The 1988 Education Reform Act (ERA) contained several key components all of which were intended by Thatcher’s government to improve parental choice. The introduction of market forces into the education system was a central initiative in reaching this goal. The ERA ‘formalised arrangements for the local management of schools, transferring responsibility for the running of schools from Local Education Authorities (LEAs) to governing bodies. In addition, any secondary schools and the larger primary schools could seek the permission of the Minister of State for Education to ‘opt out’ of LEA control and become Grant-Maintained (GM), funded directly by central government’ (Pierson, 1998, p.131).
The ERA also increased choice by stipulating that governing bodies had to have parents on their boards, and in order for a school to become Grant-Maintained the pupils’ parents had to vote to decide whether or not the school opted out of LEA control.
According to Pierson (1998, p.132) the introduction of market forces into the education system was meant to create a new system by where schools, who were released from LEA control, would compete to attract parents who were now ‘free to choose’. Schools were now free to decide their own intake capacity, called open enrolment, which had previously been ‘limited by the LEAs to levels lower than capacity or to particular catchment areas so that other schools could remain open’ (Whitty, 2008, p.168). Funding for GM schools was decided by the age and number of pupils enrolled, which meant failing schools had to improve or close because they could no longer be guaranteed a set intake by their LEA. ‘To encourage competition among schools – and to aid parents in exercising their choices – tables of examination and other performance results began to be published regularly’ (Paterson, 2003, p.173). This per capita funding when linked to open enrolment meant, in theory, parents were free to choose their child’s school, even if it was not within their Local Authority. ‘In general, the expectation was that the good sense of newly empowered parents would endorse the Conservatives’ substantive agenda of restoring ‘traditional’ education values’ (Pierson, 1998, p.133).
The introduction of the National Curriculum by the Education Reform Act for all maintained schools was also, according to Whitty (2008, p.169), ‘geared towards establishing performance criteria with which to facilitate school accountability and consumer choice: with all schools delivering the same curriculum, the assessments generated important data on school performance’ which were also published and aided parents in exercising their choice. The removal of power from head teachers, who were once free to choose their own curriculum, was only a small part of what Fisher (2008, p.255) called ‘two decades of unprecedented political centralisation of education in the United kingdom.’
Although the Education Reform Act seemed to do a lot to increase parental choice, it is not without its critics. Research by Ball et al (1997, in Baldock et al, 2008, p.391) ‘has indicated that, in practice, the degree of choice may be profoundly circumscribed by parents’ social circumstances: In the case of the working class respondents, choice of secondary school was a contingent decision rather than an open one....School has to be ‘fitted’ into a set of constraints and expectations related to work roles, family roles, the sexual division of labour and the demands of household organisation.’ Baldock (2008, p.391) adds ‘In addition, the cost of travel and the difficulties of resourcing childcare may make the local school the only real ‘choice’ for the poor family’. Also, whilst the ERA claimed to improve choice, the Conservatives ensured it was always the government who had the final say as centralisation increased its power in some instances.
Trowler (2003, p.41) believes changing the relationship between the parent and the school into a market actually makes it almost conflictual instead of one of collaboration and partnership. Deem (1996 in Trowler, 2003, p.41) ‘found that the attempt to empower governors had been neutralized by the increased power of state control over the Nation Curriculum, assessment, funding and teachers conditions’. Whitty (2008) comments that the ‘choice’ that was introduced by open enrolment was actually undermined by the fact the once a school was over-subscribed, existing rules such as prioritising existing pupil sibling and local child enrolment were retained.
The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 was, according to Tomlinson (2001, p.94), ‘the first major Education Act of the New Labour Government,’ which ‘claimed to be developing a so-called ‘third way’ in which policies are put forward on the basis of ‘what works’ rather than being driven by any one ideological approach’ (Power & Whitty, 1999, p.535). The Act introduced a new framework of schooling aimed at increasing parental choice and improving standards, namely; community , which were mainly previous LEA schools, foundation, which were schools that were either aided and controlled or had the now ended Grant Maintained status, and finally, voluntary, which were the rest of the previously GM status schools (Adnett & Davies, 2002). It also stated school committees’ were to include parents and it clarified the functions of school governing bodies such as reporting to parents, both of which attempted to improve choice.
Whilst Third Way policies have sought to invest in society and increase social and community links, critics such as Fitz et al (2002, pp,1-27) believe the policies have actually increased social segregation in schools and caused some disadvantaged schools to decline further. They state the education market favours middle classes over the poor because they know how to ‘play’ the system. Tomlinson (2005, p.153) believes that New Labour’s ‘continuation of Conservative market policies of choice and diversity in schooling and a targeting of ‘failing’ schools [has] exacerbated school segregation and racial inequalities.’
In conclusion, the evidence shows that New Labour has continued Conservative education policy by linking education with the economy. The evidence shows that whilst parental choice has obviously been increased by these policies for some families, it has not been the same for all, especially the poor. It seems that social class is a key determinate in deciding just how much choice a parent may actually have. A lack of resources may mean that the local school is, for some families, the only option available.
Adnett, N. And Davies, P. (2002) Markets for schooling. London: Routledge Publishers
Baldock, J., Manning, N. & Vickerstaff, S. (eds.) (2007) Social policy. 3rd ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press
Fisher, T. (2008) The Era of Centralisation: the 1988 Education Reform Act and its consequences. Forum Journal, 50(2), pp.255-260.
Fitz, J., Gorard, S. And Taylor, C. (2002) Markets in education: the impact of twelve years of school choice and diversity policies in the UK. In Association for Research in Education (2002) Proceedings: Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education: December 1-6, 2002, Brisbane, Australia. Cardiff, England: Cardiff University School of Social Sciences, pp.1-27.
Flynn, R., Roche, J., Thomson, R., Tucker, S. (eds.) (2004) Youth in society. 2nd ed., London: Sage Publication Ltd
Levin, B. (2001) Reforming education: from origins to outcomes. London: Routledge Publishers
Patterson, L. (2003) The Three Educational Ideologies of the British Labour Party. Oxford Review of Education, 29(2), pp.165-186.
Pierson, C. (1998) The New Governance of Education: the Conservatives and education 1988-1997. Oxford Review of Education, 24(1), pp.131-142.
Power, S. And Whitty, G. (1999) New Labour’s education policy: first, second or third way? Journal of Education and Policy, 14(5), pp.535-546.
Tomlinson, S. (2001) Education in a post-welfare society. Buckingham: Open University Press
Tomlinson, S. (2005) Race, ethnicity and education under New Labour. Oxford Review of Education, 31(1), pp.153-171.
Trowler, P. (2003) Education policy. 2nd ed. London: Routledge Publishers
Whitty, G. (2008) Twenty Years of Progress?: English Education Policy 1988 to the Present. Educational Management, Administration and Leadership, 36(2), pp.165-184.
