BERA

The Contradictions of Education Policy: Disadvantage and Achievement

Author(s): Alma Harris and Stewart Ranson
Reviewed work(s):
Source: British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 31, No. 5, Education Policy and Social
Justice (Oct., 2005), pp. 571-587
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of BERA
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30032647 .
Accessed: 12/07/2012 11:56
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. and BERA are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
British Educational Research Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

British Educational Research Journal

Vol. 31, No. 5, October 2005, pp. 571-587

Routledge
taylor
&
Francis
Group
ROUTLEDGE

The contradictions of education policy:

disadvantage and achievement
Alma Harris* and Stewart Ranson
Institute of Education, University of Warwick, UK

In England,New Labour'sFive YearStrategyfor Childrenand Learnersis presentedas the most

radicalfor a generation,addressingsystemicweaknessesand enablinga new social democratic
settlementto secure educationin the public sphere. In this articlethe authorstest these claims
againstproposalsin the Strategythat acknowledgeand seek to addressthe failureof the polity to
'break the link between class and achievement'.The article highlights a number of inherent
contradictionsin the Strategyand arguesthat the centralproposalsof choice and diversityare
unlikelyto reducethe gap betweendisadvantageand achievement.The articleconcludesthat until
the principlesof justiceand democracyare restoredto a constitutivesettlementof educationas a
public service then the bond of class and inequalitywill simply be reproducedrather than
challengedby educationpolicy.

Introduction
The bond between social class and educational achievement is a particularly
powerful and resistantone. In England, successive governmentshave sought to sever
the link through policy making aimed at structuralintervention to generate a more
equitable educational system. Circular 10/65 (DES, 1965), which heralded the
introduction of comprehensive education in the 1960s, aimed to provide 'equality of
opportunity' within a new school system designed to ameliorate class disadvantage.
It formed a key moment in the constituting of the social democratic settlement that
pursued social justice based on redistribution.An age of 'professionalknowledge', it
was suggested, would deliverthe good society for its clients. The Conservatives1988
Education Reform legislation pursued a differentnotion of the good society. A polity
of individual rights, it was argued, would better achieve equity and social mobility,
while competition and customer choice would deliver better public services.
Since 1997, New Labour has developed a 'third way' between these perspectives.
This approach has generally rendered taboo two presuppositions that were taken for
*Correspondingauthor.Director,Instituteof Education,Universityof Warwick,Coventry,CV4
7AL,UK. Email:alma.harris@warwick.ac.uk
ISSN 0141-1926 (print)/ISSN 1469-3518 (online)/05/050571-17

O 2005 BritishEducationalResearchAssociation
DOI: 10.2307/30000004

572 A. Harrisand S. Ranson

granted in the social democratic settlement. The first is that poverty and class are
inextricablyassociated with educational failure and that life chances continue to be
dominated by class structures(Halsey, 1972; 1974; Mortimore & Blackstone, 1982;
Ball, 2003). Taking up the perspective of the National Commission on Education
(NCE, 1996), New Labour promoted the belief that good schools can defy
expectations and 'succeed against the odds'. The NCE report argued that
'taking account of these factors [of disadvantage] shows that there is plenty of
scope for the school to make a difference. Schools with similar intakes do not
promote the progress of their pupils at the same rate' (NCE, 1996). Almost a decade
earlier the school effectiveness movement had made the same point, that the
relative effectiveness of the school is a significantvariablein subsequent educational
attainment (Reynolds, 1986). The second presupposition of an earlier generation
was that structural reform of the school system was necessary to address the
failures caused by poverty and to secure some equality of educational opportunity.
Yet in its White Paper, Excellencein Schools the Department for Education and
Employment (DfEE, 1997), carried into legislation a year later, New Labour
argued that processes of improving standards mattered more than structures. It
noted that 'The preoccupation with school structure has absorbed a great deal of
energy to little effect. We know what it takes to create a good school' (DfEE, 1997,
p. 6).
With the launch of the Five Year Strategyfor Children and Learners (Department
for Education and Skills [DfES], 2004)-which was presented to Parliamentby the
Secretary of State on 8 July and submitted as a bill to Parliament in November
the same year-it would appear that New Labour has retreated on both of its
initial precepts of education policy. While celebrating New Labour's achievements
since taking office in 1997 such that 'opportunityhas been opened up at every stage
of life', the Strategy acknowledges the need for change, in the context of
transformationsin society and economy and the realisation that 'we have not yet
broken the link between social class and achievement. No society can affordto waste
the talent of its children and citizens'. The Strategy, furthermore, proposes a
fundamental restructuring of schools which presents a significant threat to the
future of comprehensive education. Concerned about the fracturing of public
education, in particularof disadvantagedyoungsters disengaging from services and
the fragile commitment to state education of the middle classes, New Labour is
currently attempting to establish a new social democratic settlement for the public
sphere.
This article offers a commentary on the currentpolicy debate about disadvantage
and achievement and discusses the capacity of New Labour's Five Year Strategy
for Children and Learnersto addressthe historic alignment of class and achievement
so clearly identified. We suggest that not only will 'choice' continue to reproduce
the inequities of the neo-liberal marketplace and strengthen the traditional
hierarchies and boundaries of class, race and gender (Ball, 2003), but also that
'diversity' signals a return to clearly segmented education provision with selection as
the central allocation mechanism. In short, we argue that while the policies of choice

