Can we afford to spend millions on marketing schools to parents in the present cost of living crisis? Mrs Thatcher has been credited with creating a need for school marketing by introducing the concept of ‘parental choice’ into schooling after winning the 1979 general election. However, even before her victory in 1979, some schools were already seeing the need to compete for pupils during a period when the numbers transferring to secondary schools in some areas were already in decline.
I seem to recall that before I left Haringey in 1979, at least one school in Tottenham had already produced a colour brochure extolling its virtues to parents. By the mid-1980s, the idea of choice and marketing to encourage parents to select schools was already sufficiently acceptable for a publisher to ask me to put together ‘The Parents’ Guide to Secondary Schools in London’s Commuterland’ (ISBN 978-0333404447 but long out of print). By the 1990s, one of my students at Brookes University was writing a research article entitled: The School Brochure: A Marketing Tool? (Educational Management & Administration, v23 n2 p89-95 Apr 1995) and presenting a paper at a BERA conference, before going on to a distinguished career in higher education.
Now at that time I seem to recall that the definition of marketing was something along the lines of: “to seek, sense and satisfy, needs, wants and aspirations, within a legal, ethical and financial framework.”
After more than forty years of marketing schools, this summer’s examination results have highlighted the gap that still remains between examination outcomes, both across the country and between schools. So, has the money spent on marketing parental choice made schooling better or worse than before, and, more importantly, can we afford the cost to society?
It is interesting, within the definition quoted above, what schools don’t tell parents. Most, for instance, don’t mention the qualifications of their staff to teach the age group or the subject and how they have kept up to date with changing teaching and assessment, preferring to rely upon Ofsted while at the same time complaining loudly about the methods of assessing schools.
The head of the secondary school in Rutland that refused to join in the annual exam results ritual. Uppingham Community College chose not to publish GCSE headline figures due to there not being ‘a level playing field in education’. Rutland achieves best GCSE results in England (stamfordmercury.co.uk) may be an outlier, but might this mark the start of a trend?
With the in-coming government likely to need to make savings, is marketing state schools an area where some limits should be placed on the amount that state-schools can spend on marketing each year?
After all, the Conservative government has been happy to introduce regulations on school uniforms – see earlier post on the topic – and on recruitment costs, by its free job board. However, the latter doesn’t seem to have reduced the spending in that area very much. Perhaps, because there are not enough teachers to go around.
Might the teacher associations be persuaded to back any curb on marketing if is could be shown that the savings could be applied to fund the inevitable pay rise that must surely come at some point if inflation continues out of control.
In recent years, I have wondered whether parental choice and the associated spending on marketing allowed government to avoid the issue of providing a first-class education for every child? As a result, spending money on marketing seems worth a debate in the present economic climate.
John Howson 