Education in the Secular State: Whose Right is it?
In: 2 Iɴᴛ'ʟ. J. Jᴜʀɪs. Fᴀᴍ. 77 (2011)
6284528 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: 2 Iɴᴛ'ʟ. J. Jᴜʀɪs. Fᴀᴍ. 77 (2011)
SSRN
In: Accountability through Public Opinion, S. 215-233
In: International Journal of the Jurisprudence of the Family, Band 2
SSRN
In: The British journal of social work, Band 38, Heft 4, S. 734-750
ISSN: 1468-263X
In: The Salisbury review: a quarterly magazine of conservative thought, Band 20, Heft 4, S. 44
ISSN: 0265-4881
In: Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung, S. 341-344
In: Parliamentary history, Band 19, Heft 1, S. 148-164
ISSN: 1750-0206
In: Asian journal of political science, Band 3, Heft 2, S. 15-27
ISSN: 1750-7812
In: Frontiers: a journal of women studies, Band 8, Heft 3, S. 122
ISSN: 1536-0334
In: Families in society: the journal of contemporary human services, Band 33, Heft 2, S. 47-54
ISSN: 1945-1350
In: Journal of educational administration & history, Band 17, Heft 2, S. 63-68
ISSN: 1478-7431
In: Journal of Latinos and education: JLE, Band 16, Heft 4, S. 314-322
ISSN: 1532-771X
In: https://doi.org/10.7916/D8806KKF
A hallmark of recent higher education policy in developed economies is the move towards quasi-markets involving greater student choice and provider competition, underpinned by cost-sharing policies. This paper examines the idealizations and illusions of student choice and marketization in higher education policy in England, although the overall conclusions have relevance for other countries whose higher education systems are shaped by neoliberal thinking. First, it charts the evolution of the student-choice rationale through an analysis of government commissioned reports, white papers, and legislation, focusing on policy rhetoric and the purported benefits of increasing student choice and provider competition. Second, the paper tests the predictions advanced by the student-choice rationale—increased and wider access, improved institutional quality, and greater provider responsiveness to the labour market—and finds them largely not met. Finally, the paper explores how conceptual deficiencies in the student-choice model explain why the idealization of student choice has largely proved illusionary. Government officials have narrowly conceptualized students as rational calculators primarily weighing the economic costs and benefits of higher education and the relative quality of institutions and programs. There is little awareness that student choices are shaped by several other factors as well and that these vary considerably by social background. The paper concludes that students' choices are socially constrained and stratified, reproducing and legitimating social inequality.
BASE
In: Legal Education Reform, D. Moss & D. Moss Curtis, eds., (Information Age Publishing 2012).
SSRN