Essay: Significance of neoliberal influences in education

Policy
In order to evaluate the role of neoliberalism in education, one must first consider the apparatus used to enact neoliberal principals. This is widely attributed in the literature to policy (Hill, 2009), and whilst offering a definition of this may appear unnecessary, a lack of unified understanding may limit the clarity of any subsequent discussion or evaluation (Ball, 1994; 2013). Evans et al, (2008) demystifies this concept through the discourse of big-P and little-P policy; the former constructed within government and the latter enacted within localities. Whilst this is useful, the thoughts of Ball (2017) offer necessary enhancement, as big-P policy is no longer only domestic, but is increasingly concerned with the pressures of a globalised educational context. Whilst the relevance of these ideas cannot be understated, discussion around policy must be underpinned by a rhetoric of process, rather than of product (Ball, 2013; Considine, 1994), supplemented by the concept of governmentality (Dean; 2010; Foucault, 1977) and the power of policy to define its subjects (Maguire, Braun and Ball, 2015; Simons, Olssen and Peters, 2009). It is these thoughts that are key to the understanding and evaluation of neoliberal principals in education.
The Foundations of Neoliberalism:
Central to the concept of neoliberalism is the logic of competition (Ball, 2008; Ward and Eden, 2009). Government intervention in the economic marketplace is considered obstructive (Bartlett and Burton, 2016) and it is only free market forces that are considered capable of reacting efficiently to market signals and the needs of the consumer (Hirsch, 2002). This leads to a redefining of the roles of both central government (Bridges and McLaughlin, 1994; Jessop, 2002) and of the individual (Peck and Tickell, 2002) to a context of governance in which individual freedom is sacrosanct (Harvey, 2005). Advancing this, success or failure is devolved from market systems and is attributed solely to individual endeavour (Harvey, 2005), reflecting the governmentality discussed by Foucault (1977) and how relationships between individuals and institutions are engineered and controlled without clear intervention (Ball, 2012; Dean, 2010; Pick and Taylor, 2009).
In relation to the UK, it is the policies implemented under Margaret Thatcher that are widely considered as the birth of neoliberal politics. It was her firm belief that the welfare state had created a society dependent on the government, influenced by the earlier thoughts of Hayek (1944) that such social welfare disables the freedom of the individual. It is the synthesis of this with the thinking of Friedman (1962; 1980), discussing human capital and the need to empower individuals to invest in themselves, that offers rationale behind neoliberal government rhetoric. Whilst Thatcher is often demonised by those opposed to neoliberal principals (Coffield, 2006), Ball (2017) identifies how the neoliberal agenda introduced in the 1970s has since given way to a managerial, competition-based state in which the language of consumerism and performativity has become commonplace.
Neoliberalism in Education:
Discussion around the somewhat frantic nature of education policy reform has long existed in the literature (Dunleavy and O’Leary, 1987; Levin, 1998; Peck and Theodore, 2015), a notion extended by Ball (2003; 2008) through recognition of policy coordinated on a global scale to spark a generic model of educational modernisation. Though such volatility around educational policy can lead to difficulties in establishing cause and effect relationships, the 1988 Education Reform Act (Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1988), enacted under the Thatcher government, is widely accredited with the initial, formal advocacy of neoliberal principals within educational policy (Bridges and McLaughlin, 1994). In practice, this entailed the establishment of a national curriculum, the need for systems of accountability and control, the devolution of financial control from local education authorities to the schools themselves, and critically, the right for parents to express a choice towards the education that their child received (Ball, 2017; Whitty, Power and Halpin, 1998). It is crucial to recognise that whilst these may have been the foundations of neoliberalism in education, subsequent governments then consolidated these, ushering in the aforementioned competition-based state and the belief that such competition would improve the efficiency, and ultimately the output, of state schools (Hirsch, 2002). To operate successfully in this educational landscape, schools are encouraged to implement private sector techniques and mirror the behaviour of a business first and public service second (Ball, 2003; Bates, Lewis and Pickard, 2011; Bridges and McLaughlin, 1994).
Ball (2003) warns of considering such policies as de-regulation, instead determining these as re-regulation and a mode of less visible control (Aglietta, 1979; Bernstein, 1996). It is this thinking that supports the explanation of education as a quasi-market (Le Grand and Bartlett, 1993; Dumay and Dupriez, 2014), as state education must remain free to the user and not operate on a ‘for-profit’ basis, marking a distinct contrast from a typical, free-market system (Croxford and Raffe, 2007). Fig.1 identifies how the quasi-market within education is designed to operate.