The contradictionsof education policy 573

and diversityappear to champion and reinforce equal opportunities, in practice they

are simultaneously and actively reducing the scope for forms of collective action
most likely to address the structural predicament of class and educational
opportunity.
Success against the odds?
Reviewing policies aimed at tackling underachievement in some of the country's
poorest schools, it is apparentthat the school effectiveness and school improvement
research fields have guided much of the policy formation in the past decade. The
predominant message from both fields is that that all schools have the potential
to improve and that there are certain internal conditions that are conducive to
raising performance (Hopkins, 2001; Harris, 2002). Both fields have also increasingly recognised that socio-economic factors are a powerful influence upon a
school's ability to improve (Reynolds et al., 2004). But the government has been
equally keen to promote a view that all schools can improve performanceirrespective
of the communities they serve and that 'success against the odds' is possible for
more than a handful of schools in disadvantagedcommunities (NCE, 1996). While
recent school improvement research has challenged this position by arguing for
context-specific improvement strategies (Hopkins, 2001; Harris& Chapman, 2004),
the dominant school improvement discourse, the officially endorsed one, continues
to place an emphasis on 'performativity'. This form of school improvement is
founded upon the twin pillars of accountability (inspection, test scores, league
tables) and standards (target setting, monitoring, raising achievement plans). It
assumes that the 'problem' of improvement is one that is essentially internal to
the school and one which the school itself can solve. Even though this approachto
school improvement has dominated the educational landscape for well over a
decade, it has been argued that expected increases in school performance have
not necessarilyfollowed (Thrupp, 2005). It has also been argued that this approach
to improvement has adversely impacted upon many schools in disadvantaged
communities, where progress is most sought. This is because of the pressures and
demands that 'official school improvement' places upon these schools coupled
with the distraction of constant scrutiny and critical feedback (Whitty, 2002; Ball,
2003).
New Labour has, however, invested substantially in forms of intervention
designed to assist schools in 'challenging circumstances'. Programmes such as
'Excellence in Cities' (EiCs), the 'Schools Facing Challenging Circumstances'
(SFCC) initiative, 'Educational Action Zones' (EAZs) and, most recently, the
'London Challenge' have all provided additional resources, external support and
specific programmes of intervention for schools in the most difficult contexts.
However, external programme evaluations show that some initiatives aimed at
helping schools in disadvantaged contexts have had variable and patchy success
(Reid & Brain, 2003, West et al., 2003). Part of the reason for this variability
inevitably resides in the complexity and difficulty of the terrain but it can also be
attributed to the adherence to a 'top-down' model of improvement with its

574

A. Harris and S. Ranson

standardised, common packages of intervention. Recent government policies and

initiatives, aimed at tackling the 'underachievement and disadvantage' equation,
have still not been sufficiently differentiatedto match the diversity of school need
and have tended to ignore the structural inequalities that persist and prevail. In
short, the contextual constraintsand factors that impinge so heavily upon schools are
not being adequately addressedin the currentpolicy and practices aimed at assisting
schools in challenging circumstances (Harris et al., 2005; Lupton, this issue).
Consequently, the structuralrelationshipbetween poverty and underachievementis
often being reinforced rather than dismantled.
In addition, it is assumed that schools in disadvantagedareas simply need to aspire
to perform like other schools in order to achieve success. Evidence suggests that the
'marketisation' of education has resulted in schools in disadvantaged contexts
becoming less able to raise their performance (Ball, 2003). In short, a combination
of market individualism and control through constant and comparative assessment
(i.e. league tables) has demoted certain schools to the lower echelons of
performance, indefinitely. The reason for this partly resides in the neo-liberal world
of competition and marketisation where affluent parents have the informal
knowledge and skill to be able to use marketisedforms to their own benefit through
sets of informal cultural rules. As Apple (2001, p. 73) explains:
in marketisedplans, more affluentparentsoften have more flexiblehours and can visit
multiple schools. They have cars-often more than one-and can afforddrivingtheir
childrenacrosstown to attend a 'betterschool'. They can as well providethe hidden
culturalresourcessuch as camps and after school programs(dance, music, computer
classes etc.) that give theirchildrenan 'ease', a 'style'that seems 'natural'and acts as a
set of culturalresources.

Conversely, parents and families in poor and disadvantaged communities are less
able to 'work the system', leaving more and more students in high poverty areas
grouped together in the same school, thus creating the kind of intake mix that has
been shown to significantly influence a school's ability to improve its performance
(Thrupp, 1999).
Although some schools in difficult circumstances have been successful in raising
attainment (Reynolds et al., 2004), a significant number are not making the
progress expected of them. Many of the major external intervention programmes
and current policies have been unable to reverse the educational fortunes of
schools serving disadvantaged communities. There is also evidence which suggests
that parental choice, as exercised by middle-class parents, has exacerbated the
plight of these schools, leading to the homogenisation of the social composition of
pupils. Recent evidence shows that while some schools in disadvantaged contexts
are able to 'raise their game', others simply cannot because of the impact of
parental choice combined with the powerful socio-economic forces that persist and
prevail (Harris et al., 2005).This scale of continuing underachievement in areas of
disadvantage was charted recently by the Chief Inspector (Bell, 2003) in a speech
to mark the tenth anniversary of the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted)
report Access and achievement in urban education (1993). The gap is such that 32%

