School Choice

British society is perceived to be more unequal than ever with socio-economic status having as much if not more of an effect on a child’s future than ever before.  The link between social and educational inequality has been assumed in policy for many years, with a good education seen almost universally as a way of accessing a better quality of life. This may well still be true, particularly in areas where education is not universal, but it now seems that the reforms that were introduced in western developed nations over the last 30 years have served to exacerbate the problem of social inequality rather than solve it. The argument presented here is that the neo-liberal inspired policies which have weaved their way into education must be fully rolled back if we are to have any chance of achieving the liberal aim of improving social equality. The focus will be on the issue of school choice, which I argue is no choice at all if we are serious about this aim.

School choice sits as one of a handful neo-liberal education reforms instituted since the late 70s. Others include the marketisation of schools, centralisation of curriculum and performance management, and all are interlinked and interdependent. They began as a reaction to two issues that faced, not just Britain, but many developed western nations at the time, namely: an engorged public sector which was seen as wasteful and sluggish, and a response to the perceived threat of globalisation. The Thatcherite government believed Britain had to become more competitive internationally and took pains to prove that public spending in education was ‘effective’ and ‘efficient’. The result was the quasi-marketisation of the sector. The marketisation part introduced the mechanism of school choice to drive up performance in schools while allowing them to respond quicker to the changing needs of the job-market. The quasi part was the centralisation of curriculum and funding and increased government montoring of performance imposed most vigorously by the New Labour government post 1997. Combined, the government said, we would have all the positives of a market (increased efficiency and responsiveness etc) without the problem of having any ‘losers’ in the imperfect market system.

To monitor the effectiveness and output of schools, tools such as league tables and targets were introduced. These precipitated a subtle but often ignored shift between student need and student performance. To illustrate this I think specifically of my experience as a trainee- teacher in a school in Hillingdon. In the third term I was shocked to discover that the year 10 students had been colour coded into red, amber and green depending on how likely they were to achieve 5A*-C GCSE grades. This in turn would determine the school’s position in the league tables (a 50% school for example has 50% of students getting these grades or above). We were to focus on the ‘greens’ but particularly the ‘ambers’, management said. The fact that at this crucial time we were to concentrate our efforts on those who struggled in effect the least is a pertinent example of how this market driven education landscape has turned common sense on its head. The greater need of ‘reds’ is sacrificed to enhance the performance of the ‘amber’ and ‘greens’.  Things have changed a little with the new ‘value-added’ league tables, but the practice still continues.

While the example above paints a grim picture, the truth is that the schools feel they have no choice but to behave this way. Though many schools achieve good results through good teaching there is room to manipulate the superficiality in the system. Currently, funding is associated with outcomes, thus a school with a low achieving population is likely to have less funding per pupil than a high achieving one. However, even if this funding issue were completely removed the problem would persist. Parents choose schools often based on more subtle criteria than simply funding. The results from the PISA surveys which test attainment in 15-16 year olds across OECD countries also show that funding has only a minor effect on academic attainment. Following the socioeconomic background of the family, the factor with the highest effect on attainment seems to be the socioeconomic background of the other pupils in the school. Schools know this and though state comprehensives are prohibited from having academic entrance requirements, they can choose to market themselves in such a way as to be more attractive to certain populations.

The school has become the provider of a commodity which reorients the role of parents as consumers. It is presumed by the champions of choice that all parents are equal in this equation, but this is not true. There is no doubt that parents of every background care about their child’s education (there is research supporting this too!), but it is true that that middle class parents have larger amounts of so-called ‘cultural’ and indeed real capital to draw on when making decisions about the ‘next stages’ of education for their children. The inequality is reproduced mainly at the transition points in education e.g. nursery to primary or primary to secondary, or at the points in system where choices are to be made. This is an important argument in favour of fully comprehensive systems with no streaming as found in the famed education systems of Sweden, Denmark and Finland. We should be cautious about cross-country policy borrowing, but the logic behind the success of the comprehensive system in maintaining equality does seem to be compelling.

Not only do middle class parents have the knowledge of how to best play the system but if needs be, they often have the means to physically move house to get what they want. In fact it has been known for families to think years in advance so they can move to the ‘right’ area to be near the ‘right’ school. So the best schools attract the best students and market continually reinforces the class divide. This in turn has a consequence on the make up of communities. If the ‘best’ schools actively attract the higher echelons, this results in middle class areas being built around ‘good schools’ leaving large numbers of the less well off to make do with what is more readily available to them. We won’t ever be able to stop people from moving, but removing the culture of treating education as a commodity may go some way to helping the problem of community division.

