The market is efficient. The market will decide. It isn’t surprising, I suppose, that the current government is a great fan of market forces. The mantra seems to be – in more or less any sphere – leave it to the market.
We can argue that the financial markets spectacularly failed in 2008, and that we’ve been living with the consequences ever since, but that doesn’t seem to count against them. Certain institutions were simply deemed too big to fail and everyone carried on as though nothing had happened. Perhaps that should be the wealthy carried on as though nothing had happened. Recent figures show that since the “crash” of 2008 the divide between rich and poor has just kept on getting wider. The mass of statistics available to show that the markets can only be deemed efficient if efficient means the weakest go to the wall is staggering, yet that doesn’t stop even education being subject to market economics.
The latest facet of the educational landscape to fall into the clutches of current economic theory is school improvement.
Under the previous administration, there was a simple, if not popular, top down model that aimed to raise achievement by setting an agenda (Every Child Matters), providing resources and training to suit whatever aspect of the agenda was deemed to be most pressing, and employing an army of consultants to spread the word and monitor the effect. A vast array of materials was produced to steer and support the process of school improvement. Not all of it was remarkable, by any means, but some of it changed practice for the better. There was a relentless and entirely novel focus on teaching and learning, and a demand that potential be recognised and realised in all. The main measure was moving in the direction of progress, not thresholds (not “what grades did you get?” but “how much progress have you made?”)
All that has gone. There is still a moral imperative for schools to improve, of course, but the means of improvement are seen as something of a vacuum, which the market must swiftly move into and fill. The new thinking effectively says that it doesn’t matter who provides or brings about improvement, because the market will determine what is good and what is not, and the less good will wane and die because it will not be bought by cash-strapped schools who will of course spend wisely because of the need to ensure value for money.
Three examples are given by the Department for Education of how improvement may be brought about. First there is the school to school model. Currently, there is a drive to put in place “teaching schools”. It could fairly be argued that teaching is what all schools do, but this use of the name is in the same bracket as teaching hospitals, where world class expertise is made available to others in order to secure higher standards for all. These teaching schools will form alliances with lesser establishments and will nurture them towards excellence. There’s money in it, of course. Up ’til now, schools in the same locality have been competitive, striving to attract numbers and foster a reputation for excellence that will raise house prices in their catchment areas. The idea of giving away your best teachers and resources and ideas was anathema, but now you can be paid to do it in the form of a considerably bigger budget share for your school.
The second example is academies. Apparently, by joining forces and throwing off the constraints of the local authority and the national curriculum, academies will bring about a “levelling up” of the playing field.
And finally, there are the private and/or local authority outfits that will offer improvement services to schools (much the same services that they used to get for free), although now they will need to operate purely on a traded services model, offering packages, cut price deals and premium training to entice schools to part with the tiny part of their budgets that can be spared for staff development.
In all of these examples, of course, the market will decide who prospers and who goes bust.
And if standards don’t rise? Well, it can’t be the fault of the market, can it? As we know, the market is efficient.