The contradictionsof education policy 575

of children whose parents have 'routine occupations' are likely to leave school with
five good General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) passes compared
with 81% of children from more advantaged homes. The Chief Inspector was
forced to conclude, much as the report a decade ago did, that 'the rising tide of
educational change was not lifting the boats in disadvantaged areas' (Bell, 2003).
This message was repeated in his Annual Report, which noted that while
'improvement in schools with the highest levels of social disadvantage has been
greater than that of any group of schools', nevertheless 'the gap between the
average achievement in the highest performing schools and the lowest continues to
widen' (Ofsted, 2003, para. 79).
Thus, although some progress has been achieved, the size of the gap in
performance and the comparatively slow rates of improvement present a less than
comforting picture (Gray, 2004). It seems that levels of disadvantage still account, in
part, for poor attainment and this relationship is stubbornly resistant to policy
intervention. This conclusion is reinforced by a substantial international corpus of
research into the nexus between poverty and education which demonstrates that,
while the attainment levels of poor children have increased over time, the gap
between the majority of children from low-income families and their more affluent
peers persists throughout schooling (Teese, 2000; Power et al., 2003). It is clear that
many schools in disadvantaged areas perform below the national norm and that
these patterns of performance are well established and continue. In summary, the
more socially disadvantaged the community served by the school, the more likely it is
that the school will underperform (Rainwater & Smeeding, 2003).
Research also shows the cumulative effect of attending less effective schools. As
Gray (2004, p. 306) points out, part of being disadvantaged seems to be about
having the misfortune to end up attending 'poorer' institutions more than chance
would predict. It remains the case that certain groups of pupils consistently fail to
reach their potential while other groups of pupils consistently succeed and that
children from low-income families do not on average overcome the hurdle of lower
initial attainment (Power et al., 2003). So the odds, it seems, are 'still stacked against
schools in poorer areas' in so far that social class differential remains a powerful
indicator of subsequent educational achievement (Gray, 2004, p. 1). As the Chief
Inspector concluded in his Anniversary Lecture, quoting from the 1993 Access and
achievement report:
Most schools in disadvantagedareas do not have within themselvesthe capacityto
sustainrenewal... Beyondthe school gate are underlyingsocial issues such as poverty,
unemployment,poor housing, inadequatehealth care and the frequentbreak up of
families.Educationby itself can only do so much to enableindividualsto reachbeyond
the limitingcontoursof their personaland social circumstancesand succeed ... [the]
messageremainsa strongone. It makesa call for collectiveand concertedactionacross
and beyond the educationservicein a local area.
While the Strategy celebrates New Labour's achievements since taking office in
1997 such that 'opportunity has been opened up at every stage of life' (p. 6), it also
acknowledges the need for change, in the context of transformations in society and

576

A. Harris and S. Ranson

economy and the realisation that 'we have not yet broken the link between social
class and achievement. No society can afford to waste the talent of its children and
citizens' (p. 6). The introduction to the Strategyrecognises the continued failure to
combat the powerful effects of disadvantageon educational attainment. It notes:
We fail our most disadvantagedchildren and young people-those in public care,
those with complex familylives are those most at risk ... Internationallyour rate of
child povertyis still high, as are the rates of worklessnessin one-parentfamilies, the
rate of teenage pregnanciesand the level of poor diet among children. The links
between poor health, disadvantage and low educational outcomes are stark.
(Introduction,para. 24)

Yet despite the recognition of the prevailing powerful relationship between class
structure and educational failure, it is our contention that the Government's Five
Year Strategy is unlikely to close this gap chiefly because of some of the inherent
policy contradictions it contains. We will outline and discuss these contradictions in
turn but initially provide an overview and analysis of the Strategy.

New Labour's Five Year Strategy: choice, customisation and corporatisation

The Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners (DfES, 2004) promoted itself as
the most radical education reform agenda for a generation. It interpretsthe present
needs of education in terms of its analysisof the inheritedpost-World War II welfare
settlement that created mass public services now in need of reform:
a monolithicmodel ... providinga basic and standardproductfor all', administrative
differentiationbetween public servicessuch as health and education,and a mistaken
belief that ability was confined to a particulargroup. While the comprehensive
movementchallengedsuch elitism'the debatewas still abouttypesof schoolratherthan
standards.(DfES, 2004, p. 10)

The introduction to the Strategy discusses how reforms following Prime Minister
Callaghan's Ruskin College speech in 1976 and a new regime of governance in 1979

sanctioned the state interveningin the curriculum(the National Curriculum) and in

evaluation of teaching practice. Nevertheless, the Strategyargues, these reformsonly
began the process of change, leaving the focus on 'a sort of basic minimum standard'
that every school ought to provide (p. 3).
Underlying this analysisabout the limitations of a mass education system resides a
deeper argument about the contemporaryjuncture of the public sphere, elaborated
by the Schools Standards Minister at a DfES/Demos/OECD conference in May
2004 (Miliband, 2004; see also Miliband, 2003). He proposed that 'it is the most
important time for public services since the creation of the welfare state after 1945.
Now as then the power of collective action is being tested: to liberate individual
potential, or be damned for costing too much and delivering too little' (Miliband,
2004). 'At stake is the prize of a public realm that promotes opportunity and
security' (Miliband, 2004) and the proposed way forward is to learn from the private
sector, which is seen to have grasped the need to progress from mass production to

The contradictionsof education policy 577

co-production (Boynton & Victor, 1998). This strategy of co-production, of

customising public services, is seen to provide a way through the polarised debate
about whether central planning or marketsolutions can best improve public services.
The Strategyembodies this agenda of customisation, arguingthat if the education
service is to respond to the concerns it identifies of 'disadvantagein the early years',
'too few excellent schools', and 'too many disenchanted pupils getting into trouble
and dropping out in the 14-19 years' (Summary, p. 1), then it must take up the
challenge of addressing the structural flaws in the system. These underlying
problems remain 'the failure of learning to address specific needs', the 'compartmentalising of services and fragmentationof funding' together with 'centralisationof
governance squeezing innovation and entrepreneurship' (Summary, p. 1). The
Strategy aims to create:
a new sortof system.... The centralcharacteristic[of which]will be personalisation-so
thatthe systemfits to the individualratherthanthe individualhavingto fit to the system
.... And the corollaryof this is that the systemmust be both freerand more diversewith more flexibilityto help meet individualneeds; and more choices betweencourses
and types of provider,so that there reallyare differentand personalisedopportunities
available.(DfES, 2004, p. 10)