Although the argument around if the engineering of a quasi-market in education has been advantageous or detrimental is complicated, this is generally divided by suggestions of an increase in choice and educational quality, contested with an exacerbation of social inequalities, misuse of data and questions around the sustainability of such a market (Exley, 2014; Ball, 2017; Croxford and Raffe, 2007; Power and Frandji, 2010). To critically evaluate these contrasting perspectives within the confines of this essay, discussion shall chiefly address the introduction of choice, the effects of performativity and ultimately, the evolving landscape of education.
Power and Choice:
Fundamental to operation of a market system (Ball, 2017), choice mechanisms, in theory, allow the consumer to express their desires, forcing producers to respond appropriately or risk failure (Harris and Sass, 2011). With regards to education, such choice is established through various channels of communication, most notably the publication of league tables (Hirsch, 2002), thus affording parents the opportunity to compare and then choose. It is the ensuing competition between schools that becomes an underpinning feature of the educational quasi-market (Dumay and Dupriez, 2014; Goldring and Phillips, 2008), despite contention around the accuracy of published data and the advocacy of condensing an educational institution to measurable data and a league position (Hirsch, 2002; Ball, 2017). Supporters of such choice highlight how the empowerment of parents develops an educational system that is reflective of the needs of each child (Coldron, 2007; Exley, 2014; Trowler, 2003), however running parallel with this are issues around ‘cream-skimming’ (Bartlett and Le Grand, 1993, p.150) and the reality that sociological factors prevent all parents from exercising their choice equally (Ball, 2017; Gorard, Taylor and Fitz, 2003).
‘Cream-skimming’ in education broadly involves oversubscribed institutions favouring those individuals, generally the children of middle-class parents (Ball, 2008; Bartlett and Le Grand, 1993), that are likely to bring the greatest return for the least investment (Barlett and Le Grand, 1993). This is grounded by the logic that individuals whom may be identified as gifted or as having special educational needs will cost more to educate, ultimately reducing their perceived profitability. Whilst personal experience can neither confirm or deny that such practice takes place, a study undertaken by Baviskar (2018) reports that this is a widespread issue that is inherent to educational market systems, ultimately highlighting how the dynamics of a free market and the quasi-market of education are vastly different (Dumay and Dupriez, 2014). Whilst a free market would encourage producers to consistently improve and subsequently occupy a greater market share, this cannot exist in education as schools are limited by their physical size. Consequently, it is actually increased stratification that occurs (Astin, 1992), as schools obtain choosing power, along with consumers (Ladd and Fiske, 2001).
An arguably more evident issue surrounding the creation of choice is that of equity and the ability to exercise choice (Ball, 2008; Burgess, Greaves, Vignoles and Wilson, 2015). Though some commentators have noted that parents are likely to be willing to pay more for a better quality of education (Bridges and McLaughlin, 1994), in some instances this lacks the inseparable discussion that not all parents can afford to pay for education, or to travel further than their local school, inevitably constricting choice (Alderman, Orazem and Paterno, 2001; Burgess et al., 2015; Hastings and Weinstein, 2008). Derived from this discussion is the consideration of ‘active’, ‘passive’ and ‘none choosers’ (Goldring and Phillips, 2008). Active choosers are typically middle-class, well-educated parents who can understand the published data and make their choice accordingly (Edwards and Tomlinson, 2002). None choosers, in contrast, are typically those from poorer socioeconomic backgrounds that are confined to their local school, regardless of its suitability. Whilst the perspective of conflict theory may consider levels of choosing power as an engineered form of social segregation (Collins, 1971), it appears more credible that this is reflective of the cultural capital discussed by Bourdieu (1986), with active choosers benefitting from a more extensive network to inform their choice (Brighouse, 2002). Therefore, whilst it cannot be ignored that the children of active choosers are more likely to succeed in education and benefit from neoliberal principals, a more holistic evaluation concludes that the neoliberal ideology is not adequately suited to markets where consumers do not have an equal opportunity to purchase the product, such as education.
