The New Right perspective on marketisation in education

Marketisation refers to the process of introducing free market principles, such as competition and consumer choice, into public services like education. This approach stems from the New Right ideology, which argues that state-run services are often inefficient, costly, and fail to meet user needs effectively. Instead, the New Right promotes the idea that services should operate like businesses in a competitive market, where providers respond to consumer demand to improve quality and efficiency.

This perspective views education as a service that benefits from market forces. For example, schools competing for pupils can drive up standards, as underperforming institutions risk losing funding or closure. As a result, marketisation aims to empower parents and pupils as consumers, shifting control away from state authorities towards individual choice.

Key features of the 1988 Education Reform Act

The 1988 Education Reform Act represented a major overhaul of the education system in England and Wales, marking the most significant changes since 1944. Its primary goal was to introduce market principles to raise educational standards by fostering competition, diversity, and parental choice. Before the Act, school allocation was largely determined by local catchment areas, limiting options for families.

The Act transformed education into a marketplace where schools competed for pupils, with funding tied to enrolment numbers. This shift encouraged schools to operate more like businesses, marketing themselves to attract families and improve performance.

Main consequences of the Act

• Introduction of parental choice - Parents gained the right to select schools beyond strict catchment areas, creating a system known as open enrolment.
• Promotion of diversity in education - New types of schools were established to offer varied options.
• Establishment of a national curriculum - A standardised framework was imposed to ensure consistency in what pupils learned.
• Creation of competition mechanisms - Tools like league tables and inspections were introduced to inform choices and drive improvements.

These changes collectively aimed to make education more responsive to consumer needs, with successful schools rewarded through higher enrolment and funding.

Parental choice and the concept of parentocracy

One of the Act's core reforms was extending parental choice, which transferred decision-making power from local authorities to families. This created a parentocracy, a system where parents act as consumers, selecting schools based on preferences and performance data.

How open enrolment worked

Open enrolment allowed parents to apply to any school, regardless of location, as long as spaces were available. School budgets became directly linked to pupil numbers, incentivising institutions to attract more students. This meant that popular schools could expand, while less desirable ones faced funding shortages.

As a result, parents were positioned as key drivers of school improvement, using their choices to reward high-performing institutions. However, this system assumed equal access to information and resources among all parents, which later evaluations challenged.

Diversity in secondary education provision

The Act introduced new school types to increase variety and break away from uniform local authority control. This diversity aimed to cater to different pupil needs and foster innovation.

Types of schools created

• Grant maintained schools - These institutions could opt out of local education authority control, managing their own budgets directly from central government. They served as early models for modern academies, offering greater financial and operational freedom.
• City technology colleges - Specialist schools focused on technical and vocational education, often sponsored by businesses to align with workforce needs.

These options expanded choices beyond traditional comprehensive schools, allowing parents to select institutions that matched their child's interests or strengths.

The national curriculum and assessment

To ensure consistency and raise standards, the Act introduced a national curriculum, a standardised set of subjects and learning objectives that all state schools had to follow. This curriculum was divided into key stages, which are specific phases of schooling designed to track pupil progress systematically.

Structure of the national curriculum

• Key stages - The curriculum is organised into four stages: key stage 1 (years 1–2), key stage 2 (years 3–6), key stage 3 (years 7–9), and key stage 4 (years 10–11).
• Core subjects - The most essential subjects, including English, maths, and science, which form the foundation of testing and progression.
• Foundation subjects - Additional required subjects, such as history, which support a broad education but are not prioritised like core subjects.

Assessment occurred through standard assessment tests (SATs), which are examinations at the end of each key stage to measure achievement. Originally administered at the end of all stages, SATs now focus primarily on key stage 2, while key stage 4 uses GCSEs.

Sociologist Taylor notes that the curriculum had a vocational emphasis, prioritising subjects relevant to employment while sidelining arts and humanities. This approach aimed to prepare pupils for the workforce but was criticised for narrowing educational focus.

Mechanisms for promoting competition between schools

The Act fostered a competitive environment by providing tools for parents to compare schools, encouraging institutions to improve to attract more pupils.

Key competition tools

• League tables - Introduced in 1992, these annual rankings list schools based on exam results, such as GCSE performance. The goal was to highlight top performers, prompting underachieving schools to raise standards through competition.
• Ofsted inspections - Established in 1992, the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) conducts rigorous evaluations of schools and colleges. Inspection reports, publicly available, help parents identify quality institutions and hold schools accountable.

Schools began producing marketing materials, such as brochures and prospectuses, to promote themselves. High-enrolment schools gained more funding, enabling them to hire better staff and resources, which further boosted their performance in a self-reinforcing cycle.

Evaluation of the 1988 Education Reform Act

While the Act aimed to improve education through marketisation, its outcomes have been debated. Supporters claim it reversed declining standards from the 1960s comprehensive system by introducing accountability and choice. However, critics argue it created inequalities and failed to deliver true improvements.

Positive outcomes

• Standards reportedly rose in some areas due to competition, with schools incentivised to focus on exam results.
• Greater diversity and choice empowered many parents to select better-suited schools.

Criticisms and limitations

• Prescriptive curriculum - Teachers viewed it as too rigid, dictating content (e.g., specific history topics) and overwhelming pupils with testing, leading to the removal of some assessments.
• Restricted parental choice - Popular schools filled quickly, limiting options and creating a two-tier system where top schools selected high-achieving pupils, leaving others with less able students.
• Myth of parentocracy - Not all parents had equal power; middle-class families used their advantages to secure places in desirable schools.
• Resource misallocation - Some schools diverted funds to marketing instead of teaching.

Gewirtz's study on parental choice

• Background - Sociologist Sharon Gewirtz conducted research on 15 London schools to examine the reality of parentocracy.

• Results - Middle-class parents leveraged economic capital (e.g., money for transport), cultural capital (e.g., knowledge of the system), and social capital (e.g., networks with school staff) to gain advantages. Working-class parents had less access to these resources, reducing their effective choice.

• Conclusions - Parentocracy is largely a myth, as parental power is unequally distributed, reinforcing class inequalities rather than creating a fair market.