The Strategy develops a dual approach to customising an outmoded education

system to fit the needs of the individual. One dimension is to introduce choice for
pupils and to personalise learning to meet their needs. This is gauged to respond in
particularto the needs of disenchanted and underachievingyoung people, especially
amongst the disadvantaged. The second dimension is to customise provision for
parents by furtherdeveloping choice in the structureof schooling. This is gauged to
respond to the fragile confidence of middle-class parents in the quality of secondary
school. In July 2004 the Secretaryof State for Education expressed concern about
the drift of middle-class parents from the state sector, which has risen to 20% in
some urban areas and higher in London. 'There is a significant chunk of them who
go private because they feel despairing about the quality of education. They are the
people we are after' (Clarke, 2004). This duality in the Strategy, held in tension by
the theme of choice, encompasses, we propose, two very different programmes of
reform-the customising of learning and the corporatisingof schooling-coded with
different informing principles in response to different class interests.
Customising learning

One central dimension of the government's strategyof customisation is a vision that

puts the wishes and needs of children and learners at the centre. The Schools
Standards Minister, setting out his vision of 'choice and voice in personalised
learning'in his 2004 lecture, argued that in every phase of learningthere should be a
strongervoice for children in the development of policy and the design of services to
meet their needs. This belief, elaborated in the Strategy, is that if schools can do
more to tailor or personalise what is taught they are more likely to motivate and get
the most from each pupil, especially 'groups of children who have traditionally
underperformed'. The 'third way' of personalised learning, it is claimed, more than

578

A. Harris and S. Ranson

state plans or market forces, will 'raise standardsby focusing teaching and learning
on the aptitudes and interests of pupils, tailoring learning to ensure that every pupil
achieves the highest standardpossible' (Miliband, 2004, p. 4).
So we need to do morethan engageand empowerpupilsand parentsin the selectionof
a school:theirengagementhas to be effectivein the day-to-dayprocessesof education,
at the heart of the way schools create partnershipswith professionalteachers and
support staff to deliver tailor made services. In other words we need to embrace
individualempowermentwithin as well as between schools. This leads straightto the
promise of personalisedlearning. It means building the organisationof schooling
aroundthe needs, interestsand aptitudesof individualpupils:it meansshapingteaching
around the way differentyoungsterslearn ... I believe it is the debate in education
today. (Miliband,2004 p. 3)

This practice of personalised learning, the Strategyproposes, will require schools to

base their teaching on 'real knowledge of individual pupils', thus helping them to
achieve (DfES, 2004, para. 5.9). This will depend on diagnostic assessment of each
pupil's learning needs, and teaching and learning strategies that build on these
identified needs, recognising 'that the multiple intelligences of pupils require a
repertoireof teaching strategies' (Miliband, 2004, p. 4). This will encourage learning
'at a time and place and in a form which suits the needs of young people, with no
artificialdistinctions made, for example, between good learning and children's wellbeing' (DfES, 2004, p. 34). A broad and rich curriculum will be developed with
more choice and a wider set of out-of-hours opportunities-including sports, clubs
and residential activities through schools (DfES, 2004, para. 5.9). Personalised
learning, it is further argued, will 'demand a radical approach to school
organisation':
It means the starting point for class organisation is always student progress, with

opportunitiesfor in-depth, intensive teaching and learning, combined with flexible

deployment of support staff. Workforce reform is absolutely key. The real
professionalismof teacherscan best be developedwhen they have a range of adults
workingat their directionto meet diversestudentneeds. (Miliband,2004, p. 5)

For the government, an importantfurthercondition of personalisedlearning 'means

the community, localised institutions and social services supporting schools to drive

forwardprogress in the classroom' (Milliband, 2004, p. 6). The Strategy reinforces

the expectation that schools should 'work more closely with parents in support of
children's learning' (DfES, 2004, para. 5.8) Schools must also 'see themselves at
the heart of communities, working well with parents and forging good partnerships
to support vulnerable pupils' (DfES, 2004, para. 5.9) The Strategy emphasises
the importance of primary schools forming networks of support, while for the
early years inter service coordination to ensure learning, care and protection are
encouraged.
Corporatisingschooling
The second 'programme' within the Strategy purports to customise provision of
(particularly secondary) schooling for parents, especially, as the Secretary of State

