better equipped to navigate the complex choices presented by a marketised system. They are more likely to have the resources and knowledge to access information, make informed decisions, and advocate for their children's interests.
- Cream Skimming and Silt Shifting: Marketisation can lead to 'cream skimming,' whereby popular, high-performing schools attract pupils from more affluent backgrounds, while less desirable schools are left with a disproportionate number of disadvantaged students. This creates a cycle of disadvantage, further exacerbating existing inequalities.
- Fragmented Centralisation: While appearing to decentralize control, marketisation can, in fact, result in a form of 'fragmented centralisation.' The influence of central government remains, often shaping policy through funding mechanisms and accountability measures, leading to a narrowing of the educational curriculum and a focus on standardized testing.
- Limited Choice for Disadvantaged Groups: Disadvantaged groups, including those from minority ethnic backgrounds, low-income families, and rural communities, often have limited access to information, resources, and opportunities. This can lead to a lack of choice and, in some cases, the entrenchment of educational disadvantage.
The Role of Faith Schools
The rise of faith schools is another significant element of the marketised education system. While some argue that faith schools provide greater diversity and choice, critics point to the potential for segregation, the reinforcement of religious ideologies, and the exclusion of minority groups. The impact of faith schools on diversity and choice remains a complex and contested issue.
Conclusion
The impact of marketisation policies on diversity and choice in education is a multifaceted issue. While the potential for increased choice exists, the reality is often more complex. The myth of parentocracy fails to account for the inequalities that persist and, in some cases, are exacerbated by marketised systems.
Further research is needed to fully understand the long-term consequences of marketisation on different groups within the education system. A nuanced approach is required, considering the perspectives of various stakeholders, including parents, teachers, students, and policymakers, to ensure that all students have access to a quality education and the opportunities they deserve.