The Hoax Behind Schools

Marketisation of Education

The New Right policies state that every parent should have a choice on the school their child goes to (Item B). The marketisation of education meant that schools became more competitive, like businesses, in order to try and attract the highest achieving students. As well as this, marketisation has also increased diversity and choice within the education system. One way in which this increase has occurred is through parentocracy. One of the ways diversity has been increased is by the tripartite system bringing along a mixing of students by different social classes. Another way diversity has been increased is through the introduction of free schools/academies, as students of lower social class could attend.

Parentocracy

Sociologist, David, described the marketisation of education as a parentocracy (a system ruled by parents). He claims that this encourages diversity among schools and gives more choice and raises school standards. Parentocracy has created more choice as parents (Item B) were given more options for their children to attend, instead of the children being restricted to certain schools depending on their academic ability. The 1988 Education Reform Act (of the Conservative government) meant that parents were now able to rank in order their preference of school choice. However, many sociologists disagree that parentocracy led to increased choice in the education system. Gewirtz did a study that consisted of 14 school teachers and parents being interviewed. She used Bourdieu’s ideas to help her find her findings. Through doing this, she found that the differences in economic and cultural capital may lead to the class differences in how far parents may exercise the choice of secondary schools. Gewirtz believed working-class parents may find it difficult to understand school admissions procedures, so are less confident in talking with school professionals. Some of the factors contributing to this difficulty is a lack of knowledge of the education system, do not use league tables or ofsted reports, or simply rely on recommendations from friends or family. Similarly, Ball believes marketisation gives the appearance of a parentocracy, when in reality it is a “myth”.

Meritocracy

From 1944, education has been influenced by meritocracy. The 1944 Education Act brought in the tripartite system, which meant that children were selected to one of 3 different schools, depending on their educational ability. The school the students are selected for went by their 11+ exam results. The three different types of schools the tripartite system brought along were grammar schools, technical schools, and secondary modern schools. With the introduction of new types of schools, the marketisation of education was the next step. The tripartite system meant that students of the middle class and the working class were no longer separated based on their background, as students go to the best schools based on their educational achievement, instead of their wealth or family reputation. Therefore, students of the middle class and working class were now mixed together within schools. However, the theory that the tripartite system brought along diversity of social class within education is disputed by many sociologists. With this, in 1965, comprehensive schools were introduced which aimed to overcome the class divide of the tripartite system and make education more meritocracy. Functionalists argue that comprehensive schools promote social integration, by bringing children of social classes together. However, Ford (1969) found that there was little social mixing of the classes; therefore a lack of diversity. Comprehensive schools are seen as more meritocratic, because it gives students a longer time to develop and show their abilities rather than testing at a young age.

Free Schooling

In 2010, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government took marketisation even further by creating free academies/free schools. With this revelation, diversity within education increased as students of lower socioeconomic backgrounds could now afford to attend school. Children from the working class are highly likely to suffer with material deprivation, which is the lack of basic necessities - like money and food. With this deprivation, lower class students will not receive enough nourishment due to the lack of a sufficient diet, which leads to fatigue, therefore their academic performance will be negatively impacted. Leon Feinstein (2003) found that low income is related to low cognitive reasoning skills among children as young as two years old. Those who suffer with material deprivation also have a lack of money, which means they can not afford basic school supplies, like textbooks, stationary and even the uniform if it is a ‘good’ school. This may result in the working-class students avoiding good schools because they can not afford it. This limits the level of diversity within education as middle/high class students will dominate the higher up schools, and educationally succeed more than any other social class. However, academies/free schools were significant in increasing diversity by allowing lower-class students to attend ‘top’ schools by limiting the amount of costs. Many sociologists disputed the impact of free schools as it is disputed by sociologists that children from different social classes are still separated within the school system - students of the same social class are likely to become friends rather than social class mixing.

In conclusion, the marketisation of education has increased choice and diversity within the education system through New Right Policies (Item B), the 1944 tripartite system, free schools, and 1988 Education Reform Act which led to parentocracy.