The contradictionsof education policy 579

revealed, middle-class parents. The design in the Strategy to reassure the middle
classes or to lure them back into the state sector focuses on a series of 'guarantees'of
quality. The first promises a massive programmeof sustained and rising investment
in the secondary sector to secure quality of resources, buildings and facilities. This
will include: 'guaranteedthree year budgets', more 'new schools', 'every school to be
refurbishedor rebuilt to a modern standard over the next decade' and 'a sevenfold
increase in schools capital budget since 1997 to modernise buildings, facilities and
information technology' (DfES, 2004, Summary, p. 5). The second guarantee of
quality is to promise access to 'successful and popular schools'. Existing successful
schools will be allowed to expand their market share of places as the constraint
of 'surplus places in other schools' is abandoned. New dedicated capital funding
will enable such expansion and, in addition, successful schools will be able 'to
establish and manage entirely new schools and federations' (Summary, p. 3).
Additional academy schools-200 of them-will also be built, some to replace
underperformingschools. A third guarantee seeks to reassure the middle classes by
promising the style of tradition in the independent sector: school uniform, the
strengthening of discipline and an encouragement to return to the school house
system-a feature of private schools that was adopted in some comprehensive
schools a generation ago.
Quality is inextricably associated in the Strategy with choice and independence:
'the central purpose is to raise the quality of education ... and to widen the range of
real choices' (para. 4.1). Every school is to become 'a specialist independent school'
with a mission to build a centre of curriculumexcellence that provides families with
a choice in secondary education based on their children's aptitude and interests
(para. 4.14). We propose that this could herald the demise of comprehensive
schooling, purportedly the outmoded unit of mass production condemned for its
uniformity in an age requiring flexible specialisation. Selection by aptitude for the
specialist curriculum is implied, which at present stands at 10% for schools with
Specialist School status. The presentation of the Strategyencodes signs designed to
appeal to middle-class parents, not only of tradition in style, but by proposing
schools much like those to be found in the independent, private sector, ostensibly
guaranteeingfreedom from interference as well.
The state, in establishing a parallel independent sector for the middle classes, is
also signalling a significant restructuring of the leadership and governance of
education. The Strategypromises to offer freedom and autonomy for school leaders,
the 'front line heads', governors and managers, affording them simple accountabilities and more secure streamlined funding arrangementsto cut the bureaucracy
and burdens on leaders. 'The people on whom the system depends, those at the
front line, must be given the freedom to shape and reshape the offer to meet different
and changing needs' (DfES, 2004, Secretaryof State, Foreword). Schools will also
be freed from the existing regime of inspection. In 'a new relationship with schools',
Ofsted inspections will be 'halved', becoming 'light touch', while the local education
authority (LEA) link adviser will be replaced by a single annual review carried out by
'a school improvement partner' (DfES, 2004, Summary, p. 5).

580 A. Harrisand S. Ranson

It is clear that the promise of such autonomy for school leaders presupposes a
major restructuringof education governance that indicates the demise of the LEA.
The LEA has been undergoing fundamental change in its role for over a decade.
LEAs which had been the linchpin of the 1944 Education Act, planning and
providing local education, began to transmute, following the 1988 education reform
legislation and the local management of schools, from a 'civic provider' into an
'enabling authority' (Levacic, 1995; Ranson, 1997; Glatter et al., 1997; Riley 2000).
Now the LEA, though retaininga duty as the 'strategicleader of local education', is
to lose most of its powers and acquire a new role as 'a champion', or 'advocate'
(Ranson, 1992) on behalf of parents and pupils in relation to 'a completely new kind
of local system of governance'.
The role of traditional local government, associated in the Strategy with
'compliance and defensiveness', and with burdensome accountability, needs, the
Strategy proposes, to be reconfigured with 'new energies' and 'smarter accountabilities'. What will be the distinctive characteristics of this new system of
governance? The Strategy proposes that schools and services must be 'opened up
to new and different providers and ways of delivering services' (Summary, p. 2).
Such new providers might include 'parents groups ... able to sponsor schools,
enabling successful schools to establish and manage entirely new schools and
federations' (Summary, p. 4). Schools themselves are encouraged to form foundation partnershipsand federations that will work together to raise standards but also
take on new responsibilities, 'in areas such as provision for SEN, or hard to place
pupils' (Summary, p. 4). Schools may draw into their partnerships 'employers,
volunteers and voluntary organisations to maximise life chances of all' (Summary,
p. 2). The business and privatesectors, in addition to the churches, are perceived not
only as extending their increasing control and provision of state schooling, but also
as playing an emergent role in a new system of local governance, offering 'some local
brokerageto make it work' (Secretaryof State, Foreword) as well as coordination to
ensure joined-up provision:
In order to manage this increasinglydiverse and personalisedsystem we need good
leadershipand professionalstandardsat all levels. We also need collaborationand
partnershipso that diverseprovisionis not incoherentand bitty, and so that people can
get seamless services. This cannot just be a partnershipof state providers-the
voluntaryand communitysector,businessand privateenterprisesneed to be a part of
this partnershipto provide joined up services. (DfES, 2004, Secretary of State,
Foreword)
This reveals an emerging direction of change for the public sphere of education, for it

suggests that control of education is seeping from the public to the corporate sector
and that traditionalforms of local governance are being steadily eroded (cf. Crouch,
2003; Ranson, 2003; Marquand,2004). The growth of a corporatesector reflectstwo
dimensions of change from a public service that traditionally has been described as a
national service locally governed or administered. First, a growing number of schools
are controlled by providers who bring exogenous interests to the public provision of
education: defining the concern for school provision is an 'external' interest in

The contradictions of education policy 581

business, or profit, or a denominational interest. This dual ownership of schools,

traditionally exemplified in the voluntary sector relationship between church and
state, is now being extended to the business and private sectors. A public good now
accommodates sectional interests whose principal end is not only the need of the
citizen as such but the separate interests of the organisation.They are appropriately
termed 'corporate'to capturethis separate,organisationaland financialentity, interest
and accountability. A second dimension of corporatisingof education provision is
revealedin the rebuildingand renovationof schools through the use of privatecapital
(to be discussed further below). Such finance can enable the corporate sponsors to
gain a controlling influence over the practices of a school (Whitfield, 2001;
McFadyean & Rowland, 2002). The corporate sector therefore is defined directly
by the exogenous interests and accountabilitiesthat are brought to the public sphere.
This reinforcingof corporate interests is reinforced indirectly by the demise of the
LEA, and thus the requirement to be accountable to a democraticallyaccountable
local government.The next section considerssome of the policy contradictionswithin
the Strategy that, we suggest, will make the stated aspiration of closing the
disadvantageand achievement gap more difficult to achieve in practise.
Policy contradictions
There are three aspects in which the current education policy articulated in the
Strategy appear to have some inherent internal contradictions. These are (i)
competing concepts of choice, (ii) 'diversity and personalisation' and (iii) the
relationship between independence and corporatisation.
Customisation: choosing learning and choosing schools

