There have been many claims that the introduction of parental choice for schools in the United Kingdom would lead to further socioeconomic segregation between schools. However, little evidence of this has actually emerged. Instead during the first half of the 1990s, in particular, the number of children living in poverty became more equally distributed between UK secondary schools. Part of the explanation for this lies with the prior arrangements for allocating children to schools, typically based upon designated catchment areas. In this paper we argue that the degree of residential segregation that exists in England ensured that schools were already highly segregated before the introduction of market reforms to education, and has continued to be the chief determinant of segregation since. We then suggest that the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, which advocates a return to the use of catchment areas and distance to school when allocating places in oversubscribed schools, may be leading inadvertently to increased socioeconomic segregation between schools.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Association of Teachers and Lecturers, 2000, “Social selection”Report225.
2.
BallS J, 1986Education (Longman, Harlow, Essex).
3.
BallS J, 1993, “Education markets, choice and social class: The market as a class strategy in the UK and the USA”British Journal of Sociology of Education143–19.
4.
BennCChittyC, 1996Thirty Years On (David Fulton, London).
5.
BennCSimonB, 1970Half Way There: Report on the British Comprehensive School Reform (McGraw-Hill, London).
6.
BradfordM, 1995, “Diversification and division in the English education system: Towards a post-Fordist model?”Environment and Planning A271595–1612.
7.
BrighouseH, 2000School Choice and Social Justice (Oxford University Pres, Oxford).
8.
ClarkJDysonAMillwardA, 1999Housing and Schooling: A Case-study in Joined-up Problems (York Publishing Services, York).
9.
ColemanJ, 1992, “Some points on choice in education”Sociology of Education65(4) 260–262.
10.
ConwayS, 1997, “The reproduction of exclusion and disadvantage: Symbolic violence and social class inequalities in ‘parental choice’ of secondary education”Sociological Research On-line2(4), http://www.socresonline.org.uk/2/4/contents.html.
11.
DaviesW K DHerbertD T, 1993Communities Within Cities: An Urban Social Geography (Belhaven Press, London).
12.
DennisRCloutH, 1980A Social Geography of England and Wales (Pergamon Press, Oxford).
13.
Des RosiersFLaganaAThériaultM, 2001, “Size and proximity effects of primary schools on surrounding house values”Journal of Property Research18(2) 149–168.
14.
DfEE, 1999, “School admissions: Code of practice”, Department for Education and Employment, Nottingham.
15.
DoreCFlowerdewR, 1981, “Allocation procedures and the social composition of comprehensive schools”Manchester Geographer2(1) 47–55.
16.
Education Reform Act, 1988Public General Acts—Elizabeth II chapter 40 (HMSO, London).
17.
FitzJTaylorCGorardSWhiteP, 2001, “Local education authorities and the regulation of educational markets: Four case studies, measuring markets: The case of the ERA 1988”, OP41, Cardiff University School of Social Sciences, Cardiff.
18.
GarnerC, 1988, “Educational attainment in Glasgow: The role of neighbourhood deprivation”, in Education and Society Eds BondiLMatthewsM H, (Routledge, London).
19.
GewirtzSBallS JBoweR, 1994, “Parents, privilege and the education marketplace”Research Papers in Education9(1) 3–29.
20.
GibsonAAsthanaS, 2000, “Estimating the socioeconomic characteristics of school populations with the aid of pupil postcodes and small-area census data: An appraisal”Environment and Planning A321267–1285.
21.
GlassR, 1948The Social Background of a Plan: A Study of Middlesbrough (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London).
22.
GoldhaberD, 2000, “School choice: Do we know enough?”Educational Researcher29(8) 21–22.
23.
GoldringEHausmanC, 1999, “Reasons for parental choice of schools”Journal of Education Policy14469–490.
24.
GoldsteinHHuiqiPRathTHillN, 2000The Use of Value-added Information in Judging School Performance (Institute of Education, London) 1850 C Taylor, S Gorard.
25.
GorardS, 1997School Choice in an Established Market (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants).
26.
GorardS, 2000aEducation and Social Justice (University of Wales Press, Cardiff).
27.
GorardS, 2000b, “Questioning the crisis account: A review of evidence for increasing polarisation in schools”Educational Research42309–321.
28.
GorardS, 2000c, “Here we go again: A reply to ‘What's in a number?’ by Gibson and Asthana”Research Papers in Education15155–162.
29.
GorardS, 2000d, “‘Underachievement’ is still an ugly word: Reconsidering the relative effectiveness of schools in England and Wales”Journal of Education Policy15559–573.
30.
GorardSFitzJ, 1998a, “Under starters orders: The established market, the Cardiff study and the Smithfield project”International Studies in Sociology of Education8299–314.
31.
GorardSFitzJ, 1998b, “The more things change … the missing impact of marketisation”British Journal of Sociology of Education19365–376.
32.
GorardSFitzJ, 2000a, “Markets and stratification: A view from England and Wales”Educational Policy14405–428.
33.
GorardSFitzJ, 2000b, “Investigating the determinants of segregation between schools”Research Papers in Education15(2) 115–132.
34.
GorardSTaylorC, 2002, “What is segregation? A comparison of measures in terms of strong and weak compositional invariance”Sociology forthcoming.
35.