There is little evidence to suggest that choice can cure social inequality, as was the hope when it was initially introduced. The best evidence for this seems to come from Scandinavia. While the intergenerational transmission of social inequality has increased in countries like the UK, US, Germany and Italy since the 1960s, it has decreased in Sweden. The explanation seems to hinge more on social policy, such as the introduction of universal childcare, more than anything else. Social policy improved equality, but the comprehensive education system seemed to reinforce the ‘good start’ given to children by not allowing the social inequalities to perpetuate. Thus choice in education certainly causes educational inequality which in turn seems to reproduce and possibly amplify social inequalities. What is interesting is that Sweden has recently introduced some choice into the system and the PISA results are now showing that educational inequality is rising. Whether this will eventually lead to an amplification of social inequality is speculative, but what is does do is debunk the argument that if society is more equal, choice ‘will not matter’. There will always be inequalities in society (at least without extreme measures such as communism), and the effect of choice seems to always be harmful to some sort of equality; proven in the educational case and probable in the societal one.

So what does that mean for Britain with its streaming, choice heavy education system? The major point to note is that simply getting rid of choice altogether will not solve anything, but equally important is that fact that if we get everything else right, it seems that all choice does is reinforce and amplify social inequality. If our aim is to encourage society to be more equal, I cannot see the argument for insisting on keeping policy which actively undermines what we are trying to do. We can’t blame the middle classes either. While many middle class liberal parents feel strongly that society should be more equal, the way they act does not always reflect their ideology. They commonly invoke the happiness of their children as the reason  why they make such decisions, but by allowing the sort of choice which is realistically only employed by the middle class, it does subtly imply that only a middle class child’s ‘happiness’ is more important to society than a poorer one’s. While I recognise this is a bitter pill to swallow, I believe that political parties have yet to fully recognise their own bias in this matter. It is true that most political activists and policy makers are some of the most likely to understand and play the system in our own homes and this is an emotional issue. To what extent are we driven by our own middle classness in this debate?

Lack of choice does not have to mean lack of diversity. Rolling back the neo-liberal measures by abolishing league tables, decentralising of curriculum and rethinking funding to better reflect need rather than performance, will allow schools to best serve the rich tapestry of backgrounds present in the Britain’s local communities. Choice is a chimera, a fantastical political concept that serves no purpose other than to trick the middle classes into thinking they are empowered in the decisions that affect children’s future, often at the expense of others. Let us empower them in other ways and divert the immense energy middle class parents have to give from getting their children out of failing schools back into the school itself. We fool ourselves into thinking that choice does no harm. The stark truth perhaps is that the policy sediment on this matter is so deep and hardened that it will take a brave political party to take on the task of digging it up again.

Layla Moran is an activist in Acton, London.

Posted in blog archive
8 comments on “School Choice
  1. Falco says:

    “the effect of choice seems to always be harmful to some sort of equality”

    Rather revealing that you view equality as the most important outcome. I and many others support choice because we believe that it offers the best hope of providing a good education. To raise standards of education is the most important goal and focusing on equality is often couterproductive to that aim.

    Rolling back centralisation and providing diversity in education is impossible without providing a mechanism that will allocate pupils to the school that suits them best. Choice is the only way to accomplish that.

  2. Cobden says:

    This isn’t liberalism, this is communism – a truly awful justification for the state knows best. While you are at why don’t you tell me what I should eat, what I should wear, what I should listen to and who I should date. It may help you deliver a more equal society.

    As a parent, I think I am best qualified to judge what’s best for my children. Sadly I don’t get the choice under the current system because there is no mechanism in the state system for popular schools to expand and crap schools to contract.

  3. Jock says:

    I don’t really understand the use of the pejorative “neo-liberal” here. If we mean “Thatcherite” then we should say so, for they are not the same. She may have played on it and been influenced by genuinely “neo-liberal” thinkers, but it does not mean that everything she did corresponded with a “neo-liberal” agenda.

    In fact, in the so called “Washington Consensus” that probably most closely defines the ideas of neo-liberalism, education is a key area where the state retains a primary concern. Whilst wishing to do away with “subsidy” and particularly indiscrmiinate subsidy, supply side inputs that lead to more genuine economic mobility and growth remain part of the state’s concern – including education.

    However, all that aside, this rection seems typical of what seems to be a prevailing Liberal Democrat way of thinking at the moment – “choice” is what “Thatcher did”; therefore “choice” is bad, and we should resile from it.

    It is just nonsense. A cursory look at what you are calling “choice” in education shohws that in fact no such choice was offered. You are correct to say it was a chimera. A chimera of choice. That does not mean choice is bad but that a chimera of choice is bad.

    Taking Oxford city as an example, we have, in secondary schools, five state secondaries (including one faith based and one academy) and six main private secondaries. The state secondaries are double the average pupil numbers of the private secondaries (which include the current best academically school in the country of any type – Magdalen College School). And at an average of over 600 pupils even the private school average in Oxford is quite high.

    We could have ten state secondaries of the average current private school size, twenty of the more typical Folkschule size in Denmark. And none of them more than half an hour’s journey from any address in the city. That gives a much greater scope for choice – I cannot imagine that young minds are more homogeneous than supermarket beans! Private schools offer choice – not all for example are intended to be hothouses of academic excellence – many make their USP adding value to pupils with particular different skills or particular needs – why should state school pupils not be afforded such opportunities to develop particular talents with particular specialists?