The Strategyproffers'greaterpersonalisationand choice' for pupils in their learning

experience and for parents in their choice of school, as if these are the same kind
of choices, and choices based on the same conditions and informed by the same
underlying principles and presuppositions. One choice is for a profile of learning
(an experience) while the other is a selection of a particular type of school
(a social institution). The condition for one is variety and depth of staff and
resources, while the condition for the other is an institutionalsystem that constitutes
diversity and thus the possibility of different types of school. Most significantly,the
current manifestation of the idea of 'choice' presupposes different organising
principles. The rationale for personalising student choices is the complexity of each
individual's learning needs.The rationale for parental choices, on the other hand,
involves the rights of individual families in a consumer society to pursue their
acquisitive interests.
These are very different goods: the internal goods of excellence, in enabling the
unique qualities of each to unfold over time, as against the external goods of
competition in search of positional advantage in the market of educational
opportunity. Internal goods depend on the virtues of character and disposition,

582

A. Harris and S. Ranson

while external goods depend upon wealth, power and status. We argue that these
two agendas are mutually contradictory.Enabling parentalchoices in an educational
market will reinforcethe competitive advantageof middle-class parents, reinforcing,
as the research illustrates (Ball, 2003), an emergent hierarchyand segmentation of
schooling. Such stratificationwill systematicallyreduce the capacity of many schools
to provide the range of opportunities to respond to the complexity of personal
learning and 'personalisation'envisaged in the Strategy.
Diversity and personalisation

The twin flagship policies of 'specialist schools' and 'personalisation' embody the
aspiration for greater diversitywithin the system and within schools. The specialist
schools policy places a strong emphasis upon distinguishing schools by subject
specialism and reinforces 'choice and diversity' as the key drivers of school reform
and improvement. Specialist status is currentlyheld by 2000 of the 3500 secondary
schools in England and will be increased by 450 schools per year over the next few
years. The implication of this expansion not only means a major structural
realignment of the system but signals the emergence of a new school system
premised upon different types of school and different types of educational pathways
through schools. While it is too early to rehearse the exact outcomes of this shift,
certain consequences can be foreseen.
It has been argued that there is already a 'pecking order', with some specialist
subjects being much more sought after than others (Glatter, 2004). In the future, to
balance the range of provision across schools, as more achieve specialist status, will
require some structural realignment and rationalisation. One could speculate that
this might involve certain schools being encouraged towards certain subjects, rather
than others. It also will mean that more subject specialisms will be needed to meet
the increased demand and to maintain diversity across the system in the next few
years. It is anticipated that more vocational specialist areaswill be introduced ('New
schools for skills', 2005), allowing those schools which are not yet specialist to be
able to choose from the new specialist areas.
Looking at the other major policy driver, 'personalisation', it is suggested that
the way to improve schools, particularlyunderperformingschools, is not parental
choice but 'building the organization of schooling around the needs, interests and
aptitudes of individual pupils'. The key word here is 'aptitudes'-this is the link
between the specialisation and personalisation agendas. The combined message is
one of matching aptitudes to a particular curriculum, pathway or school. If the
Government is serious about aspiring'to make universalthe life chances of the most
fortunate', it remains questionable whether this can be achieved through the
combined processes of specialisation and personalisation.
Independence and public accountability
The Strategy proposes to constitute schools as independent institutions, thus
signalling not only an end to the era of comprehensive schooling (Benn & Chitty,

The contradictions of education policy 583

1996; Chitty, 2004; Haydn, 2004) but also an end to local democratic control and
accountabilitythrough the LEA. As highlighted earlier, independence is secured by
removing the powers of local government to intervene in policy and practice of local
education. Elected councils will no longer control the assets, budgets or policies that
supposedly constrain the freedom of schools. Schools will also be able to draw upon
the powers of the Education Act 2002 that enable them to reconfigure their
governingbodies, they are no longer constrainedto adopt the 'stakeholder'model of
governance which requires them to secure participation from each of a school's
constituencies-parents, teachers, the local authority and local communities. In the
new foundation schools parents will still comprise one-third of the governing body,
but only one parent need be elected. The remainder of governors would be
appointed by the foundation in sufficient numbers to ensure the foundation
governors constitute a majority of two, while they can increase their 'sponsor
governors' from two to four. Adamson (2004) argues that this will significantly
diminish the democratic rights of parents in relation to foundation schools, now the
privileged model of schooling.
But who will fill the vacuum left by the LEA and increasingly the DfES? It is
unlikely that the DfES wishes to govern 25,000 independent schools. The Strategy
proposes that not only will 'new providers'of education enter the field, most possibly
in the form of the private sector, but also there will be 'new co-ordinators and
brokers of education'. It is clear that while some parents' groups or professional
partnerships may play a part in a new phase of coordination, it is likely that the
powers and responsibilities for local education will pass to the corporate sectorchurches together with the business and the private sector. Private sector
involvement in education has grown from 3% in 1979-80 to 7.5% in 1995-96
and 10% in 1998-99 and continues to increase (Institute of Public Policy Research
[IPPR], 2001; Parliamentary Select Committee on Public Accounts, 2002).
Beginning in the early 1990s, compulsory competitive tendering arrangements
generated 'contracting out' or 'outsourcing' of services which LEAs would
traditionally have delivered themselves. But private involvement continues to
accelerate under New Labour (Hatcher, 2001; Whitfield, 2001; Rikowski, 2004),
including: outsourcing and franchisingservices;school inspections under Ofsted; the
corporate takeover of LEAs and schools; the creation of City Academies; and a
number of teaching and educational services.
Following on from the Conservative government policy of 1992, the activity
generating the most significant acceleration in corporate privatisation of the
education service has been the PFI (Public Finance Initiative). For school building
and rebuilding, the PFI has largelybecome 'the only game in town' (Parliamentary
Select Committee, 2002). The buildings remain in private control until repayments
are completed (typically25-35 years or 7-15 years for equipment). The practice and
prospect of PFI's remain subject to critical scrutiny (McFadyean & Rowland, 2002;
Audit Commission, 2003; Pollock, 2004) and the purported efficiencies have often
failed to materialise (Parliamentary Select Committee, 2002). The long-term
contracts are inflexible, denying a defining characteristic of the public sphere of