GorardSFitzJTaylorC, 2001, “School choice impacts: What do we know?”Educational Researcher forthcoming.
36.
GreeneJ, 2000, “Choosing integration, presentation to School choice and racial diversity conference”, OP12, National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York.
37.
HerbertD, 2000, “School choice in the local environment: Headteachers as gatekeepers on an uneven playing field”School Leadership and Management20(1) 79–98.
38.
HerbertDThomasC, 1990Cities in Space: City as Place (David Fulton, London).
39.
HMSO, 1958Secondary Education For All: A New Drive (HSMO, London).
40.
IstanceDReesG, 1994, “Education and training in Wales: Problems and paradoxes revisited”Contemporary Wales77–27.
41.
KerckhoffA CFogelmanKManloveJ, 1997, “Staying ahead: The middle class and school reform in England and Wales”Sociology of Education70(1) 19–35.
42.
LeechDCamposE, 2000, “Is comprehensive education really free? A study of the effects of secondary school admissions policies on house prices”, RP 581 (Department of Economics, Warwick University, Coventry).
43.
MarsdenW E, 1986, “Education”, in Atlas of Industrialising Britain 1780 – 1914 Eds LangtonJMorrisR J, (Methuen, London) pp 206–211.
44.
NodenP, 2000, “Rediscovering the impact of marketisation: Dimensions of social segregation in England's secondary schools, 1994 – 99”British Journal of Sociology of Education21371–390.
45.
OpenshawS, 1984The Modifiable Areal Unit Problem: Concepts and Techniques in Modern Geography38 (Geobooks, Norwich).
46.
PacioneM, 1997, “The geography of educational disadvantage in Glasgow”Applied Geography17(3) 169–192.
47.
ParsonsEChalkleyBJonesA, 2000, “School catchments and pupil movements: A case study in parental choice”Educational Studies26(1) 33–48.
48.
Performance and Innovation Unit, 2001, “Social mobility: A discussion paper”, April, Performance and Innovation Unit, 4th Floor, Admiralty Arch, The Mall, London SW1A 2WH.
49.
ReayDBallS J, 1997, “‘Spoilt for choice’: The working-classes and educational markets”Oxford Review of Education23(1) 89–101.
50.
ReynoldsF, 1986The Problem Housing Estate (Gower, Aldershot, Hants).
51.
RobsonB T, 1969Urban Analysis: A Study of City Structure with Special Reference to Sunderland (Cambridge University Press, London).
52.
Schools Standards and Framework Act, 1998Public General Acts—Elizabeth II chapter 31 (The Stationery Office, London).
53.
StillmanA, 1990, “Legislating for choice”, in The Education Reform Act, 1988 Eds FludeMHammerM, (The Flamer Press, London) p 87–106.
54.
SutcliffeJ, 2000, “Home front in war on poverty”Times Educational Supplement 10 March, page24.
55.
TaeuberKWilsonFJamesDTaeuberA, 1981, “A demographic perspective on school desegregation in the USA”, in Ethnic Segregation in Cities Eds PeachCRobinsonVSmithS, (Croom Helm, London) pp 83–105.
56.
TaylorC, 2001Geography of the ‘New’ Education Market: Secondary School Choice in England and Wales (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants).
57.
TaylorCGorardSFitzJ, 2000a, “Size matters: Does school choice lead to ‘spirals of decline’? Measuring markets: The case of the ERA 1988”, WP 36, Cardiff University School of Social Sciences, Cardiff.
58.
TaylorCGorardSFitzJ, 2000b, “A re-examination of segregation indices in terms of compositional invariance”Social Research Update301–4.
59.
TaylorCGorardSFitzJ, 2002, “The modifiable areal unit problem: Segregation between schools and levels of analysis”International Journal of Social Research Methodology forthcoming.
60.
TomlinsonS, 1997, “Diversity, choice and ethnicity: The effects of educational markets on ethnic minorities”Oxford Review of Education23(1) 63–76.
61.
WalfordG, 2000, “From city technology colleges to sponsored grant-maintained schools”Oxford Review of Education26(2) 145–158.
62.
WaslanderSThruppM, 1995, “Choice, competition, and segregation: An empirical analysis of a New Zealand secondary school market, 1990 – 93”Journal of Education Policy101–26.
63.
WhitePGorardSFitzJTaylorC, 2001, “Regional and local differences in admission arrangements for schools”Oxford Review of Education27(3), forthcoming.
64.
WillmsJ D, 1996, “School choice and community segregation: Findings from Scotland”, in Generating Social Stratification: Toward a New Research Agenda Ed. KerckhoffA C, (Westview Press, Oxford) pp 133–151.
65.
WillmsJ DEcholsF, 1992, “Alert and inert clients: The Scottish experience of parental choice of schools”Economics of Education Review11339–350.
66.
WillmsDPatersonL, 1995, “A multilevel model for community segregation”Journal of Mathematical Sociology20(1) 23–40.
67.
WilsonA B, 1959, “Residential segregation of social classes and aspirations of high school boys”American Sociological Review24836–845.
68.
WrigleyN, 1995, “Revisiting the modifiable areal unit problem and the ecological fallacy”, in Diffusing Geography: Essays for Peter Haggett Eds CliffA DGouldP RHoareA GThriftN J, (Blackwell, Oxford) pp 49–71.
