This section has three parts. The first explains why I felt it important to develop my thinking about the theoretical issues and reasons for the ideological changes that have and are taking place in the delivery of the public education service including the role of the state. The second part undertakes a further analysis of texts to consider the concepts of choice, competition and markets and the impact on the public education service and the third is a summary of my findings.
2.4.1 Developing My Thinking
Chitty (1989), Dale (1989), Stewart and Stoker (1989), Barber (1996), Farnham and Horton (1996) and Greenwood et al (2002), authors from my initial literature review, all provide a similar explanation for the ‘crisis’ that was occurring in education in England in the late 1970s and 1980s and provide a commentary on the impact of legislation that was introduced as a solution to the problems: the ERA. I felt that this gave me only one ‘view of the world’ and so I needed to undertake further research and expand my literature review if I was to consider alternative 'views of the world' and further reflect on my research questions. This would enable me to produce more reflective arguments when answering my research questions and should mitigate any criticism that my conclusions are based on assumptions of a "universal truth" (Mason 2002, p14).
2.4.2 Further Analysis
In order to undertake this further analysis I firstly reviewed the work of Chubb and Moe (1990) and Tooley (1993, 1995). They identified similar problems of improving performance facing American schools to those faced by English schools in the late 1970s and 1980s that had been considered by the authors in my initial literature review. They saw that “these problems have stubbornly resisted determined efforts to solve them” (pix). However, they discussed radically different solutions that saw less involvement by the state in education rather than the government’s view in England that more was required. Consequently, I was able to consider a different ‘view of the world’. This was further developed by reviewing the dialogue between Tooley
(1993,1995) and Ranson (1993, 1995) on the effect of introducing the concept of ‘markets’ into the school system.
It is these different opinions of who should control the construct of the changes and determine the factors that will result in improved performance that provide an opportunity to explore different views of the world and therefore alternative values and beliefs.
Using evidence from the 1970s showing an increasing high school drop out rate and poor mathematics and science results, Chubb and Moe (1990) while reflecting on the 'crisis' in the American education system stated that it "is not working well" (pix). It was being argued from both sides of the Atlantic that not only did educational attainment of pupils need to improve but "workers who are not only technically knowledgeable … but who also have the capacity for creative, independent thought and action" (Chubb and Moe 1990, p9) were needed. Conclusions were also being reached by researchers that in the 1980s "more money, better teachers, better
facilities, better leadership … were the crucial determinates of performance" (Chubb and Moe 1990, p14).
Dale (1989) records the views of the time in England being that the "requirements of the state" would lead to major changes to the structure and direction of the education system and improvements in performance. This was supported by the 'effective school' debate of the 1980s which was also being played out on the other side of the Atlantic in America. However, Chubb and Moe (1990) argue that the outcomes from
the research still saw the solutions as being "imposed on the local schools from above…through new rules and regulations mandating the changes desired" (p17) and that "the struggle for academic excellence was played out in an institutional context that was itself taken for granted" (Chubb and Moe 1990, p11).
Chubb and Moe (1990) went on to argue that the wrong "puzzle is being solved" (p19). It was not the "variables inside and immediately outside the school that impacts on performance it was the school system itself" (p19). Chubb and Moe (1990) and Tooley (1995) were arguing for a wholly different system based on the concept of the market and school autonomy and parent-student choice. Chubb and Moe (1990) believed that the reason for this was that "the ideas for educational
reform are profoundly shaped by the work of social scientists, and social scientists have … paid little attention to institutions in their attempts … to study and explain school performance" (p13). They went on to state that "political power and social science research had
combined to ensure that the reform movement would see the problem … entirely in terms of schools” (Chubb and Moe 1990, p17).
It was the debate conducted between Ranson (1993, 1995) and Tooley (1993, 1995) that ensued in a series of articles about markets and democracy which exemplified the differences of opinion about the role of the state in improving the delivery of the public education system. Ranson (1995) argued that the mechanism of the market as described by Tooley (1993, 1995) is “intrinsically flawed as a vehicle for improving educational opportunities” (p334) and that a "participatory model of governing local education rather than a market … can establish the democratic foundations for the learning society” (p349). This was opposed to the argument proposed by Tooley
(1995) that called for the "separation of school and state" (p149), and argued by Chubb and Moe (1990) that "there is nothing in the concept of democracy to require that schools be subject to direct control by … arms of government" (p229).
However, Greenwood et al (2002) conclude that although the basis for the 'New Right' policies and the rationale for the continuation of the previous Thatcher Government’s ideologies had an emphasis on "individualism, personal freedom, choice and a primacy of the markets rather than politics as a vehicle for efficient distribution of goods and services” (p4), the Conservative Government policies being developed were designed to support a "strong state" (p4). Whereas Chubb and Moe (1990) and Tooley (1993, 1995), were proposing the need for a fundamental challenge to the whole school system.
2.4.3 Summary
My initial research brief was based on an assumption of a "universal truth" (Mason 2002, p14) as my literature review focused on an exploration of the changing pattern of public services that saw the arguments as relating wholly within a state system where there was a political belief that enhanced school performance would be achieved through an ideology based on the benefits of markets, competition and choice but still strong control by the state. Although all the authors in my literature reviews conclude that there were fundamental concerns with the performance of public education systems the actual solutions suggested by Chubb and Moe (1990) and Tooley (1993, 1995) were very different from those being implemented by the current government. The inclusion of the views of Chubb and Moe (1990) and Tooley (1995) and their ideas relating to the role of democracy in the education
system or differences between state control versus individual control and the debate between Ranson (1993, 1995) and Tooley (1993, 1995) have helped to develop my understanding that the policy of the current government based on its principles for public service reform; choice, standards and flexibility through devolution, thereby maintains a strong state. My research will seek to find out if these principles can deliver the improvements the government requires from public services.