584

A. Harris and S. Ranson

capacity to revise policies and practices in response to changes in need and

understanding of good practice. This growing regime of corporate regulation
frustrates rather than supports public policy development. Most significantly,
public-private partnerships,by strengthening over time the private regulation and
management of public institutions, subvert the practice of public democratic
accountability of the public sphere (Whitfield, 1999, 2000, 2001).
The Strategy proposes 'smarter accountabilities' to strengthen answerabilityfor
schools and local education. But are such accountabilities public accountability?
These proposals are by definition ending local democratic accountability and
potentially diminishing accountability at the level of the institution as schools may
replace the existing 'stakeholdermodel' (that secures participation from each of a
school's constituencies-parents, teachers, the local authority and local communities) with their chosen model of governance,which could include business and the
private sector (Earley & Creese, 2003; Ranson, 2003; Ranson et al., 2003). We
suggest that the erosion of public accountability at local and the individual school
level is likely to diminish the opportunities for the disadvantagedto find 'a voice' in
the new system of schooling in which the LEA will lose its present powers to
intervene and change provision and practice.
Final comment
Throughout this article we have argued that the education policies outlined in the
Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners are unlikely to reduce inequalities
within the system. To understand the full implications of these tendencies, Apple
(2001, p. 197) proposes a frameworkof 're-positioning',which is understandingany
set of policies and practices from the standpoint of those who have least power.
Looking at the repercussionsof the currentraft of education policies upon those with
the least economic, social or cultural capital, it is apparent that the wholesale
expansion of the marketisationof education is least likely to offer social mobility and
equity to young people currently being educated in schools in our most
disadvantagedcommunities.
Alternatively, we propose that the stubborn relationship between social
disadvantage and underachievement is more likely to be broken through localised
and community-based action rather than through the external, dispassionate and
disengaged forces of competition, control and choice. Only through systems of local
governance will young people in disadvantagedcommunities be recognised, heard
and supported. Democracy matters for the improvement of schools. But we need
forms of school improvement that are localised, contextualised and above all
accountable to the local needs of the community and the young who live there
(Harris& Chapman, 2004; Lupton, 2004, Lupton, this issue). To achieve this, local
accountability systems and forms of governance are required, particularly in
communities in poverty, to safeguard and protect educational interests and
aspirations of those least able to do so. If we are serious about raising standards of
achievement, for all rather than some, this can only be secured by a form of local
government that represents and acts upon the voices of those in disadvantaged

The contradictionsof education policy 585

communities, that redistributes resources in favour of disadvantaged schools and

young people and which places its weight against marketforces to reclaim education
as a public good instead of a corporate commodity.
References
Adamson, S. (2004, 3 December) Hold on to your rights, TimesEducational Supplement,p. 32.
Apple, M. (2001) Educating the right way (London, Falmer Press).
Audit Commission (2003) PFI in schools:the qualityand costof buildingsand servicesprovidedby early
Private Finance Initiative schemes(London, Audit Commission).
Ball, S. (2003) Class strategies and the education market: the middle classes and social advantage
(London, RoutledgeFalmer).
Bell, D. (2003) Inequality and education: must urban schools fail?, Anniversary lecture of Ofsted
report, Access and Achievementin Urban Education, 20 November.
Benn, C. & Chitty, C. (1996) Thirtyyears on: is comprehensiveeducationalive and well or strugglingto
survive (London, David Fulton).
Boynton, B. & Victor, A. C. (1998) Inventedhere:maximisingyour organisation'sinternalgrowthand
profitability(Boston, Ma, Harvard Business School Press).
Chitty, C. (2004) Educationpolicy in Britain (Basingstoke, Palgrave).
Clarke, C. (2004, 9 July) Interview: education secretary, Guardian, p. 9.
Crouch, C. (2003) Commercialisationor citizenship:educationpolicies and thefuture of public services
(London, Fabian Society).
Department for Education and Employment (1997) Excellencein schools (London, HMSO).
Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2004) Five year strategyfor children and learners
(London, DfES).
Department of Education & Science (1965) The organisationof secondaryschooling,Circular 10, 12
July.
Earley, P. & Creese, M. (2003) Governorsand schoolimprovement(London, Institute of Education).
Glatter, R. (2004) Choice and diversity of schooling provision: does the emperor have any
clothes? Forum, 46(2), 63-69.
Glatter, R., Woods, P. & Bagley, C. (1997) Choice and Diversity in Schooling: Perspectivesand
Prospects(London, Routledge).
Gray, J. (2004) Frames of reference and traditions of interpretation: some issues in the
identification of 'under-achieving' schools, British Journal of Educational Studies, 52(3),
293-309.
Halsey, A. H. (1972) Educationpriority:EPA, problemsand practice (London, HMSO).
Halsey, A. H. (1974) Government against poverty in school and community, in: D. Wedderburn
(Ed.) Poverty, inequalityand class structure(Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).
Harris, A. (2002) School improvement:what's in it for schools?(London, Routledge).
Harris, A. & Chapman, C. (2004) Towards differentiated improvement for schools in challenging
circumstances, BritishJournal of Educational Studies, 52(4), 417-431.
Harris, A., Clarke, P., James, S., Harris, B. & Gunraj, J. (2005) Improving schools in difficulty
(London, Continuum Press).
Hatcher, R. (2001) Privatisation and schooling, in: C. Chitty & B. Simon (Eds) Promoting
comprehensiveeducationin the 21st Century (Stoke-on-Trent, Trentham Books).
Haydn, T. (2004) The strange death of the comprehensive school in England and Wales, 19652002, ResearchPapers in Education, 19(4), 415-432.
Hopkins, D. (2001) School improvementfor real (London, Routledge).
Institute of Public Policy Research (2001) Building better partnerships: the final report of the
commissionon Public Private Partnerships(London, IPPR), 68.