    But, and here I probably will upset the “holy of holies” – education is but a side show. An important one peraps, but still a side show. Social and economic mobility is blocked far more by the effects of land rent and interest. It is these key economic systemic problems that need to be addressed *BEFORE* education can hope to make its greatest potential difference. Placing all ones hopes for increasing social mobility on education alone is merely addressing a symptom of this inequitable system, not the inequity itself. And as such it is always going to be far more expensive that dealing with the problems at source.

    If the issues were dealt with at source, actually you could afford to return so much money to everyone that they would be able to afford to participate in a real private market in education, offering choice, added value, different outcomes and so on.

  4. tim leunig says:

    My wife and I know our daughter better than anyone else. We are best placed to make decisions as to what sort of school would suit her best. That is why I think that we should be able to choose. My daughter is not the property of the state.

    Clearly choice is not perfect, and that is why I support measures to enhance choice (such as allowing other people to found schools)

    And clearly intergenerational poverty is appalling in Britain, which is why I am proud that our party is committed to a pupil premium, and has said how it will pay for it.

  5. David Heigham says:

    Parental choice helps to get individual kids into the school which suits them. It therefore improves educational outcomes. Pupil premiums will help.

    But, pace Jock, there is no reason to think that a real free market in education could produce the sort of ‘market solution’ we long for. The key reasons are that good teachers are not primarily interested in getting rich; and extra economic resources at the margin produce very little improvement in education.

    The tragedy of all the parents moving ‘to be near a good school’ (and all the other manoeuvres to secure a similar result) is that it probably harms the education of a good many of their kids as well as of those children left in the other schools. If an ordinary child finishes at the bottom of a ‘good’ school, that child is likely to have lower educational achievement than a similar child who finishes towards the top of a less good school. Behind that is the profound effect classmates have on the educational achievements of pupils. Being in a class where a quarter to a half (very roughly) of the pupils’ parents have some higher education will raise the attainment of the others; and also ensure that the kids with educated parents do better than they would as a small minority. But in a school with all highly educated parents, some of their children are likely to do worse than they would in the more mixed group. The children begin to think of themselves as relative failures, and so do worse. Choice, pupil premiums and mixed eductional backgrounds in our schools are the way to go.

    And that is the best way to go for the aspiring middle class parent: – work towards little Joan and little Johnny having a choice of schools, all of them with some ‘parents like us’ and none with all ‘parents like us’. Once the graduate parents see that this is in the interests of their kids, they will start making it happen.

  6. Simon says:

    At the moment, schooling is destiny by housing. If not school choice to bust open the housing market determinent, then what else? You should advocate something. A lottery?

  7. Ziggy Encaoua says:

    I’m surprised liberals have so often come out against the voucher system for education & healthcare as it would ensure choice & better quality services.

  8. David Weber says:


    You state “the effect of choice seems to always be harmful to some sort of equality; proven in the educational case…” with apparent conviction. What then do you cite to back up such a strong assertion? You mention the comprehensive system in Sweden as evidence of one which delivers great educational equality (but not, I’ll note, “social mobility”); and you cite PISA as having recorded a small rise in educational inequality (but again, I note, no mention of social mobility there, either); but you offer nothing that seems to deliver this conclusive proof that you speak of.

    Education is an incredibly complicated subject. Analysis of different systems is fraught with difficulty, because so many variables are at play. It seems premature in the extreme to state so calmly, as you do, that the case of Sweden “debunk the argument that if society is more equal, choice ‘will not matter’”, particularly when educational equality is only one aspect of the overall education debate.

    I find the first half of your article offers great insight into the education system, and the structural analysis of reforms from the last 30 years is well-drawn. Where I think you begin to go wrong is in linking choice (or “marketisation”) in education, with centralisation, as two sides of the “neo-liberal” coin.

    In reality, centralisation is anathema to choice in education. Rigid government-imposed targets and management, as you have shown so well, leads to a set of perverse incentives for schools, which renders the idea of choice redundant.

    Choice in education in Britain is laughable, anyway. It runs counter to the aims of a centralised system, so the government gives us patsies such as SATS and league tables in the hope that we will believe it represents choice. Choice is freedom of action, rather than an entirely arbitrary way of assessing schools, as parents who are fortunate enough to have the resources to escape a State school which is failing their child, and go private, will know all too well. It is hardly surprising that what choice there is has perverse effects in our system, as the real way the government tries to identify failing schools is by micromanaging, which is like trying to keep water in your hands.

    So it is centralisation that causes all of the ills you rail against, rather than choice. A truly free to choose educational system would act against the problem of middle class control, that you rightly rail against. A truly free to choose system would be one which granted more power for children to break out of intergenerational poverty — if it was well managed, with extra government support for things such as travel.

    And in a truly decentralised system, with schools granted more independence and freedom to cater for their pupils, would *have* to be matched with greater freedom of choice, because there would be no other way of holding it truly accountable. Centralised management doesn’t work, and is anathema to the idea of school decentralisation. Choice is a natural way to identify failing schools and to help schools adapt to the needs of their pupils. Anything the State needs to add should be determined after giving pupils and parents this not merely practical, but also moral, right.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Follow us on Twitter

Blog archive