Assess sociological explanations of the impact of recent government policies on educational choice and standards in Britain

The local management of schools (LMS) gave schools (rather than local authority) much greater control of their budgets, staffing, school buildings and other aspects of school life. This was designed to make schools more responsive to local needs and the wishes of parents, and reduced the powers of locally elected locally education authorities (LEAs).

Schools are funded by a formula which is largely based on the number of pupils they attract. This is called formula funding. It was thought this would drive up standards by rewarding 'successful' schools that attracted pupils (and hence money), giving less successful schools the incentive to improve.

Open enrolment and parental choice means that parents are not allowed to express a preference for the school of their choice, and a school cannot refuse a pupil a place if it has vacancies. This was designed to raise the quality of teaching and exam results by encouraging competition between schools. Unpopular schools run the risk of losing pupils and therefore money. In many cases, parents don't really have much choice in school, as places are usually filled up by those living in the school's 'priority area' (the area from which children are admitted first).

OFSTED was set up to conduct regular inspections of all state schools. Since 1997, it has also inspected LEAs, and since 2000, further education colleges. This aimed to ensure schools, colleges and LEAs were doing a good job, by publishing their inspection reports and requiring action to be taken on any weaknesses identified by the inspectors.

In April 1993, further education was made independent of LEAs, and many polytechnics became universities. These changes aimed to create a level playing field between post-16 educational institutions, and to encourage them to operate on the same market principals as schools, with competition between them for students and therefore funds.

New Right approaches have usually started from the central idea that the only way to create an efficient system is through the 'mechanism' of the market.

A market works through having consumers and sellers. If a seller does not produce what a consumer wants, when they want it, in the way they want it, that consumer can go elsewhere. Competition between sellers improves quality and efficiency.

As education in Britain for the past 130 years has been predominantly a public service, the absence of any market mechanism has made it inefficient and ineffective.

Applied to education, a market would force schools to compete with each other for 'consumers' (pupils/parents). Good schools survive by improving the quality of education they offer, poor schools have to improve or go under.

An 'Education Market' raises standards, gives a better deal to pupils and improves the economic efficiency of the country.

However, there are many criticisms of the New Right ideas, such as middle class parents have the resources to gain extra educational advantages for their children.

Markets create inequality. Schools with mainly working class intakes will achieve poorer exam results, attract fewer pupils, less money, etc.and enter a cycle of decline. This does not raise, but lower, the standards.

In rural areas there is no opportunity for a market to function, as there are few schools for parents to choose from.

It is not proven that the lack of competition lowered standards.

The most successful become over-subscribed and therefore can begin to select the pupils they take, effectively reducing or removing consumer choice.

Closing 'poorer' schools leads to a reduction in consumer choice.

Just because a market approach works for certain products it does not mean it works for a public service like education.

Vocational education is on the increase, a sociological explanation for this is that pupils have different abilities, and we need skilled people to do vocational jobs. It also means that there is lower unemployment if students can go to college (i.e. a tech college). There are also links that there is lower crime/ deviance if young people are off the streets and in college.

Conservative governments 1979-1997 and the current labour government (97- ) have emphasised the need for more vocationalism in education and training.

The argument for this has been that the best way to increase Britain's industrial performance is to improve standards in education. This has sometimes been called 'new vocationalism'.

Vocational training initiatives and qualifications include Youth Training Scheme, Employment Training, City Technology Colleges, The Certificate of Pre-Vocational Educational Education Initiative, National Vocational Qualifications and General National Vocational Qualifications.

Vocational Education in schools brings more 'schools-industry' links.

Functionalists see vocational education as positive as it allows for skills provision. Marxists see vocational education as the bourgeoisie training the proletariats as workers- 'keeping them down'. Symbolic interactionalists see it as providing more choice and benefiting the individual.

There has been a great impact of recent government policies on education, such as league tables making parents and pupils as more as consumers, and ensuring that the 'poorer' schools lack benefits or face closing down. It is more likely that a parent will choose a school/ college that has better results than that of a school/ college with bad results. This gives them choice as a consumer. There have been many recent government policies, therefore many sociological explanations of the impact of these, such as functionalists, Marxists and symbolic interactionalists all having different views on vocational education.

To conclude this essay, I am just going to state that there are many different sociological explanations on the impact on recent government policies on education, all mostly agreeing on the fact that these recent changes are all in order to insure that the 'future workforce' is trained at the same standards.