586 A. Harrisand S. Ranson

Levacic, R. (1995) Local management of schools: analysis and practice (Buckingham, Open
University Press).
Lupton, R. (2004) Schoolsin disadvantagedareas: recognisingcontextand raisingperformance.CASE
paper 76 (London, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics
and Political Science).
Marquand, D. (2004) Decline of the public (Oxford, Polity).
McFadyean, M. & Rowland, D. (2002) PFI vs democracy:schoolgovernorsand the Haringey Schools
PFI scheme (London, The Menard Press).
Miliband, D. (2003, 1 June) Every schoolchild is special, Observer,p. 28.
Miliband, D. (2004) Child and voice in personalised learning, Lecture to DfES/DEMOS/OECD
conference, 18 May.
Mortimore, J. & Blackstone, T. (1982) Disadvantage and education(London, Heinemann).
National Commission on Education (1996) Success against the odds: effective schooling in
disadvantaged areas (London, Routledge).
New schools for skills (2005) TimesEducational Supplement,7 January.
Office for Standards in Education (1993) Access and achievement in urban education (London,
HMSO).
Office for Standards in Education (2003a) Section 10 Evidencefor deprivedurban schools (London,
HMSO).
Office for Standards in Education (2003b) Annual report of HMCI 2001-2 (London, HMSO).
Parliamentary Select Committee on Public Accounts (2003) Managing the relationship to secure a
successful partnership in PFI projects (London, HMSO).
Pollock, A. (2004) NHS plc: privatisation of health care (London, Verso).
Power, S., Warren, S., Gillbom, D., Clark, A., Thomas, S. & Kelly, C. (2003) Education in
deprivedareas: outcomes,inputs and processes(London, Institute of Education, University of
London).
Rainwater, L. & Smeeding, T. (2003) Poor kids ind a6 richcountry.America'schildrenin comparative
perspective(New York, Russell Sage Foundation).
Ranson, S. (1992) The role of local governmentin education:for quality assuranceand accountability
(Harlow, Longman).
Ranson, S. (1997) The changing local democracy of education, in: P. Mortimore & V. Little (Eds)
Living education (London, Paul Chapman).
Ranson, S. (2003) Public accountability in the age of neo liberalism, Journal of Education Policy,
18(5), 459-480.
Ranson, S., Martin, J., McKeown, P. & Arnott, M. (2003) Parents as volunteer citizens: voice,
deliberation and governance, ParliamentaryAffairs, 56(4), 716-732.
Reid, I. & Brain, K. (2003) Education Action Zones: mission impossible?, InternationalStudies in
the Sociology of Education, 13(2), 195-214.
Reynolds, D. (1986) School effectiveness(London, Falmer Press).
Reynolds, D., Clarke, P. & Harris, A. (2004) Improving schools in exceptionally challenging
circumstances, paper presented at the American EducationalResearchAssociation Conference,
San Diego, 11-16 April.
Rikowski, G. (2004) Silence on the wolves: what is absent in New Labour's Five Year Strategy for
Education (Northampton, School of Education, University of Northampton).
Riley, K. (2000) Whoseschool is it anyway? (London, Falmer Press).
Teese, R. (2000) Academic successand social power (Melbourne, Melbourne University Press).
Thrupp, M. (1999) Schools making6 a6 difference:let's be realistic(Buckingham, Open University
Press).
Thrupp, M. (2005) School improvement:an unofficialapproach(London, Continuum Press).
West, A., Xavier, R. & Hind, A. (2003) Evaluation of ExcellenceChallengeby extendingand adding to
the existingevaluation of ExcellenceIn Cities (London, Department for Education and Skills).

The contradictionsof education policy 587

Whitfield, D. (1999) Private finance initiative: the commodification and marketisation of
education, Education and Social Justice, 1(2), 23-46.
Whitfield, D. (2000) The third way for education: privatisation and marketisation, Forum, 42(2),
82-85.
Whitfield, D. (2001) Public servicesor corporatewelfare (London, Pluto Press).
Whitty, G. (2002) Making sense of educationpolicy (London, Paul Chapman).