The moral and political implications of new forms of organisation and resource allocation in education are explored. Markets, even when heavily regulated and administered, induce effects contrary to the values of individual and social freedom upon which public education is understood to be founded. Their 'efficiency' as allocative and distributive mechanisms is questioned and examined specifically in relation to the formative and constitutive role of community life in conferring identity and autonomy upon individuals. Competition, it is claimed, leads to stratification (...) of opportunities and outcomes. Putative efficiency gains may be outweighed by equity losses. (shrink)

This paper challenges the assumptions underpinning James Tooley's earlier critique in this edition of the Journal of the author's negative assessment of market-led forms of educational provision. In particular, the paper highlights Tooley's failure to acknowledge that the pursuit of self-interest within the market place can be self-defeating. The paper concludes by arguing that deliberative public action is a necessary condition for addressing the major predicaments of our time, including those facing education.

Successive UK governments have adopted failure as a strategy in the reform of public education in England: first, to construct crises in order to blame professionals/parents/children for a failing system; and second, to provide rescue solutions that are designed to fail in order to sustain the change imperative. We describe this as policy mortality, or the integration of systemic and organisational ‘death’ within reform design. Our research demonstrates the interplay between the blame for the ‘wrong’ type of school, leader, teacher, (...) pupil, parent, and the claimed ‘solutions’ in the form of new schools (e.g., between 70 and 90 different types in England), organisations (e.g., MATs), professionals (e.g., CEOs), pupils (e.g., branded access to a school place), and parents (e.g., consumer choice). Our research contribution is conceptual through the development of new thinking about policy mortality, whereby the claim is for ‘success’ but the reality is that some professionals, schools, children and parents are required to fail. (shrink)

This paper challenges the assumptions underpinning James Tooley's earlier critique in this edition of the Journal of the author's negative assessment of market-led forms of educational provision. In particular, the paper highlights Tooley's failure to acknowledge that the pursuit of self-interest within the market place can be self-defeating. The paper concludes by arguing that deliberative public action is a necessary condition for addressing the major predicaments of our time, including those facing education.

This paper, which offers a positive assessment of the role of markets in education, is a 'reply' to an earlier contribution to the Journal in which Stewart Ranson argues that markets are intrinsically flawed as a vehicle for improving educational opportunities. The 'reply', among other things, argues that Ranson fails to address the shortcomings of education under democratic control and ignores the educational benefits of authentic markets.

Based on over twenty years of empirical and intellectual work about knowledge production in the field of educational administration, I examine the origins and development of the canon, methodologies and knowledge workers in England. I focus on the field as being primarily concerned with professional activity and how and why this was established from the 1960s, and the way knowledge workers have variously positioned themselves over time and in context. Using a case study of knowledge production at the time of (...) the New Labour governments (1997—2010) I show how the emphasis on activity has left the field vulnerable to colonisation by markets and private interests, but how policy studies continues not only to reveal this but also to provide a model for how engagement with the social sciences can be productive. (shrink)

Abstract:The moral and political implications of new forms of organisation and resource allocation in education are explored. Markets, even when heavily regulated and administered, induce effects contrary to the values of individual and social freedom upon which public education is understood to be founded. Their ‘efficiency’ as allocative and distributive mechanisms is questioned and examined specifically in relation to the formative and constitutive role of community life in conferring identity and autonomy upon individuals. Competition, it is claimed, leads to stratification (...) of opportunities and outcomes. Putative efficiency gains may be outweighed by equity losses. (shrink)