Acknowledgement of issues around equity has been present in government policy for a number of years with potential solutions proposed including voucher systems such as that used in Chile, the covering of transport costs for those that are disadvantaged, the availability of choice advisors to demystify the published data around schools (Stiell, Shipton, Coldron and Coldwell, 2008), all flourished by a rhetoric of “advantage based on merit not privilege” (May, 2016, para 19). Despite these measures, the most recent annual report by Ofsted (2018) identified 490 schools that have been stuck in a cycle of poor performance since 2005 and it is this that is arguably the most alarming outcome of choice mechanisms in education. Such a cycle is underpinned by the notion that parents of educationally successful children choose those institutions perceived as desirable, with parents of more challenging children forced to choose their local institutions (Gorard, Taylor and Fitz, 2003). This culminates in desirable institutions entering an upwards spiral of progression and less desirable institutions entering a spiral of decline (Gibbons, Machin and Silva, 2008; Taylor, 2009), illustrated by Fig. 2 (p.8), that can be somewhat challenging to halt once it has begun (Hirsch, 2002). Therefore, whilst equity is an immediate issue that the government has taken steps to address, this can be broadly described as efforts to put a plaster over a continually growing societal wound. Consequently, it is the potential long-term damage that maybe caused to both institutions and communities (Ball, 2008; Ballion, 1991) as a result of neoliberal principals that evokes the most notable sense of concern.
Performativity and Accountability:
Despite presenting a largely symbiotic relationship (Bates, Lewis and Pickard, 2011), it is necessary to differentiate between performativity and accountability when striving to assess their influence. Within the literature, performativity is considered to be a culture that utilises measurements and judgements as a means of control and change (Ball, 2003), typically through the use of performance indicators such as observations and targets, along with the publication of national league tables. Accountability, however, is more accurately concerned with professionals upholding absolute responsibility for the outcomes of those for which they are responsible (Dean, 2010). Whilst both must be given consideration, Wilkins (2011) notes that it is first and foremost a culture of performativity that is derived from the application of neoliberal principals, producing a discourse around three key features: an audit mentality that advocates performance driven mechanisms; interventionalist regulation, achieved in education through the inspection of schools by Ofsted; and a market environment in which parents become consumers. It is useful to synthesise these features with the thoughts of Ball (2008), that such discourse has re-professionalised individuals, forcing the creation of school managers or what Foucault (1977, p.294) would consider ‘technicians of behaviour’. Therefore, whilst a drive towards greater efficiency may offer clear advantages, the collateral effects of this drive creates significant discussion regarding its suitability for education.
Whilst neoliberal thinking posits all attention to be dedicated to the consumer (Ball, 1998), the field of education is ultimately dependent on the teachers and school leaders that allow consumers to engage with the product (Hirsch, 2002). By diverting attention to these producers, rather than consumers, the application of neoliberal principals and a culture of performativity becomes increasingly undesirable, as practitioners are concerned firstly with being seen to be effective, and secondly with actually being effective (Ball, 2003; Maddock, Drummond, Koralek and Nathan, 2007). This is directly reflective of the panoptic surveillance theory discussed by Foucault (1977), as teachers ultimately begin to observe themselves as a result of the ‘terrors of performativity’ stated by Ball (2003, p.216), leading to the workload of a teacher becoming unspecified and often unknown. Personal experience in the primary phase translates this culture into a redefining of what is considered an ‘effective’ teacher, as the delivery of a content is now overshadowed by a need to consistently prioritise. Whilst on an initial basis this relates to prioritising daily responsibilities, a more damaging analysis is derived from the prioritising of children, ordered by those that are likely to produce the greatest output with the least investment (Ball, 2017; Gray et al., 1999; Shore and Wright, 1999). Whilst advocates of neoliberalism may contest that such practice is not encouraged, it remains difficult to judge this as anything other than a product of a performative and output driven culture.
