Marketisation of enrolment of students in Icelandic upper-secondary schools

The consequences of making a single market of school choice

Abstract

This article discusses the results of a decision taken by the Icelandic government in 1998. The decision was that upper-secondary education should become “a single educational market” in the whole country. In doing so, a policy that required upper secondary schools to primarily enrol pupils from particular catchment areas was abandoned. The purpose of the change was to enable presumptive students to choose any school, whether they lived in the geographical vicinity of the school or not. This policy was also believed to decrease drop-out rates, increase pupil engagement in learning, and improve teaching as students would be admitted based on grades from elementary school. The research data used are statistical registry data from government authorities (INNA) as well enrolment data from one upper-secondary school (Flensborg), located in a municipality close to the capital city of Reykjavík. Using a critical policy perspective on education policy and theoretical concepts about the marketization of education systems, the study frames the above-mentioned reform as an example of market rationality in education, following the logic of decentralisation, privatisation (in a broad sense) and the introduction of school choice as a tool to improve education. Three overarching aims guided the study: to investigate the impact of this marketisation of the admission process, to examine what differences there are between student groups and schools in the application process and, finally, how the results can be understood in light of ideas of social justice.

The results show that a certain group of upper-secondary schools holds a strong position in the upper-secondary school market, their brands being particularly strong, leading to them receiving a large proportion of applications from strong students with high grades. This fact means that they can enrol many students with high grades and fewer with poor grades, which, in turn, strengthens the schools’ competitive position. At the same time, other schools are in a poorer competitive position and generally enrol a larger proportion of students with lower grades and often with more complex needs for educational support. This means that the competition in the Icelandic upper-secondary education market is not only between schools trying to attract students to receive resources but also between students for enrolment into the most popular schools. In some cases, this competition leads to students strategically choosing upper-secondary schools to be enrolled in rather than choosing the schools they prefer. The authors conclude that the responsibility for the education of secondary school students has been partially privatised to the students’ choices, that the competitive ideology of ranking schools according to quality makes some schools “winners” and others “losers”, as well as that the competitive position of the schools is not necessarily in the context of the service provided. Also, although the government can say that a large part of students (95%) get either their first or second choice, there are many indications that students choose schools strategically based on the possibilities of enrolment. The consequences can be seen as concerning in light of prior research on educational marketisation and social justice. As the enrolment system reinforces hierarchies within the education market, it also reinforces power relations between different societal groups of gender, class and ethnicity. If public schooling is an ideal that aims for equity among students and in terms of the quality of educational services provided to students, this development should be of concern to educators and policymakers alike.