the state is tooinvolved in deciding which schools we have
marketisation will solve by bringing more diversity, empowering consumers, help schools be more equipped in meeting needs of parents, students and employers
chubb and moe 1990
argued the case for opening up the US state education to free the market
education system failed because:
failed to create equal opportunities for disadvantaged groups
failed to provide students with skills needed by the economy
private schools provide better quality education as they’re accountable
research found:
people from lower class families do 5% better in private schools
solve by voucherbasedfunding:
schools would attract customers by being responsive to parent’s wishes - this creates competition and place control in hands of consumers = parentocracy
evaluation
Gerwitz + Ball
only middle class benefit from competition
they can use their cultural and economiccapital to gain entry to best schools
Marxists
The idea of a shared single cultural heritage is wrong - the cultural norms and values are those of the ruling class
evaluation
+ the theory is influential - academisation of schools, academy chains, Michael's Goves introduction of free schools set up by parents + religious organisations were influenced by neoliberal and new right ideas
Social inequality is at the root of differential attainment between the classes, not state control of schools
There is no choice in the national curriculum - schools + teachers dispute this and students are restricted by it
still wants the state to be involved by
league tables
ofsted reports
standard exams
the function of education
to promote competition to achieve higher levels of attainment
to breed a qualified and useful workforce through higher attainment levels to create a good economy