Whilst performative systems of control may serve to de-professionalise teachers (Ball, 2003; Ball and Olmedo, 2012), it may also be argued that such monitoring encourages the continuous development of both individuals and institutions, with the consequence of stagnation being failure in the marketplace (Power and Frandji, 2010). Despite this, the breadth of literature concerning issues of performativity suggests that such professional development is motivated by fear (Ball, 2003), rather than by professional aspirations. This ultimately raises the argument that whilst neoliberal principals remove from the profession those that display an ignorance towards continuous development, it is also plausible that effective practitioners are driven away from the profession through demoralisation by performativity (Blackmore and Sachs, 1997). Furthermore, in settings that are trapped in the previously illustrated spiral of decline (Fig.2), a lack of opportunity to raise standards combined with the pressures of performativity may lead to gaming behaviours, rather than a true improvement in the service provided (Ball, 2017). Evidence of such behaviours can be found in the most recent Ofsted annual report (2018), which identified that 4% of pupils dropped off school rolls between years 10 and 11, prior to high-stakes examination, despite it being unlikely that 4% of parents made the decision to home-school their children. This highlights that the nature of education is not sufficiently aligned with that of neoliberalism, ultimately emphasising the thoughts of Shore and Wright (1999), that whilst performativity has the power to reshape institutions in its own image, this does not mean that the image is wholly desirable.
The Landscape of Education:
To fully recognise the significance of neoliberal influences in education, it is helpful not only to evaluate existing effects but to consider how these may subsequently develop in the future (Hirsch, 2002). As mentioned, a market-based system is grounded in the logic that effective enterprises thrive, whilst ineffective enterprises close. Despite this principal, the nature of universal education necessitates that an appropriate amount of school places must remain open, regardless of an outstanding or inadequate classification (Ball, 2017). To remedy this issue, multi-academy trusts (MATs) have been introduced, in many cases involving the grouping of inadequate with outstanding schools, based on the premise that shared expertise shall halt the previously discussed spiral of decline (Fig.2) (Exley, 2014). Initial evaluation would indicate that this strategy upholds clear potential, as Ball and Olmedo (2012) note how increased collaboration, along with greater financial freedom, has the power to improve educational quality and attract those active choosers who would have otherwise gone elsewhere. Despite this however, the concept of cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1986) would challenge this, as active choosers are likely to base their choice on wide-ranging factors including school reputation and the status of other children educated there, along with the educational output published in league tables. Consequently, it appears difficult to address the existing socioeconomic issues that initially confined the schools to a spiral of decline whilst simultaneously advocating a system entrenched with the principals of neoliberalism (Maddock, Drummond, Koralek and Nathan, 2007).
 
Bates, Lewis and Pickard (2011) note how the discourse of neoliberalism and performativity has resulted in a tendency to measure with little regard for the validity of produced data. An example of this can be found in the labelling of schools by Ofsted on the Outstanding to Inadequate spectrum, with critics of this mechanism arguing that a one or two-day inspection of an educational institution does not provide a sufficient basis for overarching judgements (Ball, 2017). Although such arguments generate considerable noise (Hirsch, 2002), Whitby (2010) argues that this is largely concerned with the format of inspection, rather than the premise of being inspected. From a neoliberal perspective, the publication of inspection judgements forms a fundamental part of the differentiation necessary to facilitate choice (Ball, 2008; Coldron, 2007). Despite this, when considering the progression of other market-based industries, it appears likely that consumers will eventually demand feedback that is more instantaneous and what they perceive to be reflective of current practice. An example of this feedback from the food and travel industry can be found in review websites (e.g. TripAdvisor) that allow those whom have purchased the product to share their experience. Whilst advocates of choice mechanisms may argue that such platforms could not be applied to education (Bates, Lewis and Pickard, 2011), Fig.3 illustrates that their introduction has already begun, despite this being a somewhat recent development. Nevertheless, when considering the nature of the food and travel industry, it is probable that such platforms shall result in the market of education becoming increasingly volatile with misguided consumer choice detracting from the delivery of high-quality education. This judgement is bolstered by the rationale that in traditional markets where products can be simply purchased, it is the subjective opinion of the consumer that determines their judgement of the product (Ward and Eden, 2009). Education marks a clear contrast from this, as the opinion of those that consume education does not equate to a certain improvement in service. For example, many parents and children would argue against the prescribing of homework, yet actually removing this would be unlikely to raise standards.
 
 
 
The outcome of the aforementioned discussion is that the values traditionally associated with education are replaced by those of business and a culture of criticality, rather than of improvement (Ball, 2003). Evidence of this can be found in research undertaken by Hill, Mellon, Laker and Goddard (2017), concerning those styles of headteacher that are now valued in the market of education. The findings of this is that whilst ‘architect’ style headteachers are the ones capable of promoting long-term progression and success, these are valued least, with ‘soldier’, ‘surgeon’ and ‘accountant’ style headteachers typically appointed with a greater likelihood of achieving immediate, yet unsustainable, success. Such thoughts help explain that although the presented issues such as workload and the labelling of schools may be worthy topics for discussion, they are inevitably overshadowed by the discourse of data and output. This presents an oxymoron around neoliberalism in education, as the very constructs of this idea prevent meaningful change from existing without the system collapsing (Ball, 2017), forcing those individuals involved to either conform or leave.
 
Conclusion:
In striving to offer a definitive judgement surrounding the role of neoliberalism in education, it appears evident that the nature of policy as an ongoing process (Maguire, Braun and Ball, 2015) determines the role of neoliberalism to evoke a similarly ongoing discussion. Nevertheless, whilst there have been clear advantages, namely an increase in efficiency and acknowledgement of the need to raise standards (Allen, 2010), such advantages have failed to translate to an improved education for all (Ballion, 1991; Ball, 2008; 2017), with only certain social demographics able to benefit favourably from the principals of neoliberalism (Dumay and Dupriez, 2014). Furthermore, in achieving such advantages, the collateral issues that have been created are arguably more severe than those gains (Hirsch, 2002) and are embedded in an oxymoronic manner that renders them seemingly impossible to address (Bridges and McLaughlin, 1994).
 
Ball (2017) offers insight into the mechanics of this issue, noting that as education is entwined with wider changes within the economy and the state, the frantic nature of UK politics means that long-term sustainability becomes consistently overshadowed by the demand of immediate impact in order to generate public support. Consequently, it can be readily suggested that the appointment of policy makers and political leaders is significantly reflective of the appointment of headteachers, discussed by Hill, Mellon, Laker and Goddard (2017), determining the efficacy of neoliberal principals to be an issue that reaches far beyond education (Simons, Olssen and Peters, 2009). Nevertheless, from the perspective of education, the resulting knee-jerk policies that are implemented and then replaced by following governments have culminated in a muddying of the waters around traditional educational values (Dunleavy and O’leary, 1987; Coffield, 2006) and what these mean to different stakeholders in the educational process.
 
Whilst the loss of traditional values makes the educational marketplace increasingly volatile (Ball, 2003), it is specifically the dissolution of community values that hinders the potential for future change. The need to empower parents as investors in their local institutions, rather than consumers, represents a clear shift from the ideology of neoliberalism that the consumer is king, and producers are solely responsible for their failings. Despite this belief however, it appears increasingly challenging to achieve once a school has entered the spiral of decline (Fig.2), as this ultimately involves asking consumers to choose a potentially worse, local option with no guarantee of long-term success (Bowe, Ball and Gold, 1992; Waslander, Pater and Van der Weide, 2010). It is this that emphasises the sentiments of Bridges and McLaughlin (1994), that due to the influx of neoliberal principals, education is now a game of winners and losers rather than of equal opportunity.
 
Critically, whilst the ongoing discussion around neoliberalism in education is likely to generate considerable heat, in order to achieve any light (Hirsch, 2002), it is imperative that participants in this discussion do not approach this with a reductionist tautology (Willis, 1977); that until the fundamental constructs of education are changed, the future is already decided. Apple (2006) argues the need for a cultural shift and that this must begin by addressing the rhetoric around performativity, achieved through the removal of league tables based on examination results. Whilst neoliberal advocates may argue the necessity of league tables as a key choice mechanism, a balanced perspective would determine that choice mechanisms should be introduced that foster creativity, rather than conformity (Coldron, Cripps and Shipton, 2010). In practice, this may involve greater emphasis around student satisfaction and wellbeing, along with encouraging the delivery of a broad and rich curriculum. Extending this further, the rhetoric around school quality judgements is a key factor in provoking a shift in culture from that of critically to one of development, with all schools labelled as improving, rather than as inadequate or outstanding. Though such recommendations may fall short in addressing the aforementioned issues surrounding inequities in education, supporting the raising of all school standards, rather than pitching these in a competitive market, upholds greater potential to minimise the risk of social factors preventing access to high-quality education. These thoughts ultimately arrive at the conclusion that if society is to be based upon equal opportunities from which anyone can achieve, the winners and losers entwined with the principals of neoliberalism appear insufficiently aligned with the desired nature of education.